0403_AnsonLF_SiteSuitVolI_19960130

Fa&Perk' /Co V 0. E air Disc 10
AVI
SITE APPLICATION
SOLID
. for
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH t 1
Submitted on:
May 28, 1992
a�aritted to*
Solid'Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environm, ent:, Health and Natural Resources
Printed on Recycled Paper

SITE APPLICATION
for
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Printed on Recycled Paper

DevelopmentCHAMBERS
Carolina,
P..o. sox 936 ® wADESSORO, NORTH CAROLINA 28170 ® [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. 3200 HIGHLANDS PARKWAY, SUITS 400 SMYR. NA, GEORGIA 30082 E [phone]
A MM EXPRESS
#2163156
May 28, 1992
Solid Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Site Application for
Solid Waste. Management Facility in
Anson County, North Carolina
Gentlemen:
Chambers Development of North Carolina,. Inc. ("Chambers") is pleased to. present the enclosed
site application for the development of a solid waste management facility to be located near the
City of Polkton in Anson County; North Carolina. The proposed solid waste management
facility 'will include a sanitary landfIl, recycling center, yard waste composting area, scrap tire
management. area., and various support structures. This application is intended to meet the site
application requirements set forth in the following sections of Title 15A, Subchapter 13B of the
North Carolina Administrative Coder
Rule .0504 pertaining to sanitary landfills,
Rule :.0506 pertaining to demolition, landfills;
Rule .0903 pertaining to yard waste.; and
Rule .1106 pertaining to scrap tires..
The focus of this application is the summary report in Volume I which details the proposed
disposal facility's ability to meet each of the siting requirements set forth in .15A NCAC
13B.0503(1). The technical 'information and studies which support and outline these details are
contained in the remainder of Volumes I, II, and 1II. All supporting documentation is correlated.
to the applicable sections of the solid waste regulations. The conceptual design plans included
with the application demonstrate the facility's design and its ability to meet the technical
requirements of .15A NCAC 13B.0503(2)and RCRA Subtitle D. A reduced set (11" x 17") of
conceptual design plans is provided in Volume I of the application. A full-size set (24" x 36`')
of conceptual design plans is also provided as a separate attachment.

The application demonstrates that the proposed facilities are not located within the 100 year
floodplain, will not hinder or affect endangered or threatened species, nor will it have any
adverse effect .on archaeological or historical. sites. Furthermore, use of the site for the
management of solid waste will: not impact a state park, recreation or scenic area.... The site
exceeds the minimum setback requirements from. airports. Extensive geologic and hydrogeologic
study information demonstrates that suitable soils for liner and cover are available on -site, that
soil and rock underlying the site are geologically stable, aril that groundwater and surface waters
can be adequately monitored, controlled and protected.
Chambers Development of North Carolina. Inc. believes that the information presented is
sufficient and satisfies the requirements of the NCDEHNR for the site application. If you have
any questions, comments, or require additional information, please contact either John Buckley
or Greg Cekander at (404) 438-77M We look forward to working with the NCDEHNR and
the Solid Waste Section during the permitting of the proposed facility.
Respectfully0,
4�M4,1. Bi►ckley, .E;I:T Grego ekander, P.E.
Assistant Region Engineer Senior Region. Engineer
rtman
RegionVice-President
Enclosures - Volumes 1, 11, 111
Separate Attachment Conceptual Design Plans 1 Aerial Photograph
56011sws.jb

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE APPLICATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
•...... Assessment::of Conformance with Sitin
• AssessnienVpf Conformance with Nit
is
•
r Assessment
C f,
sessxh6nt:o.. on ormance with: kt
Volume 11
0 .0504(1)(c) Geote6nical Study
Volume III
�j - .0504(1)(c) Hydrogeological Study
;ihbtitle:, D
Landrills':(.65.06)

SUMMARY REPORT ON
SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

INTRODUCTION
This report demonstrates compliance of the proposed solid waste management facility,
located near the city of Polkton in Anson County, North Carolina, with the design and
siting requirements of .0503(1), .0506, .0903, and .1106 of the North Carolina Solid
Waste Management Regulations (15A NCAC 13B). The discussion is specifically
intended to meet the site application requirement stated in Rule .0504(1)(f).
The findings and conclusions of this report are supported by technical studies which are
included as part of the application in Volumes I, II, and III. This report also
summarizes how the technical design requirements of RCRA Subtitle D regulations (40
CFR 258) and Title 15A NCAC 13B .0503(2) will be addressed. Conceptual design
plans are provided in Volume I.
Project Background
Chambers Development of North Carolina, Inc. ("Chambers") entered into a contract
with Anson County on June 4, 1991 to site, design, construct and operate a regional
landfill. The contract requires that the disposal facilities be designed and operated. in
accordance with the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules (15A NCAC 13B),
and U.S. EPA RCR.A Subtitle D regulations (40 CFR 25.8).
During the fall of 1991, preliminary investigations were made to identify potential
" landfill sites throughout the County. Based on these investigations, Chambers and
Anson County officials selected a site and presented it to the Board of County
Commissioners for zoning approval. The site was granted. approval for development
of a solid waste management facility at a public meeting of the County Commissioners
on November 5, 1991.
Chambers has signed options to purchase the majority of the land within. the proposed
landfill site. There are a few small tracts (approximately 30 acres) for which Chambers
does not presently have purchase agreements. Purchase agreements for these tracts are
presently being negotiated.
The selected property is comprised of about 1200 acres located. adjacent to and north
of Highway 74, between Polkton and Wadesboro. The aerial photograph and. site map
provided in Volume L demonstrate the relationship of the site to the surrounding area.
The conceptual design plans presented in Volume. I detail the features of the site.
Land use and zoning of the. site and surrounding area are shown on the two mile radius
map (Volume I). Most of the site is presently undeveloped with the exception of five
residences and a church located in the southeast portion of the site (Boylin Road).
Most of the property is located beyond the limits of local zoning classification systems.
A portion of the site and areas located along US Highway 74 are zoned for light
industry, commercial and residential purposes. Residences, industrial buildings, utilities,
roads, wells, and water courses are shown on the Area Map attached in Volume I.
tC/5-2s-92 ( )

Comprehensive technical studies conducted include hydrogeological, geotechriical,
archaeological, ecological, biological, and wetland assessments. Supplementary
investigations include land use, utilities, water supplies, and flood plains, all as required
by the NCDEHNNR disposal site criteria guidelines.
A preliminary compliance assessment report (interagency solid waste task force
submittal) was submitted to the NCDEHNNR on January 5, 1992.
Overview of Landfill Development and Operations
The proposed solid waste management facility will receive primarily putrescible solid
waste, yard waste, and scrap tires. It is anticipated that asbestos, construction debris,
and non -hazardous industrial and commercial solid waste will also be received at the
site for disposal. All of these waste materials, except for yard waste and scrap tires, will
be codisposed in the proposed lined sanitary landfill.
Tires will be processed on -site by shredding or chipping. The end product will be used
in the leachate collection system as drainage material; used as daily cover over the
compacted waste; or shipped off -site for further processing or recycling.
The yard waste delivered to the site will be composted, or in the event that large
quantities are accepted, it may be chipped or shredded and. used as daily cover in the
landfill. The resulting compost product will be used as a soil amendment in the
vegetative soil layer for the final cover or sold for off -site use.
A recycling/sorting center will be. established on -site for collection and segregation of
recyclable materials. The. primary objective of separating recyclable materials from the
waste stream is to reduce the volume of waste going into the landfill. Recyclable
materials will be shipped off -site for further processing.
The primary objective of landfill operations is the placement and compaction of waste
in the lined disposal area. Two byproducts of this operation include leachate and
landfill gas. Both of these byproducts will be treated and disposed in an
environmentally safe manner.
Leachate will be contained within the composite lined area and collected at enclosed
leachate collection sumps located along the landfill perimeter. The leachate will be
pumped from the sumps to the leachate equalization facility. Leachate will then be
pretreated and either discharged to a sanitary sewer or recirculated back into the
landfill.
Landfill gas will be collected by an active system using gas extraction wells connected
to a network of gas collection piping. The collected gas will be conveyed to the landfill
gas management area adjacent to the leachate equalization facility area. The gas will
either be composted in a flare, processed for sale, or converted to electrical energy.
i
tc/s-U-9z
(2).

Waste materials will be transported to the site using trucks and other suitable waste
transport vehicles. Access to the site will be directly from State Highway 74. The site
access road is approximately 2,500 feet in length from the intersection of Highway 74
to the scale area. This provides ample staging distance for waste transport vehicles
when several arrive at the scale at the same time. Waste loads contained in open top
containers will be inspected prior to reaching the scale area. If hazardous or other
unacceptable waste is detected or observed, the load will be rejected and directed to
leave the site without being allowed to deposit the waste material.
Waste vehicles transporting acceptable waste will be weighed and allowed to pass the
scales. The recycling building, tire processing area, yard waste composting area, and
sanitary landfill will be accessed off the main road, beyond the scale area. Vehicles will
be directed to the appropriate waste processing area by site personnel and
informational signs.
After waste transport vehicles deposit their loads, they will exit the site using the main
access road. All vehicles must pass by the scale area and be logged out. If necessary,
these vehicles will then pass through a tire -wash area to remove mud or dirt prior to
reaching State Highway 74. Any mud that reaches the public road will be promptly
removed.
There will be a public convenience center (greenbox area) located near the start of the
entrance road. Anson County residents will be able to deposit their waste at the
convenience center without having to drive their personal vehicles onto the landfill area.
Chambers will periodically remove the waste collected at the convenience center and
process the waste appropriately.
The. landfill will be developed in phased increments. The 135 acre lined area has been
divided into 14 phases. The liner will be installed in increments of 7 to 10 acres
corresponding to the phase boundaries.. Final cover will also be placed incrementally
as areas reach final grade. A phasing plan is presented in the conceptual design
drawing package. The surface of the final cover will be seeded as soon as final grading
is completed to establish grassy vegetation for aesthetic and erosion control purposes.
During the active life of the site and after the entire site is closed, routine inspection
and maintenance will be performed on the final cover and other environmental control
systems.
Environmental monitoring will be performed on the surface water, groundwater, and
the soil and bedrock above groundwater around the proposed landfill site. This
monitoring will be done prior to initiating facility operations, during the active life of
the facility, and after landfill closure.
tc/5-2&92 (3)

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this site application are to:
Present information concerning the site's relationship to the surrounding area;
Interpret, evaluate, and summarize the information obtained during the technical
investigations of the site; and
Present a summary of the conceptual design plans with regard to the siting and
design standards specified in NCACI3B .0503 and RCRA Subtitle D.
ASSESSMENT OF CONFORMANCE WITH SITING CRITERIA (.0503(1))
This assessment demonstrates compliance with the siting and design requirements
outlined in Rule .0503(1) and is supported by information contained in the remainder
of Volume 1, Volume II, and Volume III. The major support documents utilized for
demonstrating compliance_ include the following: an aerial photo and. topographic map
of the site that illustrate its regional setting (Volume 1); a wetlands delineation and
protected species survey (Volume 1); an archeological survey (Volume I); a geotechnical
investigation (Volume II); a hydrogeological investigation (Volume III); preliminary
design plans (Volume 1); and copies of local government approvals (Volume I). A
report on miscellaneous issues contained in .0504(1)(g) is also attached in Volume I.
.0503(1)(a) Floodplain
The proposed landfill site is situated adjacent to the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek
Floodplains (Area Map in Volume I). The floodplains, as delineated on the FIRM
Federal Flood Insurance Map, Community Panel Number 370284-0125B (panel 125 of
225), dated June 18, 1990, are generally below elevation 250 feet mean sea level (MSL).
Development plans for the landfill and ancillary facilities do not propose construction
or disturbance within the floodplain. Therefore, the proposed facility will not restrict
the flow of the 100 year flood or reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the
floodplain. Side slopes and terraces of the escarpments near the Brown Creek and
Pinch Gut Creek riverine systems will remain as a buffer area around the landfill site.
The aerial photograph, regional reap, and the conceptual design plans (all in Volume
I) show the approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain of Pinch Gut Creek and
Brown Creep and its relationship to the proposed site development.
tc/5-28-92 (4)

.0 d3 1 b Ecological, Historic and Recreational Concerns
i.Endangered and Threatened Species
Potential impacts which the site may have on endangered or threatened species of
plants, fish or wildlife are extensively examined in the report prepared by Garrow &
Associates, Inc. dated April 15, 1992, and entitled "Wetlands Delineation and Protected
Species Survey of Proposed Regional Landfill Site, Anson County, North Carolina"
(Volume I).
The Garrow report concludes that no rare, endangered or threatened species of plants
or animals were observed on the site. No federally designated critical habitat are
located on -site. Biologically significant habitat for four North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) rare or protected plant species was found in the study area
located in ravine heads, on slopes, and on bluffs. It was recommended in the Garrow
report that these areas be protected from development and incorporated into buffer
zones surrounding the proposed landfill. Site development plans (Volume I)
demonstrate that this recommendation was followed.
The Garrow report focused significant effort on a species of bird known as the Red -
Cockaded Woodpecker which is protected by federal laws. This species is found in
Anson County. The report concludes that potential habitats for this bird do. not occur
on the site because of the lack of older growth pine forests. The nearest known Red -
Cockaded Woodpecker colony is located approximately eight miles from the site. No
nest cavity trees for this bird were observed on -site by Garrow.
ii. Critical Habitats for Rare and Endangered Plants Animals
As discussed above, federally -designated critical habitats for endangered plants and
animals were not identified on -site by Garrow & Associates.
iii. Archeological and „Historical Sites
A "Phase I Archeological Survey", dated April 1992, was conducted by Garrow &
Associates between September 17, 1991 and January 20, 1992 and is presented in
Volume I. The objective of the survey was to identify potential archaeological or
historic sites which could potentially be impacted by the proposed landfill or which
would require either preservation and/or further study. The report concludes that
several potentially significant sites exist; however, none of the sites would prevent
development of the landfill provided the sites are properly evaluated and documented
before landfill development is initiated.
tc/5-29-92 (5)

iv. State Park,_ Recreation or Scenic Area
The proposed Anson County Landfill site is not located within a proximal distance to
any state parks, recreation or scenic areas or any other lands included in a state nature
or historic preserve. Therefore, the site will not adversely impact such areas.
.0503(l (c�) AiAirport Proximity
The nearest airport to the proposed solid waste management facility is the Anson
County Airport which is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. Therefore,
the proposed disposal facilities are well beyond the 10,000 foot setback requirements
for turbo jet aircraft and 5,000 foot setback for piston type aircraft.
.0503(l)(d) Availability of Cover Soils
Approximately 4,650,000 cubic yards of soil will be required to provide cover and liner
system materials for the landfill. This quantity includes 4,000,000 cubic yards for daily
and intermediate cover. The remaining requirements consist of select clayey soils and
granular drainage material for liner, leachate collection, and final. cover systems.
Approximately 3,000,000 cubic yards of the total soil requirement is expected to come
from on -site borrow sources. Test pit exploration of the site. and laboratory testing of
on -site soil samples have been conducted as part of the Geotechnical Study report
(Volume II). The report concludes that suitable daily cover and liner quality soils are
available on -site. The granular drainage material. required for the leachate collection
and final cover systems (approximately 220,000 cubic yards) will have to be imported
from off -site sources. It is anticipated that this material will come from either W.R.
Bonsal Co. or Hendrick Sand and Gravel, located in Lilesville, North Carolina,
approximately 20 miles from the site.
ASSESSMENT OF CONFORMANCE WITH DESIGN CRITERIA (.0503(2))
This section provides a summary of how the proposed landfill will meet design
requirements set forth in Rule .0503(2). This summary is provided to give the reviewer
an overview of how the proposed facility will be designed to comply with design and
environmental protection requirements.
.0503(_2)ia�Explosive Ceases
An active landfill gas (LFG) collection and management system will be installed during
and at the conclusion of landfill operations. Operation of this system will control
emissions of LFG and related odors. Subsurface migration of LFG from the landfill
will be further prevented by the presence of the base liner containment system. LFG
monitoring wells will be installed around the perimeter of the lined landfill area to
verify system effectiveness and compliance with state and federal regulations.
tc/5-28-92 (6)

.0503(2)(b) Site. Access
Site access controls will consist of chain link fencing in readily accessible areas and
locking gates at all roadways. Access in remaining areas of the site is limited by steep
slopes and the Pinch Gut and Brown Creek floodplains, which are inaccessible to
vehicles.
.0 3 2 (c) SurfaceWater Water Protection
Surface water control features will be installed to meet requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act and applicable state and local water quality standards. A perimeter drainage
control system will be installed such that all surface water will be retained in sediment
basins and traps prior to discharge to adjacent surface waters. Best management
practices will be implemented during landfill operation to minimize erosion by surface
water. A layout of surface water control features are shown on sheets 3, 4 and 9 of the
conceptual design plans (Volume I).
Landfill development will involve placement of compacted fill in approximately 1-1/2
acres of wetlands (see sheet 5 of the conceptual design plans). A predischarge
notification for a Nationwide 26 permit will be filed with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and NCDEHNR Water Quality division in conjunction with the construction
plan application.
3 2 d Groundwater Requirements
In order to protect the groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the landfill will have a
composite (clay/HDPE) base liner, leachate collection systems, and final cover systems
with an HDPE capping layer. These layers will conform with and/or exceed North
Carolina and RCRA Subtitle D solid waste regulatory requirements. Design features
are provided on sheets 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the conceptual design plans.
The proposed landfill base grades will meet or exceed the minimum 4 foot separation
criteria. Seasonal high water table has been interpreted in the Hydrogeological Study
report (Volume III) as being 5 ft. above the levels measured in April 1992. This design
groundwater level will be verified through additional measurements and base grades
modified, if necessary; during the preparation of the construction plan application. The
relationship between the seasonal high groundwater table and the landfill liner system
is shown on the conceptual design plans (sheet 12).
. 03 2 e 012en Burnie
Open burning will not be permitted at the landfill.
te/5-28-92 (7)

._0503(2)(f) Buffers
Buffer requirements set forth in .0503(2)(f) will be exceeded in all directions. Buffer
zones will be established between the proposed development and Pinch Gut Creek,
Brown Creek, and the surrounding area to provide visual screening and preserve natural
habitat. Buffer setbacks are shown on the conceptual design plans and on the regional
niap (Volume 1).
More specifically, a 300 foot minimum buffer zone will be maintained between the
proposed Iandfill disposal areas and southerly property lines along the railroad right-of-
way. More than 500 feet of buffer will be maintained between property lines and
disposal areas over much of the site.
The landfill will generally be developed in the highest topographic region of the site
and has been designed with a significant buffer area along the entire east, north and
west sides of the facility. The floodplain and riverine systems of Pinch Gut and Brown
Creeks, as well as the steep slopes rising from. these floodplains, will be preserved to
minimize visual impacts upon the surrounding area.
North Carolina Solid Waste Siting Criteria also requires a minimum buffer of 500 feet
between dwelling with wells and disposal areas. The conceptual site layout shown on
Sheet 3 meets and/or exceeds this requirement.
ASSESSMENT OF CONFORMANCE WITH RCRA SUBTITLE D
(40 CFR 258) CRITERIA
A QeolQgic Faults
The Hydrogeological Study report (Volume III) provides a detailed discussion of site
geology and seismicity. In general, Subtitle D criteria requires landfills to be located
further than 200 feet away from faults that had displacement during Holocene time
(approximately within the last 10,000 years). The site lies near the western border of
the Triassic aged (between 200 and 250 million years ago) Wadesboro Basin. A
fracture trace analyses study of regional geologic and seismic information and numerous
coreholes into fractured zones produced no evidence of recent fault movement at the
site. No active fault zones of Holocene Age were identified on the property.
B. Seismic_ Impact Zone
Earthquake related peak ground acceleration on the subject property is not projected
to exceed 0.10g and there are no historic earthquake epicenters identified closer than
20 miles from the site (refer to Appendix C of Hydrogeological Report - Volume III).
tc/5-28-92 (8)

C. Subsidence Potential.
Based upon information obtained from extensive subsurface exploration of the site
during the hydrogeologic and geotechnical assessments, and considering the proposed
location of facilities, there is no potential for significant subsidence at the site. Soils
encountered in the development areas of the site consist of completely weathered rock
and residual soils generally classified as silty clays or clayey silts. These soils are
generally very stiff to hard in consistency, medium to high plasticity, low permeability,
and low to very low compressibility. The subsurface exploration program identified
weathered rock derived from mudstones, claystones and arkosic sandstone in all of the
test pits and boreholes. These observations confirm published geologic maps for the
site area, which indicate Karst terrain is not present in the site vicinity. Therefore, the
site is not subject to significant surface subsidence due to landfill or ancillary facility
loading.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION LANDFILLS (.0506)
Demolition debris will be co -disposed with other wastes within the proposed lined
sanitary landfill. This section discusses how application requirements contained in
T15A13B.0506 have been met.
.... (1) Site Plan and Background nd Information
An aerial photograph and regional site plan are included in Volume I of this
application. These maps contain required information on nearby land use, utilities,
wells and water courses. They also show the 100 year flood plain as it relates to the
site.
An approval letter from the unit of Local Government (Anson County) is attached in
Volume I of this application.
A discussion of the types of waste to be accepted at the facility is also contained in
Volume I of this application.
.0506(2) Construction Plans
Detailed construction plans for the proposed landfill will be submitted consistent with
requirements for .0504(2) following regulatory review of this site application. The
requirements for a construction plan application for a sanitary landfill contained in
.0504(2) are more stringent than those required in .0506(2). Therefore, each of the
requirements of this section will be met by the upcoming construction plan application,
as partially demonstrated on the conceptual design plans (Volume I).
tc/5-2a-92 (9)

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR YARD WASTE FACILITIES (.0903)
Yard waste delivered to the site will be composted or in the event that large quantities
are accepted it may be chipped or shredded and used as daily cover in the landfill. The
compost product may be used as a soil amendment in the vegetative soil layer in the
final cap or sold for off -site use. The approximate location of the compost area is
shown on Sheet 4 of the conceptual design plan.
. ^^) Siting Requirements
The ground surface elevation of the yard waste compost area is at approximately 320
feet MSL. As previously documented, the 100 year flood plain in the site area is
generally below elevation 250 feet MSL. Therefore, the compost area will not restrict
the floodway. The facility will be founded on previously undisturbed natural ground.
Prior land use consisted of agricultural and silvicultural activities.
The site will be maintained in such a manner that water quality standards for surface
waters and groundwater will be protected as previously described. Environmental
protection will be enhanced by limiting compost material to yard waste and by
controlling runoff from the compost area.
The groundwater table in the vicinity of the compost area is at approximately elevation
290 feet MSL (40 feet below ground surface). Therefore, separation requirements
between the waste and groundwater will be exceeded.
Runoff from the compost area will be collected and channeled through Sedimentation
Pond D (sheet 4 of the conceptual design plans) to meet sedimentation pollution
control requirements in 15A NCAC 4.
The proposed compost area will have buffer zones that exceed requirements from
property lines, residences and water courses. At least 25 feet will be provided between
compost areas and perimeter berms to provide access for fire protection equipment.
Site access will be restricted by a gate and fence located off the main access road.
No wetlands are located within 100 feet of the proposed compost area.
,090 l)(b) Area Map
The aerial photograph and area map attached in Volume I contain required
information on property ownership, land use and zoning, nearby homes and structures,
and nearby water courses, wells and topography.
�_ �� tc/5-2s-92 (10)

.0904 2 and .0904 3 Construction and Operation Plan
The construction plan application for the sanitary landfill will contain the necessary and
required information on the construction of the compost facility. Design parameters
and an operation plan for the compost area will be provided with the construction plan
application.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SCRAP TIRE COLLECTION SITE (.1106)
Scrap tires will be collected at the site and processed on -sited by shredding or chipping.
The end product of this operation will be used in the leachate collection system: as
drainage material; used as daily cover; or shipped off -site for further processing or
recycling. The location of the scrap tire management area will be in the southern
portion of the site near the yard waste composting area..
.1106(c) Siting Requirements
Siting requirements for a scrap tire collection site are comparable or less stringent than
those for a sanitary landfill. Therefore, the discussion regarding compliance of
standards in .0503(1) demonstrates the necessary compliance.
Fire hydrants will be close in proximity to the scrap tire management area for fire
protection.
1106(d) Application Form
An application form for the tire management area will be provided with the
construction plan application for the sanitary landfill.
tc/s-zs..vz { 11)

CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded, based on the assessments summarized above and the supporting
documents, studies and conceptual designs plans included in Volumes I through
III, that the proposed disposal facility meets all siting requirements specified in
15A NCAC 13B.0503(1).
Further, all requirements for siting and design in RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR
258) will be met or exceeded.
The conceptual design plans, appended herewith, demonstrate compliance with
all requirements of Rule .0503(2).
cc/s-zs-sz (12)

H AMBERS
- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH. CAROLINA
MAY, 1992
FOR SUBMISSION TO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBMITTED BY
CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
P.O. BOX 936, WADESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 28170
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 3200 HIGHLANDS PARKWAY, SUITE 400, SMYRNA,
PREPARED BY
GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. RILEY, PARK, HAYDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
rizx 27 NAEK ROAD WITH 136 MARIETTA STREET NCI'
VERNON, CT 06066 ATLANTA, GA 30303
SITE LOCATION PLAO
a <oov zany saoo'
S%''RCE: U.S.G.So PoLXMN, H.C. AW RU55Ei1.Y41k. N.G..
XAMANGE MAWS (1970 MO 1971)
NOTE: TH]S CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN IS INTNDED TO M.FILL THE REWIREMENM OF RULE
OtQ4 (IxAI CF TITLE ,5A, SUHCFIAPTFR .3B OF THE NORTH CAROL€NA ADMINWRATiVE CODE.
AS SUCH. THIS PLAN IS SUUgCT TO M00WICATION DURING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
SHEET N
DRAWING No.
1.
ACC-1
2,
ACC-2
3,
ACC-3
4,
ACC-4
5
ACC-5
6 •
ACC-6
7,
ACC-7
g,
ACC-8
9•
ACC-9
10.
ACC-10
11,
ACC-11
12•
ACC-12
13,
ACC-13
14.
ACC-14
GEORGIA 30082
SHEET TITLE
TITLE AND INDEX
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
PROPOSED FINAL SITE CONDITIONS
ENTRANCE PLAN AND FACILITY LAYOUT
LANDFILL SUBGRADE PLAN
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM PLAN
LANDFILL SEQUENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
TYPICAL INTERMEDIATE LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT
LANDFILL FINAL GRADING PLAN
CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN
SECTIC)NS AND TYPICAL DETAILS
TYPICAL DETAILS
TYPICAL DETAILS
CHAMBERS
QC`MiOPM�t of North Carolina. Inc, i ACC-1

1A
a
Q
i
\, �1`l
i•mil` � �~`
E
1
1
1
C�
wA
0
.:
1) EASE MAP, UITH 10 FOOT 0:74TOURS, DEVELO ED FRN k CGITiZED PLAn, MiX
2, ! AND 5 FJOT LON CUP xJT VALS PREPARED BY TALLAMV, VAN KIIRW
GERMS A' ASSDCIAIES OF E.ANSE, PA.. MAPPVG COMPS EO By
STERE44'HU1[3CRAA.nNETRiC MEl3IOE}5, ELHVATIQN$ WE ENCEA TO N. G.v.O_
2) HORIZONTAL C,Td❑ 15 NORTH CARIX NA STATE PLANE CDONDINATL SY5T{,M,
f983 AwusluENT
3) APP MAZE PROPERTY UNE S QWN IS DERIVED FROM ANSON CWI" Y, N.0
PRER CPIY INDEX (TAX) MAP AND II ALL PARCaS CURREN%Y UNDER opnoN
TO CHAMBERS DEV OPMENT OF NORTH CARIX NA, INC. ADBIT,ONAI. PARCUS
EJPECTED TO BE I1NtI R OPTION PREOR TO CCN5TRJVn0N PLAN APPUCATION ARE
.:NOUN VITH "PPU PATTERN,
Y) WE,I DESINEAIIDN KRFORMED BY GARROw AND AS YAES, 11YC.; S1 R'.FY !
.. _._....W.t_J:M RY RUY, FAFN, MAYIOEH ARE ASSCLIAI[5, INC, REFER TD'NET A OS [,,N,AM3
AND PROTECTEP WEC1iS WWY" iN V`OWME I OF SIZE NFPOOATXDN WRM!TTAL,
i
5) 100 YEAR FLCOI PLAIN ITNIT5 TAKEN FROM THE FEDERAL FIRM - GLOO
IN�RANCE RAYS MAP OF M$ON GOI/NT . N.C. MAP No. S10234-0f25p, DATED
DUNE B. 1890. PANEL 125 DF 225 ANO CORf1EsPON9s 19 THE E=nCN 250 (t, �
CUNTWk.
..........
I
LEGEND
-------__APPROXIMATE PROPERTY UNE
APPROXIMATE. !W YEAR FLOOD PLAIN JWTS
wL Amo UMET (SEE NOT£ 4)
ANnCFATED SITE MEA NOT CURRENTLY UNOfR OPTION
_i (SEE NOTE 3)
� \ •gib
a D' 2T3o' aaa• aan' Tana' awo'
V
UI
DE4 Mo ERDt1 Ik D* s 7 42 SLYE f - 400,
AW KOM:
MD SOLID WASTE MANA4TMENT FAOLITY
T ANSON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SMfii i7R f:
EXISTING S[lE CONDiT1pN5
OPM
jI�id CHAMBERS MW*0 � 14
�i�A GeoEnvironmental. Inc. Dewlopmwt of North CMFO�ITIG. Inc. ACC-

MS-.
I) 8A^SC WAR, VAR: 3G FOOT C04TMJRS, DEWLLPED MOM A rGTl Z.FO PLAN. WV
'
I
i
2. i, AND 5 FM- CONTIX R FW19VALS, FRFyARM BY TAL.LAMY. VAN KVREN.
'SS CCIATFS C i NY PA, MAPPING COMPI M BY
J
.{
'4
`, �RE�NOTOCRAJtMETRIG METHOCS PlEVATSOMS REFERENCED TO k, G. V.D,
,. .r
2) NpR17.C+JLAL GRIP IS NLz R1 CAF[dJFtA STAT PLANE COCRDINAIE SYSTFM
J
\
)i APPROXIMA3 PROPER"'/ UK.. SNGMi i5 VERiVFO FROM Ak$1 M)NT , NO.
;�
•4T��
tYiCpi n I8D UA%'j MAP 0.40 iN(t41DE5 ALL FARM$ CUAR N7— ONMR C T1
rO CHAMBERS D! ELCPMEI.: [� kCRTN CARp1,FN4 inC_ AM7Mn P.NP E S
EXPECTED IC NE UNDUS CPTIGN PRR)1j rn cCNSWt CZON PLM APPlJCAn0N AR[
PATrE64.
4; YJE7["D DEUNE nL)N PERFaWW BY GARRGW ANG A,SGCIATE5. ;MG.: SURVEYED
NY R1 EY, PARK, HAYTIEN ANO ASSGCIATES. INC. REFER TO'WETLANGS DEiINEATu
AND PRDIECTED SPECIES 5 Y' IN YCLGME I OF 5l AFPUCATIG SVBMFi *L.
J,
J
5) IOC YEAR rLM) PLNN UMITS TAKEN MQN Pr1E rEDERAL ERM - FLO3D
51}
�`}
N
INSURANCE NAT<MAP L >NSGW CDUNTY, N. �., AIAP NaGATF'G
AJNE 8. }49d. PANEL 125 X 225 AND GORRESYONOS TO !HE ELEVATTS It. .
��
e -NTNANGE uao AUAIUARr FArarJnEs nuo LAN`JF3LL cRAalac ..ra4s All
ir0-�"'-.,
` /{
1
.._.__.Y_
'6NCEPTDAL ANO MAY ¢E MC fl-D FOR "U EGUENT SUDMissinN Gr l'ONSTRIICNDN
'LAN PERMIT 4 PUGAPVN.
—APP O%IYAIE PPOPERIY LIN£ {SU N07S 3)
��
APPRO%WAIE 1GC .EAR FLGGG PLWN IS41T5 (SEE WE 6)
�o J !
i-1
MESL.MIO UMIT$ Eve NOTE 4)
"
��•�
,
..—...—PR0P0$ZD O %ACE SWALE/111TW
l �-•
%
..._JLffi:LVR
P40PORM WLVFAT
� ry j
-PNOPo%o EMa:RcrNcr sFrLLwAr
r'
`V—PP-CeDSCD
CCMTO+R (FINAL t tADE1
a
ff ''
100 ii4iL`�
i
ANNCIPATED SITE -MA NOT LYIRRENTO UNDER OPnON
I i5CE Ntl1E 33
I _
e� sa D
A
'J
\\ I/ ltilp�
I
/Si ftGfVANT
C 'y(REA-
\\ i S AFZIR
RCM
AWA
' i �1 i
i
31
250 CIO ..........
GZA GeoEnvironment&, Inc.
0' 200' 400 soy 1200` 1Bg0'
1V ' Rm 192 Y& 0 L/ y2 NAIL t- = 4f:E3
W PRCECT,
ID SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
T ANSON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SntxT :
3 PROPOSED FINAL SITE CONDITIONS
9iEET_i_ CF 14 .
CHAMBERS �.
De`.xiopmmt of North Carolina, Inca ACC-
3

� }l
O\` .J
\�,\pg'� 7.
1 tI fl
0
•L/ e
m�i � i168 � s•`3.a
�.
P�fS!
�NrRnW
RUTIT
... y„'Wd x3tl6,s
I w
... ..........
9y�
MANNEQ /
f~N •SO6 / % \\/) /////// /
+� � ® dAPRpXNAM1$ PRe'PCRTY LINE {SF.E NCTE 51
PROPOSES Cp3Ta1pT
j
� p
1_R R.'R�1l1l1lR.1NR.?R.
Am
TE'}IT. AREA NOT OJRRENTLY VNI)ER OP VON �
NOTE
PRO 01. SANITM1RY 111.1
\
r rr { 4
lY PROPOSED WATER LINE
PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ — E%YSTIG SAFXTARY SEWER
/�
E;IX5IFNG YFATFA MAIN
m
� `
E=tm unuTY POLE
\ )lET '�L.. r 0
UN
A'FfJi E
SOIJTN EACE GF PA M
MESTB�ND VJ3ES OF \,
rVAAWA.(f
9,9 d
\p . � .4
EJaSDHG pllgryTAY 7A
— _..._ ...._. _.._...� ........— — 111111 DIRT ROAp
°T S MAP, Mihl IQ FOOT CON-I"S• OE' MOPED FROM A DI03 nZED PLAR. WTN
2. a• ANO 5 FOOT C TWR NITERVALS, PREPARED SY TAI y. VAN KUREN•
'w IRS k A550CIATES or LANSE, PA-, MAPFMHG ClkIPiLED DY
STEREOFi 07OfRAMMETRIC METHODS, ELEVATIONS RFffll" A To N,R.V.D,
2) 1 A;ZONTAL OR€D IS NCR TH CAROUNA STATE PLANE ORDNNATE SYSTEM, liA3
AVA STMENT,
3) APPRG&MATE PROPERTY UNE SWVN IS OLWVED FROM ANSiNI COUNTY. N.C.
PROPERTY INDEX (TAM} MAP AND INMUOES ALL PARCELS CURRENTLY VKR OPTION
TO CH OIERS DEYELOPTAMT OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. ACOMONAL PARCELS
IXPECTED TO DE UNDER OPTION PRIOR TT) CMSTRUCnM FUN APPUCA'FIM ARE
SHOW WTH STIPPLE PATT$EN.
A) E TRANLE AND AUX MY FAn UTIFS AND LA MD GRADING O S9 S ARE
CONC4PliJAL AND MAY BE MOPNEIED FOR SU85EOLIDT 9ARIASWU OF
CONSTRUCDON PLAN PERMIT APPLJCATION.
�,ei'i
�.ANOFILL PF.9fMF.iiR
R—D AND 57Oft1!
i\
----- -� \
WATER CHAN lE
N \\
V N e.0 ♦
/ , l �,�
t'9]
YARD WXS�
\� co4p6S IWG
0
W
N 4SdSM
0' 50' 160, 2aW 300' 40T
JWR I I SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
HM ANSCN COUNTY NORTH CAROUNA
SHEEP TIRE
ENTRANCE PLAN AND FACILITY LAYOUT
RLLEY, PARK, RtnYvlsx & CHAMBERS 'SHEET + aF Lf—
assaCraTs, aac. : W.
GZA GeoEnVlrormental, Inc. Developmant DI Norm Carolina-, Irtc.� ACC- 4
�Pi1 JCB NO.: E-91-0041 DWG MAW. 504ITP¢ l

WfW
O
`_ 7W it RNLROIA3
f1fj ' Ci1T aF WAY
V O '
I
w
a�
O
I
NflTE5:
11 BASE NAP, WI,N Ill 400T CON TWRS. CEy OPED FROM A U4',TiZM ALAN, mV,
i AHj, 5 rooT CQNTQJP INTERVALS. PREPARED BY TALLAMI. YAN KIIRF.N.
CMTTS A AS5PCrATFS OF L]riSE, PA.. MAPPING COMPIUD BY
STERfOPHOTGC(tAMYE'FRIC ME"WCOS. ELLVATUNS REFERENCED TO N G v O
:} HtAZOJ'rK GRID $ AOR*N C4AOLINA STATF PtANF CCYJROISArE S'r<_TEM
:983 ADk8)7AENT
2) APPROJAA- PFOPERTY LK EFIOMN IS DERIVED FROM ANSGW CU'INTY,
( N.C. PROPERTY INDE1 7 ,({ MAP AND ]NCLLOrS ALL PARCELS CUPPI7NRY UNOER
i ()PTON TV CHA.F"S VF.IEEQPVENT 4 NORTH CARCIINA. AmTICNAI PAR�LS
CXPECTED ;0 IIP. lSMi3ER [;PnOK PRrpA Tp P. ti STRiiCTON PLAN APPUCA`IIFIN ARE
SHOYN W!11i LIGTIT S:IPPIi PA'?l'RN_
4) M£RAND OELMXTiON PERFORMS➢ BY cARROW ANO ASS(1C AT[S. 'NC.: SURVEYED
RY RREY, PARk HAYDEN 00 ASST}Ci ATES, INC. RGFER 10 "WE7✓.NC8 DELJNEATICN
ANO PQI2 TECTM SPFGF.5 S RVEY" IN 1,%INE I Cl SITE Af UCAP %. umrTAI
5) IRV YFAP FLbI)� PI -AA N61Ir5 TAKiT' MR THE FEDERAL FlAM FLC:
NSURTe RArE YAP OF ANSCN CC NTY, N_C., MAP No. SY02E4-0125a' DAlEO
•NNE 8. 1AO4 PANEL 12.5 /F 225 AND CORRESPONDS TO TNr EE.E:VATCW 250 Ft-
C MTCVA.
c) ENTIRANCE AND A IuARr FAcELInE$ ANn LnT uit, GRADING Dr Si S AR[
CONCEPTUAL AND MAY Nf MOORl E1 FOR 5UBSEWENT $VBWS510N Of CVN5TRllcTi(YJ
/ PLAW PrAMT APPIJCADGN
]j t,EACHATF CO_LECnON SUMP I.00ATICIIS ARE SHOT sGh'EMAT3CALLY. GRAL'ENG
AT $UA E)7T DS OELOW CONTCVR UNE GRADE AS INDPGArLE. REFER TO SiMP
DETARLS FCIR MANNG AY SJMPS.
SOS: SHEE7$ 12. 13. 11D 16 FOR r':'PIC4. DETATS.
FLEW N, 1 1EAR 9) SEE Sift' 12 FOR SECTIONS A -A' AND it-Er
FLGUO
r•1
rwr_rrrr.Y wrr.r AHPRJkWATE PRoPERI'/ uNE (s4E NOTE 31 -
.AP Ok ATE lap 5'IEAR Flppp KI, UARTS lSEE NOTE 5)
NEILANO U1.uTS ISPE' NOTE 4j
Il
-----_----PAOPOSLO PHASE SEPAPAWN 8ENM
........................ PICPOSED TEMPORARY 003
YPnPBSED CULVERT
P-POSED 6RAINAOE SKAl.E
- y
------------PAOPCSED EMERGENCY $PrLLWAY
i
TIO —FOPUSED CONTOUR ISUE ADE 'OR CLOY LINER)
X3" PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
-
1
U-.- 774 PROPDSEO LEACHATE CCSLCITCN SUMP LOCAFION
'
L—E VAnON OF S086'RADE FOR CAv LINER AT LLACBATE
-
`i
CTRIEETION SUMP ENYERS
/r
It
l
�BCRRO. AREA
WFRRENRY
'..
LK7ER OPTICW (SE: NOlENIT
k Esc
ESOP.
PeJNYeTSR ROAD
PERSYETER STORM HATER CHARNEE
POINTS EN DHRECnCN OF FLGW)
*----- ----J m or WASTE CELL
1�!• A f
1RE?JANII AREA TO 9E IMPACTED
W TO
WETLAND ARLf.Z
D E_13[PAC'CED�
+ ----
_
T
}
AREA 1
19,875p,1.ft
AREA 2
].885sq.N.
AREA 0
21,S60eq_k-
AAEA 4
!!NEAR AETiANDS
243A$pqR.
(ASMMED is TEET WOE)
I - fib ACRES
m
GZA GeoEnvir-onmentol, Inc.
�wFrawae utn.,
W
I
b 4
GWWwM g1ANA� Fl.1Elr
r
—,AP S l PAYrv PppF,y�S�
T0. rlti Fan/c)MAI—
rm
A�At
BASE FINER
W
REFERENCE KEY
T '=200-
0' ion, 200, 4w boa- 800'
ID 9VB6r 1[t ➢ E- 5 27 92 liJ I` = 200'
W PROJECT:
C SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
T ANSON COUNn. NORTH CAROLINA
157Ef TfSLf:
LANDFILL St�BGRADE PLAN
swREr-.......9,.,,....... CF 1c
CHAMBERS DRAIM No.
DevefopHnWt of North Carosina. Inc. ACC-5

1) SASE MAP. M� Ifl F007 CnNTIJURS. DFVFOPED �OM A DiIAT17CD PLAN WIi
14. ANO 6 FOOT MTOUR iN7ERYALS. PREPARED BY -Ail MY, VAN KLMEEN.
GMTHE & ASliNCI-TV.S O I,AN5IL- HA, M--P COMPILED 81
ME -HODS ELEVAVQNS REF-ERFNCED TO NPVP
T
NUNA SIAW �FF COORDINATE SYSMFE 2) HORIZONTAL 9�10 IS NORTH CARL
1983 AMSTMENT.
3J APPROMATE PROPERTY LINE FROWN IS C)CRIVIED FROM AN:AN COUNTY, NX
J -RDPER-,'Y INDEX (IAXJ SAP AND Wa-UDEO ML "-CELS CURRENTLY UNDER
e APRON TO CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT X NORTH CAROL]NA, INC AM T]CN;E
tI PARCELS EXPEOT71) TD Of TINDER OF`lQN PPJPR TO cDNSTRUCTIDN PI-AX
APP CATICt ARE SHCIM KITH LEGMl S7PPLE PITTIEFIN.
"--n. Pl—� - GAR— AN. ASIOCIA.S, S"RVEYOD
BY RILEY, PARK. NA�GFN MC AssOCU,TES. INC, PETER TO 'VC"BJNaS DMNEAEoN
Q
% AND HROTCTED SPCCICS SURVEY' !N 1-.IJFA7 L nF 51TE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
3O6
5) TOO YEAR `-�G PLAIN LMI� TAKEN FFUM rHF FEDERAL FIRM - ROW
- INSURANCE RAW MAP Y 04SON COUNTY. N,C_ MAP N, 3702S-0126R. OA=
YINIF B, MO, PANEL 125 OF 225 AND 70 THE LLLVAR25O ft,
CONTOUR
b) ENTRANCE AND AdX[IARY FACJUTIES AND I-ANGF61-L GRADING UUqGNS ARE
LMCFPfVk ANC MAY BE MaMFIM EOR SUMSFOLLNT SLUMfSDON OF CONSTRUCnCN
PI_AN FkERNF- APftUCATON.
7) LEACHAtE CIOLLEC710N SUMP [.(XAnONS AM SHOWN ScIFmA c,[ Y. GRAOFNC
AT SUMEXTENDS BELOW G�T� UNE GRADE AS NOICAITED REFER TO SUMP
DETAILS FOR GRA�NG AT SUMPS.
YAM C 0) sm � F.75 12. u .1" 14 FOR 7YPICAI-
J,,NIA ------- 91 IEE �EEI 12 FOR =M� A- I' B-B".
PRASE Ic pkv
PBCf`�r- aqg 6FE NOW 1)
'HASE 9 APWOXDM.� 10C �R FLOW PI �UT5 (SEE NOEL 5>
....... —,vull-AND Um'TS 1Sa NOTE A)
FYIAW a 'yti '1 VY f /,
Ti - - - - - - - -BERM
--PROPOI TEMPORARYBERx
*%
PROPOSED ImLvIENI
PHAS4E 7
-BFOPOS170 MANAGE IWALE/DITCH
FROPMED WFERDENCY SPIJ-04Y
N PW�a 0A
v
---------------- PHASE T15 :-�* - ------ 270 "PROFOSEG CLIHTOVR (CEONOtGRANC uNERI
IRI)POSED SPOT ELEvAnCN
CO[I.FCTICN TRFMCH
FLC' OIS"'ON,
I Tp 6 A ®..-zip PRa*OSED UEACHATF CUIECTION SU4P LOCATION
EL�VATICN - GEOdEAkORANE LJNEk AT
COULFcTim SUMP INVERT
T 121 PRORDSFD LEACHATE FORCE MAIN
Aw.
i AN FICIPATU 371! AREA NOT CURIRENTLY
�HASE 128 'NON OPTION (SEE ROM 3�
120
PHASE 5
--70uxwm
"")s ROPOSED.PERINMR BERM!
-ERME11EIR ROAD
P EIMETER STORM WAWP CHANNEL
N NRIECTIO& OF ROW',
J2C L—UIATS OF WASITE CELL
--------- - ---------- -----
PH ASR
-A- A
N P!fA5E 20
ti
--------- -- -T
SBANF
PHASE 3A . \ ,�.: % ` � / j � `� as �.a Imc � ulonum
7
M
' ARE 19 '� ` �\ / ,, � / -X\ / \. '""'" ACTcn r sxFW - __ __ .. N.s sNer�T
-17
\N 77T W7
Fw
smucTuuu
.. . .......
PHASE 2A
.. .. ......
,7
PHASE IA
E30RROW
AREA
200 M RALROAD
-------------
N 0 10V 200' t 400' 600, Boo'
fqEv 1[)ATIJ rFvn." IPPJ i-.d
0a 5
DES' w '4W Aft RAID
RAW PRGXCT:
11JAC I SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACALITY
,000 ilsiT I I ANSON NORTH CAROLfNA COUNTY ..,
7�2w SHEET TM F LEACHATE COLLECMN SYSTEM PLAN
SHEET---�-- OF 14
CHAMBERS DWI" NO,
Devilopm�t of Nonti Card ACC-6
�ClEnvironmentaf, �rc.

�� f i r� J �� � \` — _
f%1 �i��G � ✓ ���'
JJ�G`-�GJ j �� G'; v. — _
"ill' �l�-_G%�; _�-, � \�—' .
n'Il .yL
— V
G\il i
/
/ 1
G
F
4
0
END OF PHASE IA. END Of PHASES IA'--313. JENLp yr rsukobm LA—oJD.
FIRST LIFT FIRST Lin SECOND LIFT FIRST LIFT
if
R
1 \t `\`.
i,`\`\,•,. \" 3
R _mot `\\.
R 1
J/fJ%/
S OJ!/
4by�'!#91M •":\
�\ / .:\`:,\``: �'�'
+� V �,
WKgR1K6 \t y
� \\\�`.\�`S`:.•.\\� �/�J
�d /—
'
Gq
S65\'4MLYM `.
\'
L
H
�
�•
A1M6MA
�/gyp/'/)�//!�-�//+Y `\\, .\. •4
L.. Y$,pyy/ /G`
,1
!_i
✓
¢�
�
�
�
�' f u
yy
re
/ 1y
'�'io
r
/ u
4
j
u
40
END OF PHASES 4-6, END OF PHASES 7—I1il, LMS) UY rrAMND s •an,
SECOND LIFT' FIRST LIFT SECOND LIFT
F—yr r-- ---a .
IIiST LiP'I'
GZA GeoEnvironmen#Pal,
1 . M11N 10 FOOT CDNTgIMs,. OEVET. rED FWU A 0113T= ML L NTH
2. 4 AND O FOOT CONRSKE W ERVµS. PWAN® R1' TALLAMY, VAN KINW1.
t)E M t ASSDOMTES OF LAMS PA., MAPPMR CMAPRED MY
5TU10(MHOYO TRAM ENOC ME HMr ELEVATI0N5 FATOMDUFO M NAY•V,
1 M iOa TK ORiD 15 M00H CAROUNA STATE PLAN[ MMIMATE SYSTEM.
ADA#TElFIT.
3) AIC wMT OF THS SHEET IS M [ UMRATE INE W WWALTED MTEMM LANOFN
LAlM4L MOIM6 THE WiGENL PGWtM MMM AM0 Lv0FLL SUB011AM 00HM
ACCMMNNW,Y, NEVER M SHEET IN FM Mt EMAP E OF T)"CK SITE OD,L7RKNM
DUSMO NFTEWIEMh1E LQWU DE+IELOPME T.
4) OIiMAMCE AND A A MY FAQUTIEX MO LNN: U ONADMG DE9014 AID
fAl10E1yTlIK AW MAY K M00i= FOR SUBSEQUEXT SMussm OF CaS1HUGWN
RAN PETIMF A"'PiFCAML
AMKKMMM M M w.oAPPIN"ATE PROPEW" LINE (SEE MOWS)
WRAND LRUTS
-,-», »•«,,,. 270 —PROPOSED CONT" (FKAL GRADES)
.,... .--- 1]0 ----ice tMTMM (KM%M GRACES)
REFER TO SHEET 9 Foli
LANDFILL FINAL GRADING
1'r{DE1'
Ir 2D0' 4OW ww 12W low
.........SCUD WASTE MANAGEMENT FACIUTY �
--. LAMMLL SEQUENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAMBERS s�cuo. `� 1A
o*v" p111NM of FAo " c«e11NR. " ACC-7

do,-
rl
I
--------------
:r.s'>.z�.,,_..,,.___ _ - .._.. 411 i •. '-�-= iiTrn"�'"a�,�`�c's Ain
esx
/cr A44EA
AOPMA t
h�
R. RAJ AD
H r 0i WAY
I !
s
li
V
J '
\ 1l
A
f 1N\ }
•
tease LRIFA
1
�� UNIIFR 3 LN!ICTIp{j •• �h
• 1
r lE}APORARV_�/ \\\� r'� SEDIMENT BMRIEA )
BERM J�`\` • IM /
`�� 9
PHA � \• //y�/���y(A
1
V'A`
PHASE 5A
LIFT
IN PR OGER
t.
LCNYLETE)
V\
MZ
.H
f
*TOTES:
'.; 5A5E MAP. Wl) C- FOOT CONTO' RS, CE'FICPED FR,M A [)lGrILEV P: N, IRM
' AND 5 fOOT C NTCLT2 iN"VALS. PREPARCD Ev *hll AMY. VAN -REN.
R P,S h Ass0C .£5 N W15E. PA., MAPFNG C FYP E'e
s'rERLO oTocpr w£mc Mr TMOD5, E[£VADOC - REFFRVNICED TC 4.G.vD
7) 4CRIZ NTAL LAIC 15' ,6.a21N CAAC JN'A STATE PLANE CO!'SN VAT 5YSTEM-
1983 ADJUSTMENT,
-,) APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN IS 0kR111CD !'ROM ANSON C6DNTY, N.C.
PRCPE"TY INDEX (TAX1 MAP AND NC,upES Fit PARCELS CURpENn Y VNMR OPTUAl
TC CNAARERS BEVF,I,CPUFNT OF NORTN CARil NA. INC. ApVTIONAL PAR(YLS
EXPECTED TO HE UNDER OPTION PR1PR "C C7N$IRVU TIRN PLAN WFLICATICN
'RE 4`OWN WI'GI U4 T STIPP: pkT. N
1) WET'.AN0 UW4EAr=GN !ERFD4MEP BY ,,;ARRGIN AN0 Ai50C,A1E5. 'NC.; SUR .1B
1Y RILEY, PARK. F.A:. EN AND ASSOCIATES INC REFER 'O "WETLANDS DEL EAT IH
4NC PRCTEC`,4D SPECIES SL'F`iE Y' 1N YY1L'JNE [ Of SIZE APPLICpTI'.1N 9JRMITTAi.
5) 100 YEAR fI.COD PLAIN NMITS TAKEN 4WM THE (EOERAL flRM - Ay UOD
\
NSVRANCE RATE.. NAP Gi ANS CD NTY. N.C., MAP Na, 3]02BA-U125@ OA3Fp
, 41F B, 1390 PANEL 12n DE 7.25 AND CORRESP GNDG TO r F ELEYATIL'N 250 "I-
CONTWR.
ENINPNCE ANC AVMEJARY FACiUTLS AND LANDFILL GRACING DESIGNS ARE
_GNCEPTIIAL AND MAY BE MOO!FIEO rG ABSEWFJNT Tl: ISSION Cr CONSTRVCnOIY
I
F,.kN PERMIT APREIr.Anm
MI5 S LET i5 INTENDED TO JUIJSTAATE TYPICAL CCNBITMN5 WR3NG SELUE,4TliAL
:,EYELOPME. fk" L DIDL- AS REGARDS EXTENT OF CCl1STRUC^Uly B(MRRCM
OPERAMNS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND ERd 164/.SEDIMENT-CCNTROk_ PSA;,E
$v PNAII 11.1.111 ItEVII.OP8IFN, 1P WILL. BE 11 11 Eq 1j{r}F SUBSEIXFENT
L DNSiRVCT10W PLAN APPU, ATION 508M155f AS APPRCPRATE, A(;7JAL CDNDi RONS
l ..........
<r ANY PARTICNLAR TVF 9, , F.AA!DEl �,OC NT MAY VARY
ELEV. 250 kM,
WAR FO= 6E'I14
a /
N VG
51 5EE %YEET5 12, 13. AHD 14 FOR TYP'CAL *TAjCE
i GE-->•--AP,RPQl MArE PROPERTY UNE!SEE NOTE 31
APPROXIMATE 1 W TEAR FLDDU PLMN UNITS (SU Nc1E 5)
'rrE r,�edg tjWt (= Ncm a)
----------I'F.OPC)SE{1 PHASE 'FF'ARAP6N BCRM
rEMpCIkAFr BCRM
Y^I'
PROP05ED CULVERT
----PROPOSE4 DRAINAGE SWAL MITVH
-.............-PROPOSED EMERGENCY SP!iiWAI
-
'1
----- alp —RA[ OSED CONT(A)R (FINAt Ga WjE)
....._-._ Satl —•--PROPoseD cola roJR (INTERMEDIATE uNurILL canDEp
4
1
]W—PFOP05E4 CONTWR (INTERMEDIATE 511E GRADE)
/
l
1
x3m PROPOSED SPOT EI£VAnM
PR�'9SEfl 5lL7 HARRIER
_[ :vX,A._.._...
r^ °"'1ANT1G!PA TED S17 AREn NOT GNFRENRY
0
an
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
P$QPQ3,a, PERIMETER " M:
-FERIMFTER ROAD
---PERVETER STORM WA n CHAKIga
PONrs IN OIREC40N RF FIC*)
`--" JMIT5 OF WA5EE CEU
7'-20f1"
0' 14©' 200' 440' ti00' 800'
W PROJET.'I:
C SOLO WASTE MANAGEMENT FACAL11Y
T —� ANSON COUNTY NORTH CARO€.ENA
$HEFT TIU,
TYPICAL INTERMEDIATE t.AND LL
DEVELOPMENT
514EET--0. OF 14
CHAMBERS ORAMWG NO.
1?g IcmmEnt of Nora} Carotina. 1nG 1 ACC- 8

.......
h9
�V
1 )
TN
aw�
NOTES
11 8ASE MAP,'MTH 10 FOOT CONTOURS, OEVELW'ED MOM A OIGITIZM POA4, WTH
:'. 4, AND 5 FOOT CONTOUR NT;AYAJ-S, PREPAREQ RY TALLAMY VAN KLRi,NJ
;ERRS 4 A550OIATES CIE -APSE, PA., MAPPING COMPILEp BY
5TEREDPHIC METHODS, =YAPONS REFLIFENCED TO N. G.V O.
2) HOM70NTN :'.RIO 15 NCRTH CAROLANA STATE PLANE OiTORDINATF SY$ffN,
1383 AC,N151MENi.
33 APPRCXIMArE PROPERTY LENS' SHOWN IS OMMED FROM ANSON GOUNIY, N.0
PROPERTY IFIDEx (TAX) MAT' AND 'NCLUDES ALL PARCELS CURRENTLY UNDER OPTION
TC CHAMBERS 71EYELQ'AMENT C� NnRTN �AROLM'A, INC. ACCi114NAL PARCELS
O,SFCMn TO BE UNDER DPTTGN P OF TO Cik15TRIlOTGN PLAN APPLCATION ARE
910NN M4 JG 7 STiFT` Yf PATTERN.
+) 'A NO re NEAT10M PFFFORMED 8Y GARRUW MO ASSOCAM5, INC.; SVR`.F,ED
BY RILEY. PARK. NAYDEN AND ASSOQAlES. INC. RF.PER TO'VTANDS ©ELNF.ATfON
AN9 PROTICMD SPECIES SUR1'EY" IN YCtLNIE I OF SITE APPIUCAT30N SLJBMITIAL,
51 SOO YEAR FLOOD °LAN LMVS TAKEN FROM THE 'ERN FIRM - FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAP CF ANSON COVNTY, N.C.. MAP No 37V:9A-.0125H, CATF0
.VNE 8, 199C, PANEL 125 OF 2i5 AND CORR£SP0!1D5 TC 'HE ELE''TIC 2S'T !t,
^_CNTOOR.
5) ENTRANCE ANO-XiL3ARY FACUTEES AND LANOFIU uFAJ)I G OESIGNS ARE
1
CONCEPTij AL. Mn MAY 8E VOLN [) FO SU435F41n ENT SUHMM90N OF CONSTRVCF0N
j
PLAN PERMir A ICArION.
]) 5E[', 5<F j T2, 13, h D 14 FOR TYPIGAL BETA€LS-
61 SEE S EET 12 FOR �ECTIOW A -A' AND B-9,
LEGEND:
WAR n?Qaoo
wwnw w.ewawan�APPR9xMATE PROPERTY i1N£ (SEE NOSE 3)
o
aPARO%MATE 100 tEAN RLOOtl AA. 11MITS (SEE NOSE 51
1
'NE:TIAND LMJi (5EE NQT 4)
PROPO'M CULART
.s..11
.. ..... `i.-............
w.... .. ..... .. ..PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1
....�...�. Z" ........ f. (>nSED F1] 71' JI"NA3. GRADES)
k`306 >'Rd'O`fD SPt]T ELEY0.TON
__5I4E5CCpE 9E. C,!
,
.. _
_ - _-'JpMNSLWE FLll Mf
ANTTMPAT SI'- AREAS NOT C'UFR T-y
..................................::.�. --UNDER OPAON (SEE NOTE S
PROPOSED pBRIA[19ER BERM:
PFRIMETEN ROAD
rl a
{y P,fRiMC7FR STORM RWATERECUR CHANNEL
P
aNT9 IN meEc71or1 C>c sLGw)
R
/ 1
BORROW
,AREA ,
CJT.\
GZA GeoEnrnvironmental, Inc
--200'
O' TOO' 200' 400' 800' Boo'
L '.116i1.4 wS NYC , L/ YL
W PRaECT:
ID SLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FALL€TY
T ANSON COUNTY, NO RTH CAROLINA
SHEEP TR1L
LANDFILL FINAL GRADING PLAN
CHAMBERS \. 4
Dawlopment of North Carlin., loc. ACC —

%
------------ --- ----------
---------- __ ------------
--------------------------
2
rip
LL411 iT - —U;
11414, 1V'!.:- Tf PL.+4"
TE Pljl--r I N."
il-
L F 11 -'PW IF, 'L 4'
7L—J f VIT i CO YdE E - r' 1 !F
xA, -
H.A
a
T+Al 'r. ,NL ILI) j F!.I;jf��%�,K
r
AL I- frl—! ffIl LS
T"
4;1`1!14lDllw; i I- F E,M I-- L '4,-%
�L, LN 'F
-rR F'E" 1471'4
ANDna GAS MANAGUM SY
GAS rxmA qm WELL
GAS
—RMO HEAPCR--` CONT:—' 0L vAIv—E
—6,,s 0OLLEC11ON RING MEAppt
1) SEE SWEET 14 FOR LAMQi4 GAS EMAC'ACN WELL AND ML40EX VETAF_S.
21 LANDML (AS EXTRACTION WELLS TO BE INTERDOME= WILK F`00MNE
,It [ HEAD TO A FLARE STATION OR OTHER OAS TREA7wENT FACILITY
NOwERATOR. NTERNAL COMMMIN ENGINE DR THE LIKE] AT IHE LANOFlLL 1-kS
TREATWENT AREA GAS MILL aE EXTRACTEZ IJSW, h MOTOR BLOWER OR
COMPRESSOR TO INDUCE A VACOW IN THE REAOR ST5TEM, I VDUAL WELLS
TO NE KL�.AAMV *THI WAIT:",
3) LANDFILL GAS HEADERS TO BE INSTALLED AT A MLI,I,tMM 3 PERMNY SLOPE
FOR CONDENSATE DRAINAGE. 11FIFLE05 TO BE USED AT HEADER W POINTS
N THE LANDM 70 RETURN CONDENSATE TO ME LAmDVu ANO THE LLALI ATE
MULTON SYSTEM. A CONDENSATE KK"-OUTALSO TO BE 44STALZD ON
r4FADER PRIOR TO THE LANML[ GAS TREATMENT FAG1)TT AT ME OP E ARpF-3Lj
9,7FLE CONOENS.TE F'RpN TO EW
P,KTREAll,rKNT FACuTY
4) tMDML GA4 MANAGMArMT SYSTEM TO W M57N-UD PMCKMNTALLY AS
LMMU. REACKU FINAL GRADES (SEE SHUT 7 FOR CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL
SEWENRAL MWIOPMENT).
B 0 R R On
ARIE A I
'4j I
A My- MIX
%* >
p VD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
T ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SWEEP RU,
CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL CAS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLAN
wm
DMM LNG.
..... ..... .. .
K." GZA CeoEnvironmen�ol, Inc. D"opment ACC-1 01
of North Cwolha, InL,
OCHAMBERS

SAMPLE PONT—
To POL1PRpprLENE QUI COUPLJMG
61 STEEL WI LOCKING u0
PEA GRAVEL
T/T --r
I pro Nou£' 7 ROWS
OF HOLES OFFSET
I/7- AND 45 APART
OR SLOTTFT; SCREEN
OF EOUNA EAT AREA
MPK:AL I
G,tS YOPiiR m..G._ PROBE
NOT TO SCALL
� N �
p `)
I
� 1
1�
ry
c.A rorr++w)
7 X T* 91 D3
Rac REDUCER
8U9FIMG
I]YAIIIICT
%S
�
2, P E FLUSH
W
m'••�
lc
(S !FLOW LIttRe
)
NO 0.UE
A� a>sRIF I
fA+PDNlRI
S FAIOkL[ w
FYa It"L' ll
tT�FNl4� ..:.
1
LBIDIT/IlRAiE
RAysu
1GWtw3
�C/45T�N�'L7LLf
w.s �4R.�
CONCRETE
Ir ArNxc
BENTONaTE GROUT '"'�'�' L�
-PGA GRAVEL �T
IT
—Y Scr. a PVC CAP Wr��(ILv
Dv,, HOLE2
� Za
zoo n OA] 1
i
E
SO D IPA TE
M AT
AC
TY
/
e�avaeRTn -
X"
sf
J/Tyr' 1b�D J
5�V\�/,X-!/l-.
GZA GeoEnvironmenfal, Inc
rff=.
1) POSE NAP, 1RTH Tn FOOT 001 DEVELOPED FTROA A DIOT1ZD PLAN, " N
2. A. AND s FOGY CONTOUR NTERYAIS PREPARED BY TAUAWY, VAN
KURI
r,ERnS 41 AGSMATE9 OF LANE, PA.. NAPPING OOLI'REA BY
STEREOPHOT00RAAMaE7TtlC METHODS FIEVATKM TEFERENOM TO N.FV.D.
2) WMJ"TAL UF4D IS NG Jt4 CARD wA sTATF MAW cOMMATE "TUJ
3) APVROKIII PROPERTY LNE S M 13 DOM FROM AN50N COUNTY, N C-
PROPF}tlY INOCK (TAX) NAP AND f1CUJOM ALL PARCaS CURR4NTT.Y U" 01
TO CHAMBERS DEVELOPNpNT OF NORM CAROLNA. MC. A➢O(MHAL PMCELS
ETPCGTFm TD BE imI OPTIai PRIOR TO CUNSTRUCRON PLAN APPl1CATTON ARE
SHOWN WITH STPI PATTERN.
a) NETLAND DWNEAnO PEWOFNED BY CARROw AND ASSMATT:.S. WNC.: %mwyrn
By
RLFY. PARX, HAYDEN kD ASSOOATES, INC REFER TO .VI OEIJNEAT1pk
AND PROIECWO SPI SINiLEY' IN VOUJW T OF SITE APPUOATION Sviwrri .,
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD PSAIN LLATS TAKEN FROM rME FEDERAL FIRM — ROOD
WSURANGE RAT[ MAP OF ANSON COUNTY. H.G., NAP Na 370294-MZWL. DATED
.VNE & IM. PANEL 125 OF 225 AND OCKESPDNDS TO THE ELEVATION 250 ri_
CON1Y)L1R.
5) ERTNARGT: —0 AAwm' fALriJTTEs AND LANWILL o ADMG 01 ANe
CONCf'PTVAi AND III BE M00BiED FOR SURSEt7h7NT %APASSIOf OF OONSTRUGTtpi
PLAN PE»,ET APPUCARON.
fir:
rWW.W W WWr���;r+FRpkTM17E PROPERTY LANE (SEE NOTE 3)
APPRORIMATE 10� YEAR PLOM PLAN Lmrs me NOTE 5)
WETLAND UNITS (SEE Malt ,)
—......-....—...—PROPOEED DRANAGE SMAE/D€Ti;N
PkDPOSED CULKAl
-.........'......'......... .PRd'0`.k.6 EMERCENPT SFlLLWAY
2M—ROPOSEO COMT (FINAL GRADEI
BORROW AREA
::- .1: wNT1ClPATED SiL AREA NOT NRRET1Ti.Y UNDER TiTTON
i?T�iV't, RON►i�",j��,,i. IEnNITORIhG POSNfS:
rN =T+TLE PPCP05ED BEDROCK NOBT(TRING WEL
{� e-A PPOPOS"D OVERFKIIOFAN MONITCRIND WEL,.
PRELNINARY NPDES NDN1-100 LDCATTON
PROPOSED GA5 PRGR£
SURFACE WATER SANPLIAC LMATIR+
I) NPDES MORTUHP<G RNLI BE CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WIN A "SCRARCE PERMIT
WFRCH WILL DE ODTANM CONCURRENTLY WTH IHE REMEW OF TT[E CLN5TRRVCn OI
PLAN APPLICATION.
2) GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE RATFR MONITORING PROCEDURES RILL BE IN
COMPUANCE WITH THE NDRTIi CMOUNA WATER DVAUTY MONITOPINO CUD-CCDOCUMENT TOR SnuO WASTE OmACENENT FA ITJITE5 (I087. sW-IOOI-871
PP4MaaNR RPNISglIITro nw, NKTWPRN[
G' 200` 400 BPC' 124G' 15W
L P EC
10 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY,
OUNTY NORTH CAROLINA,
SHET T111F
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN
CHAMBERS
Vw-*owent of Norte Carafaa, Inc, 1
ACC-11

400
S00
9'70
Pr $60
a
330
310
" 2a0
2"
5_L
PROPOSED
,N A�
?: RlMETE72 ��CE SLCiPE
WAT1:R :TENCH (TYPj 450
cwANNEL +.CCE55 ROAD (MIN. {'E GETAII. ;MEET 13)
_FE DEiA0 24 FT. 1ND"L TRAVEL© xr;nh_a.
NAY PLJS ..ITCHES ANO
SHOULDERS AS REQUIRFD)
"ER!METEft i•RI?.tETFR .I 57'ORM WATER +410
iAlh I r;4ANNEL
I i I 9B0
-`EHIMETCR S70
RQAO
.x15nFlc
-CXJND
f'POPOEGO
930
F'NASE SF.PERATiON
SURFACE
- OA�E LINER
1
S;
F ..O T"F,
BF.,RM (TY{'i
SYSTEM
310
"_------
'
GROUNDWATER
—...__------
-_.__-TM_„`_._-^---_.....�.,..r_�___-_-
b
--
-
.EOROCK .„J
- ELE`JAT10N
---.�
.... .._
_�...._�_...-.-...�.,...���.-�.
ON
FLLLVATSQN
'._r MIN.
L40
700
a00 m 1000
5100 1=0
13N 1400 1000 1000 1700
1000 1000 20M
2100 2200
2300
2400 2000 2000 2700
2000 2Y00 9000
0 100 2010 3w
YaTT_5 FOR 4Fc.ilfdJS
t. SEE SHEETS 5,5 AND 9 FOR PLAN LOCATION OF SECTIONS A.--' AND 6-9'
5 ��N n"'ii`
SEE TYPICAL DETAILS FOR BASE ✓,3NER SYSTEM, FINAL. COVU, AN(I P€RIMETER
scAEE: HCAZrnra, - =1ac
B hFiL`AL 'Txo'
BERM, THIS SFLEL).
}. ,GR(UNDWATEfi's_EVA'TIONS SEHC)AN BASEG ON GROUNDWATER LEVELS iN
OVERBURDEN III AS MEASURED ON 4/9/92. MINIMUM 7 FT. ;',_EARANCE
L+AWN BETVJ_N BDTTOM OF CASE LiNLR SYSTEM AND ORUUNDWATETt
EIE'!AT}ONS IS CASED ON 5 FT. ALLOWANCE FGR SEASONAL VARIA T3DN AND
REQUIRED 4 FT. IdIN3ALIM CLEARANCE BETWEEN SEASONAL HIM
,RQPOSE6
,RG,JNDWATER AF19 GEOMEMBRANE. LINER. REFER TO iHYDROGEOLOG'C
>SNAL
STUDY IN VOLUME Ili OF S1TE ARPL7CAT1pN FOR FURTHER iNFPRM AT4CN,
OOP R
e. BEDROCK ELEVAONS SHOWN REPRESENTS UPPER 5UI1.l "IF HIGHLY TD
A
'LGHTl,Y ,WARHERED BF..DRI;CK (AS OPPOSED TO COMPLETELY WATHEREO
S.4FROLf TF..; REF HYLIRCGECC,nCIC STUDY IN 'JOLUML III Cr SITE AP°LCATIE)
?ERIME�ER
3
sl0E
460
TpRM WAlE32
r.7 MNM;ry
-tee
f SL.CPE BENCH
CFEANNEL
_,
'yT,) PcRtAFEIER
SEE DETAIL)
MIN
_ORM WATER
•
CHANNEL
4l0
ER1uETE
? M3N
ROAD
PERIME'E'R
'�
I
'
ROAD
-
I
EXISTING,,
I'
360
j
SURFACE
PERDPOSED
T EASE LINER
1'" LO TYP)
...
SYSTEM
�
.
."
-
.REDRCCR�
i_I_EVAT:CN ��-
r GROUNRWOi£R
-"'�-.`_
�----- --"-
i
L7_MI�
-
- -"
- ^_.-.,��._..r.----------J...---
--
t
���
ELEVATION
-^
-- -- ..-
- --
i
i i i i
i i
ts61Y
000
700
a00 000 1000
1100 1300
1300 1400 1800 1000 €700
1WO 1a00 2000
$100 zm
23M
a400 2000 2000 2700
no 2000 am
0 100 200 Soo
400 000
SECTION H = B'
SCALE: N9R1 ZS1hETAL - I`=FCC A
� .��....i..
SI-...._........
-
�VfPP(%iT MA1FStl AL
'/ECE?An`I£ SUPPORT MAIEId AI.
;,EfH:CMPOS,Tf
'Z ARAtNACi' SANG
,-�
PROTECDti'E COWER:iEOMEM6R�NE
'! ORNNAQE NET
401»IL
riftsE IXt 'R.CF£, TEYTURU
(K 2!I.IC1—/secj
-.
�--
-�
...................._...--��----_
GEOMEMBRANE 40 111.
!iCPC Oft 'AllPE. iEX R1REL1
IRS CLAYEY SOIL
(K $ lkl p'crnf+e�1
(K 19"cin0/l
K
���'...,...,._.___'_
N
5 rNTEAME01A7E COVER
:N1EkME371ATE COVER
FN -
BEN
`2
q C
;
5 FimLY C OVER
4
"('''
3WLY COVER
C9Vpi TC BE
ZT-� L4Nl1FiLl.EO
l.._ WA51E
LANCFlIAEfI
WASr[
FSNAL
[GRADES
FINAL
VEGETAiEF? FCR LCNG
g
T£ � + �NTM°I-
TERM
¢
ALTERNATM 1 -
ALTERNATIVE 2-
o
w
WITH GRANULAR DRAINAGE
MEDIA
WITH
CEOSYi TI li'CkC DRAINAGE III
ALTERNAIM
MAL OVER
SECTIONS
(TYP
ji
_�
i
a
15�
NOT TO
scue
tt
vARYF,$
LANOFlTEED
2V (TYP)
28' (TFY3
srE
FINAL COVER SITEM
ILI
,t CRVSMFi1-RUN
` tl Tow- SURFACE T-011F3a9RANC oo GRANVL.Vt Of?FIHACE DYER GCOMCI@'RANE
\-LANOFILLi33 BASE LINER SYSTE IT 1 2�T'/?j 7�7ePi 2 min.. CRMAHJ�H OFFfNAGC LAYER 68 !nY RAPE GU a N9PE
REFER TO DETAILS
7 MIN
19' ai;l 1j�— v CCIAPACiEO OLAY SUL rv� CCYPACTIn sTRUCTIpUL PPBENTGNI,F
RROKNATE E%Sn NC sum {K "I tifa o„/secJ y FELL SNAiIVE saL1 BEOMAr
MOO
ANl
H 2a jj a` INCNCAFNC 591E LA OdiPAC1ED EXCAVATED NANRH.
o-LINER 1. COMPAG1iC 5TRuC'NAL FIL, SVecitAQC
STRUC'1URAL
Flu. (Twj SEMONAL NiCM SEASONAL HEW
yA WA iR
RE
GEOMEMBRANE CNCUSWIED NAT TA
MR ALTERNATIVE 1 - 11TTH NATIVE Ci.AY 5Y]LL. ALTF.RNATIV� 2 - WTI'II HENTONIT'E GEOGI:[T
Ai.TP:RNA't`1V"t7: BASK i.INER 5YSTLitC SECTiIiY`TS (TYPi
FeT M SCALE
PERIMETER HER
*CT TO SCALE

CRAMTY FLOP/ FROM
LANOFll1 {PUN —
LOGangH uaY VARY)
(;FACSA 5 REGUI;EO` PISNC
\ lip
<' .. 17' . 300 MIL HDPE
STOCK ROVNO AV_
,HARP CORNERS AND
EPGES ��
B
HDPE PIPE IEACHATE RUMP
SLRAP HOUSING (PEF2FORAfEb
�O EL60W) ILPq.
!G' PCR ITCH OF LEAG-iATE
I'IIMP SUMP 1smU au MIDE aF
SaCESLOPE TAE CH �PERFORA77D) f —
I 3H:Iv
GPAV7Y FLOW FROM LAN9ETLL
(FLAN LOCATION MAY VARY)
(-174U ATF LIXkECTON PIPING AS REWIRED) --
H� PORTION OF LSACHATE
PUMP SUMP HWSNG PROJECTED
INTO SOEaWE 'ME31ClH fJ.BO111 AS
(PERFORATED) ftEWEREO-
C (25' maKJ
ipE OF SIDESLDPE
TRENCH
PPE PIPE IF.LCHAlE PUMP SDE SLOPE
R]9ER PIPE
fSULjp WALL FEW Fj„ROW}
aH:1v
®mmmiusffTm
i TO IEACHATE
r .RISER vAl/LT
0.
I I
r PE BERM
BERM
8
I
I
IV
A
PLAN — LEACHATE COLLECTION TElf SII111IA
NOT TO SCAI.L
�LANDRLLED
WASTE
_ G� LNYEIZ
1
� UphWP
CTA�
/ �1t. SOLID HOPE
> InWASTE
�SiGESLFWE RISEF
EiMiT OF PERFORATED �' WASTE l
FLEwBHE IiALTiAiF: pISCHARGE HT)SF,
LEACMAIE COLLECTION HST Pf 09AMO HOPE L"C-n
ASSEMBLY Wri
PIPE--cOLLWMN PIPE (GPAVIY
_
7 EY1LL CABLE ANO
. MIT OF GRAVEL i KEOW PRIORI LANDEA )
` "ONE 8i'HCHP LEhCHATE�
ELECTRCAL GaBLPS
d5 RECN NiE77
[OLLEOTION RIPE TIIFJNCH (AS REWIRE➢)
! UACHATE COLiCM N PIPE
f F—PAPAV.EL rO PERIMETER KRM (AS RENV REU}
^`
- GPA-- ORAPdA !A'IERYI
_ _ -
1F
�jII
HOPE LLACHATE SUMP PUMP H%USINC
SPERFort ATEP ELBOWS ,m { y(TYP,J 1 f l 24" CLAY SOIL
�`
�PREyM1RED
SU99RA9E
,��.�
���
END PLATE € ~rr 'GEdlLliiANE uNER,
�.C\��i,
FA
, A, 6C M L HDPE
fl.4' El9L]w ['xl T'x3110 MlE�
SLBIAERSBLE Pump j HOPE PLATE GE(1114F31BITANE Rua SHEET,
I-._4 TO CLEM T
RISER CI
SOJO WPE ALi HOLEACHAIE
COLLECTION SYSTEM CZOE OIIT RISER
PIPE
TRENC41
ACTIVE PHASE rffA F PHASE
PIJ74RE PHASE W41!lONG PHASE
EXCAVAIEI WLESASSI:1:A TML M A,
PgFiIONS w OEA `EIUE B m Paaac
TO PJR09E GRANULAR MANAGE LAYER
3 IxA®IATELY P1tlOW Tp KAGW GRANULAR
i OIAINAOE TIPPER FOR FUTURE PHASE
SDIM WATER
5x
EXCAVATE AND CUT BACK WYFR3.n'1
LRffII TO
(1�CER:AEDGE
3RM 3 ✓�yGpt
"'�
F
MOANINGOFU L BASE, TRUCnCN
1 �yA,H. AP' W,
k PW"�
UQ,ONE
LNFA FOR EUTUlIE fiIA
I�
I 1 _
y ��GEOTIXTIIE ETLTEN PA9RIG
/.-
SLOPE VAN
�.
��SED
✓ WIL NAPE
PWPM1Ep S-OMABL
BEND OOWI ANO BURY
ENO OF GEOMEMEAME UNETI
TWoR►mr r (�
NOT TO SCALE
OR SICTm HOSE OH
TROLLEY. AS AFF PPrROPRA1TE�rn� �r f•p�rvnr y}
LfI�I('HATE C.QLLEMQN .TUII4t
SEMON A —A
�6- NOT TO SCALE
[_LAN RLEO PERFOTRD tf�PE PIPE
WASTE LLACHATE SAJW PUMP
N &RAIEL 60 MR HDPE
STONE
HWSWG IIACHATE CLI LECnI PFPE
F- (G ANTY FLOW FROM IAANDA-1
II (AS REQUIRED)
I
1B" GRANIJL,AR DRAINAGE DYER
Y4" CLAY SC:L 5
C„_CLEAN 11 IEL_�NCN-WOVEN GE6TEXTLL' ��
S70HE FILTER FABRIC
y\ RK
CEONEMEERANE UMER. xx'.; r,/:�/... ti\S'..�, /„T• Ada: l!� `T '�
50 MRL HDPE
PREPARED
OEOMEMBRANE R118 SHEET SlleEAAOE ZEACHA TE PUMP OR SUCTION HOSE
6O MIL HOPE ON TRDIAEY
Tx(F��P �I
GRLAN EOMEm E LINER,
60 mE HOPE
�-T C07LPACTED
t..... ELAY
591E
4H17s300 MIL
PPE PLATE
LKAOM COLLECTION SUII[P
SECTION B—B
NOT TO SCALE
CUT It CEOMtNBRANE L1HER TO
FRESH EDGE FEAT COFISTRUcTICH mu
SEWINQ OF BASE LINER FOR EVTURE
PHASE
Teo DOWN AND
BURY END OF
GEOmENSRANE
GAS VENT—
3MW
�
Tr_
BEH
O� COVER SaLs Pm
"-a LANpRLLFlI VAlLT TO PROTECT
RISER
IIIII Sg ORAR" I AINA[E IFILL
kNiCf E:P
A• CLAY SOIL 1� Cn 1'0
L$ hli5 L'ON Cam`
TYPICAL CASE Sl10WN
WTH SUMP ADICEHI
TC PHASE SE1PARAT" ARM
PI-UIE,E LEACHAVE DfSCHARGE
A3STEeBLY WTH Pali-0UT
j�nO�
A,gTE AND ELECRICAL CABLES AS W.OFNRED
SOUD IIOPE PIPEE LEACHAM COLLECTION f
S"'P sWULCPE R5EF� / L.EAfYATE COf1ECIEON dry
P 71 I-IPE =i SLOPE L
(gNUilt '0
NON-NO`rEN CEO'li%IRE CU�317! r ECfF..W-OU7 RISER
WASi
^r�
l'^-.fi JIB 24..
((_w
COMPACTED
2 1M�...
CLAY SP'L
PREPARES
LEACHATE COLLECTION SLW
_ .J'I17,N C-C sIDR E53 OPE DRENCH
NOT TO SCALE
LEACHATE CalECIION
PIPE (F£RFORATEO)
y (AS REOLMRED -- SEE NOTE) E
IT WTVEN GECTEXTE-E
FILTER FAERLIC
C:I.EAM ERAVEL _
(AS RE.CUIRE➢ - SET: N01t)
J
N -.DwN aomxTLE CUSHION 5T" i
�
...
IB' GRANULAR DRAAACE LAYER
i....I8.,
WHES
24" COIfPACiEL` LiAY SYIIL
t$ •• PEOYEMBRANE ENEIi.
_
( 80 m11 HDPE
PREPARjp�
(+.
SIIBGRADE '. \ \,
°" PERIMETER OR
'
PHASE SF411MYNIANCN EERM
(EXPECTED TYPICAL CASE SHOWN WM
NOTE: LCCAT7LN. SPAClNO AH➢ UIJAIL5 OF LEACHATE COLLEUM
TRENCHES 19 DEPENDENT ON REsuI CF LEACIHA7E QDUECnON
IEACHATE IX C71QIii TER"}ICH
ADJACENT TC PFRWETER OR PHASE
EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED FOR CPN57RUCTION
SEPARATION BERM)
PLAN APPUCA71ON, DESIGN OR.[CT\PE IS N MAINI DEPTH
CF LEACHAIE ON LWER AT LESS THAN 12 RICHES. PIPING TO
BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT GRANULAR NRAMAGE WWA W SHOWN
TO BE RECUREO RY GESI N ANA.YSJSN GEOTEKTR£ £1L TER
FABRIC REQUIREMENTS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ORApATION OF
SELECTED GRAMUFAR MEDIA,
NOT TO SCALE:
I.WJ" GUITut
RDRft v'S 3% Mw
ALORIG BENCH)
f
---- za•
RNAL COVER
CLAY SQ`L SYSTEM
VEGETATED FOR LONG ; ml
TERM f}[vSFLN CIXiTROL
] miT 12" PROTECTIVE CCPA RX.MANAGE SAND
B'X3O' RE MT" WOGD CONCRETE HIr I{ u
S7RCAST-E -R, WOOD SRIFS<ED ROC£ AND
CAST-W--LADE GA ON LE DASF W' IS* CTATEY Sm I
M>EAc F#L.-UP DooR ON FHONT FACE, C£CJEdIBpANE
YENINLATE E UCTVRE ENDS AND
ROOF MOUNT PUMP CONTROL AND DAh YIN TSRMlTJIA7E CDNER CAP
INSTRUMENTANRi ON SA EXTEMOR
LMDF7Li➢""�
WASTE
��PERFORATED PIPE SET IN CRUSHED STONE
111
a� �a� [t J OR WRAPM BEEN GEONET
EXAM B=Q �,11 Yrl THEN WRAPPED VC44 hONW0%;A 6rfB7xTILE
NOT TO SCALE
LiACHATE BISOFURGE.
HOSE ASSEMBLY PATH PHLL OUT CABLE
W ELECTRICAL CATR.ES. AS REQUIRE➢
LEACH.TS RISER VA'IIi.T FT1CP1
NOT TO SCALE
CONCRETE BASE i
L^ATE TIERCE 4ANTAI COPS
P!iq}VGy
NOTE: LOSER HEAPWOBNS TO INCWDE NOSE/PIPE
MNINECIRONS AND VALVINI ALSO WI
AY7/VACOLW RELEASE VALVE FOR SUEMERstM
PLW OR SLICTIOF POMP, AS APPROPRIATE, ( _N

NAND MIRINE (TQiPdEAfl Y. FUR PASSIVE
7Y5TEM OPEitATON, WHEH APPRCGB:A7L)
PGC OUND FLANCF TAPPED FOR PIPE
-
PVC rLANGE
{0 mL HOPE OR ALVE PIPE BOOT WTH
BAND__,—
F 5°.AGY., GLAMP Tc) PENETRhTIClJG PIPE
"_, mp - —V /�
ANO HOPE SLEEVE PIPE
_STFiN?.ES9 STEEL
HDPE PIPE FOOT, EXT USIDH WEL..6 7D
An9 NDPC
1
PIF,E1BRwWf!
SLEEVE PIPE (T1P)
'y/
t!1'[AL COVER SYST04 {TO 8E ESTALLED AFiEIi
;NSTALL.ATION OF CA5 AFIJ..
—�
E" YEXTATIW SHPPORl'
'
Jj
COVER!'
FINAL COVER
SYSTEM
ORANAWAGE LAYER 3
'F.. ........
i
�T_ (
50F
AO ml HDPE
TF%LAFR GEC,iRAEWEyA9RPNE
—� ,ill ` �Fjf:NYCNITE
.SAL
1'
+ PEPE�
PV \
FIAMCE'��
f
HPDE
: fuxcc
T TEST_,_,,,%
PORT
NUPE
2 n' 4N. HOPE MEAL
,b' d!.YYY XNL
GROUT
W5L CASING
L,F 46 �R HIGH�Jtf
ON -SITE
L BACIIcfTEI
SISAL
IT
FILTER
MIN. PIA.
�2
RE HOLE
PERFORATED PVC
P�oE
3
�,�
I i
M3H 1/A" L"2APi
Hp!E IN 90TTCM
TOP OF RASE
'i a ER $vSTEN
d
LANDFILL -rAs. iP1u _(TYP1
NOT TC SCALE
aoLrPRnPrsNE
9UNO FLINGS
QED Fort PIPE
PVC PIPE
-WELL wqw
L_CCNTRUI.
STAINLESS STEEL BANG Cl, 4
VALE
90 HOPE CR YPIPE BOO!' WTH
�...��-.• L
2' SV.CX, CLTO FAMP TU ETTi PIPE
M1N6 HOPE Sf.EEYE PIPEPC
/—STEELCLAMP
NDPE PIP[ OWT, E%T%3GJON rAT]D TP
HDPE TY%NRED XOMEWHAME mO HOPE
SEEVE PIPE
2, m
1i
I�I
I
'
� RED GEOAIEY9RAXE
FINAL COVER
SYS IM
I
I
i
i iANOFN.1 GAS I
REND
NG HEADEEApEp I
ROTC'. Will, HEADER, AND HE'AOFlk RISER TO BE I
INSTALLED MOR TO INSTALLATI(W OF
FINAL COVER.
I
I
37� I
� ll
?O' BECPE RIY.AE PIPBnO, CON ATEC
/"-HOPE KITH GASKETED SPLIT > OJPUMCIS
ANIJ SLOPE ANCHORS GR AS OTXERWSE
�PEf:IRFD
FINAL
BENCH
F INAE
SLGPf
,EI
TO PERIME'}ER
STORM WATER
CHANNEL
PIPE
Ni1TE'. DEPRESS FINAL G x SYSTEM
:N AC:NITV OF DCWNSLOPE FLVINE PIPE',
'•TOTE, ETAAED STRAW "-ES NAY BE ?B" HIGH (min) FENCE POST
'.-SED IN PIACIL JF "RE FENCE TD ,- '15TUL EITHER T CR D T}YE ."TEND CEGTEXTILF 8' TO 12,
4)FPCRT FAFRIG ;1.,53 Ib /I I) OR 2X2" Rc'0003 WTC EXCAVATED TRENCH
3
�CYC� WVVEN 'MIRE FENCE (,Ar IA GAUGE, npHING PGST
6" mVY NESTa SPAG, NG) N[»Ao tN MRE FENCE
:10.9' max 1 ICI "UGE. B" o NES'H
t
F+ 1
FINAL l mm Fm,-,EA FAgaIG 1�
TENCH '' L- r ilk mlrt)
L
�,-�_E' n•n HEIGHT OF FILTER FA C
f n9UY£ GROUND SIJK ACE 3 I, j GiN -:lOx lyy� Y'^" DETAIL "A'
n.ia^
3" m
El18EpMEkT E i l
DE1.1- 'A' POR
FNHMIAENT DETNLs
�FICAI- RIPRAP OR REYET " ISOMETRIC VIBIN Ef.EVAT10#
i TRE55 LINED uCmsLOPE +f t�Y•LT�1�.T�F/-.�r�n :ONE SILT i'ENCE
MOi TO SCALE
ANGLL FIRST STARE TOWARD
PAFMCAISLY LAID BALE
"D PERtMETFR
S TORN WATERR
CHANNEI
OPEN CHANNEL
FINAL GRADE
DAILY CELL
NOT TO SCALE
DW-i
s
- 'h PfICAE Fn,^,E
A -
BEDDING DETAIL
NOT To SCALE
-... PpLTPROPYIEriE
t / � �Y PIa�TEGTY. oONFRiUR.wAaF SMo �WIq(-CW P[1N0
..._ VAR IF,
GECaE1'BRANE _ /j f'yC CAR
CAP -" i�1 .9-Ctwtt. SdL iE.EX PIPE
•�. rhiF)lIDlt]E tOYFR �� >Fi
PVC <5'_ EE
aIP,F •. TEST / Pvf En]N4 TEANGf
P(1RT$ TAPPED VCR PIPE
FIAHGE�
C
_ LANCE
SECTION A -A BRANCILI WAADER TRENCH 0f Pw PPe
HUT iU SCALE
{HRANCH HEADER (A$ 3"LANf� WELL CASING
NEwRED) CEpHESS '-G 1-1-V STV NLE55 STEEL BANG CLAMP
GEOMD45RAK CAP AT m~ k � �l i I vnLLE
HEARER (SEE SECTOR ? HOPE I 44 mil HOPE OR WjPE PIPE f3bOf >rTH
CAMP ra PENETHATING PIPE
AN0 HOPE SLEEVE PIPE
LANDFILL CAS CMlCCTIUN RING
A
HEADER. DEPWSS GEUIMEMBRAHE I----- 4' DIA HDPE HEA2EL.I m1n. I S7AiMFSS
CA8 AT ftlNtG HEADER (LJlIWF1LL j RISER (iYP }
�= 1 i3I STEEL CLAMP
7 NXi
LAHDFli1 W
5®E SLEPE
FINAL REFUSE
MADE
t-ANDPI[S- GAS YELL 6 �4
(SEE .DETM4) ' �R4N�
x
d
NDPE SLEEVE PIPE
\.... 40 m4 HOPE
(EXTUHED GEOAEMBRAME
I LAMDFI LEIF WASTE
HDI+� SLEE'.E PIPE
A
Ir
Nc is HEADER, AND NEARER RISE
INSTA
INSTAd.L.CO PRIOR 70 INSTAliA17CN OF
F
F?tiAL GpVTlI.
LANDIm w 'lML HEAD AND C0LL8CTI0N HFADIM ON T0P-2E iANi1FIIS
40T TO SCE - - --
AR
--.
PALE B1.OlMO PLACED
BOVE GRC{1ND SURFACE.
r
--
`i_sa,'N0 8ALE5 PI,nccp
.
al rHe c,Nra,R
N r-NAFs. MILL PIG%ETs
STRAW OR HAY BALE
NOT TO SCALE
-GR (2'x2' SiaFEs t - :!1'
o _ IN GROUND)
SILT BARRiEii
�� � M��/AY ar d4W wr�,ameniw ww
� �iFw, en rM i xw wiwn
�4 r ma mn w
e �K4oA
� Mry"rr:IM mwrp
,•rea.• err .em
wa,m. Ar rrwer�
�. � ®mow r m
"�W� ��ar+W�+'a�_�.=+ w w�rw�
t .u� � �wr.�en .mt � ownn c w[
,. mYc�rrwc r�•�M�.s�wi 4r�rq��w
'� � � u.a. r�e•w w. s
,. � cwvs �vo xnxc.wN.r wept/
Yfo! may. moAW a ewc .11YY �lAbt
Ir�icati4 WA1 p'uu � �x w�ae�wPF 10
e
' Vc,.M vro.ea .e so.

DISCUSSION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVALS
RULE .0504(1)(e)
for
SITING APPLICATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

The proposed facility is located near Polkton, Anson County, North Carolina. The local
government that has jurisdiction over the site area is the Anson County Board of
Commissioner.
On January 24, 1992, representatives of Chambers Development of North Carolina
attended a public hearing with the Anson County Commissioners and received a letter
stating that the site is not zoned (see Attachment E-1). This meets the requirements
of .0504(1)(e)(ii).

ATTACHMENT E-1

A!15Cr. CaL:Nl+ rrtOu^C
�nr,� v! ., a'v'+�• C^v w••_:CrRr., 'NADESOCNO %Ck-- ZANCLInA ..17:
•�c� 0. P' .v .... M,in.SMnN. r..�� ... .., .. .l:u-}no- w.�. _n�-e
.furlY • Lip/,S
. �Y f' .. �1.. 9• _ n.f.'.Ir CrRll- Y.L. 1.1 ,'.0
on ^nvt:n. n:a;W 7ant o ry 24 1902
:sir. Nilliam L. Meyer, Director
Division of :solid Waste Management
Dcpt. of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
FQ Brix 27687
Raleigh,, North Carolina 27611-7ES7
Re; Chambers Deveiopment of North Carolina, inc.
Fermat Application for Sanitary Landfill
Anson County
Dcar Mr. Meyer:
--}�4'r�M J'. Y,1-•.. '.Ili '.. :'irr rn.�..1:.tli
AIT7 •NLr
Chambers Development of *forth Carolina, Inc., asked the County to
provide this letter to satisfy the requirements of 15A N.C. Admin.
soda 13B.0202(a)(2) in connzction with the above permit
application. We reviewed the laformation provided to us by
Thamhcrs valopmcnt cf North Carolina, Inc., to determine the
location of the proposed sanitary landfill.
Arson Caun ty is the unit of local government -Which has zoning
authority over the area where the facility is to be located. After
review of the materials received from Chambers, we find that the
proposed facility meets all the requirements of the local zoning
ardinance and that the portion of the site where the landfill will.
to Located is not zoned.
if y oli need any fur _her L niG.'.maticn, do not csi Ovate to . = == ns.
Sincerely yours,
ANSON CC iINT1-'
Steven D. Carpenter
County Mar_agcr
SDCl1hb
z: Chambers Ccvs1cpment a *forth Carolina, Ire.
S. Lawrcnce Davis, Dsq Lre

DISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SITING STANDARDS
RULE .4504(1.)(f)
for
SITE APPLICATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

The following discussion addresses the compliance of the proposed site with the siting
standards of Rule .0503(l).
(a) F000dplain - As shown on Sheet 3 of the conceptual design plans, the proposed
solid waste management facility will not be located within the 100 year
floodplain (approximate 250 MSL contour).
(b) Endangered Species: Archaeological or Historical Sites,• Parks Recreational
Scenic Areas - As part of the technical studies performed in conjunction with
this application, a "Wetlands Delineation and Protected Species Survey" and a
"Phase I Archeological Investigation" were performed. These study reports are
presented in Volume L The following conclusions are made based on the
studies:
• The site will not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or
threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife;
• The site will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat of endangered or threatened species as identified in 50
C.F.R. Part 17 which is adopted by reference in accordance with G.S.
15013-14(c);
• The site will not damage or destroy an archaeological or historical site;
and
• The site will not cause an adverse impact on a state park, recreation or
scenic area, or any other lands included in the state nature and historic
preserve.
(c) Airports - The proposed sanitary landfill will accept putrescible waste for
disposal. The landfill will be located approximately 4.3 miles from the nearest
airport (Anson County Airport) and, therefore, is not within 10,000 feet of an
airport runway (see attached Figure F-1). Notification of the solid waste
management facility has been forwarded to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).
(d) Suitable Cover Soil - Approximately 75% of the required for liner and/or cover
material will be obtained from on -site excavation and borrow areas. The
remainder of the soils needed for cover material will be obtained from off -site
sources. These calculated soil volumes are based on the conceptual design and
are subject to change.

FIGURE F-1

J OL LIU Liu
i
S...db.
1 +1AM �1 Y ftw an
u � ,1 r d 1 Iu2! ;o\ ��a• .�' - - F-
1A iw 1 ys ✓ i `AH
14EF t -
MAP
lie f
1Hf
L¢ !
As
y- Z 0m 4ea71OlxAt
Uri- 1 llil&
y aIAU
lid
` b
UM !1!i j w06
1654
] = 116i-
± } am ♦ 1� t4Y - L.
1] Iw J yAA . T+ Last
LAU r+ C, ' + •4 SsBL lilt
IA" L ti
i
WA
lumm
POWMIN
.pj'• • s. J.II P'"
—
4
Y.1A" e / 1%tlA6
.� r.
s.s
r
4 sl `
+' Y ° u
+m u'.r
f ux IA& +�
Lm
\ r.
laa
t m W.* f.rlry � 1 r
0 _ F-d Ci
`/ trpiWr IL
+aft w2SZL I3M IAN
im UK
44
J7Al!
r -
+
♦1 �.,Ya Wt ` '� �; t +r +mow r �'• � `� —
Ar06
J �` g — ✓
r
�• !v �' •� r +. Far
� w
Anson County N
-�
v
_
.:z � Approx. case: I in. 2 mils

REPORT OF MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
RULE .0504(1)(g)
for
SITE APPLICATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(i)
Population and Area to be Served
Type, Quantity, and Source of Waste
Operational Equipment
(iv)
Environmental Monitoring Plan '
(v)
Detailed Geologic Report

(i) POPULATION AND AREA TO BE SERVED
The landfill service area will include both North Carolina and South Carolina in
accordance with the contract with Anson County. The North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Plan identifies that the population of the intended service area is in excess
of 6.6 million and is expected to increase by 18% by 2010. As a practical matter,
considering transportation costs and other economic factors, the primary waste shed will
include the following counties:
• Anson County, NC
• Stanly County, NC
• Montgomery County, NC
• Richmond County, NC
• Scotland County, NC
• Hoke County, NC
• Moore County, NC
• Union County, NC
• Lancaster County, SC
• Chesterfield County, SC
• Marlboro County, SC
The population of primary waste shed is about 500,000.
Chambers will address the conditions of Rule .0108(a) of the solid waste regulations
prior to accepting wastes from South Carolina.

(ii) TYPE, QUANTITY, AND SOURCE OF WASTES
Wastes accepted at the landfill will include municipal solid wastes, construction and
demolition debris, yard waste, land clearing debris, inert debris, and approved special
wastes.
Special waste is defined herein as any material requiring special testing, documentation,
and/or handling because of its characteristic properties or generation process. The
operation and maintenance plan for the landfill will be submitted with the construction
plan application and will contain specific policies and procedures for the review, testing,
and acceptance of special waste materials. Chambers proposes to accept the following
special waste materials at the landfill:
• Asbestos Containing Materials
• Agricultural Waste
• Ash (non -medical)
• Medical Waste (non-infectious)
• Wastewater. Treatment Sludges
• Industrial Process Waste
• Contaminated Soils
• Off -specification, Out -dated Commercial Products
• RCRA "empty" Chemical Containers
• Animal Waste and Parts from Hatcheries, Slaughterhouses, Rendering
Plants or Processing Plants
• Horticultural Waste
• Silvicultural Waste
• Laboratory Waste (non -hazardous)
• Other Special Waste by Specific Approval from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Non -hazardous wastes will be accepted from municipal, industrial, and commercial
sources. We expect the composition to be similar to that reported in the North
Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan as shown. in the table below.
*ESTIMATE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE COMPOSITION

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
Textiles 4 4
Glass 8 3
Aluminum 1 1
Ferrous Metal 6 4
Non-ferrous Metal 1 1
Construction/Demolition Debris 9 11
Note: Data is normalized to 100 percent. The data used to derive those
estimates come from a compilation of waste composition studies conducted
throughout North Carolina. Since the data above are estimates, they may vary
according to geographic region.
*From Table 6-8 North Carolina Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan
The contract between Chambers and Anson County establishes a disposal amount of
no more than 750 tons per day for the first year of operation. The amount of waste
accepted may then be increased at a rate of 10 percent per year to a maximum of 1,500
tons per day. Chambers will operate the facility six days a week.

(iii) PROPOSED LANDFILL EQUIPMENT
The amount of equipment required for operation of the landfill will vary depending on
the volume of wastes. Based upon anticipated disposal rates, landfill equipment will
include:
• Landfill Compactor (1)
• Excavator (1)
• Articulated Dumptruck (2)
• Bulldozer (1)
• Motor Grader (1)
Water Truck (1)
• Service Truck (1)
• Pick-up Truck (1)
It is possible that scrapers (pans) will be used instead of the articulated dumptrucks.
Additional equipment, such as fork lifts, bobcats, and windrow machines, will be used
for operation of the composting area and recycling facility.

(iv) PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN
This monitoring plan for the proposed Solid Waste Management Facility in Anson
County, North Carolina includes monitoring of groundwater both in shallow overburden
and in bedrock. The plan also includes sampling of surface water streams which border
the landfill on the north, west and east. All monitoring procedures will be in
compliance with the North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance document for
solid waste facilities (1987, SW-1001-87).
Monitoring well and surface water sampling locations are shown on Sheet 11 of the
conceptual preliminary design. plans.
Groundwater Monitoring
Fourteen existing wells (MW-9-SB, MW-9-DB, MW-11-SB, MW-13-SB, MW-13-DB,
MW-IS-OB, MW-15-SB, MW-15-DB, MW-18-SB, MW-18-DB, MW-27-SB, MW-11-SB,
B-7 and B-6) will be utilized for groundwater monitoring at the landfill. These wells
were installed for the hydrogeologic assessment. Bedrock wells will be retrofitted as
permanent monitoring wells. Other monitoring wells installed for the hydrogeologic
study will be decommissioned in accordance with applicable regulations.
Bedrock wells (designated above as SB and DB) are currently open boreholes within
the rock and will require retrofitting with two-inch diameter PVC pipe and screen. A
schematic design of the retrofitted wells is presented on Sheet 11 of the conceptual
design plans. Proposed screened intervals for each of the wells presented in the table
are identified on Sheet 11. No retrofitting is necessary for the existing overburden wells
B-6 and B-7.
The location of the groundwater monitoring wells is based on the perimeter of the
proposed landfill and the groundwater flow directions relative to the landfill. The
comment column of the table provided on Sheet 11 presents the rationale for specific
well locations and the screened intervals.
Both deep and shallow bedrock wells will be monitored at locations MW-9-SB/MW-9-
DB, MW-13-SB/MW-13-DB, MW-15-SB/MW-15-DB, and MW-18-SB/MW-18-DB to
provide vertical coverage.
Surface Water Monitoring
Five surface water monitoring locations are proposed as part of the monitoring plan.
Three of the sampling locations are on Brown Creek and the remaining two locations
are on Pinch Gut Creek. All of the surface water monitoring locations are shown on
Sheet 11 of the conceptual design plans.

In Brown Creek, one upgradient sampling point be located at the intersection of the
CSX railroad and the creek. The other Brown Creek sampling points will be located
just down stream of the prominent rock slope and 800 feet upstream of the confluence
of Brown and Pinch Gut Creeks.
Sampling locations on Pinch Gut Creek will be at its intersection with the CSX railroad
and near staff gauge location one (SG-1).
It is also anticipated that the discharge from the sedimentation basins will be monitored
in conjunction with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the solid waste management facility. The location of the sedimentation
basins are shown on Sheet 11 of the conceptual design plans.

(v) DETAILED GEOLOGIC REPORT
GZA GeoEnvironmental conducted a detailed geologic investigation of the site as part
of an overall hydrogeological study. The hydrogeological study is included in Volume
III of the site application for the proposed solid waste management facility.

-R
R

WETLANDS DELINEATION AND PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
OF A PROPOSED REG;,QNAL LANDFILL, SITE,
ANSON'COUNT°Y,`NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted to:
Chambers Development of North Carolina, Inc.
3200 Highlands Parkway, Suite 400
Smyrna, Georgia 30082
Submitted by:
Garrow & Associates, Inc.,
3772 Pleasan#dale Road, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
Field investigation by:
Linda G. Chafin, Chief Biologist
Hugh Powell, Assistant Biologist
Report prepared by:
Linda G. Chafin, Chief Biologist
24 July 1992

ABSTRACT
A jurisdictional wetlands delineation and protected species survey was conducted at
the proposed site of the Anson County landfill. The stud; area consists of
approximately 1,050 acres of floodplain and highly dissected uplands in the Southern
Piedmont of North Carolina.
Total wetlands on the study area equal approximately 303 acres. Wetlands are found in
the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek floodplains, and in drainages, headwaters, and
impoundments of intermittent streams. The wetland communities located in the Brown
Creek floodplain are considered significant by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program and should be protected from development impacts. All impacts to wetlands
must be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Habitat for four rare or protected plant species is found on the study area in ravine
heads, and on slopes and bluffs. It is recommended that ravines, slopes, and bluffs be
protected from development by incorporating them into a system of buffers
surrounding the landfill operations. If these areas are to be developed, then a growing
season (April -June and August -September) survey for rare plant species is
recommended. Current landfill design plans call for development only in the pine
plantation uplands, with a buffer between the landfill and the bluffs and slopes . If
these plans are implemented as currently presented, then no impact to these species, if
present, or their habitat should occur.
No rare, threatened, or endangered animal species were observed during the survey,
and none are believed to occur on the study area due to lack of appropriate habitat or to
distance from known populations. The Red -cockaded Woodpecker, listed by NCNHP
and FWS as endangered, is of special interest in the Anson County area. However, the
immaturity of pine stands on the study area and their distance from a known nesting
colony strongly support the conclusion that there is no Red -cockaded Woodpecker
nesting or foraging habitat present on the study area.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists five communities in Anson County
as significant. Four of these are present on the study area within delineated wetlands.
If landfill development plans are implemented as designed, then no impact to these
communities or habitats should occur.
Rules contained in "Siting and Design Requirements for Disposal Sites" (Title 15A,
Subchapter 13B of the North Carolina Administrative Code) stipulate that a disposal
site "...shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or threatened
species of plants, fish, or wildlife" or "...shall not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat or endangered or threated species..." No rare,
threatened, or endangered species were encountered during this study. No federally
designated critical habitat is found on site; biologically significant habitat --slopes, bluffs;
and ravines --is limited to areas which are not slated for development.

Current bird populations in the area of the proposed landfill do not present a hazard to
aircraft. According to Mr. Bobby Lee Hancock, Anson County Airport Manager, the
proposed landfill site is not located in the path of Ianding or departing aircraft
(Hancock, personal communication 1992); increased bird populations in that area would
not pose a significant hazard to aircraft. Flocking birds could be attracted to the landfill
if additional wetlands or roosting or foraging areas were created by development of the
landfill. However, the proposed development will not increase wetland areas in the
vicinity of the airport, nor will it increase waterfowl populations in the area. Increased
bird activity at the landfill due to feeding and roosting activities should be kept to a
minimum by following standard landfill operating procedures. Chambers has notified
the FAA regional office and a response was received which concludes that the proposed
landfill "... would not be objectionable to the operation of the Anson County Airport"
(Roberts 1992).
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
i
Table of Contents
List of Figures
v
1.0 Introduction
1
2.0 Materials and Methods
1
3.0 Results and Discussion
4
3.1 Literature and Records Search
4
3.1.1 Rare and Protected Species and Communities
4
Plants
4
Animals
4
Communities
5
3.1.2 Wetlands
5
3.2 General Site Description
5
3.3 Description of Ecological Communities
6
3.3.1 Upland Communities
6
Slopes and Bluffs
6
Pine Plantations
6
Recent Clear-cut
6
3.3.2 Wetland Communities
11
Piedmont Levee Forest
11
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
11
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest
16
Floodplain Pools
16
Semipermanent Impoundments
16
Intermittent Streams
21
Headwater Seeps
21
Excavated, Ditched, and Drained Wetlands
23
iii

3.4 Wetlands Assessment
23
3.5 Status of Protected Species and their Habitats
24
3.5.1 Plants
24
3.5.2 Animals
24
3.5.3 Communities
26
3.6 Bird Hazard Evaluation
26
3.7 Relevance of Results to North Carolina Disposal Site Regulations
27
3.7.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats
28
3.7.2 Proximity to Airports
28
4.0 Summary and Recommendations
29
5.0 References
31
6.0 Personal Contacts
33
Appendices
1. Scientific names of plant species used in the text
34
2. Rare and protected species of Anson County
36
3. Fish and Wildlife Service Reply Form
38
4. Significant natural communities of Anson County
40
5. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Data Forms
41
6. Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines for Waste
Disposal Sites On or Near Airports
94
7. Glossary of terms
98
8. Resumes of investigators
99
IV

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Project location map
2
Figure 2.
Ecological communities map
7
Figure 3.
Bowater Site Index map
8
Figure 4.
1968 aerial photograph of study area
9
Figure 5.
Slash piles in intermittent stream channel in clear-cut area
10
Figure 6.
Wetlands communities map
12
Figure 7.
Brown Creek with levee forest:
13
Figure 8.
Bottomland forest in Brown Creek floodplain _
14
Figure 9.
Large Overcup Oak in Brown Creek floodplain
15
Figure 10.
Oxbow depression in Brown Creek floodplain
17
Figure 11.
Floodplain pool in Swale of Brown Creek floodplain
18
Figure 12.
Marsh in Brown Creek floodplain south of the railroad
19
Figure 13.
Beaver dams at culvert under railroad
20
Figure 14.
Small impoundment next to access road
22

WETLANDS DELINEATION AND PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
OF A PROPOSED REGIONAL LANDFILL SITE,
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study is conducted at the request of Chambers Development Company, which
proposes to construct a landfill and recycling center on a site in Anson County, North
Carolina three miles west of Wadesboro, and approximately 10 miles north of the South
Carolina border (Figure 1). The proposed site will be referred to as "the study area"
throughout this report.
The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to survey the proposed landfill site for rare
and protected plant and animal species, their habitats, and other rare and significant
communities; and (2) to delineate areas that meet the criteria of the-U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) for jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Rare and protected species are plants or animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare,
or unusual by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service 1988, 1989, 1990a, 1990b) or the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Rare and significant communities are also listed by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNFIP).
Wetlands are defined by the COE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions"
(Environmental Laboratory 1987).
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Information on the occurrence of rare and protected species in Anson County was
gathered primarily from the computerized database of the NCNHP (North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program 1991), and also from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Field Office in Raleigh.
Information on plant species identification, distribution, and habitat requirements was
compiled from a number of sources, including: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982,
1985, 1990), Godfrey and Wooten (1979, 1981), Preston and Wright (1985),

a
742
Cedar I-U
Burnsville
Ansonville
DEE in
Fountain Hill
C"r
fi
218
i
Polkto
PRO
aC•
CT REA 5
eachland
74
adesbor
Liiesville
Wade Mills
Ar Fk Pee Dee
l Re St
109
42 145
Lowrys
Morven
52 cr
d Field
Lance
ANSON
COUNTY
Figure 1. Project location map
2

Foote and Jones (1989), and Radford et al. (1968). Herbarium specimens of protected
plant species were examined at the University of Georgia Herbarium, Botany
Department before beginning fieldwork. Information on animal species identification
and habitat requirements was gathered from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985),
Conant (1975), Burt (1976), and Scott (1987). Ecological community classifications
derive from Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Information on soils and geology at the study area were gathered from the Anson
County Soil Conservation Service office in Wadesboro which provided an advance copy
of the soil survey field sheet (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991b) and listing of soil
types (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991 a).
Other resources used include: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle maps, Polkton, N.C. and Russellville, N.C. (U.S.G.S. 1970, 1971) and
blueprint aerial photographs (1 "=400') of the site (Anson County Tax Assessor's Office
1994).
The protected species survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of likely habitats.
Occurrences of sensitive species or their habitats, if present, were recorded on aerial
photographs and U.S.G.S. topographic maps. Wetlands delineation methodology
followed the requirements set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland boundaries and other waters of the
United States were flagged using orange and black striped flags that were numbered
consecutively to facilitate surveying. A map showing the approximate location of flags
was provided to the surveying team.
A photographic record of the area was made. Common names for plant species are
used in the text; scientific names are provided in Appendix 1.
Fieldwork was conducted 27-28 September 1991, 19-22 November 1991, 6-10 January
1992, and 9 April 1992 by Linda Chafin, Chief Biologist, and Hugh Powell, Assistant
Biologist. On 2 April and 9-10 June 1992, Chafin, Powell, Greg Cekander, Regional
Engineer, and John Buckley, Assistant Region Engineer, of Chambers Development
Company, visited the study area with Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (COE)
Biologists. On 7 July 1992, a final COE visit to the study area was conducted with
Chafin, Powell, and Buckley attending.
3

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Literature and Records Search
3.1.1 Rare and Protected Species and Commurdties. Protected species information is
provided in Appendices 2 and 3. Information on communities is contained in
Appendix 4.
Plants. A total of seven protected or special plant species are known from Anson
County. Of these, four are proposed for Federal listing; none are listed as endangered
or threatened by FWS. The federal candidates are: Heller's Rabbit Tobacco, Bog
Spicebush, Single -Flowered Sandwort, and Stonecrop.
Three plant species are listed as endangered by the NCNHP: Bog Spicebush, Single -
Flowered Sandwort, and Stonecrop. Two species are candidates for listing by NCNHP:
Southern Thimbleweed and Piedmont Aster. The two remaining species, Heller's
Rabbit Tobacco and Dissected Toothwort, are listed as Significantly Rare, a designation
that does not confer legal protection, but which indicates "...rarity and the need for
population monitoring and conservation action" (North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program 1991).
Three of the species --Southern Thimbleweed, Single -Flowered Sandwort, and
Stonecrop--are endemic to granite outcrops. Piedmont Aster, Dissected Toothwort, and
Heller's Rabbit Tobacco occur in Anson County on wooded slopes. Bog Spicebush is
primarily a Coastal Plain species, but occurred historically in eastern Anson County in a
wet, hummocky, headwater seep. The best season for surveying for Bog Spicebush is
early spring; for surveying Dissected Toothwort and Heller's Rabbit Tobacco, spring;
and for Piedmont Aster, late summer and early fall.
Animals. Four rare or protected animal species are reported from Anson County:
Short -winged Mold Beetle, Carolina Darter, Shortnose Sturgeon, and Red -cockaded
Woodpecker. The latter two species are listed as endangered by both the FWS and
NCNHP. The Carolina Darter is proposed by NCNHP as a species of special concern, a
designation without legal force. The Short -winged Mold Beetle is considered
Significantly Rare by NCNHP.
Shortnose Sturgeon is a saltwater species with a single land -locked population in the
Pee Dee River. It is not known from either Brown Creek or Pinch Gut Creek. A nesting
colony of Red -cockaded Woodpeckers is located in the Pee Dee National Wildlife
Refuge, which is approximately nine miles from the study area. Carolina Darter is
known from one stream in northwest Anson County. It has not been collected in either
Brown Creek or Pinch Gut Creek. Its preferred habitat is unpolluted Piedmont streams,
where it lives in leaf packs. The Short -winged Mold Beetle is known from Anson
County, although little is known about its habitat requirements or life cycle. The
0

collection site in the county is not known to NCNHP. Its general habitat consists of
sandy soils.
The species of interest enjoy varying levels of governmental protection. Federal
protection (threatened or endangered status) is conferred by the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534). This act makes it illegal to kill, harm,
harass, or remove any listed animal species from the wild; plants are similarly protected
only on Federal lands.
The North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act (Chapter 106, Article 19B;
202.12-202.22 of the General Statutes of North Carolina) forbids the removal or
disturbance of any plant on the protected plant list without permission of the
landowner unless such disturbance is incidental to agriculture, forestry, or development
operations. It is also unlawful to "sell, barter, trade, exchange, export, offer for sale,
barter, trade, exchange, or export or give away" any species listed as protected unless
authorized by the North Carolina Plant Conservation Board. Animal species listed as
protected --endangered, threatened, or of special concern --by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission are protected under Chapter 106, Article 25, 113.331-
113.337 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, which makes it unlawful to "take,
possess, transport, sell, barter, trade, exchange, export,...or give away" (or to offer to
perform these acts) any animal on a protected animal species list.
Communities. NCNHP lists four natural communities and one geological feature of
concern in Anson County: Piedmont Bottomland Forest, Piedmont Levee Forest,
Piedmont Semipermanent Impoundment, Piedmont Swamp Forest, and Granitic
Flatrock. All of these elements, except the granitic flatrock, occur in the Brown Creek
floodplain within the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. The rarest of these
communities is the Swamp Forest which is found only within the Triassic Basin in
North Carolina. Other significant occurrences of this community in the North Carolina
Piedmont have been lost to impoundments.
3.1.2 Wetlands. A single hydric soil series--Wehadkee--is mapped on the study area in
the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek floodplains. Hydric soils have been recently
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service and the results made available on a Soil
Survey Field Sheet (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991a). There is no National
Wetlands Inventory map for the study area.
3.2 General Site Description
The study area is located in the Southern Piedmont physiographic province, on the
contact between the Carolina Slate Belt and the Triassic Basin. The area has been
intensively managed for many decades, having supported a cotton plantation and a
dairy farm during the last century. in the late 1960s, most of the property was managed
by Bowater, Inc. and converted to a Loblolly Pine plantation.
1

The study area is bounded on the north and west by Brown Creek, and on the east by
Pinch Gut Creek. Several small intermittent streams drain into these creeks. Brown
Creek and its floodplain are bisected by a Seaboard Coast Line track in the southwest
corner of the site. The railroad bed, constructed in the 1870s, has impounded the creek,
creating a large open -water marsh immediately upstream.
3.3 Description of Ecological Communities
The location of corrununities, habitats, wetlands and other significant features on the
study area are shown in Figure 2.
3.3.1 Upland Communities. There is very little natural or undisturbed upland habitat
on the study area. A small portion of the uplands is used for a hunting camp and access
roads. The remainder, except for slopes and steep bluffs, is devoted to timber
production.
Slopes and Bluffs. Steep bluffs and ravine slopes that are associated with Brown Creek
and its tributaries support a relatively mature hardwood forest dominated by White
Oak, Southern Red Oak, Chestnut Oak, and Pignut Hickory. Beech is present on the
lower slopes. Herb species visible during the winter include Pipsissewa, Christmas
Fern, Wild Ginger, Rattlesnake Plantain, and Crane Fly Orchid. This assemblage of
species, as well as the topography and aspect, suggests that this community may
support a diverse spring flora, including the Dissected Toothwort and Heller's Rabbit
Tobacco, which are considered rare by the NCNHP and have been reported from Anson
County (Appendix 2). A return trip to the study area during these species' flowering
season is recommended if development is proposed to occur on these bluffs and slopes.
The hardwood forest found along slopes leading to Pinch Gut Creek do not support
sensitive communities.
Pine Plantations. Most of the upland habitat on the study area north of the railroad was
planted in Loblolly Pine 20-25 years ago. A copy of a site index map, prepared by
Bowater, Inc. and indicating planting dates, is included (Figure 3). In addition, an aerial
photograph taken of the site in 1968 by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service depicts the
cleared condition of the uplands at the time (Figure 4). Steve Mims, Forester with
Bowater, Inc., stated that the upland areas planted in 1967 were old pastures. Some
bottomland hardwoods were logged in 1967 and then planted in pine. Upland
hardwoods were removed in 1969 and also planted with pine. The most recent planting
occurred in 1975 (Mims, personal communication 1991).
Recent Clear-cut. The southwest corner of the site below the railroad consists of steep
slopes, ridges, and bluffs. This area was clear-cut within the last few years and left in a
severely degraded condition. Slopes have not been protected from erosion; streamside
management zones were not established. Trees were cut to the edge of drainages,
which are frequently obstructed by slash and spoil piles (Figure 5).
0

V
_. r-- - -- 1J r 4. N+ a .
Cleared pasture
`
Beaver swainp
Cleared, excavated or ditched wetland G;1�---1 _ '� � � � j/ """'•-�� «...'�<
_-Access road
-------------
j.
J(
r. .L'.� VW 1tG••N11 A J 1
Figure 2. Ecological communities map
f
10 ()

r
O'N J
PRO
1- 41 � r
North
•r'Z
o— Fect 3000
Natural pine
Figure 3. bowafer bite Index reap
.67
l Yr�
11 ` O�
L-&-7
B
r
?1
TRALT NO. n,1 - 712
J. P. !O' ulf
MAISMiLLC
966 ACURS
ANSON Co., N. C.
P"Mt 101, 1966
SMSI 4^ > two*
SXBLFY. PWCII, 1975
AVG. Srrx nnn" 74!

dash L-iles -.Ti intermittent stream channels

3.3.2 Wetland Communities. Wetlands on site are found in the Brown Creek and Pinch
Gut Creek floodplains and in the small drainages which flow into the creeks (Figure 6).
Due to the steepness of gradients in the Piedmont of North Carolina, floodplains with a
well -developed system of levees, bottomlands, sloughs, and terraces are relatively
unusual, and are largely confined to the Triassic Basins. Brown Creek floodplain is one
of few such floodplains that has not been destroyed by damming or draining (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). The Brown Creek floodplain consists of several communities
influenced by variations in topography and hydrology and by human activities. In the
Pinch Gut Creek floodplain, excavation, ditching, diking, and site preparation for
timber, plus impounding by beavers, has eliminated most of the typical floodplain
communities. Wetland parameters are discussed generally below; detailed descriptions
of vegetation (including wetland indicator status), soils, and hydrologic indicators are
given on Corps of Engineers Wetland Data Forms in Appendix 4.
Piedmont Levee Forest occupies the sandy ridge that borders Brown Creek in some
areas and separates it from the bottomland (Figure 7). River Birch, Sycamore, Loblolly
Pine, and Ironwood are the dominant tree species on the levees. River Oats, Blackberry,
Giant Cane, and Greenbrier are also abundant.
Piedmont Bottomland Forest is the dominant community type in the Brown Creek
floodplain, covering all but the lowest areas. It is characterized by a diverse canopy of
relatively mature hardwoods (Figure 8), approximately 40-50 years old, which includes
Red Maple, Sweet Gum, Box Elder, Cherrybark Oak, Overcup Oak, Willow Oak,
Swamp Chestnut Oak, American Elm, Green Ash, and Shagbark Hickory. There are a
few very large trees (Figure 9). Understory trees and shrubs include Ironwood,
American Holly, Florida Maple, and Deciduous Holly. There are numerous blow -
downs, probably due to Hurricane Hugo. Box Elder saplings dominate in the gaps.
Large stands of Giant Cane, River Oats, and Slender Spikegrass are present. Other herb
species which are identifiable during the winter include Lizard's Tail, Cinnamon Fern,
Royal Fern, and Fringed Sedge. Woody vines, such as Poison Ivy, Cross Vine, and
Grape Vine, are abundant. Exotics such as Privet and Japanese Honeysuckle are
present, but not in sufficient amounts to suppress native species.
Soils in the Brown Creek floodplain are mapped as Wehadkee by the Anson County Soil
Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991a, 1991b). Soil samples from
the floodplain have a low chroma (2.5Y 6/2), with strong sulfidic odor (Munsell 1990).
The soils are either inundated or saturated to the surface.
A slightly elevated area, approximately 4.3 acres in size and planted in pine, is located
in the Brown Creek floodplain near the confluence with Pinch Gut (see Figure 6).
Although this area includes uplands and marginal wetlands, it is included in the
calculation of wetland acreage due to the difficulty of flagging and mapping small,
intermingled patches of wetland and upland.
11

to
Figure b. Wetland communities map
1
I _
I h� i
� 11 �n
2 n> i
� r
.300 1

f

._, � � ,-+ ,-,,.ac. ... �_ _ ,,..,
.-,

jlr
@� �� �: .. err:.. �: . �✓ a , . di1R:.;� s: -a- . � e. :.

Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest is listed as an element of concern by NCNHP,
which classifies it as an "Sl" element, a designation signifying five or fewer occurrences
within the state. Piedmont Swamp forest is found in .the Pee Dee National Wildlife
Refuge in the Brown's Creek floodplain. Swamp forests are described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) as occurring only on Iarge floodplains in the Durham and Wadesboro
Triassic basins. Soils are typically Wehadkee, and are flooded seasonally to frequently
for relatively long periods.
Piedmont Swamp Forest was found on the study area in three oxbow depressions in the
Brown Creek floodplain. These oxbows are mapped on the U.S.G.S Polkton 7.5 minute
quadrangle (Figures 2 and 6). These depressions were inundated to a depth of 10"
during the winter survey of the study area. Oxbows are much smaller than shown on
the Polkton quadrangle, perhaps because of the extended periods of drought which
have occurred during the last 20 years. Dominant trees are Cherrybark Oak, Willow
Oak, and Overcup Oak. Shrubs and herbs are absent due to prolonged inundation and
scouring (Figure 10). A more thorough search of the Brown Creek floodplain may
reveal other occurrences of Piedmont Swamp Forest which were not located during this
survey.
According to Michael Schafale, the distinction between Piedmont Swamp Forest and
Piedmont Bottomland Forest is not well defined (Schafale, personal communication
1992). Swamp Forest may intergrade imperceptibly with Bottomland Forest throughout
a floodplain. It is impossible to estimate the precise amount of Swamp Forest present
on the study area without an intensive ecological analysis of the floodplain vegetation.
Floodplain Pools are found in the Brown Creek floodplain at the base of bluffs and in
other low, frequently flooded areas, such as swales and abandoned channels (Figure
11). Vegetation is completely absent from these pools in this season, although a number
of wetland herbs are probably present in the summer (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Semipermanent Impoundments. A large impoundment dominated by herbaceous
marsh vegetation occupies the Brown Creek floodplain immediately south of the
railroad bed (Figure 12). This area has been impounded for many decades, and
probably began developing shortly after construction of the railroad embankment in the
1870s. The culvert under the embankment has also been dammed by beavers (Figure
13).
Most of the marsh is densely vegetated with large stands of Cattail, Bulrush, Soft Rush,
Bur -Reed, Lady's Thumb, and Buttonbush. Marsh -Fleabane, Seedbox, and a number of
sedges occur throughout. Floating mats of Duckweed are scattered across the surface of
open water. The marsh is separated from the Bottomland Forest by a transition zone of
wetland shrubs, primarily Black Willow, Buttonbush, and Deciduous Holly. Soil
characteristics in the marsh are identical to those in the forested portion of the Brown
Creek floodplain.
16

_ �_ _::.'�ow depression in Brown Creek floodplain
17

inure 1 1. Flood -plain vcol in sw le of Brown ' .�eek loodolain

9.
H
-'--7-: e 12. Marsh in Brown Creek floodplain south of the railroad
19

igure 13. Beaver dams at culvert under -a iroac.

The Pinch Gut Creek floodplain has also been flooded by a combination of human and
beaver activities. A low dike with a roadbed obstructs the channel at one point (see
Figure 2), but numerous beaver dams south of the dike have created a series of
varyingly aged beaver ponds and sedge meadows across the floodplain. Soil in the
Pinch Gut Creek floodplain is mapped as Wehadkee and Chewacla. In spite of
inundation or saturation to the surface, soil samples from this area indicate less frequent
or less prolonged anaerobiosis. Chromas range from 10YR 6/1 to 6/3, with bright
mottles (Munsell 1990).
Two small artificial impoundments are found on the site (see Figure 2). The
impoundment which is adjacent to the access road is almost completely filled in with
sediments and marsh vegetation, primarily Tearthumb, Goldenrod, and Bulrush (Figure
14). The smaller pond upstream has open water with a littoral zone dominated by
Alder, Red Maple, and Bulrush.
Intermittent Streams. Several intermittent streams originate on site. The streams range
in width from two to six feet. Narrow, non-hydric terraces border the streams in most
areas, although wet flats are found in small areas of frequent overflow; in these areas
the intermittent stream and adjacent wet flat can reach 25 feet wide. For purposes of
intermittent stream area calculation, an average width of 10 feet along the intermittent
stream length was assumed. Wet flats support hydrophytic herbs, such as Marsh
Fleabane, Lady's Thumb, and Slender Spikegrass. Sphagnum Moss occurs on some
flats. Several of the drainages appear to have been channelized. Pines were planted up
to the streambank in many places.
Intermittent streams in the clear-cut portion of the study area have been severely
degraded by poor forestry practices. Slash and spoil were pushed into the stream
channels. Roads were built across streams without installation of culverts. Clear -
cutting occurred to the edge of the streambank.
Soils in the drainages are not mapped separately from those on the surrounding slopes
and ridges. However, soil samples on flats and terraces indicate that low flats receive
periodic overflow and prolonged inundation. Soils in these areas have a low chroma
with bright mottles. Terraces are generally non-hydric, with brighter soil colors and no
drainage patterns or other hydrologic indicators.
Headwater Seeps. Several of the intermittent streams have flat, marginally hydric
seepage areas at their heads (see Figure 2). This community is described as a "low
elevation seep" by Schafale and Weakley (1990). No springs are active at any seepage
area, although the presence of a springhouse at the head of one draw indicates that a
flowing spring existed in the past. These areas were apparently used for depositing
slash and other spoil during site preparation. Large mounds of soil are found in several
of the headwater areas.
21

"ma' I impoundment next to access road

Soils have a low chroma--for example, 10YR 6/2 (Munsell 1990)-- with bright mottles in
the wettest areas. Morphological adaptations by trees (multiple trunks, surficial roots,
and swollen bases) are seen in the headwater areas. Actual "seepage" was not observed
during the survey; however, drainage patterns and drift lines indicate that water does
flow through these areas during some part of the year.
One plant species of interest, Bog Spicebush, occurs in seepages and bogs along the Fall
Line and has been reported from Anson County. No individuals of this species were
observed. The most likely place of occurrence for this species is at the head of a "T-
shaped" ravine that drains into the Brown Creek floodplain. This small seepage area
was searched in September 1991, before leaf fall, and did not contain Bog Spicebush.
Excavated Ditched and Drained Wetlands. The portion of the Pinch Gut floodplain
that is immediately north of the railroad has been severely disturbed. The
southernmost area has been excavated, possibly to provide fill for the railroad bed.
Several natural drains have been excavated and converted to ditches. Natural
vegetation has been removed from all except a small area of non-hydric floodplain near
the railroad. Hydrology in this area is severely disturbed, both from the human
activities and also because the area receives backwater from the large beaver swamp
downstream. A wide transition between wetland and upland separates the wet area
from a fallow field. This zone is dominated by a thicket of Groundsel Tree.
3.4 Wetlands Assessment
jurisdictional wetlands, and waters of the United States, are found on the study area in
three topographic positions: floodplains, intermittent stream courses, and headwaters..
Detailed descriptions of each wetland type are found on the Corps of Engineers Data
Forms in Appendix 5. Wetlands are shown on the map in Figure 6. Final determination
of the number of wetland acres on the study area will be made by the COE.
Approximate figures are shown below for wetland communities:
Floodplain (including forested and marsh areas): 291.29 acres.
Small artificial impoundments: I Z2 acres
Intermittent stream courses: 8.34 acres.
Headwater seeps: 1.08 acres.
Excavated, Ditched, or Drained Wetlands: 7.9 acres.
Total wetlands and intermittent streams on study area: 310.13 acres.
23

3.5 Status of Protected Species and their Habitats
3.5.1. Plants. A total of seven protected or special plant species are known from Anson
County (Appendix 1). Of these, four are candidates for Federal listing; none are listed
as endangered or threatened by FWS. The federal candidates are: Heller's Rabbit
Tobacco, Bog Spicebush, Single -Flowered Sandwort, and Stonecrop.
Three plant species are listed as state -endangered by the NCNHP: Bog Spicebush,
Single -Flowered Sandwort, and Stonecrop. Two species are candidates for listing by
NCNHP: Southern Thimbleweed and Piedmont Aster. The two remaining species,
Heller's Rabbit Tobacco and Dissected Toothwort, are listed as Significantly Rare by
NCNHP, a designation that does not confer legal protection.
Habitat is present on the study area for four of these species. Dissected Toothwort,
Heller's Rabbit Tobacco, and Piedmont Aster could potentially occur on wooded slopes
and bluffs. No individuals of any of these species were observed during this study.
However, the survey of slopes and bluffs occurred at a time (late fall and early winter)
when locating and identifying herbaceous species is very difficult to impossible. If the
north -facing bluffs overlooking the Brown Creek floodplain are to be developed, then a
growing season (April -June and August -September) survey is recommended.
It is recommended that slopes and bluffs be protected from development by
incorporating them into a system of buffers which surrounds the landfill operations.
Current landfill design plans call for the development of approximately 165 acres in the
pine plantation uplands, with a buffer between the landfill and the bluffs and slopes
(Cekander, personal communication 1992). If these plans are implemented, then no
impact to bluff and slope habitat is anticipated.
Habitat for Bog Spicebush is also present on the study area. A historic occurrence of
Bog Spicebush, a candidate for FWS listing, is reported from a now -destroyed seepage
area in eastern Anson County. No individuals of this species were observed on the
study area. The best developed seepage area was searched in September, before leaf
fall, and did not contain Bog Spicebush. The other seepage areas were observed during
January when identification of this species is not possible.
Three rare or protected plant species known from Anson County are found only on
granite outcrops, a habitat which does not occur on the study area.
3.5.2 Animals. A total of four rare or protected animal species are known from Anson
County. Two have Federal protection: Red -cockaded Woodpecker and Shortnose
Sturgeon. The Short -winged Mold Beetle is considered Significantly Rare by NCNHP,
but is not legally protected. Carolina Darter is proposed for listing by NCNHP as a
Special Concern species. No individuals of any of these species were observed during
the survey; however, no aquatic sampling was carried out for fish species.
PE

The Short -nosed Sturgeon is a saltwater, ocean-going fish with a single, land -locked
population known from the Pee Dee River. It is possible although unlikely that this
species could use tributaries, such as Brown Creek, to the Pee Dee for spawning
(Schafale, personal communication 1992). No individuals of this species have ever been
collected in Anson County outside the Pee Dee River.
The Carolina Darter, a fish species proposed as a Special Concern species by NCNHP, is
known from one location in the northwest corner of Anson County. It has not been
recorded from either Brown Creek or Pinch Gut Creek (Schafale, personal
communication 1992).
The Short -winged Mold Beetle, considered Significantly Rare by NCNHP, is an
undescribed species collected once in an unspecified location in Anson County in 1980
(Schafale, personal communication 1992). Too little is known about this species to
address its potential status on the study area; however, Mr. Schafale expressed the
opinion that occurrence on the study area is very unlikely.
The potential presence of Red -cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) is a major concern on any
development site in Anson County because of the presence of a RCW colony in the Pee
Dee National Wildlife Refuge, approximately eight miles north of the study area. The
Red -cockaded Woodpecker is listed as endangered by NCNHP and FWS. Because of
the abundance of Loblolly Pine trees on the study area, the possibility of RCW
occurrence was carefully assessed. Pine stands were evaluated for both nesting and
foraging habitat.
According to Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1985), the nesting habitat requirement for RCWs consists of open stands of pine with an
average age range of 70-101 years for Loblolly Pine, but with occasional cavities in trees
as young as 30-40 years. Nesting habitat is limited to living pines infected with Red
Heart disease. Nest cavities are obvious in active colonies, as they are surrounded by a
cascade of light-colored sap. Cavities are always placed well above the line of
undergrowth and shrubs, presumably to avoid predation.
Good foraging habitat for RCWs consists of well -stocked pine and pine -hardwood
stands, 30 years old and older. Foraging range for members of a colony averages about
200 acres in good habitat, to an upper extreme of more than 1,000 acres in poor habitat.
Some estimates place the extreme limits of foraging activities at a 0.5 mile radius of the
colony (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987).
As mentioned above, most of the study area north of the railroad is planted in 20-25
year old Loblolly Pine. The Bowater site index map corroborates planting dates (see
Figure 3). In addition, an aerial photograph taken of the site in 1968 by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service depicts the cleared condition of the uplands at the time (see Figure
4). Steve Mims, Forester with Bowater, Inc., stated that upland areas then in pasture
25

were planted with pine in 1967. Some bottomland hardwoods were logged in 1967 and
then planted in pine. Upland hardwoods were removed in 1969 and also planted with
pine. The most recent planting occurred in 1975 (Mims, personal communication 1991).
Mr. Mims stated that two small stands of natural pine, estimated as 10 years old in 1970,
were left standing. These stands, totalling approximately 4.5 acres, occur on the study
area on the northwest side of the tract near the floodplain. They contain the oldest
pines on the site --approximately 32 years old. They are highlighted in Figure 3.
No nest cavity trees were observed during the survey, and are not expected to occur on
the study area due to the immaturity of the pines. The oldest trees on site could
potentially provide foraging habitat to Red -cockaded Woodpeckers, if a nesting colony
exists within 0.5 miles of the area. Due to lack of access to surrounding properties, a
survey for RCW nesting colonies within a half -mile radius was not conducted. The
nearest known colony is approximately eight miles from the study area. The'pine
forests surrounding the RCW colony at the refuge are of high quality. It is highly
unlikely that birds from these colonies would forage at a distance of eight miles from
their nesting habitat. Because of the immaturity of the pine stands on the study area,
and their distance from a known nesting colony, removal of the pines on the study area
should have no impact on the current status of Red -cockaded Woodpeckers or their
habitat in this area.
3.5.3 Communities. Piedmont Bottomland Forest, Piedmont Levee Forest, Piedmont
Semipermanent Impoundment, and Piedmont Swamp Forest occur on the study area in
the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek floodplains. The rarest of these communities, the
Swamp Forest, was observed in oxbow depressions in the Brown Creek floodplain. It
may occur in other low areas of the floodplain, interspersed with Botto eland Forest, the
dominant community along Brown Creek. Because Swamp Forest and Bottomland
Forest intergrade and share many species in common, it is impossible to provide exact
locations or precise acreages for them without intensive surveying. While communities
do not receive any form of legal protection within North Carolina, the Brown Creek
floodplain is considered an excellent candidate for informal protection, such as a
conservation easement (Schafale, personal communication 1992).
3.6 Bird Hazard Evaluation
The Anson County Airport is approximately 4.2 miles (22,176 feet) from the study area.
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
established criteria for the placement of landfills near airports (Appendix 5). According
to these criteria: "Any waste disposal site located within a 5 mile radius or a runway
end that attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements from feeding, water, or roosting
areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure patterns of aircraft"
will be considered potentially incompatible with safe operation of an airport.
Developers of waste disposal sites within 10,000 feet of an airport that services turbine
26

powered aircraft are requested to perform surveys to assess the potential bird hazard.
Developers of landfills that are between two and five miles from an airport are
requested to provide the FAA with notification of construction and a copy of landfill
development plans (LaBoeuf, personal communication 1991). According to the
guidelines, the operator of any new or expanded landfill "...within five miles of a
runway end should notify the airport and the appropriate FAA Airports office so as to
provide an opportunity to review and comment on the site..." (Federal Aviation
Administration 1990).
These guidelines have been promulgated to reduce the risk of aircraft accidents due to
bird -plane encounters. Mid -air collisions between birds and turbine -powered aircraft
are considered a significant hazard since large birds or flocks of smaller birds can block
the air intakes of these aircraft, causing the aircraft's engines to fail. This hazard can
exist as far as five miles away along the landing or departure patterns, where aircraft
are flying at low elevations.
On 25 February 1992, contact was made with Mr. Bobby Lee Hancock, Anson County
Airport Manager to determine the amount of jet traffic and bird activity at the Anson
County Airport. According to Mr. Hancock, there are no flocking birds at the airport.
Only two turbine powered aircraft regularly use the airport. To date, there have been
no problems with birds and aircraft (Hancock, personal communication 1992). Also, the
location of the proposed landfill development is not within the landing or departure
pattern of the existing airport; a proposed airport expansion will not change existing
flight paths (Hancock, personal communication 1992). The proposed landfill is "too far
west to be a problem and the proposed expansion will not change the situation"
(Hancock, personal communication 1992).
The proposed development will not increase wetland areas in the vicinity of the airport.
Existing wetland areas do not support large numbers of flocking waterfowl and do not
currently pose a hazard to airport traffic. Development of the proposed landfill will not
increase waterfowl populations in the area. Increased bird activity at the landfill due to
feeding and roosting activities should be kept to a minimum by following standard
landfill operating procedures. Chambers notified the FAA regional office of its plans
and a letter dated June 5, 1992, from Thomas M. Roberts, Project Manager of the Atlanta
Airports District Office concluded that the proposed landfill will "...not be objectionable
to the operation of the Anson County Airport" (Roberts, 1992).
3.7 Relevance of Results to North Carolina Disposal Site Regulations
"Siting and Design Requirements for Disposal Sites" (Title 15A, Subchapter 13B of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, T15A.13B :0501-.0510, Section .0503) stipulates
that a number of environmental concerns be considered in landfill siting and design.
Three of these concerns --protected species, critical habitat for protected species, and
proximity to airports --are addressed by the results of this study and are discussed
below.
27

3.7.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats. Section .0503 (1) (b) (i) and
(ii) stipulate that a disposal site "...shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any
endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife" or "...shall not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat or endangered or threated
species..." As discussed above in Section 3.5 of this report, no rare, threatened, or
endangered species were encountered during this study.
Four plant species --Dissected Toothwort, Heller's Rabbit Tobacco, Piedmont Aster, and
Bog Spicebush--could potentially occur on the study area on wooded bluffs and slopes,
and in ravine heads and seepages. Due to the timing of the survey, none of these
species were located on the study area. None of these species is legally protected on
private lands, but all are considered biologically significant by NCNHP. Current
landfill design plans call for the development of approximately 165 acres in the pine
plantation uplands, with a buffer between the landfill and the bluffs and slopes
(Cekander, personal communication 1992). If these plans are implemented as currently
presented, then no impact to these species, if present, or their habitat, should occur.
While these species are not legally protected, if development plans change a growing
season survey is recommended and the findings of this study be reported as an
addendum to this report.
No rare, threatened, or endangered animal species were observed during the survey,
and none are believed to occur on the study area due to lack of appropriate habitat or to
distance from known populations. The Red -cockaded Woodpecker, listed by NCNHP
and FWS as endangered, is of special interest in Anson County due to the presence of a
colony approximately eight miles north of the study area in the Pee Dee National
Wildlife Refuge. However, the immaturity of pine stands on the study area and its
distance from a known nesting colony strongly support the conclusion that
development of the study area should have no impact on the current status of Red -
cockaded Woodpeckers or their habitat in this area.
The NCNHP lists five communities in Anson County as significant (Appendix 3). Four
of these are present on the study area. None are designated by FWS as "critical habitat"
for any listed plant or animal species. All four communities occur within the delineated
wetlands on the study area. if landfill development plans are implemented as designed
(Cekander, personal communication 1992), then no impact to these communities or
habitats should occur.
3.7.2 Proximity to Airports. Section .0503 (1) (c) of the Siting and Design Requirments
for Disposal Sites forbids the location of wastes within 10,000 feet of an airport used by
turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of an airport runway used by piston -type aircraft.
The proposed landfill site is located approximately 4.2 miles (22,176 feet) from the
nearest airport and the FAA has determined that the proposed landfill will not be
objectionable to the operation of the Anson County Airport.
9.1

4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A jurisdictional wetlands delineation and protected species survey was conducted at
the proposed site of the Anson County landfill. The study area consists of
approximately 1,100 acres of floodplain and highly dissected uplands in the Southern
Piedmont of North Carolina. Uplands have been subjected to severe and ongoing
disturbance during the last century --as cotton plantation, dairy farm, and pine
plantation, and most recently an extensive clear-cut of hardwood slopes. As a result,
natural or relatively undisturbed upland areas are found only on steep bluffs and ravine
slopes.
Wetlands are found in the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek floodplains, and in
drainages and headwaters of intermittent streams. Two small impoundments also form
wetlands. A large impoundment south of the railroad supports an extensive open -
water and scrub -shrub marsh. The wetland communities located in the Brown Creek
floodplain are considered significant by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Development in these areas should be avoided. All wetland impacts must be permitted
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Habitat for four rare or protected plant species is found on the study area in ravine
heads, and on slopes and bluffs directly associated with Brown Creek. It is
recommended that ravines, slopes, and bluffs be protected from development by
incorporation into a system of buffers which surrounds the landfill operations. If these
areas are to be developed, then a growing season (April -June and August -September)
survey for rare plant species is recommended. Current landfill design plans call for
development only in the pine plantation uplands, with a buffer between the landfill and
the bluffs and slopes . If these plans are implemented as currently presented, then no
impact to these species, if present, or their habitat, should occur.
No rare, threatened, or endangered animal species were observed during the survey,
and none are believed to occur on the study area due to lack of appropriate habitat or to
distance from known populations. The Red -cockaded Woodpecker, listed by NCNHP
and FWS as endangered, is of special interest in the Anson County area. However, the
immaturity of pine stands on the study area and their distance from a known nesting
colony strongly support the conclusion that development of the study area should have
no impact on the current status of Red -cockaded Woodpeckers or their habitat in this
area.
The NCNHP lists five communities in Anson County as significant. Four of these are
present on the study area within delineated wetlands. If landfill development plans are
implemented as designed, then no impact to these communities or habitats should
occur.
29

"Siting and Design Requirements for Disposal Sites" (Title 15A, Subchapter 13B of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, T15A.13B .0501-.0510, Section .0503) stipulates
that a disposal site "...shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or
threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife" or "...shall not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of the critical habitat or endangered or threated species..." No
rare, threatened, or endangered species were encountered during this study. No
federally designated critical habitat is found on site; biologically significant habitat --
slopes, bluffs, ravines --is limited to areas which are not slated for development.
Current bird populations in the area of the proposed landfill do not present a hazard to
aircraft. According to Mr. Bobby Lee Hancock, Anson County Airport Manager, the
proposed landfill site is not located in the path of landing or departing aircraft
(Hancock, personal communication 1992); increased bird populations in that area would
not pose a significant hazard to aircraft. Flocking birds could be attracted to the landfill
if additional wetlands or roosting or foraging areas were created by development of the
landfill. However, the proposed development will not increase wetland areas in the
vicinity of the airport, nor will it increase waterfowl populations in the area. Increased
bird activity at the landfill due to feeding and roosting activities should be kept to a
minimum by following standard landfill operating procedures. Chambers has notified
the FAA regional office of its plans and a response has concluded that the proposed
landfill "...would not be objectionable to the operation of the Anson County Airport"
(Roberts 1992).
30

5.0 REFERENCES
Anson County Tax Assessor's Office. 1984. Aerial tax maps #6445, 6446, 6455, 6456. 1"
400'. Anson County Tax Assessor's Office, Wadesboro.
Burt, W.H. 1976. A field guide to the mammals of North America north of Mexico.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Drury, W.H. 1980. Rare species of plants. Rhodora 82:3-48.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Aviation Administration. 1990. Waste disposal sites on or near airports, Order
5200.5A. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C.
Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the Southeast.
Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979, 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of the
southeastern United States. Vol. 1, Monocotyledons; vol. 2, Dicotyledons. The
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1990. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, MacBeth
Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, Baltimore.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1991. Element list for Anson County.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
Preston, R.J., Jr. and V.G. Wright. 1985. Identification of southeastern trees in winter.
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, State University Station, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Roberts, Thomas M. 1992. Letter from the Project Manager, Atlanta Airports District
Office, Federal Aviation Administration. Atlanta, Georgia.
31

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Scott, Shirley L., ed. 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991a. Soil identification legend with correlation
notes, revised August 1991. Soil Conservation Service, Wadesboro.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991b. Soil survey field sheet, Anson County, North
Carolina, C-4,1" = 2000'. Soil Conservation Service, Wadesboro.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and
threatened species of the southeastern United States. Notebook and update to Region 4.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. 50 CFR Part 17:
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. 50 CFR Part 17:
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as
endangered or threatened species; notice of review. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. 50 CFR Part 17.11
and 17.12: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.. 1985. Red -cockaded Woodpecker recovery plan.. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Survey requirements for Red -cockaded
Woodpecker consultations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1970. Polkton Quadrangle, North Carolina, 7.5 minute series.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1971. Russellville Quadrangle, North Carolina, 7.5 minute
series. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
32

6.0 PERSONAL CONTACTS
Greg C. Cekander. 1992. Senior Regional Engineer, Chambers Development Company,
Inc. 3200 Highlands Parkway, Suite 400, Smyrna, Georgia 30082. 404-438-7770.
Bobby Lee Hancock. 1991. Airport Manager, Anson County Airport. 704-694-2516
Gene LaBoeuf. 1991. Federal Aviation Administration. 202-267-8792.
Steve Mims. 1991. Forester, Bowater, Inc. 919-895-4054.
Michael Schafale. 1992. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 919-733-7795.
33

APPENDIX 1. SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANT SPECIES USED IN THE TEXT
Alder
Alnus serrulata
American Elm
Ulmus americana
American Holly
Ilex opaca
Beech
Fagus grandi folia
Blackberry
Rubus argutus
Black Willow
Salix nigra
Box EIder
Acer negundo
Bulrush
Scirpus cyperinus
Bur -Reed
Sparganium americanum
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Cattail
Typha latifolia
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus falcata
Chestnut Oak
Quercus miontana
Christmas Fern
Polystichum acrostichoides
Cinnamon Fern
Osmunda cinnamomea
Crane Fly Orchid
Tipularia discolor
Cross Vine
Bignonia capreolata
Deciduous Holly
Ilex decidua
Duckweed
Lemna spp.
Florida Maple
Acer barbatum
Fringed Sedge
Carex crinita
Giant Cane
Arundinaria gigantea
Goldenrod
Solidago spp.
Grape Vine
Vitis rotundifolia
Green Ash
F'raxinus pennsylvanica
Greenbrier
Smilax spp.
Groundsel Tree
Baccharis hamilifolia
Honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Lady's Thumb
Polygonum spp.
Lizard's Tail
Saururus cernuus
Loblolly Pine
Pinus taeda
Marsh -Fleabane
Pluchea cam phorata
Overcup Oak
Quercueslyrata
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
Pipsissewa
Chimaphila maculata
Poison Ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
34

Privet
Rattlesnake Plantain
Red Maple
River Birch
River Oats
Royal Fern
Seedbox
Shagbark Hickory
Slender Spikegrass
Soft Rush
Southern Red Oak
Sphagnum Moss
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Sweet Gum
Sycamore
Tearthumb
White Oak
Wild Ginger
Willow Oak
Ligustrum sinense
Goodyera repens
Acer rubrum
Betula nigra
Chasmanthium latifolium
Osmunda regalis
Ludwigia spp.
Carya ovata
Chasmanthium Iaxum
juncus effusus
Quercus falcata
Sphagnum sp.
Quercus michauxii
Liquidambar styracifIua
Platanus occidentalis
PoIygonum sagittatum
Quercus alba
Hexastylis arifolia
Quercus phellos
35

APPENDIX 2. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES OF ANSON COUNTY
COMMON NAME
LEGAL
HABITAT SPECIES
AND
Scientific name
STATUS*
REQUIREMENTS HABITAT STATUS**
PLANTS
Bog Spicebush
E, FC
Bogs, bayheads, seepages
HP, NO
Lindera subcoriacea
Dissected Toothwort
SR
Rich woods over basic
HP, NO
Cardamine dissecta
soils
(C. angustata var. multifida)
Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
SR
Mixed deciduous woods
HP, NO
GnaphaIium helleri var. helleri
Piedmont Aster
C
Wooded slopes, alluvial woods
HP, NO
Aster mirabilis
Single -Flowered Sandwort
E, FC
Granite outcrops
NP
Minuartia uniflora
Southern Thimbleweed
C
Granite outcrops
NP
Anemone berlandieri
Stonecrop
E, FC
Granite outcrops
NP
Sedum pusillum
ANIMALS
Carolina Darter
PSC
Unpolluted Piedmont streams
HP, NO
Etheostoma collis
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
E, FE
Mature pine forests
NP
Picoides borealis
Shortnose Sturgeon
E, FE
Pee Dee River
NP
Acipenser brevirostrum
Short -winged Mold Beetle
SR
Sandy soils
HP, NO
Mayetia sp.
M

*LEGAL STATUS:
FT = Listed as Threatened, FWS.
FE = Listed as Endangered, FWS.
FC = Candidate for listing by FWS.
T = Listed as Threatened, NCNHP.
E = Listed as Endangered, NCNHP.
SR = Significantly Rare.
C = Candidate for listing, NCN-HP.
PSC = Proposed Special Concern, NCNHP.
**SPECIES AND HABITAT STATUS:
HP = Habitat present
SP = Species present in the study area
NO = Species not observed in the study area
MP = Marginal habitat present
NP = Habitat not present
37

APPENDIX 3. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REPLY FORM

United Mates Department of the Interior
r .. c•: 8 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field OMce
Post C[t'ice Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636--3726
TO: Y� - L..LJN.46.1 ci t
�- A JAB'
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply as
formal better. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
raco=endationa pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U-S.c. 1531-1543).
%
Based on our records, there are no Federally- Iisted endangered orb
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area
The attached page(*) list(s) the Federally -listed species which z
fray occur within the project impact area. 6
4..I f tho proposed project will be removing pines greater than or n
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys oho
be conducted for active red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundari
If red -cockaded woodpecker$ are observed within the project area
fictive cavity trees found, the project has the potential to advar
affect the red -cockaded woodpecker, and you ahould contact this
office for further information.
concur - Is not, likely to adversely affect Federally -listed
endangered or threatedsad species.
T Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting ,a field inspect
Of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site specific recommendations at thin time.
Questions regarding this form letter may
handling this project.
CONCUR
al
d
M

RvvISFD iANuARY 1, 1992
Anson County
Shcrtnose sturgeon (Acioenser brevirostrum) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus) - E
Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) -
The shortnose sturgeon is under the jurisdiction of the National Marine
Fisheries Service: and should be contacted concerning your agency's
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species Act. Their
address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
,Act, and are not subject to any of its previsions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Puck's orpine (Sedum 2usillum) - C2
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2

APPENDIX 4. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF ANSON COUNTY
COMMON LEGAL STATE GLOBAL HABITAT STATUS
NAME STATUS# RANK* RANK** ON STUDY AREA
Granitic Flatrock None S2 G3 Not Present
Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest None S4 G5 Present
Piedmont/Mountain
Levee Forest None S4 G5 Present
Piedmont/Mountain
Semipermanent
Impoundment None S4? G5 Present
Piedmont/Mountain
Swamp Forest None SI G2G3 Present
#LEGAL STATUS: Natural communities have no le al protection in North Carolina.
State and global rankings have no legal force, but are based on a system developed for
national use by The Nature Conservancy, and adopted by most state Heritage
Programs.
*STATE DANK:
SI = Critically imperiled throughout the state because of extreme rarity or otherwise
very vulnerable to extinction throughout the state.
S2 = Imperiled throughout the state because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to
extinction throughout the state.
S4 = Apparently secure throughout the state, though it may be quite rare in parts of the
state.
S4? = Insufficient information, although probably fits the definition of S4.
** GLOBAL RANK:
G2G3 = Intermediate between: Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise
vulnerable to extinction throughout its range AND very rare and local throughout its
range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G3 = Very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G5 = Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range,
especially at the periphery.
M

APPENDIX 5. CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DATA FORMS
41

North U._ -Feet 2(OEIQ 4
0
0 Kilometer .5� 16.
21) 10-1119
3
21 2
�- . 23-B
-A 7 NJ {
CD 5 Q 7 Q,
L
�� 3 3 rl 4 9
0
3- -B ti! 18
o
2-A
j,ur v t
0 t � 16
5-A'o� 7 �—.. 1U 11��rr 8 3 J f
10 1 i
' 6
�It 1 p 35� 6 o
,rr �iCnoN L 300
� !r
Figure 15. Data point location map for use with Corps of Engineers Wetland Data. Forms

X
.ti
DATA FCRM
ROUTINE CNSiTE CETEFMINAT1CN METHOD'
Field lnvestigator(s): L [ Iv DA Gr• C HA 1=1 rJ Date: N O V � � 2-? 1 9f
Praject/Srte: A hi SO t.'N T Sate: L C.
, county: AN SON CZ,
Alp:icant'Cwner: C3 � Srow. Gee10E ancmmuny�;ae
Nate: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the dark of data form or a field notebook.
— _ _ ^ _ _ ~
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant ccrnmunity? _ �
Yes _,,,�,,,v_, No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrefcgy been significantly disturbed?
Yes No -,X of yes, explain on back}
YFGETA T I0N
lndicatcr Indicator
Dominant Plant Scecies Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Qvef-cus FNcW T
2. ue rc� s S 1 � r a'rc 0 (ts LA . _ Z_
3. it i c�4 • l,a� S foci[u4
4, [ty 5 C,sti.ercane` FAC
f:AG 7
o. 4e>c �1ectucx_ F �Cu! S
7. Care c 56?.
8.
9.
Percent of dominant species that are C-BL, FAUN, and/or FAC
Is the hydroGhytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ^X No
SCILS
Sarieschase:-�`� Subgrcup:2
fs the soil cn the hydric sails list? Y,3s No Undetermined
Is the soil a Kstcsci? Yes No His,ic ePioadcn present? Yes No
Is the scil: Mc<<led? Yes No `C Geyed? Yes No jc
Matrix Color: 2� "�- Mottle Colors:
Cther hydr°c soil incicstcrs: S a�4 Sot r�;c. octo
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale- Ls 1 rc Io;l i.t - -t �� inc�icct�ar�
/\ sow,e c.re s HYDRCLOGY
Is the 5-ct:nd surfacs inundated? Yes >( No Surfacs water depth:
.s 'he soil saturated? Yes Y No
Cretth tc free-standing water rn piLscil prole hale:
List other field evidence of surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
5wo[Ier, t It-rce -frank a C,ctve/\+ h,(Jos roots
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes C No
Rationale: r= eld 4 ct C k-nr
JURISCIC 71ONAL DETERMINATION ANO RATIONALE
Is the Plant c..mmunity a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 3 + 4rye
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Olassd cation according to "Soil Taxonomy."
f

DATA FORM
ROUT'I IE CNSITE CET1 R1.11NATION METHODI
F>aid Investicatcr(s): L- I ^10A Cr. C-IHA r 1 N Gate: _ 11-- 2-0 -- q t
ProjectJ5ite: _ A n$w• GO . '2- State: f%4 C—� County: AN SO r t _
A.cplicant/Cwner: C HAK5 E-2 S Plant Community :/Name: 23
Fore: if a more detailed site des&-ipticn is necessary, Lisa the back of data farm or afield notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No _ (If no, explain C I CArzc,fi -{o 5�*rC r-. �,G•, s�'req
Has the vegetation, scils, and/or hydrolcgy been significant'y disturbed?
Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) sec, c} Idd u-'-
VEGETATION
Indicator Ab,k� 6.117 Indicator
Ccminant Plant Sceees Status Stratum J0=800kP'ant Species Status Stratum
2 V-ArC 12.
4d Ie13
re%, ,irI lA1-'Ct-
A., fW
.'^.,.
o. S Rio
FAG IA
16.
�CGCCx
7s u S
IWW 6
17.
8.
18.
a_ u.buzam Rrc u tU5
S
;9.
•0
4 bd
20.
Percent of dominant spec;es that are CEL, FAUN, and/or rA,C _ ^S
is the hycrccny c vegetation c:rtericn
^^et? Yes
Na
Series/chase: C
crIi c �
S��� Su roL=2
Is the sell on the hvcric soils list? Yas No X Undetermined
Is the soil a istcso ? Yes Nc Histic aptedon present? Yes No X
Is "he sail: Mct'led? yes No _ G+eyed? Yes No
Matrix Ccicr: Mcnla Colors:
Cther hydr;c soil sn=atcrs:
Is the hyd6c soil criterion meet? Yes No
Rationale: t1\0 LCL1QS±3=z 1\�
4- CJ
HYDROLOGY r
is the ^y:cur,d surface inundated? Yes �_ Na Surfaca water cecth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes _2�__.,.. No
t^.a_t}! to free-standing water in pit/scii probe hole:
List other field eviderca of surface inundation or scii saturation.
Is the wetiand hydrology criterion met? Yes >C No
Rationaie: GLNc --% C nL.��� f'_. 't �4Vi V')�f
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
�
Is the slant t.:mmunity a wetland? Yes is No f �-?�`� Un§ 4
Rationale fcr iuriscic',ianal ca&slcn:
G c,i
t This data farms can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classdi cation according to 'Sail Taxonomy.'
8-2

4wC11-
DATA FCRM
ROUTINE CNSITE DETEM, lHATICPf METHOD'
Ferd Invest igator(s): L- f Ai DA Cr. CHA F 11,1 Gate: N O V ! 9 - 2-2 j cf l
ProjecVSs e: SD lW - � 1 State: Cif Counry:. ANSON C�f�,
Al piicanL'Cwner: C i�A'i 1�4�t` S `v P?ant Community :VlNarne: S3 d1,..n,n t?ree�J�QrS�
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field nctebook. (]r1AP0urarAP4)
-
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? COAS-Wl-•cti-Cl ul �� �'� �aSt Cerz}�-k{�
Yes No- (If no, explain a=i1;;W* j�Cvr,6E4 roz,r-. C etc , atso,
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrolccy ween significantly disturbed? t�ec�ut-V-
Yas �^ No (If yes, explain e,, -�;rp --- 0.bSPr\t-
Indicator
Dcrninant
Plant Scacies Status
1 .
-7L3,� to c.. i ci t-t
Lo i t -n- O t3 �,
2.
SC rpvS rU Oern0s
0 is,L-�,
3.
S r
4 r,"CC,,AVM Oaia
4.
v�4 EGn%t V$ t CIC{PM1
e K clec �' �C.
_ "FAO LAJ
7.
TLA,-r-U-t-
U5v S r-11KtU
8.
'QI v.C"z,- Cct
tr.LFKT,C�i. PCt�
9.
10.
VEGETATION
Stratum
Dominant Plant Scec:es
11,
12.
13.
14.
15,
16.
17,
is,
19.
20.
Indicator
Status Stratum
Percent of dominant scec',es that are CEL, FACW. andlor PAC 00
Is the hydropnytic vegetation criterion met?
� Yes Y No
/
.:.+=firn^_�c• eiQ [1 Cam,. e -e— W - ...___ ...
SCILS
Saries'chase: w e 0.a C E. •e-^ SuLgrcup:2
is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yas No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No � � Histic apipedon present? Yes No �_
Is the scO: Mcnlec? Yes No Gieyed? Yes No
Matrix C,�icr: 3 2,5 V fo /Z- kicttle Colors:
Other hydr:c soil ircicatcrs: 5"-°
Is the hydric soil crrtericrn met? Yes _ No
Rationale: r t c 50 1 s L-. t Z t d } a
HYCRCLCGY
Is the grc::nc surfacs inundated? Yes )k, No
Is 'ha scfl saturated? Yes X No
Cepth to free-standing water in pi /scil probe hc* _
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation,
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: j_ 54 ur c. I ion
Sur'ace water depth:
JURISCICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant =mmunity a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: i hCcc C , �t-��' c(re-
t This data form can ue used for She Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Ccmmun.hv
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Sail Taxonomy.'

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHCD1
Field invesGgator(s): t- f Aj OA G• CE'A F)>J pate: N O V 19 - 2 -2 Jr( j
ProjeCJSite: C f-�A"�1 43F-�2 5 �<\/___ f State: �G Counry: �� �O c�0.
Arplicant/Cwner: 5O N Plant Community -.;Name: Ourt � at 60�M a 'ravine.
Note: K a more detailed site description is necsssary, use the basic of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? C-L eC, r C cn�
Yes No X (€f no, explain esr)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/cr hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes _X No (If yes, explain em.i+.�j
lndicator
Ccminant Plant Scecies Status
1. Yu, hj are a. i oKtea, Ac
2. L
e rc t.,o s p,
5.
6.
7.
6.
1 Q.
VEe-=A s loge
Stratum
H_
T
T
T
Dominant Plant Soec:es
11,
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
is.
19.
20.
Pe(cert of dominant scecies that are CEL, FACW, and/or FAC
Is the hydrephytic vegetation criterion met? Yes K_ No
Indicator
Status Stratum
ye r— Y"\ oi,Pex—A ate SCILS S[a S ir, n rV i nfl✓j of re— t
Saries/chase: L� o L G S"t3�-• ��a V•i eL.��sg� cuLrc� D:2 ,'1 cat Ci r T t' r� r,'`i �'�' �-+
Is tha soi! on the hyd6c scils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsct? Yes No -. ( Histic acioedon Yresant? Yes No yC
Is the soil: Mottles? Yes No Glevedl' Yes No
Matrix C,�Ior:
Clt)er hydr9c soil incicstors: ^
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes �_ No
Rationale: ic9-c Gl/.r "; ©I+(
HYDROLOGY
Is the ;round surfacs inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
€s ,he soil saturated? Yes K No
Depth !c free-standing water in pit,'scil prole hale:
Last other field evfdence of surface inundation or sci! saturation.
r� (-G 5 o- Lz-, e t -) C -1-e� — S L'- - -T . U44
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No
Rationale: --_ _ S Cr-- -V-1 r-,-\ , ' c.t
JURISOICTICNAL DETERMINATION AND RATiCNALE
Is the pfant community a wetland? Yes _/\- No
Raticnafe forjurisciCionai decision: CA It 3 Grp ± f,-) A
t This data form can b-e used for the Hydric Scil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
r%
B-2
-- F t C 0
F. 7�A S — F a # I--

CA T A FORM
ROU71NE ONSITE CET? PMiNATJCN METHOD'
Pied Investscator(s). L- f - DA Cz-- CNA F-I N [)ate: N o V f $ - 2-2-i Nf
Project/Srte: N SO i'N TLl State: /SIC. County: _ AN SO CD.
C Acclican4.'Gwnerf {,'�' 1 t3 ��� /- Pant Community l,Name: v"
: Vic^
Nate: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? G ec,-rC�,-T r S I
Yes No �_ (#f no, expiain r?
Has the vegetaticn, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturb-9d? i- ���
Yes -,K No (1f yes, explain
VFGETAT ON
Indicator
Indicator
Dominant Plant Scecies
Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species
Status Stratum
1. S i hs
Q�L 7-
2. -V ru.�ru..
�1�� Jt 12.
3.
:l
d F, c3 �r
_s ACuf 5 14,
Jr u �W i L Ct,r 0,
012, L 15.
SGarQ C
O 6L3 H 16.
7, �'tw v�Guo e v s u is
- P�CW �- �l _ .17.
10.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are
CEL, FAC`*V, and/or FAC 1 U Cow
Is the hydrechy*,fc vegetation crrteri
n met? Yes �C _ No
Serieslchase:
1s the soil on the hydric soils list?
Yes No undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes
No �C Histic zpipezcn present? Yes
Na
Is the scii: Mottled? Yes
No � Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Calcr: 10 �R- "Z- .
Monde C.alors:
Other nydr:c soil incicatcrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Paticnafe3: 50 i a,
-k-
Io-t,j CL^
n c�.�Nye ( HYCRCLOGY
Is the yrcYnd surfacs inundated? Yes _)<- No Surface water depth. -
is the soil saturated? Yes _)<' 115"`--'30.n-�tciis
�,ecth to free-standing water in pitVscif probe hole:
List of e f' evide ,cs of surface inundation or soil saturation. -SCG Lv i
W C, +-V" ` S
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No
Rationaie:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATICN AND RATIONALE
Is the plant =rrmuni,y a wetland? Yes iC No rlLAja` -C !
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:' _ 1 n err 1, t'en`3-" 's t" 1^c+ V+;^
f n< Swa G1 +�lracP,
+ LJ Str"ie-0 "
W i
s
t This data form can be used fcr the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Ciassdiraticn according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
8-2

CATA FORM
RCUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATION METRIC[]'
IAJDA �• CHAI= INOV IR - 2-2- 1� 1
Fiekj Investigator(s): I:Jats: N
Frcject/Srte: S© i-�N Slats: _ !� G County: AN SOCo•
Appkant,'Cwner: G f-1A"-1 C3LEI S "'V F!ant Community ;1�ys
/Name:gne WI '^^tear,
Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental cord'€tions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain an hack)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturtxed.
Yes Na (If yes, explain on back) �e�``" -e_,
---------------------------------------------------
Cominant Plant Scecies
1. ptce: —
2. I r rarer
3, _ e +.Is Iaev%s �
4. =ICX- c!eci d�c
0, SC i f C e r.i ttih
7.
a
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Status Stratum Dominant Flant Scec:es Status Stratum
.FA�r-_ -7_ 1 t .
A C- �_ 12.
'FArC.W T - 13.
FACVJ - 5 14.
'rACW J±— t5.
09t4 H _ 16.
17.
is.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are CBI_, FAC`rv, anc/ar i=AC _CJ___60
Is :he hydrepnyt:c veq tation -i•teri n mpt? Yes _x__-- No
Sarias'chasa: "_O (a CIL�S iciV
s+r� — SCJt�tirrS}-t v-cs fi
Su;.*grouo:2
Is ilia soil on the hyd6c soils list? Yes No fie_ Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No 4-1 Hist c epipedcn present? Yes No
S
Is the soil.- Monlec? Yes No G1eyed? Yes No
Matrix C,�lcr: L -� r' �~ Mcltle Colors:
Other hydro soil incicatars:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes �_ No
Rationale: t-,�-i �t1
ivt ct-.enrol HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes^ No Surface water depth:
Is 'ha soil saturated? Yes 0 7a n Igfis
Depth tc free-standing water in pi/scil probe hole:
Lrst other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. _�i
t , \ n 4 r - -- C e �_s rLc'S t` via." 'G % nN"' . 6.f � ^ZA-A 0 � a �t •<
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _,X_ No
Rationale: SC�4w- a 1-. -4- '" c..
JURISC3IC71CNAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE_
Is the plant community a wetland? Yea X No Lj
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: [n-�r-,I C r-- Ci
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment P-ccedurs and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'

DATA FORM
RCUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHODI
Reid Investigatcr(s): L-- f AJ ©A G,-. r-HA F-I Q Date: N 0 V �$ - 2- 2-
ProjeC/Siie:AN � u`r`f State: N G County AN
AzolicanU'Cwner. C HA'-4 l3 c— . ant Community 4/Name:
Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the hack of data form or a field notebook.
_ _ _
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain =r
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydreiccy been significantly disturbed? .�-
Yas No {if yes, explain
Dominant P!ani Species
1,
2.
3.
4.
. t"
7.
3.
9.
10.
VEGETATICN
Indicator
Status Stratum
Sw +
oraL' -7
�s cam- -7
fA T i:! Ac w f_
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
PQrcent of dominant seec,es that are CEL. FACVi, ardor r=AC Is the hydrephyt:c vegetation criterion met? Yes No
f f
S0"\5 rn C6CGZfy SC[Lw SDiE�5 t i �t3 �!in C'cr t
Sariesichase: �rO1�cM td,� S�L5:Q ---Subgroup :2 c_ i - ere-r,�},0-C6
Is the soli on :he hydric sons list? Yas No Undetermined
Is the scif a His:cscE? Yes No Hlstic acipedon present? Yes No _
Is the scif: Motiled? Yes No jff Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: Pd Mottle Colors:
Ciher hydr'c scif indicators:
Is the hydro soil criterion met? Yes _�_ No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is 'he graund suriacs inundated? Yes _)<,— NO
Is tha scif saturated? Yes ><'_ No
Depth to free-standing water in pit'scil probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surfacs inunc`aticn or soil szIpati
Is the wetland hydrolcgy criterion rHet? Yes _ No
>Rationaia: -- ---F IOwlr_ _-L'Aj-1 --_u^- 5ty-eChsti
Surface water depth
r � � to
.S r cn a r- i
JURISDIC71ONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE , rl
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdic:icnal decision:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Prccedure and the Plant Ccrnrnuni y
Assessment Procedure.
2 Ciass6c3ticn according to "Sail Taxonomy."
'ACT - F 3Z- F39 P

(83
C.,'.TFORM
ROUTINE CNSITE CETERMINATiCN METHC01
Field Investigator(s): L f N DA C; . C HA r! PJ Date: N() V 19 - 2_Z 19 11
PrcjecVSite: S0 N ON - State:_ C- County: ANSON GU.
Applicant'Cwner: C I� 4}��� S �� V Runt Community »/Name; qv n�� +^��n�,..
Note: fi a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
_ --
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the �plant community? C (ram rc U-t
Yes No � (if no, explain a+ 0kWJAv Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? } �'
Yes No (If yes, explain ee�.irrd�
Indicator
Cc F!ant Scec;es
Status
c4c
t L
�2.
,.C�
';:Acw
E� Tan hye i a'f i - L i`
0-S U
7.
8.
0
10.
VEGETATION
indicator
Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
Psrcent of dominant scec'.es that are CEL, FAUN, and/or FAC _ 1 On
Is the hycrcchyt:c vegetation c:rtericn met? Yes __ No
P t i n : ,a • 1 0 0 ! /60 n-t` 60c� -•c, rat s a r-, F^C - cr--
SCfLs Sc�r�S f Y2z,Vi
Seriesichase: -t��-. S Cub-
grcup:2 Ltt "r'C' a. Is tha soii on ;he hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Hlstcsci? Yes No ;C Histic ecipedon present? Yes No C
Is the scil: Mottled? Yes No Gleved? Yes No
Matrix Ccicr: - t� ?- Mct;Ee Colors: Z
Cther ';ydric soil incicators:
Is the hydric soil ��rion ^et? Yes �_ No
Rationale:
to C I HYERCLCGY
Is the 7rcund surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth:
Is 1.�a soil saturated? Yes X--ff 4l�,�S
Depth to free-standing water in pitrscil probe hole:
Last other field evidence of suriace inundation or soil saturation,
Is the wetland hydrology criterion et? Yes No
Rationaie: in�,e-s�i�1ctY
JURISDICTIONAL CETERMINATICN AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
{rationale forjurisdictionaf decision; _ 11`�Ct ��' f-t•P��c Ski=G�^" G�+G���'� tJ i �
3MWC q i cam.
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Ciassrfication according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'

Indicator
Dominant Pant Scecies
Status
Stratum
1. S c; f a_uz
_
H-
2. CaDeX.U1E?r,-
-;-c).S
3.
8.
9.
DATA FORM
ROU71NE ONSITE DETERMINATiC ri METHOD'
L f n1 © A 6. C. L- A FF f� N O V I E- 2-2-
Project/Site:
Field !ousel' ator s : Date:
(� S0H A C ! 2 5 V State: County: AN ApplicanUCwner: t'N
F,ant Community #/Name: o-P rgyi'e. ---
Note: 9 a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? "Dr� ko,,4 6ec�,
Yes No X (If no, explain MWNW* -#-
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? C{�' rO�'�`
Yes y No (If yes, explain
VEGF-TA71CN
Indicator
Dominant Plant Scecies Status Straturn,
11.
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
1T
18.
19,.
20.
Fsrcent of dominant scecjes that are CEL. FAC`./, and/or FAG
Is.ihe hydrephytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No T
a�nn _gin•
arise base:
is the soil on the hyd6c soils !ist? Yas No _� Undetermined
Is the soil a Hisicscl? Yes No _ _ Histic-o;pedcn presant? Yes No i[
Is the soil: mcnied? YeNo G:eyed? Yes No
Matrix Caier: t� 6 'Z Mottle Colors: i
Gther hydr c soil incicatcrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: w C G. }y i
HYCROLOGY
Is the grc::nd surface inundated? Yes No X_ Surface water depth:
Is t!�a soil saturated? Yes _ No 3E F 5 ate_ Cyr �.CL/1�
Depth is free-standing water in piUscii probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface jnundajien or scjl saturation.
Is the wetland �ydrojcgy criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: .5. _.�. fi.e.�, 41D 5.;.. r c.tL ,
JURiSCIC77ONAL DETERMINAT'iON AND RATICNALE
Is the clant ccrnmunity a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdic:icnai decision; TS 7T'
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2Class6cation according to "Soil Taxonomy."
3-2

CATA FCPM
RCUT7NE CNSITE CST ERMINATICN METHOD1
Field Investigator(s): U f I`1 DA Cam. CHA F I tJ Date: N 6 V I E— 2-2- L_ Hi i
Project/Site: N SO N C OLL' State: _ !,V G County: AN 5 O.L. C.-C),
Azolicanvowner: C H A' ! �F 2 Plant Community »/Name: t1
Note: d a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Mom-•
.... -- -_-^-^-----------._.. - - ---- - ----- ------- r..----- re`
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes �X No (It no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No ,X (ff yes, explain on back) (v.C7} �y)
YEGETA71CN
Inc�icatcr indicator
Dominant Plant Scecies Status Stratum Dominant Ptan:t Species Status Stratum
1.
A �= AC. T
1 1 .
2.
C_, `1t1 r.-.�-- kt C- T
12,
3.
5 r C� G C Iti ± t±4 I ' _�
13.
4.
F61GW'
14.
s.
is.
7.
17.
8,
18.
a
19.
20.
Percent of dominant scecies that are CEL. FAUN, and/or FAC 1r©Oc'�o
Is the hycrophyt:c vegetation criterion met? Yes No
SlUz f GV _Ci
Saries/chase: (art cZ -Lbgrcu10.
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsct? Yes fie X_ Histic apipedon present? Ye!
Is the scii: Mottled? Yes No Clayed? Yes No _
Matrix C,�Icr: Mottle Colas:
Cther hydric soil indicators. -
Is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
.5 tope., no`i d -k--frr
ere .. �C e
N c ?C'
HYDRCLCGY
Is the ;round surfacs inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
is tha soil sates atad? Yes —X'— No
C-epth !c free-standing water in pit,'scii crcee hole:
List other field evidence of Surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criter' n met? Yes iC No
Rationale:
JURISCICT10NAL DETERMINATION AND PA71CNA LE
Is the plant community a wetland?
Rationafe for jurisdictional decision:
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Z Classification according to "Sail Taxonomy.'
B-2 ! 1-k8 — �s3 7�-I--
C ��

DATA FORM
SCUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATIGN METHOD'
Fiend Invest'sgator(s): LI N DA Gt-;,4Ft �J I t-+VcrN 7>0W2L-L pate: 11- tom- So N L (cc(2
ProjeCJSite: A Sa N C..p , LA' State: N C' County: Pc N .Sc
Applicant'Owner: '>er`J' Plant Community 9Marne:
Note: H a more -,+ ailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebcok.
---------------------------------------------------
Co normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
indicator indicator
Dominant Plant Srecies Status Stratum Dominant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
1,&ts IV A AT - 11.45�"IIC4 Law" W_ k4—
2. Ae-ar
3.rAc T
SAC
5. �t SA
C_
� 7. L �� J �
8. V-
o.TIM
_►ti1--
12.
13.
14,
15.
16,
17.
19..
20.
Psrcent of dominant species that are OEL. FAUN, and/or FAG !�
Is the hydrophytiz ve etaup criterion met? Y s No
1t, -} _ 'S� is o ►zc
SCIL
Series/chase: G4?.0 Dfy�&K ENE S 1-492/ r✓ CAMubgroup:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils Jist? Yes No 4 --- Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsol? Yes No >_ Histic apipedon present? Yes
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes rC No Cleyed? Yes No f&
Matrix CJior: Morie Crs: �r-_nmV -6
Other hydric indicators:
soil Dx (p to .zr1 S
..., — e
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No
Rationale:
No >c
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes . V No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ?_ No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/scif probe hole:
list other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: QAtti. 1.—(4.,r.,bsa _`c_ -)7,��8� t`S
JURISDICTIONAL DIETERMINATiON AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No ,
Rationale for jurisdic:ional ecisicn: C � C Iff
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.,"
to

C- 1L�
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field invest:gator(s): LI �J DA C.OAC-{ �J e-'; V 67lr- BOW EL-t- gate: Il - t �2 tJ fd t=-1932
ProjeCJSite: At`r Sr] N C-0 , L_,J, L.L. State: N C County: A, N S0 1,J
Appiicant)Owner: CA `j?"_`1, Plant Community I/Name:
Nate: ff a morel ailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes _X No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No -4 _ (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Indicator
Indicator
Dominant Plant Srec:es
Status
Stratum Dominant Plant Saec:es Status Stratum
2 �s ado.EAc..
-r 12.
,t
Q, Cam,,_ `S radiCgtgS
FAG
V ta.
5. Slat
+ . (A _ _EA C-
V 15.
6.
t
16.
7,
17,
g.
19.
10.
20.
P9rcent of dominant species that are OBL. FAUN, and/or FAG Ik e
Is :he hydrophytic veget
tion a: erion rnet? Yes No
Series/phase- - CwJ File, ,-- .— yuv�SL bgroup:z
Is the soil on the hydric sails list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Kstcscl? Yes No x _ Histic a ipedon present? Yes No _?
Is the soil. Ma ed? Yes No X Gieyed? Yes No ?
Matrix Cotor: b ����z �� Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: Z
!r
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes HYDROLOGY �_ No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes A No
Depth to free-standing water in pVsoil probe hole:
Last ether field evidence of surface inundation or sail saturation.j
to U 1
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: oc-s-ip A TVi r
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdic:ionaf decision: F Ole_ L D tel,41 7E7gf
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
z Classification according to -Soil Taxonomy.'
CIR

4
110
4 - r-�
CATA FCRM
RCU7N5 CNSITE DE T ERMINA71CN METHCC77
R
Fietd Investigatar(s): L I'y OA Gr- GHA F I rJ Cate: 'TA N `� "' l I ( 2
Froject/Site: aNIQ4 Cou�4T 1 t_.f t4DtrlLL- State: NC_ County: AN-SQ'Ili �
Ar,glicant/Cwner. CRAM 9F-2 5 -7->Eu. InJG plant Community #/Name: $ V-OtO-'(\ C2`�EK 'E--00bPLAI r
rtlata: I€ a more detailed site desc.ripticn is necessary, use the tack of data form or a field notebook. I3oTl-a?-ALA-Nt
------------------------------------------yf��ly'
Cc normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? �p S
Yes �_ No (If no, exclain;;;4
Has the vegetation, soils, andlor hydrelcgy teen significantly distur~,.,ed?
Yes No X_ (it yes, expiain
VEGc iA T7CN
Indicator
Corninant Part Scec:es Status Straturn
w.�rt ub
TT
r.ercc�.� u a7.
4
tr �•
Indicator
Ccminant Part Scecies Status Straturn
FACW
E2. Ccr r.ve Gc.r-ntiw 1rFxC- T
CSd.f.4rn1��
,7
20g.
. .-SRFsresnt ci dominant scec:es that are CEL. FAUN, anc/cr �-A.0 0
Is :he hydre.phyt:c ve etat= criterion met? Yes _�No
Rationale: Q rc. Cr -- -.
4 1 SOILS
StiriBS/;ifa58: U J 2
Is :ha soil on she hydric sails list? Yas iC No Undetermined
Is :he soil a Hlstcsci? Yes No Histic eeicedon cresant? Yes No
Is the soil: Mo-"'Iac? Yes ?G 4No Guyed? Yes No
Matrix C';tCr: !CD ��L_-» -Co1 4 Ariz k Mole Calcrs: _ h S � g
Cthar hydr',c soil incicstors:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: Lij ari c.- 50 E i s 1 S t � a t-11
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground suriacs inundated? Yes X No Surfac8 water CBCth:
Is the scll saturated? Yes X No
Ceoth tc free-standing water in prtlscil Probe hole:
Last other field evidence cf surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
1" crr V2 L 0tL- L'M ILC, bC� 6'j ezj ILEe Yzra7S 5t.r
Is the wetland hydroiog criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: i n U, 4. t-1 rT_ S 4 4..i1 Cr-- , V%A y--y)L' {.o 5' C_-J C LG C -Ota+ ay-n
O 1C r
JURISCIC T 1ONAL CETER,IMINA ON AND RA TICNALE
Is the plant cc mmuniry a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for iurisdic:ional decision: 1 3 CZ -rEr, t AIZSE� f R-LS
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to "Soil Ta.xoncmy."
S-2
Finel ~ F80

�-R
LIATA FORM
RCU—MNE CNSITE CE T ERMINA T IGN MET i0C1
Fief Invest;gator(s): C- ( n1©A Cc- -CE-+A F l r1 Cate:
--TAN rl E i� l ci C) ZZ
Project/S11e: AN SOrZ CC U Wr"t LA"D F I Lt- State: NC' Ccunty+
: ANs0N _
"'-
AnolicanVOwner: Q kAAM 9 LR S `� trJG P!ant Community #Mane: S
o AV N NLP�
Ncre: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the tack of data fcrm or a
field notebook. j3'IZc)WtQ QZ4 +e,c-
_--_-------------------.-__-___---______-___--
T�c.LAlt!
Cc normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes x No (If no, explain
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly cistur^.mod?
Yes No �_ (if yes. explain
VECcET1 A7j CN
indicator
Indicator
CCminant Plant Scec:es Sta%;s Strctum Dcmirant R!arr Scec:es
Status Stratum
1 Quef�vla 4 E6G4 11.
2. �.c�rc.a c�S ��v�l� _ 12.
T __ 12.
5. Le x cie.0 cl, . _ -S 1 c.
�1
�r��w���
�^-�rSr.^-L�
I . U r-. �} S cA A # c,-� �_ 117.
a. 1 a-
c 19.
20
1 U.
Percent of dominant scec:es that are CEL. FACW, and/or FAC °
Is the hydrecrylic vegetation criterion met? Yes _X - _ No
Rationale: d ---
SCILS
Sariasichasa:. Suogroup:z
is the soil on !tie hycric soils list? Yes ]C No Undeterminec
is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No _�_ His::c aciceden present? Yes No 'Ne_
Is the scii: Motife-c? Yes _X, No Gleyec? as No 8
Matrix C.�icr: int--�r Mote Colors: �. 5-
SY Cther hydric soil incicZtcrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _,Y,_ No
Rationale:"u "-
NYCROLCGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes _X No ,f
Ceoth to free-standing water in pVscil prcce hole:
Last other field evicencs of surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
—CA
Is the wetiand hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No
Rationaie: t,,
JURISOIC7CNAL C)ETERMiNATION AND RAA1ICNALS
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes_ No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: CT G L-'�A Pr
t Tnis data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Prccsdure and the Pant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Classrficaticn according to "Soil Taxonomy."
B-2 (�L - f --',) F �o - r7
- .— f_- I ,I
?• -2- - F 9 #-'-'.

2f� -
CA7A FOF.M
RCUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION ME7HOCt
Raid Invest;gator(s): lyDA Gr. CL-4AFItJ Eats: .?AN i1 l9GZ
Projec-JSite: 1�4 Sa ^t Co u 2-4 T7 L.hN D 5 1 L L. State: N County: Al S O N _
A.cclicarUCwner CNAM 3E-R S 'DEQ- L1JC- plant Community 'U PP t4e 'R.Ay I N C--= — I NTER`
Ncta: I a more detailed site description is necsssary, use the back of data form or afield notebook. rA t T s tr NT'
_......_-------------_..._------....--..__.......___--...____.,.__---3--Fr,�-�A.M
Dc ,^canal environmental ccnditicns exist at the plant ccrnmunity? C{-}.A 4 C L
Yes 4— Na (If no, ex ;lain
Has the vegetaticn, sails, ane'Jcr hydrology been signific—antly disturded?
Yes No -,— (If yes, explain
VE13E 1 AT ION
lndicwtcr Indicator
Dominant Plant Scec;es St at s Stratum Dcm;nant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
2. 12.
3. t 3.
o. 16.
7. 7.
10, 20.
Psresnt of dominant scec;es that are .CEL. FACW, an&or FAC
Is ,he hydrepi"yt:c vegetaticn criterion net? Yes No
Raticnaie: —.-. -.
Saries/chase,
Is :he sail Cn :he hydric soils iist?
Is the soil a-istcsc€? Yes
Is the soil: Monlec? Yes
Matrix Cotcr:
Cther hydric soil indlcztcrs:
Is the hyd6c soil c. terion met?
Rationale:
Yas
No
No
SC€LS
Su--.group:2
No Undaterminec
His::c acicecon wresant? Yes No
Glavec? Yes No
— Mama Cv^lcrs:
Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground sumacs inundated? Yes �_ No Surfacs water depth:
Is the scit saturated? Yes No
Depth tc free-standing water in pitisci€ probe hole:
List other field evidencs of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _�C_ Na
Rationale: tlo L,J -. 0—
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMWATICN AND RA TICNALE
Is the plant rcmmunity a wetland? Yes No
Ration le for jurisdictional decision.
e�- ���,J� Ct� ,(-t Ct�G 1�.�� -2t
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Ciassificaricn aczording to 'Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSME DETERMINATICN ME T FiOD1
Pied Invest Catcr(sy: L' l A.t CA Cam. CE4A F� I ,Q Date: �A i g 2—
Al 50,.1 Ccau tJT�t L.hNUFt L L. StGte: N County: ANS0,NJ
Azclicant/Cwner: Ck41An 9LR 5 'Z:)S\l. ,I�JC Plant Community #/Name: did
Ncfe: d a more detailed site description is necassary, use the back of data form or a field notebook �3RC� WYti C2 �K
_________________—____----______.___--_____—_—_-r-0 _AIPJ
Coo normal environmental conditions exist at the piant community?
Yes >_ Na {If na, explain w�rrrrr
Has the vegetation, sci#s, and/or hydroicgy ; een significsnVy cistur^ad?
Yes No _ . _ {If yes explain
Dcminant Plant Scec;es
2. Q 6-t*s2
a.
o.
7.
a.
9..
10.
VErETAiCN
Incicatcr Indicator
Stairs Stratum Dcmirnant Pant Scec`es Status Stratum
T
Psrcent of dominant scecies that are CEL. FAUN, anc/cr FAC
Is the hydrot:, X vegetation criiercn met? Yes _ No
?aticr,aie: p" W --
Series/ cnase: O'Ad "_ 1 C'-0 iLZ +c-', S:jccrouc:2
Is the scii on the ;lycric sciis list? Yes 7 No 7 Urdetemninec
Is the soil a Histpscl? Yes No _ CX His;;c acicecen zresant? Yes No X
Is the scii: Monlec? Yes No -2� _ Cleyec? Yes Ne
Matrix C::icr: 1� .AlfG Mc;nte C,:Icrs:.
Other ;^ydr;c scii mcicalcrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: G br ` fi
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surtaca inundated? Yes No _X— Surfacs water depth:
Is the scii saturated? Yes No _V
Ceoth to free-star.cing water in r2lscii prcce ?tale:
Ust other field evicencs of surface inundation or scii saturation.
is the wetland hydroiog critericn met? Yes Nc
Rationale: )(-�o e_i y�'6 t Go'S
JURISCICIMCNAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: YZb r-A C-7 e-T S©1L_s N
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Scil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to -Soil Taxonomy."
a-2 �32 �14 3^ FSilF

DATA FC RM
RCU%NE CNEITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field Invest ator(s): L- f AJ DA 6r. G,4A F l kJ Date: �A N 9 ! � � l
P,cject/S,te A, -Sco,J Cou Wr l State: NC- County: _ AN-SdN
Acolir_ant;Cwner: Ct-A6M 62-R S 'Z>EQ. tAjC. Pant Community »INar,^e:
rVcra: i# a more detailed site description is necessary, use the oadk of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Dc normal environmental ccnciticns exist at the giant community?
Yes No (if no, explain
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/cr hydrelogy t>een significantly dis.urt, ed?
Yes No (If yes, explain
Ccminant Plant Species
1. S'u S_C uo Yam, C_L-CAU` kI
2. U�r`Jl
3.
s P GCr �,.,6 y-ra r�
n.
1.
8.
n
10.
VEGE f A711CN
Indicator Indicator
Sta:u,s Stratum 'Dcminart Plant Sc-ecies Status Stratum
E�W _Z_
1 1.
CW Z _
12.
�"'
13.
�77C-
_W~
17.
's.
13.
20.
Psresnt of dominant species ;hat are CEL. FACW, and/or r=AC 1 0©241= _
Is the hydreci"ytcvegetation cr:ierio gnat? Yes No
rationale:
Ik O
SCtLS
1
Sariesr'cnasa: ��•D` `r`� Suitgrcuu:2
is the soli on the hydric sciis iist? Yas No Unceter,m,ir.ec
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes No _-?is;:c aeieacon .;;resant? Yes No x
Is the scii: Mertlec? Yes _� No Gleyec? Yes No
Matrix C,c Icr- - _ 1 0_ _Y fz Co/ - ___ "`
t7tCile CvICrS: � `-� � �• ---
Ctiter hyd., c scii indicatcrs: r\Lr---'L
Is the hydric scii criterion greet? Yes �_ No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the Crcund surface inundated? Yes No X Suraca water depth:
Is the scii saturated? Yes K No „
C?eoth to free-standing water in pr lscil ;rode hole: 3
List Other field evidence of surface lnundatlon or scii saturat.cn.
o i ; 'goo-ir- C.\-�a — vA e- S
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes— No
Rationale: �^r� '4 �� C' S Q �-� C Q--
JURISCICTIONAL DETERRIMINIA7CN AND RATICNALE
Is the giant =mmunity a wet}and? Yes � No
Rationale for juris6cicnal decision; A L-l- 3 ^c-- rz- ` C
t This data farm can be used for the Hydric Soil ?assessment Prccedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Class6caticn a=vding to "Scii Taxonomy.'
Z# -- r 9 # 2_

DATA FCRM
ROUTINE CNSITE DC T ERFMINA'! iCN METHOD'
Fe;d Inves6gator(s): L-l N OA cr. G=1A F! tJ Cate:
I= rcjecvSte: AN sd ,J Cc u rJ r i L-L- State: N L Ccun
rAN S d N
4 nt,'Cwrter: C `�G .part Community »Ma netAy
1 N+c vJ l TI t 1NT R�1 [ANT
Ncre: if a more detailed site descnpticn is necsssary, use t' a bacx of data form or afield
notebook. STR F-/"
---------------------------------------------------
Ce normal environmental conditions exist at the plant ecmmunity?
Yes 2�_ No (If no, explain
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology .'keen signiKc;zntly distort ad?
Yes No -?K- (if yes„ ex lain
VcGE ETA
Indicator
Indicator
Dominant Pant Scecies Sia;us Stratur-i Caminant Plant Scec;es
Status Stratum
2. 12,
z 12.
A. 14,
7
13.
c ,9.
10. 20.
Psrc4nt of dcminant scecies that are CEL, FAUN, anclor FAC
Is the `ycrcciy c vegetation cr, ericr, ,;.et? Yes No
Rationale:
-- -
SCILS S I TL V 1 N i
sariesl-ttasa �� � `' ` So, L 5 0 rJ t`cLj_2 NET
.C,CLM_
��J
�f F�Y Nr1Ar �
is th8 Scil on the hydr4c soils list`% Yes No uncetarnlnec
fs the soil a Histcsci? Yes No His::c ecioeccn wresant? Yes
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gieved? Yes No
Matrix C.: icr: Motu Cclors:
Ciher hydr:c soil incicatcrs:
is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
i ri 5pr,ti� arz�R©LOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes _X No Surfaca water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Death to free-standing water in pitlscil probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
No
Is the wetland hydroiNy criterion met? Yes No /.
Rationale: SEPT tgclt^ WAter Ocal.S tkaA sv�,k11
TA N L ct 9 2- -' water yak �s i
JURISnL,1CTiCNAL DETERMINA'i1CN AND RA71CNALE
Is the plant c: mmunity a wetland? Yes N� a
I te . t� r , t _S j 1CIO
Saticnale for jurisdictional decision: W t V t
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Frccedure and the Pant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Z Ctassd;caticn according to `Soil Taxonomy.'
S-2 �, �� ,� F 4 4_ 6© s- F F3# -2-

( D
DATA FCRM
RCU-11N CNSITE DETIEFMINATICN ME T HCC1
c� ru�� Cr.C�.4FIN -7/AN r7 11 l9.gZ
Pied Invest a"or s : y Dat�t. flt..i! Pt 0 I'J ,�
Prcjec'J..ite:, �' State: County: N CN M L3L2 S Z>a\J. 1, JC t._ U S
��� S a ,s Cos u r.r T L.� � b� t �. N ,4 N o N
AtwGlicanL'Crvner: � Plant Community /Name:.� 5 E'er f' >41"
Nora: it a more detailed site description .is necessary, use the back of data form or a fie3d notebook. )4 ©:P
po normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? r _ _ _ _ _ 1 NT``-f M t rT�T�" .STMz AA
Yes No � Y_ {If no, expiain
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/or hydrology been significantly dis:urt�ed? S �o',i P; 2.x_ - �� S; +�P—
Yes 'A No {if yes, explain
Dominant Pant EG9cfes
VEGE T A MCN
indicator
Sta:us StrZtL'm 0cminart Part Scec:es
1
L;c�ySirLAi%• s;.,-ev%se
1?.
2.
_j
12.
3.
AC—Cr r c,.,. 6 r (A r%.
13.
d.
U ( r- U .S Gk "t r � Cr'h C"
O.
/�11 A A
. C.
n".
!.
10..
rr7t
t'__t.C2t-'.in.iSS .G�6c,,tr,[i's
P-AC.__W."
CG.cz>tF%%i auJ-S
EAC
'a.
10.
20•
Psresnt of dominant _=cedes that are CE'L. PACW. and/or rA.0
Is the hydrephy,ic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
P.-Micnale:
Ir'dicatcr
Status Stratum
Q rC f
SCfLS i, "(O.v i ti4/1� Gif"2 r'L4� 1
Series(Znase; V�-s = S ez�'. SubgrcL «0:2 _ �i -� frf.
Is the soil on :he hydric sciis list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Yistcscl? Yes No _- His:ic ecipedcn present? Yes No
Is ;he scii: Medea? Yes Nc Grayed? Yes No
'Matrix Ccicr: � � �- - mcnle C:.lcrs:.. a
Cther hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes �_ No
Rationale: So'. 1 iS 1-' $1,1 cL*-S-1- \-t5f ci5� !�� 4 •, i 41. i �.
S4 C-n e/�l . CA,\ro'M�
HYDRCLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No >C— Surface water death:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No x
Depth to free-standing water in pitlscil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or scii saturation.
(, vcl i _ r-� Q +-� c-r _ --r� cs`r r] kw l �rrl S c
Is the wetland hydroiogy criterion met? � Yes X No a "`�`L `P
Pationaie: i c,
vURISCIC71CNAL DETE:RMINA T ION AND RAT 1CNALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes -X— No
Rationale for iutisdiCional decision: rn R"L Q
I AS
t This data farm can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Ciassd cation according to "Sail Taxonomy.'

DATA FORM
ROU-MIE CNSITI= CE7ERMINATiON METHOD'
Field invest gatar(s): L- I N OA Cr• C.H4A F I rJ Date: TA N 11, i 9 g Z
rrojec•.lSi e: i4 nr SO 4 CC u N TH L-Ar D F I L-L- ScN G Ccunty: AN -S d I —
A olicanL`Gwner: GNAtw 3LR 5 C>Su, I►JG P!ant Community :Marne: 2 / f_I
Note: d a more detailed site desc^ption is necassary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Cc normal environmental conditions exist at the plant communhy?
Yes ,_ No (If no, explain wi■ m+
Has the vacetation, soils, and/or hydrology tAeri significantly distumed?
Yes No _X_ (If yes. explain
---------------------------------------------------
YErcTA7CN
lncicatcr
Ccminant Plant Scecies Status St;at n Ccminant F!ant Scecies
1.
11.
2.
12.
3.
13.
d,
14.
i.
17.
a.
20,
Peresnt of Ccminant sCecies that are CEL, FAC. , and/or FAC
Is ,he hydrepi ytic vegetarian criterion met? Yes No
Fationaie:
SC!LS
Sarles.'Phase: SL;cgrcuc:2
Is :ha soil on the hydrie soils list? Yes No Iwn;determined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No Hist:c acicedcn :recant? Yes
Is the scii: ;Monlec? Yes No Geyec? Yes No
Matrix Ccscr: Mcria Ccicrs:
Cther hydric soil indlcatcrs:
Is the hydbc soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationaie:
8YDRCLCGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes_ No Sur=aca water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Ceoth to free-standing water in pitisoil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or scii saturation.
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: LAi
No
lndicator
Status Stratum
JURISOICTiCNAL DE7cR'v1INA-FCN .AND RATMCNALE
Is the plant c: mmunity a wetiand7 Yes I I V�1a-�ers�
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: r
I ?,-J Trr,C )k k I r7-71;-� rJ T SAS C[-� nlr=._---•..... .. _.-------
t this data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Frccedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
9-2 (9 R� r-LO o -- F (O V F, 2 -- F a d z._.-

DATA FORM
RCUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATICN MET'r?CDt
Fia;d Investigator(s): �— ( N OA Cr• Q4A F 17,J pate: JA N rl `" 11 l -2 ".
Prajec'S:te: Al sd,.1 Cou WrLApNpF_t_LL- elate: 1C` Ccunty: .AN-S4N
A,00iicant,'Cwner: CKAM SLIR S IDEQ, 1,1JG Plant Community ;-!Name: ►N T�f� M [ f TfcN`�T
Note: ii a more detailed site descripticn is necsssary, use the bade of data form or a field notebook. S-rre EA),I
_ _ _ _ r __c normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? _
LaC-�AANN E L..
Yes No (If no, exaiain �
Has the egetatio, soilyes, x: aynrcicgy been signdicantly divury^-ac?
Yes Na (
VEGFE T A T ICN
Indicator IndioaiGr
Corninant Plant Scecces Status St;at rr Dcrninant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
2. 12.
3. 13.
a. 1 s.
10. 20.
Pgresnt of dominant scecies that are CEL, r"ACW, and/or PAC
Is the 1,ydrephytic vegetation cr.erion met? Yes No
Ra:jonaie: -- -
�drle3�rCRcxwB:
Is :ha scii on the ;tydric sails list?
Is the scii a Histcscl? Yes
Is *.he scii: Mcttlec? Yes
Matrix C,;rcr:
Cther 'nydrlc soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met?
Raticnaie:
SC!LS
SubgrcUO:2 .
Yes No Undeterminec
No Histic acicecon :resent? Yes
No G;ayec? Yes No
Mottle Cciors:
Yes No
No
SYCROLOGY 11
Is the around surface inundated? Yes Na Surface water decih:
Is 'he soil saturated? Yes No
Decth tc free-standing water in pitlscil prcba :tole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or scii saturat:cn.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion rnet? Yes No
Rationale: , ` e-
JURISCICTIONAL CET: RMINA7CN AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes
Rationale for iurisdictional decision: _
Na
t This data form can be used for the Hycric Soil assessment Procedure and the Plant CGmmunhy
Assessment Procedure.
2 C;assificaticn according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE DETcRMINATiCN MI THCDt
Feld tnves6gator(s): C- t AJDA Cr. CNA F! Q [)ate: -'A N r7 I t} 19 g 2
rrojecJSite: A N Sco ,-i cca U !mot T ILL. State: N County: AN S C hJ
A.Celicsnt/Cwner. ,, r.'kAA M Q L2 Rant Ccrnmur iry :Name: N cl N- ti i U LC V 4 N 1�
Nate: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bac,� of data form or a field nctebock.
- - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?��� �cz r
Yes No _ (it no, explain
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/cr hydrelcgy Been signik nt!y
Yes �7 ,, No (It yes, ex; iain IMMMOdOp
Ccminant Plant Species
i.
2.
Z,
0.
/.
Percent of dcminant species that are CEL. FACW
Is the hycrcprtytic veget. Lion cr erion met? Yes
Indicatcr
St2tufs
VEGE T ATICN
Strattrrn Dominant Pant Scec:es
anc/cr FAC
No
Indicator
Status Stratum
el Succrou ::2�-
is :ha scii on the ;-Iydric sails list? Yas No _)-C_ l;nceterminec Q
fs the scii a Histcsot? Yes No Hist:c aciCedcn :resent? Yes No
Is the scii: Mottlec? Yes No Glayed? Yas No
Matrix C.;1cr: - I T - u Mc;.:e Calcrs:.
Other hydr c sail indicZtcrs:
Is the hydric soil Criterion met? Yes No i
Rationale:
HYDROLCGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yas NoX Surfaca water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No=,
Depth to free-standing water in Nivsoii probe hole:
List other field evidence of sumacs inundation or soil sararation.
V!,
Is the wetland hydrelogy criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale:
JURISCICTEC NAL DIET ERMINATIGN AND RA T1CNALE
Is the plant =mmunity a wetland? Yes No'4 )IJ � i I Wact IU -S
Raticnale for lurisdictionaf decision: O eL_ 0 p AiN -EF
11>I_Art1j-rr-F O r t.I 'ill u e Nv D 1z�1�G V �C3\l ICE
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification ac: crding to 'Sail Taxonomy.'

(E3
DATA FORM
ROU 7NE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Feld Invest;gatcr(s): A Gate:
Prcjec'JS;te: Pt N 5d_ra Cn a u T t r,r i? t L t=state: N Ccunry: ,AN s d y\J
Acolicant;Cwner: CkAAM Qz R 5 D ,_ jn1G Pant Ccmmuniry 1Nam9'. F1RsT T IER c�
Note: if a more detailed site desc. ipticn is necessary, use the back of data `crm or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Cc normal environmental conditions exist at the plant ccrnmunrty?
Yes _ No If no, expiain 80*0*
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology r,een significantly disturted?
Yes No _X {If yes, ex lain
VEGE7ATIGN
Indicator
Ccminant Plant Sc-ec:es Status Stratum
2. _T_
3. P r t V S r1 i C, i o- r1 --27
AC--
Dominant Part Sc-ec:es
Percant of dominant scec:es that are CEL. FAC` . ancicr FAC
Is the hydrepr;ytic vegetation criterion ,~let? Yes �� ^ No
Rationale. a re� or �•�'
Indicator
Status Straturn
SCiI.S
arie�sr„ha_e:
l �kaA Icy_ _Ljrrr�u-
is the soli Cr "he hvdric sciis list? Yes No ndetarminec
Is the soil a Hlstcsci? Yes Nc 'C lis::c aoicedon presant? Yes No
Is the scii: ,Monled? Yas No Cleyed? Yes No X
Matrix C.Jicr: t. d ym Mcttle Colors: I r'�
Cther hydric sciI indic-nmrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
r' -fib
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No _YSurface water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes � C."No �ptc_d~_C__)
Geoth to free-standing water in pi )scii probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or sail saturation.
Is the wetland hydroiogy criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: C dX .i net z,
JURISCICTI4NAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALS
Is the plant =mrnunity a wetland? Yes C No
!Rationale for jurisdicional decision: ZL
PAI
t This data form can tie used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Frccedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'
B-2 14-� ti F I q 0 --F[S-n P, I - IF8#-2_

DATA FORM
RCUTINE CNSiTE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field inves6gatcr(s): L- I AJ DA Cc - Gr4A F I rJ Date: - A N ri "" i 9 Z
Rrnjec•JS;te: A14Sari C©vY-rT7 L.ArNiZFILu- State.. NC' Ccunry: 6NsdN
-- - —
ApDiiGanVCwner: Ck-46M 3LRS Z>F-,J. 1�jc' plant Community : "/Name _ ECc3ND ERT�t'cu=
,
1Nota. K a more detailed site desc-;pticn is necsssary, use the back of data fora or a field nctetcck.
Cc ncrrnaf:envircnmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes K No (If no, ex plain subm011op
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology ,een significantly disturt ed?
Yes No (if yes, explain
VEG::E T Ai1CN
Incicatcr
Dominant Plant ccec;ss Status Stratum
2. i c�Gm �-o,r + rc.t,
3. Vi IJI �cw
AC e..r vie v ca FArcyjl
7y*toad_Ar �,'c: c�arey[�?L�i t6L
Dcmirant Hart Scec;es
11,
12.
13.
14.
17.
18.
19,
20,
Psresnt ci dominant scec;es that are CEL, i=ACJV, and/or FAC
Is the 'Iydrecrytz vegetaYon critericn met . Yes C-- - No
Rationaie:
SCILS
Sarievc:hase: _ UJ e_- _ `� �- `-- - Succrcup:2
Indicator
Status Stratum
Is the soil on the 3~ydrie soils list? Yes >C_ Na Undetermined
Is the scif a Histcsel? Yes Nc �_ His,:c apiceccn ;resent? Yes No _
Is the soil: Moried? Yes . ,INC Gleyed? Vas Ne
Matrix Cufor:. ko �'_ (Q I -z— Mcnle Calcrs: -7'
Cttser hydr'sc soil incicatcrs:
Is the hydric soil c iterion met? Yes_ No
Rationaie: CL w
HYDROLOGY
is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No iC Sumacs water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No 7C
Depth to free-standing water In P/scil crote hole: S' W t.
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
�^
ID !At fro a c .
Is the wetland h crofogy criterion met? Yes , L No V C
Rationaie: t
JURISOIC7CNAL Di TERM1NA71CN AND FATiONALE
Is the plant cc mmunity a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdiCional decision: _ f 3.
'This data ferm can Ire used for the Hydric Scif Assessment Frccedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'

DATA FORM
ROU7NE CNSITE DE=UAINATICN METHOD'
1=iesd Inves6catcr(s): ©ate:
prcjecvSite: A N C N M SLR SY L7EJN��J I �. State: County: . A -S
Azolicant/Cwner: 8 G P!ant Community :/Name: i✓��A rE l� -A �f�+-_11��
Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. F-Lo()ZPL.Ath%
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal' environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No X_ (I€ no, explain 40MI001 r
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology i,een significantly disturt ed?
Yes No (if yes. explain
-------------------------------------
VEGETATION
indicator
Ccminant Pant Scecies Stet::s Stratum pcminant Plant Scec'es
i. 17.
o. 13.
g, 19.
10. ze.
-7 l � A -Zkt 1
Indicator
Status Stratum
Psrcent of cominant spec:es that are CEL. FAC`N, and)cr r=AC _ _� © c�
Is the �yc.=cpr7yt:a vegetarian cr;erian ,et? Yes _ No
F.Vicrale: C> Ca n aw
�CIi.S
Saries/-.ease;: e-r y; e .� Rik c. J" 5-t o,r sucgrcua:z
Is :he sail on :he inydric soil's list? Yas No XC Undeterninec
Is the soil a Histcsct? Yes INC �_ His -,lc acipedon presant? Yes Nc
is "ha soil: Mcttlec? Yes INC �_ Greyed? Yes No
Matrix Ccior: 4 rra mcrtie C:,Icrs:
Cther ;nydr:c soil incicatcrs:
is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
HYCRiCLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No )!c_
Depth to free-standing water in pit/scd prccs hose:
List other field evidencs of surface inundation or sail saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology critericn met? Yes No _
Rationale,
JURISDiCT10NAL DET'eRMINA T ION AND RATICNALE
Is the plant ccmmunity a wetland? Yes No K
Rationale for juriscic:ional decision. S et,T ALL— 3 C-Mt`Tl'2t>,
t This data form can he used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure. 1 niS t,•, tC' CLI-,--C' , 1
2 Classdf--aticn according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
w r..o o' o+
s-2 - 0.-`k"e c4 s ��-Ee �. t Z— F-3# Z

DATA FORM
RCU71NE CNSITE DETERIAINATICN METHOD#
Halo' Investigatcr(s); L. i N DA Cr- C-4A F 1 N ©ate: SA N
ProjectlSite: A Nr SO ,I Go Lj r.r T I t_ t-" State: N C.. County: _ AN- d N
Acolicant,'Cwner: CN S `t -JL Rant Community :/Name:
Nate: Y a more detailed site desc^pticn is necessary, use the tack of data fcrrn or a field notebook.
Cc normal envircnmentai c ;nCiticns exist at ;he plant ccmmuni y?
Yes _ No Of no, explain smn
Has the vegetaticn, soils, and/or hydrescgy been s;gnificantfy distorted?
Yes No (if yes, explain
-_---------_-.---- __.-.--____------ _--__...____---
VcCc T A71CN
- Indicatcr
Dcrninant Pant Species S;_=::,s Stra"um
2.
6 T
�Cw S
Dominant Pant Scec:es
11.
12.
13.
1�
15.
1 n".
17...
18.
4,
2c.
Indicator
Status Stratum
Percent of ccminant scecies that are CEL. FACW, anc/cr FAC. ©! 0
Is ;he ydrer:f:yt:c vegat-ticn c. ter;cn rnet? Yes No
Pationaie: nn r' c�=dl
j sclt_s
Saries cnase: t � � `� ~ e /\i ,, Cy �_ - CL!^wC�rOi is
Is the Boil on the hydr3c sails list' Yes %< No Undeter^tined
Is "ne soil a Hlstcscl? Yes No -.. His:ic apicedon present? Yes No _
Is the scii: ,Mortlec? Yes Nc Glavec? Yes No
Matrix C.:icr: Mc-te Caicrs: t O
Cther hydr,c scil incicstcrs: 7
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: &t-AJ C-EE t T k-i
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X _ Suraca water Cecth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes __ No
Deoth to free-standing water in pitlscil Prcce hole:
L?st other field evidence cf surface inundation or soil saturation.
Cf ell— i vAAI_t. S i -Ile v- c --�
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes L No
Rationale: A ,
JURISOIC-MCNAL DE T ERMINA T 1GN AND RATIONALE
Is the slant community a wetland? Yes ><'_ No
Rationale for jurisdlc:ional decision: t t_ 3 C L 'L P A SA 1-S
l This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil assessment Prccadure and the Pfant Ccmimunhy
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil T axcncmy.-

CATA FCPM
RCUTINF- CNSITE CE T EFMINATICN METHOD'
LfArDA Gr. C-HAFIN JAN q - I gZ
Field Invast;gatcr(s}; Cate:
Projsc•J Si.e: Al, 50 4 Co y r� T' t u_AN t F i L t-- Mate: � C` Ccunty: N S d N
ArciiranuCwner: -CI AAMSLR !, 17E'71 t.')C P'.ant Community #iName:
Nets: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the dar< of data form or a field nclabock.
---------------------------------------------------
Do ncirnal environmental ccnditicns exist at te plant cornmunity? C."V-. ,-eA �-
Yes No (If no, expiain � C.l O,-,,.,ell �tcl- Z-- �C9�-.t.�-tf- -f>C— '.
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydr cicgy seen signific--ntly dis' urt ed? C) k=, 1" -i-d
Yes No (If yes, ex lain "MIN* S o r..e 0.rcz-.o
VEGE T ATi0N
Indicator Indicator
Ccminant Plant Scec.`es
Status Strct,_,rn Ccrninant Punt Scsc:es Status Stratum
2. �'` rn '� ertiS�
�� T 12.
%,
Peresnt of ccrninant species Thai are CEL, FAC`N, andicr r`AC CO
Is the hydrechytic vegetation cr,Ierfcn m t? Yes __ No
Rationaie.
c�r� C o
SC!LS
Sariaslchasa: �� ��-J' Sfi�L / C�e�C�.Y�Ui Succtcuc:2
Is ;he soil on :he hydric soiis list? Yes No ? - --- Lndeter„mnec
is the soil a Histcsci? Yes No ^ His;:c accedcn presant? Yes No
Is the soil: Morlec? Yes Nc Gevec? Yes No
Matrix C,:tcr. �_ 'z- _ Mcrle C: Icrs: I
Ctrer ^ydr:C soil inciczicrs:
Is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes ?KC No
Rationale:
Ck,�,HYDR LOGY
Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes �^ No tl Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standing Water in pitlscii prcce hole:
List other field evidence cf surface :nundaticLq or seii saturation.
Is the wetland hydreiogy criterion met? Yes }�� fva
Rationale:
JUFiISCtC7CNAL DETERMINA T,ON AND RATICNALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes Na
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
LA oc S v J A < ?_`z- W LAr.lL- I N �r��}iM
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Wrccedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Prccadure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'
B 2 (I q p. 1 3- F 9

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNEITS DETEPMINATICN M)✓7H001
Field inves6gator(s): �-- i n� DA Gr • C H A F- I ;J Date: 137A N ri — 11
Project'Site: "''N Sc3 C.0u rr't'y CArEiAEI LL- State: �� Ccun ALJ5(0
A-coficant/Gwner.. CkA6M SE-2 S 'C>EQ. }w1C grant Community »Mame:.LAACW6:19=� SEEP 0T
Note:. H a more detailed site description is necessary, .use the hack of data form or a field notebook.
_ f _ _
Do normal anvironmentai cpnditions exist at tine plant ccmrnuni y? (�a
0 W 01
Yes No X (if no, explain MOM101 �
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/cr hydrelccy been significantly disturL-ed? Spo �+� S � � pt! t
YesNo (If
__A-__________i --- -i----e-_
YECc T AitON
Indicator
Dominant Plant Scec:es Sta:l.rs Stratum
1, Cry r ip" ,n L-� Carol ; V,:s _JE6S.W T -
2. _14C.e.! Yt�bYUY`-. E�4
A
D.
%.
4
1Q
Dcrninant Pfant SCLc:as
Indicator
Status Stratum
Psrcent of dominant species that are CEL. i-ACW, and/or FAC
Is the hydrerrytic vegetation crtericn met? Yes No
F_tienaie: c�,a _ -
5C!LS
SariesJcrsasa: w �,
Is the soil on .he hydric sciis list? Yas No 2_ Undasarminec
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes Nc ;is; c acicecon present? Yes Na
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes = N0 G'ayec? "as No
Matrix Coicr: 12, SQL^G1-Z_ _ Mc ;;e Cciors:
Cther hydric soil indip3tcrs: '^
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes K_ No
Rationale: mow w t 0-T"TL �S
HYDRCLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surtaca water decth:
Is the scii saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standing water in prtfscii prods Hole:
Last other field evidence, of surface inundation or sail saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes , X No
Rationale:
JURISDICTICNAL DETERMINATION AND FATICNALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes A, No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
_N*1�1 Iz.. L
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Part Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 C+assdication according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
E-2 r_�_ p. )4�— F6, # 2—

DATA FORM
RCU7NE CNSiTc DETERMINATION ME T'r'CD1
Reid lnvest;gator(s): L-€ DA C1r. CHA F I N Data: 9AN I '" t k ' Z
PrcjecCJS+te: ia+N 164 Coy NT'y LAr•P'D7F1_L.t.._ State: NC- County: _ AN-S0INJ
A: clicar 'Cwner: C 6kAM 6 t-R S 2EJ. 1"J4- plant Community;/Name: AT E o E ?i
Nora: if a more detailed site description. is necsssary, use the tac>r of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal envircnmertal conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No �C (It no, explainAml
Has the vegetation, soils, and/cr hydrolcgy teen signifir,.antiy cisturwad? S P<,"+t t u PS �U�@
Yes _ No (If yes, explain "M1ndop -Fi-c-r— Z. 3cr-%))
---------------------------------------------------
Dcminant Plant Scec:es
VE -E T AT1CN
indicatcr
Status Stratum Ccr-minant Rant Sc-ec:es
Irdlcator
Status Stratum
Psresnt cf dominant species that are CEL. FAC.Y, and/or FAC 1 b
is the `:yercphy= vegetation critericn mer? Yes X No
Fatienaie: oa a Po t ti! l�C- -- --
SCILS
Sare:;c^asa: r4Suc<rouc:2
Is ;he sail on the hydric sails fist? Yas Na L r.eetar pined >C'
Is :he soil a Histcsci? Yes No �C _ His;;c acicedon present? Yes No k __
is the scii: Morlec? Yes No C;eyec? Yes No —c
Matrix C':1cr: o y t3 3 f 3 ___ Mct:le C,:Icrs; -7. 15 V R ?z $ --
Cther hydr,c soil incicamrs:
Is the hydr'sc soil criterion met? Yes No K
Rationale: l E t Lo UJ
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No K Suracs water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X'
Depth Ie free-standing water in pi /seil probe hole:
List cther field evidence cf surface inundation or sail saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes NoC
Rationale:
JURISDICTIaNAL DETERMINA i7CN AND RA T ICNALE
is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: L.c�
N T- 50 L_ l S C,t ry r4
t This data forms can to used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Prccsdure and ;he Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 C,ass9;caticn according to "Sail Taxencmy.'
B-2 �. ! - Fs � `2-.
3 C^) - 2 .- F� -- F,4 2-

' 3 LT3)
DATA FORM
RCU71NE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field lnvest;cator(s): L-I N C)a G• CHA FI1Q pate: �AN ri "" E (99 Z
Projec!/Sife:_f} N 5cn -1 Cis a i.r T7 LA &tD- I L. L- State: N G County: AN -S () N
Azolic.ant/Cwner: CNA_M SLR S 'DCQ._1^JG plant Community #Marne: t~ '_ O r-
Ncta: if a more detailed site desc:ipticn is necessary, use the tack of data fcrrn or a field notebook.
___-_____________-__________________-_______-.,�p2��ST
De normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? J rerr3 c r� i v�w.cttt. _
Yes No (If no, explain no■m
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydreicgy been significantly disturt-ed?3� U
Yes No (If yes, exp,iain "NMI* C"TL.; s pv;^'s i S 6>��
Dominant Plant Scec;es
1. Ace,- -LAloeury-N -
ry2. ��U^••�� 1 r.n J •S
d_
4,
a.
1n
VE GCTA 717CN
Indicatcr
Sta::Js Stra t!.'m
1 AC� `T
�--f Y-1 _ _ —
EACW T
Dominant Plant Sc-ec:es
Percent ci dominant species that are CEL, FAC.Y, arrc/cr FAC
Is :he hydrecryiic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: d� o t7F Dort tit 4 T`x C—
SCILS
Serieslcnase:W (-h0.cI r cl!! Suc';rcuc:2
is the sail on the hycric soils Iist? Y a s No undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes No �C Histic aeipadon presant? Yes �lfl �C
Is the spit: Mot !ec? Yes r �'c Gleyec? Yes h'a -'I>
Matrix C::Icr: o r 3 ---- Mc .la Catcrs. -T• n g
Cther hydr is scil indfcatcrs:
Is the hydro soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Indicator
Status Stratum
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is :he scii saturated? Yes ', No 2 ��
Death to free-standing water in p, lscil probe hole:
Last other field evidencs of surfaca inundation or sail saturation.
A--S- wvu�Ct`{
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _�C _ No
Rationale: [ H- LC:E:t e C.O4t I.•- 1 �J 01 CAT0 �
JURISDIC71CNAL DETERMINATICN AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationafe for jurisdictional decision: &ND L`c-) C* Aa�- E R'C-)
AJ
S6tL ,S CW LCST " Q4rz-0M, T J S l4RGr(Mt4�
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Prccedura and the Plant Corn muni y
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Sail Taxonomy.'
R.2 , 3 C Q) -- -- 7 -- l=- 4 z s- F a z.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE DI TERMlNAT1Cl`! ME T'r?001
Fie;d Invest;gator(s). L f nl Dq Cr- C-HA F I tJ Date: -TAN rl- 1 1 l g �-
Prcjec'JS;te: A'I Sod Ccsu rrT t Lt-. state: NC- county:. A)J-S(nN
A-Cciicanticwner: Ct4 S 1:) Q, AJG Plant Community #/Nan^e:. i �T�RMt t`i ANT STR Nt
Ncra: If a more detailed site descnpticn is necessary, use: the back of data fcrm or a field nctebcck. W F.,A t s
_ --
Cos normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes Nc-5�1, (If no, explain OWNMOP us
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/or hydrology been significantly disturt-ed?
Yes K No (If yes, ex ;fain Vognodoo
---------------------------------------------------
Ccminant Plart Scecies
2.t ctbr,n; C 3.5u.crc_
d, AC.er
v;=�==;= T A T roN
lncicatcr Indicator
Status Stratum Dominart Plant Scec'es Status Stratum
'r P,-C.. `7
F^ C-y
Percent of dcminant sCeciss that are CEL. r=ACW, and/or FA.0 n C)
Is the hydrechytic vegat-tion o-Ier;cn -set? Yes �_ No
Rationale: dC7 9 a "QO t DZ W E
SC!LS
Series/chase: L G V L 5 t� SUecreUp: 2
;s the soil on :he nydric sciis list? Yes No >C L:ncetarnnined
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes Nc His„c acicecon :resent? Yes Na X
Is the soil: Men, ec? Yes �� No Claved? Yes No
Matrix COfcr: Z. - 4� Mcrle Ccicrs: '7. 5
Cil ar hydr-�c soil incicz c s.
Is the hyd6c soil Criterion met? Yes _ No
Rationale: ryPr Rfa Lsi LL Lz�-� U4 ©MPr
yvo— T- LeFS - - -
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground sumacs inundated? Yes No %C Surfacs water decth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No )C
Death to free-standing water in p�Vscii prcce hole:
Last cther field evidence ct surface inundation or scii saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology critericn met? Yes is No
Rationale: R-A i `� nl p �C � � I "2©cjT Ne LS
JUFISCICTICNAL DETERMINATICN AND R-A 17ONALE 1 rt
L-A-rs
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes i< No
Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: 8L. t- 2tA A-C e-S r1 ET
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Sail Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
i Ctas'Sd C.at!cn according to 'Sail Taxonomy.'
B-2 \.4-/_ F 42..- 6(- {o-- 17 - F>3# Z

DATA FORM
FOU7NE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Fe:d Invest,gaior(s)L_.. I n.t Dry CT. C- 4A F- f 1J Date: J/A N r7 � � ,4 � q g Z
Project/Site: A t,4 Sc3_,J Cau Wr-j L.ANUFl L'- State: NC` county: AN�s
Aco Iicant Cwner: C kkAlti 3 LR 5 UF-U. f A1G plant Community #/Name:-fit-A"D W A-rl...tz- 0 F
Not&: if a more detailed site desc:iption is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ilJZ At'FT�',hjT-
----__-..-.-.___.----------------..W.__.......__--__-..___----L:>ZE I/yAGrt
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes C No (If no, explain
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrelegY een significantly disturbed?
Yes �_ No _2�_ (if yes, explain jonlimollop
VcGc TA 11CN
indicator Indicator
Dominant Pfart Saec?es
Status Strata.=rn Dominant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
1. Li '.C�Cavti�ar s�'-trati
Ef C- T 11,
Z. IN ck� Y"40 V ctrti-,
rG -7 12.
3. -G�Lks
�� 13.
q, fCa s
�y� �_� ]In
�� _� 1d.
5. rv.0 S G.IQ-�"t.410
C-Pc r%ZC-C
7. ]ECC&Y.sn11S
1�1 � 17.
10. S(��
'9.
20.
Psresnt of dominant species that are CEL, FACW, and/or FAG g o 0
Is the ydrecnylic veegge�tatioonycriiar;cn
met? Yes No
_
vCfLS
Series/chase: IN I +`G_ V 1 5 a- SuCc, r0up:2
Is the soil on the hydr is soils ilsi? '(as No X Undetermined
Is the soif a Histcsoi? Yes No _>C Histic aoipedon presant? Yes No
Is the soil: Monied? Yes No Glayed? Yes No >—
Matrix Color: 10� 1% Mciue Colcrs: -7• 5 u R 5f 8
Cther hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric sail criterion met? Yes �_ No
Rationale: C AM W 7-f T M4TT LC—S
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No Surface water decth:
Is the soil saturatsd? Yes No Y
Depth to free-standing water in pr~rscif probe hole:
List other field evidence of surfacs inundation or soil saturation.
LA-RFztc C!1�c!>TS G K Dl Lk:Fn 1? T C+"NratELS --bj tNAGC C-
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
f�.aticnale: 4�rJC td Dt CAT1!t2,1
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINA T1ON AND RATIONALE
Is the olant ccmm unity a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdiCional decision: t- L - C- E �- f A- AAT—
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
a-2 (a!
-FZ F G� p, 1`7-
r- r -7 -z

DATA FORM
RCUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field Invest;cator(s): L-f ©A Cr. CHA F i N pate: 4 7A f k q9 Z _
FrojectlSi e: _1°rLjS G.N.) Ca . I &N©r=1 LL_ State., ^J C- County: A_N'sC5t-j _
APpiicantlCwner: __ CµAMB�s REV• plant Community #/Name: l 2A— � Z%V.Nr OF
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form cr a field notebook. 1NT�.(2�1t i`TcN�
-------------- ------------ ------------ -- ---- S.R-£ftM
Do normal environmental ccndittons exist at the plant ccmmsunity? t_
Yes K No (If no, explain on back) � -� t S CLPPr10K
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? f
O
Yes No X (If yes, explain on back) �
Z s +` 1'� Q �'8e— i k\
VEGETATION
1nd;c2tcr Indicator
Dominant P!ant Scecies Status Stratum Dominant Pant Scec:es Status Stratum
11.
12,
13.
14.
1 W.
1 S.
17.
18..
19
20.
rMsrcent of dominant species that are CEL, FACN, and/or FAG s a/ O
Is the hydrephyt.'c vegetation c. herion met? Yes ,,L<_ No
E' 'r:� C,Ta- LAJ .
Series/Ghase; 1'i 1 \F,l0., Saogroup:2
Is tha soil on the hydric soils ]ist- Yes No x Undetermined
Is the sail a Histcsct? Yes jNc X ^ Kstic ac#edon present? Yes No k
Is the soil: Mottlec? Yes >C No Gleyec? Yes No
Matrix Ccicr: - Z • � � � Mcnte Calcrs: 1.5
.—
Ctherhydricsoiloil',n�rs: ^'S
Is the hydric soil c;itericn met? Yes ?C No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No )�­_ Surfacs water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Deoth to free-standing water €n pit/scil probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
v_ z F C I A t-. -t'S PclQ - CT P TT' /"Js
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No
Rationale: �. _%2 4i=- au 9- ; t:rt.fs; tr 12z>o 7S a* i> 4 F-J E
JURISDICi1CNAL DETEPMINA11ON AND RATIQNALE
Is the slant =mrnuniry a wetland? Yes X No
Paticnale for jurisdictional decision: A E-t.-t2LA Ale, £- /4 __F
t This data forms can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
z Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'
3-2 (�Z G - R� --
FG1 IT
Flz3

�q_17�
DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE 0ETERMINATION METHOD'
Field Investigators : L-1"0A C;. C HA F I N Date: _ q -TA N 199 2
Projec,/Si e: A SO rQ CO. L-APQti ' 1 Lzc ---_ - State: _N - County- ANSOPQ
Applicant/Owner: _ _ CkAhM R &RS�a plant Community;/Name: dUND G7�
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal envircnmenia3 conditions exist at the plant community? '�'+ i w��]oU ,rj Mt1�t-
Yes No _�<_ (if no, explain
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes -,Y,— No (If yes, explain anii!110110�
VEGETATION
Indicator
indicator
Dcminant Plant Species
Status
Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1, S�t4 Y
C7BU
T ?.
2. occ'_a_
05L%
S 12.
3. Sc 's' r r�_uo G e�rr�w�
9A
4. U,p,
C
H 14.
A.
Ca_
7.
17.
10.
24.
Percent of dominant species that are CEL. FAC`N, andicr FAG Lcc °fo
Is the hydrephyt:c vegetat'
nmet?
Yes�No�
F:Bt;,I ©D !C7
(F-+_
,- _G_
C�I1 C
Series'phasa: AA OL V O
Q n_
Subgroup;z
is the soil on the hydric soi s list?
Yes
No K undetermined
Is the soil a His:cscf? Yes
No X _ _
Histic apipedan present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mort!ec? Yes
No
a- eyed? Yes No x
Matrix Color:57�
_ -
_
-- Mottle Cofors:. __r. u & 3 21
tither hydric scii indicators:
-e-
Is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes �_
No
Rationale: ----L-cW--Ct7.t
I w 1 ra T5T;->tCXm-F 0 LC.S
HYDRCLOGY
is the ground sumacs Inundated? Yes No \-- Surfacs water depth:
Is the scii saturated? Yes _><' No
Depth tc fres-stand,*-g water in pescii probe hate:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation, d C�
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No
Rationale: S Tl O 7' r C F S u L-r-t D I C...
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes __ No
Rationale for jurisdic:icnal decision: A 3 C iR-( T--r- 11LON 4T,i- /4 L l
} This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Rant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to `Soil Taxonomy."
MEA
1rt_R� F2 - r r7
f, 1q-- r'6-4z -2--

DATAFCRM
RCUTiNE GNSITE Dl;TE:RMINATICN METHODI 5 AT 9 t)
�l^Jaa Cr. Gt-4AFlnf
i`i6� If1V6St'�'y&IAr(s): date:
ProjeCJSite: A_N_.�O CZ V Q LArNJDFi � --State: �- County: 5a
AppiicanUOwner: '•k }� r"� E3 6.rt_S -D>~ Vj Plant Community :/Name: I>OW N,SMG: 0 l
Not&: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. j kAPocrt Oi AENT
----_______-__- _-----_-__- __-l----�f�R1t��PrT�E�[Ftia- �.00D►PL UV)
Co normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community.
Yes _,X-` No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soiis, andlcr.hydrelccy Ween significantly disturbed?
Yes No _,,,}C_ 'if yes, explain on bac! )
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETA T iCN
Indicator lndicator
Dominant Plant Scecles Status Strai m Dominant plant Sc-ecies Status Stratum
1. L t v.S tYL4 V. n 5.j Aey_��. � � 5 1 1 .
2. e-r-rttCG V_ 12.
3, L. V c o_ts_u S L 6e i Lis _ is L fit' _ 13.
S. U 1 r- v S g li.- FA W 4' Z .,,,._ 'IS.
7 t-f K t.--b r u M 5-AC— —�� 117,
C- T 1 g,
9. 19.
10, 20.
Percent of ccminant species that are GSL, FACN, andicr i'AC
Is the hydrc.chylc ve station criterion met? Yes No
..: _tine pica. � � 6'7 F �n i�'�t f`.( 1 3,___,..-��.� ��� _�� �••�.�� s _[.
SCILS
Seriesr'chase: _Z11LC � 0clC
(� Subcrcua:2
is the soil on the hycric soils ;ist^
Yas No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsct? Yes -__
No X Histic acicadon presant? Yes No
Is tM he soF+; ottled? Yes
No Glayed? Yes No
M acIcr: 2
,trix
Czhar er;c soil indicators:
Is the hyd6c scii criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: /'\-L
HYCR©LOGY
Is the grcund surf acs s undated? Yes No x --- Suriacs water depth:
Is t`e scfl saturated? Yes No X
Depth tO free-siandin^y water in "t /scll probe hole:
List her field evidence of surface inundation or sail saturation.
Is the wetland hydroiegy criterion met? Yes No _
Raticnale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
is the
Rae iscn a wetland? Yes No
.,lent �'^mm~fictional decision: t� CC. N tC T� 14rQ.5elvi� "-
I for
F(z4�`*. St71L- tSMf2fW�+
t This data'cr,-n can to used for the Hydr'c Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Sail Taxonomy."
B-2 F fsi}'

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSiTE DETEFIMINATICN ME T HOD1
Field Invest;gatcr(s : I- I A% DA Cr • C-HA F 1 ,14 Date: JA f `j C 2'
Prcjec•/Site: E.-L— State: N C----- Ccunty: A iQIC N
acdlicanL'Cwner: _ C-J� I�1LZ �� -� Pant Community # Mane: f nt•T'ER ),4 t IT tF 1\J "i STnI-4k"(
Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. w t Tl+ F-' L-+T'S
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? 'Pinf-o plq�,e,-Q
Yes j_ No X (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrolccy been significantly disturbed? d f C4,C-, + 5 Po ` 4
Yes _X No -JW_ (if yes, explain on back) P ; Z-.L-,.
---------------------------------------------------
VEGFTATION
Indicator
Ccminant ?!ant .Sc-ec;es
Sta,us Stratum
1,
"P i ny s t"CA'e c.�
.a
2.
b 664 a r
LAeO S
3.
L,- Svctetjrv1
sAeA51P
A,
"P
o.
7.
SfQilnun-.
8.
a.
10.
Dominant P;ant Sc-ec:es
t1
12.
13.
14,
17.
18.
19.
20.
Psrcent of dominant species that are CEL, F'ACW, and./cr FAC
Is the hydrepr ytic vegetation criterion met? Yes -4— No
LAJ
SCILS
Series'ohase: ec�M sutgroup:2
Is the scil on the hydric soils ;ist? Yas No ___2_ Undeiermined
IS the soli a Histcsct? Yes No _�Histic apipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mortlec? Yes No Gieyed? Yes No
Matrix C:;icr: I0�111- 24-/-4- Mcrle Colors: '1
Other hydr;c soil In6ca,ers: nd �-
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes XNo
Raticnaie: _ LOW C�I-ACN-T4Zl)� W M4 _ i-W-r-rl CS
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surfacs water depth:
Is t~e scl saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free -_tarring v:•ater in pk/sc;: probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
L Q Zs � t ,,t � -'•-•r �2 5
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationaie: tc 0U zt Cr Z htA E RA iz--N-s
JURISDICTIONAL DE T 1=RMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the giant community a wetland? Yes �_ No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: �L-
ST"i.s �l Ct--�,Aa.! n1 9L3 -A-7Z25_.. t t I1
Indicator
Status Stratum
t This data icrm can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
It
8-2 ti ' 2 n -- ir—S -�t2-,

DATA FCRM
RCU T'1NE CNSITE DE T ERMINATICN METHCD1 [S E PT 9 i
Feld Investigatcr(s): /--f 'y ©h Gr- C-HA F- I .'J Date: q !�
Prcjec.ISi1e: - N o-r-1 CC- LAND 1`t 6L State: S-- County: At N S a
AcplicanvOwner: CAA-WR E-,25--I�,F--U� Pant Community :/Name: CWi J F►-Y- NGE 0E ' VJ0
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field nctet>ock. l t.rrLR.l-t Ej`rG Krj-
--------------------------------------------------j2,}t.},erS
Cc normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Y a s; is No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, sciis, and/or hydreicgy teen significantly disturoed?
Yes No _X {lf yes, explain cn back)
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETA T1CN
Indicator
Dominant P!art Scecias
Status
Stmtum
1.
A Gen-
P A-C-
T
2.
V 1 r"' S Ci cn
a > -r—
3.
r CC4
F fr C-
T
g.
L-L
C.
5
7.
O'& i.&
S
G,
Dominant Plant Scec:es
12.
13.
14,
15.
1 ia.
17.
1$..
19.
20.
lydicatcr
Status Stratum
Psrcert of ucr#nant scec:es that are CEL, FACW, an&cr +=AC Q O o a
Is ' by 1 �� �o n 'r: non_`"set? Yes K No
1r.TrlBr.��a iCpn% VB�t^t'.1� „� C7� rl.tl ✓iCa lC���. Q i �,..� �L1�--� Q"r�._._.�'� �i"•�^� �
SC:LS
Saries/c;nase: C-re�P_ 8r0k.0 R—� Su!ccrcun:2
Is :he soil on the rydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
is the soli a His;csct? Yes No ( Histic aoiPedon present? Yes No k`
Is the soil: mor.!sc? Yes No Glevec? Yes No
Matrix Color: ._.7 _- 's/ 3 Mc -,le Colors:
Other 'nydr!c soil ncicators:
Is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes _ No
Rationale: L t- r4- + W1 1110 -S
HYDROLOGY
Is the ;round surface !nMrdated? Yes No Surface water depth:
is :he soil saturated? Yes No
Depth !c free-star.^?ng wa!sr ;- rrr1scii Mrcbe hole:
Last other field evidence cf �uraaca inundation or soil saturat!cn. [DTZ-L F-r C'I �
of rvS Ca UM mU C IC - S U i L C f t- (Z� t
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X _ No
Raticraie: 5 Z 1J L El 4;;;7 t_ Cl ns D I CA-M 1?
JUFISCIC71ONAL DETERMINATYON AND RATIONALE
Is 1,,e plant community a wetland? Yes No
Raticrale for jurisdictional decision: Pr 167iZS- / t
i This data forte can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the P?ant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classif cation acc crding to 'Soil Taxonomy."

3D
DATA FORM
RCU71NE CNSITE DETEnMINATICN METHOD' (�5eI.-r q a�
t_ I � ❑A Gr. CHA F f t. `� .TA N of �-
Pie�d Inveatigatar(s}: Gale:
Project/Site: NSO /J Ln. LAND F1 L-t- State: N C- County: ANSdt`i
A-cpa iicnvCwner: CE, A245LK5 __ P;ant Community ;$/Name: P � 4t�W6:3 lI..S �O �
Noss: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. I N Gr2Ti. tTT&n1i
____________________________________________7!---�jrV^ rt
Co normal environmental conditions exist at the plant ccmmunfty? rQ'rll� USQ4 -P'j S Lam 4
Yes X� No �_ (if no, explain •
S�C� ti�L'r%
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been slCnific3ntly disturbed? r
Yes 4- No (If yes, explain Am=+ Si Pry rtG'r i A.Q..
VEr=ETA T 1CN
indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Siratvm Dominant ! !art Spec?es Status Stratum
t r t.A- a
2. .UIMS3L GUNiCC.AC% �= I-k C 7_ 12.
3. ? ir1e7S-f-tXe-&0.. r-74 13.
d. LQ^iGer-L pan'Ca- _r=&C- �_ 14.
7, ik-.1-0 C i 5 S u£3 R %ens u i --17.
9. 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dcminant species that are CEL. PACW, and/or PAC j 00 C 0
Is the hydrechyt;c vegeta i n criterion met. Yes No
Ya•;en?a I o c5 o4:r— i>omtnt T' .S. (E_ r��`. _ =f�C. Cr('LWL't'i .[,
SOILS
Series/chase: L r C-e'r-1'r"ticiz- Subgroup-,2
is tha soil on the hyd6c soils list? Yes No >� Grndezerrmned
Is the soil a Histesct? Yes No — Hls,ic epi,Pedon rresant? Yes No
Is the soil: Mor,!ed? Yes No Gleyec? Yes No
Matrix Ccicr: 10 -Z-- Mcs•le Colors: toast fZ� ArN -r•S R_ �8___
Cther hydric soil rndicLfcrs:.
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes C No
Rationale: L_6W Ctiab mlA Mptf T?-L)( W iTh T3 Tr LCrWT _OAoTTUZ-7-S ---
HYDROLOGY
Is the around surface ir.undated? Yes No )<' Surfacs water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X—
Depth to free-standir:g water in pit'scil prose hole:
Last other fiedd evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation,
W f r 8 EF 2 N S 5 C-4 'T' L 5 VI7 C LL-e nl 'L S �"5 N "�ME7EU
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No
Rationale: S i cE C L- L e L. fki"CtP�
JURISDIC71ONAL DETF-RMINA71ON AND RATIONALE
is the plant community a wetland? Yes ,C No
Rationale forurisdkiional decision: L.�
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Cernmunf y
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
B-2 31 SZ = F 4 9 P. Z 3— r— 6-it Z.

DATA FORM
RCUTiNE CNSITE DETERMINATION IVIETN©DI �� P-Pt 9 l
Flsld Invest;gator(s): AJ DA Gr. C- HA rl N Date:
jec'JS;te; :� ry i u t State: N L. County: fNSU N
A pkanV0wner: Pant Community #rName: S M pr L L- I M P O UIQZ MAN '
Note: d a more detailed site description 3s necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No ,<___._ (If no, explain on bae,c)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrelcgy been significantly disturbed? Yes --K— No (If yes. explain cn back) ---------------------------------------------------
VEGETA71CN
lndica#Cr indicator
ncminant P'.ant CGec;es
Status Wlrctunt Dominant Plant Spec'es Status Stratum
12,
3. -Tu v. c;- r U.SUL-n
-E6icu—j + B
C.+#1&d-ta-1
kaI4- 15.
%.
t T.
3.
18,
9.
t 9.
10.
20.
P'9rcent of dominant Species that
are CEL, FA`iW, and/or FAC f ©©
Is the hydreChytic vegetation cr(t
C`t+r.na;n. e3O O
r.cn rnet? Yes -X_ No �
O iC. Ckr w
SCiLS
Series/chase: �- �-��n
Subgroup-2
Is the soil en the hyoid soils ;is:? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes No Histic apicedon ..resant? Yes Na
Is the scii: Mottled? Yes No Gayed? Yes No
Matrfx C.�Jcr: z.,5 y� Mcttle colors.: _, 5..�M 5 �
Cll^,er hydr'c soil indicatcrs:
Is the hydbc soil criterion ,-net? Yes X -- No
Rationale: L-' -- J
HYCRCLOGY
Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes x No Surlaca water depth:
Is tt;e soil saturated? Yes X No
Decth to free-standing water in p tfscii probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes x No
Rationale: nZ i i ,% G..G Ir-+uz c- e Q i �.
f
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
is the plant communi y a wetland? Yes �_ No
Raticnala for jurisdictional decision: r-t-- C- f �
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Ccmrnunhy
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
B-2 (� a�-T�
_F 3 T g Z. 1-

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE DETE:RMINATICN METHCDI
Field Inves6gator(s): L I >J DA Gr, GHA F-I ,J Date: 14 JAN q
Projec'JSite: A N5c5 LI C(`1. L NIA ' i t State: /\J, C— County: A N-S NJ
Apolicant/Cwner: -��MB S i��'�/ Prant Community #/Name: 1 NT_L� `11 TiCNT- SAll
Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. CI4ANJNEL---------------------------------------------------
-
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes _ C _ - No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, sails, and/or hydrelccy been significantly disturbed?
Yes No —( (if yes, explain on back)
VEGETA TICN
Indicatcr Indicator
Dominant Pant Spec!es Status Stratum Dominant Plant SWec:es Status Stratum
1.
11.
2.
12.
3,
13.
d,
14.
5.
15.
o.
1 n.
7.
17,
8.
18.
10.
20.
Percent ci dominant species that are CEL, FAC`N, and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
SCtLS
Saries/chasa: Sui trouo:2
Is :he soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined _
Is the soil a Histosci? Yes No H!stic aniPecon ;rssani? Yes _
Is the soil. Mottlec? Yes No Gleved? Yes No
Matrix Color: Mot;le Colors:
Other nydric scii incicsicrs:
Is the hydro soil criterion met? Yes No
pationaie:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to .free-standing water in pit'scil probe hcle:
Last other field eviCence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
No
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RA71CNALE
Is the Plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationala for jurisdictional decision: 1t
Nt C E-- e_1_ I -S ft `t .f?-S O 1E�
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
B-2 �. -2 1 — t3 # Z.

DATA FORM
ROU71N£ CNSITE DETERMINATICN METHOD'
Field Invest;gator(s): 4- t N DA Cr• GI-4A F l l4 Date: 1 U -TAN 9 3-� PT'9 �)
project/Site: -,vS0� C¢n- LAND} Ft L--t— state:Ccun Nt.s
Applicant/Cwner: Pant Community 4/Name:
Note; if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. pv-r 4z-.,ttrTi= 4 r
______________________________________________STD-eAtA
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the ,plant community?
Yes _ C No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sigr',if7rantiy disturbed?
Yes No X_ tiff yes, ex -Plain on back)
VcGE T AirCN
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Pant Scecles Status Stratum Dominant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
1. f? G e,,e - C- __S___ 11.
2. u I. 'T - 12,
d, L �'{" , Et�Y wti — 14.
{ Lan
�).
10. 20,
Percent of dominant species that are CEL. FAUN, anc/cr FAC
Is the hydrecr:ytic vegetation c.-tericn met? Yes No
CD
SOILS
SeriesJchase: t Subgrcup:2
!s 1he soil on the hydric scils list? Yes No < Undetermined
Is the soil a i iistescl? Yes No Ne Histic acicedcn ;resent? Yes No k,
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No
—
Matrix Ccicr: to uj ::: - Mcr le Colors: _ , Cp z. t� � (0 CL
Other hydric sc..:,-----tors:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X-- No
Rationale: prkzt W 1T& C-
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground sumacs inundated? Yes No � _ Surface water depth:
Is t"e soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standirg wa«c- in p?Ut:ci't -robe hole:
List other field evidencs of surface inundation or soil saturation.
t.l"P
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No v4u t-k ^- �c-K-5 i'Ft1" ;�U LTt Ply' i`IZUNI��
Rationale: 'LSeAJCG7- OF= SQyFIEL-D 1)-J01C,h
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the niani ccmrnuniry a wetland? Yes �_ No
Rat;onnaie for jurisdic:ionail decision: t t-74t' M ��
t This data form can be used for the Hy&c Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'
s-2 p. rl 3 - FS # :t

rsCU-IaT CN�1'w � , ...= lP(„ iC'( �iciriC�
r= d c 'r.v5s: atcris'
�lar�l
a:lC CCunry: r�tiNrar: rt�k.tn 3 iS Ccr-. r. -� r'i2,-d:. rFrAC�va�7EfZ SFEP GF rtE�r�Ri�?tj I
�'c f a -nva . elaiiec site-
W;icn4:s necass�r: _sa _:a acx1yr� *:a .`crrn cr a fieic Tctdcccic- - _
dircrmeriai ccnC:t:GrS
.-as .� e :pgatat o-1sc;;s, r..c/cr -�vcrciccv teen s:gn c.lj �� D S�De �iT pEpos�D HtCAe y
Y No A (if yes. - MOU{
dg
YE"'�Er•.;-77CN
,'rCiC=tC:
��AC -MEE
Cc.-7:rar.: - rt Sce&es
12.
17-
G C.
P'arc:art :i _cmmrant soec-es :fiat ere GEL. = C:V, arc.'Cr , WC ��`10
Is .`a -yc- c y w vecetu on ercn met? Yes _X__ No �-
•7AC
:s :ndsc:i W:..' e '• c,-,c sclis ,ISt . Yds AC Cdief^IrBC
's .'a _C:i a^ YWs No X .is:. cecG . zrssar:. ':s
C'~er -'�Cr SLiI :,nc:c;tCrS:
is :`a ''svcrsc scii c ;terion met? Yes _ Ne
t+ G+I tn1 {3tSTyttC
Haticnaie: _
HYCF iCLCC'f
No is
irc:C;.iG r
is ::'9 grr..rc C :rdC3 irt:nczstad? Yas No x su<�aC3 Watdr :BCth:
�s :,"a scii saiuratec? Yes No _X-
Cect,n :c `ree-s:arcing wster in ,:: ;,'scii -,rcce ^cie:
L:S" Ci per `ie 9mcar 3 ct zud'aC3 "riUnccticn Cr ii s S:Cr. 0.�
�... L� 5a o r� Y ! r1
Is :lie "Neifarid 1..ycrnlcc`/ vimricn: �rmiy{e�,t? Yes �n No
i,atiCnaie: �% L ^.^�0v'r--
uURtSUiC7C%A L ❑E i -==.MINA 7CN AND RA i iCNALE
Is ,he iart -nmuni a woc;anc? Yes x No
1"`. niiCnccie for :iJrl$�;.iC:;flnaf LeG:s i[',n: ���'
1 This cata farm Can to used 'Cr :he Hydric Sod Assassmant c-cc9G::'a arc :he Rant CCf^iT133' by
As3essTIent PrCcadure,
Casaificaticn accWrcing to "scii T3.xcncmy.
3-2

riCU71!jz_ CNSITE ETC?,MINA;iCN METHCG�
PC) VJF_G. L✓ c f'�A2t qq2
s� _
8C roves:CaICrfsi: a,a.
r . .eC.,S=te N 1� T-JI-4-- Stat C � my oN
=Mc i ^' r weer: ='3r:f Cc rr mur,iry »`'Ia,-e: � 5
f d ;nCr6 detailed SitB CesC Wticn :S rac85Scf %, use :he Cacx vi data 'crr- Cr a� ctecoc
EP
Cc ~crmrtca ai envircnrnetal ncit;cns axis; at ,he vlar,: ccm ;: nrv? AlKCAf Wr:F rA5 'M 4A'Jlr,� 4Eri;7/4 7KCAVA-TO;
Yes No � Of no, axWiain on cacx) $pn,j. PtLjE5 IcV-E eAe EES EVT- A-T- E'0&JF5
--as '`e vegetation, sciis, anc'cr hycrciccy teeen sic,,;-J!c. rtiy cistum-a . ifCC �AO
Yes No ?- (If yes, ex.plain on Cac:x) " t►APc�u&JD WA—itR— .
---------------------------------------------------
incic_tcr
f
NEWR
• r w.. RR ■
k&S-B
Ccrninartt ;—zcrt SceC:eS
lnc:C.atcr
Status Strati:r't
v.
P9rCer"t Wi CCminant 8C6c:es :!"at are GEL, i-AC'.V, anC`cr
3s ~a -ycrcor ,w vece avcn �!,ier,cQ met? Yes �'f�C.
fl
�x�
iS .`c3 SC:I Cn a VG; C 5 315 +3�: _ ie35CBter,: {n8C
Is:na _c:i a -istcs 3? Yes No ?1,_ ,ist,. -CC6cz -resent" Yes No �
is :na soli: Mc,:eC? Yas _ No Clevec? Yas No
x fart +cr:
scii Incic:=rs:
Is hvdrsc scii criterion met? Yes x_ No
PaTicnaie: W11-m%NbcM4 s Co MUt tST Sle E &— nJA-
Ce�,r�, tOt'72 rxo `ram F3e' f4�PAI C
HYCRiCLOGY
Is *.-,a ,:curd surjzca inundated? Yes No k Su;-.'aeo •tea,,er cecth:
Is ,;-e soil saturated? Yes Nc
Cect7'� 'gee-,tancirg water in r rLlzcii prcce hcfe:
Last Wier `ieiC evicar,cs of surface 7nuncat:cn or.s
oil sa"Urar;Cn,
t^ ba.rSt S
Is :he wetland i^ycroicgy Criterion met? Yes �° ^ No
` sl,i Cnale: r' D.1c �. ti � Ill�6V10—
JUF.ISCICTICNAL 'DET=_=,MlNAi{CN AND RATiCNALS
is the wiart ccMmuniry a wetland?
Raticna;e .`or juriscic"onal decision:
I This data forrm can 'ce used fcr the Hydric Ecil Assessment Procedure anc the P?ani Ccmrnunity
Assessment Procedure.
Z C,aSs iic �ticn according to `Soil Taxonomy.`
E-2

=Cis', "i_ CNS;-C __�_:-M1NA7:CN .MZ-7in'C0
? aW �L L a:e _q 1iZ 1 i ctc z
^'tsC ,r'.'Se:cT3tG i57. ` .� � �ryS
!".' :eC:' iiB: >L�I•5�.� 1, r-r, �' 7 r�•'I��i ^IG Cia:9: C ZUn:J: ` _.
N ant (:Z:M 7,un ;'r-,`ia,~-,9: �nITN f Li %T'Te g Wi
CCa :emneC sAe :e:v4cvcn S nec8ssar1 Wsa :ra tact _ ca:a form -f a ,'ia C ^ctac-cck.
c ^si ?r'Jircnmen:al CGr'cicns exit t "Q Plan: W_Mmor.:: � {_ ���
YWs 'iG {!''ra' f A1y E4A W L7eGr� GITfVvN�?�
s .e JBC�9tat;Gr , °C:i„ t`V �:5�^ 4Ci
arc'Cr nVCrc!cCy :-een .t =-r
eNN.iC3NT
s 6��� o sri�d a� uSozooA sevatE---------------------------------------------------
Ccrn!r.ar.. ant Scec:es
V GE T A RCN
&COSM.
Slows
St- fir-; Q=jsm TWC
r
'F-A-T-
V
:G.
TW�p"
Etc--
v E — i C.
✓arcart ct _w „fir art=rec:ss .- �t are CEL. FAC'.'d, rc.'cr -C �S° --
is :re nyc:c r elo:cn =-srcn ,^it? Yes X No
SMS
Z 4 W_
Yas No _ncc ar- Erac
S ma ._.O a .Sswsco Yes No HiSIC =aCw . ..:esam? Yes _
!s to s k MCn%W Yes No CEO ec7 Yes !No
Mato tzar: Mcte czxrs:
C't',er -vC:',sc;i :nc:=_,_.
is : e :nvcr>c scii cn-zarion :net? Yes No
�ti^nz e' T4 15 ! N 7F-9, WA 1 7— S
s:.,,ac3 ;nurr=eC? `!as _ No
s !,,a sc:: saiUra:BC7 Yes _'X, No
Cectn :c `:ee-stand rnq^ water in ,= u'scii prcce 'aie:
L:st ct!^e[of 3unfsc3 �runciatIFn r.r soli s8t,!]
!s :he wetland hyctroicgy cri:ericn met?" Yes _ No
aticnaie: "(0 J
No
;ncicz: to
Status W trat r."n
:AC E _
��-
PhC
0R ED
L Gu n�atrcuc�c vti.a_- -) .�.......--.._._
Stlrac3 'voer
cn
hp
D DT-8
�LF.fSO.tCMCNAL LSE-1EFFMINA70N AND=A7CNALE
Is t�7e ::iat't cVmrnuniy a',vat;anC? Yes �K,— No
V��`��S of -T-�A'C vr4Ii T W STATE',
1'": a:iCnaiB ,`Gf �i.irl5C1C::Crai CeCis iCn: , .. ► k 'i'n.IS rrt.l j it AA
t This caia form can Wa ,tsed'Cr ::^a HyCric Scit Assessment 7ccadwre and :he Plant Community
Asaassment F:acecure.
C ass i c rcn Wc:::rcing to "Scii Taxonomy.'
^_2

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION ME T HOD1
Field Investig for s)tlN � lA _- Ar-( )--t-?-UGctA t',0WP-L-t_ }ate: Il- tom- �t11J �:.
Project/S3Ie: Stale.. N C. County: Pc N Sc?
Applicant/Owner: Ct-� ArtA,3, cz.� ->J`J, Plant Community #/Name:
Note: H a mole -d ailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes _� No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No --'e_ (1f yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Indicator indicator
Dominant Plant Soecies Status Stratum Dominant Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
1, �P � �P-rc• wo n , F f-�-c 7
4. U r+, S G O -- Y
5. /Gt r- fit. S v.S V n
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
1 d,
1 S.
16.
17,
18.
19.
20. /
Percent of dominant scec!es that are OBE. FAUN, and/or FAC _ 3 7 p______
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
cCfr c
Series/phase: �' � 3 L ^�L Sa ,��j JocltA Subgroup-2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No �_ Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No _ His; c apipedon presant? Yes No
Is the soil: Mortled? Yes No Cteyed? Yes No '>e
Matrix Color: cr Mo :fe Colors: I n S;ae= 4Z (.
Other hydre soil indi ators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_ No
Rationale: l-n W W.,ti
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes �_ No Surface water depth: 2
Is the soil saturated? Yes_ No r
Decth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ! _ 0.F "i"�c r1
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No -,—>< — ��� fai\
Rationale: 1 c c.� are G r e�.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jprisdiGional decision: C-
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classdication according to -Soil Taxonomy."
ME

CA7AFORM
ROU71NE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHODI
Field lnvestigator(s): L_INJDA C_k4AFt0 �-LvcTti 7>oWP_L_t_ Date: _It -IZ _'tJ JL:=' cf-2---
Projec'J&1e: ArJ S:6 t ,L0 . L-A tQt>Pj L_u-- State: N C_ County: AN Sc)
Applicant/Owner: Punt Community 9/Name:
Note: N a more -dailed site description is necessary, use the bacJk of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes - No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, andlor hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (if yes, explain on back)
Dominant Plant Scecies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
VEGIETA T I©N
Indicator
Status
Str2lum
c
T
04 s 4 Eno"(-
`7
-
?�(-ea
Dominant Plant Species
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17,
is.
19.
20.
Psrcant of dominant scec:es that are OEL. FAUN, and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes !�_ No
SCILS
Series/chase: C r r�``1' �;- 5cs-�-- Subgroup:z
Indicator
Status Stratum
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No7 X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsof? Yes No _ Histic aoipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No C=eyed? Yes No kl:_
Matrix Color: ro z - T-�-- Met+,te Colors: r" c� 5 !:Yg ("I'?
Cther hydric sail indicat s: neL
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X_
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
I
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X NO Surface water depth: Z 3 S reSSt i,"� G
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pesoil probe hole: �-� o w i � �J2c-fit- �� �1�cly ,'A})
Ust other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
prow Q �e r ,��. SCotxri r•., r l }7' l� Ay 1, �
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes NO
Rationale:
JURISOICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No _ C
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: _ So i i Ctna rot e-f' S t7 G [a
1�.Uc �n�t'ca1 ,r.cJtr�trr are. rely--C_ck --0 re
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Fie#d Investigator(,): L t Q DA, C-tAAFI ,.1 hU Grt -! ]-o_WEr�t Date: f 1- i -"Z SJ IJ L 19 ct'Z
Prciect/Site Ar r Sd N —Co. [_,4 N p t t_ Mate: N G County:. f't N_SC.tJ
ApolicanUOwner: Plant Community #Marne:
Note: H a mcFedelailedsite description is necessary,.use.the back of, data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes _, No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, andlor hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No -4— (If yes, explain on back)
VEGE T AT1ON
Indicator
Dominant. Plant Species Status Stratum
2.`�-
3. l roc
4.
5. a t' a C�iSVS 4winkL4 FF C l,r
t -�
Dominant Plant Scec:es
ii.
12.
13.
14,
17.
is.
19.
20.
Psrcent of dominant scecies that are 06L, FAUN, and/or FAG _ J..D.0
Is :he hydrophytic vegetation cr' erion met? Yes No
Oo d a 6 tf --
r cGt� c
Saries/phase: ee�r"ti`aV- t-i�^� -5 cA t 00M Subgrouo:2
Is the soil on the hydric souls list? Yes No A Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsol? Yes. No 7C _ Histic apipedcn present? Yes No
Is the sail: MoaIed? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: -J�S � Mct1)a Colors: I 5 4
Other hyd6c soil indi tors:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No >C
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No �_ Surface water depth: r
Is the scif saturated? Yes No X_
Depth to free-standing water in pdsoil probe hole: 0 AM
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
. no ✓k
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No -L<I_
Rationale: L-) (�- d t C.G O f S
JURISDIC'nONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Indicator
Status Stratum
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X_
Rationale for jurisdic Tonal dacision: Y) 0 S 4_t u- t7iZCx O C'r`-a- 11'1 iJi C r°t'T`o j2S
This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Z Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
8-2

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATICN METHODI
Field [nve96,ator(s): L I KJ pA CN 4trc r.1 a tU C�H O Wes' 1 Cate: 11- 1 2- _ SU 1J C ct2
Projec'JSde: Ai t S6IIJ C-0 . L-A I >P1 t_ t_.... State N C. County: N SCa �,J
Applicant/Owner: Cis i�r�l3te iZ', �� Plant Community #/Naive:
Note:. If a moredi ailed.site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field noteback.
too normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (ff no, explain .ors back)
Has he vegetation sails, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (if yes, explain on back)
----------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Soee..es
Status Stratum Dominant Plant Scecies Status Stratum
2. A ce-e- rn
rT 12.
3. _ � � c 2a �., r S
t E8 (_ T 13.
4. Ul �s r� ;Cw -
..�-j 14.
S. 1_ >. 10S
S. L o r-, 3 c ni Css_ �C.- V &
7.are�c,suI u`nuC
__V_ 17..-
8. � �
19.
Psrcent of dominant scecies that are 06L. FAUN, and/or FAG
Is the hydr.ophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No.
-:.:...-r'+�finn pie• O{��..
-'>,-
�fli'V.4,%\G._�i'.,'._—_ ,,+.w.._+1.-
.....1
SOILS
Se.rieslphasa: ee�y�ncrr- •�'• �0_Ct-M Subgrcuo:z-
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsol? Yes No _X Histic eoipedon present? Yes No jC
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes }C No Cieyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: 10 4 r' -'% Mci,Ie Colors: 2. �e
Other hydric soil.indicatcrs: t"`
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: n a r -�_- c7..c c c.�crv"S
HYDROLOGY q
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No „
Depth to free-standing water in prUsoif probe hole: 2 G- mot"` t.�s` L- ci"7 - Aj
1_Ist other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. /
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Nv
Rationale: c�rra 10 ir�Gl l�C C, (*~ r^ e,,7�-
JURISOICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes Nn
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: �'� t�'� S c5, 0(—_
i s Pry l u C/3
I' t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'
aM

_:�a__T�l
DATA FORM
ROU7NE CNSITE DETERMINATiCN METHOD'
Field Investigator(s}: C)^ C;. C_HA F11.1 Date: 1 1r 1 9 r 9 1
Project/Site: V). da S Ct [Z __-- State: NC"" County: A N SCE
C F'r NIBS-R S Pant Community ' Mane:..
AoolicantlCwner xcA.IATLb -f22E-A
Note: 9 a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data fora: or a field notebook.
Do normal environmentai conditions exist at the plant c.-mmunit ?
Yes -No. (if no, explain aria j i�oc-'ciao - (codplr.*In eKCc��sq � cti.a toc3Y�n��7
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology .,een significantly disturbed? lam- r-(:� ba {�L� �t,, �� '�erCT
Yes �_ No (If yes, explain on back) "T1^,'s . 4rc-r s s l@.�i w �w� a d� o.cel L_Q00 �,e S(oo6pta;.�
VEGETAT]ON
Indicator
Dominant Plant Scec:es
Status
Stralun
I
Spit 0 US ,nuS
G 1 <
C)BL
_
2.
a a n t o cc <►
68 t+ _
5
3.
1 i K ,n1 q rob_
�
T
5.
7,
8.
a
10.
Dcmnant Plant Species o-f" -fit'
5 QP
;s
lncicatar
Status Stratum
cFA c.. _--
�7fk C_A-
pr G. r
1� S
Percent of dominant spec;es that are =W:EL, FAC',, , and/or r=AC l UCa "Xo
Is the hydrephytic vegetation criterion net? Yes _�C ^ No
'", ."".=+innaio• �.0/!7 f�i�.S�_'�Mk nq+''�5,.¢�'Gi._�'_+_-.--. fe_ A 81.s o•..-.�.�AG1+.i
M 0-" erk as : SCtLS
Sat€es/pt125,e:. Creet00 r
is the soil on the hydric sails list? Yas No X Undeterm'ned
Is the soli a Histosci? Yes No Histic apipedor) present? Yes No 'c
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes_ No Gleved? Yas No
Matrix Cold: 10 �jg 5/ 3 Mc-, Je Cofors:. "T • S V TA.S
Cthar fnydre soil indicatcrs:. t r�tZ
Is the hydric sci€ criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: b e- C o u� a-1 J A cs,,-% ,.c,t-C L, Cr-c e-C-4
ter`
di-Zc HYi7R LOGY t>\�G+r�C_
Is the ground surface i.^.undated? Yes No __ Sur`aca water depth
Is the soil saturated? Yes x _ No
e'cth to free-standing water in pit/sci€ probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is thwetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _X . No
Rai€ male: SQ111 L� It-0 si, aCe .
JURISt}IC'nONAL DETERMINA T1ON AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes C No
Rationale for jurisdic ionai decision: Sop SPrTUR-A-r
©_Ku
'This data form can be used fcr the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classif'scation according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
WAN
B- tP .? = Fs- , i:�_3: P, IzS -- r13 #-.

CATA FORM
RCUTINE CNS€TE CETERMINATION METHCDI
F" eid Inves6gator(s): U f n1 C)A G-, GHA F- 1,,J Date: NO V 18 2.2� 19
Project/Si 9: L'N State: /NI C— - County: 5 OC -0-
A.nolicant/Cwner: C-HA" LTV Plant Community #Nam.e:
Note: K a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? T�oe-C, C.Lec�r-at
Ye.s No - Y`. (if no, explain "-iU*
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes -7K— No (If yes, explain
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator A10L., �*- rt
Indicator
Ccminant Plant Srsecies
Status Stratum Plant Species
Status Stratum
SC- t C i
ua .. C95.V
2 $C�er 0S0--
, FF,CW M 12. Sc.li?C ni f4L _____
crS8
4.C� 5
' 8 14, t r
_- e"�Ca r' i A�:.. M Q-�7r1hA,_.
PIN + ) t 5.
7.
17. ,
- --- -
8.
18,
9.
19.
10.
20, .
Percent of dominant species that
are CEL, FAC`N, and/or r=AC f�i(QT�a
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion m t? Yes X_ No
SCILS
Subcrcup:?.
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X_ Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No _ Histic acipedon present? Yes No � _
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No _Z Gteyed? Yes No
Matrix C,�ior: _ I ct} V 17= 5± Mottle Colors:
Other hydric .soil incicatcrs
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No x
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY !r
Is the ground surfwcs inundated? YesC _ No 5urfaca water depth: 3 --- -
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth tc free-standing water in pitUscii probe hole:
List other field evict ncs of surface inundation or soil saturation.
h 1. a r .#cam A l c, �-►_ . c +, 3 > -r, # -�
is the wetland hydroicgy criterion met? Yes ).<--- No
Rationale:
JUR€SC€C71ONAL DETERMINATION AND RA71ONALE
Is the giant community a wetland?
Rationale for iurisdictionaf deci.sicr
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."

4 P
DATA FORM
ROU TINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field invest;gatcr(s): L I'VDA Cam-. CE4A F I zJ Date: 1 l - 19 - C l
Projec-JSile: TNS0 PJ c4c>rri Nr�D -A* t-2-- - State: N County: A, n STy—t
AcolicanVCwner: Ct-� ga2—gz _ Plant Community #/Name # 4 —-5acckarts
jVate: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the .back of data form or a field notebook.
---------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? 'De -se +t,; c.z-& I B1:%ccL, -rt-? -TkcCee�e�,Q
Yes No _ (If no, explain o+r.irrr$ej i r, c[Oar,n�-. {�-oc,er �a�s t we, T- c7-
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrelogy.been significantly disturbed? .,r-l z 6, 4 y {� s e rer,
Yes_Jk, _No (If yes, 8XISdO*ei I iYWP) SCeP a -FV� vet+ th & --? L.-Pie,^(�-
-----------------------------------------------------
Dominant Plant Scecies
2. t" C 9 .:u.-du--
3.
O.
%.
8.
10,
O
Indicator
Status St -atom
T=AC- 5
r-ACvJ k {
CC
YcGE T AT10N
Indicator
D.cmina.nt Plant Scec:es Status Stratum
11-
1,2.
13.
14.
i4.
i 7—
14..
20.
Percent of dominant scec:es that are CEL, FAC . andicr FAG l © a
Is the hycirccny;ic vegetation criterion met? Yes, _ No
SCILS
Series/chase: Sut>grcu2:2
Is ttse soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is ,he sci€ a Histcscl? Yes No Histic e.oipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mcrl!ed? Yes _ No G+eved? Yes Nc �K_
Matrix Cti€cr: 3 0 �s 4,. Motile Colors.:.
' So rye. �r not+LSO .� +�,
Other ydr c soil neicatcrs:: -----
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No �C Sudaca water depth:
Is ta soil saturated7 Yes Into ?C`
Depth tc free-standing water in piuscil probe 'sole:
Ust other field evidence of surface inundation or sail saturation.
r%e-
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No .1—
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE ��S-�s�`c�- CtCi.�n�e��
Is the plant c: mmunity a wetland? Yes Na "C uo ��� Z' � � f :� -W ' � .
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: p �* d M to o
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
6'2 � = t f�:- 3 _-;� + �zo

DATA FORM
ROU71NE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHODI
PeicInvesticator(s:L- I nJ D A GT , Q-4A F- I N Date- V
9 - r
Projec: Si e: © ON 7 q 4L 12= State: _ 1N G County: _$ S O GO.
AL-p=icant,'Cwner: I- 4 °Jt 3 S U Plant Community #/Name; ; 5- 1= ocd p lay n
Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
f Do normal environmental condions exist at the plant community? V Y) 6 1'5 t_.v-�-�
ti
Yes __ Ng (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, sails, ar,dlcr hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No >_ (If yes, explain on back)
YcGETATION
Indicator
Indicator
Dcr-ninant Plant Species Status
Straturn Dominant Plant Species
Status Stratum
1. Q --P r C,-0 l ciu t a. A Cy�l
_ 11. ' .S
t o r- ---�-_
2. "ex w.s PC L
1 12. r c tom; u
+? tw& TH
1 axv to 4 r rz4c, EA C
7- 13.
den&�-t��.t> >_ �-
T 14. n�ksn�ri� 4i�iGn
eaC 5
S. r + Ott.4at� qG
_-.,........
[,-Xz
Su{o-C 1:
Cr In -. C C'i Li E A C U
S -+ -- C
a i_ i i`r� r1 t o C:
S 18,
?. i (,c�_Q'€'rdrC�. (Gd,Cctn3 FAA
y 19.
Psrcent of dominant spec -es that are CEL, FAC1Y, andGr FAC rT I p O
is :h2 `yCdGQryt C v@ etatiOn GrttBryGR fn9t?
Yes No
SOILS
Sarlesicha.se: ECG 0.r Suogroup:2.
Is the sciI On the nydric Solis Ilse? Yes No X _ Undetermined
Is the scii a Histcscl? Yes No X Histic apicedon presanll Yes No x
is the soil: Mottlec? Yes No �_ Glayed? Yes No �C
Matrix czicr: --_ _- 10 T f 4 _ Mcn:ie colors:
Ctt',er hycrc soil
Is the hyd6c scil criterion met? Yes No
P.aticna:e: s-,6t l e - ' e k <�- 8 ge v CS
HYDROLOGY
Ic t; e yrc ;r,; surfaca inundated? Yes No x^ Surface water depth:
!s tha soil saturated? Yes No _
De_th tc f.ree-slanding water in pitlscil probe hors:
L!st other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No >,�-
Rationale: Y'\ o i r,6 r- t-cr -- __ -
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RA-nONALE
Is the clant community a wetland? Yes No I 'A 0.�
Raticra,a for urisdic�ional decision- L-Co-iY P.I-R �J_ 0 50, 1
r'r� IAh evn Lo S i C- i ,-\d i c- ato (--s - - �tJ nrz . �� 2--
I t This data form can 'ce used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Pant Community
_,> Assessment Procedure.
2Classft-aticn according to "Soil Taxonomy.'

CATA FORM
ROU-nNE CNSITE CETERMINATICN METHODI
Field lnves6gator(s):. 1- f Al ©^ C-r. CHA F f tJ Date; N 0 `'y 19 - 2- 2-
FrojectlSite: SO , U ON M ( State: C- county. AID{ S !2L-<-0
Acclicant,Cwner: C HAM P. c-, Plant Cemmunity i14ame: _# I�P, - rk 7 k; ckefi'
Note; If a. more detailed site description is necessary, use the bark of data form or a field notebook.
_ _
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? �^ d a l 8- T
Yes No X (l# no, a4plain ) "t"S c.C.<-_ rs s - c­v+�-�_"
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrofcgy b-oen significantly disturt}ed?
Yes _ _� No (If yes, explain ow"*...
------ _ - - - --_.......__---_---.......-_------ - - - --
V EGETATICN
Indicator
Dominant Plant Scec;es Status Stratum
1. CzcC i ,car s 1r � s r+ c� ;::,A _ -S
2. nc
3.-°
d . Sbt� � U S�•
Dominant Plant Scec:es
1.2.
13,.
14.
15.
16
17,
18.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant scecies that are CE L. FAUN, andlor FAC _ (r, (a
Is the hydrepry-t4 ve etation criterion met? Yes �C^ No
Indicator
Status Stratum
t rr SCILS
Sarieslchasa:. Gf"1"�'�w�c�t`�'. #��nR. ctn� �OQ Su't�rcup:�.:.
is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes ho >C Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No _z Hist:c e.cipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleved? Yes No
Matrix C Icr; 10 Mct11a Ccl.0rs: ro -
Cther hyd6c scii 3ndicatcrs: non e
Is the hyd6c soil criterion met? Yes No __
Rationale: G-+r'i X rcr,�
HYDROLOGY
Is the mound surfacs inundated? Yes No _ Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Leech's free-standing water in pr soil probe hole:
List other tle4d evi nce of su4�aea i undaticn of soil saturation.
2 �^G inV%E,1 5
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ ?C No
Rationale:
i
JURiISCIC71ONAL DETERMINATIO�ND RATIONALE aJ�`(� 1Z' --�'�`" ` 'ls�
�i5 �U f�J^s:.Ac..
Is the clant =mmunity a wetland? Yes No > 1L3 t.�D,
Rationale for jurisdic Tonal decision: a e o , Pe 3 ` P"rf'C,""'"
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."

q -r-�
CATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATICN METHOD'
LWDA CT. C1-�4AFlN NL?V f9 - Z.Z 1�t t
Field investigator(s): Cate: r_
Projecvshe:. A N. 50 i..'f.f state: V. County: AN -SON CO.
Apoticant/Cwner: C HA'-1 t�c_21 L �/ Plant Community #rNarne:.._ 9 - 2(7CtA- 12Al�J
Nate: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bark of data form cr a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? ^'�`r T ""Q �Q' 4
Yes -.No X (If no, explain 2wKGq.lafie� Gil , '`c,l, �`� too r ca er,, n I &L.-i Q trer� ,
Has the vegetation, soils, ,and/or hydrology been significantly disturtsed? 4J.��1 "� i ��' c(C�
Yes X_ No (If yes, explain cn back) G'la'-�.t.� -. v-t � � eRo142.r p o ^
----- - - - ----------......__---------_-_-&O-QjAS4r-?--- _..._........_
Dominant Plant Scec:es
1 Scf P L1,Q_ eri AU
2.u' dun
3. S t i )c
Q. H £LQ .' �i ��Ie
�-
z
g Cc-, (eX c_ri n
7.
8.
0
Percent of dominant species that are CEL, FAC`N, and/cr FAC Ua O T
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes )C No
rar
Indicator
Status
VEGETA70I4
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
bad
-EA CW -P
C aL
FA cw
e/'rG to j
Cyjt
Stratum
lA
14
T"
H
H
11,
12.
13.
14,
is.
is.
17;
is.,
19.
20
SCILS
Saries.'chass: C rE cir, aY 0:2
Is the soil on the hyd6c. soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No X Histic e.ciped.en present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mortiec? Yes Nc _�_ Gieyed? Yes No }�
Matrix C,-�dcr: t U V FZ 3 _ Nicttte Colors:
Cther .hydr;c, soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: So 1S 1n' .s
HYCROLOGY I !/
Is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Va r
13 ; a soil saturated? Yes_ No
Depth to free-standing water in pi/scil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation Of soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion. met? Yes X_ No
Rationale: "r Ll La, LA P-, A e-- 0-' -
JUR-sISDiCTICNAL DETERMINATION AND RAT1CNALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X . No
Rationale for jurisdi�ionai decision: - 12k
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
.S f
11-2 Cq ) � �F30_�7 0 T ,tat--Fa��
� X I

CATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE CETERMINATICN METHOD'
Fief In.v.est gatcr(s) L. (Ai DA Cr• GHA V-_ I PJ Date: N O V f �? - 2-7 1 q
Prolect/Srte: Sa ''�`� Slate: _ � C- County:. A S O CO..
ArclicanVCwner:.... Community #/Name: It t0 - Z7 I TC N 1
Note: tt a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bark of data form or a field notebook.
- _ r
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? c-4•. C1 �a� 3 e �, '"
Yes No (If no, expl 1 , vtia.`��-s - C�rai 1 � ✓-ems-�
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrelcgy peen. significantly disturbed?
Yes _X_ Na (If yes. ! } e XC00V4k �.
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicafcr
Indicator
Dominant P!ant Scec:es
Status
Strat!im Dominant Plant Spec;es Status Stratum
A Cf-f er b r to r•-,
2_ U f r . J -S U rvg e r; G Gt
y1 Q- 1EAK V.3
12.
X i ct,
O 611
T__-- 13.
c�IyU f-. "0fASe^
cl r cn1`ie d U t
5 1.
^ G•Cc1-igr�i s a ( r,i�_
a..
�- _L
S 16.
5 �a d i can, �7 5
.._- .17.
$, ��S,I.0 � cNa•.'k`r-�
'1=F�Ct�3
_,�, i-� 1 8.,
9. _1%cv`cv1.: Fou._
""f�CitJ+
t-3 19,
13, i e t; rL,` u �.. c ,'�c.
a F'
? 20.
Percent of dominant species that
r
are DEL. FACW, and/or FAC
Is the hycrechyi c vegetation criterion rset? Yes X_ No
Go,rc
r -- - .,
SCILS
Seriesr'chasa: Cre—e dm tr Subgroup:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Na X - Undetermined
Is the soil a 1 listcsct? Yes No V! Histic epiFedcn present? Yes
Is the soil: Mcttlec? Yes No Gfeypd'? Yes No
T —
Matrix Color: �Mcttle Colors.
Cther ny:dr,c.soil in6catcrs:
Is the hydrSc soil criterion met? Yes No AX r
P,aticnale: n r 1 G 5 o i cl C ca O t
G
HYDRCLCGY
Is tlhe ground surfacs inundated? Yes No �< Surface water depth:
Is ;ha soil saturated? Yes No _X
Depth !o free-standing water in pi,'scil probe hole:
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or soil
Is the wetland hy6rology criterion met? Yes X __ No _
Rationale: e(c 1 n1\6 t C 6'_ S re e' T' -
W
-4i
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes Na
Rationale forjurisdicional decision: J - ^C= 0. ��� � A-iz- �S��T
v ov - 7-0 t-� 'D-Z
t This data form can be Used for the Hydric Scil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
e-2 r f37L �� f33 �+3ilF�i—

I-:� _ P
DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field lnvesticator(s): AJ ah Cam• GNA.F I N pate: N O V 19 - ZZ 1 j ci I
Prcjec'/sha: 0 O/Ij'14 State: rN C- - County: 6 Ll S Ca.
A,pkant,'Cwner: C !-(A'` l t� ��t` S �<�! F!ant Community #/Tdame`. r ' 7-3 L Gt i j2A lr\
Note if a more detailed site description is necessary, use: the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the. plant ccmmun� y? _ _ C-- ^� 'n
"C,- ; -1'4 <
Yes Teo 1C (if no, explain 2 X�a L(Ds-� � � �� � t G�`
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrolccy. teen significantly disturbed? >�O-+i..z"
Yes _X No (if yes, a -- - - - i __ _ ) C(,.-,(tin C. ��c.Cr(Crt�1 0,4 of .��y �laC"\r-"�' �Q U
_ _ _
Ccrn.inant Pant Sce.cies
1.
2.
s.
4,
5..
o..
s �.,- t-c�eb._
VEGETATION
Indictor
Status Stratum
T-
eR4Ot H
F'R CW H.
a
1r A C- _ —
Dominant Plant Spec;es
11.
12.
13
14.
15..:
17,
18.
19,
20.
Percent of dominant scec;es that are O12L. FA.C`vY, and/or FAC
Is the hy.drepnyt c vegetation criterion met? Yes 7C No
D r
Indicator
Status. Stratum
SCILS
-;Sariaslcnase: ��` Subgrot,1p:2
Is the soil on the hydr c soils list? Yes. No _X Undetermined
Is the soil a H.istesdl? Yes No }C His;ic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No{_ Gleved? Yes Now
Matrix CzIcr: .--- t SST - kicttle Colors::
Clh.er nydre.s.cil..incic.atnrs:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: __ v>o iA�- �GSo;t i 'tcs�S• I�:' 1:,4, �� S i�,� t
HYDROLOGY
Is 'he grcund surface inundated? Yes _ No -X Suriac water depth:. .
,s -a soil saturated? Yes Y No f p
C,epth to free-standing water in pi,�scil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: c, � u Y' 4 +e- 6- CJY 'n L4,-io q tecl. , L,J C,
JURISDICTIONAL DETEnMINATiCN AND RATIC?NALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _ No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: i l--
S r,OGt l o re- c+ { ra r -tz� •, of r C
This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'
Field; Inv.estigator(s): L f. N 0A Cr• C-HA F I N pate: N c3 V $ " Z2
ProjectlSite:. SOC OLIN 7 12 State: -� county.. AN S(�N C�0
Appii.cant/Owner. C 1-- A 13 � C�? S �� �/ _- Plant Community 4/Name:
��t S 3
Note: 9 a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data farm or a field notebook. .SWo I—V
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community . vJ -
Yes No.]_<_(if no, explain emir} 'N'^(-kr°vw/ 1aE:rr�S av��1 1aUcice�Q ``1�,
Has the vegetation, sails., and/or hydreicgy been significantly disturbed? W OL'-?�r bOeckoec" Swam
Yes --,�{_ No (If yes, explain
----------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator
Dominant Plant Sc-ec:es Status Stratum
1. S �-r 5. LA
2. ._ R-C e.,r rk r ce rv, ACr T"
3. Sr- r- c J nu.a +
4,
s ce-n In c,1 a,n-'t k u..o *c^
7. E' t kn-�.
c gal sue. �.4-c.UJ 14
1fl.
f)cminant Plant Spec;es
11,
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
1.7.
is..
19.
20.
Psrcent of dominant species that are C-EL, FAUN, and/or FAG t © c7__� 0 _
Is the hydrephytic vegetation cr iterion met? Yes >C No .
SOILS
Sariesiwnasa`. - C t.V G C Q. __ Subgroup.-2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X _ Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcsci? Yes Nc_ Histic 2pipedcn present? Yes Na
Is the soil Mcrtlec? Yes X No G=eyed? Yes No
Matrix 10�4& to l Mottle Colors; Ce
Ether nydr;c.scil indicators:,
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: soil 5 bCG � 6 E S�-,r-6e
n sotAj? Q(ekXDRCLCGY t!
Is the grcund swfacs inundated? Yes _ �� No Surface water depth:
is tha soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standing water in pitlscii probe hole:
List other field evidence of surfaca inundation or scil saturation.
Is the wetland hydreicgy criterion met? Yes >_ No
Rationale: .5a kkr '4-\ loth o
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant cc mmunity a wetland? Yes --XT No
Rationale for jurisdic ionai decision: vN ot_��
r,
Indicator
Status Stratum
d�-s
t This data form can be used for the Hydric Scil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure,
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
6 1 �4 �j - � � 5) = F iq

DATA FCRM
ROUTINE ONSiTE DETERMINATION METHOD1
L...ln1oA Cc. CHAFIN NOV 19 - 2-2 1`�
Field Invesf'sgator(s}; : f7ate: _ .. �.
ProjectlSite: �. © u`N It State: NI G Coun AN 0 Cr0-
Applicant/Gwner: C 1-4A"-1 2 �, �<`_V- Pant Community .4/Name:. f G - sI-AV E2
Note: 1{ a more detailed site description is necessary, use the hack of data form or a flak! nctebook.
T Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?�c
Yes No, (If no, explain ( b eo�velLs
Has the vegetatin:n, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturtsed? t`�-
Yes -` � No (it yes, explain "Mir*) oL C- C
VEGETATION 4ndicatcr Indicator
C'orninant P!ant Scecies Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. TFa 1a1; oiia.
2. _�to�C s2, ,.,P^ u5un1 `FACW �4— 12.
3. 03L. A 13.
d Se- sL CSis :5:. 14,
7 H 15,
S" t chY.s -f 'FACW H 16.
rams: hen c� an3 L��1i i lta t-/4C 5 t 7.
S. 18.
9.: 19.
10. Z0.
Percent of dominant species that are CEL, FACW, andlcr PAC I CO b/o
Is :he hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes.. . No
j � � �f [,.., 5CIL5
aHe5/chaSa: LJ e.Ln q C- t-e`pl Subgrouo:2 .
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Hstcscl? Yes No Hist!c aorpedon presant? Yes No
Is the scil: Mottled? Yes No Gteyed? Yes No
Matrfx Czlor: to +�2 - 3 - c� . - Mcttfe Cclo1S:.—
Cther bydrsc soil incicatcrs:,
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes,_ No
Rationale: -� ctr4 C, ����
HYDROLOGY � �J
Is the g=c rid surface inundated? Yes � � No Surface water depth:
Is the scii saturatad7 Yes X No
repth tc fide -standing water in pitfscil prcde hole:
Last that field evi. enca of urface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: C1 `'n LA (- 4 U i a
JURISDICTICNAL DETERMINATI©N AND RA71CNALi:
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X_ No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: .
/F t This data form can be used for the Hydric Scif Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
Z Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'
_2 5 o, = F 2 F4°J �• 3� ��

DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNSITE DETERMINATION METH001
t-- I nl o A Cr.G H.A F- I N NOV V I S— Z- — I `i 1
Reid Investigata.r(s}:. Date; --fig
Projectlsh SD 'rj R State: JNC- Ccun.ty: AN_SQN C: C). -_
,Appiic.ant/Cwner: Ct-(A'! C _� `3 �/ Plant. Corn munity$IName.: L.? - W1ctrS%�lo.eatar
Note: if a moredetailedsite description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field nctabbok. SU1Q-1
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant ccmmunity?
Yes No (if no, explain ar,�.r+i�j �(CCsIZL irl i S
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hy.drelccy keen significantly disturb -ad? L�� �02c i e-r Cam'-
Yes No (If yes, explain fa.iw}} t1sv� 51Y Gfr�•�
V cGETATICN
Indicatcr
Lcminant Plant Scecies
Status
Stratum
1...
ACee r~,.,6 r'cc v,
ArC-
T
2..
L �0 n�Iou! 5 faCi (
- � G
T
C"4 i rcc�
FAA-
a.
$
af' �nt�S carol�ni4Ha.
�1C
��
..
L 1 s+rA SS I1 eA se..
—
S .
�a
7.
alec;
C.
S. ...
_U t_m_t z 0 `!NDi+a-.
A..
a
SaLI 1C s
n
O C3E.a
QB1.�
S
Dominant Plant Scocies
11..
12,
1.3.,
14,
18
19.
10.
Psrcent of dcrninam scecies that are CPL, FACW, and;or FAC.
f Is the hydrophytc ve etaticn criterion met? Yes )<__ Nc
.+stir r+�ia.570 0& CL (e L W` C
L:
SCILS
Indicator
Status Stratum
S
'EACU3 T.
1 ACW+ V
T=A(W . H^
E&CJJ3--�- H__
Sarie.si;,hase: Lrai:.uS�-C.iC.Q..�.-_ �Ot' ��4a...Sc.G�c0.�c,Ut�rcup:2
Is the sail on the hyd6c s©ils list? Yes _. No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histcscl? Yes No X_ _ _His is ecicedcn present? Yes No �C
Is the sail: klottlec? Yes VNo Gleved? Yes No X
Matrix C.:lc.r: ._ _ 1.
l"fcttle Cc€ors; 1�5� RE�{a _-----
Cther hy.d6c,scil.incic:.atcrs:
Is the hydric sail criterion met? Yes No
Rationale ca ; �,6r i`C- z i l s L� ST. Lz-L, Cv r-, i
�� d HYDROLOGY
Is *he ^,rCund surface inundated? Yes _ No Surface water depth:
Is t`a sail saturated? Yes �_ No Can 1 a-r. ar
Depth tc free-standing water in piUscil probe hole: '
Last other field evidence of surface inundation or sail s.atuSrSaticn. j 1
- %A- yE1 i e.. 1r" e c—S, S ih C) 1 l � V3 " F E
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes K— No
Rationale: w" S c�-E�•,r-r� ts� a r-r Ss^ C4-[ .
JURISDICTIONAL 0ETE7MINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X_ No
Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: 3
. t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classrlicaticn according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'

F
DATA FORM
ROUTINE CNS1TE DETERMINATION METH001
Fie;d Inves6gator(s): L f A.J DA Cr� Gt:-4A F i N Date: N Q V 1 E— 2-2_ 11911
ProjeciJSrte: N 5 (-`� State: m1 G _ county: A N S U CO.
Anolicant/Cwner: Plant CommunityIName:,
N6ie.: If a more detailed site description is necessary:,: use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant communit 7
Yes No : ?� (If no, explain.arwbw* F�tcCcZ( E� �Ccaoc�ec�
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been ,significantly disturi:ed?
Yes No (If yes, explain M*W+ 1
VEGETATION
Indicator
Indicator
Dominant Pant Scecies Status
Stratum Dominant. Plant Species Status Stratum
1
PAC..-
11
2,
Vi ktl K14U Pk d-FAA-atum 1:5C-
5 12.
.3
-=t e O o-coh . _ Ea C—
13,
A.
S Y1, 7uo_S C O elLI
14.
Qro Cae-oltl.i4tkA E(AC,
T is,
q.
IM Q V� 5±j raci tu= n 1, AC.
yYc,
�_ 16,
/.
�E e4zc f-b cS4, P�PrC-
'T .1 %.
©
14'
1©,
24.
Psrcant of dominant scecies that are GEL. FACW, and/or FAC
Is 'he hydrochyt;c vegetation criterion met?
Yes � No
© r,cra,e; Do. at"'e- Pic or e __ ..
S011;.S
Serfes'chas.e... WCe Ac. - Ot' 3 a C c` Subgrcup:2
Is the soil on the hydric sc.ils list? � eas __�Nc Undetermined
is the soil a Hfstcsol? Yes No x _ _ Histic epicedcn present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yeas No Gteyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: tb 4 R €d 2 �_ Mcttie colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No p
Rationale: o s t lot l 6 rCc- 1 s i e w e
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surfacs inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No ,X //
Deicth to free-standing water in pit;soil prcL-e hole:
Ust other Wd evidence of surfac inundation or soil saturation.
a i aerv�— S
Is the wetland hydro ogy criterion met? Yes \,< No
Rationale: Wci c.Str-2si-.. c,
JURISDIC71ONAL DETE.RMINA710N AND SA71CNALE
Is the plant community a wetland? YesNo
Rationale .for jurisdic lone/ decision: G
C >, r b rw0. W o" q
t This dwta form can ire used for the Hydric Sail Assessment Procedure and the Plant community
Assessment Procedure
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'

APPENDIX 5. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES FOR WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS
94

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVEAT€ON ADMJNtSTRAT*-N 5200.5A
-
1/31/90
SUS..I: WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS
1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the establishment, elimination or monitoring of larndfdln,
open dumps, waste disposal sites or similarly titled facilities on or in the, vicinity of airports,
2. DISTRIBUTION. This crder is'distn"buted to the division level Ln the Offices of Airport Flan*g and Pro-
gramming, Airport Safety and .Standards, .Air Tide Evaluations and Analysis, Aviation Safety C?Yersight, Air Traf-
fic':Operations Service, and Flight Standards Service; to the division Ievel in the regional Airports, Air Traffic, and
Flight :Standards Divisions; to . the director level at the Aeronautical Center and the FAA Techrica-1 Center; and a
UrnitMAistribution to all Airport District Ofrkzs, Flight Standards Field OfI-nces, and Air Traffic Facilities.
3. CANCELLATION. Order 52005. FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfalls On Or Neat Airports, datrd
October 16, I974, is canceled..
4., BACKGROUND. Landfills, garbage.dumps,.sewer.or fish waste outfalls and other similarly licensed or titled
facilities use,d for operations to process, bury, store cc otherwise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will attract
rodents and birds. Whe-e. the dump is ignited and producessmoke, an additional attractant is 4re2tw:_ All of the
above :are undesirable and potential hazards to aviation sir" they erode the safety of the airport environment. Tt4
FAA neither approvesI nor disapproves locations of the faciliies above. Such aciiosn is the sis biiitty ,of tine
Environmental Protection an the a _local agencies. Tye role of the FAA is to tr s=
that airport owners and operators meet tbc.ir contract W obligations to the. United Staters government regarding corn-
pauble land rues in the vicinity of the ai.-port. 'fie the chance of an unforeseeabjo�rAnd—om bd =1a in flight ir
will always exist, it is nev�rzheless possible to de:finc coniditions within Fairly narrow limits where the risk is in-
creased. '7"nosc high -risk ct>nditio-its Tczsst in the i-p_ mach and_ dtarai patterns andr riding areas oaf arzci in ttic
vic9niry of air ores: The number of bird strikes reported on Aircraft is a rnarier of cc inu ng conr=rn to the. FAA
and to airport Management. Various o�_--•rvadons support the conclusion that waste dispxx sites are artificial at-
tractants to 'birds.,Accordingly; disposal sates located in .the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with
safe flight operations. Tbose sites that are not compauble need to be eliminated. Airport owners need guidance in
making those decisions and the FAA must be in a position to assist- Some airports arc not under the jurisdiction of
the community or local governing body having control of land. usage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases,
the airport owner should use its resources and exert its best efforts to close or control waste disposal Operations
within the genes -al vicinity of the anrpart-
S. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. The following list outlines the major changes to Order 5200.5:
a. Recent developments and new techniques of waste disposal warranted updating and clarTication of what
constitutes a sanitary landfill.. This listing of new titles for waste disposal were outlined in paragraph 4•
b. Due to a reorganization which placed the Animal Damage Control branch of the U.S. i?eparsrncnt of Inte-
rior Fish and Wildlife Service under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Dcpartrnent of Agriculture, an address addition was
relcrssary.
c. A zone of r}vd 3cadon. was added to the criteria which should provide tine appropriate FAA Airports oMce
an opportunity to comment on the prvposad disposal site during the selection procrss.
Distribution: A--WP(AP/AS/TS/OV/TO/FS)--2; A—X(AS/AT/FS)-2; tnitiateO By: AAS--300
A-17-1; A-FAS/ems/FAT—O(LTD)

1/3V90
a. W located or o sed ro be.located within_1t?e_.a.tea4rest4blishcd for an airport by the
guidelines set fonh_in paragraph.7a, b anti c of chi .orde should at<be allowed -.to opcs�#t,,,,�1f a w sta disposal site
is incompatible with an airport in accordance with guidelines of paragraph 7 and cannot be closed within a reaso.na.
ble time, it should be operated in ,accordance with L+ e criteria and instructions issued by Federal agencies such as
the, Environmental Protection Agency and the Depa:-Lment of Health and. Human Services, and other such regulatory
bodies that may have applicable requirements. The appropriate FAA airports office should advise airport owners,
operators and.wastc. disposal ;proponents against :locating, permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill or
similar facility on or in the vicinity of airports.,
til . Additionally, any operator aye�Lor_=pande.d waste -disposal site-withi.n..5zniles of a.runw_ay
end should notify the. airport an3-t}re appropriate FAA Airports office so as to pro-,ide an_oppQrtunity_to review and
cgmment on the, site in accordance .with .guidance contained in this. order. FAA field oMces may wish to contact the
appropriate State director of the United States. Department of Agriculture to assist in this Medew. Also, any Air
Traffic control tower manager or'Flight Standards district Office manager and their staffs that become aware of a
proposal to develop or expand a disposal site should notify the appropriate FAA Airports office.
b. . The operation of a disposal site located beyond the areas describul in paragraph 7 must be properly super-
vised to insure compatibility with the airport.
c, If at any time the disposal site, by virtue of its location or operation, presents a potential hazard to aircraft
operations, the owner should .take action to correct. the situation or terminate operation of the facility, If the owner
Of the airport also owns or controls the disposal facility and is subject to Federal obligations to protect compatibility
of land rises around the,2irport, failuretotake-corrective action could place Lhe airport o%mrx in noncompliance
With its. commitments to the Federal governrne.nt. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate the situ -
arson tr3 deterrnirse compliance with federal agreements and take such action as may be warranted under the guide-
lines as prestribctl in Older 5190.6, Airporc
> Compliance Requirements, current edition.
C7
(1) Airport owners should be encouraged to make' periodic inspections. of current operations of existing
disposal sites hear a federally obligated airport where potential bird hazard problems have been r-epertcd. Is
This order is not inten�ed: to resolve ail related problems, beet is' specifically d Tctrd toward eliminating
waste .disposal sites, landfills and similarly titled facilities in lire proximity of airports, thus providing a safer envi-
roament for aircraft operations.
e- At airports certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, the airport certification manualfspeci-
5caticxzs should requirtr disposal :site inspect orsat appropriate in for. those operations m.ott ng the criteria of
mpb 7 that cannot be closed. These inspections are rte nary to assure that bird populations arc not increasing
and grthat a.ppropriatc control procedures arc being `established. and followed., The appropriate FAA Airports offices
should -develop working relationships with state aviation'agencies and state agencies that have authority over waste
disposal and Iandt'i7ls to stay abreast of proposed developments and expansions and apprise there of the hazards to
aviation that these sites present.
t. When proposing a disposal site, operat;,rs should make the plans avaDable to the appropriate state regula-
tory agencies.. Many states have criteria concerning siting requirernents specific to their jurisdictions.
g, Additional information on paste disposal, bird hazard and related problems may be obtained from the fol-
lowing agencies;
U.S, Department of Interior Fists and Wildlife Service
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20240
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal Plant Health Inspection Servict
P.U. Box 9646.4
- Animal Damage Control Prbgrarn f
Room 1624 South Agriculture Building
Washington,, DC 20090-6464
2

5200.5A
�'- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20406
.U.S. Departrnent of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
7. . CRITERIA. Disposal sites will be considered. as incompatible if located within areas established for the air-
port through the application of the following criteria:
a. Waste disposal sites located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine
powered aircraft.
b. Waste .disposal sites located. within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircrarL
c. Any was;, disposal site located witl%in a 5 mile radius of a runway end that anracts or sustains hazardous
bird movements from feeding, water or roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure
patterns of.aircrak
£• 9. -
Leonard E. Mudd
Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards
3

APPENDIX 7, GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Community. All of the populations of organisms living in a designated area.
Ecological community. includes both Living populations of animals and plants, and
nonliving parts of the, environment, such as soil or water. Because of the visual
prominence of plants, communities are usually named and described in terms of their
dominant plant species.
Endangered species. Defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as "any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range other than, a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute
a pest...."
Population. A group, of organisms. of the same,.interbreeding species, that live together
in some designated area.
Protected species. A plant or animal that has been protected from some or all adverse
impacts by law, either state or federal or both.
Rare species. A term without legal definition unless otherwise specified in the text. It
refers to organisms that are very infrequently encountered in the wild. The term is
usually applied to species that fit one of these conditions: (1) A species is restricted to
an isolated locality, although it may be abundant in that locale; (2) A species occurs in
very small numbers widely dispersed in appropriate habitat over its geographical
range; (3) A species occurs as a few individuals or populations in a small geographic
area (Drury 1980).
Threatened species. Defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as "any
species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Wetland. Defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas."

APPENDIX 8. RESUMES OF INVESTIGATORS
9

Linda G. Chafin
Chief Biologist
Garrow & Associates, Inc.
Education.
B. A., History, University of Georgia, 1974.
M. S., Botany, university of Georgia, 1988. Thesis: A Floristic Comparison and
Community Analysis of Two Southern Appalachian Boulderfields.
Areas of Specialization
Protected Species Surveys, Habitat Evaluations, Wetland Delineations, Wetland
Mitigation Planning, Environmental Assessments
Specialized Training
Phytoecology of the Southern Appalachians, Highlands Biological Station,1987.
Habitat Evaluation Procedures, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990.
Wetlands Soils and Hydrology, Wetland Training Institute, 1990.
Professional Memberships
Southern Appalachian Botanical Club Society of Wetland Scientists
Association of Southeastern Biologists Georgia Botanical Society
Professional Experience
1988-Pres. Chief Biologist, Garrow & Associates, Inc.
1989-1990 Wetlands Biologist, Georgia Freshwater Wetlands and Heritage
Inventory, Department of Natural Resources.
1988. Consultant, U. S. Forest Service, Gainesville, Georgia.
1988. Consultant, School of Forestry, University of Georgia.
T988. Intern, Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (now Freshwater Wetlands and Heritage Inventory).
1984-87. Graduate Teaching Assistant in Plant Taxonomy and General Botany,
University of Georgia, Botany Department.
Publications
Chafin, E.G. 1988. Notable, Rare and Protected Plants on or near National Forest Lands
in Georgia. Report prepared for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural
Heritage inventory, Social Circle.
100

r
Chafin, L.G. and S.B.Jones, Jr. 1989. Community Str ucture of Two Southern
Appalachian Boulderfields. Castanea 54 (4): 230 - 236.
Selected Projects Conducted for Garrow & Associates, Inc.
1992. Protected Plant Survey of the Fort Stewart Nature .Conservancy Property,
Chatham County, Georgia. Conducted in cooperation with the University of Georgia,
Athens Herbarium.
1992. Rare and Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed
McGavock Pike Relocation and Two Borrow Areas at the Nashville International
Airport, Davidson County, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to Aviation Planning
Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
1992. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed 350 Acne
Berman Road Landfill Expansion, Okeechobee County, Florida. Conducted under
contract to Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1992. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed 1050 Acre
Regional Landfill in Anson County, North Carolina.. Conducted under contract of
Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
a x'
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Runway 13/31 Expansion at the
Nashville International Airport, Nashville, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to
Aviation Planning Associates, Inc., Cincinnatti, Ohio.
1991. Wetlands Assessment of Seven Potential Public Fishing Area Sites in Randolph
County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Section, Game and Fish Division, Fisheries Section.
1991. Wetland Mitigation Activities on the Proposed Oakridge-Dorchester Landfill
Expansion, Dorchester County, South Carolina. Conducted for Chambers Development,
Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1991. Wetland Mitigation Activities at the Proposed Maplewood Recycling and Waste
Disposal Facility, Amelia County, Virginia. Conducted under contract to Chambers
Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Cool Branch Substation and
Georgetown -Cool Branch Transmission Line, Quitman County, Georgia. Conducted
under contract to Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
101

1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Bath Substation and Access Road,
Richmond County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Savannah
Pipeline Right -of -Way, Chatham County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to
Atlanta Gas Light Company, Atlanta.
1991. Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Landfill Access Road, LCS North
Mountain Sanitary Landfill, Hedgesville, Berkeley County, West Virginia. Conducted
under contract to LCS Services, Inc., Hedgesville, West Virginia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Hancock School 46/12 kV Substation
and Transmission Line, Hancock County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed East Thomson 46/25 kV Substation Site,
McDuffie County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Amended Biological Assessment: The Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake and
Gopher Tortoise on the Wilsonville -Kettle Creek Transmission Line Corridor. Prepared
under contract to Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Forced Main Sewer Line Corridor, City of
Hazlehurst, Jeff Davis County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Hofstadter and
Wood, P.A., Macon, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed North Carrollton Transmission Line
Corridor and Substation, Carroll County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Regional Landfill Site, Jones County, North
Carolina. Conducted under contract to Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1991. Wetlands Delineation of a Proposed Expansion Site for the Clinch River Steam
Plant Ash Landfill, Russell County, Virginia. Conducted under contract with
GeoSyntec Consultants, Norcross, Georgia.
1990. Wetlands Delineation and Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Regional
Landfill Site, Okeechobee Co., Florida. Conducted for Chambers Development, Inc.
1990. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Runway
Extension Site, Nashville International Airport. Conducted under contract to Aviation -
Planning Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
102

1990. Wetlands Delineation and Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Plant site in White County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Rindt-
McDuff, Inc., Macon, Georgia.
1989. Protected Species Survey and Wetland Delineation of Two Tracts Within the
Proposed Brown's Ferry Solid Waste Disposal Site, Limestone County, Alabama.
Conducted Under Contract to Waste Away Group, Inc., Montgomery, Alabama.
1989. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed City of Hawkinsville Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Sewerline, Pulaski County, Georgia. Conducted Under Contract to
Tribble & Richardson, Macon, Georgia.
1989. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Clinton Distribution Substation Jones
County, Georgia. Conducted Under Contract to Oglethorpe Power Corporation.
1989. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Lousiana-Pacific Substation and
Transmission Line, Jackson County, Georgia. Conducted Under Contract to Oglethorpe
Power Corporation.
1989. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Magnolia Park-Walkervilie 115 kV
Transmission Line, Tift County, Georgia. Conducted Under Contract to Oglethorpe
Power Corporation.
1989. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Live Oak Landfill Addition, DeKalb
and Fulton Counties, Georgia. Conducted Under Contract to Waste Management of
Georgia, Inc. Marietta, Georgia.
Other Projects
1988. Field search for federally listed Endangered species, Scutellaria montana, in the
Chattahoochee National Forest. Conducted under contract with U.S. Forest Service,
Gainesville, Georgia.
1989. Wetlands delineation and protected species survey of the proposed site of the
Georgia Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Taylor County, Georgia. Conducted under
contract with Citizens for Safe Progress, Butler.
1989. Protected species survey of selected habitats in the Broad River corridor, Franklin
and Madison Counties, Georgia. Conducted under contract with the Odum Ecological
Foundation, Athens.
103

Hugh D. Powell
Assistant Biologist
Garrow & Associates, Inc.
Education
B.A., Biology, Huntingdon College, Montgomery, Alabama - 1990
Areas of Specialization
Zoology, Mathematics, Birding.
Professional Experience
1990 - Present Assistant Biologist, Biological Technician, Garrow & Associates, Inc.
1988-1989 Undergraduate Research Assistant under Dr. Gary F.McCracken,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Field Experience
Provided field assistance on Garrow & Associates environmental surveys in West
Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and
Georgia, including rare animal species identification, soil sampling, hydric soils
identification, and wetland flagging.
Provided field assistance on research project on Mexican Free -tailed Bats in south-central
Texas. Acquired over eight years of field experience in birding in the Southwest and
Southeast United States, and in the United Kingdom. During school, participated in
three field expeditions to Costa Rica and the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
104

Selected Projects Conducted with Garrow & Associates, Inc.
1992. Rare and Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed
McGavock Pike Relocation and Two Borrow Areas at the Nashville International
Airport, Davidson County, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to Aviation Planning
Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
1992. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed 350 Acre
Berman Road Landfill Expansion, Okeechobee County, Florida. Conducted under
contract to Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1992. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed 1050 Acre
Regional Landfill in Anson County, North Carolina. Conducted under contract to
Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1992. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Shoat Lick
Hollow Landfill, Anderson County, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to Chambers
Development, Inc., Smyrna Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Runway 13/31 Expansion at the
Nashville International Airport, Nashville, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to
Aviation Planning Associates, Inc., Cincinnatti, Ohio.
1991. Wetlands Assessment of Seven Potential Public Fishing Area Sites in Randolph
County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Section, Game and Fish Division, Fisheries Section.
1991. Wetland Mitigation Activities on the Proposed Oakridge-Dorchester Landfill
Expansion, Dorchester County, South Carolina. Conducted for Chambers Development,
Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Cool Branch Substation and
Georgetown -Cool Branch Transmission Line, Quitman County, Georgia. Conducted
under contract to Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Savannah
Pipeline Right -of -Way, Chatham County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to
Atlanta Gas Light Company, Atlanta.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Runway 13 / 31 Expansion at the
Nashville International Airport, Nashville, Tennessee. Conducted under contract to
Aviation Planning Associates, Inc., Cincinnatti, Ohio.
105

1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed Cane Creek -Juno 115 kV Transmission
Line, Lumpkin and Dawson counties, Georgia. Conducted under contract to
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Landfill Access Road, LCS North
Mountain Sanitary Landfill, Hedgesville, Berkeley County, West Virginia. Conducted
under contract to LCS Services, Inc., Hedgesville, West Virginia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Forced Blain Sewer Line Corridor, City of
Hazlehurst, Jeff Davis County, Georgia. Conducted under contract to Hofstadter and
Wood, P.A., Macon, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Forced Main Sewer Line Corridor, City of
Hazlehurst, Jeff Davis County, Georgia. Conducted for Hofstadter and Wood, P.A.,
Macon, Georgia.
1991. Protected Species Survey of the Proposed North Carrollton Transmission Line
Corridor and Substation, Carroll County, Georgia. Conducted for Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1991. Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Regional Landfill Site, Jones County, North
Carolina. Conducted for Chambers Development, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1991. Wetlands Delineation of the Proposed Expansion Site for the Clinch River Steam
Plant Ash Landfill, Russell County, Virginia. Conducted for GeoSyntec Consultants,
Norcross, Georgia.
1990. Protected Species Survey for the Proposed Kettle Creek Substation and
Wilsonville -Kettle Creek Transmission Line, Coffee and Ware Counties, Georgia.
Conducted for Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker, Georgia.
1990. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation for the Proposed Prattville
Landfill Expansion, Autauga County, Alabama. Conducted for Waste Away Group,
Inc., Montgomery, Alabama.
1990. Protected Species Survey and Wetlands Delineation for the Proposed Pike County
Landfill, Alabama. Conducted for Waste Away Group, Inc. Montgomery, Alabama.

_
SAL SfJRY
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE ANSON COUNTY REGIONAL LANDFILL,
-'` ANSON_ COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
c�-w,t r-J—.�"",.sv."` ,z fv _ �' y_ � ,.�.�ar�V s •�K;Yf-�/�� �
411
hZI i lariliS
�ti '�va sv'N.✓> � N•.-��9\P^J "�,� 4 'A77�i 4 l_ � /'� � J'
Ste'' �/J � M.MrrYM � 'ti.•w
-
4 y�+c =s a a s
lJ cTeFar �rr
r''kas;tw
- ; `4.�. -.'r -.' :.#icef- ' 'g.,' -���� .`:,.R4'.•,✓
BTatGNi {
_ 4�' r r M
[�} .y WM;y6TOM {t': +, �._ "...If i•.•-S,
T.E4 - �, ��NI► •� - .T wA9HirG� �r-R.:.�✓ �` 4.-
._.., Mon
SSA �' - ��' YYa .,F`r - .:�. �'Y�r ..4/ - .. �..� � �rtAi� � _I/•;.Z' .�
ter- a- WILMINGTON
-- •! s � �t ���"'r-J".� Li � �`%..'�.._r'�-=-� `�_ �_. ` .�. � OI; YiiE _.� _ K,�.-rye _ _.,. ��T �.� �
1*0
10
• t NF;a a -_. _. � ..1,. _
',3 ova, ... r.a.-' � ,.,'� ►;�xr-�G+ ' ''{(w'_ '.:.
GARROW & ASSOCIATES, INC.OLD
o. — !urowr.-

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE ANSON COUNTY REGIONAL LANDFILL,
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted to:
Chambers of North Carolina, Inc.
3200 Highlands Parkway,
Suite 400
Smyrna, Georgia 30082
Submitted by:
Garrow & Associates, Inc.
702 Dixie Trail
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Project #91-33-15-773
Joc`j�-D. Gunn, Principal Investigator
Prepared by:
Joel D. Gunn
and
Kathy J. Wilson
April 1992

Any Information which may create a
risk of harm to cultural resources
is by state law exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
North Carolina State Law GS70-18
Direct Inquiries to Stephen R. Claggett
Office of State Archaeology
Raleigh NC
919-733-7342
Maps of Archaeological Site Locations and
site location descriptions are
not for public distribution.
COVER: Bird's Eye View of North and South Carolina and Part of Georgia, Bachmann 1861 Map from
W, P. Cummings' North Carolina in Maps. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

ABSTRACT
An archaeological survey for the proposed Anson County Regional Landfill was
conducted between September 17, 1991 and January 20, 1992 by Garrow & Associates,
Inc., for Chambers of North Carolina, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia. The project area is
approximately 4 miles west of Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina. The
investigations were conducted in two stages. First, a "red flag" reconnaissance
survey was conducted on three separate tracts known as Sites 1, 11, and 12. After
one of the tracts (Site 12, the proposed development tract) was selected for
development, a complete Phase I intensive survey was conducted on that tract. No
further studies were conducted on Sites 1 and 11 since they were no longer part of
the proposed landfill project. The data collected from Sites 1 and 11 are presented in
a separate report.
Subsurface testing and surface inspection (where visibility was adequate) was
conducted to identify archaeological sites. During the initial reconnaissance survey,
testing locales were targeted using a landform model to predict site locations. In the
following Phase I intensive survey, all sensitive landforms were surveyed using
systematic shovel test transacts or surface inspection. The combined survey
documented the existence of 17 archaeological sites in the proposed development
tract. Ten of these sites are prehistoric, four are historic, and three contain both
prehistoric and historic components.
Five of the 17 sites did not produce sufficient data to warrant further testing
(31AN82, 31AN124, 31AN128, 31AN131, and 31AN132). All five are prehistoric
sites, and due to low artifact density and diversity, or erosion of context, none
appears to have the potential to produce additional significant data. The other
twelve sites appear to require additional testing to determine if they are eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. Five of the 12 are prehistoric sites (31AN60,
31AN62, 31AN83, 31AN127, and 31AN129). Three of the five produced diagnostic
artifacts, and the other two produced relatively High artifact densities and/or
diversity. The other seven sites all contain historic occupations older than 50 years
(31AN61, 31AN63, 31AN64, 31AN75, 31AN76, 31AN125, and 31AN126). These sites
form an integrated data set documenting the evolution of tenant farming in the
region between ca. 1850 and 1950. Three of the seven sites with historic occupations
also contained a prehistoric component.
Based on the Phase I survey, Garrow & Associates, Inc, is of the opinion that none of
the archaeological sites identified would prevent Chambers of North Carolina from
utilizing the proposed development tract for a landfill once the sites have been
properly evaluated and documented.
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project benefited from the assistance of a number of individuals. Mr. Gregory
C. Cekander and Mr. John G. Buckley of Chambers of North Carolina, Inc., were
instrumental in coordinating initiation of the project and providing information
necessary to its successful completion. At the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology, Mr. Stephen R. Claggett, Mr. Billy L. Oliver, Mr. John Clauser, and Ms.
Dolores Hall provided professional advice and assistance.
Joel D. Gunn served as both Principal Investigator and Field Director. Kathy J.
Wilson acted as field technician, historian, and laboratory supervisor. Lee Strum,
Todd Payne, William L. Leigh, Ill, and Thomas Cromwell performed as field
technicians. Daniel F. Cassedy coordinated the survey from the Raleigh office, as
many organizational tasks had to be managed concurrently with the field work.
The project also benefited from the contributions of other Garrow & Associates, Inc.
staff members. Linda Chafin provided botanical insights to the study area. Keith
McCrae helped identify historic artifacts. The appearance and accuracy of the report
benefited from Anna Dyer preparing the graphics. Patricia H. Baker and Alexandra
deKok edited the manuscript, and Patrick H. Garrow provided final technical
review.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS U
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES v i
LIST OF TABLES v i i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
IL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4
Project Location 4
Physiography and Hydrology 4
Geology 5
Pedology 5
Fauna and Flora 6
Climate 6
III. CULTURAL BACKGROUND 8
Prehistoric Overview 8
Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-8,000 B.C.) 8
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000-1,000 B.C.) 9
Woodland Period (ca. 1,000 B.C.-A.D. 900) 11
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 900-1500) 11
Historic Overview 11
The Anson Regional Node, from Regulators to Soil Conservation 14
Community Leadership 17
Additional Relevant Trends in Material Culture 18
Land Use 19
Site History 20
Previous and Ongoing Archaeological Research 22
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
26
Research Design
26
Landforms
28
Ridge
28
Upland
29
Saddle
29
Upper Colluvia
29
Waterline
29
Perched Aquifer
29
Middle Terrace
30
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Toe
30
Lower Colluvia
30
Slackwater Deposit
30
Methodology
31
Literature and Records Review
31
Field Methods
31
Laboratory Methods
32
Curation
33
Site Criteria
33
V. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
34
Archaeological Site Descriptions
41
Spring Site (31AN60)
42
Well House Site (31AN61)
45
Savannah River Site (31AN62)
49
Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63)
52
Tenant House Site (31AN64)
59
Pen House Site (31AN75)
61
Road House Site (31AN76)
63
Hunters Camp Site (31AN82)
65
Hilltop Site (31AN83)
67
Rhyolite Ridge Site (31AN124)
67
Hole House Site (31AN125)
69
Field House Site (31AN126)
69
Stream Site (31AN127)
70
Saddle Site (31AN128)
72
Muddy Boot Site (31AN129)
72
Lowland Site (31AN132)
73
Sunset Site (31AN131)
73
Open Field Surface Survey Experiment
73
Previously Identified Sites
75
Artifact and Landform Analysis
75
Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Sites
76
Waterline
76
Confluence
76
Backridge
76
Saddle
76
Choke
76
Points
80
Choppers
80
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Scrapers
Gravers/Burins
Cores / Hammerstones /Flakes
Historic Sites
VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Recommendations
REFERENCES CITED
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Collections From. The Study Area
The Boylin Dairy in the 1950s.
Artifact Inventory
Resumes of Key Project Personnel
80
80
80
84
86
86
87
89
99
100
111
116
127
1A

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
I.,ocation of Project Area in South-central North Carolina.
2
2.
Project Area Map.
3
3.
Model of Potential Archaeological Site Locations.
28
4
Tract Archaeological Sites.
43
5.
Plan Map of the Spring Site (31AN60).
44
6.
Plan Map of the Dwelling at the Well House Site (31AN61).
46
7.
Plan and Profile Map of the Well House (31AN61).
47
8.
View West, Rear of Well House, Site (31AN61).
48
9.
View Northeast, Savannah River Site (31AN62).
50
10.
Plan Map of the Savannah River Site (31AN62).
51
11.
Plan Map of the Manor House (31AN63).
53
12.
View East, Rubble and Gas Pipe at Dairy /Manor House Site (31AN63).
54
13.
Plan Map of the Dairy Barns at the Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63).
55
14.
View West, Feeding Trough and Pier for Barn Floor at Site 31AN63.
56
15
Plan Map of the Tenant House at Site 31AN63.
57
16.
View Southeast, Debris of Tenant House at 31AN63.
58
17.
Plan Map of the Tenant House Site (31AN64).
60
18.
Plan Map of the Pen House Site (31AN75).
62
19.
Plan Map of the Road House Site (31AN76).
64
20.
Plan Map of the Hunters Camp Site (31AN82).
66
21.
Plan Map of the Hill Top Site (31AN83).
68
22
Plan Map of the Stream Site (31AN127).
71
23.
Projectile Points and Scrapers from Site 31AN70.
77
24.
Map of Prehistoric Settlement Pattern with Implement Icons.
78
25.
Implement Icon Key.
79
26.
Tools from Tract.
81
27.
Tools from Tract and 31AN70.
82
28.
Map of Historic Settlement Pattern.
85
29.
Archaic Points from the Guisewite Collection.
104
30,
Archaic Points from the Waugh Collection.
105
31.
Choppers, Bifaces, and Game Piece from the Guisewite Collection.
106
32.
Atiatl Weight from the Guisewite Collection and Steatite Bowl
from the Hurd Collection.
107
33.
Ceramics and Archaic and Woodland Points from the
Guisewite Collection.
108
34.
Point Type Frequencies: Guisewite and Waugh Collections,
109
35.
Sketch Map of the Boylin Dairy, circa 1950 (after M. Beck).
113
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Previous Cultural Resources Investigations in Anson County.
23
2.
Landforms Likely to Contain Intact Archaeological Sites.
27
3.
Tract Combined "Red Flag" and Phase I State Site Numbers.
35
4.
Prehistoric Artifacts froze. Tract for All Surveys.
36
5.
Historic Artifacts from Tract for All Surveys.
37
6.
Red Flag Hits, Misses, Additional Sites by Landform.
38
7.
Hit and Miss Scores of Landform Model and Site Density.
39
8.
Summary of Archaeological Sites on the Tract.
87
9.
Distribution of Points from Collections.
102
Vli

1. INTRODUCTION
A Phase I reconnaissance survey (as defined by the Secretary of the Interior
1983:44722, see below) of 3,308.5 acres, in three tracts, was conducted near Wadesboro
in Anson County, North Carolina between September 17 and October 2, 1991 for
Chambers of North Carolina, Inc. (Figures 1 and 2). The project was conducted for
the proposed Anson County Regional Landfill for compliance with 36 CPR 800 and
36 CFR 66 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to locate
potentially significant cultural resources on three tracts (Sites 1, 11, and 12) then
being evaluated for possible development. Site 12 was selected as the proposed
development tract, and a Phase I intensive survey was conducted on the tract
between November 26, 1991 and January 13, 1992.
Reconnaissance, or "red flag," survey is typically conducted for construction projects
that are in early planning stages, often when multiple locations are being evaluated
for suitability. It is not designed to provide 100 percent survey coverage of the
project. Rather, it uses a sampling scheme to test a portion of the property in a
manner that will allow reasonable predictions concerning the number and type of
cultural resources likely to be present. In particular, a "red flag" reconnaissance
survey is designed to concentrate on locations which are most likely to contain
substantial cultural resources that could inhibit development of a project. An
intensive survey is conducted to discover all sites on a property.
This report provides the results of the research conducted on the proposed
development tract and presents recommendations for additional studies. The
results of the "red flag" survey on Landfill Sites 1 and 11 are presented in a separate
document. Those sites are not being considered for landfill development at this
time and therefore will not be affected by the project. A total of 17 sites were
identified during the course of the surveys on proposed development tract which is
the subject of this report. Twelve are recommended for Phase H testing.
The following chapters contain the methodology and results of the Phase I
investigations for both the reconnaissance and intensive surveys on the proposed
development tract. Chapters II and III provide environmental and cultural contexts
for the project area. Chapter IV presents the research design and the methodology
employed. The results of the investigations are presented in Chapter V, and
Chapter VI contains a summary of the investigation and offers recommendations
for the sites located during the survey. Appendix 1 reports on the activities and
artifact collections of the Pinch Gut Hunting Club. A history of the Boylin Dairy is
found in Appendix 2, an inventory of artifacts found is listed in Appendix 3, and
Appendix 4 contains the resumes of key project personnel.

p�.o +r.yey ATs
w i E pas E n
0 50 100 150 200
miles
0 50 100 150 200
kilometers
Figure 1. Location of the Project Area in South-central North Carolina.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 2

i
r�2
/
52
/
i428 j
�.317E
POLK70N
;2
SFA80ARb
y Ogsrl/A
74 ��
F
109
WADESBORO
74
`,1
0
'44
�.._.�
.,
52
742
I
�
/
0
5 10
0 5
1Q
Figure 2. Project Area Map.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 3

11. ENVIRONMENTAL, SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION
The study area is located in Anson County in south-central North Carolina (see
Figure 1). The proposed development tract is located 6 miles west of Wadesboro,
North Carolina, east of Brown Creek, and north of Highway 74.(see Figure 2). The
tract totals approximately 1,200 acres, with elevations ranging from 230-380 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL).
The project area is located 15 miles northwest of the escarpment that divides the
Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces. This escarpment crosses the
southeast corner of Anson County. The proposed development tract is on a
northeast -southwest trending ridge with hilltops less than 380 feet AMSL (see
Figure 2) on Brown and Pinch Gut creeks. Brown Creek is a tributary of the Pee Dee
River 10 airline miles to the northeast. For the most part, the property is located on
eastward -sloping lands which are highest on the elevated ridge flanking Brown
Creek, and slope toward the eastern tributaries. A conglomerate bedrock (North
Carolina Geological Survey 1985) is overlain by gravelly sand which supplies water
to two unnamed spring branches. The tract is located at the confluence of Brown
and Pinch Gut creeks, along the Brown Creek ridge.
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
Anson County consists of 344,960 acres. Elevations of towns vary from 297 feet
AMSL at McFarlan to 465 feet AMSL at Lilesville. Occasional peaks rise above the
urban landscapes, including Gordon Mountain seven miles southwest of the
Richmond-Sturdivant Cemetery, which is 636 feet AMSL. Piedmont uplands
occupy 82 percent of the county. Brown Creek is in one of the broad, flat areas of the
county in the Triassic Basin. During the Triassic period, 190-200 million years ago,
the Triassic Basin was a rift valley into which sediments from the surrounding
uplands poured (North Carolina Geological Survey 1991). This accounts for the
bedrock and surficial sediments being unusual for an area of the Piedmont. The
topography is undulating to hilly. In the uplands there are some comparatively
small areas of level or nearly level land, while all the stream bottoms are essentially
level (Vanatta and McDowell 1917.11). The land is generally well drained and water
flows off rapidly, except Brown Creek, which is sluggish. Most of the timber consists
of old field and planted pine. Around the turn of the century, much of the land was
burned off every year. There is no record of crops being destroyed for lack of
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 4

precipitation, and the cotton crop has never been reduced over .50 percent by
drought. However, a resident of Poplar Hill reported that in 1846, a cotton crop was
destroyed by too much moisture (Medley 1976:96).
GEOLOGY
Geologically, the study area is on the western edge of the Wadesboro Triassic sub -
basin, which is composed of siltstone, sandstone, breccias, and related sedimentary
rocks (North Carolina Geological Survey 1985). The ridge along the east side of
Brown Creek is a localized outcrop of Carolina Slate Belt metavolcanic rocks such as
metamorphosed sandstone, conglomerate, slate, and volcanic rocks. The main body
of the Carolina Slate Belt begins 2 miles to the northwest, and extends 40 miles
beyond. The metamorphosed rocks probably originate in the Carolina Slate belt
about 50 miles to the north (Daniel and Butler n.d.). Brownstone quarrying was
once an important industry in the county (Medley 1976:96).
PEDOLOGY
There is no recent soil survey available for Anson County, although the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) is currently developing one. The SCS office in
Wadesboro provided a general soils map of the county and copies of existing soils
analyses on aerial photographs in the project area. Definitions of pertinent soils
were also supplied. All parts of the project area fall within the White Store-
Moyadan association. They are soils that are well drained and have firm to very
firm clayey subsoils.
The soils are described in an earlier system of classification in Vanatta and
McDowell (1917). Their survey provides a soils map and considerable description of
land use as of 1914 which is described below.
The soils of the Brown Creek drainage basin were eroded during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries because of cash crop farming of cotton (Vanatta and
McDowell 1917). Numerous photographs maintained in the SCS office record the
erosion. Brown Creek was the site of the first soil conservation service district in
the nation in 1937 (Hill 1990; Medley 1976). The primary remedy for the erosion was
the planting of trees, which was largely accomplished by the Works Projects
Administration. In 1934, Anson County was planted in 101,565 acres of principal
field crops. After the soil conservation district was established, this dwindled to
about 30,000 acres (Robert Horton, Jr., personal communication 1991; SCS
Management Plan 1937).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 5

FAUNA AND FLORA
The presence of any protected species currently a part of the faunal and/or floral
communities within and adjacent to the project area is being assessed in a separate
report by Garrow & Associates, Inc.
Fauna observed during the field expedition included white-tailed deer, raccoon,
squirrel, rabbits, and wild dogs. This is considerably depleted as compared to the
report made by Lawson (Lefler 1967) for the area in 1701. It then included buffalo,
bear, panther, elk, and wolf. It was also a major flyway for migratory birds such as
the now -extinct passenger pigeon.
The variety of plant species is also much reduced from aboriginal conditions, or
even those that existed early in this century (Vanatta and McDowell 1917). The SCS
preliminary soils description of the White Store Series, which encompasses most of
the project area, is described as being associated with loblolly and shortleaf pines,
oaks, hickories, and gums. Common crops are small grains, corn, cotton, and
tobacco.
CLIMATE
The climate in Anson County is characterized by long, hot summers and short, cool
winters. Frost -free days average 221, extending from late March through early
November. The average annual temperature is 60.9°F. High temperatures in the
summer average 89.70F or slightly higher, but rarely exceed 1000F. The average
annual rainfall is 47.39 inches. Rainfall in the summer months comes primarily in
the form of intermittent afternoon showers and thundershowers, which is
normally adequate for all crops. July is the wettest month, registering an average of
4.97 inches. The dryest month is November, with an average of 2.70 inches
(Epperson 1971).
The contemporary climate and vegetation of the study area are products of a long
and complex process of natural and man -induced change. The average winter
temperatures in the study area were considerably colder during the last glacial
period, which lasted from ca. 21,000-11,000 B.C. At that time, the study area was
covered by a boreal, northern coniferous forest in which pines and spruce were
dominant (Delcourt and Delcourt 1983; Whitehead 1973). The climate warmed and
precipitation increased from ca. 11,000-8,000 B.C., the period during which the first
people arrived in North Carolina. At this time (the Late Wisconsin glacial period),
coniferous forests were being replaced by northern hardwoods as dominant
overstory species (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975, 1980; Whitehead 1973). The period
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 6

from ca. 6,000-3,000 B.C.. is referred to as the Altithermal, and was a period of
continued warming, but decreased precipitation (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975). The
dominant overstory vegetation which survived was the oak -hickory forest (Watts
1975; Whitehead 1973). The climate since ca. 3,000 B.C. has cooled slightly, with a
possible increase in precipitation. The oak -hickory forests of earlier times decreased
in size, and. became increasingly intermixed with pines (Wharton 1977). The earliest
settlers reported that large stands of yellow pine were present in the oak -hickory
forests of the Piedmont. It is not known at this time if the large stands of yellow
pine reported by the early settlers were products of natural forces or the result of.
Indian hunting methods that utilized fire to drive and concentrate game.
Climatological studies over the past few decades have shown that important
changes occur over much shorter intervals than the well -understood Pleistocene -
Holocene transition. At the same time, it has become increasingly apparent that
changes at annual and decadal time scales are important to human adaptations.
Annual climatic measurements are not available for the whole of human
occupation of the area, although they do encompass part of the Woodland, the
Mississippian, and historic periods. Stahle et al. (1991) has found that bald cypress
tree rings are good indicators of climate in the Southeast. Thousand -year -plus tree
ring series have been analyzed for all of the mid and south Atlantic states, and work
is continuing on a year -by -year precipitation chronology for the last 10-15 centuries.
The source of tree rings nearest to the project area is the Black River in North
Carolina, 110 miles to the east. Precipitation in North Carolina has been correlated
to that in South Carolina and Georgia. Thus, annual climate can now play a role in
interpretation of past human activities along with the stabler elements of geology,
pedology, vegetation, and fauna.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 7

111. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW
North Carolina has been inhabited for over 11,000 years, and has experienced
several major changes in the cultural traditions of its residents. The discussion that
follows is a brief outline of the major recognized prehistoric and historic periods of
this area of present-day North Carolina. Coe's (1964) investigations of the
prehistoric cultures of North Carolina were a pioneering effort on which the
cultural sequence for the project area is based. More recent research has elaborated
Coe's original observations, but the general sequence that he described remains
valid for the region. In fact, his classic investigations at Hardaway, Doershuck, and
Town Creels were within a few miles of the project area. The later prehistory of the
area was refined by Keel (1976), Dickens (1976), and contributors to Mathis and Crow
(1983). The prehistory of the project area can be divided into four basic
time/cultural periods. These periods -- Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and
Mississippian -- are characterized by both social and technological changes.
Paleoindian Period (ca.12,000-8,000 B.C.)
The first prehistoric human occupants of North America have been called
Paleoindians. Their lifeways have been characterized as a subsistence based
economy incorporating the hunting of large mammals and the collecting of wild
foods.
The first indisputable evidence for human occupation in the Southeastern United
States is during the Paleoindian era, from approximately 9,500 to 8,000 B.C., with the
appearance of lanceolate fluted and unfluted projectile points in the archaeological
record. Most of our knowledge about the earlier part of the Paleoindian period in
the Southeast, when fluted points were the dominant point form, has come from
surface finds gathered by archaeologists and collectors, rather than from controlled
excavations. However, the number of sites catalogued for this period, having
extensive artifact assemblages in secure context has been increasing in the Southeast
in recent years. Goodyear (1991) reviews 18 localities from Tennessee to Florida
which appear to be relevant. Farther north in Virginia, the Thunderbird site in the
Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974, 1983) and the Williamson site in the Tidewater
area (McCrary 1954) can be added to the list of Atlantic Coast area sites.
The archaeological inventory of the Paleoindians in North Carolina is limited to
stone projectile points and a variety of chipped stone flake tools. Diagnostic artifacts
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 8

from the period include various lanceolate projectile points, including the Clovis
projectile point type (Goodyear 1991). Domestic sites from this period are not well
defined. Paleoindians selected high quality lithics for tools and many Paleoindian
sites that have been found in the Piedmont are linked to important source areas.
The high degree of curation in the tool assemblage (and the low frequency of
undisputed. diagnostics) causes problems in the recognition of Paleoindian
assemblages. Key diagnostics of this period are fluted and unfluted lanceolate
projectile points. Formal flake tools, such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched. blades,
and burins, are also associated with the Paleoindian period (Gardner 1974). The later
Paleoindian phase appears to include Dalton (Goodyear 1982), and perhaps
Hardaway (Ward 1983), points and related culture.
Over the course of the Paleoindian period, fluted point forms underwent a general
reduction in size, and true fluting gave way to basal thinning. Locally, terminal
Paleoindian assemblages are identified by Hardaway/Dalton projectile point forms,
broad, thin, triangular bifaces with deeply concave bases and shallow side notches
(Coe 1964:64), which are thought to date from ca. 8,500-7,800 B.C. (Goodyear 1982).
The Hardaway complex, consisting of Dalton -like points and preforms, has been
found in the lowest levels of the Hardaway and Haw River sites in the Piedmont of
North Carolina (Coe 1964; Claggett and Cable 1982).
Most of what is known about the Paleoindian period is extracted from surface
collections, although Paleoindian materials have been recovered in intact contexts
on a small number of sites (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985; Elliott and Doyon
1981; Gresham and Rudolph 1985; Kelly 1938; O'Steen 1983). Approximately 409
fluted points have been reported in North Carolina to date (Anderson 1990). The
highest concentration appears to be in Stokes County, in the Dan Triassic Basin.
Almost all of these points were from surface contexts. As a result, interpretation of
fluted point Paleoindian occupations is difficult. O'Steen (1983) delineated a
relocation of sites from lowlands in the early Paleoindian period, to uplands in the
late Paleoindian period in the upper Oconee River system in northern Georgia. The
end of this period is signaled by a change in artifact inventory, which probably
reflected a change in subsistence strategy (Sassaman 1991). The late period is
identified by the presence of Dalton and Hardaway projectile point forms (Coe 1964).
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000-1,000 B.C.)
There is a higher density and horizontal dispersal of archaeological remains during
the Archaic period. This period is characterized by a reliance on large animals and
wild plant resources, which became increasingly stabilized, and broad based during
the Holocene. Group organization was presumed to be fairly mobile, making use of
seasonally available resources in different areas of the Southeast. Caldwell (1958)
has termed the adaptation (scheduled hunter -forager) to the environment in the
Eastern woodlands during the Archaic period "Primary Forest Efficiency." Group
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 9

size gradually increased during this period, culminating in a fairly complex and
populous society in. the Late Archaic. By the end of the Archaic, the basic cultural
framework for the following periods had been established. Diagnostic markers of
the Archaic period include a variety of notched projectile point types such as
Kirk /Palmer, bifurcates, and later, stemmed projectile point types such as Stanly,
Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Savannah River (Coe 1964). By the Middle
Archaic, groundstone items such as axes, atlatl weights, and grinding stones become
more commonplace. In parts of the Southeast, certain changes occurred during the
Terminal Archaic, including an increased focus on riverine resources, and the
introduction of ceramic (fiber tempered wares) and soapstone vessels. There was an
increasing localization of artifact styles by the end of the Archaic period. Villages
(reflected by increasing site size) became more common in the Late Archaic, but to
date, few recognizable Archaic structures have been identified in the region.
Although the beginnings of agriculture appeared during the Late Archaic, the
importance of agriculture for subsistence purposes was probably minimal.
The Early Archaic, ca. 6,000-8,000 B.C., seems to reflect a continuation of the
Paleoindian period hunting and foraging lifestyle, but utilized modern game
species. O'Steen (1983:53) includes Bifurcate, Big Sandy, Dalton, Kirk Corner
Notched, and Kirk Stemmed projectile point types as markers of the Early Archaic
throughout the Southeast; all are known to occur in North Carolina (Coe 1964).
Little is known about the non-lithic tool kits that accompany these diagnostic bif ace
types.
The Middle Archaic, ca. 3,500-6,000 B.C., can be distinguished from the Early Archaic
by the more frequent recovery of groundstone artifacts and a less diverse chipped
stone tool kit. Diagnostic bifaces that occur during this period include Stanley,
Morrow Mountain, and Guilford types (Coe 1964; Blanton and Sassaman 1989). It is
assumed that population density :increased during the Middle Archaic, but small
hunting and gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic
units. Larger sites tend to occur near water, but numerous small sites appearing as
dispersed upland scatters are also characteristic of the Middle Archaic.
The Late Archaic is generally dated from ca. 3,500-1,000 B.C. and represents the latest
preceramic period. The Late Archaic can be viewed as the period in which some
groups were living for long periods of time in single, strategically placed locations,
and pursued a set of lifeways that laid the foundation for the establishment of
villages in later periods. Existing information suggests that the population during
this period was relatively dense, and that the largest settlements occurred along the
major river systems. Savannah River Archaic (Coe 1964) and Otarre Stemmed (Keel
1976) projectile points and knives are the most common diagnostic biface types
found, but steatite bowls and a number of other artifact types are also unique to this
period.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -10

Woodland Period (ca. 1,000 B.C.-A.D. 900)
The Woodland period began with a gradual transition from the Late Archaic; this
transition period is not well understood. Woodland occupations are marked by
increasing sedentism and improvements in food storage and preparation
technologies. Subsistence strategies were a continuation of earlier hunter -forager
ways, with an increased reliance on the cultivation of native plants. Religious life,
as evidenced by increased ceremonialism and the development of burial mound
behavior, became more sophisticated during the Woodland period. Large triangular
projectile points are diagnostic of the Woodland period; this change in point style
may be linked with the introduction of bow and arrow technology in the Eastern
U.S. Ceramics became more refined and regional differentiation of wares,
particularly with respect to temper, paste, and surface decoration, became manifest
during the period.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 900-1500)
The Mississippian period is marked by a rise of ceremonialism expressed
architecturally in large public constructions, the development of maize agriculture,
and a more rigid social organization. Flat-topped temple mounds and a more
highly organized village structure developed during this period. Artifacts diagnostic
of the Mississippian period include small triangular projectile points and ceramic
wares distinct from the Woodland ceramic types. There is increasing evidence that
territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the
Mississippian period. The Pisgah phase comprised the early centuries of the
Mississippian period. European conquest brought an end to the Mississippian
lifestyle, although many relics of the material trappings, belief systems, and social
structure of classic Mississippian society lingered into the eighteenth century.
HISTORIC OVERVIEW
The Historic era in the Middle Atlantic Coast area is divided into four periods, the
Ethnohistoric period (1492-1607), which consists primarily of observations of Native
Americans by explorers, the Colonial period (1607-1775), the Antebellum period
(1775-1865), and the Postbellum period (after 1865). Early European colonial
settlement took place along the coastal region of the state following 1650; however,
after 1715, occupation began in the interior. Populations of various origins--Scotch-
Irish, German, Pennsylvanian, and Chesapeake Tidewater --converged on the
Piedmont below the Blue Ridge Mountains after 1750, creating a distinctive regional
cultural pattern (Powell 1989).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -11

Until the coming of the railroads in the late 1830s, the economy of the North
Carolina Piedmont was primarily based on subsistence farming. This trend
continued until the development of transportation systems lessened the isolation of
inland regions, and allowed for development of market -oriented farming.
As the nineteenth century progressed, there was an increasing emphasis on cotton
mills to reduce Southern dependence on Northern technology and industry. After
the Civil War, many factories were established; these became the working
environment for many North Carolinians. Textile production became the
dominant industry in most of the Piedmont, but furniture manufacture was also
important. By the end of the nineteenth-century, North Carolina was the leading
industrial state in the South.
Anson County was formed in 1749 from Bladen County. Its namesake, Lord George
Anson, was the First Lord of the British Admiralty (thus the sobriquet - "Father of
the British Navy"), and the third Englishman to sail around the world. Originally
this huge county extended westward as far as the present state of Mississippi. In
1779, Montgomery County was formed from northern Anson County, and
Richmond County was created from the section east of the Pee Dee River.
Before European settlement, the area was inhabited by Muskogean Tribes until the
mid seventeenth -century, when they were expelled by Siouans. These Siouan tribes
consisted of Catawbas, Cheraws, Congarees, Waterees, and Waxhaws. In the early
1700s, the Catawbas under Chief Hagler dominated the Anson area. However,
smallpox and alcohol had decimated the Native American population by the 1740s.
Englishman John Lawson was one of the first Europeans to enter the Anson County
region; he recorded his 1,000 mile journey in a diary. Lawson revealed encounters
with peaceful Native Americans, and described the abundant wildlife and lush
flora.
The date of the first permanent settlement in the Anson County region is not
known. Scotch -Irish, most of whom arrived between 1736 and 1775 (Powell
1989:109), and Germans from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the urban areas
of Charleston and Wilmington, followed the Pee Dee and Yadkin rivers into Anson
County in 1730-1740. King George II of England granted the land to proprietors
headed by Lord Anson in 1750. The first grant of land to an individual was to
Ephraim Liles on the northwest bank of the Pee Dee River in 1751. Expansion
beyond the waterways was inhibited by the wilderness, but by 1768, roads began to
provide routes through the backcountry of Anson, Rowan, Bladen, and
Mecklenburg counties to Wilmington and Brunswick on the coast. Produce bound
to the coast was then able to bypass South Carolina.
During the Colonial period, Anson County was one of the centers for the
backcountry revolt against the aristocratic government of Royal Governor Tryon. In
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -12

1753, the first courthouse built in Anson County was constructed at Mt. Pleasant; it
was the meeting place in 1768 for the Anson Regulators who demanded election of
county officials by vote of the people. The Regulators were crushed at the Battle of
Alamance (1771), and seven rebel leaders were hanged at Hillsborough.
There is discussion of whether "The War of the Regulation" began in Anson
County or Granville County. Boggan (n.d.:8) argues that the first open, organized
resistance was in Anson County on April 28, 1768. On that day, the Regulators took
possession of the courthouse while the county court was in session, and discussed
the oppression to which they were subjected. A precisely parallel event occurred
over two years later in the Orange County Courthouse on November 19, 1770, in the
court of Judge Richard Henderson (Powell 1989:156; Gunn et al. 1990:15), which
suggests that the Regulator movement was active early in Anson County.
However, the account compiled by Powell (1989:152) marks the first emergence of
organized resistance in Orange County during 1766, during a town meeting in
which it was decided that public officials should be held accountable for their
actions. The 1768 flare of Regulator activity was coincident with unrest across the
colony which arose with the levy of a significant tax on alcohol and tobacco. Medley
(1976:34) concludes that residents of Anson County played a starring, if not early,
role in the Regulator movement. However, Edmund Fanning, a public official in
Hillsborough and a chief source of grievances during the disturbance, blamed
Anson Countians in order to avoid admitting disturbances in his own jurisdiction
of Orange County.
Anson County was relatively quiet during the Revolutionary War. Local
skirmishes between Loyalists and Patriots were the exception.
In 1783, the Hillsborough General Assembly passed an act to create a town on the
lands of Captain Thomas Boggan. This was to be at the crossroads of the Salisbury -
Cheraw Road and the Mask's Ferry -Camden Road. "New Town" (Wadesborough in
1787, now Wadesboro) was created on 70 acres which now comprise the main
business district of Wadesboro. Wadesboro was named in honor of local
Revolutionary War leader Captain Thomas Wade, who owned 8,778 acres located in
Anson and Richmond counties, and in South Carolina.
Prior to the Civil War, the only significant industry in Anson County was a tannery
in Wadesboro on Washington Street. Cotton plantations dominated the economy,
and according to Federal Census statistics, 6,832 slaves resided in Anson County by
1850. The county's first newspaper, The N.C. Argus, began publication in 1849.
Anson County benefited from the Plank Road era (1849-1860), as the Salisbury -
Cheraw Road ran through Wadesboro. Parts of Anson County, along with
Montgomery, Cabarrus, and Mecklenburg, participated in a gold rush between 1802
and 1849.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -13

White Store, located 5 miles to the southwest of the project area along the Brown
Creek ridge, may have been important during the early 1800s as a layover point
along the Sneedsboro-Charlotte road. The road appears on the 1833 Mac Rea -Brazier
map (_Cummings 1833, Plate X), but is not shown on 1808 Price-Strother (Cummings
1966, Plate IX) map. According to the Colton 1861, reap, the route was diverted
through Wadesboro even though the railroad had not yet been built (Cummings
1966, Plate XI).
Anson County escaped the ravages of the Civil War until March 1865 when Union
General Judson Kilpatrick's Cavalry of Sherman's army marched through
Wadesboro en route to Goldsboro, North Carolina. Provisions and storehouses
were the main targets for Sherman's army and its attendant "bummers," non-
military followers who were there for monetary gain.
Although cotton is still a popular crop in Anson County, soybeans are now the
largest cash crop. Tobacco and food grains, such as corn, are grown; cattle, swine,
and dairy production are also vital to the Anson County economy of today. Anson
County also ranks as one of the top turkey producing counties of North Carolina.
Since 60 percent of Anson County's farmlands are in forests, the forest and wood
product industries are important to the county. Textiles, gravel and sand, brick, and
concrete pipe industries complete the industrial -economic portrait of Anson
County.
The Anson Regional Node, from Regulators to Soil Conservation (1760-1940)
While in the field, the crew observed the remains of historic and prehistoric
archaeological sites and landscapes that were rich in a variety of high and low status
dwellings and site functions. The following historical study is intended to highlight
possible explanations of the observed patterns. The historical findings may explain
some patterns of the prehistoric period as well.
The Brown Creek area has contributed a surprising amount to national leadership,
as well as being an important economic element of the state of North Carolina. The
reasons for these characteristics are, in part, outgrowths of the nature of the land.
Also important are relationships of the county to Colonial period trade routes. The
land, described above, is relatively well drained, productive, and amenable to a
number of crops. This provides a flexible niche from which residents of the county
can adapt to changing regional and national economic conditions. Equally
important is the crossroads location of the county, which is discussed below. The
favorable combination of productive land and trading privilege resulted in the
landscape manifestations observed during the field work, and in significant
leadership contributions in agriculture by individuals in the vicinity of the project
area.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 14

'Trade during the Colonial period followed two routes, or ports, of entry to the
Piedmont. One followed the old Trading Path to the Indians from Petersburg,
Virginia, through Vance and Granville counties, to the towns of Hillsborough and
Statesville (Stine 1986; Briceland 1987). The other came up the Pee Dee River to
Anson County from Charles Town, South Carolina (Medley 1976). Charlotte was
also important early on as a trading center, being located at the convergence of the V
formed by the Granville and Anson routes.
The circuitous flanking approach to the Piedmont was necessary because of the
absence of deep water ports and navigable rivers in eastern North Carolina (Powell
1989). Planters settling Vance County in the 1740s maintained close ties with the
Virginia economy, hauling tobacco overland to Petersburg, Virginia (Gunn et al.
1991). Similarly, early transportation reached the western Piedmont through the
Pee Dee River from South Carolina.
The present Anson County area developed quickly relative to other Piedmont
counties, and paralleled other nodes of leadership such as Granville, Vance, Orange,
and Mecklenburg, as is evident in its participation in the Regulator movement of
the 1760s. In 1748, the first grants were issued on Brown Creek, but the registrants
are thought to have been there earlier (Medley 1976:12), perhaps as early as 1725
(Vanatta and McDowell 1917). By 1750, the former trickle of immigrants was a
steady flow of Germans, Ulster Scots, Welshmen, and French, as well as settlers
from other colonies. This forced previous residents to seek legal recognition of their
claims to land. By the 1760s the population of Anson County had increased so
much that taxation became a popular issue. Patrick Boggan, a leader of the
Regulator movement, along with 98 others from Anson County, signed a document
on April 28, 1768 opposing unfair taxes, which came to be known as the Protest
Paper. This angered Royal Governor William Tryon (Anson County Historical
Society n.d.), and was a significant element in the ground swell of sentiment that
lead to the Battle of Alamance in 1771. The Regulators are traditionally
characterized as poor colonists pitted against the wealth of Governor Tryon.
However, evidence indicates that the Regulators were well turned out and well to
do (Medley 1976). The more likely scenario is that, having fled the tyranny of
European taxes within a decade, they were more than willing to defend the freedom
from taxation they had barely had time to savor.
The importance of access to water transport in Anson County in the eighteenth -
century is illustrated by the life and death of the town of Sneedsboro, North
Carolina, Chartered in 1795, it was in southeast Anson County at the furthest
navigable point on the Pee Dee River. Because of its location, it became a part of
Hillsborough resident Archibald D. Murphey's state -level reform plan to develop a
great inland port in 1802. A 12 mile canal was excavated to extend river traffic
further inland (Medley 1976:72-73). Other aspects of the improvement effort failed
because of lack of skilled planning and financing, and the town eventually fell into
decline. The canal was destroyed by a flash flood just before the Civil War, although
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 15

the locks still exist today (Ward 1977). Sherman's troops destroyed the houses of the
town in 1865. Before its demise, it included a furniture shop., examples of whose
work are in the Boggan-Hammond house in Wadesboro, a school that was
established in 1800, and an elegant inn. The last resident of the town was a
postmaster who is known to have been in residence in 1833. There was a general
emigration from North Carolina beginning in 1833 toward Tennessee, due to falling
crop prices. The town probably failed because of this. There were two routes to
Charlotte to the west from Sneedsbo.ro, one across Anson County, most particularly
through White Store 3 miles southwest of the project area, and the other through
Wadesboro and then south of the proposed development tract.
With or without river traffic, Anson County became the largest producer of cotton
in the state following the invention of the cotton gin in 1794 (Vanatta and
McDowell 1917; Powell 1989:236). From 1830-1860, residents of Anson County
reported wagon loads of cotton headed from Anson to Cheraw on the Pee Dee
River, where prices were better than in Fayetteville (Medley 1976:87).
Within Anson County, the interesting question is why did the road to Charlotte
move from White Store, the most direct route, to Wadesboro, an indirect route (J.
Clauser, personal communication 1991). Wadesboro was established as the county
seat in 1782 at the crossing of two roads. One connected Salisbury, the legal and
trading center of the Piedmont, with Cheraw in South Carolina (Medley 1976:64).
The other Ied from Mask's Ferry on the Pee Dee River to Camden in South
Carolina, the furthest navigable point on the Wateree River. This later road is
depicted on the 1865 Coast Survey map (Cummings 1966), as proceeding through
Poplar Hill (in the project area) and White Store (3 miles to the southeast).
The answer to the question above appears to lie in the regional traffic pattern. The
decade following 1849 is referred to as the Plank Road period in Anson County
(Medley 1976). Following 1849, several plank roads were authorized by the
legislature. One of the plank roads was the Salisbury -Cheraw route on which
Wadesboro was founded. While not financially successful for investors, the plank
roads were a boon to the Piedmont economy (Medley 1976:99), coming to be known
as "farmer's railroads" (Powell 1989:305). This would have been one of the elements
which favored the Wadesboro route to Charlotte over that of White Store. H. B.
Hammond, an ancestor of H. H. Bennett (see below), became one of the founders of
the Bank of Wadesborough during the prosperity of the Plank Road period. The era
of plank roads ended before the Civil War. These roads were expensive to
maintain, resulting in no profits for investors, and would certainly have died with
the advent of the railroad in 1874. As it was, Sherman's troops used them for
firewood.
In addition to agricultural prosperity fostered by the plank roads, North Carolina's
gold played an important role in keeping the area around Anson County prosperous
in the Antebellum period while the rest of North Carolina and South Carolina was
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -16

in the economic doldrums. Gold was discovered in Cabarrus County to the north in
1802, which soon instigated a gold rush of great proportions in Anson, Cabarrus,
Mecklenburg, and Montgomery counties (Powell 1989:312). As many as 30,000
people were employed in the gold reining business. During 1848, North Carolina
produced more gold than any other state in the country. Benefits such as a mint
(established in Charlotte in 1837), and the early coming of roads and railroads to the
area soon Followed (Medley 1976:170). During the 1850s, gold sustained the economy
of the area (Medley 1976:101).
The transportation centrality of Anson County brought bad moments as well as
good times to the area. The community of White Store 4 miles to the southwest of
Popular Hill Church received contingents of Sherman's troops at the end of the
Civil War, because of the local transportation system. Before the war, it was a
thriving community with substantial homes (Medley 1976:120). A detachment of
Sherman's troops under Kilpatrick set up an encampment. The home of Dr. John
A. McRae was set on fire, but Confederate soldiers under Wheeler happened along
and extinguished it before the dwelling burned.
Regardless of the consequences resulting from the intersecting trade routes, the
favorable economic conditions they created in Anson County can be assumed to
have provided the basis for residences dating to the 1850s observed in the field,
including archaeological sites 31AN77 and 31AN81 in Landfill Site 1.
Community Leadership
During the Colonial period, the ascendancy of Anson County residents is reflected
in the legal centrality and judicial output of Anson County residents. The Anson
County Courthouse, which was moved to Wadesboro in 1782, became a center of
legal activity. For example, Andrew Jackson came to Wadesboro from Rowan
County to acquire a license to practice law in 1787 (Medley 1976:66). Also in 1787,
Judge Samuel. Spencer tried a case (Bayard vs. Singleton), which resulted in an act
of the legislature, the Confistication Act, being declared unconstitutional. This was
the first decision under a written constitution to declare a legislative act
unconstitutional, and is now considered to be a fundamental principle of American
law (Medley 1976:67-68).
Following the Civil War, an Anson County resident gained national respect for his
work in agriculture. Leonidas Lafayette Polk of Polktown, 2 miles west of the
proposed development tract, returned from the war as a lieutenant. He became
editor of Ansonian and rose to national office as president of the National Farmer's
Alliance 1889-1892 and founder of the Progressive Farmer published in Winston
(Medley 1976:129). He also participated in the founding of North Carolina State
University and Meredith College (Hill 1990:92).
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page -17

Out of the long standing tradition of Anson County leadership, spanning from the
Regulators to the nineteenth-century cotton bonanza, came Hugh H. Bennett, a
descendent of H. B. Hammond (see above). Bennett's home is located about 3 miles
east of the project area; threads of his background are picked up at the end of the
Civil War with Sherman's troops moving up the Camden Road.
The Hammond home, later the Hugh Hammond Bennett home,
between White Store and Wadesboro, furnished some Rebel spirit
during the invasion on the part of Jane Hammond, one of the
daughters. A Yankee soldier with his comrades entered the home and
demanded that the Southern belle play them a tune on the family
piano. She sat down without a word and played "Dixie" with spirited
defiance [Medley 1976:1201.
H. H. Bennett was born in 1881, and graduated from University of North Carolina in
1903. Bennett's Church is about 3 miles east of the Poplar Hill Church.. In 1935, he
established the Soil Conservation Service, and in 1937, the 120,000 acre Brown Creek
drainage became the first soil conservation district in the country (Hill 1990:95). The
program eventually affected all quarters of rural life. Euro-American and African -
American farm agents propagated land terracing and crop diversification to retard
soil erosion (Medley 1976:163). Home demonstration clubs were established for
Euro-American and African -American women in 1939, with canning instruction
being a primary function (Medley 1976:161). To Bennett must be credited great
foresight, both in dealing with the then -current problems of soil erosion, and in
anticipating many of the concerns of ecologists who would follow a half century
later. The Bennett home was donated to the county after his death by his son, but
burned before it could be restored (Medley 1976:259)
In summary, the relative wealth and well being of Anson County, thanks to its
location, manifested itself in its early opposition to taxes, seen in its involvement in
the Regulator Rebellion (Medley 1976:30, 37), its abundant production of cotton, and
its contribution of agriculturally foresighted residents such as Polk in the late 1800s,
and Bennett in the early 1900s, who involved themselves in ecological initiatives
before ecology became the pressing issue it is today.
Additional Relevant Trends in Material Culture
Several other trends shed light on the sites discovered during the field work.
Agriculture began to decline in the twentieth century relative to manufacturing. In
1921, the boll weevil came, bringing additional strain on cotton production (Medley
1976:154). Inventive Anson County residents resorted to physical and chemical
controls, and managed to grow 300,000 bails of cotton per year through the 1920s.
There was a great reduction in cotton production following the introduction of the
soil bank in the late 1930s. After 1950 more soybeans were grown than cotton, and
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -18

land use transitioned to 60 percent forests. The state started building hardened roads
in 1921, and rural electrification appeared in 1938.
Industry became an increasingly important part of Anson County`s income in the
Postbellum period. The first silk plant built in the South was established in
Wadesboro in 1890. Slaves had previously made bricks on the large plantations
during the Antebellum period, as in other areas of the Southeast. Subsequent to the
Civil War, this activity was taken over by industry. Brasington Brick Company in
Wadesboro, and Carter Brothers Brickyard in Polkton, were the nearest sources of
these construction materials. Carolina Concrete near Wadesboro made culverts
until 1973. By 1974, manufacturing accounted for 3,700 jobs and $6.2 million in
payrolls, while farming produced $21.1 million gross.
Land Use
Certain aspects of Anson history indicate reasons for some of the site location and
function phenomena observed during the field work. Newcomers to Anson
County after 1750 are said to have sought to build homes overlooking some pleasing
creek or river which might afford transportation routes or a mill site to aid in
producing food for the family (Medley 1976:12, citing Brickell).
Vanatta and McDowell (1917) provide a sketch of the land use patterns at that time,
along with some history of the development of agriculture in the community.
Antebellum agriculture was based on an extensive plantation system in which the
land was cleared, used for a while, then abandoned (Vanatta and McDowell 1917:12).
Crops consisted of corn, wheat, potatoes, indigo, flax, and hemp. At first, meat was
obtained from hunting, but cattle and hogs were introduced at an early date.
Plantations were virtually self-sufficient.
Before the Civil War, Anson County produced the most cotton of any in the state.
Cotton production dropped off during the war, but resumed afterward. The primary
difference in organization following the war was that farms were not self-sufficient.
In the early part of the twentieth century, crop production became more diversified,
and the methods of farming were unproved by the addition of manure, the use of
soil improving crops, and tillage methods. In the early 1900s, this consisted of
plowing uplands 5-8 inches with horse-drawn turning plows, depending on the
texture of the sediment (Vanatta and McDowell 1917.17). Commercial dairying was
of minor importance because most farmers kept their own milk cows (Vanatta and
McDowell 1917:15); consequently, it was only practiced for urban consumption near
Wadesboro. This explains the presence of the dairy at 31AN63.
The Vanatta and McDowell comment on land use belies the idea of general
degradation of the landscape. Their report stated that second growth pine covered
75 percent of the land. Only about half of the 38,000 acres of bottornlands were in
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 19

use, a good portion of which was on Brown Creek. Corn was grown in bottom , and
cotton on sandy uplands. Otherwise, there was little specialization of crops to soils.
Upland gardens were planted in sandy soils where sweet potatoes, watermelons, and
other vegetables were grown. Tobacco was grown on Norfolk soils (excessively
drained to poorly drained soils that have loose sandy to friable subsoils, USDA 1973).
Cotton producing soils were heavily fertilized by 1914.
Tenancy was variable across the county. In the slate belt, most farms were worked
by families of landowners. In other parts of the county, work was performed by
families of renters. Tenancy in the county dropped from 50 percent in 1950 to six
percent by 1975 (Medley 1976:15). The sites located during this project are on the
edge of the slate belt. The Vanatta and McDowell 1917 report states that there was
much unused land because of the low numbers of farmers. However, the price of
good land close to the towns was rising.
The original land grants in the 1750s tended to be around 200 acres in size (Medley
1976:15). By 1910, however, the size of the average farm had decreased to only 87
acres. A resurgence in farming during the 1970s increased the size of the average
farm to 200 acres. During the same time, land in cotton production fell from 19,500
acres to 4,200 acres.
SITE HISTORY
The proposed development tract for the Anson County Regional Landfill, consists
of several parcels totaling approximately 1,200 acres. The chain -of -title is
complicated by multiple divisions of parcels and convergence into larger parcels.
The title information provided below is not a legal title search.
Parcel 1 is located along the north side of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, bounded
on the west by Brown Creek and bisected by Pinch Gut Creek. Conveyed from J. P.
Boylin, this parcel consists of portions of two parcels, originally 620.84 acres and
353.40 acres, belonging to J. W. Gaddy (Deed Book 93, Page 445) and S. M. Gaddy
(Deed Book 93, Page 448), respectively. The Anson County Board of Education also
deeded to J. P. Boylin, an acre of land conveyed to the board in 1927 by Joe Winfield
and Marsh Parker (Deed Book 67, Page 374).
While having been intact since 1922, most of the 620.84 acres acquired by J. W.
Gaddy, (Deed Book 61, Page 329) previously consisted of five individual parcels (the
deed on record lists the details for only four of the five parcels) owned by several
individuals, most notably the James A. Boggan family, which acquired 250 acres in
1896 (Deed Book 31, Page 568) from Charles M. Burns. Charles Burns had purchased
the property earlier that year during a foreclosure auction on the steps of the Anson
County Courthouse (Deed Book 31, Page 190). The two parcels being auctioned,
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 20

belonging to G. J. Shepherd and B. F. Shepherd, were acquired from Sophia Davis
(Deed Book 27, Page 378) in 1885 and from John T. Taylor, guardian of "Jno. T.
Taylor, Lunatic" (Deed Book 28, Page 11) in 1881. According to the deed on record,
the Supreme Court of Anson County had approved the sale of the parcel held by
Jno. T. Taylor in 1875.
The remaining 370.84 acres of the original 620.84 were awned by several individuals.
Fifty-eight acres were conveyed from John Tyson in 1907 (Deed Book 43, Page 34)
with reference to previous ownership indicated as Shepard Edwards. Another 198
acres were originally held by J. G. Branch and J. T. Polk and were conveyed to D. N.
Bennett on October 9, 1871; however this transfer is not registered. The balance of
the acreage is not detailed in the deed book.
The parcel of 353.4 acres (located on the east side of Pinch Gut Creek) was not
included in the survey because it is not being developed. This parcel was conveyed
to J, P. Boylin by S. M. Gaddy in 1943 (Deed Book 93, Page 448), which can also be
traced to the James A. Boggan family, who purchased the property in 1926 (Deed
Book 67, Page 187). The original parcel held by James Caraway excluded a one acre
parcel deeded to the "Public School Committee of District 12, colored race", in 1886
for the purposes of building a school (Deed Book 25, Page 338). Another one-half
acre was also excluded, being conveyed to the "Morning Star Methodist Church,
colored race" (no deed book referenced).
No records concerning the transfer of title exist prior to 1871 for the parcel of 620,84
acres or prior to 1886, for the 353.4 acres. Only one reference is recorded for the
transfer of the acreage belonging to the school board.
Parcel 2, lying along the south side of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad adjacent to
the Boylin property, consists of two parcels of 195.83 acres and 74.98 acres, owned by
the Edwards Timber Company and Mrs. Anne Bricker, respectively. Unfortunately,
investigations into the Edwards Timber Company property, the largest of the
southern parcels, ended with a deed from William. Ashe Caudle on August 14, 1963
(Deed Book 147, Page 641). However, a plat map for the J. P. Boylin acreage, Tract 1,
(Plat Map A-78) dated July 1966, indicates that this property may have been held by
W. A. Gaddy, son of J. W. Gaddy, and W. J. Huntley. An August 1914 plat map of
the Richmond Sturdivant Estate (Plat Map A-4) which was also adjacent to the
Boylin property, indicates this parcel belonging to W. J. Huntley and Eugene Simons
(Deed Book 25, Page 552). It is an interesting note that the deed reference from
December 1886 mentions "old railroad shanties being located on the south side of
the railroad" on this property (Deed Book 25, Page 552). Records indicate (Medley
1976) that the railroad did not come to Anson County until after the Civil War.
These "shanties" may have been used to house workers laying the tracks.
The property held by Mrs. Anne Bricker can be traced to the division of the "Estate
of Richmond Sturdivant (colored)" in August 1914 (Deed Book 56, Page 599). It
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 21

appears that most of this acreage has passed in and out of the Sturdivant family
since 1886 (Deed Book 25, Page 351). References to surrounding property
transactions involving the Sturdivants (Anson County Grantees Index S) suggest
that this parcel may be part of a larger estate accumulated during the mid 1800s.
Parcel 3, 133.81 acres held by James and Kathy Crider is adjacent to the southeastern
part of the Boylin property, and end at the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. It can also
be traced to the Sturdivants; Burl Sturdivant received the parcel in the division of
estate of his father, Richmond (Deed Book 46, Page 368). However, this parcel was
originally part of the lands belonging to the Caraway family. As part of a larger
parcel, it was first acquired by Archibald Caraway on October 20, 1810 (Deed Book N
& O, Page 345). This parcel was conveyed by James Hemby, and originally consisted
of several parcels established by land patents, one of which was issued to Francis
Smith in October, in "...the Year of Our Lord, seventeen hundred and ninety, being
the thirteenth year of our Independence..." (Deed Book R, Page 498). Of the other
land patents involved, the earliest is to Thomas Lacy, Senior, issued in May 1772
(Deed Book R, Page 494). Apparently, the land was passed on without much
interference until 1908, at which time Tristam Caraway became involved in a
boundary dispute with James Boggan, previous owner of the Boylin property. The
District Court ordered a survey done to resolve the conflict; however, no plat map
was filed with the Registrar of Deeds.
PREVIOUS AND ONGOING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Seven cultural resources investigations have been conducted in Anson County
since the passage of cultural resources management legislation in the 1960s and
1970s. Table 1 presents an inventory of these investigations, and following the table,
brief summaries of the most extensive projects are provided. This was compiled
from the report and manuscript files at the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh.
Before this project, a total of 91 archaeological sites were on record in the North
Carolina State Site Files for Anson County. Of these, 76 were located during
documented projects, and the remaining sites were reported by interested citizens.
The earliest project was conducted by Cooper (1976a). It was a survey of a sewage
treatment line (201 facilities project) that located three eroded sites in upland
settings east of Wadesboro around Lilesville, North Carolina.
In 1976, Cooper also investigated the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 7 miles
north of Wadesboro at the mouth of Brown Creek (1976b). The report was not
available for this study, but is ordinarily housed at the Pee Dee Wildlife Refuge,
where the National Park Service is conducting an ongoing study of the wildlife
refuge. About 50 sites have been discovered during the study (D. Anderson,
personal communication 1991).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 27

Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Conducted in Anson County.
l_nvestikator
Cooper (1976a)
Cooper (1976d)
Cooper (n.d.)
Ward (1977)
CZR (1979)
Garrow & Watson (1979)
Padgett (1986)
Hargrove (1989)
# of Sites
Potentially
Project
Recorded
Significant Sites
Anson 201
3
0
Pee Dee Wildlife Refuge
?
?
Tressel Site (31AN19)
1
1
Sneedsboro Power Plant
23
6
Bridge No. 109-65-40
3
1
Pee Dee Wildlife
39
0
Rocky River
1
0
Pee Dee Quarry
6
0
Total
76
8
Garrow and Watson (1979) produced the most extensive archaeological report on
Anson County. It again was a study of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, and 39
sites were recorded. All but one of the sites was found to be destroyed by plowing
and erosion (Garrow and Watson 1979:16).
Hargrove (1989) conducted a survey of a proposed quarry south of where Highway
74 crosses the Pee Dee River 11 miles east of Wadesboro. Six sites were found, also
all eroded or disturbed.
Garrow's and Watson's (1979:16-24) study produced enough dated components to
characterize the settlement pattern relative to floodplain, terrace, and upland
landforms. The data indicate an increasing intensity of occupation focusing on the
terraces until the Late Archaic. The Woodland and Mississippian settlement lapsed
into the floodplain, and then there was a re-emergence of habitation of the higher
landforms in the historic period. Hargrove's (1989:Figure 3) study supports similar
trends in site location.
There are several emerging trends, additional information on settlement patterns,
and unreported sites that shed light on the prehistory of Anson County. The
Hardaway and Doershuk sites (Coe 1964) are located 25 miles to the north of the
project area on the Pee Dee River. Paleoindian sites with Hardaway projectile points
have also been located on the Richmond County side of the Pee Dee River (B.
Oliver, personal communication 1991). They generally contain about 3 feet of
stratigraphy. Gearhart (1991) documents recent formal research to the east of the Pee
Dee River in Richmond County.
While there has been little research in the interior of Anson County, projectile
points are thought to consist of large numbers of Kirks, Stanleys, and Guilfords
(Oliver, personal communication 1983, 1985, 1991). There are two peaks in the
distribution of projectile points through time, one during the Kirk phase and one
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 23

during the Savannah River phase. Ceramics are rare, but a collector from Lilesville
has reported sherds of a whole vessel.
Anticipated publications will further clarify the distribution of Mississippian
artifacts in south-central North Carolina. However, it is apparent from ongoing
investigations that Mississippian sites along the Pee Dee River are divided among
regions (Oliver, personal communication 1991). One concentration is located south
of the Uwharrie Mountains and north of the North Carolina -South Carolina border.
The Little River was the heartland of the Pee Dee culture; Town Creek is at the
north end of distribution. There is little Pee Dee culture beyond Town Creek to the
north, and no movement was made into the uplands following arrival in the
region. The earlier Woodland period occupations (Yadkin phase) were confined to
the same area. In Stanly County, west of the Pee Dee River and northwest of the
project area, there have been no Woodland artifacts reported, but some
Mississippian.
The Woodland and Mississippian period settlement pattern contains no small sites,
and the large sites appear along the primary rivers on the levees of the Pee Dee
River, Little River, and Brown Creek. There is much Archaic material away from
the rivers, but by the Woodland period the uplands were abandoned. The
inhabitants appear to have moved along the Pee Dee River.
There are certain distinctions between Pee Dee ceramics and other varieties of
complicated stamped pottery. The distribution breaks above the North Carolina
border near Sneedsboro, North Carolina, where very few occurences of Pee Dee
ceramics are noted until Camden, South Carolina. This break is thought to
represent a buffer zone between the two areas, which were probably two different
chiefdoms. The Mulberry mounds (Stuart 1975) are within the South Carolina
chiefdom. This region is in turn distinguished from similar units in Georgia
(Anderson 1989:109). The South Carolina ceramic material is a related complex, but
has different motifs.
The Town Creek site (Ward 1983:55-59, Coe 1983:169-172) appears to have been the
main ceremonial center of the North Carolina chiefdom. It is located to the north of
the project area about 15 miles across the Pee Dee River. It is in a box canyon formed
by the Uwharrie Mountains at the north end of the Wadesboro Triassic Basin.
Town Creek is also at the north end of distribution. of Pee Dee sites and is not on the
main river. This lack of centrality is probably related to the original settlement
pattern, which was heavily influenced by topography and flooding. Heavy discharge
comes into the basin from the Rocky River which originates on the east slope of the
Blue Ridge. Town Creek is located on a diabase dike, which becomes an island
during floods.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 24

Town Creek is the northern most Mississippian ceremonial mound on the
Piedmont -Coastal Plain. At Town Creek, all 54 years of investigation with minor
exceptions, were focused on the ceremonial center. Keel and others made a few
surveys and tests in the surrounding area. There is currently a project studying the
Mississippian sites along the Pee Dee River which are peripheral to Town Creek
(Oliver, personal communication 1991). The results are to appear in a dissertation
(Oliver n.d.). Field work has been performed every summer since 1986, with over
12,000 square feet of sites having been excavated. Two key villages have been
located.
The objectives of the Pee Dee Project are: (1) to determine the structure of the
domestic villages, (2) to resolve the chronological sequence, and (3) to determine
relationships of the ceremonial center to peripheral villages of the Town Creek.
The project encompasses both sides of the river.
An interesting finding of the Pee Dee Project concerns the Pee Dee pentagonal point
(Coe 1964:49). The Pee Dee pentagonal has come to be regarded as diagnostic of the
Mississippian in western North Carolina because of work at Town Creek, where
about 10,000 were found among the 600,000 artifacts. The Pee Dee pentagonal
projectile point, however, is not a reliable marker of the Pee Dee culture in the
peripheral towns (Oliver, personal communication 1991). In the Pee Dee Project,
250,000 artifacts were examined, and few pentagonals were noted. One problem
appears to be the general focus on morphology rather than manufacturing
technique when analyzing the Pee Dee pentagonal points. Many point types look
pentagonal when re -sharpened, so they are often mistaken for Pee Dee points. Also,
there may some aspect of site function or status which confines the Pee Dee
pentagonal to Town Creek.
A large Pee Dee site is located in eastern Anson County. The Tressel Site (31AN19,
Ward 1983:72-73) was worked by Cooper, but no report was submitted. There is
some material on the site in the state files, and Cooper's (n.d.) notes and Catawba
College student papers on the site are with the collections at Wake Forest
University. The archaeology laboratories at Wake Forest University were visited
and, with the assistance of J. N. Woodall and R. Rogers, the notes and some of the 82
artifact boxes were examined. Pottery was the most frequent artifact type recovered.
It was composed of a fine micaceous paste, cord impressed on the outside and
burnished on the inside. An aerial photograph of the site was found showing its
location on an island near the west side of the Pee Dee River, where the Seaboard
Coast Railroad now crosses.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 25

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
Field research must be guided by regionally relevant research designs (Secretary of
the Interior 1983:44722). Since little previous work has been done in Anson County,
much of the fundamental nature of prehistoric and historic lifeways must be
determined before sophisticated designs can be generated. Generally, the most
useful design for the early stages of archaeological research is to examine the
distribution of sites on the landscape. Because of the limited nature of this
reconnaissance project, it attempts to use existing theories regarding about
landforms on which human occupation is likely to occur to model local occupation
patterns. As such, it will first be an approximation of human habitation patterns in
central Anson County. Completion of a Phase I survey on the proposed
development tract helped to determine if there were gaps in the coverage implied by
the model. Because most of the property is outside of river valleys, a model will be
presented. which has been developed specifically to address the problems of upland
settlement patterns.
Archaeological salvage operations in the middle decades of the twentieth century
tended to concentrate in river floodplains because of extensive reservoir
construction at the time. Coe`s (1964) Atlantic Coast documentation of Yadkin -Pee
Dee, Dan, and Roanoke river occupations is an example. In the last two decades,
extensive attention has been turned to investigations of upland habitats, reflecting
trends in the construction industry to build roads and power lines along ridge crests
(Blanton and Sassaman 1989). From these investigations, Blanton and Sassaman
(1989) were able to provide an enlightening analysis of upland occupation patterns.
Their analysis is particularly relevant to upland Middle Archaic lithic scatters,
which account for the greater part of upland finds in the Blue Ridge Piedmont.
While the trend has been to assume that upland sites are eroded and of limited
value, there has emerged an upland geomorphology which can be correlated with
standard lowland fluvial geomorphology, as elucidated by Coe (1964), and which
serves as a tool for locating, dating, and explaining upland site location (Nials and
Gunn 1982, Brown 1984; Gunn and Poplin 1991; Gunn 1990).
A primary criterion for sites' eligibility for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places is that they possess undisturbed sub -plow zone strata (Glassow 1977).
Such sites occur in topographic situations which sponsor accumulation of
sediments under certain geological and climatic conditions, and in place burial of
cultural artifacts. These depositional environments can be located, to some extent,
by examining contour maps. Study of the Russellville and Polkton 7.5 minute
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 26

quadrangle reaps indicated that there were at least 43 locales within the three
potential landfill development tracts that had potential for preserving
archaeological sites. These locales were the focus of the reconnaissance surveys.
Topographic features which are likely to contain buried archaeological sites provide
both depositional environments and favorable locations for human. occupations
such as layovers, overlooks, carps, and villages (Table 2). Figure 3 depicts a
generalized landform model of these topographic settings. This figure a schematic
model and is not project specific. Regions with sand -capped hills, in theory, are
disposed to site preservation because sand bodies do not erode unless they are
saturated by precipitation, a rare situation which probably only happens during
torrential rains such as occur during tropical storms (Nials and Gunn 1982). If
stratified sites are found on hilltops, it is because they were buried by wind-borne
sediments. Buried aeolian sites are rare in areas of modern agriculture because of
soil erosion. In uplands below the tops of hills, but above the break -in -slope,
colluvial deposits accumulate during periods of verdant vegetation, but erode
during intervals of impoverished vegetation. Steep slopes seldom contain sites,
except in cases where they are so steep as to harbor rockshelters, or in cases where
subsurface conditions support perched aquifers. In floodplains, the buried sites are
typically found at the back edge of swamps in colluvial deposits next to the valley
wall, and on slackwater deposits which build up at the confluences of the larger
streams.
Table 2. Landforrns Likely to Contain Intact Archaeological Sites.
Map
Symbol Landform
R
Ridge
U
Upland
S
Saddle
C
Upper Colluvia
W
Waterline
H
Head of Stream/Spring
P
Perched Aquifer (valley wall)
M
Middle Terrace
T
Toe (of 2nd terrace)
L
Lower Colluvia (cove plain)
F
Lower Colluvia (floodplain)
D
Slackwater Deposit
An alternative to survey by landform is survey by soil type. In soil based surveys
locales are targeted by soil type. Since a highly resolved soil survey is not available
for Anson County, this often preferable mode of investigation was not possible.
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 27

Floodpl�iin Valley V,, all Upland
Middle
Perched Colluoium
Aquifer
Lower
Slackwater
collWum
Char�s�ei Backwater
�..�" F.elict C#�rur►ela
Flavium
Tillage
Camp
Deposition During Inequitable
Climates, Vegetation
Impoverished, >1 m thick
Tilted Beds
Lipper Aeolium
Culluium
t W Od
Remnant
Overlook Layover �
Key. El Soft Stratum
.tt\1 Hard Strata
i44
-t Probable Archmloginl Site
Deposition During Equitable Climates,
Verdant Upland Vegetation, -� 1 m
thick.
Figure3. Landform Model of Potential Archaeological Site Locations.
Landforms
Rim. Ridges likely to preserve sites are in locations where prevailing winds have
both a source (usually a sandy hillside), and a favorable location for deposition (a
relatively flat and broad hilltop). Such sites are not uncommon in the Coastal Plain,
and have been found in locations ranging from shore estuaries (Gunn and
Espenshade 1990; 31ON338) to elevated sand hills near the project area (Gunn 1990),
and on other similar coastal plains such as those bordering the Gulf of Mexico
(Gunn and Kerr 1984). On the Atlantic slope, sample units above east- and south -
facing hills are most likely to provide accumulating deposits of Holocene age
because of prevailing southeasterly winds. During the Pleistocene, strong
southwesterly winds were characteristic of the climate, and built upland features
such as Carolina Bays (Bliley and Burney 1988).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 28

Upland. Uplands are elevated areas with low gradients, saddles, colluvial farts, and
other features to attract occupation and preserve sites.
Saddle. Saddles are relatively common locations for camps during the prehistoric
period. They are protected from the elements and provide areas near bottlenecks of
animal movement as well as locations for human layovers along upland trails. Due
to their low elevation relative to the adjacent terrain, saddles accumulate sediment,
forming colluvia which can contain intact archaeological sites.
Upper Colluvia. Colluvia accumulate above the break -in -slope of the valley wall
during periods when vegetation is verdant enough to prevent removal of sediment
by sheet wash (Gunn and Brown 1982). Such episodes are usually present from the
late Holocene, although there may be erosional remnants from the early Holocene
or late Pleistocene. The locations were probably important to prehistoric people as
camp locations because they afforded an overlook of stream fords and prairies where
game might be spotted (Gunn and Mahula 1977).
Waterline/Head of Stream/Spring. A topographic feature which emerged as
important to site location in the study area during the project are "waterlines," the
elevation at which water from hilltop perched aquifers emerge to flow down
hillsides (Gunn and Brown 1982). A consistent feature of site location in the Anson
County project area is that occupations are not located at the heads of first order
streams near the waterline, but rather where second order (larger) intermittent
streams cross the waterline. Sites are located in the upper colluvium at the
waterline. This applies to both prehistoric and historic sites. The streams in the
project area are all intermittent now, but under aboriginal conditions with
developed soils and verdant vegetation on hilltops, they probably would have been
more or less permanent streams. The existence of the waterline is supported by data
obtained from hydrological core drilling, which was proceeding concurrently with
the archaeological survey. Holes above the waterline sites tended to be dry, while
those below contained water.
Perched Aquifer (valley allJ. Occasionally, hillside bedrock configurations support
wetland situations with water tables at or above the floodplain of a stream (Gunn
Poplin 1991). The geological feature which supports perched aquifers is probably
tilted bedrock strata in which a softer stratum is sandwiched between two resistant
strata. As the less resistant rock is removed by erosion, a long basin is formed which
contains water. Such features can usually be identified by a stream which is
descending a hill but suddenly changes course to run along the hill for a short
distance, and then drops down to a higher order stream. The perched aquifers
supported wetlands which attracted large game in search of water and aquatic
microfauna. They now usually have been drained by modern farmers, but can be
identified by deep organic (black) soils referred to as Alta Vista soils in some
counties. Sites are usually located on the upland side of the perched aquifer on the
nearest low -gradient surface.
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page w 29

Middle Terrace. Ancient terraces frequently appear below the ridge/upland and
above the 1st/2nd terrace. These middle terraces appear as sub -ridges joining main
ridges. Because they are predominantly composed of clay strata, and are associated
with the eroding sides of ridges, they are generally without depositional
environments (Nials and Gunn 1982; Blanton 1986). However, these middle
terraces do occasionally retain evidence of human occupation (Gunn and Repass
1991). Middle terraces facing the Pee Dee River in Anson County were frequently
occupied (Garrow and Watson 1979; Hargrove 1989).
Toe. Toes are located immediately above floodplain deposition on extensions into
floodplains. They provide dry camp conditions with greater access to backwater
swamps and other floodplain resource areas.
Lower Colluvia. Lower colluvia develop at the valley wall of major streams with
floodplains. They appear as raised areas at the floodplain margin, but are not true
terraces. The locations provide access to rich backwater swamps, and
simultaneously act to cover and preserve archaeological sites.
Slackwater Deposit. Slackwater deposits are formed at major stream confluences
during floods. The conjoining of two flooding streams overfills the valley, resulting
in a slowing of water movement. Coarser grained sediments --sands and silts --settle
out, forming an elevated surface at the confluence. The elevated surface is favored
for habitation during drier seasons because of its proximity to fresh water and
aquatic resources, and dry elevated camp conditions.
Table 2 serves as a checklist to guide selection of the landform locales suspected of
containing sites from contour maps. The investigation of the sample units selected
by the criteria outlined above will be discussed in the field methods section. The
utility of the model is measured in terms of hits (a site was found at a targeted
locale) and misses (a site was not found). Additional sites (Add column)are sites
found incidental to the modeling process. From the frequency of hits and additional
finds, a profile of landscape occupation patterns for the project area can be
developed.
Upland geomorphology provides the backdrop for this investigation in western
Anson County; the area is irregularly veneered with sandy sediments of a Triassic
Basin formation (North Carolina Geological Survey 1985). Sands are the primary
requisite for preserved upland occupations because of their resistance to erosion.
Upland geomorphology provides a theoretical context for the study of upland
settlement. During the Altithermal, or Middle Holocene (ca. 2,500-5,500 B.C.), a
greater portion of eastern North America can be shown to have been hot, dry, and
vegetationally impoverished in the uplands. What special conditions attracted
groups to the uplands of the Atlantic Coastal Plain during that period?
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 30

1. Given the sandy uplands of the study area, are there occupations other than the
anticipated Archaic period inhabitants? if there are other occupations, is there
reason to think that the climatic conditions of the different periods were similar7 if
this is so, does it suggest that a climate -related process is driving upland occupation
(e.g., availability of water)?
2. Could occupations of the uplands reflect seasonal occupation or proximity to
ridges that could have been used as trading trails, and therefore insensitive to
climate?
3. Does the correlation of occupation with growing season rainfall provide an
increment of understanding of the upland occupation?
METHODOLOGY
Literature and Records Review
A review of the available archaeological literature and records was conducted prior
to field work. This research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology in
Raleigh, North Carolina. A review of the North Carolina state site files indicated
that no archaeological sites had been recorded within the proposed project area or
on the surrounding USGS quadrangles. The nearest previously reported sites were
along the Pee Dee River to the northeast. A preliminary investigation of the
historic maps and records in the Anson County Courthouse was also made. This
was reported in the historic background section above.
Although there has been little previous research in Anson County, impressions of
the prehistoric settlement pattern drawn from Anson and surrounding counties
suggest the following elements are present (B. Oliver, personal communication
1991; see also Previous Archaeological Research): (1) southern exposures are
preferred; (2) sites are often located on old channels of streams and near springs;
and (3) on floodplains, Late Archaic deposits can be found 3 feet below the surface,
with early Holocene deposits another 3 feet down. There was a period of sediment
deposition between Morrow Mountain and Guilford occupation phases; this
sediment was primarily derived from the Rocky River, although Brown Creek may
have contributed as well.
Field Methods
The field methodology employed for this survey included surface inspection of all
areas with at least 25 percent ground surface visibility, and the systematic shovel
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 31

testing of vegetated areas. Shovel tests were placed on level terrain in the locales
identified by the geomorphological model, avoiding slopes, erosional gullies,
wetlands, and disturbed areas. A shovel test consisted of the hand excavation of an
approximate 30 cm diameter hole into sterile subsoil. All excavated soil was
processed through a 1/4 inch mesh hardware cloth in the field to recover artifacts.
The "red flag" survey proceeded with subsurface testing and surface inspection. To
control shovel testing, sample locations, or targeted locales, were defined on several
landforms as discussed in the research design. All shovel tests were keyed to USGS
7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Surface visibility was low.
In areas where visibility was below 25 percent, targeted locales were first tested at
what appeared to be the most likely location for a site. If the first shovel test proved
positive, further testing was conducted on a 10 m grid to the limits of the site or
landform. If the first test was negative, further tests were conducted on a 30 m grid
until a site was located or the limits of the landform were reached.
Chipping stations and a variety of tool types were found at the confluence of Brown
and Pinch Gut creeks, indicating occupation activities. Shovel testing, however,
failed to reveal concentrations of artifacts of any sort on the third terrace. Hunter
informants, on the other hand, reported finding large numbers of projectile points
on that terrace. This suggested that the third terrace was a hunting ground in which
single artifacts were lost in the field, only to be recovered by the collectors after
plowing of the fields in 1969. To test this model, a 10 m interval survey was run in
the open fields with the expectation that only individual tools would be found,
rather than concentrations of chipping debris or clusters of varied tool types as
would be expected in camp sites.
In the Phase I intensive survey of the project conducted in the proposed
development tract, a 30 m grid was established by pacing off transects along the
Circle and North roads. Transects were shovel tested at 30 m intervals in areas
which appeared to have the highest probability of site occurrence. These areas
included zones where sites had been discovered during the "red flag" survey, and
where informants had suggested there might be sites. Distances between shovel
tests in low probability areas never exceeded 90 m.
Artifacts were kept in zip -lock plastic bags and labeled with project name, date,
record keeper's initials, and provenience unit. Various aspects of the project area
were recorded with black and white print and color slide film and field notes.
Laboratory Methods
The artifacts were returned to the Garrow & Associates, Inc. Raleigh, North. Carolina
facility where they were washed, labeled, identified, and catalogued. All recovered
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 32

artifacts were cleaned as appropriate for their raw materials. Most were washed in
water and air dried. Each artifact was individually catalogued along with its site,
method of recovery (shovel test or surface collection), provenience, level, and type.
Types of prehistoric artifacts were identified following Coe (1964), Claggett and Cable
(1982), Oliver (1985), Broyles (1971), and Anderson et al. (1982), among others.
Historic artifacts were identified following South (1977) and Noel Hume (1970).
Once identified as to type, etc., all artifacts were placed in larger paperboard
containers for storage pending shipment to a permanent curation facility.
Curation
All photographs and written records pertaining to this project are currently being
curated at Garrow & Associates, Inc. in Raleigh. The permanent curatorial
repository remains to be determined by Chambers of North Carolina, Inc. It will
most likely be with the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Site Criteria
Garrow & Associates, Inc. generally identifies an archaeological site as a discrete area
containing three or more artifacts from the surface or shovel tests. Areas with fewer
than three artifacts are termed isolated finds. This criterion was followed in this
report.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 33

V. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
The terrain of the investigated tract was variable, and provided a diverse perspective
on archaeological site location and land use in the south-central North Carolina
Piedmont margin. The proposed development tract as discussed in this report
provided both a "red flag" or reconnaissance survey, and a Phase I survey for
comparison. Sites 1 and 11 on which only "red flag" surveys were performed are
documented in a separate report since they are no longer being considered for the
landfill development.
The proposed development tract contained broken terrain with virtually
uninhabited narrow ridges to the west and heavily occupied terraces to the east.
During the "red flag" survey of 626 acres, cultural materials were found at two
prehistoric and two historic sites (Table 3). One site contains artifacts from both
periods. During the intensive survey, the project area was expanded to 1,200 acres,
and twelve additional sites were found. Five of these were on land partially
investigated during the "red flag" survey and seven were on new lands upon which
options had been obtained. Thus, in proposed development tract, a total of 17 sites
were discovered, 10 prehistoric sites, four historic sites, and three sites that
contained artifacts from both periods. During the surveys, a total of 632 shovel tests
were excavated; 475 are mapped in Figure 4, the rest are mapped on individual site
reaps. A total of 727 artifacts were recovered (Appendix 3) on the tract. Typeable
prehistoric artifacts (Table 4), including lithics and prehistoric ceramics, and historic
artifacts (Table 5), summed to 686. Five prehistoric and seven historic sites appear to
require Phase II investigations.
The landform checklist discussed in the methods chapter proved variably effective
at anticipating site locations depending on the terrain of the tract, and was expanded
during the project by experience to include additional landforms (Table 6). In the
proposed development tract thirteen locales were targeted, and twelve were
surveyed. Four contained sites, and one additional site was observed while driving
along a road. The rate at which the model predicted the locations of sites (hit rate)
was 33 percent (Table 7a). Most sites were discovered by targeting locales because the
tract was heavily vegetated and the terrain was broken. Site density was 8 sites per
1000 acres (Table 7c). The Phase I intensive survey increased site density to 14 sites
per 1000 acres.
The Hunters Camp Site (31AN82) was not discovered during the "red flag" survey.
This was because of a missing element in the landform list: ridges behind broad
terraces. This has been remedied for .future investigations with an addition of
'backridges" to the list.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 34

Table 3. Tract Combined "Red Flag"
and Phase 1 State Site Numbers and Site Sizes.
Temporary
State
Size
Survey
Old/New
Number
Site Name
Number
NSxEW
Phase
Land
PREHISTORIC SITES
(31AN }
M1
Savannah River Site
62*
120x370m
RF
O
D13
Spring Site
60*
230x130m
RF
O
Al2-1
Hunters Camp Site
82
250x300m
PI
O
Al2-3
Hilltop Site
83*
100x60m
PI
O
Al2-4
Rhyolite Ridge
124
20x40m
PI
N
Al2-9
Stream Site
127*
20x40m
PI
O
Al2-12
Muddy Boot Site
129*
25x20m
PI
N
Al2-16
Saddle Site
128
60x20m
PI
N
Al2-17
Sunset Site
131
15x20m
PI
N
Al2-18
Lowland Site
132
10x20m
PI
N
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC SITES
H10
Well House
61*
90x60yds
RF
O
M3
Dairy/Manor House
63*
90x110yds
RF
O
Al2-7
Pen. House
75*
35x63yds
PI
O
HISTORIC SITES
R12
Tenant House
64*
80x75ft
RF
O
Al2-8
Road House
76*
60x53yds
PI
O
Al2-5
Field House
126*
40x40yds
PI
N
Al2-6
Hole House
125*
20x30yds
PI
N
* Recommended for Further Work (Phase II)
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 35

Table 4. Typeable Prehistoric Artifacts from the Tract for All Surveys
Static `pile # - 3LA-\
60
61 62 63
T 76 82 83 124
127 128
129 131 132 Totat
Artifact Category
Implements:
Point
1
1
1
3
Biface
2
1
1
4
Scraper
l
1
1 2 5
Chopper
0
Graver
0
Burin
1
1
Hammerstone
1
Flakes:
30
7 126 9
5 3 10 15 8
15 9
40 3 12 292
Cores:
1
1
2
Ceramks:
1
1 1
3
Total 34 8 HO 10 5 3 11 15 10 17 10 41 3 14 311
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 36

Table 5. Typeable Historic Artifacts from the Tract for All Surveys.
.State Site # - 31AN 62
63
64
75
76
82 124 125
126
128 131
132
Total
Artifact._ Category
Brick - handmade
0
Brick - machine made
0
Brick - unidentified
1
1
1
3
Porcelain - hard paste
2
2
Porcelain - soft paste
1
1
Pe arlw are
1
1
2
WWteware
5
6
5
10
26
Stoneware
3
1
1
4
6
1
16
Ironstone
1
2 1
6
10
20
Earthenware
7
7
Bottle Mass
5
3
54
9
9
6
86
Table glass
2
2
Window glass
2
10
9
11
1
5
38
Industrial glass
1
1
1
3
UID glass 3
4
1
6
5
1 2
22
Iron - nails
31
19
28
22
100
Iron - other
9
7
12
28
UID metals
2
1
3
Leather 1 1
Tin 1 1
Other 1 3 1 8 1 14
Totals 3 58 37 106 75 2 1 19 52 1 18 3 375
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 37

Table 6. Red Flag Hits, Misses, Additional Sites by La.ndform.
Map
'y
Landform
R
Ridge
U
Upland
S
Saddle
C
Upper Colluvia
W
Waterline
H
Head of Stream/Spring
P
Perched Aquifer (valley wall)
M
Middle Terrace
T
Toe (of 2nd terrace)
O
Rockshelter
D
Slackwater Deposit
TOTAL LOCATIONS
Not
Hit Miss Additional + Done* Total
5 5
2 1 3
0
0
0
1 1 2
0
2 1 3
0
0
1 1
4 8 1 1 14
+ Additional - sites discovered that were not targeted.
* Not Done - targeted locales not investigated due to field reevaluation.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 38

Table 7. Hit and Miss Scores of Landform Model and Site Density.
1-lit Miss Add+ ND* Total
a. Iaocales Targetted and Additional Sites Hits
Study
Tract 4 8 1 1 14 33%
Total 4 8 1 1 14 33%
b. Locales Visited per ------------ 1,000 acres
Area (acres)
6261 6.4 12.8 1.6 21
c. Archaeological Sites per -- 1,000 acres
Area (acres)
6261 6.4 1.6 8
*ND = not done
+Add =Additional sites discovered that were not targetted.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 39

Several aspects of prehistoric and historic settlement patterns became clear during
the project, both through survey and through interviews with residents of the area.
The configuration of sites at the confluence of Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek
suggests that sites may be located on the bluff overlooking the creek so long as the
occupiable surfaces are not over 30 feet above the water. Occupation above 30 feet, as
at the Hilltop Site (31AN83), appears to be placed as high above water as there are
available occupation surfaces. This may reflect seasonal preferences.
An unanticipated supplement to the reconnaissance and intensive surveys of the
proposed development tract was provided by the Pinch Gut Creek Hunting Club
that leases a portion of the tract (Appendix 1). Members of the club were familiar
with the land before it became the property of the timber company, and had
collected numerous prehistoric artifacts. The collectors reported the locations of
four sites to the Office of State Archaeology following our "red flag" survey, prior to
the Phase I intensive survey. Of the four sites reported, two were parts of sites
located by our survey team (31AN89 near 31AN83 and 31AN90 near 31AN61). The
third site (31AN91) had not been found by our team during the "red flag"
reconnaissance, but was investigated during the Phase I survey. The fourth site
(31AN87) yielded a single isolated find. The hunters were interviewed about their
collecting activities, and two of four known collections were photographed. It is
worth noting that the hunters established a camp at the location of a major
prehistoric site on a ridge above the third terrace of Pinch Gut Creek, thus
replicating the prehistoric settlement pattern. Interviews concerning their hunting
habits and results of the finds further indicated that prehistoric and modern hunters
concentrated their efforts in similar areas adjacent to the hunting camp. Large
numbers of projectile points were found in areas of favored hunting stands. Many
of these were at the lower edge of the third terrace adjacent to wetlands.
The results of the intensive survey provided a test of the effectiveness of the
landform model used in the "red flag" survey. How did the Phase I intensive
survey alter the settlement pattern as it existed at the end of the "red flag" survey?
The most important additional information supplied by the Phase I intensive
survey was definition of site boundaries. All of the prehistoric sites were found to
be larger than originally thought. The primary reason Phase I investigations
extended "red flag" site boundaries was that sites discovered during the "red flag"
survey were found during the Phase I study to encompass nearby landf orms. This
principle would be easy to apply during future "red flag" surveys, and would add
significantly to the completeness of results. In addition, sites tend to reflect the
shapes of water courses. They lie around springs and along streams, forming
circular or long linear occupation patterns. The archaeological sites are described
below and are ordered according to state site numbers.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page o 40

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The proposed development tract is located north of Highway 74 accessed by Boylin
Road (Figure 4) and is bounded by Brown Creek on the north and west and Pinch
Gut Creek on the east. The southern boundary follows the Seaboard Coast Line
Railroad from Pinch Gut Creek to Boylin Road. In a complex pattern, it routes
north around the Richmond Sturdivant Cemetery and comes back to the railroad
300 m west of Boylin Road; then runs southwest to Highway 74, and finally west to
Brown Creek.
Most of the proposed development tract contained poor surface visibility due to
mature pine plantations and root and leaf mat. Even the dirt roads afforded little
surface visibility. The exception was the 270 acres in the southeast corner of the
property, which was in winter wheat. In this area surface visibility was 80-99
percent; it was surveyed to test theories of artifact distribution developed from
shovel testing in areas with less visibility (see section on Open Field Surface Survey
Experiment below). All portions of the property above the wetlands, approximately
250 feet AMSL (812.17 acres), were included in the survey.
The following pages provide detailed site descriptions.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 41

Spring Site (31AN60)
Archaeological site 31AN60 (locale D13) is a prehistoric occupation located 400 m
northwest of the northwest corner of the Richmond-Sturdivant Cemetery at 280 feet
AMSL (see Figure 4). It was located on a slackwater deposit at the confluence of two
first order streams, and on an adjacent terrace to the northwest. There is a spring
100 m upstream from the site to the west. The flow was dammed in the middle of
the site. The site was discovered while testing a targeted locale during the "red flag"
survey. The boundaries were further defined during the intensive Phase I survey.
The vegetation consisted of mature pines with sparse undergrowth. Shovel tests
uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I had no humus and a thin root mat.
Stratum Il was 20 cm of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) loam.. Stratum III
consisted of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) clay. The maximum depth of shovel tests
was 22 cm.
Twenty-eight shovel tests were excavated around the perimeter of the pond and
below the dam (Figure 5). Ten positive shovel tests contained 34 prehistoric
artifacts, including 30 flakes (chert [n=4], quartz [n=2], quartzite [n=14], rhyolite
[n=10]), two biface fragments, a core, and a Middle Woodland ceramic sherd. The
average number of artifacts per positive shovel test was 3.4. The dimensions of the
site are 230 m north -south by 130 m east -west. Based on sterile tests and landforms
this is judged to be the true extent of the site.
Phase 11 testing is recommended for 31AN60 since it contains several areas of
colluvium that may hold intact deposits. It has a wide variety and substantial
number of artifacts and further recovery could add materially to the understanding
of the regional prehistoric settlement pattern. The recovery of the prehistoric
ceramic indicates the presence of a Woodland site away from major streams. This
would be contradictory to the currently held settlement pattern model discussed in
the background research section, and could change current perspectives on late
prehistoric occupation habits.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 42

i
r �
I �
'r
I \
I
a I . • ° � 4
V \
o p \
i pond i
1 /
1 �
o KEY'
• s shovel test, positive
o shovel test, negative
--^ contour,. approx.
N — -- stream
-- — 0 15 30 60 prehistoric site boundary
� f
m i
i
1 ter/
Figure 5. Plan Map of the Spring Site (31AN60); locale D13.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 44

Well House Site (31AN61)
Archaeological site 31AN61 (locale H10) consists of prehistoric and historic
occupations located 700 m northwest of the Richmond-Sturdivant Cemetery in the
middle of the proposed development tract at 300 feet AMSL (see Figure 4), and is
comprised of a well house and a house ruin with which the prehistoric artifacts
were associated. The house is located on the east edge of an upland (Doe Hill). The
well house is located approximately 30 m across the main road to the north and
down the hill at the waterline, and appears to be at the head of a stream. The site
was discovered while examining a targeted locale. The house structure appears on
the 1914 soils map.
The vegetation consisted of mature mixed woodland with moderate undergrowth.
No hardwoods were associated with the dwelling which was in a pine plantation on
top of a knoll. Shovel tests uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I was a leaf and
root mat with humus. Stratum II was 30 cm of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy
loam. Stratum III was yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay. The maximum depth
of shovel tests was 34 cm. Based on current testing and structures, the site is 90 yards
north -south by 60 yards east -west.
No artifacts were collected £rom the surface. Three shovel tests were excavated
around structural remains presumed to be a dwelling (Figure 6). Eight prehistoric
artifacts (a hammer stone and seven flakes) were found in two positive shovel tests,
an average of 4.0 artifacts per test. Numerous rocks just beneath the root mat
indicate the possibility of stone flooring. Several sandstone piers and steps were
observed. An interview with a previous tenant suggests that this structure was used
as a "jail" or holding room for inebriated employees (Appendix 2). The location is
near a site reported by the hunters (31AN90) and may be the exact position of that
site.
The well house measures 8 feet north -south by 10 feet east -west and is constructed of
formed rock and mortar (Figures 7 and 8). It is located approximately 35 m northeast
of the stone blocks mentioned above. The gabled wooden roof is covered with tin.
An unobstructed doorway with three steep steps lead down into the building where
a well hole is visible in the poured concrete floor. No mechanical or plumbing
remnants remain. An interview with a previous tenant reveals that this was used
as a pumphouse to supply water to the animals (Appendix 2). The building is
recessed into the slopes of the stream bed at the head of the stream, with the
exception of the east end where the actual stream bed begins.
Further testing will be required to determine exact boundaries. Therefore, Phase II
testing is recommended for site 31AN61 to determine if there is subsurface integrity,
to establish the site boundaries, and to increase the understanding of the historic
settlement pattern of the property.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 45

Unpaved Road
qD®
00
possible stone floor
i
KEY:
i shovel test, positive 0 5 10 15
* shovel test, negative m
pine trees 1t
® stone blocks 05 20 s0

0 5 10 15
KEY:
large rocks
contour, approx.
� stream
O stump
Unpaved Road
WELL. HOUSE ELEVAT1 NS
EAST WEST' SOUTH
O
Op
�S1©
Figure 7. Plan and Profile Map of the Well House (31.AN61), locale H10.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 47

OTT" I
qWx,
110-
,; 1A
A
MW
. . . . . . . . . . .

Savannah River Site (31AN62)
Archaeological site 31AN62 (locale M1) is a prehistoric occupation, located 100 m
south of Brown Creek in the north corner of the proposed development tract at 260
feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a third terrace overlook of Brown Creek
and on a levee parallel to Pinch Gut Creek, and is the closest elevated landform to
the confluence of Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek. The site was discovered while
testing a targeted locale during the "red flag" survey, and was considerably extended
in dimensions during the Phase I intensive survey.
The vegetation consisted of mature pines with no undergrowth (Figure 9). Shovel
tests uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I consisted of 5 cm of humus and
heavy leaf and root gnat. Stratum II was 42 cm of pale brown (10YR 6/3) loamy sand.
Stratum III consisted of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) clay. The maximum depth of
shovel tests was 57 cm.
Seventy-nine shovel tests were excavated on a 30 m transect pattern and in 10 m
grid patterns within loci (Figure 10). Thirty-two positive tests contained 130
prehistoric artifacts, including one Savannah River projectile point of Coastal Plain
chert, a rhyolite scraper, an argillite biface, and 126 flakes (rhyolite [n=94], chert
[n=16], quartz [n=14], argillite [n=21). A specimen of middle Woodland crushed
quartz tempered ceramic were also found. An average of 4.0 artifacts were found per
positive shovel test. The dimensions of the site are 120 m north -south by 370 m
east -west. This is judged to be the true extent of the site based on sterile tests and
landform margins. At least three loci (A, B, and C) were definable, and a variety of
artifact types suggests that the site was functionally complex. Activities included
manufacturing and / or reshaping predominantly rhyolite stone tools.
Phase II testing is recommended for site 31AN62. It has colluvial areas and
therefore potential intact deposits. It has a wide variety and large quantity of
artifacts. Three loci within the boundaries of the site indicate a site of complex
function. Understanding the range of function would add materially to the
prehistory of the region, especially the Woodland period settlement and resource
exploitation pattern.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 49

1 !p R S f
-.Wk
j
rm'
fF
ORA
-... 3`s.
�, in r .:+°f�.G `��S: I r :: hc. � .t - � �• �,.,,,��., Svc - � � '.
w r
to.
`-"'.r'
,� � _ ���c� � -. � .Y�'` +F•.. :.;raj,„ ..

I
KEY:
•
shovel test, positive
o
shovel test, negative
\
_
contour, approx.
stream
prehistoric site boundary
LOCUS C
♦
/
_ _ ___ LOCUSTS • 1
{{
0
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O •• 1
O
O
O
f 0
•`
O O O
O
O
O
LOCUS
A
O
O
0 0 0
0
0
0 1• . / o
O
O
O
0
O O 1
0 20 40 80
m
0

Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63)
Archaeological site 31AN63 (locale M3) is a historic occupation located 450 m
northeast of the entrance to the property at 260 feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located
on a middle terrace and consists of several structural ruins, including a manor
house, dairy barn, silo, shed, tenant house, and another large outbuilding. The site
was discovered while examining a targeted locale. This site does not appear on the
1914.soils map, but does appear on a 1938 aerial photograph.
The vegetation consisted of mature mixed woodland with heavy undergrowth. The
larger, older hardwoods were probably associated with the building southeast of the
dairy barn. The Manor House is in a field of brambles. Shovel tests displayed
variable stratigraphy. Stratum I was a leaf and root mat with 2 cm of humus.
Stratum fl was yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay.
The Manor House locus (Figure 11) is located 400 m north of the entrance to the
property and 20 m to the northeast of the Circle Road. It is across the road from the
hunters' camp, and on the end of the ridge on which the prehistoric Hunters Camp
Site (31AN82) lies. It contains a concrete slab foundation, and humic loam over
sand around the foundation probably represents the remains of flower beds. A
small (approximately 2 x 2 yard) pile of rubble is located off the southeast corner of
the slab; a pipe that emerges from the rubble possibly once supplied a gas lamp at the
gate to the yard (Figure 12).
During an interview with a previous tenant (Appendix 2) the house was described
as being a large, three story, Cape Cod style home that served as the residence of the
dairy operator. Having been built during the early 1900s, the house was destroyed by
fire in the mid 1950s.
About 30 yards east of the Manor House was a small foundation, perhaps a shed or
shop. Located 50 yards northwest was a concrete silo about 50 feet tall and 20 feet in
diameter (Figures 14 and 15). It was attached to the foundation of a barn with a
concrete feeding trough. Shovel testing was not performed in the area of the barn
foundation.
Across the road, approximately 50 yards southeast of the shed foundation, are the
structural remains of a tenant house (Figures 16 and 17). Based on surface
observations, the house was wired for electricity and had indoor plumbing. Located
25 yards southeast of the house was the foundation of a larger building with a
concrete floor.
Twelve shovel tests were excavated around the various ruins. Eight tests were
positive, yielding 58 historic and 10, prehistoric artifacts. The historic artifacts
included ceramics (stoneware jn=3]), glass (n=11), nails (n=33) and other metal
fragments (n=13). A brick sample was also taken. Prehistoric artifacts are discussed
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 52

KEY:
shovel test, positive
a shovel test, negative
---� contour, approx.
co stone block
-�-- cement slab foundation
-•�--- fence
--� treeline
clearing is covered in
brambles
an go*
o
10
l Manor
I i
1 Housel
i 10
110' to shed foundation
debris with gas pipeline
protruding from ground
Unpaved Road
\ / 0 15 30 45 ft
( camper
` f `
Figure 11. Plan Map of the Manor House at the Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63);
Locale M3.
Anson County Phase l Survey Page - 53

fob
me i

�a
mew
central trough area
O
110' to Manor House
shed w i r
foundation.
0 5 10 20
rn
0 15 30 60
ft
KEY;
0 shovel test, positive
o shovel test, negative
12x12' piers
trees
W heavy underbrush
Figure 13. Plan Map of the Dairy Barns at the Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63)
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 55

Sit "t�. �. ♦ A'` yS \ -� ,� r T"'•6.
�v Von' 4*� J
No � �.p �t � !. *•• 4
�sx„���r"'�4r 1"
TOW
r -
7:
�,.
mk-
4 Y• A
t
.�. _ ;�� �Vx iYrY ♦ ,•+T- ���"'!R r :::A � Yy:-.. �.r �'�,,, ?�•'"', � 5:,r" .il
Ar
�"'r
y.�}"•� i.'w"`fi,,:��.et`'%.: « if.!39-•w
rY. RIG
-yi�.,�
4. t'°�Nz
PTA
>wc `+�,► 'k sa# " 'w: Cam.
,ter+ mot'
�,� � 7Rt` ""— �,+.:Q; .�.,�--,e �'^ r� � '� - �w � =t. � �� .T� -�s- fir •'�:%1

ZL
i
"Y
r
e �
debris pile '
� l
�Z c2P r
1
i
KEY:
I
shovel test, positive
shovel test, negative
broken concrete
dead cedar
privet grove
•
S
n
01 5 10 15
e!� "
' -
concrete
floor
S Fn
,
0
Figure 15. Plan Map of the Tenant House at the Dairy/Manor House Site (31AN63);
locale M3.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 57

0

in the Hunters Camp site (31AN82) descriptions. The dimensions of the site are
judged to be 90 yards north -south by 110 yards east -west based. on current testing (see
Figure 4 for site boundaries). Further testing would be required to determine exact
boundaries.
Robert Horton, Jr., at the SCS office in Wadesboro, reported that the farm last
operated as the Boylin Dairy during the 1950s. Further insight into the Dairy/Manor
House complex was obtained from Ms. Mary Chandler Beck who lived on the farm
as a child. Her memories are recorded in the oral history interviews in Appendix 2.
Phase 11 testing is recommended for site 31AN63. It provides the nucleus of the
early twentieth-century settlement pattern of the property, and therefore a more
complete understanding of the history of the region.
Tenant House Site (31AN64)
Archaeological site 31AN64 (locale [U] II) is a historic occupation 100 m north of the
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad on the west side of the proposed development tract at
310 feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a middle terrace. The site was
discovered by the observation of structural debris while driving along the Circle
Road. A structure appears at this location on the 1914 soils map.
The vegetation consisted of mature mixed woodland with heavy undergrowth.
Some of the larger and older hardwoods were probably associated with the dwelling.
Shovel tests uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I was a leaf and root mat
without humus. Stratum 11 was light brownish gray (10YR 6 / 2) loam. Stratum III
was light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) loam. The maximum depth of shovel tests
was 22 cm.
Three shovel tests were excavated around a pile of debris containing roofing tin and
board siding that were presumed to be the ruins of a tenant dwelling (Figure 17).
The shovel tests were placed in the immediate vicinity of the ruin and revealed 37
historic artifacts. Among the artifacts were two ironstone sherds, suggesting a mid
nineteenth-century to early twentieth-century occupation. Window glass (n=10)
and 19 nails (wrought [n=6], cut [n=2], wire [n=111) were found. The base of a Pepsi
bottle with screened lettering, was collected from the surface. Artifacts observed but
not collected were asphalt shingles, sawn lumber, hand made brick, a bed springs,
bedstead, and bottle glass.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 59

cement culvertsi �'� F1
Unpaved Road
0 2.5
5
10
rn
0 5
15
30
r
KEY:
0
shovel test, positive
®
foundation stones
roofing tin
hardwood trees wl broken tops
pine trees
-----
piles of debris
-- approx. boundary of foundation remnant
—.----- historic site boundary
Figure 17. Plan Map of the Tenant House Site (31AN64); locate (U) II.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 60

The dwelling appears to have collapsed to the west. An interview with a former
tenant suggests that there may have been two tenant houses on this site (Appendix
2); the one whose ruins were found, and another a short distance further northwest.
The latter structure was not located. A concrete culvert on the spoil pile suggests
that the site may have also been used as a dumping ground. It is 50 yards north -
south by 40 yards east -west based on current testing, structures and decorative
vegetation. Further testing will be required to determine exact boundaries.
Therefore, Phase 11 testing is recommended for site 31AN64 to determine if there is
subsurface integrity and to establish the boundaries of the site.
Pen House (31AN75)
Archaeological site 31AN75 (locale undefined) is a historic occupation located 500 m
north of the entrance to the property on Boylin Road at 270 feet AMSL (see Figure 4).
It is located on a middle terrace, 60 m northwest of the Dairy/Manor House and
consists of the ruins of a dwelling and two small dairy barn foundations. It was
discovered while investigating a grove of privet, which are ornamental shrubs
generally associated with dwellings.
The vegetation consisted of extremely large, overgrown privet shrubs with heavy
undergrowth. Shovel tests uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I was a leaf and
root mat without humus. Stratum II was yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam.
Stratum III was dark yellowish brown (10YR 4 / 4) sandy clay. The maximum depth
of shovel tests was 35 cm.
Nine shovel tests were excavated around two barn foundations and a partially
standing chimney and debris pile presumed to be the remains of a tenant dwelling
(Figure 18). Five positive shovel tests excavated in the immediate vicinity of the
ruin revealed 106 historic artifacts. The artifacts recovered included whiteware
(n=5), glass (bottle [n=55], window [n=9]), and iron nails (wire [n=27], cut [n=11). The
artifacts suggest that the complex is contemporary with the Dairy / Manor House, or
an early to mid twentieth-century occupation. Based on shovel tests and structural
remains, the area of the site is 35 yards north -south by 63 yards east -west.
Five prehistoric artifacts were also found in the shovel tests. They were all flakes
(quartz [n=2], rhyolite [n=2], chert [n=1]). During prehistory, the location was
probably similar in function to the Hunters Camp site (31AN82), but not as
intensively occupied or as effective a location.
Phase II testing is recommended for site 31AN75 in the area of the tenant house to
determine if it has subsurface integrity. The site also provides continuity in the
early twentieth-century settlement pattern of the property.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 61

r
trough
Darn
I
t
j ed9e of teltaca
f`
1
partial �chimnay
en
too
10
deprasabn
x> v:
0 shovel lest, negalive
0 shore$ test, positive
---- contour, appror_
f%, Slone
„r- - pnret groye
0 ----historic site t>oundaty
01 5 10 35

Road House Site (31AN76)
Archaeological site 31AN76 (locale undefined) is a historic occupation located 180 m
north of the entrance to the property and 10 m west of the main road on the
property at 290 feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a ridge behind the third
terrace. The site was discovered while shovel testing a transect. A structure appears
on the 1914 soils map.
The vegetation consisted of pine plantation with heavy undergrowth. Abundant
privet bushes were probably a decorative hedge associated with the dwelling.
Shovel tests uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I was a leaf and root mat
without humus. Stratum 11 was light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loans.
Stratum III was dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy clay. The maximum depth
of shovel tests was 30 cm.
Four shovel tests were excavated around a structural ruin presumed to be a tenant
dwelling (Figure 19). They were placed in the immediate vicinity of the ruin and
revealed 75 historic artifacts. Among the artifacts collected were ceramics
(whiteware [n=6], stoneware [n=1]), glass (bottle [n=9], window [n=111), nails (wire
[n=19], cut [n=1]), a fragment of plastic, and bone. A brick sample was taken. The site
is 60 yards east -west by 53 yards north -south, based on sterile shovel tests. The
artifacts suggest a late nineteenth-century occupation extending into the twentieth
century.
The dwelling appears to have consisted of two rooms. A chimney with back-to-back
fireplaces is still standing facing east -west. The fireplace facing west has been bricked
over, and a pipe for a cookstove installed approximately 6 feet up the chimney. The
house was wired for electricity and had indoor plumbing, further indicating
occupancy during the twentieth century. An informant interview (Appendix 2)
confirmed its function as an African -American tenant dwelling.
Phase 11 testing is recommended for site 31AN76. It provides a constituent link in
the pattern of tenant dwellings around the Circle Road. The site may possess
subsurface integrity. Further understanding of the time of occupation, activities,
and function at the site would add materially to understanding of the historic
settlement pattern in the region, specifically the relationship of tenant houses to
landforms and soils.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 63

l
1 ~ \ I
\ r
l
I l
/ O
1
1 J
f( 4 concrete lwalk
23 fa
® !
Q0
KEY:
hearth
>� appliances 01 5 10 15
stone it
® brick pier
logs
piping
x plumbing drain
• shovel test, positive
trash piles
historic site boundary
�-N
Note:
Entire site covered in privet
bushes.
Chimney is for double fireplace.
Figure 19. Plan Map of the Road House Site (31AN76).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 64

Hunters Camp Site (31AN82)
Archaeological site 31AN82 (locale undefined) is a prehistoric occupation, located
360 m north and 10 m west of the entrance to the property from Boylin Road at 280
feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a ridge behind the third terrace of Pinch
Gut Creek and on middle terrace remnants overlooking a second order stream. The
site extends down the northwest slope. This is also the location of the Pinch Gut
Hunting Club's camp site, and was discovered while completing transects during
the Phase I intensive survey. The prehistoric site also encompasses the location of
the prehistoric finds at the Manor House in site 31AN63.
The vegetation consisted of mature pines with sparse undergrowth. Shovel tests
uniformly showed three strata inside the Circle Road and apart from the area of the
Manor House. Stratum I had no humus and a thin root mat. Stratum II was 20 cm
of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) loam. Stratum III consisted of brownish yellow
(10YR 6/6) clay. The maximum depth of shovel tests was 22 cm. Stratigraphy was
more complex in the area of the Manor House because of historical modification
(see description of site 31AN63).
Forty-four shovel tests were excavated on a 30 m grid pattern (Figure 20) inside the
Circle Road. Inside the Circle Road sixteen shovel tests contained 11 prehistoric
artifacts, including 10 flakes (chert [n=2], quartz [n=41, quartzite [n=1], rhyolite [n=31)
and one rhyolite burin. Outside the circle Road in the area of the Manor House
(31AN63) the prehistoric artifacts included seven argillite and two quartz flakes
from three shovel tests. The dimensions of the site are 250 m north -south by 300 m
east -west. Based on sterile tests, this is judged to be the true extent of the site. The
site appears to have functioned as a chipping station and an overlook to the third
terrace hunting fields.
The artifact frequency per shovel test suggests that the Manor House location was
the most intensively occupied part of the Hunters Camp site. The two sites were not
combined because the overlap is small in area. On the other hand, the location was
obviously important to both complex sites. For the historic site, it was the elevated
high -status dwelling of the director of the dairy farm overlooking the barns, silo,
and other farm buildings, and over the tenant dwellings. For the prehistoric
occupation, it was the location with the best access and overlook to the hunting
fields and fishing sites.
Two pieces of historic ironstone were also recovered within the boundaries of the
site within the Circle Road. There are historic period dwellings at either end of the
site (Manor House to the north and Road House site to the south). The artifacts are
probably outlying debris from those structures. The ironstone dates from the mid
1800s to the early twentieth century.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 65

KEY;
/ / (.IFS
O 0 0 1
°
0 0 �\ , �� Dairy/Manor House site
to °\ ° a s 1
0 ° d °
0 00 ` 0 /' J° 'O 0
a 0 \ p� o° 0 A• /� 0 a o O\ o�
\ d O /
O d \ •
O b • O O O O d d
O 1 •
O 01 O • 0/ d O O O 0 O
1 j
° � I
shovel test. % �� d
• positive prehistoric ° o o a a o a n
0 shovel test, negative 0 0
_ -- historic site boundary !� o 0 0 0 0 0 a
A campers 0 } �-�-- Road House site
— stream �' 0 `
edge of water
0
prehistoric site boundary 0j
0 30 60 90 I
N�e
ee Figure 11, 13, and 15 for the Dair
Manor House and Figure 19 for the Roa
House site.
Figure 20. Plan Map of the Hunters Camp Site (31AN82).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 66

Based on the relatively low density and diversity of artifacts recovered from the
extensive, systematic shovel testing inside the Circle Road, it appears that site
31AN82 is unlikely to produce additional significant data. For this reason,
additional testing is not recommended. The area of intense occupation will be
tested in conjunction with evaluation of the Manor House in site 31AN63.
Hilltop Site (31AN83)
Archaeological site 31AN83 (locale Rx) is a prehistoric occupation located 250 m
south of Brown Creek and southwest of site 31AN62, at 280 feet AMSL (see Figure 4).
It is situated on a relatively flat ridge top and extends down the north and west
slopes. These slope areas could contain intact archaeological strata because of the
saddle to the north. The site was discovered while completing transects during the
Phase I intensive survey.
The vegetation consisted of mature pines with no undergrowth. Shovel tests
uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I consisted of 5 cm of humus and heavy
leaf and root mat. Stratum II was 16 cm of pale brown (10YR 6/3) loamy sand.
Stratum III consisted of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) clay. The maximum depth of
shovel tests was 23 cm.
Twelve shovel tests were excavated at 30 m intervals (Figure 21) around the ridge
top, with three placed in a triangular pattern in the center. Five positive shovel
tests contained 15 artifacts, all flakes (rhyolite [n=8], chert [n=4], quartz [n=3]). An
average of 3.0 artifacts were found per positive shovel test. The dimensions of the
site are 100 m north -south by 60 m east -west. Based on sterile shovel tests, this is
judged to be the true boundaries of the site.
Phase Il testing is recommended for site 31AN83. It has a relatively high density of
artifacts per test pit and appears to possess colluvial areas on the north side which
could contain intact deposits below the otherwise disturbed surface. Understanding
the function of the site would add materially to the understanding of the regional
prehistoric settlement pattern.
Rhyolite Ridge Site (31AN124)
Archaeological site 31AN124 (locale undefined) is a prehistoric occupation located 50
m north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and 175 m east of Boylin Road at 260
feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a ridge overlooking the third terrace of
Pinch Gut Creek, near the confluence of Pinch Gut Creek and an unnamed branch.
The site was discovered during surface inspection of a cultivated field. It is the
topographic equivalent of the Hunters Camp site, which is a chipping station and
an overlook location.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 67

0
n
0
ro
ro
00
KEY:
i
O / �
• shovel test, positive
0 shovel test, negative
��--�--, treeiine
�--- contour, approx. O / \
--... prehistoric site boundary 1 \ p
Q 1 r
0
O
! t
r • �
f
O i
t
!t • o
Q 20 20 30
m

The vegetation consisted of drilled winter wheat, approximately 3 cm. high. Small
trees and brush bordered the field along natural drainage channels. The surface of
the site, located on a ridge, is eroded to subsoil. Therefore, no shovel tests were
excavated.
Surface inspection yielded 10 artifacts, including one Guilford projectile point made
of chert, a rhyolite scraper, and eight rhyolite flakes. The dimensions of the site are
20 m north -south by 40 m east -west based on surface finds. Since the field is eroded
to subsoil, it is highly improbable that any intact artifact deposits remain. Therefore,
Phase 11 testing is not recommended for site 31AN124.
Hole House Site (31AN125)
Archaeological site 31AN125 (locale undefined) is a historic occupation, located 100
m north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and 100 m east of Boylin Road at 270
feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a ridge. The site was discovered during
surface inspection of a cultivated field. A structure appears at this location on a 1938
aerial photograph.
The site is located in and around a cluster of small trees that are in the middle of a
field of winter wheat. Within the grove is a large hole approximately 4 feet in
diameter and 3 feet deep. The presence and placement of numerous rocks and
bricks nearby suggest that this was a well.
Nineteen selectively gathered artifacts were surface collected from the area around
the grove, including a brick sample, ceramics (whiteware [n=5], stoneware [n=1],
ironstone [n=1]), glass (bottle [n=9], window [n=1]), and a piece of leather. The
ceramics suggest a late 1800s date of occupation. No shovel tests were excavated
because of excellent surface visibility. Based on surface scatter of artifacts, the
dimensions of the site are judged to be 20 yards north -south and 30 yards east -west.
Phase II testing is recommended for site 31AN125 to determine exact boundaries of
the site and whether it has sub -plow zone integrity. It will provide a constituent
link in the pattern of tenant dwellings around the Circle Road.
Field House Site (31AN126)
Archaeological site 31AN126 (locale undefined) is a historic occupation located 300
m north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and 300 m east of Boylin Road at 290
feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a middle terrace. The site was discovered
during surface inspection of a cultivated field. The structure appears on a 1938 aerial
photograph.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 69

As with site 31AN125, this site was identified by a cluster of small trees and brush in
the center of a winter wheat field.
Among the artifacts collected during surface inspection of the area around the brush
were a sample of brick, ceramics (whiteware [n=6], stoneware [n=4], ironstone [n=4],
earthenware [n=7]), and glass (bottle [n=41, table [n=2], window [n=31, industrial
[n=1]). The ceramics suggest a late nineteenth-century occupation extending into the
early twentieth century. Based on dimensions of the surface scatter, the site is 40 m
north -south by 40 m east -west. No shovel tests were excavated because of good
surface visibility.
Further testing would be required to determine exact boundaries of the site and
whether it has sub -plow zone integrity. Therefore, Phase II testing is recommended
for site 31AN126. It provides a constituent link in the pattern of tenant dwellings
around the Circle Road.
Stream Site (31.AN127)
Archaeological site 31AN127 (locale undefined) is a prehistoric occupation located
300 m northwest of the entrance to the property on Boylin Road at 270 feet AMSL
(see Figure 4). It is located on two middle terraces approximately 75 m northeast of
the Spring Site (31AN60). The site was discovered while completing shovel tests on
a transect.
The vegetation consisted of mature pines with sparse undergrowth. Shovel tests
uniformly showed three strata. Stratum I had no humus and a than root mat.
Stratum lI was 20 cm of brown (10YR 5 / 3) silt. Stratum III consisted of light
yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay. The maximum depth of shovel tests was 22 cm.
Fourteen shovel tests were excavated on a 30 m transect and 10 m grid pattern
(Figure 22). Five shovel tests produced 17 prehistoric artifacts including a biface, a
core, and 15 flakes (including quartz [n=1] and rhyolite [n=$]). The average number
of artifacts per positive shovel test was 3.4. The dimensions of the site are 20 m
north -south by 40 m east -west. Based on sterile tests this is judged to be the true
extent of the site.
Phase Il testing is recommended for site 31AN127 since it contains several areas of
colluvium that may hold intact prehistoric deposits. It has a variety and relatively
high density of artifacts, and further artifact recovery would add to the
understanding of the regional prehistoric settlement pattern.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 70

KEY:
0 shovel test, positive
p shovel test, negative
---- prehistoric site boundary
Nate:
Entire Site in pine plantation,
with trees approx. 5m apart.
Figure 22. Plan Map of the Stream Site (31AN127).
01 5 10 15
�m
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 71

Saddle Site (31AN128)
The Saddle site (31AN128) was located in the southwest corner of the tract between
the railroad and Highway 74 (see Figure 4). The land south of the railroad right-of-
way is very broken consisting of the northeast -southwest trending Brown Creek
ridge and a series of narrow spur ridges trending to the northwest. Within the
Brown Creek ridge is a saddle that would have eased crossing between the Pinch Gut
Creek and Brown Creek drainages.
The Saddle site is on the spur ridge which most directly approaches the saddle in the
Brown Creek ridge from the Brown Creek floodplain. The surrounding ridges were
clear-cut and the tops were bulldozed into rifts around the sides of the hills. The site
was clearly destroyed. The tops of the ridges and middle terraces were surface
inspected to look for remains of sites that might suggest the prehistoric settlement
pattern.
The Saddle site (31AN128) was represented by one reworked point and eight flakes.
The site was located to afforded the most direct access to the topographic saddle. It
would also have been an excellent overlook to the Brown Creek basin.
Because of the destruction of site 31AN128 by clear cutting and bulldozing, no
further work is recommended.
Muddy Boot Site (31AN129)
Archaeological site 31AN129 (locale undefined) is a prehistoric occupation located
300 m north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and 100 m west of Pinch Gut Creek
at 240 feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a third terrace overlooking the
floodplain of Pinch Gut Creek. The site was discovered while surface inspecting a
cultivated field.
The vegetation consisted of drilled winter wheat, approximately 3 cm high. Small
trees and brush were confined to the edge of the terrace at the beginning of the
floodplain. The brush line was 5 m to the east.
Surface collecting revealed one rhyolite scraper and 45 flakes (rhyolite [n=43], quartz
[n=21). No shovel tests were excavated because rains had muddied the site that is
located at the low end of the field. The dimensions of the site are estimated to be 25
m north -south by 20 m east -west; however, further testing would be necessary to
determine the exact boundaries of the site and sub -plow zone integrity.
Phase 11 testing is recommended for site 31AN129. Although the site has been
plowed, the location is potentially colluvial, and the quantity of artifacts is
exceptional. Given the density of artifacts obtained from the surface collection, the
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 72

site may contain diagnostic artifacts in sub -plow zone strata or features.
Lowland Site (31AN132)
Archaeological site 31AN129 (locale undefined) is a prehistoric occupation located
220 m north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and 250 m west of Pinch Gut Creek
at 260 feet AMSL (see Figure 4). It is located on a middle terrace overlooking the
floodplain (third or 2 m terrace) of Pinch Gut Creek. The site was discovered during
surface inspection of a cultivated field.
The vegetation consisted of drilled winter wheat, approximately 3 cm high. Small
trees and brush were confined to the edge of the terrace at the beginning of the
floodplain.
Surface collecting produced a biface fragment, two small rhyolite scrapers and 12
flakes (quartz [n=6], rhyolite fn=6]). Three historic artifacts were also recovered, two
ceramics (pearlware and salt glazed stoneware) and a fragment of an electric
insulator. No shovel tests were excavated because of muddy conditions. The
dimensions of the site are estimated to be 10 m north -south by 20 m east -west. Due
to the relatively low artifact density and variety, no further testing is recommended
for site 31AN132.
Sunset Site (31AN131)
The Sunset site (31AN131) was located in a similar situation to the Saddle Site, but
slightly to the north of the Brown Creek ridge saddle. The top of the ridge was
bulldozed into rifts on the sides of the hill. The top of the ridge and middle terraces
were surface inspected to look for remains of sites. The Sunset site (31AN131) was
represented by three flakes. While only meeting the basic criteria for a site, it does
provide a modest insight into the prehistoric settlement pattern.
Because of the destruction of site 31AN131 by clear cutting and bulldozing, no
further work is recommended.
OPEN FIELD SURFACE SURVEY EXPERIMENT
A surface survey of the approximately 270 acres of open fields east of Boylin Road
and north of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad was conducted on January 10, 1992.
The fields contained a third terrace (2 m), valley slope, and ridges at about 280 feet
AMSL. These ridges were equivalent in elevation to the Hunters Camp site
(31AN82) and would from this be expected to contain sites. On the other hand, the
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 73

third terrace west of Pinch Gut Creek had been surveyed by the excavation of 246
shovel tests (see Figure 4) and found to have no sites, except at the confluence of
Pinch Gut and Brown creeks. Since the hunters reported finding projectile points
on the third terrace after it was plowed in 1969, there was an apparent disagreement
between the informant's reports of finding projectile points after plowing, and the
shovel testing results which located none of the usual lithic scatters which typically
are manifest by that search method.
A settlement pattern model that resolves the disagreement suggests that the
chipping stations, and occupation areas, were located at the confluence of the creeks
and on the ridges behind the third terrace. The third terrace, on the other hand, was
used only as a hunting ground. Thus, the present-day hunters found field losses of
weapons, but we found no evidence of chipping stations. Because only hunting
activities took place on this terrace, flakes would be absent. Such a model would be
in agreement with Larsen's (1980) observation that the maximum numbers of
turkeys and deer are found on the ecotone between floodplains and the valley
slopes. Coincidentally, the valley slope-floodplain strip would be brushy enough
that large numbers of missiles used in the hunt would be lost because of low
visibility.
The open fields north of the railroad at the southeast corner of the property
provided a limited opportunity to test the model since they covered all three
landforms. The expectation, given the clear visibility in the fields, was that chipping
stations would be found on the ridge, and that isolated tool finds resulting from
hunting losses would be found on the third terrace. Three chipping stations were
found (described previously), the Rhyolite Ridge site (31AN124), found along the
south edge of the field next to the railroad, the Muddy Boot site (31AN129) on the
third terrace, and the Lowland site (31AN132) located on middle terrace above the
third terrace. Isolated tool finds were found on both the third terrace and the valley
slope.
The Rhyolite Ridge site conforms to the model, being a chipping station located
above the valley slope on an overlook location. It is also near a confluence. The
Lowland site is on the valley slope, but on a middle terrace giving an equivalent
overlook status to Rhyolite Ridge. Numerous isolated finds on the valley slope and
third terrace also conform to the model. The exceptional case is the Muddy Boot
site, which contained a well defined scatter of flakes and a tool on the third terrace.
The extremely confined character of the site (25 x 20 m) suggests that it may be a
cache or lost tool kit scattered by plowing rather than a chipping station.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 74

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SITES
Four sites were reported to the Office of State Archaeology by the hunters after the
completion of the "red flag" survey. Site 31AN91 was reported to be on Doe Hill,
the hunter's name for the Brown Creek ridge in the northwest section of the
property. Shovel testing failed to locate the site during our survey. Morrow
Mountain and Guilford points were reported from this site (OSA Site files). This
suggests that Doe Hill, like the third terrace west of Pinch Gut Creek, was a hunting
ground rather than a camp and chipping location. Chipping activities at these
elevations continued to the Hilltop site at the north end of the ridge. The modern
hunters made their finds after the hill had been burned off and eroded (Appendix 1).
Site 31AN87 was revisited during the open field survey and yielded only an isolated
biface (see above). It is in the open field area at the southeast corner of the project
area on the valley slope. The location indicated on the OSA maps is on a middle
terrace on the valley slope, and may have afforded a camp location. However, it was
more likely a part of the general scatter of isolated finds resulting from hunting
losses associated with the third terrace and adjacent valley slope.
Shovel test transects (see Figure 4) in the area of sites 31AN89 and 31AN90 revealed
no artifacts. However, sites were discovered nearby. Prehistoric artifacts were
recovered at the Well House site (31AN61), southwest of site 31AN90, and the
Hilltop site (31AN83) southwest of site 31AN89. The distances are small enough,
perhaps 50 m, that mapping error may account for the discrepancies. The sites may
have been ephemeral hunting locations, as at 31AN91 and 31AN87.
ARTIFACT AND LANDFORM ANALYSIS
Together with artifacts from Landfill Sites 1 and 11, the proposed development tract
artifacts provided information on the chronology and settlement pattern of the sites,
both for the prehistoric and historic occupations. Results of investigations at
Landfill Sites 1 and 11 are provided in a separate report. However, data from these
other tracts is included in this analytical synthesis to provide a more complete
description of prehistoric settlement patterns in Anson County. Based on diagnostic
points, the prehistoric assemblage indicates that the highest upland was occupied
during the Early Archaic (Palmer, Figure 23f, Kirk, Figures 23c,d,e), early Middle
Archaic (Stanly, Figure 23b), and middle Middle Archaic (Morrow Mountain, Figure
23a). During the late Archaic and Woodland periods, the focus of occupation
moved to the confluence of Brown and Pinch Gut creeks. There a Savannah River
point (Figure 24b) was found along with prehistoric ceramic fragments. The
following discussion attempts to document and elaborate the topographic and
functional context of that change of occupational focus.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 75

Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Sites
Two data sources provide information on the functions of the prehistoric sites
investigated at the survey level (Figure 24, key in Figure 25). One is the site
topographic location, and the other is the function of implements found. The
results of the landforms analysis at the beginning of the results chapter suggests
rather clearly that some landforms were being selected for cultural activity over
others. The landforms most prominently featured in the three tracts surveyed are
discussed below.
Waterline. The waterline is the point on the upland margin where water emerges
from below the surficial sediments and above the first impermeable bedrock
stratum. The character of the waterline varies with geological factors, but can
generally be found in all broken topography except hills composed entirely of sand.
In the case of the Brown Creek ridge, the waterline emerges at the interface between
the surficial sediments (usually sands, clays, and gravels in order of prominence)
and the underlying bedrock. In all three tracts the waterline was at about 300-350
feet AMSL.
Confluence. The intersections of streams are important for several reasons.
Slackwater deposits build up providing elevated land next to abundant water, and
attract aquatic or aquatically oriented fauna and flora.
Backridge. This landform, undefined in the landform list, was added post hoc.
Ridges behind broad second or third terraces also provide elevated locations on
which to camp, layover, or overlook hunting and collecting grounds. Where valley
slope is steep, and the nearest land surface is elevated above 30 feet, lower colluvia
at the base of the valley slope are functionally equivalent to backridges.
Saddle. Swales in ridges that divide major drainage systems appear to provide ease
of crossing for both humans and animals, the latter perhaps accounting in part for
the presence of the former. The saddle would therefore be an overlook or ambush
point for large game passing between valleys. Simple passage unaccompanied by
hunting could also be important for humans. Such locations would also provide
readily recognizable landmarks for rendezvous.
Choke. A choke also figures in this context. Chokes are locations where valleys
narrow because they are passing through relatively resistant rock. Given the
generally broad and swampy nature of the Brown Creek floodplain, it seems highly
likely that the choke upstream from the Savannah River site (31AN52) would have
been a convenient place for travelers along the Brown Creek Ridge to cross the
basin. Direct evidence of interregional transportation and trade emerged from the
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 76

47
r w' A I
a
r
h
4*b
� 4
VC `� d e
1 CM■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Figure 23. Projectile Points and Scrapers from Site 31AN70.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 77

Figure 24. Map of the Prehistoric Settlement Pattern with Implement Icons.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 78

Point/Biface Scraper
16 a Chopper
Graver Burin 0 >0-2
Flakes per 0 3
Shovel Test
Core/Hammer Stone �3
Ceramic
Figure 25. implement icon Key.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 79

analysis in the form of rhyolite materials from sources 63 miles to the northwest,
and steatite. Therefore, it is possible that the importance of the area as an
occupation site and hunting ground may be related to convergence of ridge traffic -
ways. The same hypothesis could be offered for boat traffic on Brown Creek.
'rhe second element of site function is derived from artifact types whose functional
nature can be roughly inferred from their morphology (see Figure 25).
Points. Points are often referred to as projectile points under the assumption that
they were used to tip weapons (see Figures 23c and 23d). This assumption has been
called into question, and micro -wear (along with logical analysis of morphology,
especially serrated edges [see Figure 23c] and blunt tips [see Figure 23d]), indicate that
a function of points was cutting, as with a knife. In either case, however, the
implication is that they were associated with killing and dismembering game, or in
other words, equivalently involved in the function of hunting. Both functions
imply activities away from the camp, and therefore complete specimens, lost during
these activities, would be recovered as isolated finds. Broken points as projectiles
are likely to be replaced in the more leisurely context of camp or village, so impact
fractures on projectile points (Figures 23a and b) may imply a different functional
context than unbroken specimens.
Choppers. Large stone implements made of tough materials such as quartzite
(Figure 27d) suggest rugged functions such as cutting of wood and dismembering
joints of large animals. As with points, the implications are for nonresidential
contexts.
Scrapers. As with points, theories on the function of scrapers have evolved
somewhat since the advent of replication experiments in lithic technology.
However, little has been found to suggest that scrapers were not most frequently
used as the name implies. Functionally they seem to have been used for a more
advanced stage of treatment of game, such as finishing hides, but also to debark
limbs for tools; they were perhaps used as knives also (see Figure 23g-i and 26 f-h).
Gravers /Burins. Though less direct evidence has emerged on the exact uses of
gravers and burins (Figure 26e), they appear to be associated with yet more advanced
stages of treatment of hides, bone, and wood in the process of making implements
and clothing. As such, they imply a still further sedentary condition.
Cores/ Hammerstones/Flakes. These three categories of lithic remains (Figure 27b)
imply workshop contexts or chipping stations, perhaps as less energetic contexts
than points, scrapers, and choppers.
The function of lithic implements arranged in the order presented above can be
taken to imply a cline from energetic open field contexts to leisurely camp
conditions.
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 80

Figure 26. Tools from the Tract: a. Guilford (31AN124), b. Savannah River
(31AN62), c. Morrow Mt. (31AN128), d. Biface (31AN62), e. Burin (31AN82), f.
Scraper (31AN62), g. Biface (31AN60), h. Biface (31AN129).
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 81

Figure 27. Tools from Tract and 31AN70: a. Flake Scraper (locale L15, Tract), b.
Expended Core (3IAN70), c. Hafted Slate implement (31AN77), d. Quartzite Chopper
(31AN70).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 82

In addition to the iconography of tool function outlined above, ceramics, rare
though they were in this project, lend an additional argument for semi -sedentary
occupation. A final factor to consider is that combinations of implements may
imply multipurpose sites. In Figure 24 the implement icons are plotted on the
topography to show implement -topography relations.
The most apparent pattern in the distribution (see Figure 24) is that scrapers are
associated with water, either along the waterline or at confluences. This was true
also for site 31AN70 four miles to the southeast of the study area. Along with
scrapers, this site produced an array of Archaic temporal diagnostics, points /bifaces
(see Figure 23), as well as hanunerstones, cores, flakes, and choppers (see Figure 27d).
The site is the highest available location with access to the waterline. Ponds east and
northeast of site 31AN70 were probably created to take advantage of springs.
The second most active site, 31AN62, at the confluence of Brown and Pinch Gut
creeks and adjacent to the Brown Creek ridge and choke, is less diverse in its tool
inventory. It was occupied during the Late Archaic and Woodland periods based on
the evidence recovered, and also by Mississippian groups if points reported by the
hunters are accepted as properly attributed.
Saddles present a contrasting perspective. Artifacts are limited to flakes and, in one
case, a point. One location appears to be a quarry (31AN73). The locations and
diminished implement sets suggest refabrication of implements while waiting in a
non -domestic context.
At the bottom and opposite end of the elevation spectrum, adjacent to the wetlands,
the implement inventory is equally restricted. At ridges behind low terraces, as at
Hunters Camp site (31AN82), and at locations where the valley slope is steep, as at
sites 31AN65 and 31AN66, tool inventories are limited to flakes. Even the stream
confluence at 31AN67 did not produce a complex site at low elevations.
There is a moderately enhanced inventory at the Rhyolite Ridge site (31AN124) and
on the valley slope and third terrace below it. The presence of a confluence on
Pinch Gut Creek may be a key element in this location. The presence of the railroad
and property boundary restrict full analysis of the context.
The Spring site (31AN60) is an anomaly. It is located at a confluence and near a
spring at the waterline, but finds were limited to flakes and a single Middle
Woodland ceramic sherd. Low elevation and limited access to major waterways
appear to be what dictated its being a restricted inventory site.
The presence of a complex Archaic site above springs at site 31AN70 suggests that
there should be an equally important site above the spring at the Spring site
(31AN60). Shovel testing revealed no such site, although collectors reported finding
points in the area.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 83

The overall pattern appears to suggest the following. During the Early Archaic and
the earlier phases of the Middle Archaic, more permanent camps were on high
knolls with access to water. It is hard to escape the impression that Archaic peoples
were locating themselves as far from low energy water as possible. The sediment
choked streams of the Middle Holocene (Claggett and Cable 1982) could have been
infested by mosquitos, which could explain preference for elevated sites. Site
31AN70 would be at the maximum distance from low energy water and at the
minimum distance from high energy water. The Spring site and environs would
have been much closer to the infested confluence area of major streams.
During the Late Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian periods the focus of
occupation shifted to major confluences, particularly with access to rich hunting
grounds. A reduced inventory of implements suggests that the camps were remote
temporary resource extraction camps rather than central sedentary villages. The
clearer streams of the Late Holocene would have reduced mosquito infestation,
making occupation of lower elevations possible for longer segments of the year.
Historic Sites
The historic artifacts are from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth
century. There is nothing in the historic assemblage to indicate occupation before
the very late nineteenth century. Occupation appears to have continued into the
mid twentieth century.
The tenant dwellings (Figure 28) follow basically the same pattern as the prehistoric
low -inventory backridge sites. However, they tend to be lower on the valley slope
on middle terraces rather than on the ridge. This may have occurred to facilitate
access to cultivable terraces. Where the valley slope increases, tenants tended to
locate further up the slope on more expansive middle terraces which were large
enough to farm, or on the ridge tops.
Apparently, higher status dwellings were placed at prime locations relative to water.
That is, water from springs and streams which were active at higher elevations
during the nineteenth and earlier centuries.
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 84

Figure 28. Map of the Historic Settlement Pattern.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 85

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
A "red flag" archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted on three tracts of
land for the proposed Anson County Regional Landfill. Two of the tracts (Sites 1
and 11) were eliminated from consideration after the reconnaissance survey, and
the third (the proposed development tract) was intensively surveyed in anticipation
of development. Data on the archaeological sites found in Sites 1 and 11 will be
presented in a separate report. In the proposed development tract, artifacts for
which accurate dates are known indicate that there were at least four periods of
occupation, including Archaic, Woodland, nineteenth century, and twentieth
century. The survey documented the existence of 17 archaeological sites in the
proposed development tract (Table 8). Ten of these sites are prehistoric, and four
historic; three contain both prehistoric and historic components.
The prehistoric settlement pattern appears to be one in which the major, more
permanent occupations were located on the upland flat near the local waterline, or
on ridges behind third terraces. More ephemeral occupations, probably hunting
and/or collecting camps, were located on lower terraces, slackwater deposits, and toe
slopes adjacent to streams. Only isolated artifacts document interest in narrow
ridges, probably the leavings of individual collecting and hunting expeditions.
Broad terraces along ridges reportedly yielded a number of points, gathered by
collectors, suggesting their use as hunting fields.
Diagnostic artifacts were recovered from three of the prehistoric sites tested by the
survey, indicating components from the Middle to Late Archaic and from the
Middle Woodland. Site 31AN62, which was the most productive of all sites on the
tract, contained a Savannah River point and one Middle Woodland ceramic
fragment. Site 31AN60 also had Middle Woodland pottery, and Site 31AN124
produced a Guilford point.
The historic settlement pattern is one clearly related to ridge width. Most of the
historic sites are associated with broader expanses of relatively flat terrain, no doubt
necessary for effective farming. In the proposed development tract, the tenant
dwellings follow the circular road around the property, reflecting a ridge orientation
similar to prehistoric chipping stations.
Historic components were identified at seven sites, three of which also produced
prehistoric artifacts. All seven historic components contained structural remains
and an artifact scatter. Oral history and artifact evidence indicate that six of these
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 86

were low status dwellings. These would likely have been cotton farming operations
antedating the appearance of the boll weevil in the 1920s (Garrow 1984:36; Gunn and
Repass 1991; Crass and Brooks 1991), and the severe erosion of the land of the 1930s.
After the 1.930s, much of the Brown Creek Soil Conservation District was turned
over to the Soil Bank, the first such effort in the nation (Robert Horton, SCS Office,
personal communication 1991). The seventh historic site (31AN63) is a complex
containing a higher status dwelling and an assortment of dairy farm structures. The
dairy was active in the first half of the twentieth century.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 8 summarizes the recommendations for additional investigations at the
proposed development tract. Five of the 17 sites did not produce sufficient data to
warrant further testing (31AN82, 31AN124, 31AN128, 31AN131, and 31AN132). All
five are prehistoric sites, and due to low artifact density and diversity, or erosion of
context, none appears to have the potential to produce additional significant data.
Table 8. Summary of Archaeological Sites on the Tract.
State
Type of Occupation
Phase II
Site #
Prehistoric
Historic
Both
Recommended
31AN60
X
YES
31AN61
X
YES
31AN62
X
YES
31AN63
X
YES
31AN64
X
YES
31AN75
X
YES
31AN76
X
YES
31AN82
X
NO
31AN83
X
YES
31AN124
X
NO
31AN125
X
YES
31AN126
X
YES
31AN127
X
YES
31AN128
X
NO
31AN129
X
YES
31AN131
X
NO
1A 1 2
X
NO
TOTAL
10
4
3
12 YES, 5 NO
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 87

The remaining 12 sites appear to require additional testing to evaluate their
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Five of the 12 are prelistoric
sites (31AN60, 31AN62, 31AN83, 31AN127, and 31AN129). Three of the five
produced diagnostic artifacts, and the other two produced relatively high artifact
densities and/or diversity. In addition, all five were in settings with the potential
for colluvial soil deposition. As noted in the research design, such depositional
settings have a higher probability of containing intact features and cultural layers,
which can add significant data to an understanding of the regional settlement
pattern.
The other seven sites all contain historic occupations older than 50 years (31AN61,
31AN63, 31AN64, 31AN75, 31AN76, 31AN125, and 31AN126). Three historic sites
also contained prehistoric components (31AN61, 31AN63, 31AN75). The historic
sites contain structural remnants, chimneys, foundation piers, and stone paving,
and they also contain artifact scatters. Both the oral history data and the
archaeological information have documented that these occupations form a
coherent complex of tenant farmer occupations dating from the mid nineteenth
century through the mid twentieth century. These sources suggest that the historic
sites in the project area should be studied as an integrated data set documenting the
evolution of tenant farming in the region.
Based on the Phase I survey of the proposed Anson County Regional Landfill,
Garrow & Associates, Inc. is of the opinion that none of the archaeological sites
identified would prevent the development of the proposed development tract for a
landfill, once the sites have been properly evaluated and documented.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 88

RFFFRENCFS CTTFD
Anderson, David G.
1989 The Mississippian in South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C.
Goodyear, 111, and Glen T. I Ianson, pp. 101-132, Anthropological Studies No. 9.
Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology. The University of South Carolina.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from
the Southeastern United States. In Research in Economic Anthropology,
pp. 163-216, edited by JAI Press Inc., Supplement 5. Greenwich, Connecticut.
Anderson, David G., Charles E. Cantlev, and A. Lee Novick
1982 The Mattassee Lake Sites: Archaeological Investigations Along the Lower
Santee River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. National Park Service,
Archeological Services Branch, Special Publications, Atlanta.
Anderson, David, and Joseph Schuldenrein (assemblers)
1985 Prehistoric Human Ecology Along the Lipper Savannah River:
Excavations at the Rucker's Bottom, Abbeville and Bullard Site Groups.
Russell Papers 1985, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Gilbert / Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Services
Branch, Atlanta.
Anson County Deed Books
1750-1991 Records on file, Anson County Superior Court, Clerk's Office,
Wadesboro, North Carolina.
Book R:494 Patent dated May 1772
Book R:498 Patent dated October 1790
Book N & O: 345 Deed dated October 20,1810
Book 25:338 Deed dated in 1886
Book 25:351 Deed dated in 1886
Book 25.552 Deed dated December 1886
Book 27:378 Deed dated in 1885
Book 28:11 Deed dated in 1881
Book 31:190 Deed dated in 1896
Book 31:568 Deed dated in 18%
Book 43:34 Deed dated in 1907
Book 46:368 Date not recorded
Book 56:599 August 1914 Division of the Estate of Richmond Sturdivant
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 89

Book 61:329
Book 67:187
Book 67:374
Book 93:445
Book 93:448
Book 147:641
Deed dated in 1922
Deed dated in 1926
Deed dated in 1927
Deed dated in 1943
Deed dated in 1943
Deed dated August 14, 1963
Anson County Grantees Index
1750-1991 Records on file, Anson County Superior Court, Clerk's Office.
Book S Richmond Sturdi want listings
Anson County Historical Society
n.d. Boggan-Hammond House Brochure. Anson County Historical Society
office, Wadesboro, North Carolina.
Anson County Plat Map Index
1750-1991 Records on file, Anson County Superior Court, Clerk's Office.
Plat Map A-4 Division of the Estate of Richmond Sturdivant, 1914
Plat Map A-78 Survey of bands for J. P. Boylin, 1966
Blanton, Dennis B.
1986 Archaeological Data Recovery at Cultural Property GP-HK-08 in Hancock
County, Georgia on the Wadley -Wallace Dam Section of the Plant Vogtle-
Plant Scherer 500 kV Electric Transmission Line Corridor. Garrow &
Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Georgia Power Company, Atlanta.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In
Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L.
Stephenson, edited by A. Goodyear and G. Hanson, pp. 53-71. Anthropology
Studies 9. Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
Bliley, Daniel, and David A. Burney
1988 Late Pleistocene Climactic Factors in the Genesis of a Carolina Bay.
Southeastern Geology 29(2);83-101.
Boggan, W. K.
n.d. The Colonial History of Anson County. Ms. on file, office of Anson
County's Clerk of Superior Court.
Briceland, Alan Vance
1987 Westward from Virginia: The Exploration of the Virginia Carolina
Frontier 1650-1710. 'University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 90

Brown, David O.
1984 Geomorphology of the Eagle Hill-Peason Ridge Area. In Occupation and
Settlement in the Uplands of West -Central Lottisiana, edited by Joel Gunn
and Anita Kerr, pp. 15-30. The University of Texas at San Antonio, Center for
Archaeological Research, Special Report No. 17.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, 1964-1968. Report of Archaeological Investigation 3. West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown.
Bryson, Reid A., David A. Baerreis, and W. M. Wendland
1970 The Character of the Late Glacial and Post Glacial Climatic Changes. In
Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited by
W. Dort, Jr. and J. K. Jones, Jr., pp. 53-74. University of Kansas Special
Publications No. 3, Lawrence, Kansas.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistor�l of the United States. American
Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified
Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.,
Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Coe, Toffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 54(5). Philadelphia.
1983 Through a Glass Darkly: An Archaeological View of North Carolina's
More Distant Past. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposium, edited by Mark Mathis and ,Jeffrey Crow, pp 169-172. North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Cooper, Peter P.
1976a Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Anson
County 201 Facilities Plan Sites and Interceptor Lines, Anson County, North
Carolina. Museum of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury. Ms. on file,
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 91

1976b Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Proposed
Impoundment Areas 1 and 2, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Ansonville,
North Carolina. Museum of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury. Ms.
on file, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Anson County, North Carolina.
n.d. Notes on file, Wake Forest University, Wake Forest.
Cuss, David C., and Richard D. Brooks
1991 Settlement Patterning on an Agriculturally Marginal Landscape. Paper
presented at the South Carolina Historic Landscape Symposium, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
Cummings, W. P.
1966 North Carolina in Maps. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Daniel, 1. Randolph, and J. Robert Butler
n.d. A Preliminary Report on a Geoarchaeological Survey of Rhyolite Sources
in Stanly and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina. Ms. on file, Garrow &
Associates, Inc., Raleigh.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability
Reconsidered. Quaternary Research 19:265-271.
Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: the Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit
Region. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Elliott, Daniel T., and Roy Doyon
1981 Archaeology and .Historical Geography of the Savannah River Floodplain
Near Augusta, Georgia. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology
Series Report No, 22. Athens.
Epperson, D. L.
1971 Weather and Climate in North Carolina. Agricultural Extension Service,
North Carolina State University.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo-Indian to
Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary
Report, 1971-1973 Seasons, edited by William M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Catholic
University of America, Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 1.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 92

1983 Stop Me if You've Heard This One Before: The Flint Ron Paleolndian
Complex Revisited. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11:49-59.
Garrow, Patrick H.
1984 Cultural Resources Management Vogtle-Scherer Transmission Line
Wadley -Wallace Darn Section, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, and Putnam
Counties Resources Inventory II: final Report. Garrow & Associates, Inc.,
Atlanta. Submitted to Georgia Power Company, Atlanta.
Garrow, Patrick H., and G. Michael Watson
1979 A Cultural Resource .Investigation of the Pee Dee National Wildlife
Ref.cge, Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc.,
Marietta, Georgia. Submitted to the National Park Service, Atlanta.
Gearhart, Robert L.
1991 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.S. Highway 220 {
Emery to Ellerbe) Montgomery and Richmond Counties, North Carolina. Espey,
Houston & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas. Submitted to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
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 47(2): 382-395.
1991 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: A
Geoarchaeological Summary. In Ice Age Peoples of North America, edited by
Robson Bonnichsen, G. Grison, and Karen Turnmire. Center for the Study of
the First Americans, Orono.
Gresham, Thomas H., and Teresa P. Rudolph
1985 The Carmouche Site: Archaeology in Georgia's Western Fall Line Hills.
Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia. Submitted to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Gunn, Joel D.
1990 Archaeology Survey: Town of Ellerbe CDBG Wastewater Line, Richmond
County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. Submitted to the Town of Ellerbe.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 93

Gunn, Joel D., and David O. Brown (editors)
1982 Eagle Hill: A Lute Quaternan'l Upland Site in Western Louisiana. The
University of Texas at San Antonio, Center for Archaeological Research,
Special Report 12.
Gunn, Joel D., and Anita Kerr (editors)
19S4 Occupation and Settlement in the Uplands of West -Central Louisiana.
The University of Texas at San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research
Special Report 17.
Gunn, Joel D., and Christopher Espenshade
1990 Site Specific Survey of Tuvelve Sites, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Brockington and Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Submitted to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Gunn, Joel and Craig Repass
1991 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Dixie Recycling Center,
Hancock County, Georgia. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to
W. L. Jordan & Company, Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Gunn, Joel D., and Eric C. Poplin
1991 Archaeological Sample Survey of the U.S. 421 Improvement (TIP R-
2120A), Yadkin County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc.,
Chapel Hill.
Gunn, Joel D., and Royce Mahula
1977 Hop Hill: Culture and Climate Changes in Central Texas. University of
Texas at San Antonio, Center for Archaeological Research Special Report 5.
Gunn, Joel D., Lawrence E. Abbott, and Jean Hendrickson
1990 The Richard Henderson Home: Archaeological Data Recovery at the
Safteru,hite Point Site (31 VNI02), Vance County, North Carolina.
Brockington and Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Submitted to
the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Gunn, Joel D., Marian D. Robert, Barbara Lucas, Carol J. Poplin, and Eric C. Poplin
1991 Historical and Archaeological Survey and Historical Properties
Management Plan for W. Kerr Scott Reservoir„ Wilkes County, North
Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 94

Hall, Wesley K., and "fucker R. Littleton
1979 Archaeological Investigation of the Replacement of Bridge No. 109-65-40
on NC 109 over the Pee Dee River North of Wadesboro. CZR (Coastal
Zone Resources) Memorandum to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh.
Hargrove, Thomas H.
1989 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Quar?y Site, Pee Dee Vicinity,
Anson County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina. Submitted to Martin Marietta Corporation.
Hill, Michael
1990 Guide to North Carolina Highway Historical Markers. North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Kelly, Arthur R.
1938 A Preliminary Report on Archeological Exploration at Macon, Georgia.
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Anthropological
Papers 1.
Larsen, L. H.
1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain
During the Late Prehistoric Period. University of Florida Press, Garnsville.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to North Carolina (by John Lawson [17091). University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Mathis, Mark A, and Jeffrey J. Crow (editors)
1983 The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
McCrary, Ben
1954 A Paleo-Indian Workshop in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. Southern
Indian Studies 6:3-8.
Medley, Mary L.
1976 History of Anson County, North. Carolina. Anson County Historical
Society, Wadesboro, North Carolina.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 95

Nials., Fred, and Joel D. Gunn
1982 Geomorphology and Soils. In Eagle Hill: A Late Quaternary Upland Site
in Western Louisiana, edited by Joel Gunn and David Brown, pp. 126-142.
The University of Texas at San Antonio, Center for Archaeological Research,
Special Report 12.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred Knopf, New York.
North Carolina Geological Survey ,
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey,
Raleigh.
1991 Generalized Geological Map of North Carolina. North Carolina
Geological Survey, Raleigh.
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 and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press,
Birmingham.
nd Ph.D. dissertation in preparation. University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner
Piedmont Perspective. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Padgett, Thomas
1986 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 267 on SR 1621 over Rocky River,
Anson -Stanley Counties, Project No. B-1023. Memorandum to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1991 Early Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. Paper
presented at the symposium for Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the
Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective, Columbia, South Carolina.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 96

SCS (Soil Conservation Service)
1.937 Conservation Services Management Plan for Anson County. Ms. on file,
Anson County Soil Conservation Service, Wadesboro, North Carolina.
Secretary of the Interior
1983 Archeological and Historic Preservation; Secretary of Interior's Standards
and Guidelines, Part IV. National Park Service, Federal Register 48(190):44742-
44819.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New
York.
Stahle, David W., John G. Hehr, and Malcolm K. Cleaveland
1991 Baldcypress Dendrocliatology in the Southeastern United States.
. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C.
Stine, Linda
1986 The First 100 Years of Atlantic Piedmont Fur Trade. Paper presented at the
51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Stuart, George E.
1975 Post Archaic Occupation of Central South Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1971 Russellville, North Carolina quadrangle map, 7.5 minute series. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 General Soil Map of Anson County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service, Raleigh.
Vanatta, E. S., and F. N. McDowell
1917 Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Ward, Trawick H.
1977 The Archaeological Survey of the Old Sneedsboro Power Plant Complex.
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Submitted to Carolina Power and Lighting, Raleigh.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 97

1983.A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposiufn, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-80. North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division. of Archives and. History,
Raleigh.
Watts, W. A.
1975 Vegetation Record for the Past 20,000 Years From a Small Marsh on
Lookout Mountain, Northwestern Georgia. Geologic Society of America
Bulletin 86_
1980 Late -Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal.
Plain of South Carolina. Quaternary Research 13:187-199.
Wharton, Charles H.
1977 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Planning and Research, Resource Planning Section,
Atlanta.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1973 Late -Wisconsin Vegetation Changes in Unglaciated North America.
Quaternary Research 3:621-631.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 98

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: COLLECTIONS FROM THE STUDY AREA
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 100

COLLECTIONS FROM THE STUDY AREA
Members of the hunting club on the proposed development tract, the Pinch Gut
Hunting Club, were interviewed extensively. Some members of the club were
active artifact collectors on the property, and had been for a number of years.
Artifacts from their collections were examined, photographed, and are reported in
this appendix. Figures 29-33 illustrate a small sample of the artifacts examined,
which included 238 projectile points (Table 9).
The Pinch Gut Hunting Club leases the land from a timber company for an annual
fee. Formed in 1985, their primary interest is deer hunting. There are 14 members
in the club; four are from the immediate area and 10 are from Charlotte and
Cornelius, North Carolina.
John Boyd is the president of the club and makes lease arrangements with the
timber company. He has been hunting the property for 22 years. Boyd reported that
the spring upstream to the west from the Spring Site (31AN60) flowed year-round
until the drought in 1988. Since then it has only flowed intermittently. It may be
relevant to the drying of the spring that Doe Hill, the ridge above the spring, was
burned off in 1973. Removing vegetation would have reduced the water holding
capacity of thesoil above the spring.
Dave Hurd lives in Huntsville, North Carolina, 12 miles north of Charlotte, and has
been a member of the hunting club for a year. He found a steatite bowl protruding
from the mud along Pinch Gut Creek (Figure 32 bottom).
Larry Guisewite has the largest collection of points among the members of the
hunting club. Portions of his collection were photographed on January 25, 1992.
Points on plaques (Figures 29 and 33) were primarily from the third terrace area east
of Hunter's Camp (which is also the current camp for the hunting club). Another
box of about 50 points was not photographed. It contained points that had been
collected since the early 1970s. He also had a 30 pound box of flakes and tools,
primarily scrapers and bif aces (Figure 31). Mr. Guisewite also found several pieces of
pottery (see Figure 33) at the lower edge of the third terrace. He and Gary Carter (not
a member of the hunt club) collected most of the points during the early 1970s, after
the third terrace was timbered and plowed. Mr. Carter has a similar size collection.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 101

Table 9. Distribution. of Points from Collections.
Ty'Pe # Frequency Name
7 0 Clovis
2 0 Hardaway
3 0 Hardaway-D.
4 6 Hardaway S-N
5 10 Palmer C-N
6
153 Kirk C-N
7
8 Kirk Serrated
8
14 Stanly Stemmed
9
2 Big Sand
10
4 LeCroy
11
2 Morrow Mt I
12
16 Morrow Mt II
13
22 Guilford
14
17 Halifax
15
14 Savannah R.
16
16 Small Say. R.
17
7 Gypsy
18
3 Swannanoa
19
2 Randolph
20
13 Badin
21
3 Yadkin
22
6 Uwharrie
23
6 Caraway
24
6 Clarksville
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 102

Tony Waugh. primarily collected projectile points (see Figure 30). He stated that he
had done most of his collecting in the field on the north side of Pinch Gut Creek
above Briley Bridge, which was opened in the early 1970s. There were many points,
and a majority of the pottery was found there. The field is badly eroded; there are
also numerous erosion gullies on the south and west sides of the creek and points
are frequently found in that area. Mr. Waugh reported that he has seen Larry
Guisewite come in from the other side of the creek with a pocket full of Guilford
points. Some points were also found in the Pond Stream west of the Hunter's
Camp site.
The area to the east of the entrance road was forested in hardwoods up until the late
1960s or early 1970s. At that time, the lumber company removed the hardwoods
and plowed the field. This was the prime time for collecting. Mr. Guisewite and
Mr. Carter collected many points from the site at that time. The fields across Pinch
Gut Creek are the only places Mr. Waugh found LeCroy points; two were found, a
small one near the Briley Bridge, and a large one near the northwest corner of the
field.
There may be an Indian mound to the east of the property across Pinch Gut Creek,
uphill, and east of the beaver dam. Lithics can be found in large chunks in the
Briley field. There are several types of raw material; the big chunks are Morrow
Mountain flow banded rhyolite, and some Knox chert was observed. Three or four
other colors of material were noticed, with the dominant color of flint a dark gray to
blue. Tan chert was also present.
John Lucik also made a collection in the early 1970s of similar magnitude to that of
Mr. Waugh and Mr. Guisewite. This suggests that the four collections taken
together contain about twice as many points as are reported here.
There are some patterns in the distributions of points that the hunters have
reported. On Doe Hill (the ridge along the west side of the property), the points are
dominantly Morrow Mountain and Guilford. Guilfords seem to be scattered
throughout the area.
A preliminary typing of 192 points from the Guisewite and Waugh Collections
revealed a wide variety of point morphologies (Figure 34, see Table 9). The
temporally sensitive artifacts indicate that the property was occupied during all
periods from the Late Paleoindian to the early Historic periods. Variations in
quantities of temporal diagnostics indicate the most intense occupation was during
the early Middle Archaic period. Woodland and Mississippian forms are less
frequent, but (along with ceramics) suggest continual occupation of the area.
The hunting club is interesting in a number of ways relevant to the history of
Anson County. After the establishment of the Brown Creek Soil Conservation
District in 1937, cotton and tobacco farming was discouraged in the county because
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 103

w\®
f..
w-
,» :
� •x
-« «.\ .
�
-
-
•
.
w /�\ � �
�
. \
>
/
§ t \
4 5
2 3
Figure 29. Archaic Points from the Guisewite Collection.
Anson County Phase ISurvey 2a -l04

Figure 30. Archaic Points from the Waugh. Collection.
Amon County Phase I Survey Page - 105

Figure 31. Choppers, Bi#aces, and Game Piece from the Guisewiie Collection.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 106

t
d

t 2 3 4 5
Figure 33. Ceramics and Archaic and Woodland Points from the Guisewite
Collection.
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 108

Point Frequencies: Guisewite & Waugh Collections
25 Guilford
20
C
r N M -tt 0 0 1-
t;araway
MI r T r T■ m. n
Point Types (see Table 9)
Figure 34. Point Type Frequencies: Guisewite and Waugh Collections.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 109

of its associated erosion. There appear to have been economic and perhaps social
pressures against farming in the 1950s (see Appendix 3). The standard practice was
to plant the eroded land with trees. This was initially done with the assistance of
Works Progress Administration (WPA) labor. 'I"hese efforts soon brought an
emphasis on the lumber industry in the county. As is generally the practice, timber
companies augment their income from timber lands by leasing it to hunters.
It is worth noting that after some centuries of agriculture, Anson County land use
has largely returned to pursuits paralleling those of the Woodland Indians 1000
years ago --hunting, timber exploitation, and some agriculture. The scale and
configuration of the settlement pattern relative to the landscape is very different,
but in a sense Euro-Americans have come to the same conclusions about about the
use of Anson County as the Native Americans, thousands of years ago. Many of the
differences in settlement are traceable to the railroad and the subsequent orientation
of the human population to transportation rather than transport by river or ridge
paths. Some aspects of the prehistoric settlement pattern, however, are reproduced
in the modern one. The hunting club, for example, established its hunting camp on
the same location as a prehistoric overlook site, probably used for the same purpose,
that is, a base camp for hunting excursions into the floodplain-valley wall boundary.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 110

APPENDIX 2: THE BOYLIN DAIRY IN THE 1950s
Anson County Phase i Survey Page - ill

THE BOYLIN DAIRY IN THE 1950s
The following information was obtained during an oral history interview with
Mary Chandler Beck, former tenant of the Boylin Dairy, on January 14, 1992,
Mary Chandler Beck was a child when her parents leased the dairy farm from jack P.
Boylin in 1954. Her father, John W. Chandler, was at that time a landowner near
Stanback Ferry, farming approximately 2,000 acres of various crops, including rice
and sugarcane on the historic Lee Little Plantation.
Ms. Beck describes the dairy as having between 400 and 450 head of cattle and was
one of the few, if not the only, mechanized dairy operations in the area. The farm
itself included numerous houses and outbuildings (Figure 54). She describes the
main dwelling as being a large, white, three-story farmhouse with white picket
fences all around it." it faced the road and was located on a knoll above the farm
ponds and dam. The children were not allowed on the dam because it was unstable.
Ms. Beck says that she remembers her father using her "pup tent" in some fashion
to try to repair the dam. The pond was a favorite fishing spot for the tenants on the
farm.
To the northeast of the main house was a large dairy barn and silo. There was also a
large lean-to structure, which served as her father's workshop, where he repaired
his equipment and did "a lot of soldering." A hog pen was located near the small
pond behind the house. Another tenant house sat across the road, southeast of the
behind which was a large chicken house. Ms. Beck says that she remembers the
tenant house being occupied.
Mr. Rodney "Law" Boylin, Jack P. Boylin's brother, lived in a small Airstream -like
trailer just south of the barn. Ms. Beck says that some her most vivid memories are
of going to see "Mr. Law" during the day. The two of them roamed the farm
searching for blackberries and Indian artifacts. According to Ms. Beck, numerous
arrowheads, pieces of Indian pottery, and several human teeth were found on the
northeastern section of the property.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 112

In addition to the main. complex, other houses and dairy barns were located on the
farm. As one entered the property north of the Richmond Sturdivant Cemetery,
there was a small tenant house on the west (left) side of the road. Ms. Beck believed
there to be 13 people living in the two room structure, and that they may have been
Sturdivants. Another tenant house was located northwest of the main farmhouse,
on the other side of the dam, but was not occupied. There were also two smaller
dairy barns behind that house. A pumphouse was located further west of this
tenant house, and across the road from the pumphouse was a single story building
which she remembers as having bars on the windows. Ms. Beck relates that her
father had built a similar building on their other farm to serve as a "jail" for the
tenant farmers. Being too far from town, when the drinking or fighting got out of
hand, he simply locked them up until they were sober. She feels that it's possible
that this structure was modified for the same purpose.
Two other tenant houses were located on the far southwest end of the road, near the
gate leading to the railroad. There were also three other houses on the south side of
the railroad. The title search revealed a deed which mentions some "railroad
shanties" at that location. A phone call from Ms. Beck to Mr. William Wadell
revealed that he had purchased the property where the three houses stood and
demolished them in the early 1970s. Ms. Beck had salvaged a hewn oak beam from
one of the houses to serve as a mantel for the fireplace in her current residence.
Ms. Beck said that during their brief stay on the farm, the property was never
cultivated, and the floodplains were left in natural pasture. Hay and grain for the
animals were trucked in, with the only "farming" being done in the garden out
behind the main house. The garden evidently yielded well as her mother spent a
great deal of time canning produce. The only wildlife observed on the farm at that
time were the usual squirrels and rabbits; Ms. Beck does not recall seeing deer or
other game.
Ms. Beck's parents decided to leave farming in late 1955 and moved to Charlotte,
where better employment opportunities existed. The farmhouse burned down a
short time later. Ms. Beck says that the fire started on the third floor, which was her
room, and may have been caused by faulty wiring. However, she says that there are
some who think the fire was suspicious. The appliances and little furniture that
could be salvaged were moved from the house and placed in two of the tenant
houses for storage. The Chandlers never returned to the dairy.
An additional interview was conducted by phone with Peg Boylin, wife of Jack
Boylin's nephew.
Mrs. Peg Boylin, whose husband is a nephew of Jack and Law Boylin, remembers
going out the farm to visit with her husband's bachelor uncle, Law. Her strongest
memory of the farm is the farmhouse, which she describes as being "...a darling cape
cod" in which she would have loved to live, having small children at the time. She
Anson County Phase 1 Survey Page - 114

barns small ponce `
j
tenant '� 4
househog pen
pumphouse workshop
r
damp,
silo
security "-I•.� .shed.
building large nor- C tenant
pond garden ti Ihouse
Il�hicken
house
it tenant house
tl
tenant houses I
Richmond -Stu rdivant
Cemetery
�t
♦�
4
1 A,* �?I
KEY: tenant houses
paved road
unpaved road �OqO
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 35. Sketch Map of the Boylin Dairy, circa 1950 (after M. Beck).
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 113

describes Law Boylin as being an intriguing man, who was an avid art collector and
loved to travel. Once after reading a story to her children, he decided to take a trip to
Canada, tracing the route which the characters in the story had taken. He also
traveled west to pan for gold. After attending North Carolina State University
when it was still an agricultural college, Mr. Boylin worked as a farm agent for a
time. He was also a member of the "array of the occupation" in Germany after
World 'War Il.
Mrs. Boylin says that she doesn't remember the property being under cultivation
during the tunes they were there. She says that Jack Boykin never actually ran the
dairy or farmed any of the other properties he owned; he had them all under lease
to tenant farmers like Mr. Chandler. Most of his time was taken up with other
interests, such as the newspaper Die Messenger and Investigator in Wadesboro,
which he founded in 1880. He was also responsible for starting the newspaper in
Monroe.
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 115

APPENDIX 3: ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 116

Artifact Inventory
State site
Bag
Artif
act
iaii&xm
Shovel
Tt t
Era
media
n
Nu
Eric
lttaterial
Type
Cumn-teerd
1 AN 124
9
1
A 12-4
5tlrf
H
1'xxl
I
IASS
Industrial blue green
ciectric inrodator fraf`,
31,AN124
9
1-6
Al2-4
surf
P
5
rhYolite
flake
11AN124
LI
2-22
A124
surf
P
1
Hi olite
flake
31AN124
to
1-2
Al2-4
sari
p
2
rhvnlite
flake?
r
31:AN124
11
21
Al2-4
sort
P
1
rhlvolite
paint
Morrow klouritain
31AN124
11
1
A124
surf
P
I
rluvnlite
scraper
I I A N 1
12
2
A124,
crtrf
H
1
bricl,
Ii;Dtrag
:31AN127,
12
6
Al2 6
surf
H
1
gls s
bate$uarnber
31AN125
12-
Al2-6
Surf
I
1
glass
b.Klia base cobalt
3!AN 12.r
12
12
Al2-e
surf
H
'
1
glass
bcktie bag mills
31AN125
12
9
Al2-6
surf
H
19Q5
1
glass
bottle blue green
mason jar frag
31AN125
12
8
A1246
.surf
H
I"
1
glass
bcAile blue green
mason jar frag,
31AN125
12
7
Al2-6
surf
H
1
glass
bcktle clear
31AN125
12
10
Al2-6
curt
H
1
glass
battle clear
wJ molded lettering & lines
31AN12-9
12
3
Al2-6
sort
H
19T
1
glass
liner mason jar lid
31 ANI2;
12
4
Al2-6
crtrf
H
1cK15
1
glaFF
liner maws jar lid
33AN125
12
11
Al2 6
surf
H
1
glass
window clear
1IAN125
12
1
Al2-6
surf
H
1937_5
1
leather
411ov safe
31AN125
12
20
Al2-b
surf
H
1940
j 1
ware
ironstone
31AN125
12
15
Al2.6
surf
H
1W
1
ware
stoneware
plain cup rim
31AN125
12
14
Al2-6
surf
H
1865
1
ware
whiteware
31AN125
12
19
Al2-6
Surf
H
1865
1
ware
whiteware
31AN125
12
16
Al2-6
surf
H
1865
1
ware
whiteware
31AN725
12
18
Al2-6
stuf
H
1865
1
ware
whiteware
bowl base
31AN129
12
17
Al2-6
stuf
H
1865
1
ware
whiteware
31.AN126
16
25
52k)
surf
H
1845
1
ware
whiteware
w/ black transfarprint
31AN126
14
1
Al2-1
surf
H
1
bride
UID frag
31AN L26
13
16
Al2-5
surf
H
1935
1
ceramic
earthenware
bristoi glz w/ blue banded, molded
31AN126
13
13
Al2-5
surf
H
1860
1
ceramic
earthenware
albany slip
31AN126
11
14
Al2-5
$rrrf
H
1860
1
ceramic
earthenware
bristol gfz (white) int & ext
31AN126
13 i
15
Al2-5
stuf
H
18W
1
ceramic
earthenware
bristol glz, Albany slip
31AN126
13
12
Al2.5
serf
H
1850
1
ceramic
earthenware gray paste
salt glazed
31AN126
14
15
Al2-5
surf
H
1935
1
ceramic
earthenware buff paste
It blue giz int & ext
31AN126
14
14
Al2-5
stuf
H
1860
1
ceramic
earthenware buff paste
bristol glz, Albany skip int
31AN126
15
5
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
wramic
iranstons
31AN126
1.1
10
Al-2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
kremukorre
31AN126
13
Tl
Al2-5
surf
H
'1940
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN126
15
7
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ircostone
31AN126
14
17
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ironstone revival
soup bcnvl rim w / green paint
31AN126
14
16
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ironstone revival
w/ decal
31AN126
15
4
Al2-5
surf
H
18t15
1
ceramic
pearlware
bow ibase
31AN126
13
6
Al2-5
surf
H
1875
1
eerarnic
porcelain hard paste
31AN126
14
4
Al2-5
sttrf
H
1875
1
ceramic
porcelain hard paste
plate base
31.AN126
14
3
Al2-5
surf
H
1860
1
ceramic
poroelain soft paste
31AN126
14
Z
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
stcxieware
plain plate base
31AN126
14
22
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
stoneware
plain plate base
31AN126
14
21
Al2-5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
stoneware
plain plate base
31AN126
14
19
Al2.5
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
stoneware
scalloped plate rim
31AN126
14
23
Al2.5
scut
H
1W
1
ceramic
whiteware
plate base
Amon County Phase I Survey Page - 117

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bag
Artil
act
E Landform
Shovel
Test
Era
media
n
Nu
rrdbe
Material
Type
Cc>mnacmt
31 -1iN I2n
14
20
Al2-5
mirt
H
lh6=t
i
ceramic
'A hitOWWe
cup rim
.11AN126
11
9
; Al2-5
yurt
H
11;6=,
1
ceramic
whiteware
.11AN12a
i
k
Al2-5
i Surf
H
1H6�
1
ceramic
whiteware
31AN126
14
is
Al2-5
surf
H
illki5
1
(x1ramie
whiteware
scalloped plate rim
i1AN126
11
H
Al2-5
;urf
H
IW;
1
Ceramic
whiteware
31AN120
11
9
Al2-5
surt
H
Ift65
1
ceramic
whiteware
cup rim
31AN12h
1+
6
Al2-:;
:uri
H
IWs
1
reramir
whitE�ware
31AN126
11
21
Al2
surf
H
Iw;
I
cerarmC
whiteware
plate base
11AN126
14
2
Al2-5
swi
11
1950
1
aanglom.7at
drainage lily
.11 AN 12h
1--7
1
Al2-5
surf
H
I
Mass
bc*tle aqua
31AN126
11
5
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
bt) tle base aqua
.11AN126
44
6
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
bcxtie base molded clear
rectangular
31AN126
15
3
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
bottle clear
molded letters 'WH'
31AN126
ill
7
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
bottle neck amber
31AN126
14
7
Al2-5
surf
H
1960
1
glass
industrial blue green
electrical insulator
31 AN12A
11
4
Al2-5
surf
H
190+
1
glass
liner ma -.in jar lid
31,4UN126
14
12
Al2 5
surf
H
1
glass
table milk
31AN126
113
3
Al2-5
+tut'
H
1
glass
table milk tmAded
3 IAN 126
15
2
Al2-5
Surf
H
1
glass
UID clear
31AN126
t1
2
Al2-5
surf
H
I
glass
UID clear
31AN126
14
5
Al2-5
surf
H
I
glass
UID clear molded melted
allover pattern on surface
31AN126
V
1
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
UM cobalt
31AN126
14
11
Al2-5
surf
H
I
glass
UID cobalt melted
31AN126
14
10
Al2-5
surf
H
I
glass
window green
31AN126
14
8
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
window green
31AN126
14
8
Al2-5
surf
H
I
glass
window groat
31AN126
14
9
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glares
w6idtwv green
31AN126
14
9
Al2-5
surf
H
1
glass
window greet
31AN127
68
1
90
6W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
60
1
Al2-9/C24
8W/low
P
4
charcoal
j
31AN127
&3
4
Al2-9/C24
low
P
I
rhvolite
flake
31AN127
61
1
Al2-9/C24
IOW/lOn
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
63
2
Al2-9/C24
low
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
63
.3
Al2-9/C24
low
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
62
1
Al2-9/C24
2OW/10s I
P
I
UID
biface
31AN127
634
1
Al2-9/C24
low
P
I
UlD
Cara?
31AN127
67
I
Al2-9 i C25
13W i l0e
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN127
65
14
Al2-9/C25
UTW/13w
P
4
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
66
2
Al2-9/C25
13W/13s
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
66
1
Al2-9/C25
13W/139
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN127
66
3
A129/C25
13W/13e
P
I
UID
flake
31AN127
65
5-6
Al2-9/C25
1OW/13w
P
2
UID
flake
31AN128
51
1
Al2-16 421
ffmf
H
l
glass
LTTD clear
31AN128
51
2
Al2-16 S21
surf
H
I
quartz
flake
I
31ANI28
51
3
Al2-16S21
surf i
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN128
f
2
Al2-16M26
surf
H
1
quartz
Hake
31AN128
-'5
4
Al2.16NC6
surf
H
I
quartz
flake
31AN128
55
3
Al2-161v126
surf
H
I
quartz
Hake?
31AN128
55
5
Al2-16NU6
Wd
H
I
rhyolite
flake
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -118

Artifact inventory
Stair Site
Bali
Artif
act
Landf�xm
5htwel
Tc-,t
Lra
modial
n
Nu
mbc
Material
Type
Ccxnr1VZ!11t
31AN't1s
n
6
Alt-ltWh
surf
H
I
rhvoiito
flake
31ANU2
m
7
Al.'-16Nf26
surf
H
1
rhvolite
flake
3'IAN1.2,s
T
1
All.-ltihf2B
surf
i-1
1
rhvolite
point
Woodland
31AN729
4
U
Al2-12
surf
P
1
quart/
flake
31AN129
4
31-.31
Al2-12
surt
P
3
rhvolite
flake
31AN129
4
2-33
Al2-12
surf
P
2a
rhvolite
flake
AlAN120
3
1.2
Al2-12
anrf
P
2
rhyolite
flaky
31AN129
1
1-1
A1212
surf
P
4
rhvolite
flake
31AN129
2
1
Al2.12
surf
P
1
rhvolite
flak"
31AN124
4
1
Al2-12
surf
P
I
rhyo€tte
scraper
bifacially worked
31AN131
M
2
Al2-17NV3
surf
H
1
argillite
flake
31AN131
-M
1
Al2-17M2-3
curt
H
1
argillite
flake
31AN131
52
3
Al2-17M23
surf
H
1
rhyotite
flake
31AN731
54
8
Al2.17M24
strf
H
1W
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
54
3
Al2-17h124
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ironstone
31.4N131
54
6
Al2-17M24
surf
H
194t1
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
rut
2
A1217M21
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
rl
4
Al2-171v124
surf
H
1W
1
cerandG
ir'-Alkone
31AN131
xt
9
Al2-17M24
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ircmforre
handpnt freestyle folk design
31AN131
53
1
Al2-17lv124
surf
H
1W
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
54
1
Al2-17M24
surf
H
1940
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
`4
5
Al2-171vi24
surf
H
1W
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
%
7
Al2-17N124
surf
H
1W
1
ceramic
ironstone
31AN131
53
2-7
Al2-17M24
surf
H
6
ceramic
stoneware
31AN131
�4
10
Al2-1.7M24
surf
14
1
glass
UID clear
31AN131
54
U
Al2-17NI24
surf
H
1
glass
UiD olive
31AN132
9
1
Al2-18/ 3r
surf
H
1960
1
glare
industrial blue green
electric insulator frag
31AN132
8
1
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
H
1805
1
ceramic
pearlware
cuprim
31AN132
8
2
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
H
1W
1
ceramic
stoneware gray paste
salt glazed
31AN132
8
3
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
6
1
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
8
3
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
6
2
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
8
Al-2-18 / 3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
8
4
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN132
5
1
Al2-18/3rdT
turf
P
1
rhyo€ite
bifaLv frag
31AN132
6
6
A1.2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhyotite
flake
31AN132
6
5
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhyo€ite
flake
31AN132
6
4
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhyo€ite
flake
31AN132
6
8
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
j rhyolite
flake
31AN132
6
7
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhvolite
flake
31AN132
6
3
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhyolite
scrapes
31AN132
7
1
Al2-18/3rdT
surf
P
1
rhyolite
scraper small
31AN60
1
1
D
20N/10E I
P
1
chert
flake wholc bifacing ridge
31AN60
1
2
D
20N/10E
P
1
chert
flake whole trite hinged
31AN60
4
2
D
0
P
1
quartz
flake frag core terminal
31AN60
4
3
D
0
P
1
quartz
shatter
31AN60
2
2
D
10N/10t
P
1
rhyolite
biface frag
31AN60
5
1
D
20E/2t1N
P
1
rhvolite
biface frag tip
Anson County Phase i Survey Page -119

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bay;
Artif
act
€,vldfOrrn
Shovel
Test
Era
media
n
Nu
mtx
Material
Tvpe
Comment
1AN6ir
n
i
D
IOE
P
I
rhvoIite
flake terminai
?1 AN6(
121
1
D1,11120M
2W
P
I
ceramic
Middle VViK�d€and
burnt, grit tempered??
?1AN6!?
121
2
D13 2t1'
2W
P
1
rh.VoIit0
flake
{ IANNI
u,1
2
I713/2l7 S1
9W
P
1
cp chert
flake
11ANN)
122
1
D1.1:2iM)
2W
P
1
quartz
core??
31ANW
111
1
D13,'2€'K1
9W
P
I
quartz
flake
114NW
41
3
f%11; 14Xf 1
2W
P
1
gi€arteity
flake
31ANt)0
41
2
D13:31?00
2W
P
1
quartzite
flake
31AN60
41
4
D13,'3M)
2W
P
1
quartzite
Oak,
11ANN)
42
2
D1.3r.3W
3W
P
I
quartzite
flake
31 AN
31 AN 60
42
K.1-1
3
DI 30tk1
3W
P
1
quartzite ?
flake
31.AN60
41
1
D13/31R10
2W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN60
42
1
D13/3000
3W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN60
1 43
2
D13r3Q30
3W
P
1
quartzite
flake
31AN60
41
1
Dll3 3W
3W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
I 11AN60
44
1
D131,318h
0
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN61
5
1
H
0
P
I
chert
flake whole biface ridge
al AN61
10
H
2
P
1
quartz
flake frag Corr terminal
31 AN61
10
4
H
2
P
1
quartz
flake frag core terminal
31AN61
10
6
H
P
1
quartzite
hammerstone?
31AN61
10
2
H
2
P
l
rhyolite
flake frag core
31AN61
10
1
H
2
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag core medial
patinated
31AN61
7
1
H
1
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag platform
31AN61
9
1
H
surface
P
I
rhyolite
flake whole core
31AN62
13
3
M
10N
P
1
chert
flake
notching coastal plain
33 6,N62
13
1
M
ION
P
1
chert
flake whole
coastal plain
31AN62
11
2
M
ION
P
1
chert
flake whole core
coastal plain
31AN62
I2
1
N1
0
P
1
chert
point
savannah intact coastal plain
31AN62
TZ
11
M
0
P
1
quartz
flake whole
31AN62
12
2
M
0
P
1
quartz
flake whole core
31AN62
17
6
M
IOw
P
I
quartz
flake whole core
31AN62
12
17
M
0
P
1
quartz
flake whole terminal
31AN62
12
4
M
0
P
1
rhvolite
flake bifacing platform
31AN62
15
5
M
10E
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag bifadng
31AN62
12
6
M
0
P
I
rhyolitc
flake frag bifacing medial
31AN62
12
9
M
0
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag bifaciig platform
31AN62
12
8
M
0
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag bifacing medial
31AN62
12
7
M
0
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag bifacing medial
31AN62
17
1
M
low
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag bifacing platform
31AN62
17
2
M
low
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag bifacing medial
31AN62
17
2
M
low
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag bifadng medial
31AN62
16
1
M
20N
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag Wading terminal
31-+-N62
12
14
M
0
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag core medial
31AN62
75
1
M
10E
P
I
rhyolitc
flake frag Core term
31AN62
14
I
M
10E
P
I
rhyolite
flake frag core platform
MAN62
15
2
M
IOE
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag core term
31AN62
17
4
M
low
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag medial
31AN62
17
5
M
10w
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag platform
ground
31AN62
12
1.5
M
0
P
1
rhyolite
flake frag terminal
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -120

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bag
Artif
act
Landfotm
Shovei
Teat
Era
media
n
Nu
mlx
Material
Type
Cornnienf
31.ANt+k
17
3
Ni
10W
P
1
I rl.volite
flako Crag terminal
I
31A.%h;
11
4
M
ION
P
1
rhyolite
Hake frog terminal
Eocvbandc--d
31 4Nt;'.
12
.)
N1
0
F'
1
rhyoiitc
flake whale bifacing ridge
31.4NN62
'a
13
N4
0
p
l
rhyolite
flake whole bifacing
31.A.N62
17
3
M
l0E
P
1
r11voiite
flake whole bifacing
31Avh2
12
12
M
0
i P
1
rhyolite
flake whole bifacing
fmxmd
31 AN62
12
11,
N1
1)
p
1
rhyolite
flake whole pr(�.sure
31ANA2
17-
3
N1
10E
P
1
rhyolite
smatter
31AN62
12
is
N1
0
f
1
rhyolite
shatter
31ANe2
12
it)
M
D
P
1
rhyolite
shatter
31AN62
71
1
Mlf1020
SH4
P
1
argillite
biface
31AN62
71
4
Mlfin)
5H4
P
1
argillite
flake
31AN62
IM
8
MI/1020
6E
P
4
1pchert
flake
31AN62
71
2
MI11020
51-14
P
1
cp chert
flake
31AN62
1ik3
6-7
hi1i102C)
6E
P
2
cp chert
flake
11AN62
lm
i
h411(710
6E
P
1
ditartz
flake
31A.N62
7)
1
N11/l02£)
6E
P
2-7
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
104
1-4
Nil II(M)
6E
P
4
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
71
3
Ml11020
SH4
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
103
113
MI/1020
6E
P
3
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
103
4
M1/I020
6E
P
13
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
70
1
M11020
6E
P
1
rhyolite
scraper
31AN62
277
3
M1!1050
SH4.1
H
1
glass
UID clear
31AN62
109
1-3
MI/10%
2W
P
3
cp chert
flake
31AN62
112
2
M1/Urk0
3W
P
1
cpchert
flake
31AN62
118
2-4
MIL/1050
SH3
P
2
eP ehcrt
flake
31AN62
118
5
M1/I050
SH3
P
1
quartz
f€ake
31AN62
115
5
MI/1050
1W
P
I
quartz
flake
31AN62
117
1
Nil/1060
SH4-3
P
I
quartz
flake
31AN62
1%
3
M1/1050
0/13S
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN62
114
1-5
M1/1050
6E
P
5
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
112
1
MI/105o
3W
p
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
27
1
Ml/1050
SH4.1
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
1013
1
MI/1050
11=
p
1
rhyolite
flake
31.MN62
117
2
Ml/1050
SH4 3
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
ill
1-2
Nil /1050
2E
p
2
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
26
1
M1/'1050
9I-14.2
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
27
2
M1/1o50
S144.1
p
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
26
3
M1/1050
SH4.2
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
113
1
MI/10%
4E
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
110
1-2
MI/1050
2E
P
2
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
107
1
MI/1050
1W
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31A-N62
1%
1-2
MI/1050
0/15S
P
2
rhyolite
flake
31,RN62
105
1
M1/1050
0/10N
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
26
2
NW1050
SH4.2
P
1
rhyolits
flake
31AN62
115
14
Ml/1050
1W
P
4
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
116
1-3
Ml/1050
3
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
109
4
Mi/1050
f6E
tP
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
114
11
M1/1050
I
UID
fluke
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -121

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bap;
Artif
act
Landform
Shtvul
Tcwt
Era
media
n
Nu
trite
Material
Type
Comment
I
1lAtih?
1!n
4
Nit 1070
Stl2
F
1
UID
flake
,11,4.N62
11h
1
MI ,I(A()
5 H I
F
1
UID
flake
.3,1ANt,
4a
1-2
'4'<iiSNV
4W
fi
2
glass
UID clear melted
11AN62
611,cjt�}
4W
P
1
ceramic
Middle Vvoodland
31A'vn2
34
4
ti11r145(}
4W
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN62
l ?4
3
h11 9a-C
4V%'
P
I
quartz
flake
114Nh2
Is
I 1
Ml
1W
P
1
gloTtz
flako
31AN62
101
1
MI 4�?
5E
P
I
quartz
flake
31AN62
1U0
1
M1,9(All
SE
P
1
quartz
flake
31A.N62
?N
2
M1r96€?
4W
P
l
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
3I
1
Ml:'4K0
4W
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN62
i9
3
MI/960
4W
P
1
rhvolite
flake
31AN62
3S
2
M1/960
3W
P
1
UID
flake
31AN62
1t72
1-7
M1%990
7W
P
7
rhyolite
flake
31AN63
is
1
M
2
H
1
inan
nail frag UID
31Ahil1
14
2
M
2
H
1
metal
UlD metal
31AN63
19
1
14
2
H
I
metal
UID metal
31 AN&3
127
S
Toil
I
H
1
alurruriurn
ouitrnieni or paint cube
.11AN63
119
9
his
2
H
1
brick
UID frag
31AN63
127
2
M3
1
H
I
glass
brittle blue green
mascnn jar frag
31AN63
127
1
N©
1
H
1
glass
bottle dear
innoculant or insulin vial
31AN63
127
4
M3
I
H
1
glass
bottle clear
nAN63
127
3
M3
1
H
I
glass
UID clear melted
31AN63
120
8
W
3
H
I
glass
UID clear melted
31AN6,3
120
9-10
W
3
H
2
gla+gs
window green
31AN63
120
1
NV
3
H
1
iron
brace??
11AN63
127
21
Ml
1
H
1830
1
irasn
mail cut
31AN&I
127
6-20
W.
1
H
1925
15
iron
nail wire
31AN63
120
2-7
M3
3
H
1925
6
iron
nail wire
31AN63
119
1-6
ND
2
H
1923
6
iron
nails wire
31AN63
119
7-8
Nil
2
H
2
iron
UID metal
31AN63
119
10
ND
2
H
1930
1
ware
stmeware
green glazed bowl rims
31AN63
120
11-12
W
3
H
1940
2
ware.
stoneware
plain white cup rim
31 A-N63
127
22
Nil
1
P
1
ceramic
Middle Woodland r
pat leg baunt
31AN63
88
1-2
NL3/3w
7E
H
2
glass
bottle amber
31AN63
86
1
NL3/360
4E
H
1
glass
UID clear
31AN63
86
2
NU/360
4E
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN63
87
1
M3/360
7E
H
5
Iron
LT[D frag
31AN63
132
11
M3/Manor
3
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN63
132
9
M3/manorhse
3
H
1
glass
UID clear
31AN63
M
10
M3/rnaiq hse
3
H
1
iron
UID frag
31AN63
IM
1-7
M3/manor hse
3
P
7
argi€lice
flake
31AN63
130
1
M3/manorhse
2
P
I
quartz
flake
31AN63
132
8
M3/manor hse
3
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN64
n
18
U
2
H
1
asphalt
roaficng slwygle6
31AN64
23
19
U
2
H
1
asphalt
roofing shingles
31AN64
23
17
U
2
H
1
asphalt
roofing shingles
31AN64
22
1
U
surface
H
I
glass
bottle clear
soda Mottle partial
31AN64
23
13
U
2
H
1
glass
bottle dear
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -122

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bag
Artif
art
Landform
Shovel
Test
Era
media
n
Nu
rnbe
Material
Type
Coxnment
31.kN'f+4
21
4
U
H
1
glass
battle whiteopaque
milk gias!
,11AN64
Z3
'12
U
2
H
glass
window clear
23rrun
11AN64
23
U
H
1
giasi
window clear
2-1mm
11AN64
Z;
i
U
2
H
1
glass
windoA dear
2_1mm
.31ANtv4
D
S
j U
2
H
1
glass
window cdumr
2-3mrr:
.11AN64
Z;
10
L
2
H
1
glass
windo%v c"r
23mrn
31 ANh4
23
H
1 i
H
1
glaga
window- clog
2.3mm
31AN61
?3
b
U
2
ii
1
Bias
n°indrnc Blear
23mm
31 AN04
Z;
11
U
I 2
11
1
glass
window clear
ZJmm
31AN64
23
14
U
2
H
I
giass
window light grew
2-7mm
31AN64
Z3
1S
U
2
H
1
glass
window light green
2-6mm
31AN64
Z1
22
U
2
H
1&1,0
1
iron
nail cut
31 AN64
22
2
U
surface
H
1850
1
iron
nail cut
31AN64
21
4
U
1
H
1
iron
nail squarefrag
31AN64
21
7
U
1
H
1
iron
nail square frag
31 ANM
21
3
11
1
H
1
iron
nail ware frag
31AN64
21
6
U
1
H
1
iron
nail square frag
31AN64
21
5
U
1
H
1
ittxi
nail ew.luare {rag square
31.4N64
21
1
U
1
H
1
iron
nail square £rag
31AN64
23
28
U
2
H
192,
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
21
U
2
H
192-5
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
26
U
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
21
3)
U
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
24
U
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
27
U
2
H
19n
1
'iron
nail wire
3VON64
2i
2
U
1
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
29
U
2
H
1925
1
uorr
nail wile
31AN64
23
20
U
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
25
U
2
N
19Z5
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
21
2'1
U
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN64
23
16
U
2
H
1
tin
battle lid screw on
31AN75
89
1
480
2,E
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN75
22
4
Ail-7
2
H
1
asphalt
shingle
31AN75
3
1
Al2-7
1
H
1
glass
battle dear
31AN75
22
5
Al2-7
2
H
1905
1
glass
liner mason jar lid
31AN75
21
5
Al2-7
3
H
1
glass
U113 Aqua
31AN75
24
1
A'12-7
2
H
1
glass
w p edow aqua
31AN75
21
1
Al2-7
surf
H
1
glass
window dear
31AN75
25
2
Al2.7
1
H
1
glass
window dear
31AN75
21
1
Al2-7
surf
H
1
glass
window dear
31ANn
22
6
Al2-7
2
H
1
glass
window dear
31AN75
21
2
Al2-7
surf
H
1
glass
window clear
31AN75
25
3
Al2-7
1
H
i
glass
window dear
31AN75
22
7
Al2-7
2
H
1
glass
window dear
31AN75
25
4
Al2.7
1
H
1
iron
o;ap
bottle or to plug, ]vole in macliirtery
31AN75
20
1
Al2-7
3
H
1830
1
iron
nail cut
31AN75
29
3
Al2-7
1
H
1
iron
nail UID
31AN75
25
6
Al2-7
1
H
1
iron;
nail Ulb
31AN75
20
2
Al2-7
3
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -123

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bah
Artit
a£t
l mdfke n
Shove!
Test
Era
media
11
Nu
mbe
Material
Type
Commoit
31AN7'
T2.
2
Al2-7
2
H
1921
1
iron
nail wirQ
.11A%75
20
4
Al2-7
3
H
192'
1
Ir<x1
nail wire
31ANT
23
1
Al2-7
1 I
H
Inn
2)
iron
nail wire
31.AN7;
22
1
Al2-7
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31.AN7
211
3
Al2-7
3
H
192:
1
iron
nail wire
31AN7�;
4
3
Al2-7
2
H
1
UID
UID rnetal frag;
€
11,
�1'17'_
V.
4
Alt-7
2
H
1�5
1
Warr
whiteware
'n
3_G
A'1 ..7
Surt
H
Ilk;;
3
ware
whiteware
11AN7
21
6
Al2-7
surf
r
1
quart.
tlak,
31AN75
b)
6
Al2-7
.3
P
i
quartz
flake
31AN7y
A)
2
Al2-7'450
3W
H
1
glass
bottle clear motded
31AN75
-P
3
.A1.2-7l450
3W
H
1
glass
bMie clear molded
31AN75
313
1
Al2-7;470
3W
H
1
glass
window aqua
31AN75
fil
1
Al2-7/480
3W
P
1
chert cp
flake
31.0.N75
H
93
gla.9s
bottle clear
! 31 AN75
33
I
Al2-7/;10
nW
H
6
inn
0117 frag
31AIv'75
32
1
Al2-7%510
4W
P
I
rhyolite
flake
31AN7
34
2
Al2-7!_ti40
3W
H
IW
1
ware
whiteware
31AIN76
57
1
180
6W
H
I
iron
nail wire
31AN76
57
1
180
6W
H
1
iron
nail wire
31AN76
69
1-2
1 180
13W
P
2
quarts,
flake
31AN76
.57
2
180
6W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31A.N76
126
7-8
Al2-8
2
H
2
asphalt
shingle
31AN76
17
21-24
Al2-8
I
H
4
asphalt
shingle
31.AN76
17
25
Al2-8
1
H
1
here
animal
31AN76
17
5
Al2-8
1
H
1865
1
ceramic
stonwarc
bristol glz, albany slip
31AN76
19
6
Al2.8
4
H
I865
1
ceramic
whiteware
31AN7ti
19
7
Al2-8
4
H
1865
1
ceramic
whiteware
31AN76
17
14
Al2-8
1
H
1865
4
ceramic
whiteware
31AN76
17
19
Al2-8
1
H
1
glass
bottle blue green:
mason jar frag
31AN76
126
4
A1245
2
H
1
glass
bottle clear
31AN76
17
6-11
Al2-8
1
H
6
glass
bottle dear
31AN76
19
5
Al2-8
4
H
1
glass
dear UID
31AN76
19
4
Al2.8
4
H
1
glass
window clear
31AN76
17
12-17
Al2.8
1
H
6
glass
windmv clear
31AN76
126
13
Al2$
2
F1
3
glass
Window dear
31AN76
17
18
Al2-8
1
H
1
glass
w"OWgreen
31AN76
19
1
Al2.8
4
H
?
iron
bolt, nut., washer
combination
31AN76
18
1
Al2-8
surf
H
1850
1
iron
nail cut
31AN76
17
36-45
Al2-8
1
H
10
irorl
nail UID
31AN76
19
3
Al2-8
4
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN76
18
2-7
Al2-8
3
H
1925
6
iron
nail wire
31AN76
19
2
Al2-8
4
H
1925
1
irm
nail wire
31AN76
126
5
Al2-8
2
H
1925
1
iron
nail wire
31AN76
17
26.35
Al2-8
1
H
10
j"I
UID frag
31AN76
126
6
Al2-8
2
H
1
iron
UM frag
4.
31AN76
17
20
Al2-8
1
H
1
plastic
UII3 beige
31AN76
99
1
Al2-8/210
3
H
5
glass
UID clear - shattered
31AN79
10
1 7
C
2
H
1
charcoal
charcoal
Anson County Phase T Survey Page -124

Artifact Inventory
State Site
Bag
Artit
act
Lan(fform
Shov ei
Tc :t
Era
nt dia
n
Nu
rrd7e
Material
Type
aviltr"rrt
31AN7,�
lcf
C
2
H
i
glass
UID Slays lightgrccm
31ANh2
1 77
1
Al2-1/ 24o
4W
F
1
cp chert
flake
31.kNK
I
Al2-1i240
.1St
P
7
quartr
flake
31ALM2
76
1
AI2-1'240
iW
F'
1
quarts.
flake
31AN82
77
4
Al2-1.2411
x1N'
P
1
quartzite
flake
3IAN82
77
j 2-_1
Al2-1i240
SW
P
1
quartzite
shatter
31 ANSF
71
2
Al2-1 '240
1W
p
1
rhvalite
flake
€
31,4.NSZ
74
1
A121'27W
7H1
p
1
quartz
flake
111 ANK
:N
1
Al2-1l,3tk1
M
11
1940
1
ceramic
rat Faye
31AN82
A)
1-2
Al2-1i3€kl
1W
p
2
rhvolitc
flake
31ANS2
g3
I
Al2-1;330
6W
p
1
cp chert
flake
31AN82
81
1
Al2-1/33t3
0
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN82
$3
2
Al2-1/3.30
6W
p
1
UU)
flake
31AN82
29
1
Al2-1/3G0
6E
i-1
1940
1
ware
ironstone
bowl rim
31AN82
72
2
Al2-1/380
3E
p
1
quartz
flake
31 AN82
72
1
Al 2-1 r 1W
3F
p
1
rhvalite
burin
31AN83
95
12
Al2 31870
9W.
p
2
cp chert
flake
31ANS3
94
2
Al2-1/870
8W"
P
1
cpdwil
flake
31AN83
93
1
Al2-,1/870
6W
p
I
quartz
flake
31A.N8,3
44
1
Al2 3/870
8W
P
1
quartz
flake
31AN83
91
1
Al2,1/87t)
1W
p
1
rhvalite
flake
31AN83
35
1
A121/870
10W
P
1
rhyolite
flake
31AN83
CA
3-7
Al2-3/870
9W
p
5
rhyolite
flake
31AN83
98
1
Al2-3/930
R-7
p
1
cp chert
flake
31ANR3
97
1
Al2-3/930
R-§
p
1
quartz
flake
31AN &3
9.7
2
Al2.3�930
R.1
p
1
rhyolite
flake
ISO
40
1
2(M
7W
P
1
quartz
flake?
[SO
46
2
4000
1W
p
1
quartz
flake
ISO
46
4
4000
1W
p
1
quartz
flake
ISO
45
1
4000
2W
P
1
quartzite
flake
ISO
46
1
4000
1W
p
1
quartzite
hammerstone?
ISO
90
1
540
6E
H
1
glass
table rose
ISO
'b
1
W
6E
H
1
glass
table rose
ISO
i
fM
7W
p
1 1
quartz
flake
ISO
377
2
9W
4W
p
1
cp chert
flake
ISO
37
1
900
4W
p
1
quartz
flake
[50
1129
1
9W
2N
p
1
argilllte
flake
ISO
131
1
9W
4N
p
1
argilllte
flake
ISO
128
1-2
L15
surf
P
2
argilllte
implement??
ISO
20
1
R12
surface
H
1
steel
barbed wire
partially oxidized
ISO
R)
4
R18
surf
H
1941)
3
eeranic
ironr)'tme
ISO
3D
12
R18
surf
H
1935
1
ceramic
ironstone
w/green transferprint
1S0
`t)
3
R18
surf
H
1940
3
ceramic
ironstone
ISO
59
2
R18
surf
H
1940
1
=amic
ironstone
ISO
50
1
R18
surf
H
1875
1
eerautic
porcelain hard paste
150
50
10
R18
surf
H
1
glass
bottle amber
150
M
8
R18
surf
H
3
glass
battle cobalt
150
50
9
R18
surf
H
3
glass
bottle cobalt
€50
%
7
R18
surf
H
1
glass
battle cobalE
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -125

Artifact Inventory
State Site
f
Bag
Artif
act
Lanclfcxm
Shovel
Tt"t
Era
media
n
Nu
rtb,
Material
Type
Cxnrr�rtt
]so
-7t}
Rls
surf
H
i
glass
bcxtlefrky,tcd
W
5D
SI
R1N
surf
H
I
glass
bottle hosted
fS
=0
Rils
i $LSrt
H
2
hia4ti
bottle frCY,,ted
15U
21
t
R7
20SW
P
I
chert
flake frig bitacinb terminal
cc3aatal plain
fSO
7
ead
surf
H
1940
3
ceramic
irnmtone
NA
i
124
I
crz,-kbed
surf
H
ls62
I
ceramic
Porcelain soft paste
Anson County Phase I Survey Page -126

APPENDIX 4: RESUME OF KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
Anson County Phase I Survey Page - 127

JGEL D. GUNN
Garrow & Associates, Inc.
Education
Ph.D. in Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, 1974.
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Kansas, 1971.
B.A. in History, University of Kansas, 1968.
Specializations
Archaeology: Lithic analysis, Settlement Patterns, Numerical Analysis, Data
Management.
History: Population Movements, Bricks, Ethnohistory.
Climatology: Global -Regional Climatic Impacts, Tree rings, Hydrology, Social
Impacts.
Professional Memberships
North Carolina Archaeological Council Sigma Xi American Anthropological
Association Society for American Archaeology American Historical Society
International Quaternary Association Plains Conference Texas Archaeological
Society The Association for Field Archaeology Southern Texas Archaeological
Association Council of Texas Archaeology Great Basin Archaeological Conference
North Carolina Archaeological Society
Professional Experience
1991-Present Archaeologist, Garrow & Associates, Raleigh
1989-1991 Archaeologist / Climatologist, Office Chief, Brockington and Associates,
Inc., Chapel Hill, NC.
1987-1988 Visiting Instructor, Department of Anthropology, Duke University,
Durham, NC.

Ga.rrow & Associates -Page 2
1980-1989 Associate Professor, Division of Social Sciences, University of Texas- San
Antonio.
1975-1980 Assistant Professor, Division of Social Sciences, University of Texas- San
Antonio.
1975 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of
Texas- Austin.
1974 Associate Research Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pittsburgh.
1974 Instructor, Department of Urban and Political Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA.
1973-1977 Research Assistant, University of Pittsburgh Archaeological Field School,
Meadowcroft Rock Shelter, Pennsylvania.
197.3-1974 Teaching Fellow, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
Field Experience
1991-Present Archaeologist/Project Director, Garrow & Associates, Phase 1, Dixie
Recycling Landfill, Hancock County Georgia (Principal Investigator and
author); Phase 11, Site 38DR149 Dorchester County, South Carolina (Principal
Investigator and author); Phase II, Site 38DR74 Dorchester County, South
Carolina (Principal Investigator and author); Phase I, Henry County Landfill,
Henry County Virginia (Principal Investigator and author); Phase I, Anson
County Regional Landfill, Anson County North Carolina (Principal
Investigator and author); Phase II, Site 31CY42, Clay County, North Carolina
(Principle Investigator and author); Archaeological Reconnaissance, Sampson
County Landfill Expansion, Sampson County, North Carolina (Principle
Investigator and author).
1989-1991 Archaeologist, Brockington and Associates, Inc. Satterwhite Point
(31VN102) Richard Henderson Home Data Recovery, (Author)
Archaeological Survey: Town of Ellerbe CDBG Wastewater Line, Richmond
County, North Carolina (Principal Investigator and author) Archaeological
Survey and Reconnaissance at Uwharrie Point, Montgomery County, North
Carolina (Principal Investigator and co-author). Intensive Sample Survey of
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina (Co -principal investigator).
Historical and Archaeological Survey of the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir, Wilkes
County, North Carolina (Field Director, Author) Archaeological Survey of
the US 421 Improvements in Yadkin County, North Carolina (Field Director,
Author) Assessment of 12 Sites at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Facility,
Onslow County, North Carolina (Field Director, Author).

Garrow & Associates -Page 3
1987 L'Haute de L'Arche Archaeological Survey, Burgundy, France (Field
Supervisor).
1976-1.989 Director / Principal Investigator, University of Texas- San Antonio
(Partial list) Excavations at the Alamo Shrine (Director) Peason Ridge Data
Recovery Project, Fort Polk, Louisiana (Principal Investigator) Eagle Hill
Data Recovery Project, Fort Polk, Louisiana (Principal Investigator) Bayou
Zourie Survey Project, Fort Polk, Louisiana (Principal Investigator)
Tennessee -Tombigbee Early Man and Environments (Co -Principal
Investigator) Archaeological Investigations at Choke Canyon, Three Rivers
County, Texas (Co -Principal Investigator) LBJ Historical Park Project, Texas
(Principal Investigator) Sams Valley Project, Texas (Director) Moccasin
Confluence Project, Texas (Principal Investigator) Hop Hill Project, Texas
(Principal Investigator) .
1973-1977 University of Pittsburgh Co -Director, Archaeological Field School Field
Supervisor, Archaeological Field School, Meadowcroft Rock Shelter,
Pennsylvania.
1973 Field Assistant, Khrysokou Valley Survey, Cyprus.
1972 Field Assistant, Lind Coulee Early Man Project, Warden, Washington.
1968-1969 Field Assistant, Le Malpas [France] Project, University of Kansas.
1967 Kansas Archaeological Field School.
Papers, Publications, And Reports
1970 Use of Computers in Mapping Archaeological Data. Plains
Anthropologist 15-49:219-228.
1971 Research in Theory and Method of Functional Classification for
Paleolithic Burins. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Kansas, Lawrence.
1974 (with James M. Adovasio) Prehistoric North American Basketry. Nevada
State Museum Anthropological Papers.
1974 (with J. Adovasio, G. Fry, and J. Zakucia) The Boarts Site: A Lithic Workshop
in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Memoir of The Pennsylvania
Archaeologist.
1975 Idiosyncratic Behavior in Chipping Style: Some Hypotheses and Preliminary
Analysis. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by
Earl Swanson. Mouton, London.
1975 An Envirotechnological System for Hogup Cave. American Antiquity 40(1).

Garrow & Associates -Page 4
1975 (with J. Adovasio, G. Fry and R. Maslowski) Prehistoric and Historic
Settlement Patterns of Western Cyprus with a Discussion of Cypriote
Neolithic Stone Tool Technology. National Geographic Society Research
Reports.
1975 The Hogup System: A Causal Analysis of Prehistoric Envirotechnical
Interaction in the Western Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
1975 (with J. Adovasio) Basketry and Basketmakers at Antelope House. Kiva
41(1).
1975 Dynamic Typology: A Model for Functional Classification of Prehistoric
Stone Tools with an Application to French Paleolithic Burins. Newsletter of
Lithic Technology IV(3).
1975 (with J. Adovasio, G. Fry and R. Maslowski) Prehistoric and Historic
Settlement Patterns of Western Cyprus with a Discussion of Cypriote
Neolithic Stone Tool Technology. World Archaeology 16(3).
1975 (with Elton R. Prewitt) Automatic Classification: West Texas Projectile
Points. Plains Anthropologist 20-68.
1975 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath) Excavations at
Meadowcroft Rock Shelter, 1973-1974: A Progress Report. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 45(3).
1975 (with D. White, M. Burton and L. Brudner) Implicational Structures in the
Sexual Division of Labor. University of California- Irvine School of Social
Sciences Social Sciences Working Paper 83.
1976 (with J. Adovasio, G. Fry and R. Maslowski) Prehistoric and Historic
Settlement Patterns of Western Cyprus. Reports of the Cyprus Museum.
1976 The Sollberger Distribution: Analysis and Application of a Tool Reduction
Sequence. La Tierra 3(4).
1976 (with F. Weir) Tool Kit Hypotheses: A Case of Numerical Induction. Lithic
Technology V(3).
1977 (with J. Adovasio) Style, Basketry and Basketmakers. In The Individual in
Prehistory, edited by J. Hill and J. Gunn. Academic Press, New York.
1977 Idiosyncratic Chipping Style as a Demographic Indicator: A Proposed
Application to the South Hills Region of Southeastern Idaho and Northern
Utah. In The Individual in Prehistory, edited by J. Hill and J. Gunn.
Academic Press, New York.
1977 (with R. Carlisle) Idiosyncratic Behavior in the Manufacture of Hand
Wrought Nails. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, edited by
Stanley South. Academic Press, New York.

Garrow & Associates -Page 5
1977 Hop Hill: Culture and Climatic Change in Central Texas, University o
Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Special Report 5.
1977 (edited with J. Hill) The Individual in Prehistory. Academic Press, New
York.
1977 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath) Meadowcroft Rockshelter:
A 16,000 Year Chronicle. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironsnents in
Northeastern North America, edited by W. Newmand and B. Salwen.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science 288;137-159.
1977 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath) Meadowcroft Rockshelter:
Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47(2-3).
1978 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.Guilday and K,Lord)
Meadowcroft Rockshelter. In Early Man in the new World from a
CircumPaci fic Perspective, edited by A. Bryan, pp. 140-180. University of
Alberta Department of Anthropology, Edmonton.
1978 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath) Meadowcroft Rockshelter
1977: An Overview. American. Antiquity 43(4).
1978 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.Guilday and K.Lord)
Excavations at Meadowcroft Rockshelter: 1973-1977, In Early Man in the
New World, edited by R. Humphrey. Anthropological Society of
Washington.
1978 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, and P. Storck) A Guidebook
for the 1978 Geological Society of America Field Trip. Geological Society of
America.
1978 (with T. Hester and J. Ivey) Predictive Models. In An Archaeological Survey
of the Radium Springs Area, edited by T. Hester. University of Texas- San
Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Archaeological Survey Report
26.
1978 (editor) Papers in Applied Anthropology. The University of Texas- San
Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Non -Serial Publications 4.
1978 Troubled Times: Cultures Astride Shifting Climates and Sliding Resources. In
Papers in Applied Anthropology, edited by J. Gunn. The University of
Texas-
1978 (with L. Scruggs and N. Hitzfelder) The Hitzfelder Bone Collection. La
Tierra 5(2).
1979 Occupational Frequency Simulation on a Broad Ecotone. In
Transformations: A Mathematical Approach to Culture Change, edited by C.
Renfrew and K. Cooke. Academic Press, New York.
1979 (edited with R. Mahula) Impact: The Effect of Climatic Change on Modern
and Prehistoric Cultures in Texas. University of Texas- San Antonio Center
for Archaeological Research Special Publication.

Garrow & Associates -Page 6
1979 (assembler) Impact of Ch'inatic Change, Working Papers. University of
Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research.
1979 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.Guilday and. K.Lord)
Meadowcroft Rockshelter- Retrospective 1977: Part 1. North American
Archaeologist 1(1).
1980 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.Guilday and K.Lord)
Meadowcroft Rockshelter- Retrospective 1977: Part 11. North American
Archaeologist 1(2).
1981 (edited with G. Muto) A Study of Late Quaternary Environments and Early
Klan along the Tombigbee River, Alabama and Mississippi. Southeast
Region, National Park Service, Atlanta.
1981 Seasonal Dynamics Model of Climate Change for the Northern Gulf Coast.
Environmental and Cultural Services, Inc., San Antonio, Texas.
1981 (with R.E.W. Adams) Climate Change, Culture, and Civilization in North
America. World Archaeology 13(1).
1981 (with K. Jolly) Terrain Analysis and Settlement Pattern Survey: Lipper
Bayou Zourie, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Survey Report 1. Environmental and
Cultural Services, Inc. San Antonio, Texas.
1982 (with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath) The Meadowcroft
Rockshelter/Cross Creek Archaeological Project: Retrospect 1982. In
Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft .Rockshelter and the
Cross Creek Drainage, edited by R. Carlisle and J. Adovasio. Department of
Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
1982 (with E. Frkuska and R. Mahula) Computer Documentation: A Guide to the
Collection, Storage, and Retrieval of the Phase I Data. Appendix IV of
Archaeological .Investigations at Choke Canyon Reservoir, South Texas: the
Phase I Findings, edited by G. Hall, S. Black, and C. Graves. The University
of Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Choke Canyon
Series 5.
1982 (with T. Hester, R. Jones, R. Robinson and R. Mahula) Climate Change in
Southern Texas. Appendix VII of Archaeological Investigations at Choke
Canyon Reservoir, South Texas: the Phase I Findings, edited by G. Hall, S.
Black, and C. Graves. The University of Texas- San Antonio Center for
Archaeological Research Choke Canyon Series 5.
1982 (with D. Brown) Eagle Hill: A Late Quaternary Upland Site in Western
Louisiana. The University of Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological
Research Special Publication 12.

Garrow & Associates -Page 7
1982
Form and Environment: Historical and Cultural Landscape Study of Sall
Antonio Missions. Environmental and Cultural Services, Inc., San
Antonio, Texas.
1982
Paleographical and Related Research on the San Antonio Missions
Landscape. In The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park: A
Commitment to Research, edited by G. Cruz. San Antonio Mission
National Historical Park, San Antonio, Texas.
1982
(with W. Folan, J. Eaton and R. Patch) Paleoclimatological Patterning in
Southern Mesoamerica. fournai of Field Archaeology 10.
1983
(with J. Adovasio, J. Donahue, Cushman, R. Carlisle, R. Stuckenrath and
Johnson) Evidence from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. In Early Man in the
New World, edited by R. Shutler Jr., pp. 163-190. Sage Publications.
1983
(with W. Folan, J. Eaton and R. Patch) La Prehistoria e Historia de los Mayas,
Desde El Punto de Vista de Su Paleoclimatologica, Politica y Organizacion
Soicioeconomica. Revista Mexicana De Estudios Antropologicos XXXIX:a.
1983
The San Antonio Missions Landscape Study in Retrospect. Annual Semana
De Las Missiones Research Seminar Report. San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park, San Antonio, Texas.
1983
(with J. Guy) Settlement Patterns in the Fort Polk Region. Center For
Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
1984
(edited with A. Kerr) Occupation and Settlement in the Uplands of Western
Louisiana. The University of Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological
Research Special Report 17.
1986
(with A. Kerr) The Flake Width Chronology Study. In Cultural Resource
Investigations in the Proposed Multi -Purpose Range Complex, Fort Polk,
Vernon Parish, Louisiana, Edited by C. Campbell and C. Weed. New World
Research, Inc. Report of Investigations 85-6.
1986
An Experimental Tree -Ring Dating of a Possible Spanish Colonial Building
in the Proposed Applewhite Reservoir Area. In Chipped Stone and Adobe:
A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Applewhite Reservoir,
Southwest Bexar County, Texas, edited by A. McGraw and K. Hindes. The
University of Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research
Archaeological Survey Report 163.
1986
(edited with A. Kerr) Occupation and Settlement in the Lower
Fredericksburg Basin of the Edwards Plateau. The University of Texas- San
Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Special Report 15.
1986
Fort Burgwin Tree -Ring Seminar. The University of Texas- San Antonio
Center for Archaeological Research Friends of Archaeology Newsletter 3.

Garrow & Associates -Page 8
1986 (with J. Adovasio) The Antelope House Basketry Industry. In Archaeological
Investigations at Antelope House, edited by D. Morris. U.S. Department of
Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
1987 The Scientific Interaction Model as a Metaphor for Classroom Teaching. In
Teaching Effectively, edited by H. Aristar-Dry, G. Cook and M. Martinello.
The University of Texas- San Antonio.
1987 Sediment and Surface Analysis of a Locality in the Cottonwood Creek
Watershed. In Archaeological Mitigation at Soil Conservation Service Site
Number 8, Cottonwood -Walnut Watershed, Chaves and Eddy Counties,
New Mexico, edited by S. Katz. PRIAM, Kampsville, Illinois.
1987 Research Hypotheses. In Archaeological Mitigation at 41 BX300, Salado
Creek Watershed, South -Central Texas, edited by P. Katz. The University of
Texas- San Antonio Center for Archaeological Research Archaeological
Survey Report 130.
1987 The Redford Diaries. Distributed by J. Gunn.
1987 (with C. Crumley) Prospections dans le Haute-Morvan: Rapport Annuel de
1'Equipe Americaine. Submitted to the Base Archaeologic de Mont Beuvray
en Glux, France.
1988 (with R. Tringham, A. McPherron and G. Odell) The Flaked Stone Industry
from Divostin and Banja. In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia,
edited by A. McPherron, pp. 203-253. The University of Pittsburgh Ethnology
Monographs 10.
1988 (with A. McPherron) Quantitative Analysis of Excavated Materials at
Divostin. In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by A.
McPherson, pp. 359-377. The University of Pittsburgh Ethnology
Monographs 10.
1990 (with C. Espenshade) Site Specific Survey of Twelve Sites, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., prepared for the
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers.
1990 (with E. Poplin) Archaeological Sample Survey of the US 421 Improvements
(TIP R- 2120A), Yadkin County, North Carolina. Brockington and
Associates, Inc., prepared for NCDOT.
1990 (with M. Roberts, B. Lucas, and E. Poplin) Archaeological Sample Survey of
the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir, Wilkes County, North Carolina. Brockington
and Associates, Inc., prepared for the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers.
1990 The Effect of Global Climatic Change on the Middle Pecos Region of New
Mexico and Texas. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Global Impact Report
No. 1, prepared for Paul and Susan Katz, PRIAM, Kampsville IL 62053.

Garrow & Associates -Page 9
1990
Time -Transgressive Interaction of Global Climate, Regional Climates and
Biocultures. In Human Ecology, C. Crumley , editor, School of American
Research , Sante Fe.
1990
Archaeological Survey: Town of Ellerbe CDBG Wastewater Line, Richmond
County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
1.991
Influences of Various Forcing Variables on Global Energy Balance During the
Period of Intensive Instrumental Observation (1953-1987) and Their
Implications for Paleochmate. Climatic Change 16.
1991
(with C. Crumley) Global Energy Balance and Regional Hydrology: A
Burgundian Case Study. Landscape Ecological Impacts of Global Climatic
Change. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 16(7):579-592.
1991
(with L. Abbott and J. Hendrickson) The Richard Henderson Home:
Archaeological Data Recovery at Satterwhite Point (31 VN102), Vance
County, North Carolina. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District.
1991
(with M. D. Robert, B. Lucas, C. J. Poplin, and E. C. Poplin) Historical and
Archaeological Survey and Historical Properties Management Plan for W.
Kerr Scott Reservoir„ Wilkes County, North Carolina. Submitted to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
1991
Phase II Archaeological Investigations of Site 38DR74 in the Proposed Drain
Field of the Dakridge Landfill, Dorchester County, South Carolina.
Submitted to Chambers of South Carolina, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina.
1991
Phase II Archaeological Investigations of Site 38DR149 at the Dakridge
Landfill, Dorchester County, South Carolina. Submitted to Chambers
Oakridge Landfill, Smyrna, Georgia.
1991
(with J. Holland) Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Henry
County Landfill, Henry County, Virginia. Submitted Development
Company, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1992
(with K. J. Wilson) Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the James
Island K-Mart, Charleston County, South Carolina. Submitted to G. Robert
George & Associates, Inc., Charleston, South Carolina.
1992
(with K. J. Wilson) Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Anson
County Regional Landfill, Anson County, North Carolina. Submitted to
Chambers of North Carolina, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
1992
Phase II Archaeological Investigations of the Sellers Site (31CY42), Chatuge
Dam Infusion Weir, Clay County, North Carolina. Submitted to the
Tennessee Valley Authority, Cultural Resources Program, Norris, Tennessee.
1992
(with K. J. Wilson) An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the
Sampson County Landfill Expansion, Sampson County, North Carolina.
Submitted to S&ME, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.

Garrow & Associates -Page 10
Works In Preparation
* (with William J. Folan and Hubert R. Robichaux) An Analysis of Discharge Data
from the Rio Candelaria River System: Insights Into Paleoclimates Affecting
* (with William J. Folan) Millennia of Milperos: A Hydrological Response Surface
Analysis of Global -Regional Climates in Southwestern Yucatan, and
Implications for the Past and Future.
*Comments on Paleoindian Symposium: A Framework for the Paleoindian-Early
Archaic Transition.