20191577 Ver 1_303 PCN Submittal 11.13.19_20191118

CLearWater
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www cwenv.com
November 12, 2019
Ms. Amanda Jones Ms. Karen Higgins
US Army Corps of Engineers NC DEQ, Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regulatory Field Office 1617 Mail Service Center
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2638
RE: Project Ranger
Nationwide Permit 14, 25 and Section 10 Permit Application
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Jones and Ms. Higgins:
The attached Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) is being submitted on behalf of property
owner Biltmore Farms, LLC represented by Mr. Lee Thomason. The project site is
comprised of several tracts of land on both sides of the French Broad River in Asheville,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The applicant is seeking a Nationwide Permit 14/ 25
under Section 404 and Section 10 to construct a bridge over the French Broad River.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached PCN and supplemental information
please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800. A copy of this application has been
sent to Ms. Andrea Leslie of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Byron Hamstead
of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this application has also been
sent to Zan Price at the NC Division of Water Resources Asheville Regional Office.
Respectfully,
For,'
Anna Priest, P.W.S.
Project Manager
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
Attachments:
Attachment A — Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
Attachment B — Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Attachment C — Cultural Resources Phase 1 Report
Copy Furnished:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission — Andrea Leslie
US Fish and Wildlife — Byron Hamstead
NC Division of Water Resources — Zan Price
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828-698-9800 Tel

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- 2019-01867 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Ranger - Biltmore Farms
2. Work Type: ❑✓ Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and B3e]:
Three parcels +/- 450 acres in size. Proposed bridge over the French Broad River for Industrial development.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Biltmore Farms LLC
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: 2016-01112
7. Project Location —Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
The project site is made of +/- 4 acres located at 1600 Brevard Rd, Asheville, in Buncombe County,
North Carolina (approximate address). 35.502510,-82.593781
8. Project Location— Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B la]:9635-07-4195-00000, 9635-07-7222-00000,
9635-48-9207-00000;9635-54-9699-00000
Buncombe County
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]:
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Asheville
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: French Broad River
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]: French Broad - 06010105
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CLearWaLer
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scott McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
-and-
NC DWR, Webscape Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1, the current landowner/managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize
CIearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the
processing of jurisdictional determination requests and permits to impact Wetlands and Water of
the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information as
needed at the request of the USACE or DWR.
Additionally, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting onsite investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Property Owner of Record:
Property Owner Address: OWE. 7M-*4Q Ab %Yt2, !%AM,17-h -2
Phone Number: 2
Email address: Rhol7ia Dii 1 W�Df ( , GaWj
Property Location: O - ol= OC,
Owner/Managing partner Signatu
Owner/Managing printed name:
Date: I I acy M
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: [phone]
www.cwenv.com

Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
Web Property Record Card
9635-48-9207-00000
ti -a
<< Back to Parcel Details Date Printed: 11/6/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 113,500
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
8/8/1994
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
0221 / 9036
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
PLAT
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
UNDEVELOPED TRACT
City:
Neighborhood:
BILTMORE ESTATE AREA
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
Y
Ownership History
transfer Date I Price Legal Rcfercncej Deed Book/Pagel Qualified Vacant When Soldl Seller Names
)8/08/94 $o PLAT 0221 / 9036 No: C No BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
445.09
11,127,300
0
0
11,127,300
0
11,013,800
113,500
2oi8
445.09
11,127,300
0
0
11,127,300
0
11,013,800
113,500
2017
445.09
11,127,300
0
0
11,127,300
0
11,013,800
113,500
2016
445•09
6,053,200
0
0
6,053,200
0
5,908,500
144,700
2015
445•09
6,053,200
0
0
6,053,200
0
5,908,500
144,700
2014
445•09
6,053,200
0
0
6,053,200
0
5,908,500
144,700
2013
445•09
6,053,200
0
0
6,053,200
0
5,908,500
144,700
2012
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2011
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2010
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2009
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
20o8
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2007
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2006
445•09
6,409,300
0
0
6,409,300
0
6,274,400
134,900
2005
445.09
2,243,300
0
0
2,243,300
0
2,108,400
134,900
2004
445.09
2,243,300
0
0
2,243,300
0
2,108,400
134,900
2003
445.09
2,243,300
0
0
2,243,300
0
2,108,400
134,900
2002
445.09
2,243,300
0
0
2,243,300
0
2,108,400
134,900
2001
445.091,505,300
0
0
1,505,300
0
1,373,600
131,700
Land Data Total Acres: 445.09 Land Value:
Acreage 11,127,300
Other Value: o
Improvements
Segment*
I Units
Description
Present Use
1
445.09 Acreage
I LOT IN AC
F-PRESENT-USE/F
Total Building Value: o
1 of 1 11/6/2019, 2:45 PM

11 /7/2019 Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
Web Property Record Card
9635-54-9699-00000
« Back to Parcel Details
Date Printed: 11/7/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 107,000
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
8/8/1994
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
0221 / 9036
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
PLAT
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
UNDEVELOPED TRACT
City:
Neighborhood:
BILTMORE ESTATE AREA
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
N
Ownership History
Transfer Date Price Legal Reference Deed Book/Page Qualified Vacant When Sold Seller Names
D8/o8/94 $o PLAT 0221 / 9036 No: C No BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
419.64
5,707,100
0
0
5,707,100
0
5,600,loo
107,000
2o18
419.64
5,707,100
0
0
5,707,100
0
5,600,loo
107,000
2017
419.64
5,707,100
0
0
5,707,100
0
5,600,loo
107,000
2o16
419.64
2,282,800
o
0
2,282,800
0
2,146,400
136,400
2015
419.64
2,282,800
0
0
2,282,800
0
2,146,400
136,400
2014
419.64
2,282,800
0
0
2,282,800
0
2,146,400
136,400
2013
419.64
2,282,800
0
jo
2,282,800
o
2,146,400
136,400
2012
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2011
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2010
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2009
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2oo8
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2007
419.64
2,311,400
0
10
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
1112,900
2oo6
419.64
2,311,400
0
0
2,311,400
0
2,198,500
112,900
2005
419.64
2,115,000
0
0
2,115,000
0
2,002,100
112,900
2004
419.64
2,115,000
0
0
2,115,000
0
2,002,100
112,900
2003
419.64
2,115,000
0
0
2,115,000
0
2,002,100
112,900
2002
419.64
2,115,000
O
0
2,115,000
O
2,002,100
112,900
2001
419.64
1,340,300
1 0
10
1,340,3001
10
11,231,000
1109,300
Land Data Total Acres: 419.64 Land Value:
Acreage 5,707,100
Other Value: o
Improvements
Segment#
Units
IDescription
Present Use
1
419.64 Acreage
I RESID LND-AC I
F-PRESENT-KSE/F
Total Building Value: o
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx 1/1

10/16/2019 Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
3 Web Property Record Card
9635-07-4195-00000
« Back to Parcel Details
Date Printed: 1o/16/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 34,600
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
7/30/1979
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
1222 / o645
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
TRANSFER BY DEED
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
RES BLDG LOT
City:
Neighborhood:
BREVARD ROAD RURAL
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
Y
Ownership History
Transfer Date
I Price
I Legal Reference
I Deed Book/Page
I Qualified
IVacant When Sold
I Seller Names
07/30/79
$o
TRANSFER BY DEED
1 1222 / o645
No: C
No
BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2o18
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2017
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2o16
0.70
24,800
o
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2015
0.70
24,8000
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2014
0.70
24,800
o
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2013
0.70
124,8000
0
24,8o0
0
0
24,800
2012
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2011
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2010
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2009
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
242500
2oo8
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2007
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2oo6
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2005
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
9,400
2004
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
92400
2003
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
9,400
2002
0.70
19,400
10
10
19,400
0
10
9,400
2001
0.70
14,700
10
10
14,700
10
10
4,700
Land Data Total Acres: 0.7 Land Value:
Acreage 34,60o
Segment# Units IDescription
1 0.7 Acreage LOT IN AC
Other Value: o
Improvements
Total Building Value: o
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx 1/1

10/16/2019 Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
3 Web Property Record Card
9635-07-7222-00000
Ay
« Back to Parcel Details
Date Printed: 10/16/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 65,700
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
7/30/1979
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
1222 / 0645
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
TRANSFER BY DEED
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
RES BLDG LOT
City:
Neighborhood:
BREVARD ROAD RURAL
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
Y
Ownership History
Transfer Date
I Price
I Legal Reference
I Deed Book/Page
I Qualified
IVacant When Sold
I Seller Names
07/30/79
$o
TRANSFER BY DEED
1 1222 / o645
No: C
No
BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2018
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2017
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2016
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2015
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2014
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2013
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2012
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2011
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2010
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2009
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2008
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2007
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2006
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2005
2.90
542400
0
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2004
2.90
542400
0
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2003
2.90
54,40010
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2002
2.90
54,40010
0
154,400
0
0
154,400
200112.90
34,40010
0
134,400
0
10
1349400
Land Data Total Acres: 2.9 Land Value:
Acreage 65,700
Segment# Units IDescription
1 2.9 Acreage I LOT IN AC
Other Value: o
Improvements
Total Building Value: o
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx 1/1

a`'oF wArEgQc
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑X Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 and 25 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Project Ranger
2b.
County:
Buncombe
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Asheville
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Biltmore Farms, LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
0221/9036 ; 1222/0645
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Attn: Lee Thomason
3d.
Street address:
One Town Sq Blvd, Suite 330
3e.
City, state, zip:
Asheville, NC 28803
3f.
Telephone no.:
828-209-2000
3g.
Fax no.:
N/A
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Clement Riddle
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
32 Clayton Street
5d.
City, state, zip:
Asheville, NC 28801
5e.
Telephone no.:
828-698-9800
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
9635074195; 9635077222; 9635489207; 9635549699
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.502816 Longitude:-82.592459
1 c.
Property size:
448 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
French Broad
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
French Broad 06010105
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
See Attached Supplemental Information.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.891
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 13,572
3d.
See
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Attached Supplemental Information.
3e.
See
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Attached Supplemental Information.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: 445 ac site
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑X Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Kaylie Yankura, Kevin Mitchell, & Clement Riddle
Agency/Consultant Company: Clearwater Env.Consultants
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
2016-01112 Approved JD October 20, 2016 issued by William Elliott.
Included in this application is a PJD request for two additional parcels owned by Biltmore Farms on the west bank of the French Broad. Attachment A
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes/No
Corps
0.067
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.067
2h. Comments:
W1 - During the bridge construction and tie-in to existing grade will require cut and fill grading work which is anticipated to impact the entire
wetland in this area.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Fill
French Broad River
PER
Corps
320
25
S2 T
Fill
French Broad River
PER
Corps
320
116
S3 P
Stabilization
French Broad River
PER
Corps
320
116
S4 -
Choose one
S5 -
Choose one
S6 -
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
247
3i. Comments:
The Temporary impact S2 causeways will be built one at a time an no more than 50% of the river will be blocked at any time. See Attached for
additional information.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B 1
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Attached Supplemental Information.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Attached Supplemental Information.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ❑ No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
9
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
Although the percent imperviousness of the entire tract is less than 24%, a stormwater management plan for the facility will be reviewed and approved
by Buncombe County. The Ranger development will be subdivided onto an approximately 89-acre tract with approximately 39.8 percent
imperviousness.
Buncombe County is a delegated local authority for the review and approval of stormwater management plans.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Buncombe County
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Buncombe County
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑X Yes
❑ No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance
with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
See attached Supplemental Information
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
ltmore
The
proposed facility will connect to an existing sewer line on the Bi Farms property. There are no proposed stream or wetland
impacts to
connect
the facility to the sewer line. Waste water will be treated at the existing municipal facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See Attached Supplemental Information.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
South Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem IMS. Impact will not occur in a marine system.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑X Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See Attached Supplemental Information
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
TGS Engineers, David Petty, is coordinating with FEMA and will be submitting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to FEMA for review and approval.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Map number 3700963500J & 3700963600J, effective date January 6, 2010.
R. Clement Riddle
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 1 of 9
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
B. PROJECT INFORMATION AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
B.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
B.3.a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of
the project at the time of this application:
The site is mostly forested with numerous existing dirt/gravel roads. The site is crossed by Duke
Power Transmission line and the site has an existing MSD sewer line ROW that parallels the river
for the length of the entire tract. Topography in the project vicinity ranges from very steep, rolling
intermountain hills and narrow valleys to wide valleys and stream floodplains associated with the
French Broad River. Elevations on -site range from 1,995 ft. msl at the French Broad River to
approximately 2,210 ft. Land use in the vicinity includes residential, commercial, forested,
agricultural, and recreational.
B.3.d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to provide suitable access to support a proposed industrial
development located in an upland area. The site is currently "land locked" by boundaries of the
French Broad River, the Blue ridge parkway, and Interstate I-26. The project site has limited
narrow -width right- of -way (ROW) gravel road access from the south.
B.3.e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be
used:
Biltmore Farms, the applicant, has proposed the construction of a manufacturing facility on a 445-
acre tract in south Asheville, Buncombe County, NC, referred to as Project Ranger. The site is
located in between I-26, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the French Broad River. Access to the tract
is limited to an existing narrow -width right-of-way (ROW) under the Blue Ridge Parkway and I-
26. In order to access the tract, the applicant proposes to construct a new bridge over the French
Broad River to provide suitable access to the upland areas of the tract for the manufacturing
facility. The proposed bridge is located approximately 1000 feet downstream, north, of the existing
Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge and will tie to NC 191 (Brevard Road) at the intersection with the
Blue Ridge Parkway access road. The bridge and access road will be turned over to NCDOT for
maintenance and upkeep as of March 2021.
The proposed grade of the bridge and roadway approaches will range from elevation 2020 feet to
2050 feet. The proposed grade will be about 30 to 40 feet above the normal water surface of the
river. Anticipated impacts for the project include temporary causeways in the river for
construction of the bridge, permanent bank stabilization on the riverbanks under the bridge and
permanent fill in a wetland (less than 0.1 acre).

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 2 of 9
Traffic speed on the proposed bridge and the road to the facility is anticipated to be 35-40 mph,
with approximately 2000 vehicles/day. Deliveries and shipments are anticipated at one truck per
day. Vehicles per day may increase with future development.
The proposed manufacturing facility will be approximately 750,000 sq. ft. with possible future
expansion areas. The expansion areas will be cleared and graded in association with the initial
phase of work. Parking for approximately 1,200 employees will be provided, with 617 parking
spaces provided initially; future parking is proposed to include another 532 spaces. The applicant
will plat and dedicate an approximately 89-ac. tract out of the larger 445-ac. total tract for the
manufacturing facility.
The proposed road accessing the site will be cleared and graded to accommodate a four -lane road
in future build out conditions, if needed; however, two lanes will be paved at this time.
Work is expected to begin with tree -clearing in the fall/winter of 2019. Bridge work is proposed
to begin in the spring of 2020 and may last until November 2021. Construction of the
manufacturing building is proposed for May 2020-October 2021.
Temporary access to the construction site and the river will be along existing roads: NC 191
(Brevard Road) to the west, and Old River Road (gravel road on Biltmore property) to the east.
Old River Road may require some additional gravel and limited clearing along the edges of the
road as part of the project, which would be limited to the clearing of trees and/or limbs, and would
not involve grubbing of the stumps or grading to widen the roads. No culverts will need to be
replaced on Old River Road. Culverts will be covered with wooden or steel mats temporarily, if
needed. Remaining access should fall within the project footprint. Clearing at the French Broad
River will be minimized as much as practicable.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project may include, but are not limited to,
clearing, grubbing, grading, installation of base material, building construction and installation of
pavement and lighting. Installation of the new bridge footings will require drilling in the riverbed;
pile -driving may be needed for end bents. Earth -moving and road -building equipment of various
kinds and sizes will be utilized to complete the project construction. Earthwork will be needed to
provide a level roadbed and construction area. Project development will occur in phases and all
staging areas are anticipated to be within the limits of disturbance as shown on the study area
Figure 5.0, as the project will balance out cut and fill areas. This includes any staging areas and
borrow/waste areas. The total limits of disturbance are estimated to be 83.8 acres.
Four abandoned buildings will be demolished prior to facility construction. They will be inspected
for bat evidence before demolition begins.

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 3 of 9
Jurisdictional impacts will consist of
• Proposed Stream Impact S 1 - 25 If. of stream impact in the French Broad River for bridge
footings, 5 piers per bent and Piers are 5-foot diameter. Total of 15 piers for the bridge.
Piers are 20 sq. ft. per pier and total 0.007 ac impact.
• Proposed Stream Impact S2 — 1161f. Temporary stream impact in the French Broad River
for temporary work causeways (0.687 ac)
• Proposed Stream Impact S3 - 116 linear feet of Permanent Stream Impact — (0.007 ac.) for
bank stabilization on each side of the French Broad River which will consist of class II
riprap (24-inch thick) keyed into the riverbank
• Proposed Wetland W1 - 0.067 acres of Permanent Wetland Impacts (2,897 square feet).
Tree -clearing
There will be approximately 80.5 acres of tree clearing for Project Ranger. An additional 3.3 acres
will be graded within the limits of disturbance that are not forested.
Tree -clearing in the vicinity of the bridge will total approximately 3.7 ac to accommodate
excavation and bridge construction. On the west side of the river, clearing will run approximately
500 linear feet along river for 1.7 acres. On the east side of the river, clearing will run
approximately 400 linear feet along river for 2.0 acres. Not including the bridge construction site,
tree -clearing limits will extend no closer than 400 ft. from the French Broad River for the
manufacturing facility. On the west bank of the river, there is currently a gap in the canopy that
spans approximately 200 ft., located south of the proposed bridge at Bent Creek River Park. A
230-ft. (approximate) canopy gap occurs on the east side of the river where transmission lines cut
across, with a corresponding gap of 270 ft. on the west side. The remaining riverbanks are forested
within the Action Area.
French Broad River Crossing
The bridge over the French Broad River will be constructed on new location 1,000 ft. north of the
existing Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge. The bridge will be approximately 550 ft. long, compared to
an average river width of approximately 300 ft. Clearance above normal water surface (NWS) will
be 20' to 30'. The proposed grade above NWS will be 30 to 40 ft. A concrete deck and five 110-
ft. long spans are anticipated. It has not been determined yet if the bridge girders will be steel or
concrete. Guardrail design is being coordinated with NPS. The guardrails are anticipated to have
a 1.5 ft tall concrete base with a steel top rail.
The bridge, as proposed, could support up to five lanes of traffic and a pedestrian walkway.
Initially, the bridge will likely be striped for 3 lanes of traffic. It is anticipated that additional lanes
will be required in the future, so the striping would be changed to accommodate this in a cost-
effective manner. If a three -lane bridge was constructed initially, the cost would not be
significantly less (likely 75%) than the cost of the wider bridge. However, if additional lanes were
needed in the future, expanding or retrofitting the bridge to add these lanes would likely be as

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 4 of 9
costly or more expensive as the initial construction. Further, additional impacts in the flood plain
and in the river would be required again.
Excavation will occur adjacent to the river on each bank in order to increase flood storage capacity
and reduce hydrologic impacts. Vegetation clearing will be needed on each side of the river for
the excavation and for bridge construction. Excavation limits in this area generally correspond to
tree clearing limits noted in the previous section, with a total of approximately 3.7 ac.
Impacts for bank stabilization will be 467 sq. ft. (0.011 ac.) in total for both sides of the river,
consisting of class II riprap (24-inch thick) keyed into the riverbank and extending 116 linear ft.
along each bank.
The proposed bridge will have no direct discharge into the river. Stormwater runoff from the
proposed bridge will flow west to grated inlets installed just off the bridge and then be discharged
on riprap dissipater pads at non -erosive velocities at least 30 ft. away from the river. If a deck drain
system is needed to reduce stormwater spread on the bridge, it will likely consist of PVC lines
running along the outer faces of bridge and flowing to the west bridge approach, where it will be
discharged on riprap dissipater pads at least 30 feet away from the river.
Drilling in French Broad River
Investigative drilling for bridge footings will require roughly two 6-inch diameter borings for each
bent to be placed in the water. A maximum of six investigative borings will take place in the
riverbed, assuming a maximum of three bents in the water.
Investigative drilling will be conducted approximately ten hours/day. It will take approximately
two weeks to complete the work in the French Broad River, including set-up time. The drill rig
will sit on the riverbank, if possible, or on a barge that is surrounded by a containment boom to
minimize turbidity.
Once investigative drilling is complete, a maximum of 15 five-foot diameter concrete drilled shafts
piers are anticipated in the river, assuming five per bent with a maximum of three bents in the
water. Total permanent impacts for bridge footings will consist of 300 sq. ft. (0.007 ac.) piers are
anticipated to be <0.01 acres in the French Broad River, each pier is 5 foot diameter, 20 sq. ft. per
pier, with 15 piers. Construction drilling may take up to eight weeks. Drilling noise will vary
depending on the depth of the drill bit and whether any silt or other substrate is present above the
bedrock. When constructing drilled piers for the bridge, a containment system will be developed
so that material does not enter the river.
The drilling fluid will be a mixture of bentonite (a natural, inert clay material) and river water, the
majority of which is recycled, and the output will consist of silt -sized rock dust, which is direct
sediment output from the hole. The drilled core is typically pulled out by crane. Material by-
product will be pumped out of the shaft to an upland disposal area to the extent practicable and
treated through a proper stilling basin or silt bag.

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 5 of 9
Pile driving
Pile -driving is possible as piles are anticipated at the end bents. Pile driving will likely occur during
the MYGR maternity season. It is estimated to take two weeks for each end bent for a total of four
weeks, with no night work. Noise levels from blasting can reach 110 dBA.
Blasting
Blasting may be needed to allow site development for Project Ranger. It is anticipated that 60
total blasts will occur from December 2019 to May 2020. Noise levels from blasting can reach
126 dBA.
River Work Causeways
Temporary rock causeways will be needed to construct the portion of the bridge to be out in the
river. Activities on the causeways will consist of drilling the concrete piers, constructing the
concrete caps at each bent, and setting the spans. Use of a temporary work bridge is not practical
due to the shallow depth to rock below the riverbed, which would require drilling temporary
concrete piers down into rock out in the river. The temporary work bridge spans would be much
shorter than are feasible with a permanent structure, likely resulting in at least eight temporary
bents in the water (as opposed to the three proposed permanently). These would ultimately have
to be demolished down to the streambed and abandoned. This would result in a substantially
higher cost, longer construction duration and longer duration for construction impacts. Causeway
footprints will be the minimum necessary to construct the bridge, and side slopes will be
maximized (approximately 1.5:1) to reduce their size and impact to the river. The total causeway
footprints are estimated to be 116 linear ft. in the direction of river flow and expected to extend
out in the river 170 ft. and 100 ft. from the west and east banks, respectively, resulting in a 0.69-
acre temporary impact. They will have a bench elevation of approximately 2001 ft., compared to
a normal water surface elevation of 1999 ft. The causeway will consist of Class II riprap (maximum
size of 24 in.) or larger, to minimize loss during storm events. If a cap or surface layer is used, it
will consist of class B riprap (maximum size of 12 in.) or larger.
The two causeways will be phased as necessary to ensure that total streamflow blockage will be
no more than 50% of the river at a time. The length of time in water for the construction causeways
is estimated to be 19 months. Solar -powered red safety lighting will be used on the causeways
and the public will be notified prior to causeway placement to ensure boater safety.
Once bridge construction is complete, causeways will be removed from the river to the extent
practicable, while removing as little of the original riverbed as possible. After the causeways are
removed, permanent bank stabilization will be left in place and/or installed along the banks of the
river under the bridge. This will consist of Class II riprap (24-inch thick) keyed into the riverbanks,
which is anticipated to extend 116 linear ft. along each bank.

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 6 of 9
Utilities
There will be no impacts to stream or wetlands for the installation of new utilities. The
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) sewer line runs parallel to the French Broad on the east
side of the river. A right-of-way (ROW) to the proposed manufacturing facility will extend uphill,
away from the river, with a 50-foot wide corridor extending roughly 800 feet. Water and gas lines
will be attached to the new bridge and run along the road alignment. Both will connect to existing
lines at the NC 191 interchange.
D.I. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
D.La. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in
designing project.
The following alternatives analysis was conducted to evaluate avoidance and minimization of impacts for
the proposed bridge crossing over the French Broad River connecting existing NC Highway 191 on the
west side of the river to Biltmore Farms parcel on the east side of the river.
Alternative I (Preferred- described above)
Proposed bridge would be located 1,000 feet downstream of the existing Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge and
tie to NC 191 at the intersection with the Blue Ridge Parkway access road. Proposed grade of bridge and
roadway approaches would range from elevation 2020 feet to 2050 feet. Proposed grade would be about
30 to 40 feet above the normal water surface of the river. Anticipated impacts include temporary causeways
in the river for construction of the bridge, permanent bank stabilization on the riverbanks under the bridge
and permanent fill in a wetland (0.067 acre). This alternative is contained entirely within Biltmore Farms
owned property on both sides of the river. This is the only location where Biltmore Farms owns all the
land between NC 191 and the river.
Alternative 2
Proposed alternative bridge 2 would be located approximately 1700 feet downstream of the existing Blue
Ridge Parkway Bridge and connect to NC 191 1100 feet north of the intersection with the Blue Ridge
Parkway access road. Proposed grade of bridge and roadway approaches would range from elevation 2050
feet to 2150 feet. Proposed grade would be about 100 to 120 feet above the normal water surface of the
river due to the surrounding topography. Due to these grade and height changes, this alternative would be
substantially more expensive and more difficult to both construct and maintain. Construction would require
an increase in the duration of temporary causeways in the river as compared to Alternative 1. Anticipated
stream impacts include similar temporary causeways in the river for construction of the bridge, permanent
bank stabilization on the riverbanks under the bridge and permanent fill in an unnamed tributary to the river
(approx. 200 linear feet). Additional impacts are possible as jurisdictional features were not delineated on
the west side of the river. Approximately 100 linear feet of this alternative corridor is within land under
contract by a California developer. This alternative was not selected due added bridge costs and longer
construction timeline along with similar stream and wetland impacts.
Alternative 3
Proposed alternative bridge 3 would be located approximately 3000 feet downstream of the existing Blue
Ridge Parkway Bridge and tie to NC 1912200 feet north of the intersection with the Blue Ridge Parkway
access road. Proposed grade of bridge and roadway approaches would range from elevation 2060 feet to
2130 feet. Proposed grade would be about 90 to 110 feet above the normal water surface of the river due

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 7 of 9
to the surrounding topography. Due to these grade and height changes, this alternative would be
substantially more expensive and more difficult to both construct and maintain. Construction would require
an increase in the duration of temporary causeways in the river as compared to Alternative 1. Anticipated
stream impacts include similar temporary causeways in the river for construction of the bridge, permanent
bank stabilization on the riverbanks under the bridge, permanent fill in Boring Mill Branch (approx. 300
linear feet) and permanent fill in an unnamed tributary to the river (approx. 500 linear feet). Additional
stream and wetland impacts are possible as jurisdictional features were not delineated on the west side of
the river. Approximately 500 linear feet of this alternative corridor is within land under contract by a
California developer. This alternative was not selected due added bridge costs and longer construction
timeline along with significantly higher stream impacts.
Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative to minimize jurisdictional impacts, to avoid property
ownership concerns, to minimize the duration of temporary causeways in the river and to reduce cost of
construction and maintenance.
D.Lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts
through construction techniques.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project will be conducted in a manner to avoid and
minimize any additional impacts as much as possible. Specific measures include:
• Access to the construction site and the river will mostly be along existing roads with minor
maintenance.
• Investigative drilling will be conducted approximately ten hours/day. It will take approximately
two weeks to complete the work in the French Broad River, including set-up time. The drill rig will
sit on the riverbank, if possible, or on a barge that is surrounded by a containment boom to minimize
turbidity.
• The two causeways will be phased, so that only one will be in place at a time. Total streamflow
blockage will be no more than 50% of the river at a time.
• The causeway will most likely consist of class 11 riprap (maximum size of 24 in.), with a surface
of class B rock (maximum size of 12 in.), so it will not wash away during storm events.
• Pile -driving will not occur at night to minimize disturbance to bats.
• No culverts along the access road will be replaced. Existing culverts will be covered with wooden
or steel mats temporarily, if needed.
• The project has avoided 13,5721f. of stream
• The project has avoided 2.824 acres of wetlands
E.2 Stormwater Management Plan - Impervious Surfaces
The proposed impervious area on the Biltmore Farms Tract north of the Blue Ridge Parkway will
be 35.46 ac. for the manufacturing facility, access road and associated round -about. There will be
an additional 2.2 acres for the bridge and road approach, extending 1000 ft from NC 191, for a
total of 39.8 ac. Post -construction, the 445-ac. tract will consist of 39.8% impervious surfaces.
Two post -construction stormwater ponds are proposed. Per the request of the Wildlife Resources
Commission in an on -site pre -application meeting on November 7, 2019, stormwater pond outlets
will be diverted away from wetlands and will discharge adjacent to nearby streams.

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 8 of 9
A stormwater management plan will be reviewed and approved by Buncombe County. Buncombe
County is a delegated local authority for the review and approval of stormwater management plans.
F. Supplementary Information — 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps
Requirement) - Sd. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact
Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
The applicant reviewed USFWS online and NC Natural Heritage Data Program GIS data. The
applicant is in formal consultation with the USFWS regarding the Appalachian elktoe and Gray
Bat. A Biological Assessment is being prepared by Three Oaks Engineering and will be submitted
directly to the USFWS and Corps. A review of endangered species and onsite habitat for other
listed species was performed by C1earWater Environmental Consultants. A copy of this report
dated October 24, 2019 is included (Attachment B).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or
archeological resources?
National Park Service, NRHP and NC Dept of Cultural Resources HPOWeb. TRC is conducting
a comprehensive cultural resources evaluation of the project area. TRC prepared the report
Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation On The Biltmore Park West Tract For Project Ranger,
Buncombe County, North Carolina Part 1: Proposed Development Site And Existing Access
Roads, November 19 (Attachment C) Additional reports for Phase 2 Entrance Road and Phase 3
Bridge Area are being prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible.
Richard Grubb & Associates is conducting a review of historical sites. All reports will be
forwarded to the Corps and SHPO for review.
F3.b. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a
qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ
policy. If you answered "no, "provide a short narrative description.
The Biltmore Farms Bridge project site is located within the French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-
02. Approximately 75 percent of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes
approximately 806 square miles (516,000 acres). The bridge project area comprises approximately
90 acres (0.15 square miles). Construction of the bridge will open up access to approximately 425
acres (0.7 square miles) on the east side of the French Broad River. All of the land mass included
within the Biltmore Farms Bridge project area accounts for less than 0.0008 percent of the land
mass of the basin. These percentages alone, limit significant cumulative effects on the watershed.

USACE Action ID 2016-01112
PCN Application
November 12, 2019
Page 9 of 9
Past activities within the subbasin include logging; agricultural, commercial, and residential
development; and road building. Agricultural and residential development, and road building in
the vicinity remains active; continued and future development of the watershed is independent of
activities proposed within the Biltmore Estate Bridge project site. Stream and wetland impacts
within the Biltmore Farms Bridge project boundary include the construction of a bridge. Stream
and wetland impacts are necessary for the construction at the site. Activity within the Biltmore
Farms Bridge project boundary should not result in a significant impairment of the water resources
on site or interfere with the productivity and water quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem.

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 450 AC)
7
°n rro
,k t. 694
"OAshe '--wnoar
,' ..zr� y Emrne���� a
Ave
y ,"Hazol M,. L7�' Patten
Deaverv, ,
Rp
NaYWOOd jjd
r
o '
a \\ 191
Q-
4V ��kvievl
a
ak
�® Can tc
Project Boundary
191
0`
all
Legend
e
Project Boundary
Drawn by: TJK 10.21.2019; CEC Project# 303
a�
0
Tunnel Rd Qc
04
1
s
81°°nanoa
a�ve`
1rVI�IY
`
�rY /j MO
j l
I1t♦
'�' �O
0
Q
Oeon Aaz
4 R't
r
a
e
��
wi,
4
I
�
f t
a
i1111
e
,Rock
BMal ore
Forest
n
(D
k
� a
Blue
'6
a
u
0
,,plus R e
Igge rk i �_ I� a
Mill
eA:
N
l
9
,atl Gaps R ® 1�46 a
�yRd 1 c
o Juliar, °x
Lake 0 0.5 1 2
o9
Miles
Buncombe County, CLearWater Site Vicinity
North Carolina Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 450 AC)
01
OF�.� 20
�«U 1 !�/ \ Project Boundary
r o �
i % • p 0 11
NA An-
-} �jK
�;% ,
I'� Comm9 37;4
� i
.- Legend
�_______, _ ,���. 0 500 1,000 21000
1 Project Boundary Feet
`Drawn by: B 09.8.!19; E Proj,&#.303
Buncombe County, CLearWater USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Asheville / Skyland Quads
32 Clayton street Figure 2
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

U
Q
0
LO
U)
E
m
H
a�
0
E
..

z
N
O.�•
fir -
If
F w
w
3
F
A 4—
w
x i
3
W
W
W
O
W
/3
W
3
W
g
.S
3
W
w
m
z +
1 D
1 @
D
O
i c
T T T
@ @
N N o O @
1 N N N 0 @
O
p N N T
V UO C y
O O
1 N e e w N @ N @
L 3
N
N M N T O O >
O @ N u
1 a a a UO c c c O OIS
n
T _ _ rr/^)
1 U U U N @ LL) C C C d aD 0 V
o o o E
U U U E c o @ @ N d Q
@O E o O j p
> > > m N .@- .@_. E O Mn
o D D❑ a� ,,U�//
j U ❑ LL1 Q m m 0 p 00 111 U W
W W W o z
llvlvll0llmi
00
w i N
i W N
M
M ru �z
LU
C:) LL . M
CD
N p
U
0 0
CD
�z
o �
0
0
LO
0

s
� dN�
rczwiz ow
z5 z
oapm3
5'�y u
u z
i
o-
li
E
F
z _
9 ,jam
\
� N
No'
l
0
BUJL�O�
,.
�i�
<
Goo o
1
LJ
w�
0O
OdJ
V
F-
w
O
Cc
w
O z
:2 o
m z
�i
a
a—
a_=
D a
O
� Z
O
a-
C) m
ww
U1 o
O O
b
N
0O
C()
Q
o
Y
Z
i
fr
d
a
O a
xyxoN
�m
a
\\\\\\ \.
V,
W J
d a
Li ~
Li c 0
J ~
O
N N U
a
U a O
O
O
a o N
d z
� � O
O
w Q
v w
zw�
a U X
o
mc2w
m
W _
009:1 'AV SZ:00:6 6TOZ/TT/TT '6mp,T-E dew pedwj\bmp\aabu" Pafoad\6nap\1s9M Iced aaowll!g\slDefoad\ll!M\S'd3sn\43

oo5i "s6Eoi bio[/VoS'bMvsumii,vu-Dw.wrci ooi-J\b,xpVafiuey\�afwa\bmvVsaM l+eE wowil!E\naafwtl\!IIM\6tl36nVi

U
Q
0
LO
E
m
U-
a�
0
E
m
a�
m
ry

Attachment A
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
2 Biltmore Farms, LLC Parcels of the west bank of French Broad River

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latoryPermitProaram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 1600 Brevard Rd (approximate address
City, State:
Asheville, NC
County: Buncombe County
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): See attached parcel information
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Clearwater Environmental Consultants
Mailing Address: 32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone Number: 828-698-9800
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
ElI am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION'
Name: See Attached Agent Authorization
Mailing Address: See Attached Agent Authorization
Telephone Number: See Attached Agent Authorization
Electronic Mail Address: See Attached Agent Authorization
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
See Attached
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner
Date
Signature
nt Authorization
❑✓ Authorized Agent'
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 4 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude:
35.502510
0 A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than I1x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
✓❑ Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
✓❑ Vicinity Map
✓❑ Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
IVI Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCWAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
❑ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim_ JD_ Form_fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.aruy.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: October 16, 2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: See Agent Authorization
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District,
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Asheville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.502510 Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Bent Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑■ Field Determination. Date(s): 10/15/19
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
S 1
35.501909
-82.594547
34 If
non -wetland waters (perennial stream)
404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑■ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS Topographic, Aerial, USDA Soil and Stream/Wetland Delineation Maps
❑■ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
❑■ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
1:24K/ Asheville Quad
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
x
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑■ Aerial (Name & Date),
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
NCCGIA 2015
❑■ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑■ Other information (please specify): Property Ownership Information
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Parcel Information

10/16/2019 Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
3 Web Property Record Card
9635-07-7222-00000
Ay
« Back to Parcel Details
Date Printed: 10/16/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 65,700
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
7/30/1979
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
1222 / 0645
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
TRANSFER BY DEED
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
RES BLDG LOT
City:
Neighborhood:
BREVARD ROAD RURAL
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
Y
Ownership History
Transfer Date
I Price
I Legal Reference
I Deed Book/Page
I Qualified
IVacant When Sold
I Seller Names
07/30/79
$o
TRANSFER BY DEED
1 1222 / o645
No: C
No
BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2018
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2017
2.90
65,700
0
0
65,700
0
0
65,700
2016
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2015
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2014
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2013
2.90
47,100
0
0
47,100
0
0
47,100
2012
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2011
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2010
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2009
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2008
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2007
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2006
2.90
65,200
0
0
65,200
0
0
65,200
2005
2.90
542400
0
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2004
2.90
542400
0
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2003
2.90
54,40010
0
54,400
0
0
54,400
2002
2.90
54,40010
0
154,400
0
0
154,400
200112.90
34,40010
0
134,400
0
10
1349400
Land Data Total Acres: 2.9 Land Value:
Acreage 65,700
Segment# Units IDescription
1 2.9 Acreage I LOT IN AC
Other Value: o
Improvements
Total Building Value: o
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx 1/1

10/16/2019 Buncombe County Tax Lookup - Property Card
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
3 Web Property Record Card
9635-07-4195-00000
« Back to Parcel Details
Date Printed: 1o/16/2019
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 34,600
Status:
Active
Owners:
BILTMORE FARMS LLC
Deed Date:
7/30/1979
Address:
PO BOX 5355
Deed Book/Page:
1222 / o645
ASHEVILLE NC 28813-5355
Plat Book/Page:
0000 / 0000
Property Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
Legal Reference:
TRANSFER BY DEED
Taxing Districts
Location:
99999 BREVARD RD
County:
Buncombe County
Class:
RES BLDG LOT
City:
Neighborhood:
BREVARD ROAD RURAL
Fire:
SKYLAND
Subdivision:
School:
Sub Lot:
Conservation/Easement: N
Flood:
Y
Ownership History
Transfer Date
I Price
I Legal Reference
I Deed Book/Page
I Qualified
IVacant When Sold
I Seller Names
07/30/79
$o
TRANSFER BY DEED
1 1222 / o645
No: C
No
BILTMORE FARMS INC
Assessment History
Year
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Other Impr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2019
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2o18
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2017
0.70
34,600
o
0
34,600
0
0
34,600
2o16
0.70
24,800
o
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2015
0.70
24,8000
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2014
0.70
24,800
o
0
24,800
0
0
24,800
2013
0.70
124,8000
0
24,8o0
0
0
24,800
2012
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2011
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2010
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2009
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
242500
2oo8
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2007
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2oo6
0.70
24,500
0
0
24,500
0
0
24,500
2005
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
9,400
2004
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
92400
2003
0.70
9,400
0
0
9,400
0
0
9,400
2002
0.70
19,400
10
10
19,400
0
10
9,400
2001
0.70
14,700
10
10
14,700
10
10
4,700
Land Data Total Acres: 0.7 Land Value:
Acreage 34,60o
Segment# Units IDescription
1 0.7 Acreage LOT IN AC
Other Value: o
Improvements
Total Building Value: o
https://tax.buncombecounty.org/PropertyCard.aspx 1/1

Figures 1-5

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 4 AC)
Bil
Sc
h
M
Project Boundary
2�Uonal F ore t Rd <Kj
a
a 191
ale
�s
oe C`e�
00 Pa,*',vaY pr
QP
C
i
y3ody SQ
gall Gap Rd
P ky
�e
a
G�itts� ewd
Pisgah J.y
National
Legend Avery CreeM�a
Project Boundary
Drawn by: BWY 10.16.19; CEO-. Project# 303
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
146
a
5hoa`5
o°q
"Ulside Ln
� 4
9
b
m
6 Q� a
ey a Biltmore Biltmore
FFot a��� Forest Country Clio Forest
>ae5ovtr`BoodRd rn
e
�^ N
0
od`�� ye�o�de Rd Ra
sb p�4 Rd a
Blue {odgc pkY
"mb
M,ee4coo& R,�, Lambeth Or
Racquet Club Rd
s
a
o Ger
o>
0
Rd Ile,
O1J0looµ a
� I
`tanclilt Or fD `
C3 Q i
bevi,c
Pinchot Or Springside Rd
o a or
�5 tP 1,
5;
2
Coif
�hbine Rd
Valley Long Shoals Rd 146 pondS1 oy;cra
Springs R i
Park Lake Atkins St t
Julian i
Park
Julian
Lake d� `
Vf .
e
0
N
d
S orrf �y
bwicke� °h
b
l�Usl Hoyt Rd
a tJ
���a Caen Brl Deane 0 0.5 1 2
�P ageRrySF Miles
Ca'qe 4n
NI
CLearWater
Site Vicinity Map
Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 4 AC)
10
or JJ
•4 (0 oa;le� w
,ei
' _: • . dr
4
Project Boundary
CON
1_
Legend
0 0.25 0.5 1
Project Boundary '?� � �i Miles
Drawn by: BWY 10.10)140; CE f !
Buncombe County, CLearWater USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Asheville Quad
32 Clayton street Figure 2
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 4 AC)
Project Boundary
Legend
Project Boundary \
Drawn by: BWY 10.16.19; CEC Project# 3
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLearWater
32 Clayton Street
le, North Carolina 28801
Broad
,er
0 50 100 200
Feet
Aerial Photograph
NCCGIA (2015)
Figure 3

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 4 AC)
Legend
Project Boundary
Soil
BeA - Biltmore loamy sand
EwE - Evard Cowee complex
CRsA - Rosman fine sandy loam
CUhE - Udorthents - Urban land complex
FEW W - Water
i
t
I
'II
French Broad
River
':',French
i
i �-
\ BeA
� II
I
j UhE
\ ` I
J
�\ I
\\ I11
\
W`I
`\ I
---------------
`\ I
LA
..1fi �:": N
— ev5V_V�
Drawn by: BWY 10.16.19; CEC Project# 303
0 50 100 200
Feet
Buncombe County, CLearWater USDA Soil Map
North Carolina Figure 4
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 4 AC)
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been located within sub -meter accuracy utilizing a Trimble mapping grade Global Positioning System (GPS) and the subsequent
differential correction of that data. GPS points may demonstrate uncorrectable errors due to topography, vegetative cover, and/or multipath signal error.
Note: The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. These areas have been flagged in the field; however, they have not been surveyed. Although ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) is confident in our assessment, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the only agency that can make final decisions regarding jurisdictional wetland and waters of the US
delineations. Therefore, all preliminary determinations are subject to change until written verification is obtained. CEC strongly recommends that written verification be obtained from the Corps prior
to closing on the property, beginning any site work, or making any legal reliance on this determination.
This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to CEC at the time of production. This map is for informational purposes only and should not be used to determine precise
boundaries, roadways, property boundary lines, nor legal descriptions. This map shall not be construed to be an official survey of any data depicted.
Source Data: Topo and project boundary from Buncombe County GIs
4N
\ French Broad
r �
\.� River
Project Boundary
ru
\ \
'\ 1
----------- —
I
Legend
Stream
-�l Project Boundary PotentiallyJurisctictional Water
Data Form wetland (ACC Stream(LF)
- S1 34
Contours 4ft Total 0.000 Total 34
Drawn by: BWY 10.16.19; CEC Project# 363
to
50 100 200
Feet
CLearWater Stream and Wetland
Buncombe County, Delineation Map
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street Delineated October 15, 2019
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 5

Data Forms

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Ranger - Biltmore Farms City/County: Buncombe County Sampling Date: 10/15/19
Applicant/Owner: Biltmore Farms LLC State: NC Sampling Point: UPL
Investigator(s): Yant / Kurtz Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flood Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 35.502833 Long:-82.593528 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: BeA - Biltmore loamy sand NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland Data Form
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (61) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: UPL
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Acer rubrum
60
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20
No
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Carpinus caroliniana
20
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Carya glabra
15
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
115
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
58
20% of total cover:
23
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Lindera benzoin
40
Yes
FAC
FAC species 155 x 3 = 465
2.
Carpinus caroliniana
15
No
FAC
FACU species 145 x 4 = 580
3.
Ligustrum sinense
35
Yes
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20
No
FACU
Column Totals: 300 (A) 1045 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.48
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
110
=Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
55
20% of total cover:
22
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Lindera benzoin
10
No
FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Ligustrum sinense
30
Yes
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU
4.
Microstegium vimineum
5
No
FAC
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5,
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7•
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8,
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
65
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
33
20% of total cover:
13
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
5
Yes
FAC
2.
Celastrus orbiculatus
5
Yes
FACU
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
10
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover:
2
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: UPL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 4/3 100 Silty Texture
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Attachment B
Threatened and Endangered Species Review and
Habitat Assessment

Ranger — Biltmore Farms
Approximately 450 Acres
Buncombe County, NC
Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment
Prepared For
Biltmore Farms
One Town Square Boulevard
Suite 330
Asheville, NC 28803
Prepared By
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28806
October 24, 2019

Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
2.0
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 1
3.0
HABITAT CLASSIFICATION................................................................................ 3
3.1
Bottomland Hardwood Forest............................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetland............................................................... 4
3.1.2 Floodplain Pool................................................................................................... 4
3.2
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest................................................................................ 4
3.3
Mixed Hardwood Forest......................................................................................... 5
3.4
Headwater Forest................................................................................................... 5
3.4.1 Headwater Forest Wetland.............................................................................. 5
3.5
Cove Forest............................................................................................................ 6
3.6
Pine Plantation....................................................................................................... 6
3.7
Maintained/Disturbed............................................................................................ 6
3.8
Soils....................................................................................................................... 7
4.0
PROTECTED SPECIES........................................................................................... 7
4.1
Blue Ridge Goldenrod........................................................................................... 7
4.2
Bunched Arrowhead.............................................................................................. 8
4.3
Bog Turtle.............................................................................................................. 9
4.4
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel......................................................................... 9
4.5
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant.............................................................................
10
4.6
Rock Gnome Lichen............................................................................................
11
4.7
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee.................................................................................
11
4.8
Spreading Avens..................................................................................................
12
4.9
Spruce -fir Moss Spider........................................................................................
12
4.10 Virginia Spiraea...................................................................................................
13
5.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................
13
6.0
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................
15
List of Tables
Table 1: Federally protected species listed as occurring or potentially occurring in
Buncombe County.
Table 2: USDA Soil Units occurring within the project boundary.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4: NCCGIA Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 5: Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendices
Appendix A: US Fish and Wildlife Service County Database Information and NC
Natural Heritage Program Data
Appendix B: Photolog
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page ii
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and endangered
species survey and habitat assessment for the proposed approximately 450-acre project
known as Ranger — Biltmore Farms. The project is located in between I-26, the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and the French Broad River in Limestone, Buncombe County, North
Carolina (Figures 1-3). The site ranges in elevation from 2,000 feet to 2,200 feet above
mean sea level (MSL).
The threatened and endangered species survey was conducted to determine the occurrence
of or the potential for existence of federally listed threatened and endangered animal and
plant species on the proposed site. Completion of this survey was directed by and complies
with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 USC 1531-1543), the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113
article 25), and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979
(N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12-22).
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The protected species survey and habitat assessment was conducted on October 14-15, 2019
on the 450-acre project by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to determine
the potential for occurrences of select animal and plant species listed as endangered or
threatened by current federal regulations.
A database search from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) dated October 14, 2019
provided existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or
endangered species in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Appendix A). The FWS lists the
following fifteen federally threatened and endangered species as occurring or potentially
occurring in Buncombe County, N.C.
Cleat -Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

Table 1. Federally protected species listed as occurrinLy or botendally occurrinLy in Buncombe Countv.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Appalachian elktoe
Alismidonta ravendiana
Endangered
Blue Ride goldenrod
Solida o s ithamaea
Threatened
Bunched arrowhead
Sa ittaria asciculata
Endan ered2
Bog turtle
Glyptem s muhlenber ii
Threatened S/A
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus
Endangered
Gray bat
M otis grisescens
Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Sarracenia rubra ss . jonesii
Endangered
Northern long-eared bat
M otis se tentrionalis
Threatened
Rock gnome lichen
G mnoderma lineare
Endangered
Rusty patched bumble bee
Bombus affinis
Endan ered2
S otfin chub
Erimonax monachus
Threatened2
Spruce -fir moss spider
Microhexura montiva a
Endan ered3
Spreading avens
Geum radiatum
Endangered
Tan riffleshell
E ioblasma orentina walkeri
Endan ered3
Virginia s iraea
S iraea vir iniana
Threatened2
' Threatened due to similar appearance. Not subject to section 7 consultation.
2 Historic record.
3 Historic and obscure record.
A database search from the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) dated October 10, 2019
provided existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrences of federal listed
species in Buncombe County, North Carolina within 1 mile of the site (Appendix A).
The NHP indicates an element occurrence (EO) of the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) within the project area. This EO was last observed on September 29, 2017.
EOs for Application elktoe, gray bat, and bog turtle were recorded by the NHP within a one -
mile radius of the project.
A mussel survey was conducted by Three Oaks Engineering on October 4, 2019 (Three
Oaks Engineering 2019 (Draft)). The survey was conducted in the French Broad River
within the proposed project area. The findings of the report are written in a separate paper.
Three Oaks Engineering is preparing a biological assessment to address aquatic species.
A bat habitat assessment was conducted over the entire project area east of the French Broad
River by Skybax Ecological Services in March 2019 (Skybax 2019). The assessment
evaluated the potential summer and winter habitat for gray, Indiana, and northern long-eared
bat. Additional studies by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for
the I-26 widening project have recorded the presence of the gray bat and northern long-
eared bat. Three Oaks Engineering is preparing a biological assessment to address bat
species.
The protected species survey and habitat assessment conducted by CEC did not include the
following federally protected species listed as occurring or potentially occurring in
Buncombe County: Appalachain elktoe, tan riffleshell, northern long-eared bat, gray bat,
and spotfin chub.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

During pedestrian field surveys conducted by CEC biologists, site habitats were identified
and compared with recognized habitats for ten federally protected species potentially
occurring on the site. Potential flora were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species.
NCDOT contracted biologists prepared a Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
that included an assessment of the potential occurrence of federally threatened and
endangered species within the corridor for the potential future widening of Highway 191
from NC 146 to north of the Blue Ridge Parkway (STIP U-3403b) (NCDOT 2019
(Draft)). Field surveys for federally threatened and endangered species for STIP U-
3403B were executed in May and June of 2019. The NCDOT project area overlaps
several portions of the project area assessed by this report; the two small parcels west of
the French Broad River and an approximately 9-acre portion of the large parcel adjacent
to the east side of the river.
3.0 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
During our site visit on October 14-15, Britten Yant and Tyson Kurtz with CEC identified
seven habitats: bottomland hardwood forest, mixed hardwood/pine forest, mixed hardwood
forest, headwater forest, cove forest, pine plantation, and maintained/disturbed.
The project site is a primarily undeveloped property. The large parcel on the east side of the
French Broad River (approximately 446 acres) is forested with only a section of power line
easement and a network of single lane dirt/gravel roads being maintained as unforested.
The two small parcels west of the French Broad River (approximately 4 acres total)
straddle Highway 191 (Brevard Road). These two parcels lie in the northwest corner of the
confluence of Bent Creek and the French Broad River and contain floodplain habitat and
maintained road right-of-way (ROW).
3.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The floodplain along the east and west banks of the French Broad River composes
the bottomland hardwood forest habitat. This area is subject to occasional
overbank flooding and alluvial processes. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and
river birch (Betula nigra) are the dominant canopy tree species in the bottomland
hardwood forest. Additional tree species observed include box elder maple (Acer
negundo), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and several hickory species (Carya spp.). The
shrub stratum was dominated by the exotic invasive autumn olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata). Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
ironwood, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and basswood (Tilia americana) were
also observed in the shrub stratum. Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum),
and exotic invasive, covered the majority of the herbaceous layer. Other
herbaceous species observed included multiple smartweed species (Polygonum
spp.), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Indian woodoats (Chasmanthium
latifolium), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), ground ivy (Glochema hederacea),
Cleat -Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

and multiple sedges (Carex spp.). Oriental bittersweet (Celestrus obiculus) was
abundant and dominated the vine stratum. Multiple species of grape vine (Vitus
spp.) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quiquefolia) vines were also observed
in this habitat type. Two wetland types were observed within the floodplain that
had a slight variation in species composition from the surrounding uplands.
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetland
These wetlands were dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), box elder
maple, river birch, ironwood, spicebush, multiflora rose, and Chinese
privet. The herb layer was dominated by Japanese stiltgrass. In saturated
areas, common rush (Juncus effusus), broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria
latifolia), bugleweed (Lycopus sp.), and multiple sedges species were
observed.
3.1.2 Floodplain Pool
The floodplain pools were sparsely vegetated, concave wetlands
surrounded by tall canopy trees. Within the floodplain pools, only patches
of three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), creeping jenny
(Lysimachia nummularia), smartweed, and multiple Carex species were
observed. These pools lacked surface water at the time of the survey, but
multiple signs of long-term inundation are evident. These pools likely
contain surface water throughout the growing season.
3.2 Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
The mixed hardwood/pine forest habitat is the dominant habitat type within the
project boundaries. This mesic habitat covers the uplands above riparian areas and
out of direct long-term sun exposure i.e. south slopes and hilltops. The density of
pines versus hardwood tree species varies throughout this habitat. The tree dominant
pine species are white pine (Pinus strobus) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata).
White oak (Quercus alba), tulip poplar, and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) are
the dominant hardwood species. Other species observed in the tree stratum include
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiania), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sweet birch
(Betula lenta), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), chestnut oak (Quercus
montana), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). The shrub stratum contained juvenile
white pine, American holly (Ilex opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), and very sparse cover of mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia). In multiple locations, white pine saplings covered almost 100
percent of the understory. Herbaceous cover in this habitat was moderately sparse
and included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), downy rattlesnake
plantain (Goodyera pubenscens), Japanese stiltgrass, intermediate woodfern
(Dryopteris intermedia), and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides). Sparse
cover of Oriental bittersweet and poison ivy (Toxicondedron radicans) vines were
observed.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

3.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mixed hardwood forest habitat is on the hill tops and south facing slopes. This
habitat has drier conditions than the mixed hardwood/pine forest and is dominated
by a variety of hardwood tree species. Trees observed in the mixed hardwood forest
include white oak, northern red oak, tulip poplar, sourwood, black cherry, red maple,
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and sparse white pine. The shrub stratum is
comprised of flowering dogwood, American holly, and white pine saplings. The
very sparse herbaceous stratum contains Christmas fern, Japanese stiltgrass,
deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), and roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Sparse cover of
Oriental bittersweet is present.
3.4 Headwater Forest
The headwater forest habitat is located in the narrow valleys across the site that
generally contain headwater streams and wetlands. These areas are closer to the
water table than the surrounding uplands and harbor a higher diversity of water
tolerant plant species. Some areas of this habitat only contain ephemeral stream
channels but still have a similar vegetative composition and structure to those
valleys with more persistent hydrology. The dominant tree species observed in this
habitat are red maple, tulip poplar, ironwood, and sourwood. White pine and
flowering dogwood can be found growing around the margins. Shrubs occurring in
the headwater forests include ironwood, American holly, spicebush, and hearts-a-
bustin' (Euonymus americanus). The headwater forests have a dense, diverse
herbaceous stratum. Japanese stiltgrass, Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
southern lady fern, bugleweed, and royal fern (Osmunda regalis) are dominant in
these valley bottoms. Other herbaceous species within this habitat type include
northern maiden hair fern (Adiantum pedatum), wingstem, Christmas fern, giant
cane, broadleaf arrowhead, yellow root, and multiple species of smartweed and
sedges.
3.4.1 Headwater Forest Wetland
The wetlands within the headwater forest contained the same list of species.
Hydrophytic emergent species were concentrated within these wetland areas.
Japanese stiltgrass was the most dominant ground cover in almost all of the
headwater forest wetlands on site. Species such as cinnamon fern, royal fern,
bugleweed, giant cane, and broadleaf arrowhead are found only within the
wetlands. Some of these wetlands are seeps and others occur along the banks
of small streams. Wetland soils ranged from shallow mucky mineral soils
overlaying cobble to deep organic, mucky soils. Sphagnum moss is present
in many of these wetlands.
Cleat -Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

3.5 Cove Forest
One patch of cove forest was identified within the project boundary. The cove forest
lies within a north facing valley and has a small stream running through the middle.
Great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) dominates this area as a small
tree/shrub. Just outside of the rhododendron patch, eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), sourwood, shortleaf pine, white pine, and cucumber magnolia
(Magnolia acuminata) were observed as canopy trees. Other than rhododendron, the
shrub stratum contained sparse amounts of mountain laurel and blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.). The sparse herbaceous layer included cinnamon fern, false
Solomon's -seal (Maianthemum racemosum), Indian cucumber root (Medeola
virginiana), intermediate woodfem, downy rattlesnake plantain, and roundleaf
greenbrier.
3.6 Pine Plantation
A patch of planted white pines growing in rows on mounded soils is in the
southwestern region of the site. This habitat consists of large white pines as the only
canopy tree species. The dense pine canopy has resulted in minimal understory
vegetation. Scattered white pine saplings, American holly, blueberry, roundleaf
greenbrier, and white oak comprise the remainder of the woody understory species
found in this habitat. Herbaceous species observed include ebony spleenwort, striped
wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), and multiple aster (Asteraceae) species found
along the roadside that bisects the planted pines.
3.7 Maintained/Disturbed
All three separate parcels that comprise the project area contain different patches that
can be classified as maintained/disturbed habitat. The two parcels west of the French
Broad River contain maintained grass shoulders and fill slopes associated with the
Blue Ridge Parkway and Brevard Road. The large tract of land to the east of the
river has a section of powerline ROW that is regular maintained in addition to a
network of dirt/gravel roads. All these areas are dominated by a similar composition
of weedy species. Canopy trees are absent in these disturbed corridors. Saplings of
sycamore, white pine, and black walnut were observed at the time of the survey.
Other species in this habitat include Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), fescue
(Festuca sp.), lanceleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), white clover (Trifolium
repens), multiple asters, common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), nettle (Utrica
dioica), Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis), bottlebrush grass (Elymus
hystrix), deertongue, dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), beggarticks (Bidens sp.),
thistle (Cirsium sp.), wingstem, common rush, broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), smartweeds, and Japanese stiltgrass.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

3.8 Soils
Soils mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Buncombe
County Soil Survey are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4 (NRCS 2019).
Tahle 2. USDA Soil Unit- occurring within the nroiect hountlarv.
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
BeA
Biltmore loamy sand, 0-3% slopes, frequently flooded
BkD2
Braddock clay loam, 15-30% slopes, moderately eroded
CkC2
Clifton clay loam, 8-15% slopes, moderately eroded
CkD2
Clifton clay loam, 15-30% slopes, moderately eroded
CsB
Clifton sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
CSC
Clifton sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
CsD
Clifton sandy loam, 15-30% slopes
EvD2
Evard-Cowee complex, 15-30% slopes, moderately eroded
EvE2
Evard-Cowee complex, 30-50% slopes, moderately eroded
EwC
Evard-Cowee complex, basin, 8-15% slopes, stony
EwD
Evard-Cowee complex, basin, 15-30% slopes, stony
EwE
Evard-Cowee complex, basin, 30-50% slopes, stony
IoA
Iotla loam, 0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded
RsA
Rosman fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, occasionally flooded
StB
Statler loam, 1-5% slopes, rarely flooded
TaD
Tate loam, basin, 15-30% slopes
TkD
Tate loam, basin, 15-30% slopes, very stony
UcB
Udifluvents, sandy, 0-5% slopes, frequently flooded
UhE
Udorthents-Urban land complex, 2-50% slopes
UnC
Unison loam, 8-15% slopes
W
Water
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
The following is a brief description of each federally listed species included in the survey, its
recognized habitat, and comments regarding survey results for that species.
4.1 Blue Ridge Goldenrod
Federally listed as a threatened species, Blue Ridge goldenrod
(Solidago spithamaea) occupies rock outcrops, ledges, and cliffs
at high elevations (generally above 4,600 ft.). The soils upon
which this species grows are generally shallow and acidic. Blue
Ridge goldenrods usually grow in full sun.
Blue Ridge goldenrod is a small perennial herb (4 to 8 inches
tall). Its golden -yellow flowers appear from late July to
September, and fruits form and ripen from July to October.
Although there are many species of goldenrods, this one can be
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

distinguished by its flat-topped flowers, small stature, smooth foliage, and
toothed, non -clasping stem leaves.
The highest elevation on site is approximately 2,200 feet above MSL, therefore no
high elevation rock outcrops or cliffs exist onsite. No suitable habitat for Blue
Ridge goldenrod exists within the project boundary. It is of the opinion of CEC
that this project would not adversely affect the Blue Ridge goldenrod.
4.2 Bunched Arrowhead
Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata)
is a small herbaceous plant growing 15 - 16
inches tall in saturated soils. It's the only
Sagittaria species in the Southern
Appalachians that does not have arrowhead -
shaped leaves. Emergent leaves are broad
and tapered at the tip and up to 12 inches
long and 1 — 2 inches wide. The white
flowers begin blooming in mid -May and
continue through July. The fruits mature a
few weeks after flowering.
Bunched arrowhead occurs in undisturbed sites that are typically located just
below the origin of slow, clean, continuous seeps on gently sloping terrain in
deciduous woodlands.
Bunched arrowhead is known from the upstate of South Carolina and
southwestern North Carolina. Bunched arrowhead is listed as a historic
occurrence in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Potentially suitable habitat exists within the project boundary. Multiple wetlands
on site are seep wetlands surrounded by deciduous forest and have saturated soils.
Some wetlands also had broadleaf arrowhead which can occupy the same habitat
as bunched arrowhead. A survey of all wetland areas on site containing suitable
habitat for the bunched arrowhead was conducted October 14-15, 2019. No
bunched arrowhead individuals were observed. A draft version (dated July 2019)
of a NCDOT NRTR for STIP U-3403B partially overlaps the project area
identified in this report (NCDOT 2019 (Draft)). Wetlands identified as containing
suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead in the overlapping project areas were
surveyed May 29-30, 2018 by NCDOT contractors during the official USFWS
optimal survey window (mid -May — July) for bunched arrowhead and did not find
any individuals. It is of the opinion of CEC this is project is not likely to
adversely affect bunched arrowhead.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Project #303 Ranger — Biltmore Farms

4.3 Bog Turtle
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is IF 1^t,*,,,w.�
federally listed as threatened in North Carolina.♦
This is the smallest em did turtle and one of
the smallest turtles in the world. Adult carapace'U' ;
length is 7.9 to 11.4 cm (3.1 to 4.5 inches). The "
dark brown or black carapace may be marked
with radiating light lines or a light blotch on the
vertebral and pleural scutes. Scute annuli are
usually prominent in juvenile and young adult,:
specimens, but the carapace may be nearly
smooth in old adults. The head, neck, and limbs are typically dark brown with
variable reddish to yellow spots and streaks. A large reddish -orange to yellow
blotch is visible behind and above each tympanum, sometimes merging into a
continuous band on the neck. The upper jaw is weakly notched. The plastron is
brown or black, but often with lighter yellow blotches towards the medial and
anterior scute edges. A mature male bog turtle has a concave plastron and a long,
thick tail, with the vent posterior to the rear edge of the carapace with tail
extended. The female has a flat plastron and a thinner, smaller tail, with the vent
at or beneath the rear carapace edge.
The southern population of the bog turtle, ranging from southern Virginia to
northern Georgia, is also protected with a threatened designation because its
physical appearance is similar to the northern population. The southern bog turtle
population is separated from the northern population by approximately 250 miles.
However, individual bog turtles in the southern population closely resemble
individuals in the northern bog turtle population, causing difficulty in enforcing
prohibitions protecting the northern population. Therefore, the FWS has
designated the southern population as "threatened (similarity of appearance)."
This designation prohibits collecting individual turtles from this population and
bans interstate and international commercial trade. It has no effect on land
management activities of private landowners in southern states where the bog
turtle lives.
No suitable habitat for the bog turtle was observed within the project boundary.
The wetlands on site had partial to closed canopy that shaded the majority of each
wetland. Therefore, no suitable open canopy areas for basking bog turtles were
present within the wetlands. It is of the opinion of CEC that this project would not
adversely affect the bog turtle.
4.4 Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel
There are two species of flying squirrels in the Southern Appalachians — the
northern (Glaucomys sabrinus) and southern (Glaucomys volans). Northern
flying squirrels are about one-third larger than the very common southern species.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

Also, northern flying squirrels are brown on their backs, and their fur fades to a
buff white on the belly. Southern flying squirrels are grayer on their backs with
bright white bellies, and a clearly defined (usually black) line separates the fur
colors. The endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel is a subspecies of the
northern flying squirrel.
Flying squirrels are nocturnal and have large eyes to help them see at night. They
cannot actually fly, but glide by extending a fold of skin that stretches from their
wrists to their ankles. The flattened tail acts as a rudder. Carolina northern flying
squirrels are relicts of the last ice age. As the glaciers retreated northward and
temperatures rose, remnant populations remained in the suitable habitat left
behind on the high mountain tops along the ridges of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains.
Northern flying squirrels principally feed on certain fungi and lichens, though
they do occasionally eat some fruits and nuts. They're active year-round, but
more so in the warmer summer months. They nest in tree cavities in nests made
almost exclusively of yellow birch bark, where two to six young are born in early
spring. Groups of squirrels often occupy the same tree cavity, particularly in the
colder winter months.
Northern flying squirrels are typically found in areas where northern hardwoods,
such as yellow birch, are adjacent to the higher -elevation red spruce -Fraser fir
forest. These habitats are often moist and cool.
The site does not support these higher elevation species suitable for northern
flying squirrel habitat. It is the opinion of CEC that the project would not
adversely affect the Carolina northern flying squirrel.
4.5 Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
Mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii) is a carnivorous
perennial herb with tall, hollow pitcher -shaped leaves and red sweet-smelling
flowers. The hollow leaves contain liquid and enzymes. When insects fall into
the pitchers, they are digested and the nutrients are incorporated into the plant's
tissues. The evolutionary role of carnivory in such plants is not fully understood,
but some evidence indicates that absorption of minerals from insect prey may
allow carnivorous species to compete in nutrient -poor habitats. The unusual red
flowers (yellow in rare cases) appear from April to June, with fruits ripening in
August. Flowering plants reach heights of 29 inches. Very little specific
information is available on the biology of the mountain sweet pitcher plant. Like
other pitcher plants, it has rhizomes that are probably long-lived and capable of
persisting and reproducing vegetatively for decades without producing seedlings.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant occurs in mountain bogs. No mountain bogs were
delineated during the survey; however, all wetland areas were surveyed to identify
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 10
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

potentially listed species. Mountain sweet pitcher plant was not observed during
the field visit. It is of the opinion of CEC that the project would not adversely
affect the mountain sweet pitcher plant.
4.6 Rock Gnome Lichen
Federally listed as an endangered species, rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma
lineare) occurs on rocks in areas of high humidity either at high elevations
(usually vertical cliff faces) or on boulders and large rock outcrops in deep river
gorges at lower elevations. Distinguishing characteristics include dense colonies
of narrow (.04 inch) straps that are blue -grey on the upper surface and generally
shiny -white on the lower surface. Near the base they grade to black (the similar
species of Squamulose cladonias are never blackened toward the base). Fruiting
bodies are borne at the tips of the straps and are black (similar Cladonia species
have brown or red fruiting bodies). Flowering occurs July through September.
Suitable habitat for this species was not observed in the project area. Rock
outcrops at high elevations or in river gorges do not exist on the project site. It is
the opinion of CEC that the project would not adversely affect the rock gnome
lichen.
4.7 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee
Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), is listed under Historic Record Status
in Henderson County. Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and
tallgrass prairies of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and
prairies have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses.
Bumble bees need areas that provide nectar and pollen from flowers, nesting sites
(underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and
overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil). Rusty patched
bumble bees live in colonies that include a single queen and female workers. The
colony produces males and new queens in late summer. Queens are the largest
bees in the colony, and workers are the smallest. All rusty patched bumble bees
have entirely black heads, but only workers and males have a rusty reddish patch
centrally located on the back. Bumble bees gather pollen and nectar from a variety
of flowering plants. The rusty patched emerges early in spring and is one of the
last species to go into hibernation. It needs a constant supply and diversity of
flowers blooming throughout the colony's long life, April through September.
Potentially suitable habitat for rusty patched bumble bee was not found on site.
The only areas that contained relatively abundant wildflower cover are located
within the maintain/disturbed corridors. These corridors are frequently disturbed
by activities such as vehicle traffic, mowing, clearing, or herbicide application. It
is our understanding that the FWS assume that the state of North Carolina is
unoccupied by the rusty patched bumble bee. It is the opinion of CEC that the
project is not likely to have an adverse effect on the rusty patched bumble bee.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 11
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

4.8 Spreading Avens
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) is a tall
perennial herb growing 8 - 20 inches (in)
(20.3 — 50.8 centimeters; cm) tall. Its
distinctive bright yellow flowers, which are
generally up to 1 in (2.5 cm) across) appear
from June through September, and fruits form
and ripen from August through October.
This species grows in full sun on the shallow
acidic soils of high -elevation cliffs (above 4,200 feet (1,280 meters)), rocky
outcrops, steep slopes, and on gravelly talus. It is known to occur only on high
mountain peaks in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Being confined to small areas on a few rocky mountain summits, this species is
extremely vulnerable to such seemingly minor threats as trampling by hikers,
climbers, and sightseers, as well as to more pervasive threats such as acid
precipitation, and other forms of air pollution. An exotic insect, the balsam woolly
adelgid, contributes to the decline of the fir forests adjacent to the cliffs where
Spreading avens grows. Although Spreading avens does not grow beneath dense
forest, the death of the adjacent forests results in drier and hotter conditions, as
well as increased soil erosion. All these factors threaten the last remaining
Spreading avens populations.
No suitable habitat for spreading avens was found on site. No high elevation rock
formations occur within the project boundary. The entire project site is
approximately 2,000 feet below the elevation known to contain potentially
suitable habitat. It is the opinion of CEC that this project would not have an
adverse effect on spreading avens.
4.9 Spruce -fir Moss Spider
The spruce -fir moss spider (Microhexura nomtivaga) is one of the smallest
members of the primitive suborder of spiders popularly referred to as "tarantulas."
Adults of this species measure only 0.10 to 0.15 inch (2.5 — 3.8 millimeters)
(about the size of a BB). Coloration of the spruce -fir moss spider ranges from
light brown to yellow -brown to a darker reddish brown, and there are no markings
on its abdomen.
The spruce -fir moss spider only lives on the highest mountain peaks in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina and eastern
Tennessee. The high elevation forests where this spider is found are dominated
by Fraser fir with scattered red spruce. This forest type is commonly referred to
as spruce -fir forests. The typical habitat of this spider is damp, but well -drained
moss mats growing on rocks and boulders in well -shaded areas within these
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 12
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

forests. The moss mats cannot be too dry (the species is very sensitive to
desiccation) or too wet (large drops of water can also pose a threat to the spider).
The spruce -fir moss spider is limited to a handful of mountains in western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Spruce -fir forests were not found on site. It is the opinion of CEC, that this
project is not likely to have any effect on the spruce -fir moss spider.
4.10 Virginia Spiraea
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) is federally listed as an endangered species.
It occurs along rivers and streams and relies on periodic disturbances, such as
high -velocity scouring floods, which eliminate competition from trees and other
woody vegetation.
Virginia spiraea is a perennial shrub with many branches. It grows 3 to 10 feet (ft)
(0.9 — 3.0 meters; m) tall. The alternate leaves are single -tooth serrated, 1 - 6
inches (in) (2.5 — 15.2 centimeters; cm) long and 1 to 2 inches (2.5 - 5 cm) wide;
occasionally curved; and have a narrow, moderately tapered base. The leaves are
also darker green above than below. The plant produces flowers that are yellowish
green to pale white, with stamens twice the length of the sepal. It blooms from
May through early July, but flower production is sparse and does not begin until
after the first year of establishment.
Suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea does not exist within the survey area. The
reach of the French Broad River that occurred along the edges of the project had
eroded banks that were near vertical. On the tops of the banks, canopy trees were
abundant. There are no rocky banks that receive enough high velocity scouring to
eliminate competition of other woody species. The NCDOT NRTR for STIP U-
3403B included a survey for this species along the French Broad River. Their
survey found no Virginia spiraea individuals (NCDOT 2019 (Draft)). It is the
opinion of CEC, that the project would not likely adversely affect Virginia
spiraea.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Ranger — Biltmore Farms Project, CEC observed potentially suitable habitat for bunched
arrowhead. The survey was conducted within these habitats to determine the presence or
absence of bunched arrowhead. This species was not observed within the project
boundaries. Potential flora were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species.
As such, development of Ranger — Biltmore Farms is not likely to adversely affect federally
the specific threatened or endangered species studied as part of this report. This report does
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 13
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

not address the possibility of suitable habitat or presence of northern long-eared bat, gray
bat, Appalachian elktoe, tan riffleshell, and spotfin chub within the project boundaries.
These protected species are under investigation by other entities and impacts associated with
the Ranger — Biltmore Farms project cannot be determined from the information presented
in this report.
Because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species and
the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants; it is possible that endangered species
populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential findings at a later
date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent
potential adverse impacts.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 14
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

6.0 REFERENCES
NCDOT. 2019 (Draft). Natural Resources Technical Report: Widening of NC 191 from
NC 146 to north of the Blue Ridge Parkway. STIP U-3403B. Draft version dated
July 2019.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2019. Web Soil Survey for
Buncombe County.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/AppAVebSoilSurvey.aspx; Accessed
October 2019.
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Database). 2019.
hops://ncnhde.natureserve.org/; accessed October 2019
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2007. Carolina Northern
Flying Squirrel: North Carolina Wildlife Profiles.
https://www.ncwildlife. org/Portals/0/Learning/documents/Profiles/NFsquirrel.pdf
Accessed October 2019.
Skybax Ecological Services. 2019. Evaluation of potential summer and winter habitat for
Gray (Myotis grisescens), Indiana (Myotis sodalis), and Northern Long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) at the Biltmore Farms Tract, Buncombe County, North
Carolina
Three Oaks Engineering. 2019 (Draft). Freshwater Mussel Survey Report: New Biltmore
Farms Bridge. Draft Version dated October 11, 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Blue Ridge Goldenrod Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/blue-ridge-goldenrod.pdf; Accessed
October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Bog Turtle Fact Sheet. htips://www.fws.gov/southeast�/df/fact-
sheet/bog-q1q1e.pdf; Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Bunched Arrowhead Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/BunchedArrowhead_factsheet.pdf; Accessed
October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/MtSweetPitcherPlant factsheet.pdf; Accessed
October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Rock Gnome Lichen Fact Sheet. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-
sheet/rock-gnome-lichen.pdf; Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Spreading Avens Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/Spreadin Ag vens_factsheet.pdf; Accessed
October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Spruce -fir Moss Spider Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/Tdfs/SpruceFirMossSpider factsheet.pdf;
Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2011. Virginia Spiraea Fact Sheet. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-
sheet/vir ig nia-spiraea.pdf; Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2017. Plants Favored By Rusty Patched Bumble Bee.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/plants.html; Accessed
October 2019.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 15
Project #303 Ranger—Biltmore Farms

USFWS. 2017. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Fact Sheet.
https://www. fws. gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/factsheetrpbb.html;
Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2018. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened,
Endangered, and At Risk Plants.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/Optimal_ Survey Windows_ for listed plants.p
df; Accessed October 2019.
USFWS. 2019. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County
for North Carolina. hiLtps://www.fws.gov/raleijzh/species/catylist/buncombe.html;
Accessed October 2019.
Cleat -Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 16
Project #303 Ranger— Biltmore Farms

Figures

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 450 AC)
z
r
o,.
rVf+l
,fI
k�y
�eavervrnyy '
R,y
f
}i31Wood �d
0
T c
i 64
�'t 9i D a
N lflF❑OL1 tin f'{ 11
As he °
Emrne �6 c
U
H
' Q �70
'r H7r ""Ipallo+' AYe - �
' BI A1i1�
Ra P ey
d
e o �� Tunnel Rd
ID e �4o 1 wad
R r'
� s 4
erys $� +reyna�0j ���ac
halo .o" St
Am»ay Rd °V,Rd,- - ---.. _y
�rVl
Legend P'
__I Project Boundary
Drawn by: TJK 10.21.2019; CFC Project# 303
atil GAR � , V�►
� a
�yKd 1
0
C9
n" 9
146
a
r
Q
0
v
m
0
a
0; ; Biltmore
"o, , Forest
m �
m -
+ x
OL a
s�uo
a
0
� U
i Y!
� m
t
ors { 25 � . L`1
0
qp.
N
A
9
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Buncombe County, CLearWater Site Vicinity
North Carolina Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Ranger - Biltmore Farms (+/- 450 AC)
r'
r J
000,
Project Boundary
•'Ah a -�
Ya
li l
V laoil
------------
Vk
10
- Legend 1f `
* r 0 500 1,000 2,000
r Project Boundary Feet
4 rr►� '- z
Drawn by: B P.8!19; E Rroject#.303
ti-
Buncombe County, CLearWaker USGS Topographic Map North Carolina Asheville / Skyland Quads
32 Clayton Street Figure 2
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

U
Q
0
LO
E
c�
H
a�
0
E

d
o
0 a N 0
O N T T T T
O
O O
E E a 0 Q 0 V U c>' 0 E N a N @ o 00 O 0 C
N N 9OE
@ o
w E 6 N in N _N M a O O > d N
N e N M O N 2 N T N X
m \ p m o. O N m c C c O
c M c N e M N @ @ 0 N N N Eo
O N a0 d 6 N N N N O O M M C N V lti
E N O O
o x = = �c c c o o 3 3 3 0 E a a ui Y
@ m y m U U U U U E c o m E m aci Q w
J O 'O O O c c V 'O 'Q D @O @ O O > 0
p E l20_ O O O @ @ @ @ @ N @ @ OM.
m m m U U U U U w w W w W O K N H F 7 7 u�/
o Q 0 U U m H U 0 W U 0 w W a m W U 2i W
@ Y Y Y > > �i 3 3 Q m 0 O U L c
i a m m c� c� c� c� c� w w w w � � � � � 3 z
2IDIDIIIII11UI6EIIIII
r
�.7
U it
oo
00
ai
w' w M
O 0 3 w N
w w w
w w / Q
U \
' w
p w
U � i
Y �
WU I I
O
F-
a I __
Y
p ii �
w N O
I
'1 U
o
d o �z
�i m j o
3 "

u>
N
LL
N
y
LL
Z'
O
o
"'
m
w
N
LLO
-o
a)
da3
c
m
LL
v
3
v
°
�0
a
`m m
c a) y
c
a)o
o m
m a
> m
c
S
cc
co
v
m
com
a
m m
i
a` U in
O c
m0
U =
a
2
0
00
00
N
a� Q
Y O
O U
f^u, U z
W cq
U
Q

Appendix A:
US Fish
and Wildlife
Service
County
Database
Information
and
NC
Natural
Heritage Program Data

10/17/2019
Buncombe County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern,
and Candidate Species,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Updated: 06-27-2018
Common Name
Vertebrate:
Allegheny woodrat
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Bachman's sparrow
Blotchside logperch
Bog turtle
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Cerulean warbler
Eastern small -footed bat
Gray bat
Hellbender
Longhead darter
Northern long-eared bat
Northern saw -whet owl (Southern
Appalachian population)
Paddlefish
Pygmy salamander
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Red crossbill (Southern
Appalachian)
Southern Appalachian black -
capped chickadee
Southern water shrew
Spotfin chub (=turquise shiner)
Yellow -bellied sapsucker
(Southern Appalachian population)
Scientific name
Federal
Record Status
Status
Neotoma magister
FSC
Current
Thryomanes bewickii altus
FSC
Historic
Aimophila aestivalis
FSC
Historic
Percina burtoni
FSC
Historic
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
T (S/A)
Current
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
E
Current
Dendroica cerulea
FSC
Current
Myotis leibii
ARS
Current
Myotis grisescens
E
Current
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
ARS
Current
Percina macrocephala
FSC
Historic
Myotis septentrionalis
T
Current
Aegolius acadicus pop. 1
FSC
Current
Polyodon spathula
FSC
Historic
Desmognathus wrighti
FSC
Current
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
FSC
Historic
Loxia curvirostra
FSC
Current
Poecile atricapillus practicus
FSC
Historic
Sorex palustris punctulatus
FSC
Current
Erimonax monachus
T
Historic
Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis
FSC
Current
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/buncombe.html 1/3

10/17/2019
Invertebrate:
Buncombe County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Rusty -patched bumble bee Bombus affinis E
Southern Tawny Crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesd maconensis FSC
Spruce -fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga E
Tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. E
walkeri)
Vascular Plant:
Blue Ridge Goldenrod
Blue Ridge Ragwort
Bunched arrowhead
Butternut
Cain's reedgrass
Fraser fir
Fraser's loosestrife
French Broad heartleaf
Gray's lily
Granite Dome Goldenrod
Mountain Sweet Pitcherplant
Piratebush
Spreading avens
Virginia spiraea
Nonvascular Plant:
a liverwort
a liverwort
Appalachian Pocket Moss
Lichen:
Rock gnome lichen
Current
Current
Historic
Historic
Current
Historic and Obscure
Solidago spithamaea
T
Current
Packera millefolium
FSC
Current
Sagittaria fasciculata
E
Historic
Juglans cinerea
FSC
Historic
Calamagrostis cainii
FSC
Current
Abies fraseri
FSC
Current
Lysimachia fraseri
FSC
Historic
Hexastylis rhombiformis
FSC
Current
Lilium grayi
FSC
Current
Solidago simulans
FSC
Current
Sarracenia rubra ssp. Jonesii
E
Current
Buckleya distichophylla
FSC
Current
Geum radiatum
E
Current
Spiraea virginiana
T
Historic
Plagiochila sharpii
ARS
Current
Plagiochila virginica var:
FSC
Current
caroliniana
Fissidens appalachiensis
ARS
Historic
Gymnoderma lineare
E
Current
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing. (Formerly "Cl" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
ARS = At Risk Species. Species that are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered
Species Act. Consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for Candidate or Proposed species;
although a Conference, as described under Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA is recommended for actions affecting
species proposed for listing.
FSC=Federal Species of Concern. FSC is an informal term. It is not defined in the federal Endangered Species
Act. In North Carolina, the Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
define Federal Species of Concern as those species that appear to be in decline or otherwise in need of
conservation and are under consideration for listing or for which there is insufficient information to support
listing at this time.Subsumed under the term "FSC" are all species petitioned by outside parties and other
selected focal species identified in Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or Natural Heritage
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/buncombe.html 2/3

10/17/2019 Buncombe County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
Program Lists.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered
or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land,
for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT",
respectively.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)_
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-
listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007.
After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the
primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a
statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid
disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit http://www.fws.goy/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm
Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S/A))_
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The
T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of
the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known
records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/buncombe.html 3/3

a sold Roy Cooper', Governor
�� N NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■iIM6 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
IN '111110 Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-10445
October 10. 2019
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Biltmore Farms 2019; 303
Dear ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the INC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented
near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butlerC�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
& 121 W JONES STREET, RALDGi+. NC 27693 • 16V MAIL SERVICE CErlTER. RALEIGH. NC_27699
OFC 919747.912b • FAK 919.747.iA21

B
�
\@
�8m@a
�LOr�\
\ [ d o 7
m m Z - ±
Q )LL
e » 2 I
4 = e \g
\-
0z
/6
\
CO
m
(N
_
a
\
�
�
Ln
�
_
g 2
2
mg
2
e%
a)/
E o
c
m
%
±
® /
E o
e U
/
/
e g
E
m
XOC 0
\
Q
E
4
± ± I
■
\
/
U
\
_
\
CD
\\
Q \
< e
0
\
}
\
ƒ
�
!
j
0
z
ƒ
?
/
\bi
_
/
;
/
}
e
\
0
{
/2
3c
\9
\
�&
%z
/\
&/
)
0\
e
\
Q
0
Jg
\ %
\ M
s a s
-
[ 2
\ \ \
»g
-
\
\ §
`\
/}
`
2\
}
-
\c
\ (
/7
s
~°
»
c
=r
ƒ
/}
.2
{>
_\
/
4�
-
}a }
\5
} \ }
: \
_'2
e $ a
\ /
y \
LI) 0/
/\
70/
\ \ /
;2
/2
\
g \
<
G 2 e
2 2 S
= 6
@s
\
=
0})
`/
}
»
g —
{ \
® <
u \
t ®
s ±
/ \
4-1 /
(j
=o
/
\\
0
\ \
/ \
/\
\§
3 3
m @
\/
G e
u ƒ
:
-®
� \
/ \
ƒ I
�\
00
a E
\ \
ƒ\
0E
\(\
\\
\\
/\
G
G z
% )
±
± gEg
§ ®03
\<
�
\<�°��{
\\
/_
{
z //\
M«2x
\(
Z
z >
o e
m z 2 z§
0 z
L�-
Z I
s& I& LL
C/ƒ
\
k
2

I
\ \
\
/
/ G
7
/
/
ƒ
\
e 2
3
U)
R
e
\
\
/
\
/ /
\
3
/
/
/
m
t m/
u%
3%
(
u% m@
(
m@
\
\
\ j
\
/ %
e \
} /
V) o
/
� o
/ / %
� o £ ®
/ %
£ ®
\
»
� °
c ;
\ \
,
,
,
e
U
U
U e
e
=
a
G=_
/
7
7
±
+
± ±
0
_0
_0
� \/
/
/
o
=
_
\
±
±
\
\
\ \
\
\
\
§ /
5
5
5 5
3
@ 4
5
5
5
y kE
0.-
k
k
k
O =
a)
a)
a)
s
© /
?
\u Ed
} E \ \ m o U ƒ ± ± \ ƒ ± U \ % I
®m /u
-0 Ln c
ag\#
/Loma#
da
§ [w //\/
/
\
\
±
/ ao
®
mz
±
—±
$
—\
3
u//
>e
c
I#o
c
o
z
4
%%o
o OC)
�uo
o
3
cc)
G\%
E
7/
u U
-0 3
5
5
CC)\
E
b
&
5&
\
6
^
/
m a
E O Z
u
O G
a
a
m
G
G
±6
<
0
%
\
M
2
0
\
0
%
2
s
}
m
0
=
%
\
\
\
a)\
/
/
\
E
3
I
2
%
\
/
/
_
0
/
\
/
\
\
\ \
[
o
\
\
/
\/,
u
E
0
Q
u
O
6»
»
m
c
/
3
4
U
7
c(3.
.
.
.
�
\
%
E
p
m
%
3 z \
4-1
/
?
/
%
\
_
/ } / 2
t
%
o
e
\
m
u .@
\
.z =
m
2
c
/
# / / ±
Q m— e
o
o$
® o
0@
« o
@
E
\}}tE\
§/�\�^\\\LLC-0
m=
o e=» 2=
%._._
IE-
m=m2=
5
a
§=E
m
E
=
g
m=t®o==
mEa>.-�mm2\o
0
m
m o
u
0=2«22=22E.C)-°�99E®
> o s°
s=
e=
s
/E
3 g
g
m
m>
e
3> o 0=o
0 0
o.m
E0
o s\
m
m
U
42%
@
E
Eyy±eyeyeEe\fie
m
=u«Jess±/3
\o
z
0
m
m
m
/
o
ƒ
a
©#
S 5
/
%
\
u O
e
I
x
e
m
I
x
I
#
e
e
—
#
e
o
m
x
o@ a
o
a
#
#
e
a
=
y m
x
a
x
t
e
&
e
@
— e e
e
e
e
\
§
%
2
2
\ u
\
>
±
±
±
±
[
\
9
\
9
\
9
\
�
\
*
*
*
* E
/
E
\
e_e_e
}
ƒ
e m-E
m-
E m-
E m-
E
E)/
E
E
E
z
m e
m z
E 2 E
3
E 2
E 3
E
2 m
E
E
E
g
\[
m
±.e
±.e
±
/ m m o
m
0 m
0 m
0
±eOA4
4
4
3
OO±I±I±
±sZU
ZUZUZU
■
■
s
\
2

\ \
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
5
e
e
e
e
0 /
\
\
\
/
/
\
\
\
s
s
)s
\ t
\-=
U
t/±
3=
'
e e
e
m o
o m
e
e.- %.-
m E
/
3 %
/
/ %
%
/ %
C »
%
a ( /
0
/ 2
s\
=
©
o e
U 3
y
? 3
3\
3
3= o
®©±
z=
e
m
a
e
ƒ .-
ƒ
+
+
7
e
3 2
m
ID
75
\
/ \
/
\ \
/\
\/_//_
$�
$�
<f
7
\
\
\
\
%y
u
a
c
y
4
m
e
5
\
)
\
>
/
2
ƒ
\
D
\
e % %
E
>
/
y
z
z
a
a
%
2
\
'® j D 0
a s 5
<
G
G
G
G
\(D T
\%% o%
m e
\\//
s-0
//
ƒƒƒ//u
\ §\
E\/
2
co
I
4
±
x
<
2
3/
y
=
eT
O
\
\ )
%
/ m
}
/
/
\
o
/
/
\
< /
m�\ e
>®o
3
®
c
$
o
\
o-
j
I
o
/
2
o
g
mm
® \%\
J
7
\
4
o\
&
7
\
2�
g g
2
m
2
\
3
^
\
@
/
/
e
g e
\ \
u 0
-
\
a
©
/
m
.§
m
|-
\
\ \
/
%
}(13
$
E
3
\
m = e
Uu 0 >
\ \
°
U
/
2
)
/
D
E .e
°
\
%
£
U) U
m > e
®
°
©
\
D
y
/
m ? I
E
\ 3 /
\ \
Co \
/
-
2
s
z
E
c > y
\ $
.- .-
\
\
j
/
/
/ % e._
/
.- 3
\ m m 0
\
\
\
e
com
a
%
®��®
!
��
E
z
E
\
/ ®
ƒ / / /
%
/ / / /
\ \
e
%
+
+
2
)
o
\
\
\
\
} \
}
\
E
$
m
m
m
j
a
3
Z
c 3
c
\
a
7
=
m
2
2
\
0
%_
e
\
u
/
°
m
-
\
6
\ t E
4
/ e
/
(
/ .@
)
ƒ
/
E \
\
/ \
°
z
/
O
m
% e x
/m
m
\
\
U)
Ln
x
j
E
m
m
=
e
= m a
D
%
\ /
m
m E
E
\_
\
-C
U >
/
/
(D
_«
z%
o j
±/
%
C°
3
\
c 2 U
)
E/
0
/32
Ee
\
u
g°
\E/
\
x
® e
s
\ >y
= g
E-_
>_
>
m
\\
m o
m
f
o
z o
±
°
u e
<\
O E
3 E
3
I
I z
16
�
\
= E
t
6 ®$
\
\\
E
o
e
I
0-)
CN
x
t
zj\
>
\
00
/
j
\2=2m
m
/
E} \
\
m
a
e
e
m
a
/
\u
°\
LL\/
/\
E \
°
EI
\
\
\
\
\
/
\
wwcmo
0 �
\ e
0._
3
y
y
y
y
o e\ j
\ _
D 0 m
/ m
t (
%
%
%
%
%
®
E ± I =
\
=.
e 2 2
o
I ±
J
J
J
\
/
/
(10 M
> /
E 0
x o
\
z
\
z
\
z
\
z
\
z
� te e
e=__
_=
M
e° ___
//\
\/$/\
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
/
/
/
/
/
ƒm/\////$
■
§
\
_

3
\
(3
z
_
/
z
/
s
\
6
\\
/z
5/
\\
(\
{�
\ J\
R `3
e \2
\ M
/ \ �\
{)
_ (\
m §E
/ %/
»_
LU a/
\
° �\
/ \ -
4
\ \
/ u /\
\
ED� }2
0
/ \\ _&
9 Sj
0) \ \
e m u;
E / s/
ƒ I
O \ .0
m \ t%
_ ƒE
-C \ \/
\ 2
/ \ ��
\ j \M
E I zE
(°" )0 _
/ / X
\ } E
< 4 J f
\\\ cr
c3
0) 0)> / (
$ {a
ƒ M/ < \}
�
\
_

r
v
CV
w
E
m
Lj-
L
0
E
m
v
r
U
Z
r U
� VI
,"tick Rd
'n
r
Db aak
r
r Rd
Nk
all Rd
Cnp��L f��, fl1a
� aF
� Z Q
O Z
d Q
'tl
3 O
m
a, 0o
o a
0
Z
N y m (9
a` ono z 2
`m
0❑El El D
0
z.
101

Appendix B :
Photo Log

79
AR
7�1
41
411617 4 2 019 9 4'

t
w�

-, 1011512019 0B,:,50
IA
p,

Attachment C
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND SITE EVALUATION ON THE
BILTMORE PARK WEST TRACT FOR PROJECT RANGER,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PART 1: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE AND
EXISTING ACCESS ROADS
DRAFT REPORT
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

TRC
Results you can rely on
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND SITE EVALUATION ON THE
BILTMORE PARK WEST TRACT FOR PROJECT RANGER,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PART 1: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE AND
EXISTING ACCESS ROADS
DRAFT REPORT
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
November 2019

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND SITE EVALUATION ON THE
BILTMORE PARK WEST TRACT FOR PROJECT RANGER,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PART 1: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE AND
EXISTING ACCESS ROADS
DRAFT REPORT
USACE Action ID 2019-01867
Submitted to:
BILTMORE FARMS, LLC
One Town Square Boulevard, Suite 330
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
By:
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
5 Dogwood Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Authored by:
Paul Webb and Michael Nelson
November 2019

This page intentionally left blank.

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey of a 63.92-acre (25.87
hectare) proposed development site and associated existing access roads on the Biltmore Park West tract in
Buncombe County, North Carolina, on behalf of Biltmore Farms, LLC. This report is the first of three
archaeological survey and evaluation reports anticipated in connection with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) permitting of the proposed construction of a bridge across the French Broad River (USACE
Action ID 2019-01867). Together, the proposed bridge project and the associated development are known
as Project Ranger (the Project).
This report addresses survey and site evaluation of a proposed development site (including an associated
sewer line corridor) situated east of the French Broad River on Biltmore Farm's Arrowhead Peninsula (so
called based on its shape) southwest of Asheville. The parcel is wooded in secondary growth and is crossed
by several unimproved roads. Much of the area is steeply sloped, although there are relatively level
landforms along the ridge tops and stream drainages; an estimated 16.4 percent of the tract (10.54 acres)
exhibits 10 percent or less slope. The survey and site evaluation fieldwork was conducted from October 8-
29, 2019 and was directed by Michael Nelson; the work followed an earlier reconnaissance of the parcel
and a surrounding tract conducted by Nelson earlier in 2019 (Webb and Nelson 2019a). Existing roads that
will be used to access the development site were also examined as part of this stage of the Project.
Subsequent reports will address portions of the Project Ranger footprint situated south and west of the
present survey parcel, including areas on both sides of the French Broad River.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant archaeological resources that might be
present on the parcel in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and so
that the information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements for
an intensive archaeological survey as defined by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and Office
of State Archaeology (HPO/OSA) and complies with the OSA's (2017) Archaeological Investigation
Standards and Guidelines as well as with NFsNC guidelines. The potential for non -archaeological cultural
resources to be affected by Project Ranger is being addressed separately.
Background research included review of site files and reports at the OSA in Raleigh and Asheville as well
as of historical maps and information available in local repositories and on-line or provided by Scott
Shumate, Biltmore Estate Historian. The research indicated that a single archaeological site (identified in
the earlier reconnaissance report as FS-2) was present along the edge of the parcel and that 21 other
archaeological sites (including 16 recorded with the OSA and five identified during the earlier
reconnaissance) are recorded within a one -mile radius of the development site. The background research
also indicated that several late 19th century historic farmsteads were mapped in the vicinity, two of which
(designated Potential Sites 2 and 5 [PS-2 and PS-5] during the earlier reconnaissance) were adjacent to and
possibly partially within the parcel.
The fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire development site and
systematic subsurface shovel testing at 15-m intervals across all parts of the tract that exhibited 10 percent
or less slope; supplemental shovel tests were also excavated within areas of 10 to 15 percent slope where
habitable landforms appeared to be present and at 7.5-m intervals to delineate finds. Larger (1 X 1 m) test
units were subsequently excavated to assist in site assessment. Totals of 247 shovel tests and two 1 X 1 in
units were excavated, and six archaeological sites were identified within the survey parcel. Sites 31 BN 1083,
31BN1084, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087 are isolated precontact artifact occurrences on upland landforms.
Site 31BN1082 (corresponding to both PS-2 and FS-2 from the reconnaissance) is a low to moderate density
precontact and historic period artifact scatter situated along a stream drainage. A sixth site, 31BN1085, is
a portion of a late 19th century farmstead situated along the northeastern edge of the survey parcel.

The Project site will be accessed by a network of roads connecting to the Schenck Parkway within the
existing Biltmore Park development to the southeast; no improvements are planned outside the existing
road footprints during the Project construction. The present work included inspection of those roads, but no
shovel tests were excavated and no additional archaeological sites were identified.
Of the six identified archaeological sites, five (31BN1082-31BN1084, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087) appear
to lack the potential to provide substantive information on the local, regional, or national prehistory or
history or otherwise satisfy the criteria for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and are
recommended not eligible for the NRHP under all four NRHP criteria (Table i.1). The sixth site, 31 BN 1085,
is situated along the edge of the survey area and was not fully defined during the Project work. Additional
investigations outside the Project boundaries would be necessary to allow a recommendation concerning
the NRHP eligibility of site 31BN1085, and the eligibility of that site is considered unassessed. Based on
work completed within the Project boundaries and proposed protective measures, however, TRC
recommends that no additional work is needed at this site as part of the present development.
Based on these survey results, TRC recommends that construction and other ground disturbing activities
within the 63.92 acre tract (including the sewer corridor), as well as use of the existing access roads, will
not affect NRHP-eligible or unassessed archaeological sites, and that no further archaeological
investigations be required for this part of the Project Ranger footprint.
Table i.l. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations for Project Sites.
Site Component(s) NRHP Recommendation
31BN1082 Precontact lithic scatter; Postcontact (191 century farmstead) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
31BN1083 Precontact lithic scatter (nondiagnostic isolated find) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
...
31 BN 1084 Precontact lithic scatter (nondiagnostic isolated find) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
.................................................................................................._......................................................................... ...................... ......... ..........
31BN1085 Postcontact (19t�' century) farmstead Unassessed; no further work for Project
31BN1086 nondiarecontact lithic scatter ostic isolated find
............................................................ P.............................................................................................._(..........................._........................................................................_)Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria......................................................................._g................_(..........................................................................................._).................
31BN1087 Precontact lithic scatter (Middle to Late Archaic) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TRC would like to thank Lee Thomason and Keith Levi of Biltmore Farms, LLC; Will Buie of WGLA
Engineering, PLLC; and Clement Riddle of Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc., for facilitating the
work.
Scott Shumate, Historian at the Biltmore Estate, is thanked for sharing information from the Biltmore
Estates Archive as well as his knowledge of the culture history and resources of the area.
For TRC, Michael Nelson and Lincoln Caldwell conducted the survey. Belinda Cox and Brenda Magouirk-
Nelson processed and analyzed the artifacts. Matt Pare prepared the graphics, Hannah Smith assisted with
report production, and the report was copyedited by Heather Millis.
iii

This page intentionally left blank.
iv

CKe�.i`tm"M
MANAGEMENTSUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................................iii
FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... vii
TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... ix
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... I
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................. 5
ProjectSetting........................................................................................................................................ 5
Physiography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrology...................................................................................... 5
ModernClimate.................................................................................................................................... I I
FloraAnd Fauna................................................................................................................................... I I
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................13
PrecontactOverview............................................................................................................................13
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.).......................................................................................13
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)................................................................................................14
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000)....................................................................................17
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1540)....................................................................................... 20
Historic Cherokee Occupations............................................................................................................ 20
Pre -Removal Cherokee Occupations................................................................................................ 21
Eighteenth through Twentieth Century Cherokee Settlements......................................................... 22
Post -Contact Period Overview............................................................................................................. 24
Previous Archaeological Research....................................................................................................... 25
4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS...............................................................................................27
ResearchGoals.....................................................................................................................................
27
ResearchMethods................................................................................................................................
27
BackgroundResearch........................................................................................................................
27
FieldMethods....................................................................................................................................
27
LaboratoryMethods..........................................................................................................................
27
Curation.............................................................................................................................................
28
NRHP Eligibility Evaluations...........................................................................................................
28
5. RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 29
BackgroundResearch........................................................................................................................... 29
Previous Surveys and Identified Resources...................................................................................... 29
Local History and Historic Map Review........................................................................................... 30
Summary........................................................................................................................................... 31
Archaeological Field Survey and Site Evaluation — Development Site ............................................... 43
31 BN 1082......................................................................................................................................... 48
31 BN 1083......................................................................................................................................... 63
31 BN 1084......................................................................................................................................... 65
31 BN 1085......................................................................................................................................... 67
31 BN 1086......................................................................................................................................... 73
31 BN 1087......................................................................................................................................... 76
Archaeological Field Survey and Site Evaluation — Existing Access Roads ....................................... 78
u

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 81
REFERENCESCITED............................................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX 1. ARTIFACT CATALOG
vi

FIGURES
1.1. Location of Project Ranger in western North Carolina....................................................................... 2
1.2. Location of Project Ranger, and the current (Phases 1 and 2) survey area, and existing access
roads....................................................................................................................................................
3
2.1. Wide wooded ridge in north -central portion of the development site, facing northeast .....................
6
2.2. Existing road along ridge in the southwest corner of the development site, facing north ..................
6
2.3. Small drainage in the west -central portion of the development site, facing north ..............................
7
2.4. Floodplain along the French Broad River within proposed sewer line corridor, facing north ............
7
2.5. Existing access road (River Road) along the French Broad River, facing south ................................
8
2.6. Existing access road in uplands along the southeastern edge of the project area, facing south..........
8
2.7. Slope categories within the development site and sewer easement ....................................................
9
2.8. Soils within the development site and sewer easement.....................................................................10
5.1. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1891 Topographical Map of
Biltmore Estate at Time of Purchase.................................................................................................
32
5.2. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1892 Biltmore Estate,
Preliminary Plan of Forest and Other Drives..................................................................................
33
5.3. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1895 Topographical Map of
Biltmore Estate Buncombe County, N. C., Property of Geo. W. Vanderbilt, Esq ..............................
34
5.4. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1896 Guide Map of the
BiltmoreEstate..................................................................................................................................
35
5.5. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the ca. 1896 detail maps ..............
36
5.6. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1901 USGS Asheville
(1:125000) quadrangle......................................................................................................................
37
5.7 The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1920 Buncombe County
soilsmap (Perkins et al. 1923)..........................................................................................................
38
5.8. The proposed development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1936 USGS
Asheville planimetric (1:24000) quadrangle.....................................................................................39
5.9. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on a 1940 aerial photograph ............40
5.10. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1943 USGS Asheville
topographic (1:24000) quadrangle....................................................................................................
41
5.11. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1961 USGS Asheville
topographic(1:24000) quadrangle....................................................................................................42
5.12. Representative shovel test profile (Shovel Test 109 at 31BN1084) in uplands................................43
5.13. Representative shovel test profile (Shovel Test 244) on the French Broad River floodplain...........
44
5.14. Archaeological sites identified by the survey...................................................................................45
5.15. Shovel tests excavated and archaeological sites identified by the survey.........................................46
5.16. Eastern portion of 31BN1082, facing east........................................................................................49
5.17. Western portion of 31BN1082, facing northwest.............................................................................49
5.18. Map of site 31BN1082......................................................................................................................
50
5.19. Restroom facility at horse camp at 31BN1082, facing west.............................................................51
5.20. Metal storage container used as reservoir for restroom facility and water pipe in creek along
southwest corner of 31BN1082, facing east......................................................................................
51
5.21. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1891 map..................................................................
52
5.22. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1892 map..................................................................
52
5.23. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1895 map..................................................................53
5.24. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1896 detail maps (Sheet 40).....................................53
5.25. Distribution of precontact artifacts in shovel tests at 31BN1082......................................................55
5.26. Distribution of historic period artifacts in shovel tests at 31BN1082...............................................56
5.27. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 1 north wall profile drawing...................................................................57
vii

5.28. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 1 north wall profile photograph..............................................................57
5.29. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 2 north wall profile drawing...................................................................
58
5.30. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 2 north wall profile photograph..............................................................58
5.31. Precontact artifacts from 31BN1082, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087...................................................61
5.32. Historic period artifacts from 31BN1082..........................................................................................62
5.33. View of 31BN1083, facing southeast...............................................................................................63
5.34. Map of site 31BN1083......................................................................................................................64
5.35. View of 31BN1083, Shovel Test 101 profile....................................................................................64
5.36. View of 31BN1084, facing north......................................................................................................65
5.37. Map of site 31BN1084......................................................................................................................66
5.38. View of 31BN1084, Shovel Test 109 profile....................................................................................66
5.39. Map of site 31BN1085......................................................................................................................68
5.40. Southernmost stone pile and depression at 31BN1085, facing east..................................................69
5.41. Stone rubble outside the development site at 31BN1085, facing east..............................................69
5.42. View of 31BN1085, Shovel Test 237 profile.....................................................................................70
5.43. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1891 map..................................................................70
5.44. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1892 map..................................................................
71
5.45. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1895 map..................................................................71
5.46. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1896 detail maps (Sheet 34).....................................72
5.47. View of 31BN1086, facing north......................................................................................................74
5.48. Map of site 31BN1086......................................................................................................................74
5.49. View of 31BN1086, Shovel Test 64 profile......................................................................................75
5.50. View of 31BN1087, facing west.......................................................................................................76
5.51. Map of site 31BN1087......................................................................................................................77
5.52. View of 31BN1087, Shovel Test 84 profile......................................................................................77
5.53. Existing access road (River Road) along the French Broad River, facing west................................78
5.54. Existing access road (River Road) along the French Broad River, facing south ..............................
79
5.55. Existing access road in uplands along the southeastern edge of the project area, facing south ........
79
viii

TABLES
i.1. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations for Project Sites.........................................................................ii
3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Western North Carolina through 1838....................................13
5.1. Previously Recorded Sites within One Mile of the Development Site...............................................29
5.2. Additional Sites Identified within One Mile of the Development Site ............................................... 30
5.3. Archaeological Sites Identified during the Project Ranger Development Site Survey.......................47
5.4. Test Units at 31BN1082.....................................................................................................................59
5.5. Lithic Artifacts from 31BN1082.........................................................................................................59
5.6. Historic Period Artifacts from 31BN1082..........................................................................................60
6.1. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations for Project Sites....................................................................... 82
ix

This page intentionally left blank.

1. INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey of a ca. 63.92 acre (25.87
hectare) proposed development site and an associated existing access road situated on the Biltmore Park
West tract in Buncombe County, North Carolina, on behalf of Biltmore Farms, LLC. This report represents
the first of three archaeological survey and evaluation reports anticipated in connection with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting in connection with proposed construction of a bridge across the
French Broad River (USACE Action ID 2019-01867). Together, the proposed bridge project and associated
development are known as Project Ranger.
This report addresses survey and site evaluation of a proposed development site (including an associated
sewer line corridor) situated east of the French Broad River on Biltmore Farm's Arrowhead Peninsula (so
called based on its shape) southwest of Asheville, which constitutes Phases 1 and 2 of Project Ranger
(Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The parcel is wooded in secondary growth and is crossed by several unimproved
roads. Much of the area is steeply sloped, although there are relatively level landforms along the ridge tops
and stream drainages. The survey and site evaluation fieldwork was conducted from October 8-29, 2019
and was directed by Michael Nelson; the work followed a reconnaissance of the parcel and a surrounding
tract directed by Nelson earlier in 2019 (Webb and Nelson 2019a). An existing road that will be used to
access the development site was also examined as part of this stage of the Project. Subsequent reports will
address portions of the Project Ranger footprint situated south and west of the present survey parcel,
including areas on both sides of the French Broad River.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant cultural resources that might be present
on the parcel in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and so that the
information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements for an
intensive archaeological survey as defined by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and Office
of State Archaeology (HPO/OSA) and complies with the OSA's (2017) Archaeological Investigation
Standards and Guidelines.
The remainder of this report documents the results of the survey and is organized in the following way.
Chapter 2 provides information on the natural environment, and Chapter 3 presents a summary of the
regional culture history. Chapter 4 specifies the research goals and methods, while the results of the
background research and the survey are presented in Chapter 5. The conclusions and recommendations are
provided in Chapter 6, which is followed by a list of references cited in the text. Appendix 1 contains the
artifact catalog.

N ti B a I d 00LArranr+Aduntam " t
S
� �
W E �_ S ar7iP-r-on y
!.Rt7urytain
#� S
WAL1+1UT MOUNT lN4I
I-17�' tll
+M4�d'1;r�n _ irernaf 80
BL
ACK
4_. Blame i
i
F
t F;j r n; �, rr O U M A - he r r; A evllte S�iannan �h
27 A C U rV T A iirii'-,S r `1
J' f--, Mobntain�
ton
v<#ynas•:tll? Project r- k
t
Location Royal Pines
-z f
r. ti
' a r•, : A f n; ¢ � .-f ,� + ��y` r
r t
Shrnrng •f � - s, Untaln e s , �•I „�+�t
lit k 4 �l e '
e':rldernes' Jf r/
ddle Prony Iinehu
Wilderness
r. r
n4ah
, - en ersonville
E Flat -
I R k_ `-
r Flat Rock
'I
Ird _
µtit pFbw ,Tryon �.
•state' +:
- F',resr
- -, ' -
g?� _ `" and
tN
vor es (47tj
State Park
I
0 to Miles
:for 4 St 3 � �rNe v
Figure 1.1. Location of Project Ranger in western North Carolina.
2

/**IProject Ranger (Phl & 2)
Project Ranger (Ph3)
Project Ranger (Ph4) of
Access Road r
Asheville and Skyland
North Carolina 1965 ,. ,.
7.5 Minute Quadrangle
:`ate ���i�:r�.+'��'��
f��
Buncombe
0
0
0
0
0
Miles
0 4,000
Feet
0 1
Kilometers
1
0
19
N
W E
s
Figure 1.2. Location of Project Ranger, the current (Phases 1 and 2) survey area, and existing access
roads.
3

This page intentionally left blank.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT SETTING
The proposed development site is situated in the uplands of the Arrowhead Peninsula, a portion of the
Biltmore Park West tract southeast and east of the French Broad River and south of Interstate Highway 26
(I-26) in Buncombe County, North Carolina. Topographically, the parcel contains a series of narrow to
moderately broad ridgetops and upland slopes that trend in various directions from principal ridges that
trend generally southeast to northwest across the east -central part of the tract (Figures 2.1-2.3). Most of the
tract is drained by ephemeral drainages, although an unnamed stream (which is modified into an artificial
pond near its head) runs southeast -northwest along the western edge of the parcel. An associated proposed
sewer line corridor leads northwest downslope to the French Broad River (Figure 2.4). Associated existing
access roads run along the French Broad River before turning south into the uplands (Figures 2.5 and 2.6).
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND HYDROLOGY
The study area is situated in the Blue Ridge province of the Appalachian Mountains within the
intermountain plateau (Asheville Basin) physiographic subdivision (Goldston et al. 1954:3), which is the
largest intermountain basin in the Blue Ridge. In North Carolina, the Blue Ridge stretches from the Unaka
and Great Smoky mountains in the west to the Blue Ridge escarpment, which borders the Piedmont at the
Brevard fault in the east (Orr and Stuart 2000:21-20). The Blue Ridge Province is traditionally described
as the area between the Brevard fault zone and the Blue Ridge fault systems and is characterized by thrust
sheets with separate tectonic histories (Hatcher and Goldberg 1991). The intermountain plateau is a broad
valley on either side of the French Broad River that is characteristically rolling and hilly, with an average
elevation of 2,300 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) (Goldston et al. 1954:4). Elevations on the survey tract
range from about 2,060 to 2,210 ft AMSL. Approximately 16.4 percent (10.54 acres) of the Phase 1 and 2
survey area exhibits 10 percent or less slope (Figure 2.7).
Geologically, the project area is within the Blue Ridge Belt (North Carolina Geological Survey [NCGS]
1985). The Blue Ridge Belt is an area that has a similar complex geologic history characterized by
metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks that have been transformed by the intense pressures and
temperatures related to internal plate tectonics. The project area is within the northeast -southwest trending
Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation and is underlain by foliated to massive, locally
conglomeratic metagraywacke, which is interlayered and gradational with mica schist, muscovite-biotite
gneiss, and rare graphite schist (NCGS 1985). Important materials in precontact times, locally available
quartz, quartzite, and mica occur in the western North Carolina area. Soapstone outcrops also occur, but are
not plentiful. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such minerals as garnet, olivine, and mica were
mined in the western North Carolina mountains.
The soils across the proposed development site are mapped primarily as Evard-Cowee complex, 8 to 15
percent, 15 to 30 percent, and 30 to 50 percent slopes (61.5 percent) and Clifton sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent
and 15 to 30 percent slopes (30.6 percent), with smaller amounts of Tate loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (0.7
percent). The sewer line corridor includes small areas of Iotla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Rosman fine
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, along the French Broad River (Figure 2.8).
The surveyed parcel drains directly to the French Broad River via ephemeral drainages or the stream along
the southwestern edge of the parcel. The French Broad flows north through Buncombe and Madison
counties in North Carolina and into Tennessee. It joins the Nolichucky River just north of Cherokee
National Forest and flows west to join with the Holston River just east of Knoxville to form the Tennessee
River. The Tennessee River flows west and south into Alabama and then turns north back into Tennessee,

~J4s 4 'a7.�...,r -t. -. ry � - A�'i - +-� � �� ' '•w, a � �`'` ' 3a�
�•- R •�� r -.� - !:,Tr
• Je �, _ .' �v - < � � �r is
4.
_ Fte:�
�-t P�
Air ,
�,. i
..0 3' W
^ -
,

r
h
-
�11

r~
e � ,
r
3 8s
AP
�' � ��.� ,�'� '� � � dry �' � `�.ie•�"��Y :+r- � • .�'•..
R�°S � - 4r � � t fig. ZI-k `�. �Z ♦ � �i'�`WS wr`" � � -
{f
1,7
Li

Figure 2.8. Soils within the development site and sewer easement.
H

continuing north into Kentucky and eventually joining the Ohio River. The Ohio River joins the Mississippi
just a few miles downstream and continues southward to empty into the Atlantic Ocean at the Gulf of
Mexico.
MODERN CLIMATE
The modern climate of Buncombe County is highly influenced by elevation, aspect, and wind direction.
Daily temperatures can fluctuate widely, with cold and warm spells possible year-round. Asheville averages
47 inches of precipitation a year (Hudson 2009:7-9). The spring and fall months receive the most
precipitation, while summer months are the driest. Temperature and precipitation records indicate that the
growing season lasts for about 190 days, extending from the beginning of April through mid -October
(Goldston et al. 1954:9-10). Accumulation of snowfall in the mountains can average 10-14 inches per year
(Orr and Stuart 2000:25).
FLORA AND FAUNA
The study area is located in the Broad Basins subdivision of the Blue Ridge ecoregion as defined by Griffith
et al. (2002). This area is drier and has lower elevations and less relief than the surrounding Blue Ridge
region. Compared to the higher mountains, the Broad Basins presently have a mixture of oaks and pines
more similar to the vegetation of the Piedmont. The tract also falls in Braun's (1950) Southern Appalachians
section of the Oak -Chestnut Forest region. Prior to the 1920s and the chestnut blight, chestnut (Castanea
dentata) dominated the region, although such species as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ash
(Fraxinus spp.), hemlock (Tsuga spp.), white basswood (Tilia spp.), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), oak (Quercus
spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), walnut (Juglans nigra), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), birch (Betula spp.),
and beech (Fagus grandifolia) could be found in the valleys, coves, and along sheltered mountain slopes
(Holmes 1911:38). Little or no primary forest vegetation remains in this section of the region due to the
blight, logging, and other human activity (see Braun 1950:199). Presently, oak and pine (Pinus spp.) are
the most common species, with red maple, locust (Gleditsia spp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), and dogwood (Corpus spp.) also common on the intermountain plateau (Orr and
Stuart 2000:36-37).
In addition to arboreal species, the forests supported a variety of undergrowth species. The latter included
several varieties of edible berries, such as blackberries and raspberries (Rubus spp.) and huckleberries
(Gaylussacia spp.), as well as rivercane and numerous other species used for tools, food, and medicinal
purposes by both the Cherokee and later Euro-American settlers (Cozzo 2004; Mooney and Olbrechts 1932;
Oliver 1989:29).
The varied forests in the area would have supported a substantial and diverse fauna during and prior to
Euro-American settlement. Potential game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
black bear (Ursus americanus), elk (Cervus elaphus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
marsupialis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Other species present
included beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), otter (Lutra canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela vison), wolf (Canis sp.), panther or mountain lion (Felis
concolor), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Shelford 1963). Avian species of possible economic importance
included turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and smaller species; other species may have been valuable non-food
resources as well. The local rivers would have provided a variety of fish, including catfish (Ictaluridae),
sunfish (Centrarchidae), largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth (Micropterus dolomieui)
bass, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Altman 2006:Appendix 4).
11

This page intentionally left blank.
12

3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
PRECONTACT OVERVIEW
This chapter presents an overview of the precontact occupations of Buncombe County and western North
Carolina. Much of the earlier part of the cultural sequence for the region is based on Coe's (1964)
investigations of the precontact cultures of North Carolina, coupled with later research elsewhere in North
Carolina (e.g., Daniel 1998) and across the mountains in Tennessee (e.g., Davis 1990; Kimball 1985).
Information on the later precontact and contact period Cherokee occupations of western North Carolina is
derived from a variety of sources, including Dickens (1976), Keel (1976), Purrington (1983), Riggs (1988,
1996, 1999); Riggs and Rodning (2002), Rodning (2004), Steere (2013), Ward and Davis (1999), and
Wetmore (2002). Other data come from recent Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports for projects
in western North Carolina (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2008, 2009b; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016, 2017;
Shumate and Kimball 2006, 2016).
The precontact history of western North Carolina can be divided into four basic time and cultural periods—
Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian —that relate to both social and technological factors.
Several authors (e.g., Dickens 1976:10; Keel 1976:18; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Ward and Davis 1999;
Wetmore 2002) divide some or all of these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and name,
but vary in precise definition (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Western North Carolina through 1838.
Period Phase Chronology
Historic Cherokee Late Qualla A.D. 1700-1838
Protohistoric Middle Qualla A.D. 1500-1700
Mississippian Early Qualla A.D. 1400-1500
Late Pisgah* A.D. 1200-1400
Early Pisgah* A.D. 1000-1200
Late Woodland Undefined (Napier/Woodstock?) A.D. 800-1000
Undefined (Late Swift Creek/Cane Creek) A.D. 600-800
Middle Woodland Connestee A.D. 200-600 T
Pigeon 200 B.C. — A.D. 200
Early Woodland Swannanoa 1000?-200 B.C.
Late Archaic Otarre 1500-1000 B.C.
Savannah River 3000-1500 B.C.
Middle Archaic Guilford 4000-3000 B.C.
Morrow Mountain 6000-4000 B.C.
Stanly 6000-5500 B.C.
Early Archaic LeCroy 7000-6000 B.C.
Kirk/Palmer 7500-7000 B.C. T
Big Sandy 8000-7500 B.C.
Paleoindian Undefined (Hardaway -Dalton?) 9000-8000 B.C.
Clovis 10,500-9000 B.C.
Pre-Paleoindian Undifferentiated Unknown
T represents overlap into a later period. *The Hiwassee and upper Little Tennessee valleys contain Early and Middle Mississippian ceramic types
that are more closely related to the Woodstock, Etowah, and Savannah cultural sequence of northern Georgia (see Benyshek and Webb 2009b;
Riggs and Kimball 1996).
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.)
The earliest broadly acknowledged human presence in the continental United States dates to approximately
12,500 B.P. during the Paleoindian period. The most well-known cultural manifestation of this occupation
is called Clovis, which is represented by distinctive, fluted projectile points that have been found over a
wide geographic area in the United States. There is also an increasing number of sites that indicate (if not
conclusively demonstrate) a pre -Clovis occupation in the Americas, however; these include Meadowcroft
13

Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990, 1999); Saltville in Virginia (McDonald 2000; Weisner
1996); Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997); Topper in South Carolina (Goodyear and
Steffy 2003); and the Sloth Hole and Page-Ladson sites in Jefferson County, Florida (Dunbar 2002, 2006;
Hemmings 1999, 2004). Although none of those sites is without controversy, those and other sites (e.g.,
Monte Verde in Chile [Meltzer et al. 1997]) have forced archaeologists to revisit their models for how and
when people first arrived in the Americas (e.g., Anderson and Gillam 2000).
Most researchers accept that the human occupation of North America began with a migration of people
from Asia across the Bering land bridge, which would have been exposed from 20,000 B.P. to perhaps as
late as 10,000 B.P. due to lower sea levels associated with the Last Glacial Maximum (Anderson and Gillam
2000; Dixon 1999, 2001; Fladmark 1979; Hoffecker et al. 1993:48; Meltzer 1988, 2004; Smith 1986). Once
in North America, the method and timing of migration south into the Americas remain issues of debate.
Some researchers have argued that an ice -free corridor allowed for movement into the interior of the
continent sometime after 11,000 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1966, 1969, 1971), while others have suggested that
early settlers, once having occupied Beringia, followed a coastal route to colonize the Americas (e.g., Dixon
1999; Faught 2008; Fiedel 2000; Fladmark 1979).
Based on a study of Paleoindian settlement patterns, Anderson and Gillam (2000:43) have developed a
comprehensive model concerning the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The study analyzed paths
at a continental scale, to determine which routes would have afforded the least cost to traveling hunter -
gatherers. Factors in the model included topographic relief, locations of ice sheets and pluvial lakes, and
the location of known Paleoindian archaeological sites. The findings suggest that initial dispersal occurred
in coastal and riverine settings and on plains, and that founding populations probably spread and diversified
rapidly. The model also implies that now -submerged portions of the continental shelf may have been
important for early dispersal, whether by foot or by boat. In eastern North America, this is reflected in the
distribution of sites along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the paucity of sites in the Appalachian Mountains,
which were a barrier to mobility.
Diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points (such as Clovis and
Cumberland points); flake tools such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins are also found.
Almost all of the Paleoindian materials found in the Southeast have come from surface contexts, and as a
result few data are available concerning regional subsistence or social organization (Anderson 1990).
Hunting of late Pleistocene megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other areas, although direct
evidence for use of animals of any kind is rare in the region. Most, if not all, Paleoindian populations
probably relied extensively on other animal and plant foods as well (Meltzer and Smith 1986). Paleoindian
populations were generally highly mobile, and settlements are thought to have included small temporary
camps and less common base camps that were occupied by loosely organized bands. Paleoindians selected
high -quality lithic materials for tools, and many sites are linked to important source areas.
Paleoindian projectile points are relatively rare in the North Carolina mountains, reflecting their scarcity in
the Appalachians as a whole, although a compilation of data on known fluted points from North Carolina
revealed six examples from Buncombe County and others from elsewhere in the region (Daniel 2005). The
later Paleoindian phase appears to include Dalton (Goodyear 1982) and perhaps Hardaway (Ward 1983)
points and related cultures, although both types of artifacts are very rare in the region (Purrington 1983).
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post -glacial climatic conditions in the East and has
been subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods. Diagnostic projectile points are the primary
criteria used to identify and date Archaic manifestations. As a whole, the Archaic may be seen as a relatively
long and successful foraging adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting, fishing, and the collection of
14

wild plant resources. The period is also marked by a general increase in the density and dispersal of
archaeological remains, more regionally -distinct tool forms, and the increased use of locally available lithic
raw materials. Group size gradually increased during this period, culminating in larger populations by the
end of the period. While Archaic groups no doubt used a variety of materials to fashion utilitarian and other
items, lithic artifacts are all that remain on most sites in the Southeast due to the lack of preservation in
acidic soils. Architectural evidence is rare, suggesting that most structures were not substantial
constructions. An increasing number of Archaic sites have been the focus of intensive excavation in the
North Carolina mountains (Benyshek and Webb i.p.; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016; Jorgenson et al. 2017;
Purrington 1981; Shumate and Kimball 2016), and others have been investigated in the Tellico area of
eastern Tennessee (e.g. Chapman 1981) and in the North Carolina Piedmont (Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe
1964).
Early Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.). During the Early Archaic period, the mixed coniferous forests present
in much of the Southeast were replaced by mixed hardwood communities dominated by oak, hemlock,
beech, and maple (Claggett and Cable 1982:212), and a modern faunal assemblage was in place following
the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic period in western
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee include side -notched Big Sandy projectile points and later Palmer -
Kirk projectile points (ca. 8000-6800 B.C.). Palmer -Kirk projectile points are fairly common and
widespread occurrences in the area, but are sparse compared to Middle and Late Archaic types. Bifurcate -
based points such as the St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (ca. 6900-5800 B.C.) are also found
(Kimball 1985). Although these appear to occur more rarely in the mountains than Kirk forms (Kimball
1996; Stanyard 2003), a long-term survey of sites near Asheville (Henry 1992) documented more bifurcate -
based points than Kirks, perhaps a reflection of the intensive survey coverage up a smaller tributary
(Kimball 1996). Other tools that occur on Early Archaic sites include knives, adzes, end and side scrapers,
drills, perforators, and expedient tools (Stanyard 2003).
Low regional population densities and a continued high degree of group mobility are inferred for this
subperiod in the mountains, where most known sites are located in high upland areas, and over 90 percent
of projectile points found are of non -local chert (Bass 1975); it is also possible, however, that site burial in
the floodplains could be largely masking Early Archaic period use of these landforms (see Benyshek and
Webb 2004; Kimball 1991). The nature of more general land use patterns and strategies for technological
organization remain the subjects of discussion. To the west in Tennessee, Kimball (1996) has proposed an
ongoing change from logistical (relatively more permanent base camps from which a variety of other
satellite camps and specialized use sites were accessed) to residential (wholesale moving frequently within
zones to map onto resources) mobility patterns during the later Early Archaic period, perhaps as a result of
the first signs of warming climatic conditions. Kimball (1996:173) notes that settlement patterns (and thus
perhaps foraging strategies) for bifurcate and Kirk groups were different, with more bifurcate sites found
on T1 terraces and islands compared to Kirk sites, which are more dispersed on various landforms,
suggesting a change in foraging strategy in the later Early Archaic.
Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-4000 B.C.). During the Middle Archaic, the cool, moist conditions of the early
Holocene are generally considered to have given way to the warmer, drier climate of the Mid -Holocene
Hypsithermal interval, although there is increasing evidence that the Mountains may have seen increased
rainfall during this period (e.g., Leigh 2002; Leigh and Webb 2006). Extensive estuarine marshes and
riverine swamps began to emerge in coastal regions as sea levels ceased their post -Pleistocene rise by 3000
B.C. The northern hardwoods vegetation matrix in those regions was replaced by an oak -hickory forest,
which was in turn replaced by a southern hardwoods -pine forest characterized by the species occupying the
region today (Claggett and Cable 1982:212-216; Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, 1985). Subsistence
economies became increasingly diversified, particularly evident in the Mid -South and lower Midwest
during the Shell Mound Archaic, where riverine settings were chosen more often for occupation (Sassaman
1996).
15

The Middle Archaic witnessed the first substantial occupation of the Smoky Mountains (Bass 1975:109),
and presumably of western North Carolina in general. Site file data indicate a marked increase in site
numbers from the Early to the Middle Archaic in the Carolinas and Georgia (Anderson 1996), and Morrow
Mountain projectile points increase markedly in frequency when compared to earlier types in western North
Carolina (Leftwich 1999). Three subperiods recognized in most of North Carolina are identified by the
presence of Stanly (ca. 6000-5000 B.C.), Morrow Mountain (ca. 5000-4200 B.C.), and Guilford (ca. 4200-
3500 B.C.) projectile points, following the classic Archaic sequence first identified by Coe (1964), although
more recent research demonstrates that additional projectile point forms were used as well (Shumate and
Kimball 2016). Archaeologically, the transition from the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic is
characterized by the appearance of stemmed rather than notched projectile points and an increased
incidence of groundstone tools. Reliance on locally available quartz and quartzite rather than higher quality
non -local chert for stone tools increased in the Appalachian Summit as well as other parts of North Carolina,
northern Georgia, and South Carolina. A state-wide distribution study shows that over 77 percent of Middle
Archaic projectile points from Mountain counties are made of quartz (McReynolds 2005:23). Atlatl weights
make their first appearance in the archaeological record during the Middle Archaic, as do stone net sinkers.
The use of a more expedient stone tool technology (see Binford 1977, 1979) predominates during the
Middle Archaic (Stanyard 2003).
Based on studies in South Carolina, researchers have suggested that Morrow Mountain peoples were
foragers who resided at a location until local resources were depleted (Blanton and Sassaman 1989;
Sassaman 1983). This idea is consistent with an archaeological pattern characterized by local raw material
utilization, the wide distribution of sites in various landscape settings and their small size, the lack of
evidence for long-term occupations, and the absence of discernible substantial trade networks (Stanyard
2003:48-49). Morrow Mountain sites are frequently encountered in the uplands of western North Carolina
(e.g., Purrington 1981), on smaller drainages (Yu 2001), and in floodplains of major rivers, and are
sometimes buried (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2004). Bass (1975) found that half of the Middle Archaic sites
he analyzed were in the uplands, with the others in valleys and coves.
Late Archaic (ca. 4000-1000 B.C.). Late Archaic sites are common in western North Carolina as elsewhere
in the lower Southeast, suggesting region -wide population increase from the Middle Archaic (Anderson
1996). Late Archaic sites are in a wide range of environmental zones, although most major settlements were
in riverine or estuarine settings (Bass 1975; Ward 1983). The existence of formal base camps occupied
seasonally or longer is inferred, together with a range of smaller resource -exploitation sites, such as hunting,
fishing, or plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward 1983). In particular, many Late Archaic
sites in the Smoky Mountains appear to be situated near quartzite sources (Bass 1975:77; Shumate and
Kimball 2016). Grinding implements, polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls became fairly
common, suggesting increased use of plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence strategies and
cooking technologies. Although regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with horticulture
probably occurred at this time, with the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo), sunflower
(Helianthus sp.), and Chenopodium (Cowan 1985; Ford 1981; Smith 1989).
Soapstone vessels appear to have been most widely used in the eastern United States between 1800 to 1000
B.C. (associated dates range from ca. 4000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 0) (Truncer 2004:505-506). The scarcity of
earlier dates and wide gaps in geographical distribution suggest that soapstone bowl manufacture occurred
continuously at "low levels of production" or was adopted and then discontinued in some areas (Truncer
2004:497). Although soapstone vessel use appears to have preceded ceramic vessel use in some areas, in
the central Savannah River valley, South Carolina, and northeastern Florida, use of soapstone slabs and
pottery precedes soapstone vessel use by up to 1000 years (Elliott et al. 1994; Sassaman 1997; Stanyard
2003:54). Soapstone vessels were apparently used for cooking certain plant or animal foods over a direct
heat source (e.g., Kroeber 1925:527) and may not have afforded any advantage over alternative cooking
methods.
16

Another innovation in Late Archaic cooking technology was the use of drilled or perforated soapstone slabs,
presumably for use in stone boiling (Anderson et al. 1979; Dagenhardt 1972; Elliott 1981; Trinkley 1974;
Wood et al. 1986). These artifacts are abundant at some Late Archaic sites in the Savannah River and
Oconee valleys in the Georgia and South Carolina Piedmont to the Fall Zone (Claflin 1931:32; Elliott 1981;
Wood et al. 1986), but appear rarely in North Carolina (e.g., Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016).
Late Archaic occupations in the Appalachian Summit region are marked by a variety of large- to small -
stemmed points. The most prominent and recognizable of these is the Savannah River stemmed, a large,
broad -bladed, square stemmed point that appeared ca. 3000 B.C. and lasted to ca. 1500 B.C. Subsequent
Late Archaic sites frequently contain slightly smaller stemmed points of the Iddins Undifferentiated
stemmed or, perhaps, the Otarre stemmed type (Ward and Davis 1999:71), although these general forms
were produced during the Middle Archaic and Early Woodland periods as well and may not be exclusive
to the Late Archaic period (Larry Kimball, personal communication 2010). Size reduction of stemmed
forms is indicated over the course of the Late Archaic to Early Woodland periods in the region, however
(Oliver 1981, 1985). The most common feature type during the Late Archaic is a shallow, rock -filled pit
(Chapman 1981; Keel 1976). Toward the end of the Late Archaic, fiber tempered pottery appeared in the
coastal regions (Sassaman 1993); although such pottery was found at the Ravensford site in Swain County
(Benyshek and Webb 2017), it is a rare occurrence in the Appalachian Summit. There is increased evidence
for trade during the Late Archaic period, as indicated by the presence of soapstone, slate, and other materials
outside their source areas (Chapman 1985).
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000)
The Woodland period began as early as 1000 B.C. and continued until the appearance of the Mississippian
adaptation around A.D. 1000. Across the eastern Woodlands, the period is marked by the appearance of
widespread pottery use, a greatly increased role for horticulture in subsistence economies, and an
elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism, including the appearance of burial mounds.
Early Woodland (ca. 1000-200 B.C.). Initial Woodland occupations are generally thought to reflect a largely
unchanged continuation of Late Archaic lifeways coupled with the first widespread introduction of
ceramics. The earliest Early Woodland manifestation in the project area is the Swannanoa phase, which
dates ca. 1000-200 B.C. Regional radiocarbon dates for Swannanoa materials include a corrected,
uncalibrated date of 2130±40 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 260-100 B.C.) (Benyshek and Webb
2006) and a corrected, uncalibrated date of 2435±25 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 535-435 B.C.)
(Benyshek and Webb 2009a).
The hallmark of the Early Woodland is distinctive thick, crushed quartz or coarse sand tempered fabric
impressed ceramics; cordmarked, plain, check stamped, and simple stamped wares are also thought to date
to late in the Early Woodland period (Keel 1976:260-266; Ward and Davis 1999:140-143; Wetmore
2002:254257). Vessel forms consist of unrestricted conical pots and simple bowls. Eastern Tennessee's
Watts Bar and northern Georgia's Kellogg phases are similar stylistically to Swannanoa materials, as are
Vinette ceramics from as far away as eastern New York (Ward and Davis 1999:142).
Early Woodland projectile points consist of smaller stemmed points, the terminal expressions of the large
stemmed point tradition, along with large triangular varieties. The latter include the Transylvania and
Garden Creek types, which are morphologically equivalent to Badin and Yadkin Piedmont types (Keel
1976; Oliver 1985). Although Swannanoa phase site distributions have not been thoroughly documented,
it is apparent that the settlement pattern included large floodplain sites along with numerous small upland
extractive camps. Direct evidence is lacking at present, but it seems likely that the Early Woodland
inhabitants of the region were engaged in at least some degree of horticulture (Ward and Davis 1999:145).
Based on evidence at Phipps Bend in eastern Tennessee, deer, elk, and turkey were the animals primarily
17

hunted (Lafferty 1981). To date, no well-defined Early Woodland structure patterns have been identified in
the region.
Middle Woodland (ca. 200 B.C.-A.D. 600). The Middle Woodland period in western North Carolina is
divided into an earlier Pigeon phase (ca. 200 B.C.-A.D. 200) and a later Connestee phase (ca. A.D. 200-
600), each associated with distinct ceramic styles. Because it has proved difficult to isolate Pigeon phase
components for study, relatively little is known about the cultural developments that occurred during this
period (Ward and Davis 1999:146). Much more is known about the lifeways, architecture, and subsistence
practices of the subsequent Connestee phase. The Connestee phase is characterized by mound construction
and intensified long-distance trade, and it is apparent that some western North Carolina groups participated
in the Hopewell exchange network (Chapman and Keel 1979; Keel 1976:157; Wetmore 2002:263; Wright
2013) in which raw materials and finished artifacts were traded over vast areas of eastern North America
(Brose and Greber 1979; Seeman 1979). Regional sites with Middle Woodland components that have been
the focus of intensive investigations include Garden Creek in Haywood County (Keel 1976; Wright 2013),
Biltmore Mound in Buncombe County (Kimball and Shumate 2003; Kimball et al. 2004), Ela in Swain
County (Wetmore 1989), Harshaw Bottom in Cherokee County (Robinson 1989), Tuckasegee in Jackson
County (Keel 1976), the Tyler-Loughridge site in McDowell County (Robinson 1996), the Cherokee EMS
site in Swain County (Benyshek 2007), the Bent Creek site in Buncombe County (Shumate and Kimball
2006), the Macon County Airport site (Benyshek and Webb 2009a), and the Icehouse Bottom site in
Monroe County in eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1973; Cridlebaugh 1981).
Bass (1975:81) reports that while over 50 percent of Middle Woodland sites in his sample occurred on the
floodplain, 40 percent were located above the valley in coves and on benches. Numerous large and small
sites dating to this period have been found, suggesting periodic aggregation and dispersion or some kind of
settlement dichotomy. By Connestee times, however, sites have been demonstrated to occur most often in
the floodplains, and a higher percentage are present on the first rise above the river than in the preceding
Pigeon or Swannanoa phases (Wetmore et al. 2000).
Horticulture is believed to have become increasingly important during this period, although mast resources
remain the most visible dietary contributor. Possible late Middle Woodland cultigens in the region include
maygrass, little barley, sumpweed, maize (Zea mays), squash, and perhaps Chenopodium (Benyshek 2007;
Chapman and Crites 1987; Crites 2004; Robinson 1989). Evidence for the use of animal resources is scarce
from Middle Woodland sites in the area, save Biltmore Mound where preservation is excellent. Faunal
information from the Connestee phase mound area may not be representative of overall diet and utilization
due to the probable ceremonial activities including feasting that took place there, but no information is
available from the associated village to date. The assemblage is dominated by terrestrial species (white-
tailed deer, turkey, box turtle, raccoon, squirrel), with aquatic resources (fish, mussels) used much less
frequently (Whyte 2004).
Diagnostic early Middle Woodland ceramics in western North Carolina include the Pigeon series, which
Keel (1976:256-260) defines as including check stamped, simple stamped, plain, brushed, and complicated
stamped varieties with crushed quartz temper. Vessel forms include conical jars, hemispherical bowls, and
tetrapodal and shouldered jars with flaring/everted rims. Pigeon ceramics are relatively common in the
region, but are generally found in mixed contexts (Ward and Davis 1999:146), perhaps indicative of stable
populations inhabiting the same areas for long periods of time.
Subsequent Middle Woodland ceramics consist of the Connestee series, which are generally thinner, sand
tempered wares most often plain or decorated with simple stamped, cordmarked, or brushed surfaces.
Crushed quartz temper was added in small amounts. Fabric impressed and check stamped sherds are also
included in the series. Plain necks are characteristic, with punctated shoulders rarely occurring (Keel
1976:247-255). Swift Creek ceramics are sometimes found as a minority ware on Middle Woodland sites
IN

in the area (Keel 1976:71; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Robinson 1989). Also found, but extremely rare,
are Ohio Hopewellian ceramics (both non -local manufacture and locally made copies) and figurines (Keel
1976:118-119; 120-123; Kimball and Shumate 2003). Lithic artifacts characteristic of the late Middle
Woodland consist of large triangular and side -notched projectile points (Garden Creek and Connestee
triangulars, Pigeon side notched), bar gorgets, and a prismatic blade and polyhedral core technology that
was probably ultimately derived from the Hopewellian Midwest (Chapman and Keel 1979:157). Copper is
also found on Middle Woodland sites in the area, but is rare (Chapman and Keel 1979; Setzler and Jennings
1941).
Connestee phase populations engaged in mound building, evidenced by such substructure mounds as
Garden Creek No. 2 and the Biltmore Mound, and interacted with Hopewellian populations in the Midwest
and elsewhere (Keel 1976; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Ward and Davis 1999:151-153; Wright 2013).
Connestee series sherds are present on some Hopewellian sites, and small numbers of Hopewellian ceramics
and bladelets made of chalcedony from Flint Ridge in Ohio are present at the Garden Creek site, at the
Biltmore Mound site, and at Icehouse Bottom (Chapman 1973; Chapman and Keel 1979; Kimball and
Shumate 2003; Moore 1984). Marine shell was also traded (Kimball et al. 2004). It has been hypothesized
that western North Carolina was one source of the mica that was traded and used widely across the East
during this period. Recent investigations at the Garden Creek site have recorded two subrectangular
enclosures similar to those found in Midwestern Adena and Hopewell contexts; these appear to result from
earlier ritual use of the site and further illustrate the extent of the socio-economic ties developed between
local and non -local populations during the Middle Woodland period (Wright 2013).
Architectural information has been limited, but at Garden Creek Mound No. 2, at the base of the premound
layer, a square structure measuring approximately 6 in across was identified and was attributed to the
Connestee occupation (Keel 1976:95, 99); more recently, Wright (2014) has recognized additional similar
structures there as well. At Ela, eight circular structures 7-8 in in diameter were identified as representative
of Connestee phase constructions (Wetmore 1989, 1996, 2002). Excavations at the Macon County Airport
and Old Elementary School sites have also uncovered Connestee structures, both circular and square to
rectangular (Benyshek 2016; Benyshek and Webb 2009a, 2009b; Steere 2017).
Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 600-1000). The Late Woodland subperiod in much of the Southeast saw the
emergence of sedentary village life and intensive maize horticulture and the development of complex tribal
and chiefdom -level political structures. Certainly, by A.D. 1000, many interior Southeastern groups were
producing substantial amounts of corn, which continued into the Mississippian period when wild food
resources were supplemental to cultivated ones (Scarry 2003:88-89).
The Late Woodland in the Appalachian Summit has been described as largely invisible (Wetmore 2002),
and a similar lack of recognition of distinctive Late Woodland components has been described in northern
Georgia (Rudolph 1991). Part of the problem may be the lack of specific diagnostic artifacts useful for
unequivocally identifying sites of this period (as plain sherds and small triangular projectile points can be
difficult to qualify), but it is also possible that the Appalachian Summit region was more lightly populated
during this time and small, dispersed sites were more typical (Rudolph 1991). Robinson et al. (1994, 1996)
indicate that the Connestee phase lasted into the Late Woodland period based on work at several sites. One
Late Woodland manifestation was identified by Keel and Egloff (1984) at the Cane Creek site in Mitchell
County; the distinctive, largely plain -surfaced assemblage from that site is similar to Connestee wares and
associated with a single radiocarbon date of 1340±90 B.P. (uncorrected). Similarly, an AMS date from a
Buncombe County site (31BN943) produced multiple 2-sigma ranges of Cal A.D. 690 to 900 and A.D. 920
to 950 associated with sand tempered plain ceramics (Idol 2010).
Scattered Napier and Late Swift Creek ceramics and sites (such as Cullowhee Valley School [31JK32]
[Ashcraft 1996; Greene 1996:120-121; Moore 1992], Biltmore II [31BN175] [Hall and Baker 1993],
19

Ravensford [31SW78/136] [Benyshek personal communication 2016; Webb 2002; Wild 1994], Hominy
Creek [31BN828] [Pare et al. 2007], Sneed [31JK466] [Benyshek 2008], and Boundary Tree [31SW494]
[Idol 2011 ]) also occur in the region and reflect influences from the south during this period. A radiocarbon
date obtained from Cullowhee Valley School is similar to those obtained from the Sneed site, which are
calibrated at the 2-sigma level to A.D. 660-860 (Benyshek 2008) and to the one date from Boundary Tree
(A.D. 654 to 769) (Idol 2011). Mid- to late 8th century dates obtained from 31SW136 in association with
Napier and/or Late Swift Creek ceramics are similar to these (Benyshek and Webb i.p.; Wild 1994).
Rudolph (1991) suggests that increased regionalization of ceramic styles and site dispersal occurred during
this period in northern Georgia, and this appears be the case for western North Carolina as well.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1540)
The Mississippian period in the Southeast is marked by the increasing intensification of maize horticulture,
the establishment of increasingly hierarchical social structures and settlement systems, and an increase in
ceremonialism expressed architecturally in the construction of flat-topped substructure mounds. Increasing
evidence exists that territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the
Mississippian period, although individual chiefdoms rose and fell in cyclical patterns. Studies of relations
between native chiefdoms and Spanish expeditions suggest that some type of supra -chiefdom level
organization was maintained through a system in which paramount chiefs traveled from fief to fief,
displaying royal powers and prerogative and receiving gifts and tribute from subservient chiefdoms (Smith
and Hally 1992).
The Pisgah phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1400) corresponds with the early centuries of the Mississippian period in
at least parts of western North Carolina (Dickens 1976:13-14); sites with Etowah phase (ca. A.D. 1100-
1300) components also are present in the Hiwassee River valley (Riggs and Kimball 1996) and in the upper
Little Tennessee River valley (Benyshek and Webb 2009a, 2009b). Sites with high percentages of Pisgah
pottery are found primarily in the eastern and central parts of the Appalachian Summit region and range
from small sites such as Brunk (Moore 1981) to nucleated villages with substructure mounds such as
Garden Creek (Ward and Davis 1999:160-161). Pisgah pottery is also found in the western part of the
summit region as well, however, and into northern South Carolina, southwestern Virginia, and northeastern
Tennessee (Dickens 1976). Diagnostic Pisgah artifacts include small triangular projectile points and
distinctive rectilinear complicated stamped vessels with collared, punctated rims. Dickens (1976) suggests
that finer -lined complicated stamping and lack of rim elaboration characterize the earlier portion of the
phase, and such materials have been documented from the Brunk, Ravensford, and other sites (Benyshek
and Webb 2017; Moore 1981; Jane Eastman, personal communication 2017). Corn and other crops were
important sources of food, but floral and faunal remains document the persistence of wild resources as
major components of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999:171). Warren Wilson is the most extensively explored
Pisgah village to date, and work there over several field seasons documented at least seven palisade lines
and 17 structures (Dickens 1976; Moore 2002; Ward 1986). Garden Creek Mound and Village also contains
a Pisgah component, and the main mound (Mound No. 1) there was constructed during the Pisgah phase
(Dickens 1976). Closer to the project area, a significant Pisgah phase component is known from the Bent
Creek site (31BN335) (Shumate and Kimball 2006), and other Pisgah components have been found in
nearby recent surveys along the French Broad River (Webb et al. 2019).
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATIONS
The Qualla phase represents the final centuries of Native American autonomy in the region and reflects the
close association between the Cherokees and the Appalachian Summit region. Although elements of the
material culture, belief systems, place names, and social structure of Mississippian society lingered in the
region well into the 19th century (and in some cases to the present day), the Qualla phase is largely one of
social change due to increasing Euro-American intrusion and settlement.
20

The French Broad drainage lies east of the core area of known 17th and 18th century Cherokee settlement,
which was concentrated in the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and southwest. The area was likely
frequented by Cherokee hunters, however, and may have contained small settlements at times as well.
According to Mooney (1900:380-381), the French Broad lies west of a neutral area between the Cherokees
and the Catawbas, which was bounded by the Catawba River on the east and the Broad River on the west.
Pre -Removal Cherokee Occupations
The first Euro-American intrusion into western North Carolina took place in 1540, when Hernando de
Soto's expedition passed through the area. Several different reconstructions of de Soto's route have been
proposed, with some early scholars (e.g., Swanton 1985:201-202) suggesting that he crossed Cherokee
country by way of the Hiwassee valley. A later reconstruction (Hudson et al. 1984) proposed that de Soto
crossed the Blue Ridge farther to the north at Swannanoa Gap and then continued along the French Broad
River into Tennessee; more recently, Beck (1997) and Hudson (1997:193) agreed that the expedition
probably followed a more northerly route along the Toe River. The route through the Swannanoa Gap may
have been taken by Juan Pardo, however, who was a Spanish explorer who traversed much of the same area
from 1567-1568 (Beck 1997:167; Hudson 1990:27-46, 1997:193).
Whatever the precise routes of these explorers, it is clear that the ancestral Cherokees' first encounter with
Europeans occurred in the mid-16th century. These encounters were to have dramatic effects. The
introduction of European diseases to which the native populations had little resistance caused a major
reduction in Native American population levels and extensive changes in political organization. Elsewhere
in the Southeast, the fragmentation and reformation of political groups resulted in a general decrease in
social complexity and the total disappearance of some precontact societies (Smith 1987). Although
substantial disruption occurred, the Cherokees managed to retain control of portions of their homeland.
The historic -period Cherokee occupation of western North Carolina is known archaeologically as the Qualla
phase (ca. A.D. 1450-1838). Although early formulations of the phase (Dickens 1976) divided it into two
segments (Early Qualla, ca. A.D. 1450-1650; and Late Qualla, ca. A.D. 1650-1838), subsequent analysts
(Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2004, 2008; Ward and Davis 1999) suggest a tripartite division.
Following this latter scheme, the early Qualla phase predates A.D. 1500, and thus was likely
contemporaneous with at least the later part of the Pisgah occupations in the region. These authors suggest
that Qualla represents an in situ development in the Upper Little Tennessee and Hiwassee basins and likely
is not a direct derivative of the Pisgah phase. Early Qualla phase ceramics show affinities to the more
southern Savannah and Wilbanks styles, and samples from Coweta Creek and 31 SW291 are characterized
by grit tempered, primarily rectilinear complicated stamped wares (Riggs and Rodning 2002:39),
sometimes with "sawtooth" rims. Red filming also occurs (Rodning 2004). Pisgah collared and punctated
rims are not an uncommon occurrence with these Early Qualla wares, however, and both Early and Late
Pisgah ceramics have been identified at Ravensford on the Qualla Boundary (Benyshek and Webb 2017).
Domestic structure forms during the Early Qualla are the same as Late Pisgah forms (Benyshek and Webb
2008).
Subsequent Middle Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1500-1700) ceramics are characterized by jar forms with notched
appliqu6, or more often, folded and notched everted to flared rims, and also by the presence of carinated or
cazuela bowls with incised designs. Curvilinear complicated stamping predominates, although rectilinear
designs are also present (Rodning 2004). By the Late Qualla phase (post-A.D. 1700), some variations
occurred; incised ceramics became much less common, while rectilinear stamped designs, rims with
notched appliqu6 strips or fillets, and check stamping are more common in later, pre -Removal (pre-1838)
assemblages.
21

The Qualla phase subsistence base was mixed and included cultivation of corn, beans, and other foods as
well as wild plant gathering, hunting, and fishing (Dickens 1976:14). The Late Qualla phase is marked by
the increasing appearance of European goods at Cherokee sites. Although small triangular projectile points
are found in Early and Middle Qualla phase assemblages, their manufacture (and most other stone tools)
decreased rapidly with the increasing prevalence of European firearms after A.D. 1700 and widespread
access to iron tools (Riggs 1999:52). During this time, Cherokee settlements became increasingly less
nucleated, often appearing as a linear array of dispersed houses along streams, and agricultural fields were
maintained closer to residential areas. European domesticated animals (especially pigs and chickens) and
garden crops (notably sweet potatoes) were adopted by the mid-18th century. By this time and in the years
after, traditional Cherokee life was increasingly disrupted by depopulation and demographic changes, and
alterations to the traditional economies (Hatley 2006).
Structure forms varied throughout the Qualla phase. Early Qualla phase structures documented at
Ravensford include winter -type structures, rounded squares of rigid post construction typically constructed
in basins with central support posts and wall trench entryways. These were accompanied by (but not closely
paired with) square to rectangular houses of less regular construction that lacked central support posts and
entryway trenches. These domestic structures generally mimic the patterns documented at a number of late
precontact and contact period sites in the southern Appalachians (e.g., Hally 1988, 1994, 2008; Moore
2002; Polhemus 1987; Rodning 2009a; Steere 2017). A few rounder 15th-century domestic structures were
encountered at Coweeta Creek (Rodning 2009a:13). Larger, rectangular structures of more substantial
construction appear to represent contemporaneous public buildings at Ravensford (Benyshek and Webb
2009b).
Middle Qualla phase architecture, known from the Coweeta Creek, Macon County Airport (MCA), and
McCoy Bridge sites among others, was also similar to late Mississippian (and Early Qualla phase)
architecture. Domestic structures are typically square with rounded corners and exhibit side or corner
entrances and central hearths flanked by four central support posts (e.g., structures 3, 4, and 6 at Coweeta
Creek) (Benyshek and Webb 2009b; Idol 2017; Rodning 2009a:11). At MCA these were associated with
rectangular summer houses and storage facilities (Benyshek and Webb 2009b). Smaller auxiliary buildings
that likely functioned as storehouses are present by the late 17th and early 18th centuries (Benyshek and
Webb 2009b; Idol 2016; Shumate et al. 2005). By the end of the Middle Qualla phase (if not before),
mounds associated with the cyclical demolishment and reconstruction of public townhouses were a
prominent feature of many Cherokee villages and towns (Rodning 2002, 2009b). Contemporary domestic
structures in part appear to have been modelled after the designs of the much larger townhouses (Rodning
2009a).
By the end of the 17t1i century into the 18th century, rectangular summer houses were closely paired with
and often connected to winter houses, which were typically octagonal (e.g., Benyshek and Webb 2008;
Cable et al. 1997; Marcoux 2010; Shumate et al. 2005; Webb and Benyshek 2008). The late 18th century
witnessed a shift toward more European -style architecture (Dickens 1976:15); a final shift from traditional
post -in -ground architecture to horizontal cribbed log cabin construction occurred in the 1790s (Riggs
1999:515).
Eighteenth through Twentieth Century Cherokee Settlements
During most of the 18th century, the Cherokees were concentrated in towns and villages throughout much
of present-day western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and portions of Georgia and South Carolina.
The towns in western North Carolina were known as the Middle Towns, the Out Towns, and the Valley
Towns. The Lower Towns were situated some distance to the south of the project area, the Middle and
Valley Towns were located to the southwest, and the Overhill Towns lay to the west, across the mountains
in Tennessee (Greene 1996; Smith 1979). The late 18th century was marked by a general shift to a more
22

dispersed settlement pattern (Dickens 1976:15), but some nucleated settlements remained in the region into
the 19th century.
The 18th century also brought the continuous arrival of Europeans and the resulting loss of Cherokee lands.
Early interaction between the two parties consisted mostly of trade. By the mid-18th century, increased
Euro-American settlement began to lead to hostility, and expeditions under Archibald Montgomery and
James Grant burned many Cherokee towns in 1760 and 1761. Many Cherokees sided with the British during
the American Revolution out of fear of colonial expansion and the loss of more territory. In 1776, after
several Cherokee raids, General Griffith Rutherford led a force from Old Fort through present-day
Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson, and Macon counties to counter the Cherokee threat. Like the de Soto and
Pardo expeditions, the route Rutherford took is open to interpretation. It is believed that his army took a
known Native American Indian trail through Swannanoa Gap, down the Swannanoa River and then a short
distance up the French Broad River, before crossing at Warrior's Ford (Dykeman 1965:34). Rutherford's
path continued on to present-day Waynesville and then to the southwest to the Middle and Valley towns
(Dean 2012).
With the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, the Cherokees lost their remaining lands east of the
Blue Ridge, leading to widespread Euro-American settlements east of Asheville (Mooney 1900:61-62). A
subsequent treaty in 1791, the Treaty of Holston, resulted in additional cessions by the Cherokees in the
west (Mooney 1900:68-77), and a treaty in 1798 ceded additional lands in present-day Buncombe,
Henderson, Transylvania, and Haywood counties (Royce 1887:660-661). A third treaty, signed in 1798,
ceded additional lands in North Carolina (Riggs 1988:171).
The early 19th century witnessed the increasing acculturation of many Cherokees, largely as a result of
increasing contact and intermarriage with white traders and settlers. Other Cherokees resisted changes to
their traditional lifestyles, especially those residing in western North Carolina (Riggs 1988:10-11).
Accounts by contemporary observers indicate that the population of that area was strongly traditionalist,
and contained the highest proportion of fullbloods to be found in the Cherokee Nation (McLoughlin and
Cosner 1984:224-225).
Most remaining Cherokee land claims in North Carolina were ceded to the U.S. government by the Calhoun
Treaty of February 1819 (Royce 1884, 1887), and the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which
set in motion the forced removal of many of the remaining Cherokees to lands in the Arkansas Territory
(Mooney 1900:123-133). The cruelty of this march, known as the Trail of Tears, has been well documented.
Some Cherokees remained in their former lands despite the Treaty of New Echota and the Trail of Tears,
however. A sizeable population living along the Oconaluftee and nearby was allowed to remain as a result
of their assistance in the Tsali affair. Other Cherokees remained in the vicinity of Cheoah (along Buffalo
Creek in present-day Graham County), primarily due to the difficulty in removing them along poor roads
(Duggan 1998); in the Valley River area (Greene 2009); and along Cartoogechaye Creek in Macon County
(Alexis 1852). Finally, still other Cherokees managed to evade the Army, escaped during the Removal, or,
like Junaluska, returned from the Arkansas territory soon afterward. These groups became the nucleus of
the Eastern Band of Cherokee (King 1979). After the death of Chief Yonagusta in 1839, they were
increasingly assisted by William H. Thomas, a white merchant who was Yonagusta's adopted son. Thomas
worked on the Cherokees' behalf for the next 40 years, acquiring land for both individual Cherokees and
the tribe. Thomas eventually acquired some 73,000 acres for these communities, mostly within the present-
day Qualla Boundary.
23

POST -CONTACT PERIOD OVERVIEW
Prior to the American Revolutionary War, the Blue Ridge Mountains formed the western boundary of
European settlement in North Carolina. The first documented English foray into the French Broad drainage
west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment occurred in 1674. This doomed expedition was led by James Needham
and included an indentured servant Gabriel Arthur and eight native guides. Financed by a wealthy
Virginian, Abraham Woods, the expedition did not provide the profits expected by the financier, but it did
begin the opening of the vast lands of the Cherokees, which were coveted by the Euro-American settlers
for their natural resources and beauty (Dykeman 1965:27-41).
After the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell, large numbers of Euro-American
settlers (mostly Scots -Irish but also English, Welsh, German, and French) moved into western North
Carolina (Ager 1981:10; Blethen and Wood 1987:76; Sondley 1930:398). After 1783, Land Act legislation
was approved that allowed land sales for western settlements. In addition, war veterans were rewarded with
land grants in the west as compensation for time served.
In 1784 Samuel Davidson, his family, and a single slave became the first known colonial settlers west of
the Blue Ridge Mountains, in what was to become Buncombe County. They settled along the Swannanoa
River near Jones Mountain east of Asheville. After Samuel Davidson's death, his brother (Major William
Davidson), sister (Rachel Alexander), their families, and several friends followed in his footsteps and
established a settlement a year later near the confluence of Bee Tree Creek and the Swannanoa River
(Sondley 1930:397-398).
The expansion of settlement into the mountains was rapid. By 1792, the County of Buncombe was created,
including present-day Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Polk,
Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey counties. Eventually, the Buncombe County Court was established
between the Bee Tree Creek settlement and the Reems Creek Valley settlement (northeast of Asheville);
the court met on the property of Colonel William Davidson (a cousin of Major William Davidson), near the
present-day entrance to the Biltmore Estate (Ager 1981:10-11; Sondley 1930:460). The joining of the two
settlements was originally known as Morristown in 1792 (Blackmun 1977:162). In 1794, John Burton was
granted 200 acres by the State of North Carolina next to William Davidson's property. Forty-two half -acre
lots were laid off and sold on Burton's property along two newly formed roads now known as Broadway
Street and Biltmore Avenue (Powell 1981:33). The town was incorporated in 1797 and renamed Asheville
after Governor Samuel Ashe (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:379).
Although, the communities farther east along the Swannanoa River were the first establishments in
Buncombe County, Asheville became the dominant city and county seat. By 1800, Asheville had a hatter,
a tailor, a blacksmith, an inn, a gristmill, and several merchants (Powell 1981:33). A post office was
established in 1800, and the Public Square (now known as Pack Square) was laid out in 1805 (Sondley
1930:648-649; Stroupe et al. 1996). A brick courthouse was built in the square between 1825 and 1833
(Sondley 1930:649). By the early 1800s, Asheville was a stopping point for livestock, as herders moved
cattle from Tennessee and Kentucky to market in Georgia and South Carolina along the Buncombe
Turnpike (Powell 1981:34). The road ran from Greeneville, Tennessee, to Hot Springs and then along the
French Broad into Asheville. From there, the road headed toward Old Fort and then on to Greenville, South
Carolina. Most of the roadway was completed by 1827 and helped to contribute to the growth of the town
(Blethen and Wood 1987:88). With a higher traffic flow through the region, Asheville experienced an
economic and population boom (Powell 1981:34). In addition to drovers, the turnpike also brought in some
of Asheville's first tourists. By 1860, the town had a population of 1,100, while 12,654 people resided in
Buncombe County (Blackmun 1977:288; Powell 1981:38; Sondley 1930:827-828).
In 1880, the railroad (Western North Carolina Railroad) was established to Asheville from Old Fort,
connecting towns that had earlier been served by the Buncombe Turnpike. Just the year before, the first
24

telegraph line was built and a public library opened (Bishir et al. 1999:56; Van Noppen and Van Noppen
1973:379). In 1882, the rail line was completed to the Tennessee state line, and by 1886 the railroad
connected Asheville to points in all directions (Bailey et al. 2000). With new and easier access, Asheville
experienced a revival in growth. From a population of about 2,600 in 1880, it had swollen to over 10,000
in 1890. By 1920, nearly 28,500 people resided in the town (Sondley 1930:828). In addition to an increase
in industries such as logging in Buncombe County, Asheville grew as a resort for leisure and health. In the
years after 1880, several sanitariums were opened in the town as many doctors recommended the healthy
climate of Asheville and the surrounding area (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:379). As tourism grew,
many of the people who visited built second or vacation homes in the Asheville area or returned to invest
in local industries.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Western North Carolina has been the subject of archaeological research for over a century, and most trends
in the history of North American archaeology are reflected in the region. As early as the 1880s, workers
from the Valentine Museum in Richmond investigated several mound sites in the region (Dickens 1976:7),
and other early investigations were carried out by the Osbomes (Keel 1976). The museum's work was
primarily oriented toward recovering artifacts, although in some cases the resulting data have been useful
in addressing present-day research questions (e.g., Dickens 1976:91). Also in the 1880s, researchers from
the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated sites in Buncombe and Henderson counties
as part of their investigations into the origin of the "Mound Builders" (Thomas 1894). That research was
instrumental in demonstrating that the mounds in western North Carolina and elsewhere had in fact been
built by American Indians and were not the products of a mysterious, vanished race.
Early 20t' century work in western North Carolina continued to focus on mound explorations. Captain R.D.
Wainwright examined several mounds in the region in 1913 (Steere et al. 2012), including the now -
destroyed Cullowhee mound (31JK2), and between 1915 and 1919, George Heye and associates excavated
at the Garden Creek site in Haywood County and other nearby sites (Harrington 1922; Heye 1919; Heye et
al. 1918). Although that work was designed to gather artifacts for Heye's Museum of the American Indian
in New York, it did provide some data on the antiquity of the Cherokees in the region (Dickens 1976:7-8).
Subsequent work in 1933 and 1934 by the Smithsonian Institution at the Peachtree Mound and Village in
Cherokee County was also designed to investigate the relationship between the Cherokees and precontact
cultures in the area (Setzler and Jennings 1941). Also in the 1930s, George MacPherson (1936a, 1936b)
and Hiram Wilburn conducted surveys of numerous sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Although many of their data were to be incorporated into later research (Bass 1975), at the time their work
had little impact on the understanding of precontact occupations of the region.
Intensive, systematic work in the Appalachian Summit region did not begin until 1964, when the University
of North Carolina instituted the Cherokee Archaeological Project. This project, which lasted until 1971,
included large-scale surveys and salvage excavations, as well as intensive investigations of late prehistoric
and historic Cherokee sites (Purrington 1983:98-99; Ward 1979; Ward and Davis 1999:17-18). Data from
this project have been reported in several theses, dissertations, and other publications (e.g., Dickens 1976;
Egloff 1967; Keel 1976) and provide much of the background information on the Appalachian Summit
region. As part of that project, substantial work was conducted at the Warren Wilson site, which
documented a Mississippian period Pisgah phase village as well as earlier Woodland period occupations
(Keel 1976). Other substantial work was accomplished at Coweta Creek (Rodning 2004), Garden Creek
(Keel 1976), Townson (Ward and Davis 1999; 268-271), and the Tuckasegee site (Dickens 1976).
Beginning in the 1970s, the establishment of Federal cultural resources legislation and management
procedures resulted in a large number of archaeological projects in Buncombe County and the rest of
western North Carolina. A number of past projects have been conducted on and adjacent to the North
25

Carolina Arboretum west of the project area, including an initial survey by Baker and Hall (1987); that
work led to testing of the Bent Creek site (Baker and Hall 1990), which was later intensively investigated
by Shumate and Kimball (2006). Many other projects have been conducted on the Pisgah National Forest
nearby, including multiple projects by Shumate and others (e.g., Ashcraft and Meer 2019; Preston 2010;
Preston and Shumate 2010; Preston et al. 2001; Shumate 2007, 2008, 2011; Shumate and Govaerts 2010).
Recent surveys have also been completed for the proposed realignment of NC 191 west of the project area
(Webb et al. 2019a; Webb et al. i.p.), along with reconnaissance -level examinations of the survey parcel
and surrounding areas (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b).
26

4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS
RESEARCH GOALS
The goal of the survey was to systematically gather data on any archaeological resources present within the
project tract. If significant resources were encountered, the archaeological field data were to be combined
with information obtained in the background research to address the nature of the precontact, contact, and/or
post -contact period occupations of the area.
RESEARCH METHODS
Specific research methods were utilized for the background studies, field research, analysis, and reporting
stages of the project, as outlined below.
Background Research
Background research was conducted to gather information on any known cultural resources on or adjacent
to the project area and included examination of the following materials:
• Archaeological site files, reports, and data on file at the OSA in Raleigh;
• Published and on-line information regarding cemeteries in the project vicinity; and
• Historical maps and other data available in regional repositories, on-line, or in TRC's collection.
Field Methods
The archaeological survey complied with all pertinent state and federal regulations, including the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology's (OSA) Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
(OSA 2017). The field survey was conducted by a team of two, consisting of the Field Director and one
Archaeological Technician, and required approximately 26 person -days.
The survey consisted of a systematic pedestrian walkover of the project area, with shovel tests excavated
at 15-m (ca. 50-ft) intervals across the non -sloped and undisturbed portions of the project area. In addition,
exposed ground surfaces were visually inspected for surface artifacts and any evidence of above -ground
cultural resources (e.g., road traces, chimney falls, modern graves or cemeteries, etc.).
Each shovel test measured 30 to 35 cm in diameter and was excavated to sterile subsoil. All removed soil
(excluding obvious fill) was screened through 1/4-inch mesh for uniform artifact recovery. Each shovel test
was described in terms of depth, soil texture, Munsell soil color, and artifact recovery. All shovel test
locations were recorded using a hand held Trimble Geo7X Global Positioning System (GPS) in NAD 27
coordinates and drawn on the project map.
Two 1 x 1 m test units (TUs) were excavated to investigate the cultural deposits at 31BN1082. The
plowzone in each TU was excavated as a natural unit, and subsequent excavation was by 10-cm levels
within natural strata. All soil was screened thorough one -quarter -inch wire mesh. The TUs were excavated
to 46 and 47 cm below surface (cmbs) respectively; a 50 x 50 cm unit was then excavated to 99 cmbs in
TU 1 and a 50 x 50 cm unit was excavated to 56 cmbs in TU 2.
Laboratory Methods
All artifacts were returned to the TRC Asheville facility for processing. Upon arrival in the laboratory, all
artifact and sample bags were checked against provenience data from field records prior to processing.
27

Artifacts were washed and air-dried, then sorted for analysis. The following laboratory methods were
employed.
Precontact Ceramic Anal. The recovered precontact sherds were smaller than 2 cm in diameter and
were classified as residual.
Lithic Artifact Anal. Lithic artifacts were first sorted into general categories, including chipped stone
tool and debitage.
Tools. Lithic tools were described according to type and raw material.
Debitage. Debitage fragments are the byproduct of lithic tool manufacture. Counts, weight, raw material,
and size category were recorded for debitage fragments.
Raw Material Identification. Raw stone materials were identified based on macroscopic characteristics.
Categories recognized in the assemblage include chert, chalcedony, quartz, and quartzite.
Historic Artifacts Analysis. Historic artifacts were classified where possible according to published artifact
descriptions. Glass items were classified according to function or shape and color. Rim and base fragments
were identified. Any additional detail evident was noted, such as embossing or labeling. Ceramic artifacts
were classified according to type (i.e. porcelain, whiteware, ironstone), and any decoration present was
described. Other historic period artifacts recovered were classified by form, composition, and function
wherever possible. Metal objects were classified by function where possible.
Curation
All artifacts, field notes, photographs, and other project materials recovered from the project are temporarily
stored at the TRC facility in Asheville, North Carolina. At the conclusion of the project, the materials will
either be returned to the landowner or packaged for curation according to the Office of State Archaeology
Research Center's (OSARC's) guidelines and curated at the OSARC facility in Raleigh.
NRHP Eligibility Evaluations
The NRHP eligibility of each identified site was considered in light of the NRHP Eligibility Criteria as
outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 (USDOI 1991). The NRHP Eligibility Criteria state:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
(a). That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b). That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c). That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d). That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The archaeological sites identified during this work were assessed under all four NRHP criteria. Several
factors were considered in assessing site significance and research potential under Criterion D, including
artifact variety and quantity, site clarity and integrity, and environmental context (Glassow 1977).
W.

5. RESULTS
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Previous Surveys and Identified Resources
Archaeological Surveys and Sites. A review of files and records at the OSA indicated that there had been
very little archaeological investigation of the Project parcel or any other part of the Arrowhead Peninsula
west of I-26 prior to 2018. A previous survey by Kidd (2015) in connection with proposed replacement of
the Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge over I-26 was limited in nature but documented extensive past disturbance
associated with the Parkway construction. In 2018-2019, however, S&ME completed survey of the
proposed T-072 natural gas pipeline corridor, which follows an existing electrical transmission line that
runs generally northwest to southeast across the Peninsula west of the present survey parcel (Nagle 2019).
Subsequently, in 2019 TRC conducted a reconnaissance -level examination of the entire Peninsula (west of
I-26, and excluding the Blue Ridge Parkway) (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b). TRC also has completed
survey of the potential Area of Potential Effects (APE) for a proposed realignment of NC 191 (Brevard
Road, NCDOT TIP U-3403B) that extends across the Peninsula west of the present survey tract, but that
work has not yet been fully reported (Webb et al. 2019a; Webb et al. i.p.).
There are 16 archaeological sites recorded with the OSA within a one -mile radius of the parcel, including
eight found during surveys for proposed improvements to NC 191, four recorded during surveys on the
North Carolina Arboretum or elsewhere on Pisgah National Forest, one recorded for the T-072 pipeline
(and revisited during the NC 191 survey), and three others (Table 5.1). These sites contain a variety of
precontact to historic period components. Based on their locations, however, none has the potential to
extend into the survey parcel (although two, 31BN1046 and 31BN1052, extend into other parts of the
Project footprint).
Table 5.1. Previously Recorded Sites within One Mile of the Development Site.
Site Component(s) NRHP Status Reference(s)**
31BN122 Precontact: Unknown ceramic/lithic Unassessed Egloff 1964 (based on 1941 data)
31BN149 Precontact: Unknown ceramic/lithic Not Eligible Ayers 1978; Shumate 2012
.........
31BN332 Precontact: Nondiagnostic lithic Not eligible Baker and Hall 1987
31BN333 Historic: 19' century (Case Mill site) Not eligible Baker and Hall 1987
31BN722 Precontact: Nondiagnostic lithic Not eligible Snedeker and Young 2002
31BN787 Historic: 20t' century (Rocky Cove CCC Eligible Espenshade 2005
camp)
31BN1043 Precontact: Nondiagnostic lithic Not Eligible Webb et al. 2019
.............................................................
31BN1044 Historic: early 20" century Not Eligible Webb et al. 2019
31BN287/ Precontact: Woodland, Mississippian Eligible Webb et al. 2019
1045 Historic: Late 191 to mid-201 centuries
31BN1046 Precontact; Middle Woodland, Pisgah phase Eligible* Webb et al. 2019; Webb et al. i.p.
31BN1047 Precontact: Fish weir (?......................................... Unassessed* OSA site form in progress
.
31BN1052 Historic: Johnson Farm Unassessed* Nagle and Carpini 2019; Webb et
al i.p.
31BN1070 Historic: Bent Creek Church Cemetery Not Eligible* Webb et al. i.p.
31BN1071 Precontact: Nondiagnostic lithic Not Eligible* Webb et al. i.p.
31BN1072 Historic: Late 191 to early 2011 century Not Eligible* Webb et al. i.p
31BN1073 Precontact: Early Pisgah Unassessed* Webb et al. i.n.
* Recommendation; report in progress or not yet reviewed.
**References in italics are site forms.
29

Besides the officially recorded sites, TRC's prior reconnaissance identified six other sites on the Arrowhead
Peninsula within one mile of the survey parcel (Table 5.2). One of those, site TRC FS-2, could potentially
extend into the development site.
Table 5.2. Additional Sites Identified within One Mile of the Development Site.
Site Component(s) NRHP Status Reference
TRC FS-1 Precontact: Unknown lithic Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019a
Postcontact: S..Pringhead and artifact scatter
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TRC FS-2 Precontact: Unknown lithic Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019a
.............................................................. ........._........................................................................................................................
TRC FS-3 Precontact: Unknown lithic Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019b
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TRC FS-4 Precontact: Unknown lithic Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019b
..........._..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TRC FS-5 Postcontact: Possible foundations and Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019b
artifact scatter
........................................................................................
TRC FS-6 Postcontact: 19t' century grave Unassessed Webb and Nelson 2019b
Structures. The HPO database (HPOweb 2019) depicts several historic properties near the Project Ranger
footprint. In particular, the Blue Ridge Parkway (NC0001) to the south, the Biltmore Estate (BN1835) to
the northeast and east, and the Bent Creek Campus of the Appalachian Forest Experiment Station (BN898)
across the river to the west are all listed on (Biltmore Estate, Bent Creek Campus) or determined eligible
for (Blue Ridge Parkway) the NRHP; the Biltmore Estate is also a National Historic Landmark. None of
these resources could potentially contain associated archaeological resources that would extend into the
survey parcel, however. (Assessment of any potential visual effects to those properties Project Ranger is
outside the scope of this report.)
Cemeteries. On-line databases and available historic maps do not appear to list or depict any cemeteries on
or adjacent to the parcel, and no cemeteries are recorded on the parcel during the previous reconnaissance
(Webb and Nelson 2019a).
Local History and Historic Map Review
The survey parcel and the adjacent French Broad drainage are outside the areas of intensive late prehistoric
to contact period (i.e., A.D. 1500 to 1750) Native American settlements located to the west and east, and
are within an area that was formerly ceded to the United States by the Cherokee Nation in 1791 (Royce
1884). There are reports that Cherokees continued to occupy portions of the Bent Creek drainage (across
the French Broad) into the mid-19th century (Nesbitt 1941:13-14), but no such reports are known for the
Arrowhead Peninsula or adjacent areas east of the French Broad River.
Most of the Arrowhead Peninsula was part of a 6,280-acre land grant issued to William Cathcart in 1796,
and it is likely that settlers were present in the area by the early 1800s if not before (Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2019). By the late 1800s the area contained a series of dispersed mountain farmsteads, as
indicated by maps developed shortly after its purchase for George Washington Vanderbilt's Biltmore
Estate. A map depicting land purchases for this portion of the Biltmore Estate indicates that the current
survey parcel includes portions of at least three tracts, including the Foster Johnson property, the Mahon
Williams Property, and the Lyman (formerly Norcop) Place (Scott Shumate, personal communication
2019). All three tracts were purchased by Charles McNamee (an attorney acting for George W. Vanderbilt
II and who later served as Biltmore Estate Manager) in 1889 or 1890.
The 1889 and 1890 deeds for these properties (provided by Shumate) make no specific references to
structures or cemeteries on the three tracts (although the Johnson deed does refer to appurtenances), but
historic maps indicate that a number of structures were present in the vicinity at the end of the 19t1i century.
The earliest examined detailed maps including this portion of the Arrowhead Peninsula are an 1891
Topographic Map of Biltmore Estate at Time of Purchase (Figure 5.1) (Thompson 1891) and an 1892
30

Biltmore Estate, Preliminary Plan of Forest and Other Drives (Figure 5.2) (Olmsted et al. 1892). Both
maps depict a number of then -existing roads across the Arrowhead Peninsula, which presumably predate
the land acquisition. These maps and a subsequent 1895 map (Gall and Beadle 1895) (Figure 5.3) also
depict two structure complexes (designated Potential Site [PS] PS-2 and PS-5 in the reconnaissance study
[Webb and Nelson 2019a]) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site; the same two
structure complexes are also shown on more detailed topographic maps compiled in conjunction with an
1896 Guide Map of Biltmore Estate (Figures 5.4 and 5.5) (Olmsted et al. 1896). The maps also depict
additional roads across the Arrowhead Peninsula, including the River and Arboretum roads (see below).
PS-2 was situated on the Foster Johnson property and is variously depicted as consisting of one or two
structures situated along a southeast -northwest trending drainage and a road trace currently known as Pond
Trail. PS-5 also appears to have been located on the Johnson property and is shown as a cluster of three
buildings situated along a northwest -facing exposure above River Road.
The only contemporaneous USGS map showing appreciable detail in the vicinity parcel is the 1901
Asheville 1:125,000-scale topographic quadrangle (Figure 5.6) (USGS 1901), which does not appear to
depict a structure at either PS-2 or PS-5. These and many other structures shown on the 1890s maps were
presumably removed after the Biltmore Estate acquired the property as they are also absent from the 1920
soil map of Buncombe County (Perkins et al. 1923) (Figure 5.7); the 1936 USGS Asheville planimetric
quadrangle (the first 1:24,000 scale USGS map of the area) (Figure 5.8) (USGS 1936); a 1940 aerial
photograph (Figure 5.9); the 1943 USGS Asheville quadrangle (Figure 5.10); and the 1961 USGS Asheville
quadrangle (Figure 5.11).
The Arrowhead Peninsula was originally proposed to include an arboretum to be designed by Frederick
Law Olmsted, and the "Arboretum Road" is shown on the Biltmore Estate maps as early as 1895 (see Figure
5.3). The proposed Arboretum "failed as Mr. Vanderbilt's financial support was withdrawn over a period
that paralleled Olmsted's own unstoppable descent from family and professional life into mental illness"
(Hood 2003:95); however, and there were few if any improvements on the Peninsula during the 20th century
(although one of the 19th century farms, the Johnson Farm or Riverside Dairy, continued to support a small
herd of dairy cattle that supplied milk to the Biltmore Dairy for much of that time [Biltmore Farms, LLC
1991; Scott Shumate, personal communication 2019]). The Blue Ridge Parkway was constructed across
the Peninsula south of the Project Ranger footprint beginning in the 1950s. The Peninsula remained part of
the Biltmore Estate until 1979, when the estate was divided and the Peninsula and adjacent lands passed to
Biltmore Dairy Farms, Inc., now Biltmore Farms, LLC (Hood 2003).
Summary
In summary, the background research documented that while there has been no previous archaeological
survey of this portion of the Arrowhead Peninsula, a prehistoric lithic site (FS-2) identified during TRC's
previous reconnaissance (Nelson and Webb 2019a) could potentially extend into the parcel. In general, the
reconnaissance and previous regional work indicate that precontact lithic sites are likely to be encountered
on flat to gently sloping upland landforms (both in ridgetop and cove settings), but that substantial ceramic -
bearing (e.g., Woodland or later) sites are less likely to be encountered in such settings. There are no known
historic data relating to Cherokee or other historic period Native American use of the tract.
The historic data and map review suggests that the Arrowhead Peninsula was likely settled by Euro-
Americans by the early 1800s, and that a number of farmsteads were present by the late 1800s. The various
parcels that comprise the development site were bought for George Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate in 1889
and 1890. While structures (PS-2 and PS-5) continue to be depicted on or adjacent to the development site
as late as 1896, they are not shown on later maps and it is likely that they were removed by about 1900.
31

- I i
PROJECT AREA
k=. �
6 -
MVP
a
Emma
1
,��r4-+•��lr�■wr�•7 ,rw
rrs�M��n� !Kilometer 0
Buncombe County, North Carolina Feet
Figure 5.2. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1892 Biltmore Estate,
Preliminary Plan of Forest and Other Drives.
33

, ��vrr�� —. . ,� �—.J.
J i
rl
PROJECT AREA
r ,
dc
aLJ
tf
►Y•1�'I►��i��i�l�/► Jar!
Kilometer 1,200
rFeet
Figure 5.4. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1896 Guide Map of the
Biltmore Estate.
35

PROJECT AREA
" % � _y)r Iw 7 ti , - �• " � if -
yc�
J�
r r'
Billmore Es[ale detail maps (ca. 1896)
0 ll.4 N
p Mile p 4
iiiii W E
p Kilometer 800
AANW siiiia S
Feet
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.5. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the ca. 1896 detail maps.
36

n
PROJECT AREA
0
t�� • I rI
GAGING 6 4A � �I
7 li . li
�f ` = J/
Gr
w
2012
1 ~ %
i
%
Asheville and 5'kyland, NC (1936)
USGS Plan imetric Maps 0 0.5 N
0 IvTile 0.5
W E
0 Kilometer 1,000
S
Feet
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.6. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1901 USGS Asheville
(1:125000) quadrangle.
37

i' \ it
S
CI
a' CI .
/ CI
CO
�• 1 ? PROJECT AREA
fl F
10
S !yI
- -j N� % N!
t��• C #
� l
TF
Buncombe County Soil Map (1920)
U 1 N
^ U Mile 1
W E
QW U Kilometer 2,000
S
Feet
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.7. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1920 Buncombe County
soils map (Perkins et al. 1923).
IR

f
PROJECT AREA
tr
z >rr
0
�I �I
GAGING S 4A I! !1 1�
II , li
ri �X
G r
1 t
I
\\
Asheville and Skykrnd, NC (1936)
USGS Planimerric Maps 0 0.5 N
0 Mile 0.5
W E
0 Kilomctcr 1,000
Aq%wl M!5;;R!MiiR!M S
Feel
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.8. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1936 USGS Asheville
planimetric (1:24000) quadrangle.
39

Figure 5.9. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on a 1940 aerial photograph.
.E

0
PROJECT AREA
Figure 5.10. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1943 USGS Asheville
topographic (1:24000) quadrangle.
a

0
PROJECTAREA
0
N 41SAW'I - �' I O(U (� �i�
G
Vi
I._■M
A
r
r
f" r
Mile 0.5
Feet
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.11. The development site and Project Ranger footprint as shown on the 1961 USGS Ashevill
topographic (1:24000) quadrangle.
42

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY AND SITE EVALUATION — DEVELOPMENT SITE
The field survey included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the development site and the sewer
corridor, including upland and bottomland landforms, drainages, and side slopes to search for potential
surface features (e.g., rock quarries, chimney falls, rock shelters, spring houses, etc.). Systematic shovel
testing was then conducted at 15-m intervals in all areas exhibiting 10 percent or less slope and lacking
hydric soils or extreme disturbances. Most of those areas were along upland landforms, including wide
east -west trending ridges and smaller north -south trending ridges, but they also included a stream terrace
along an unnamed drainage along the southwestern side of the tract, and a small area of the floodplain along
the French Broad River. Additional shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals to delineate positive
shovel tests and investigate apparent foundation remains. A total of 247 shovel tests were excavated.
The shovel tests encountered varied soils depending on the landform types. Most of the shovel tests across
the upland ridges were relatively shallow, encountering a 10 to 26 cm thick dark yellowish brown (I OYR
4/4) to brown (1 OYR 4/3) fine sandy loam Ap horizon atop compact yellowish red (5YR 5/8) or red (2.5YR
4/6) sandy clay to clay B horizon (Figure 5.12). Soils within the small drainage along Pond Road and at
site 31BN1082 were similar to those in the uplands (as discussed in the site descriptions below). Soils
encountered in the floodplain portion of the sewer line corridor consisted of deep sandy alluvial deposits,
including a brown (1 OYR 4/3) sand extending to depths of from 25 to 33 cmbs and overlying an 8 to 12 cm
thick band of yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/4) medium coarse sand; beneath that stratum was dark grayish
brown (1 OYR 4/2) fine sand extending to depths of up to 63 cmbs. A dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/6) fine
sand was then encountered to depths of up to 112 cmbs (Figure 5.13).
The archaeological survey identified six sites, 31BN1082-31BN1087, within the proposed development
site (Figures 5.14 and 5.15; Table 5.3); no sites were identified in the proposed sewer corridor.
Figure 5.12. Representative shovel test profile (Shovel Test 109 at 31BN1084) in uplands.
43

Figure 5.13. Representative shovel test profile (Shovel Test 244) on the French Broad River
floodplain.
44

r 31BN1086 31BN1085 -. � �--
IBN1087
31BN 1083
�/ 31BN1084 }
31BN1082 �f jJf
100
i, E RIDGE PARY,
AREA T
-- -��- she?aHe
Skyland-
f
��Sandy O Site Boundary
lEl JsIN
Project Ranger (Ph1 & 2)
Project Ranger (Ph3)
Project Ranger (Ph4)
19 ` Access Road
Asheville and Skyland
North Carolina 2016 0 0,5
75Minute Quadrangle Maps N
Miles
0 2,000
W E
Feet
0 0.5
5
Kilometers
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Figure 5.14. Archaeological sites identified by the survey.
45

2000 a
d Road
pia eC �
Negative
i

Table 5.3. Archaeoloiical Sites Identified during the Proiect Ranger Development Site Survev.
Shovel Tests
TUs
Artifacts
NRHP
Site #
Component(s)
Total*
Pre.
Hist.
Cer.
Lith.
Hist.
Total
Recommendation
31BN1082
Precontact:
62'
20'
11 €
2
2
52
85
139
_ Not Eligible
Nondiagnostic ceramic
and lithic; Historic: mid -
p
to late O.S..e.pbn
31BN1083
Precontact:
10
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Not Eligible
_nondiagnostic lithic...................
................................
................................,....................................................................................
31BN1084
Precontact:
9
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Not Eligible
nondiagnosticlithic...................
..................
.............
................................,....................................................................................
31BN1085
Historic: mid- to late
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unassessed (no
19" century (surface
further work for
................................................................_features
on1Y)..................................................................................................................................................._
Project).
31BN1086
Precontact:
11
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Not Eligible
............ ........ ..-.......................................nondiagnostic
lithic...................
31BN1087
Precontact: Middle to
11
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Not Eligible
Late Archaic
* Includes all shovel tests within 15 m of positive tests
1. includes one shovel test excavated during reconnaissance
47

31BN1082
Component:
Precontact: Unknown ceramic and lithic; Historic: mid- to late 19' century
Site dimensions:
30 (N-S) x 100 in (E-W)
UTMs (NAD 27):
E356297 N3930224
Landform:
Terrace
Elevation:
ca. 2,096 ft AMSL
Soil Type:
Tate loam
Recommendation:
Not Eligible
Description. Site 31BN1082 is a low density multi -component precontact and historic period artifact scatter
located along a wide terrace north and east of the southeast -northwest trending drainage that runs along the
southwestern edge of the development tract (Figures 5.16-5.18; see Figures 5.14 and 5.15). The stream is
impounded a short distance upstream (outside the survey area), and an existing unimproved road known as
Pond Trail runs through the center of the site. The area is presently used as a horse camp and contains a
series of mid- to late 20th century structures and surface features, including a gravity -fed restroom (with a
metal reservoir and piping), two modern spring boxes, a maintained fire box/fire ring, and a large metal
trailer formerly utilized as a small reservoir (Figures 5.19 and 5.20).
Maps dating from 1891 to 1896 depict either one or two structures in the vicinity, on the south side of the
road and north of the primary drainage (Figures 5.21-5.24). The site is within a 250-acre parcel that had
been owned by Foster Johnson (1837-1893) prior to its acquisition for the Biltmore Estate in 1890, but the
deed makes no reference to structures on the property. The Johnsons had owned property on the Arrowhead
Peninsula as early as the 1850s, but the details of their acquisition of this tract have not been researched.
Due to the presence of the mapped structures, this location was identified as PS-2 during the earlier
reconnaissance (Webb and Nelson 2019a). A single precontact lithic artifact (a quartz debitage fragment)
was recovered at this location during the reconnaissance and designated FS-2 (Webb and Nelson 2019a).
As presently defined north and east of the drainage, site 31BN1082 measures approximately 100 in east -
west and 30 in north -south and covers most of the landform. It is bounded to the north by consecutive
negative shovel tests, slope and a small drainage; to the south by negative shovel tests and the creek; to the
east by slope and negative shovel tests; and to the west by the creek. The eastern part of the site is within
the development site boundary, while the western part is outside.
The soils were relatively consistent across the site. The upper stratum was generally a 14 to 18 cm thick Ap
horizon (plowzone) of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/6) sandy clay loam, although in some cases near the
eastern end of the site it was a reddish brown (5YR 4/4) fine sandy loam (perhaps reflecting additional
admixture of colluvium). Beneath the Ap horizon was a B horizon of yellowish red (5YR 5/8) clay loam or
red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam. In TU 1 (see below), the B horizon was underlain by a seven to 10 cm
thick band of yellowish red (5YR 5/6) sandy clay over reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) very sandy clay. A thin
transitional zone (2-7 cm thick) between the Ap and B horizons was noted in both test units and was likely
present but not easily recognizable in the shovel tests. All artifacts were collected from the Ap horizon or
the transitional ApB horizon.
Shovel Tests and Test Units. A total of 62 shovel tests (including one excavated during the reconnaissance)
were excavated across the site at 7.5-m intervals. Twenty (32.3 percent) of the 62 shovel tests yielded 43
precontact artifacts, with artifact density in the positive shovel tests ranging from one to seven artifacts per
test (Figure 5.25). Eleven (17.7 percent) of the 62 shovel tests produced 44 historic period artifacts, with
densities ranging from one to 12 artifacts per test (Figure 5.26). In general, the precontact artifacts were
recovered from the eastern part of the site, while the historic period artifacts were recovered primarily from
the western part of the site.
W.

37
4.1q.
.re 5.16. Eastern portion of 3 1 BN 1082, facing east.
4A
ZV Ir k

Road
ga761 i 1 17 -0 Negative
7- 7 Positive Historic and Precontac
® �ti(I Positive Historic
El Test Unit
" 11
III Boundary
r %
c� ® ® ®"
10
O C O II ® ® CD ��� CO O Cp
1,
CO a® (3 0 Cl i
46
` h
1 30 60
r ��-
I Mete

Figure 5.23. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1895 map.
Figure 5.24. Structures at site 31BN1082 as shown on the 1896 detail maps (Sheet 40).
53

Two 1 X 1 m units were then excavated to gather additional information on artifact densities and
distributions (Figures 5.27-5.30). Test Unit 1 was placed in the precontact artifact distribution, while Test
Unit 2 was placed in the historic site area. Each unit recovered a small quantity of precontact artifacts, and
Test Unit 2 produced 41 historic period artifacts as well (Table 5.4).
No evidence of sub plowzone precontact cultural deposits or cultural features was found in either the shovel
tests or test units. Similarly, the survey found no evidence of historic period foundation remains, sub
plowzone deposits, or cultural features.
Artifacts. Fifty-four precontact artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests (n=43) and the test units
(n=11) (Table 5.5). The assemblage includes two residual ceramic sherds that cannot be identified to type
(Figure 5.31 c—d), along with 52 lithic artifacts: a nondiagnostic quartzite biface fragment (Figure 5.31 e),
46 debitage fragments, and five FCR fragments. The chipped stone assemblage is dominated by quartzite
(56.3 percent), following by quartz (27.1 percent). While none of the precontact artifacts are temporally
diagnostic, the high density of quartzite and quartz suggests that the assemblage primarily represents one
or more Middle to Late Archaic (or possibly Early Woodland) period occupations, while the two sherds
date to the Woodland or Mississippian to Contact periods. The chert flakes are not temporally diagnostic,
but based on regional raw material use patterns likely date to the Early Archaic period or the Middle
Woodland through Contact periods. No evidence of sub plowzone precontact cultural deposits or cultural
features was found.
Eighty-five historic period artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests (n=44) and the test units (n=41)
(Table 5.6). Metal artifacts comprise just over half (n=50; 59.5%) of the total assemblage and include 20
complete or fragmentary cut nails (e.g., Figure 5.32j-1); 27 of the 30 additional artifacts classified as
unidentified metal fragments are likely cut nails as well. The 15 historic period ceramic artifacts include 10
undecorated whiteware fragments (e.g., Figure 5.32a—b, three stoneware fragments (one Albany slipped
and two alkaline glazed) (Figure 5.32c—e), and two pieces of ironstone. Fifteen glass artifacts were
collected, including 14 container glass fragments (four clear, three frosted, one amethyst, four green, and
two amber) (e.g., Figure 5.32f—h) and a flat glass fragment. The remaining historic period artifacts include
two fragments of slate roofing tiles, one (1.2%) .32 shell casing (Figure 5.32i), and single coal and slag
fragments. The historic artifact assemblage appears compatible with the documented mid- to late 19th
century occupation, and the presence of ceramics in the assemblage indicates that at least one residence
was present on or near the site.
NRHP Evaluation. Site 31BN1082 contains low to moderate densities of precontact (probably primarily
Archaic period) and 19th century historic period artifacts in plowzone contexts. There are no indications
that intact precontact period deposits or additional artifact classes (e.g., subsistence remains) are present.
Similarly, the historic period artifacts were recovered only from plowzone contexts. There is no evidence
of structural remains, possibly due to the modern construction and use of the area as a horse camp. Based
on these factors, it appears unlikely that additional excavation would produce substantial information
concerning the prehistory of this area (NRHP Eligibility Criterion D). Similarly, the site does not appear to
meet the requirements of the other three eligibility criteria. Site 31BN1082 is recommended not eligible for
the NRHP under all four criteria, and TRC recommends no additional work for Project Ranger within the
site area as presently defined.
As the site lies along the edge of the proposed development site, however, protective fencing will be
installed to protect those portions of the site lying outside the development area to the west (including across
the creek to the southwest).
54

Precontact Artifact Count N
O 1-2
O 3 d O
O ShovelTest
❑ Tcst Unit O
Road
fi
OSite Bo.dary
modern
springbox
o� 13
O
O O 0 O
TU2
O O❑ C.
O O 00 O O O
o O O O O O O
LITUl
O O O
2120
2r4 0 30 60
o�
Meters
Figure 5.25. Distribution ofprecontact artifacts in shovel tests at 31BN1082.
55

Historic Artifact Count N
O 1-2
O 3-4
0 5+ J
O ShovelTest
El J
Test Unit
Road
O Site Boundazy
modem
�o spri.gbos
$ Q
O • • o
O O O 0
TU2
• O� O o 0
D a O
O O O O O O O C O O O O
�TU1
:D O O C O C O O O
O O. O
O
z�zo t�
2r� 0 30 60
o�
Meters
Figure 5.25. Distribution of historic period artifacts in shovel tests at 31BN1082.
56

Sa face
I
I/II transition
II
0 5 10
I 5YR 4/4 reddish brown loam
II 2.5YR 4/6 red sandy clay loam
III
III 5YR 5/6 yellowish red sandy clay
IV IV 5YR 5/6 yellowish brown sandy clay
Figure 5.27. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 1 north wall profile drawing.
Figure 5.28. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 1 north wall profile photograph.
57

Surface
I
UI[ Transition
0 5 10
ii
I IOYR 3/6 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam
ru
II 5YR 518 yellowish red clay loam
III 7.5YR 6/8 reddish yellow sandy clay
Figure 5.29. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 2 north wall profile drawing.
Figure 5.30. Site 31BN1082, Test Unit 2 north wall profile photograph.
W.

Table 5.4. Test Units at 31BN1082.
Test Unit 1
Depth
Level
Thickness
(cmbs)
Strat
Horizon
Ceramic
Lithic
Historic
Total Comments
1
14 cm
0-14
I
Ap
2
4
0
6 2 residual sherds
2
10 cm
14-24
1/II
Ap/B
0
2
0
2
3
10 cm
24-34
II
B
0
0
0
0
4
10 cm
34-44
II
B
0
0
0
0
ST
55 cm
44-99
II/III/IV
B/C
0
0
0
0
Total
2
6
0
8
Test Unit 2
Depth
Level
Thickness
(crabs)
Strat
Horizon
Ceramic
Lithic
Historic
Total Comments
1
17 cm
0-17
I
Ap
0
5
40
45
2
10 cm
17-27
111
A/B
0
0
1
1
3
10 cm
27-37
II
B
0
0
0
0
4
10 cm
37-47
II
B
0
0
0
0
ST
10 cm
47-57
II/III
B/C
0
0
0
0
Total
0
5
41
46
Table 5.5. Lithic Artifacts from 31BN1082.
Description
Chert
Quartz
Quartzite
Quartz/Qtzite
Chalc.
Total
Chipped Stone Tools
Biface Fragment
1
1
Subtotal
0
0
1
0
0
1
Chipped Stone Debitage
Flake/Shatter
6
13
26
1
1
47
Chipped Stone Total
6
13
27
1
1
48
Chipped Stone Percentage
12.5
27.1
56.3
2.0
2.0
100
FCR
4
4
59

Table 5.6. Historic Period Artifacts from 31BN1082.
Description
Count
Percentage
Kitchen Group
Ceramic
Ironstone, Undecorated
2
2.4
Stoneware, Albany Slipped
l
1.2
Stoneware, Alkaline Glazed
2
2.4
Whiteware, Undecorated
10
11.8
Subtotal
15
17.6
Container Glass
Amber
2
2.4
Colorless
4
4.7
Colorless (amethyst)
1
1.2
Green
4
4.7
Frosted
3
35
Subtotal
14
16.5
Group Subtotal
29
34.1
Architectural Group
Flat Glass
1
1.2
Cut Nail
20
23.5
Slate Tile
2
2.4
Group Subtotal
23
27.1
Arms Group
.32 shell casing
1
1.2
Group Subtotal
1
1.2
Miscellaneous Group
Coal
1
1.2
Ud. metal
30
35.3
Slag
1
1.2
Group Subtotal
32
37.6
Total
85
100.0

Figure 5.31. Precontact artifacts from 31BN1082, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087. a: quartzite biface fragment,
31BN1086, ST 64; b: quartzite stemmed projectile point, 31BN1087, ST 85; c—d: unclassified residual ceramic
sherd, 31BN1082, TU 1, Level 1; e: quartzite biface, 31BN1082, ST 171
61

Figure 5.32. Historic period artifacts from 31BN1082. a: whiteware, ST 162; b: whiteware, ST 173; c:
alkaline -glazed stoneware, ST 179; d: alkaline -glazed stoneware, ST 163; e: Albany -slipped stoneware, ST 173; f.
frosted aqua glass, ST 169; g: amber glass, ST 173; h: green glass, ST 173; i:.32-caliber shell casing, ST 169; j: cut
nail, ST 169; k: cut nail, ST 162; 1: cut nail, ST 164
62

Component:
Site dimensions:
UTMs (NAD 27):
Landform:
Elevation:
Soil Type:
NRHP Recommendation
Prehistoric: Non -diagnostic lithic
5 m (N-S) x 5 m (E-W)
E356246 N3930611
Saddle ridge
ca. 2,176 ft. AMSL
Evard-Cowee complex (EwC)
Not eligible
Description. Site 31BN1083 is represented by a single precontact chert flake recovered from the plowzone
of Shovel Test 101 located along a small wooded ridge saddle in the northwestern part of the development
site (Figures 5.33 and 5.34; see Figures 5.14 and 5.15). The site is situated approximately 65-70 m southeast
of 31BN1086, but no artifacts were recovered from eight intervening shovel tests excavated at 7.5- and 15-
m intervals or from the other surrounding delineation shovel tests. A slight road trace is located south and
west of the site; no surface artifacts were noted within the exposed ground surface within the road. The
soils at the site consist of a 15-23 cm thick dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/6) fine sandy loam plowzone
that is underlain by yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay (Figure 5.35).
The single artifact is a small chert flake weighing only 0.3 g and is not temporally diagnostic.
NRHP Evaluation. Site 31BN1083 is represented by a single non -diagnostic artifact, and additional
investigations at this location would be extremely unlikely to provide substantial additional information
concerning the prehistory of this area (NRHP Eligibility Criterion D). The site also does not appear to meet
the requirements of the other three eligibility criteria. Site 31BN1083 is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under all four criteria, and no additional work is recommended.
Figure 5.33. View of 31BN1083, facing southeast.
63

Figure 5.34. Map of site 31BN1083.
Figure 5.35. View of 31BN1083, Shovel Test 101 profile.
64

Component:
Site dimensions:
UTMs (NAD 27):
Landform:
Elevation:
Soil Type:
NRHP Recommendation
K31:3efD%11I
Prehistoric: Non -diagnostic lithic
5 (N-S) x 5 m (E-W)
E356685 N3930327
Ridge remnant
ca. 2,196 ft. AMSL
Clifton sandy loam (CsC)
Not eligible
Description. Site 31BN1084 is represented by a single precontact chert flake recovered from the plowzone
of Shovel Test 109 located atop a small wooded ridge remnant along the north side of the existing access
road in the northeastern corner of the project area (Figures 5.36 and 5.37; see Figures 5.14 and 5.15). The
sloped road bank is located within 15 m of the positive shovel test to the south. Soils at the site consisted
of a thin (10 cm thick) dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/6) fine sandy loam plowzone underlain by a red
(2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay B horizon (Figure 5.38). A total of 11 shovel tests were excavated across the small
landform, but no additional artifacts were recovered.
The single artifact is a small chert flake weighing only 0.4 g and is not temporally diagnostic.
NRHP Evaluation. Site 31BN1084 is represented by a single non -diagnostic artifact, and additional
investigations at this location would be extremely unlikely to provide substantial additional information
concerning the prehistory of this area (NRHP Eligibility Criterion D). The site also does not appear to meet
the requirements of the other three eligibility criteria. Site 31BN1084 is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under all four criteria, and no additional work is recommended.
Figure 5.36. View of 31 BN1084, facing north.
65

Figure 5.37. Map of site 31BN1084 .
Figure 5.38. View of 31BN1084, Shovel Test 109 profile.

KII:3k�[I%1:I
Component: Historic: mid- to late 19" century (structure remnants/map evidence only)
Site dimensions: 160 (N-S) x 30 in (E-W)
UTMs (NAD 27): E356321 N3930694
Landform: Side slope
Elevation: ca. 2,127 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Evard-Cowee complex (EwC, EwE)
NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
Description. Site 31BN1085 is a historic period site represented by two stone scatters (one with an
associated depression) that are situated approximately 150 in apart along the west side slope of a north -
south trending ridge within and adjacent to the northeastern edge of the development site (Figure 5.39; see
Figures 5.14 and 5.15). The southernmost pile of stones surrounds a small depression (Figure 5.40) and is
located along the edge of the northeastern corner of the proposed development site. The second, larger, pile
of stones is located approximately 150 in north along the edge of the ridge, well outside the proposed APE
(Figure 5.41).
The southernmost pile measures approximately 10-12 feet (3-3.6 m) east -west by 6-8 feet (1.8-2.4 m)
north -south, with a smaller roughly two feet deep hole in the center. Six shovel tests were excavated at 5-
and 10-m intervals to the north, west, and south of the rock pile within non -sloped areas; no artifacts were
recovered. The soils consisted of a 17-23 cm thick very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) sandy clay loam
plowzone that overlay a yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4) clay loam to clay B horizon (Figure 5.42).
Maps dating from 1891 to 1896 suggest that these stone scatters may be associated with structures (possibly
outbuildings) that were associated with a complex of up to four structures that extended along the drainage
(Figures 5.43-5.46). Like site 31BN1082, 31BN1085 was within a 250-acre parcel that had been owned by
Foster Johnson (1837-1893) prior to its acquisition for the Biltmore Estate in 1890, but the deed makes no
reference to structures on the property. The Johnsons had owned property on the Arrowhead Peninsula as
early as the 1850s, but the details of their acquisition of this tract have not been researched. Due to the
presence of the mapped structures, this location was identified as PS-5 during the earlier reconnaissance
(Webb and Nelson 2019a).
NRHP Recommendation. Site 31BN1085 apparently contains remains of at least two former historic period
structures, although no artifacts were recovered during excavation of six shovel tests within and
immediately adjacent to the Project Ranger development site. Based on the limited delineation and
investigation of the site, the NRHP eligibility of 31BN1085 is considered unassessed.
Although the southernmost rock concentration is just a few meters outside of the development site footprint,
protective fencing will be installed to ensure that it is not disturbed during construction. Given these
protective measures and the lack of evidence for associated materials within the Project Ranger footprint,
no additional work is recommended at 31BN1085 in association with development of Project Ranger within
the currently proposed boundaries.
67

,C�� M
II
fro,
41
st
rp
17r
-X.
. . . . . . . . . .
X.,
n

4`
A�Jr
,•-
1 Y
f
�� 4. ,t "�- � _� � � •`- _ ."fie";`
ti
Figure 5.42. View of 31BN1085, Shovel Test 237 profile.
Figure 5.43. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1891 map.
A'y
70

I
41
I �,,MQRVAV kh. UN %Trl."

'I --
ZIP
d erne'"CHes
1 � ` MX
INI U
I .I N,.
i� I VVV ) i. L.-iiliii I! If
1 F!
Figure 5.46. Structures at site 31BN1085 as shown on the 1896 detail maps (Sheet 34).
72

Component:
Site dimensions:
UTMs (NAD 27):
Landform:
Elevation:
Soil Type:
NRHP Recommendation
K31 Wtil.lhll
Prehistoric: Non -diagnostic lithic
5 (N-S) x 5 in (E-W)
E356191 N3930648
Saddle ridge
ca. 2,175 ft. AMSL
Evard-Cowee complex (EwC)
Not eligible
Description. Site 3IBN1086 is represented by a fragment of a precontact quartzite projectile point, which
was recovered from the plowzone of Shovel Test 64, located along the northern edge of a wide east -west
trending ridge in the northern portion of the project area (Figures 5.47 and 5.48; see Figures 5.14 and 5.15).
It is situated approximately 65-70 in north of 3IBN1083 and 100 in east of 31BN1087). Due to the spacing
between these positive shovel tests, they were designated separate sites.
A slight road trace is located to the south and west of the site, but no surface artifacts were observed in the
minimally exposed ground surface. Eight shovel tests were excavated at 7.5- and 15-m intervals around the
positive shovel test, but no additional artifacts were recovered. Soils at the site consisted of 15-28 cm of
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) fine sandy loam plowzone underlain by a strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy
clay to approximate depths of 27-44 cmbs (Figure 5.49).
The recovered artifact is a medial fragment of a lanceolate shaped quartzite projectile point (see Figure
5.31 a). It cannot be classified by type, but likely dates to the Middle to Late Archaic period.
NRHP Evaluation. Site 31BN1086 is represented by a single non -diagnostic artifact, and additional
investigations at this location would be extremely unlikely to provide substantial additional information
concerning the prehistory of this area (NRHP Eligibility Criterion D). The site also does not appear to meet
the requirements of the other three eligibility criteria. Site 31BN1086 is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under all four criteria, and no additional work is recommended.
73

Figure 5.47. View of 31BN1086, facing north.
Figure 5.48. Map of site 31BN1086 .
74

aim
Figure 5.49. View of 31BN1086, Shovel Test 64 profile.
75

KII WFD11Fl
Component: Prehistoric: Middle to Late Archaic period
Site dimensions: 5 (N-S) x 5 m (W-E)
UTMs (NAD 27): E356102 N3930604
Landform: Saddle ridge
Elevation: ca. 2,168 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Evard-Cowee complex (EwC)
NRHP Recommendation: Not eligible
Description. Site 31BN1087 is represented by a single stemmed quartzite projectile point recovered from
the plowzone of Shovel Test 85 located at the western end of a long, wide east -west trending ridge located
at the north -central portion of the proposed development site (Figures 5.50 and 5.51; see Figures 5.14 and
5.15). Nine shovel tests were excavated at 7.5- and 15-m intervals in cardinal directions but produced no
other artifacts. A single stemmed quartzite projectile point (see Figure 5.31b) was recovered from the 23
cm thick dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) fine sandy loam plowzone, which was underlain by a yellowish
red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay B horizon (Figure 5.52).
While the projectile point appears to date to the Middle to Late Archaic period (ca. 5500-1000 B.C.) based
on its general form and the raw material type, it has not been assigned to a specific type.
NRHP Evaluation. Site 31BN1087 is represented by a single Middle to Late Archaic projectile point and
attests to upland utilization of this landform. Due to the lack of associated artifacts, however, additional
investigations at this location would be extremely unlikely to provide substantial additional information
concerning the prehistory of this area (NRHP Eligibility Criterion D). The site also does not appear to meet
the requirements of the other three eligibility criteria. Site 31BN1087 is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under all four criteria, and no additional work is recommended.
Figure 5.50. View of 31BN1087, facing west.
76

Figure 5.51. Map of site 31BN1087 .
Figure 5.52. View of 31BN1087, Shovel Test 84 profile.
77

Uz41MxI]KIM[oil wW101071efy9xaY[$IQM*1411311►[e.TKy0Mt07:1Mi
The proposed development site will be accessed by existing access roads leading generally northwest from
Schenck Parkway within the Biltmore Park Town Square Development (see Figure 1.2). Equipment will
follow River Road (Figures 5.53 and 5.54) southwest, northwest, and then north along the east bank of the
French Broad River to a point north of the development site, where a second road diverges and continues
southeast and then southwest into the development site (Figure 5.55). A substantial portion of the River
Road part of this route was previously reviewed by HPO as part of the cultural resources compliance studies
for the proposed T-71 pipeline (Nagle 2019:Figures 1.3 and 1.4).
Both roads are preexisting and previously graded, and the only planned improvements consist of adding
gravel. TRC conducted a visual reconnaissance of these roads and identified no potentially significant
cultural features that could be affected by their use. Based on these factors, TRC recommends that no
additional investigations be required prior to use of these roads to access the development area.
Figure 5.53. Existing access road (River Road) along the French Broad River, facing west.
W.

INT

This page intentionally left blank.

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC has completed an archaeological survey of a 63.92-acre (25.87 hectare) proposed development site
and associated existing access roads situated on the Biltmore Park West tract in Buncombe County, North
Carolina on behalf of Biltmore Farms, LLC. This report represents the first of three archaeological survey
and evaluation reports anticipated in connection with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting
for the proposed construction of a bridge across the French Broad River (USACE Action ID 2019-01867).
Together, the proposed bridge project and the associated development are known as Project Ranger.
This report addresses survey and site evaluation of a proposed development site (including an associated
sewer line corridor) situated east of the French Broad River on Biltmore Farm's Arrowhead Peninsula
southwest of Asheville. The parcel is wooded in secondary growth and is crossed by several unimproved
roads. Much of the area is steeply sloped, although there are relatively level landforms along the ridge tops
and stream drainages; an estimated 16.4 percent of the tract (10.54 acres) exhibits 10 percent or less slope.
The survey and site evaluation fieldwork was conducted from October 8-29, 2019 and was directed by
Michael Nelson; the work followed an earlier reconnaissance of the parcel and a surrounding tract
conducted by Nelson earlier in 2019 (Webb and Nelson 2019a). Existing roads that will be used to access
the development site were also examined as part of this stage of the Project. Subsequent reports will address
portions of the Project Ranger footprint situated south and west of the present survey parcel, including areas
on both sides of the French Broad River.
Background research indicated that a single archaeological site (identified in the earlier reconnaissance
report as FS-2) was present along the edge of the parcel and that 21 other archaeological sites (including
16 recorded with the OSA and five identified during the earlier reconnaissance) are recorded within a one -
mile radius of the parcel. The background research also indicated that several late 19th century historic
farmsteads were mapped in the vicinity, two of which (designated Potential Sites 2 and 5 [PS-2 and PS-51
during the earlier reconnaissance) were adjacent to and possibly partially within the parcel.
The fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire parcel and systematic
subsurface shovel testing at 15-m intervals across all parts of the parcel that exhibited 10 percent or less
slope; supplemental shovel tests were also excavated within areas of 10 to 15 percent slope where habitable
landforms appeared to be present and at 7.5-m intervals to delineate finds. Larger (1 x 1 m) test units were
subsequently excavated to assist in site assessment. Totals of 247 shovel tests and two 1 x 1 m units were
excavated, and six archaeological sites were identified within the survey parcel. Sites 31BN1083,
31BN1084, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087 are isolated precontact artifact occurrences on upland landforms.
Site 31BN1082 (corresponding to both PS-2 and FS-2 from the reconnaissance) is a moderate density
precontact and historic period artifact scatter situated along a stream drainage. A sixth site, 31BN1085, is
a portion of a late 19th century farmstead situated along the northeastern edge of the survey parcel.
The Project site will be accessed by a network of roads connecting to the Schenck Parkway within the
existing Biltmore Park development; no improvements are planned outside the existing road prisms during
the Project construction. The present work included inspection of those roads, but no shovel tests were
excavated.
Of the six identified archaeological sites, five (31BN1082-31BN1084, 31BN1086, and 31BN1087) appear
to lack the potential to provide substantive information on the local, regional, or national prehistory or
history or otherwise satisfy the criteria for NRHP eligibility and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP
under all four criteria (Table 6.1). The sixth site, 31BN1085, is situated along the edge of the survey area
and was not fully defined during the present work. Additional investigations outside the present limits of
disturbance would be necessary to allow a recommendation concerning the NRHP eligibility of site

31BN1085, and the eligibility of that site is considered unassessed. Based on work completed within the
Project parcel and proposed protective measures, however, TRC recommends that no additional work is
needed at this site as part of the present development.
Based on these survey results, TRC recommends that construction and other ground disturbing activities
within the 63.92 acre tract (including the sewer corridor), as well as use of the existing access roads, will
not affect NRHP-eligible or unassessed archaeological sites, and that no further archaeological
investigations be required for this part of the Project Ranger footprint.
Table 6.1. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations for Proiect Sites.
Site Component(s) NRHP Recommendation
31BN1082 Precontact lithic scatter; Postcontact (19�'' century farmstead) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
............ ........ — — —
31 BN1083 Precontact lithic scatter (nondiagnostic isolated find) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
...... ..... ...................................................................................... .................................................................... ......................................................
31BN1084 Precontact lithic scatter (nondiagnostic isolated find Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................�....................................._........................................................_.
31BN1085 Postcontact (191 century) farmstead Unassessed; no further work for
Project
31BN1086 Precontact lithic scatter (nondiagnostic isolated find) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
31BN1087 Precontact lithic scatter (Middle to Late Archaic) Not eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
RN

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, James M., Jack Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55:348-354.
Adovasio, James M., David Pedler, Jack Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath
1999 No Vestige of a Beginning nor Prospect for an End: Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft
Rockshelter. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First
Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turmire, pp. 416-431. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis.
Ager, John
1981 Buncombe County: A Brief History. In Cabins and Castles: the History and Architecture of Buncombe
County, North Carolina, edited by Douglas Swaim, pp. 9-30. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, County of Buncombe, City of Asheville.
Alexis (L.T. Siler)
1852 A Visit to the Cartoogechaye Indians. The North Carolina University Magazine 1:116-118.
Altman, Heidi
2006 Eastern Cherokee Fishing. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: a View from the Southeastern United States.
In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press Inc., pp. 163-216, Supplement 5, Greenwich.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the
Mid -Holocene Southeast, edited by Ken Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville.
Anderson, David G., and Christopher Gillam
2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography,
Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65:43-66.
Anderson, David G., Sammy T. Lee, and A. Robert Parler
1979 Cal Smoak: Archaeological Investigations along the Edisto River in the Coastal Plain of South
Carolina. Occasional Papers 1, Archaeological Society of South Carolina.
Ashcraft, A. Scott
1996 Pisgah Phase Palisades: Observations on the Spatial Evolution of Village Perimeters. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Six. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(6):46-72.
Ashcraft, Scott, and Kelsey Meer
2019 Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed Hunter Espada Easement Project. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville.
Ayers, Harvard
1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Hominy Valley Interceptor Sewer Project and the South
Buncombe Interceptor Project, Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina. Department of
Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone. On file at Office of State Archaeology, Asheville.
Bailey, David C., Joseph M. Canfield, and Harold E. Cox
2000 Trolleys in the Land of the Sky: Street Railways of Asheville, N. C., and Vicinity. Privately published,
Asheville.
Baker, Michael, and Linda Hall
1987 Archaeological Survey of the Western North Carolina Arboretum, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, Asheville.
1990 The Bent Creek Archaeological Site: A Woodland Traditional Settlement within the French Broad
River Basin. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Asheville.
RN

Bass, Quentin R., III
1975 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains. Submitted to the
National Park Service, Knoxville.
Beck, Robin A., Jr
1997 From Joara to Chiaha: Spanish Exploration of the Appalachian Summit Area, 1540-1568.
Southeastern Archaeology 16:162-169.
Benyshek, Tasha
2007 Archaeological Data Recovery Investigations at 31 SW311 at the EBCI EMS Building Site, Swain
County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill. Submitted to Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2008 Archaeological Investigations at the Sneed Site (31JK466) at the Former Papoose Motel for the EBCI
Housing and Development Division, Jackson County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North
Carolina.
2016 Management Summary for Archaeological Data Recovery at 31SW395 and 31SW396 at the Old
Elementary School, Cherokee, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee.
Benyshek, Tasha, and Paul A. Webb
2004 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Three Alternatives for the Replacement of Bridges No. 99 and 100
on SR 1100 across the Nantahala River, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow and Associates,
Durham, North Carolina. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
2006 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Smokemont Water and Sewer Project, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted
to Science Applications International Corporation, Oak Ridge.
2008 Mississippian and Historic Cherokee Structure Types and Settlement Plans at Ravensford. Paper
presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
2009a Management Summary for the Archaeological Data Recovery Fieldwork for the Macon County
Airport Extension Project, Site 31MA77. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to the
Macon County Airport Authority, Franklin, North Carolina.
2009b The Ravensford and Macon County Airport Sites. Presented at North Carolina Appalachian Summit
Archaeology: New Visions of Ancient Times Symposium, Boone, North Carolina.
2017 Ceramics from Ravensford, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. Presented at Uplands Archaeology in
the East Symposium XII, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
i.p. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at the Ravensford Site (31 SW78 and 31 SW136), Swain
County, North Carolina, Volume 1: Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic Cherokee
Components. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
Biltmore Farms, LLC
1991 A Short Chat ... on Trees and Cows and Happenings, Ice Cream, Hotels and Things: An Informal
Centennial Review of George Vanderbilt's Accomplishments in Forestry and Dairying. Biltmore Farms,
LLC, Asheville.
Binford, Lewis R.
1977 Forty-seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone
Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, and Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 24-36.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research 35:255-273.
Bissett, Thaddeus G., LaDonna Rogers Stroupe, Patrick H. Garrow, and Judith A. Sichler
2009 Phase II Archaeological Testing and Phase III Data Recovery, WCUMillennial Campus —
Neighborhood #1, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Knoxville.
Blackmun, Ora
1977 Western North Carolina: Its Mountains and Its People to 1880. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone,
North Carolina.
01

Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear, pp. 53-72. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Blethen, H. Tyler, and Curtis W. Wood
1987 The Pioneer Experience to 1851. In The History of Jackson County, edited by Max R. Williams, pp.
67-100. The Jackson County Historical Association, Sylva, North Carolina.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Brose, David S., and N'omi Greber
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Cable, John, and Lisa O'Steen, Leslie E. Raymer, Dr. Johannes H.N. Loubser, Dr. David S. Leigh, Dr. J.W. Joseph,
Mary Beth Reed, Lotta Danielsson-Murphy, Undine McEvoy, Thaddeus Murphy, Mary Teresa Bonage-
Freund, and Dr. Deborah Wallsmith
1997 A Picture Unsurpassed: Prehistoric and Historic Indian Settlement and Landscape, Brasstown Valley,
Towns County, Georgia. Report submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources by New South
Associates, Inc.
Chapman, Jefferson
1973 The Icehouse Bottom Site, 40MR23. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of
Investigations 13.
1981 The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: the Late Archaic Period in the Little Tennessee River Valley.
University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 31.
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211.
University of Alabama Press, Birmingham.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary Crites
1987 Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity
52:352-354.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel
1979 Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina and Their
Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David
S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 157-161. Kent State University Press.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 14, no. 41, Harvard University, Cambridge.
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, North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
54(5).
Cowan, C. Wesley
1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany,
Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I.
Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Cozzo, David N.
2004 Ethnobotanical Classification System and Medical Ethnobotany of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Cridlebaugh, Patricia A.
1981 The Icehouse Bottom Site 1977 Excavations. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology
No. 34, and University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 35.

Crites, Gary D.
2004 Biltmore Mound Plant Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound,
Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. Research Report submitted by ASU Laboratories of Archaeological
Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Dagenhardt, Johnny R.
1972 Perforated Soapstone Discs: A Functional Test. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Notebook 4:65-68.
Daniel, I. Randolph Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2005 The North Carolina Fluted Point Survey. Electronic document, http://pidba.utk.edu/northcarolina.htm.
Accessed October 2019.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr.
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations No. 50,
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, and Publications in Anthropology No.
54, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga.
Dean, Nadia
2012 A Demand of Blood: The Cherokee War of 1776. Valley River Press, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records
of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1-37.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary Research
19:265-271.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Dixon, E. James
1999 Boats, Bones, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2001 Human Colonization of the Americas: Timing, Technology and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews
20:277-299.
Duggan, Betty J.
1998 Being Cherokee in a White World: The Ethnic Persistence of a Post -Removal American Indian
Enclave. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Dunbar, J.S.
2002 Chronostratigraphy and Paleoclimate of Late Pleistocene Florida and the Implications of Changing
Paleoindian Land Use. M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
2006 Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the
Aucilla River, edited by S.D. Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Dykeman, Wilma
1965 The French Broad. Wakestone Books, Newport, Tennessee.
Egloff, Brian J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Elliott, Daniel T.
1981 Soapstone Use in the Wallace Reservoir. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution 5. Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Elliott, Daniel T., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Elizabeth A. Gordon
1994 Data Recovery at Lover's Lane, Phinizy Swamp, and the Old Dike Sites, Bobby Jones Expressway
Extension Corridor, Augusta, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Espenshade, Christopher
2005 Cultural Resources Study of the Rocky Cove CCC Camp and Projects, Bent Creek Experimental
Forest, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. On file, National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.

Faught, Michael K.
2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise
Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites. American Antiquity 73:670-698.
Fiedel, Stuart
2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of
Archaeological Research 8:39-103.
Fladmark, Knut
1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55-69.
Ford, Richard I.
1981 Gathering and Farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal
of Ethnobiology 1:6-27.
Gall, James Jr., and C.D. Beadle
1895 Biltmore Estate Buncombe County, N. C., Property of Geo. W. Vanderbilt, Esquire. Accessed at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/albums/72157636058129254/with/ 10023349364/.
Goldston, E.F., C.W. Croom, W.A. Davis, and William Gettys
1954 Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 47:382-395.
Goodyear, Albert C., and K. Steffy
2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23-25.
Greene, Lance K.
1996 The Archaeology and History of the Cherokee Out Towns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2009 A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post -Removal North Carolina.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Griffith, Glenn E., James M. Omernik, Jeffrey A. Comstock, Michael P. Schafale, W. Henry McNab, David R.
Lenat, Trish F. MacPherson, James B. Glover, and Victor B. Shelburne. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
Hall, Linda, and Charles M. Baker
1993 Data Recovery at 31BN875, the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. On file, Office of
State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Hally, David J.
1988 Archaeology and Settlement Plan of the King Site. In The King Site: Continuity and Contact in
Sixteenth -Century Georgia, edited by Robert L. Blakely, pp. 3-16. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1994 An Overview of Lamar Archaeology. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, edited by David J. Hally,
pp. 144-174. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2008 King: the Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwest Georgia. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Harrington, M.R.
1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of
the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Hatcher, Robert D., Jr., and Steven A. Goldberg
1991 The Blue Ridge Geologic Province. In The Geology of the Carolinas, edited by J. Wright Horton Jr.,
and Victor A. Zullo, pp. 11-35. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Harley, M. Thomas
2006 Cherokee Women Farmers Hold their Ground. In Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial
Southeast, Revised and Expanded Edition, edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and M.
Thomas Hatley, pp. 305-338. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.
1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104-112.
1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709-715.

1971 Time, Environment and Early Man. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):3-14.
Hemmings, C.A.
1999 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools of Sloth Hole (8JE121): An Inundated Site in the Lower
Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent -Wide Cultural Adaptation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Henry, Gary.
1992 A Longterm Site Survey of Sandymush and Newfound Creeks, Buncombe and Madison Counties.
Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number 5. Archaeology Society of Virginia Special
Publication 38(5):145-186.
Heye, George G.
1919 Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. Contributions from the Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation 5(3):35-43.
Heye, George G., F.W. Hodge, and G.H. Pepper
1918 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation 2, No. 1.
Hoffecker, John F., W. Roger Powers, and Ted Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science 259:46-53.
Holmes, John S.
1911 Forest Conditions in Western North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey
Bulletin No. 23, Raleigh.
Hood, Davyd Foard
2003 National Historic Landmark Nomination: Biltmore Estate (Additional Documentation and Boundary
Reduction). On file, North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando De Soto Expedition: from Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):45-65.
Hudson, Mark S.
2009 Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Buncombe Soil and Water Conservation District, and Buncombe County
Board of Commissioners.
Idol, Bruce S.
2010 Archaeological Test Excavations at 31BN943, Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental
Corporation, Chapel Hill. Report submitted to Civil Design Concepts, P.A., Waynesville, North Carolina.
2011 Archeological Assessment for Proposed Sewer Line Construction on the Boundary Tree Tract, Swain
County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
2016 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation at Sites 31JK443 and 31JK553 for the Replacement of
Bridge 80 on SR 1737 over Caney Fork Creek, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental
Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Division.
2017 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Sites 31JK164 and 31JK487 for the NC 107
Improvement Project, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
Submitted to North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Jorgenson, Matthew, Peter Sittig, and Daniel Cassedy
2017 The Savannah River Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region: Excavations at 31YC31 in Yancey
County, North Carolina. Presented at Upland Archaeology in the East conference, Boone, North Carolina,
February 2017.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
W.

Keel, Bennie C., and Brian J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 33:3-44.
Kidd, Steven R.
2015 Archaeological Survey of Area of Potential Effect Associated with Parkway Reroute and I-26 Bridge
Replacement. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville North Carolina.
Kimball, Larry R.
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: an Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico
Reservoir. Publications in Anthropology 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
1991 Swannanoa River Buried Archaeological Site Survey, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Submitted to
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History and the Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County.
1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early
Archaic Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 149-186. The University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Kimball, Larry R., and M. Scott Shumate
2003 Investigations at the Hopewellian Biltmore Mound in the Southern Appalachians. Paper presented at
the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Kimball, Larry, M. Scott Shumate, Thomas R. Whyte, and Gary D. Crites
2004 Hopewellian Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina.
Research Report submitted by Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science,
Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research and Exploration, National
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
King, Duane H.
1979 The Origin of the Eastern Cherokees as a Social and Political Entity. In The Cherokee Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 164-180. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 78.
Lafferty, Robert H., III.
1981 The Phipps Bend Archaeological Project. OAR Research Series No. 4, University of Alabama. TVA
Publications in Anthropology No. 26.
Leftwich, Brent M.
1999 Projectile Points as Clues to the Influence of Topography of Western North Carolina on Cultural
History. Seniors Honors Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Leigh, David S.
2002 Geomorphology of the Ravensford Tract. In Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the
Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina,
by Paul A. Webb, pp. 135-156. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Leigh, David S., and Paul A. Webb
2006 Holocene Erosion, Sedimentation, and Stratigraphy at Raven Fork, Southern Blue Ridge Mountains,
USA. Geomorphology 78:161-177.
McAvoy, J.M., and L.D. McAvoy (editors)
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series 8, Richmond.
McDonald, J.M.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a
Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Martinsville.
McLoughlin, William G., and Walter H. Cosner Jr.
1984 The Cherokee Censuses of 1809, 1825, and 1835. In The Cherokee Ghost Dance: Essays on the
Southeastern Indians 1789-1861, by William G. McLoughlin with Walter H. Cosner Jr., and Virginia
Duffy McLoughlin, pp. 215-250. Mercer University Press.

MacPherson, George A.
1936a Record of Initial Investigations for Archaeological Sites in Certain Sections of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park [Swain and Haywood Counties]. Ms. on file, Great Smoky Mountain National
Park.
1936b Letter Report of George A. MacPherson to Dr. H.C. Bryant. May 29. On file, Great Smoky Mountains
McReynolds, Theresa E.
2005 Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile Points. North
Carolina Archaeology 54:1-33.
Marcoux, Jon Bernard
2010 Pox, Empire, Shackles, and Hides: The Townsend Site, 1670-171 S. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North -America. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1):1-
52.
2004 Peopling of North America. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, Volume 1, edited by Alan
R. Gillespie, Stephen C. Porter, and Brian F. Atwater, pp. 539-563. Elsevier Science, New York.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes,
Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:559-563.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging,
Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited
by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3-3 1. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898,
Pt. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mooney, James, and Frans M. Olbrechts
1931 The Swimmer Manuscript: Cherokee Sacred Formulas and Medicinal Prescriptions. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 99. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Moore, David G.
1981 A Comparison of Two Pisgah Ceramic Assemblages. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1984 Biltmore Estate Archaeological Survey Final Report. Western Office of the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History. Submitted to the Biltmore Estate, Asheville.
1992 Salvage Archaeology at the Cullowhee Valley School, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina.
Newsletter North Carolina Archaeological Society Vol. 2 (2).
2002 Pisgah Village Evolution at the Warren Wilson Site. In The Archaeology of Native North Carolina:
Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, edited by J.M. Eastman, C.B. Rodning, and E.A. Boudreaux III, pp.
76-83. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special Publication 7.
Nagle, Kimberly, and Heather Carpini
2019 Phase I Archaeological Survey, T-072 Pipeline Project, Buncombe County, North Carolina. S&ME,
Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Submitted to Dominion Energy NC, Gastonia, North Carolina.
Nesbitt, William A.
1941 History of Early Settlement and Land Use on the Bent Creek Experimental Forest, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Ms. On file, Bent Creek Experimental Forest and the National Forests in North Carolina,
Asheville.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geological Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh.
Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field
Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
.N

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 at Birmingham.
Oliver, Duane
1989 Hazel Creek From Then Till Now. Privately published.
Olmsted, F.L. and Company
1892 Biltmore Geo. W. Vanderbilt Preliminary Plan of Forest and Other Drives. F.L. Olmsted and
Company, Brookline, Massachusetts. Accessed at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/albums/72157636058129254/with/ 10023349364/.
1896 Guide Map of Biltmore Estate. Olmstead, Olmsted, and Eliot, Landscape Architects, Brookline,
Massachusetts. Accessed at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/albums/72157636058129254/with/ 10023349364/.
Orr, Douglas M., and Alfred W. Stuart (editors)
2000 The North Carolina Atlas: Portrait for a New Century. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Pare, Matthew, Tasha Benyshek, Paul A. Webb, and Damon Jones
2007 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the I-26 Asheville Connector, Buncombe County, North
Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
Perkins, S.O., R.E. Devereux, S.F. Davidson, and W.A. Davis
1923 Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Polhemus, Richard R.
1987 The Toqua Site: a Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town. University of Tennessee Department of
Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 41; Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology
No. 44.
Powell, Talmage
1981 Asheville: A Historical Sketch. In Cabins and Castles: The History and Architecture of Buncombe
County, North Carolina, edited by Douglas Swaim, 33-46. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, County of Buncombe, City of Asheville.
Preston, John
2010 Cultural Resources Survey for the Baldwin Field Branch and Wolf Branch Stream Stabilization
Projects, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Preston, John, and Scott Shumate
2010 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Bent Creek Experimental Station Dozer Line/Burn Study,
Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Archaeological Consultants, Arden, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina,
Asheville.
Preston, John Paul, M. Scott Shumate, Patti -Evans -Shumate, and Larry R. Kimball.
2001 Archaeological Survey of Seven Proposed Core Drilling Sites and One Proposed Stream Gauging
Station on the Bent Creek Experimental Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Appalachian State
University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina.
Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Purrington, Burton L.
1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Slipoff Branch Site, A Morrow Mountain Culture Campsite in
Swain County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 5, Raleigh.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western
Mountain Range. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in Macon, Swain,
and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
1996 Removal Period Cherokee Households and Communities in Southwestern North Carolina (1835-
1838). Submitted to North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
91

1999 Removal Period Cherokee Households in Southwestern North Carolina: Material Perspectives on
Ethnicity and Cultural Differentiation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Riggs, Brett H., and Larry R. Kimball
1996 An Archaeological Survey ofHiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Appalachian
State University, Boone, North Carolina. Draft report submitted to the TVA, Norris, Tennessee.
Riggs, Brett H., and Chris Rodning
2002 Cherokee Ceramic Traditions of Southwestern North Carolina, ca. A.D. 1400-2002: A Preface to The
Last of the Iroquois Potters. North Carolina Archaeology 51:34-54.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1989 Archaeological Excavations within the Alternate Pipeline Corridor Passing through the Harshaw
Bottom Site (31 CE41) Cherokee County, North Carolina. Prepared for the Cherokee County
Commissioners, Murphy, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Robinson, Kenneth W., David G. Moore, and Ruth Y. Wetmore
1994 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 6th Uplands
Archaeological Conference, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
1996 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. In Upland Archeology in the East:
Symposium Number Six, edited by Eugene B. Barfield and Michael B. Barber, pp. 2-19. Special
Publication Number 38-Part 6, Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Rodning, Christopher B.
2002 William Bartram and the Archaeology of the Appalachian Summit. In Between Contacts and Colonies:
Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast, edited by Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A.
Rees, pp. 67-89. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2004 The Cherokee Town at Coweeta Creek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
2008 Temporal Variation in Qualla Pottery. North Carolina Archaeology 57:1-49.
2009a Domestic Houses at Coweeta Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 28:1-26.
2009b Mounds, Myths, and Cherokee Townhouses in Southwestern North Carolina. American Antiquity
74:627-663.
Royce, C.C.
1884 Map of the Former Territorial Limits of the Cherokee "Nation of Indians. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1887 The Cherokee Nation of Indians. In Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Rudolph, Teresa P.
1991 The Late Woodland "Problem" in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The
Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 259-283. Plenum
Press, New York.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1997 Refining Soapstone Vessel Chronology in the Southeast. Early Georgia 25:1-20.
1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene
Southeast, edited by K. Sassaman and D. Anderson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Scarry, C. Margaret
2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in
Ancient Eastern North America, edited by Paul McInnis, pp. 50-104. Smithsonian Books, Washington,
D.C.
Seeman, M.F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: the Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity.
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings
1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 131. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
92

Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Shumate, M. Scott
2007 Damage Assessment and Site Documentation at the Abraham Reynolds Cemetery, Daniel Boone Lake
Site, and the Hatch Mill Site at Bent Creek, Buncombe County, North Carolina. National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.
2008 Heritage Resources Survey, Bent Creek Experimental Forest Conference Center Project, USFS
Southern Research Station, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of
Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2011 Archaeological Survey along the Deer Lake Ridge Trail (TR 664) at the Bent Creek Experimental
Station, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2012 An Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed Metropolitan Sewerage District West French
Broad Interceptor, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
Submitted to Metropolitan Sewerage District, Asheville.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Larry R. Kimball
2006 Emergency Salvage at the Bent Creek Archaeological Site (31BN335), Buncombe County, North
Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of
Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Cold Canyon Site (31SW265), Swain County, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology,
Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Shumate, Scott, and Lotte Govaerts
2010 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Parking Lot Expansion along FR481F at Lake Powhatan,
Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Archaeological Consultants, Arden, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina,
Asheville.
Shumate, M. Scott, Brett H. Riggs, and Larry R. Kimball
2005 The Alarka Farmstead Site: Archaeological Investigations at a Mid -Seventeenth -Century Cherokee
Winter House/Summer House Complex, Swain County, North Carolina. Appalachian State University,
Boone and Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill. Report on file, National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.
Smith, Betty Anderson
1979 Distribution of Eighteenth -Century Cherokee Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled
History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 46-60. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to deSoto 10,500-500 B.P. Advances
in World Archaeology Vol. 5 Academic Press, Inc., New York.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Smith, Marvin T., and David J. Hally
1992 Chiefly Behavior: Evidence from Sixteenth Century Spanish Accounts. In Lords of the Southeast:
Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T.
Pauketat, pp. 99-109. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3.
Sondley, Foster A.
1930 A History of Buncombe County, North Carolina. The Advocate Printing Company, Asheville.
Stanyard, William F.
2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology
Series Report No. 38 and Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 13.
93

Steere, Benjamin A.
2013 The Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project: Results of 2011-2012 Archival Research and
Field Investigations in Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, Swain, and Transylvania Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2017 The Archaeology of Houses and Households in the Native Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Steere, Benjamin A., Paul A. Webb, and Bruce S. Idol
2012 A "New" Account of Mound and Village Sites in Western North Carolina: The Travels of Captain
R.D. Wainwright. North Carolina Archaeology 61:1-37.
Stroupe, Vernon S., Robert J. Stets, Ruth Y. Wetmore, Tony L. Crumbley (editors)
1996 Post Offices and Postmasters of North Carolina: Colonial to USPS. Volume I-Alamance through
Durham. North Carolina Postal History Society, Charlotte.
Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Originally published in 1939.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of
the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, W.A.
1891 Topographic Map of Biltmore Estate at Time of Purchase 1891. Accessed at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/albums/72157636058129254/with/ l0023349364/.
Trinkley, Michael B.
1974 Report of Archaeological Testing at the Love Site (SoC240), South Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
26:3-18.
Truncer, James
2004 Steatite Vessel Age and Occurrence in Temperate Eastern North America. American Antiquity
69(3):487-513.
United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
Accessed October 2019.
United States Department of the Interior (USDOI)
1991 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1901 Asheville, N.C., 1:125,000-scale topographic map.
1905 Pisgah, N.C., 1:125,000-scale topographic map.
1936a Asheville, N.C., 1:24,000-scale planimetric map.
1936b Skyland, N.C., 1:24,000-scale planimetric map.
1942 Skyland, N.C., 1:24,000-scale planimetric map.
1943 Asheville, N.C., 1:24,000-scale planimetric map.
Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer, and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick
1979 A Report on Recent "Salvage" Archaeology at Nununyi, 31 SW3. Research Laboratories of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
1986 Inter -Site Spatial Patterns at the Warren Wilson Site. In The Conference on Cherokee Prehistory.
assembled by David Moore. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Webb, Paul A.
2002 Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham.
Submitted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Webb, Paul, and Tasha Benyshek
2008 Historic Cherokee Homesteads at the Ravensford Site, Cherokee North Carolina. Paper presented at
the 2008 Conference on Social Archaeology of Southeastern Colonial Frontiers. University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
Webb, Paul A., Melissa Emery, and Michael Nelson
i.p. Addendum to NCDOT Archaeological Adverse Effect Determination Form, Project No. U-340313,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. In preparation.
Webb, Paul A., Fritz Farrow, and Michael Nelson
2019 NCDOT Archaeological Adverse Effect Determination Form, Project No. U-340313, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. On file, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Webb, Paul A., and Michael Nelson
2019a Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Northern Parcel of the Biltmore Park West Tract,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to Biltmore
Farms, LLC, Asheville.
2019b Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Southern Parcel of the Biltmore Park West Tract,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to Biltmore
Farms, LLC, Asheville.
Weisner, G.
1996 Saltville Site Has Evidence of 14,000-Year-Old Fields. The Mammoth Trumpet 1 (4):1, 18-20. Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1989 The Ela Site (31 SW5): Archaeological Data Recovery of Connestee and Qualla Phase Occupations at
the East Elementary School Site, Swain County, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh.
1996 The Connestee Component from the Ela Site, 31 SW5, Swain County, North Carolina. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Five, Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(5):220-237.
2002 The Woodland Period in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina and the Ridge and
Valley Province of Tennessee. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C.
Mainfort Jr., pp. 249-269. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Wetmore, Ruth Y., Kenneth W. Robinson, and David G. Moore
2000 Woodland Adaptations in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina: Exploring the
Influence of Climate Change. In The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its Aftermath, edited by
Joel D. Gunn, pp. 139-149. BAR International Series 872.
Whyte, Thomas R.
2004 Biltmore Mound Archaeofaunal Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore
Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. Research Report submitted by ASU Laboratories of
Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research
and Exploration National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Wild, Kenneth S., Jr.
1994 Archaeological Investigations Conducted at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County,
North Carolina. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. Report on
file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliott, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: the Archaic and Woodland Periods of the Upper
Savannah River. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Athens, Georgia. Russell Papers, National Park Service.
Wright, Alice P.
2013 Persistent Place, Shifting Practice: The Premound Landscape at the Garden Creek Site, North Carolina.
In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the South, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry,
pp. 108-121. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2014 Inscribing Interaction: Middle Woodland Monumentality in the Appalachian Summit, 100 BC — AD
400. Unpublished dissertation in Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
95

Yu, Pei -Lin
2001 The Middle Archaic of the Great Smoky Mountains: Upland Adaptation in a Regional Perspective.
Presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
0

APPENDIX 1. ARTIFACT CATALOG

This page intentionally left blank.

cM �q �O �O 7 .. .. N l- a0 O vi O r 00 M 7 T N N wi l� O 00
N Cl N M N O O O O Cl Cl 10 t` N N O N M N
t` N
M
N
N�� t y N N y y N y N N N
N .N .N N .N N N N N N O�' .N
AarvrvrvrvU rvU arvarvrvrvarvrvary rvry
41-
Z0r.
I N f
i OO C
� O <
� M f
;g
WARN
W W
� O O
� M M
;g�
7QAlQ
W W
� O O
� M M
I \O o0
� F F
0 ICI
W W
� O O
� M M
Cl O f

�\
/D F
]/m
n
E)
�q