20220436 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220425

Strickland, Bev
From: Meagan Jolly <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Chris Huysman; Perez, Douglas J; Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Re: Albemarle Road Site SAW-2021-01521
Attachments: SAW-2021-01521 Albemarle Road Request for More Information USACE r1.pdf;
Prelim Impact Area_2022-4-14.pdf; 220408_Revised Impact Tables_Albemarle Road
SAW-2021-01521.pdf; Albemarle Road Site SOA 031822.pdf; TRC - Albemarle Road
Tract 5-17-2021.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Crystal,
Thank you for providing the above information. Attached is our response to your request for more information, along
with several supporting documents. One of the files is >25 mb so will send as a google drive link --can you access google
drive or is there a better way to get the file to you?
220414 Albemarle Road Viewshed Evaluation zip
After you have a chance to review let us know if we need to jump on a call to discuss further or if you need additional
information.
Thanks!
Meagan Jolly
704.681.3479
www.wetlands-waters.com
The information contained in this email message is confidential and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not an intended recipient or if you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by
return email or telephone if the sender's phone number is listed above, then promptly and permanently delete this message. Thank you for
your cooperation and consideration.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:32 PM Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
wrote:
Chris,
i

I've reviewed the Albemarle Road Site project and have the following comments/request for additional information:
1. Please provide information to indicate that Phase I of the project is independent, and could act as a stand along
project, from other phases of the project.
2. Section 106 issues need to be addressed in order to determine consultation requirements for the project:
a. Based on previous discussions, there is a barn/structure on site that could possibly be eligible for listing
on the National Registry. Please provide the report on this site for our evaluation and for us to forward
to SHPO as necessary for concurrence on eligibility determinations. Also, please identify the location
on the project plan or on a project map so its clear where this structure is in relation to proposed
impacts.
b. There may be view shed issues associated with the historic farm located adjacent to the property. In
order to determine if there are view shed issues, you should provide a photographic report looking out
from the location/property boundary of the farm, onto the subject property and in particular Phase I,
and provide any other helpful information such as elevations of the historic farm compared to that of
the proposed development areas and any existing vegetation that would act as a screen that would be
left in place to create a buffer.
3. Impact tables: Impact tables have impacts labeled as S1-S17 and W1-W6 for stream and wetland impacts
respectively. The plan labels impacts for streams as R1-R9 and wetland impacts with F# or I# (I think, hard to
see on the plan). Please revise the impact table in the PCN to correspond with impact labels shown on the plan
(or vice versa) to allow cross reference of review between the two documents.
4. Culverts: some of these culverts are large diameter going into narrow streams. For example, Stream Impact R8
at Tributary 14 is 6' culvert going into a 2' wide stream. Consideration should be taken to ensure the stream is
not over -widened at these locations. With round culverts I know there is a little bit more leeway with the
widths of the opening of the culvert to align with existing stream widths so that should be considered when
setting the elevation of the pipes in the streams while still adhering to burial requirement as best as possible. If
stream widths can't be maintained, then a smaller base flow pipe should be considered in conjunction with a
floodplain pipe to carry higher flows. This would also apply at R2 (tributary 10) and R1 (Tributary 11).
5. Utility lines: so if I'm interpreting the plans correctly, the sewer line is being proposed throughout the entire
project along the future road network, but the actual road network for the entire project isn't currently being
included in the permit request? The plans don't differentiate between future phases of sewer line and the
currently proposed. The plans should be revised to clarify this.
a. The current sewer plan shows the sewer line crossing tributary 1 three times. Some of these impacts
are shown as proposed temporary, some are shown as future temporary. It appears as though with
this permit request, you are only requested two crossings, one near wetland C1000-1100 and one at
wetland A100-200 (there are no impact numbers shown on the plans so not sure which impacts these
would correspond to on the impact table). In particular the crossing at A100-200, it is unclear where
this sewer line goes and if it ties into anything on the other side of the crossing. Please clarify these
impacts and revise the plans to more clearly show where the sewer line is going in this
location. Additionally please provide some justification on why multiple stream crossings are being
requested for the sewer line.
b. Also, I'm not seeing any sewer line impacts on sheet 16 of 17. Just want to verify that that's the case
and I'm not missing anything.
6. Mitigation: based on the RIBITS, the Upper Rocky River Umbrella Mitigation Bank only has 267.75 SMUs, so this
would not be enough to cover the impacts for this project. As such, you would need to obtain the remaining
mitigation credit through DMS. Also, just to be clear, are you requesting mitigation for all permanent stream
impacts (1,275 If of stream channel) at a 2:1 ratio? In the PCN you indicated that SOAs have been requested. I
assume those are mitigation acceptance letters? Those would be required prior to issuance of a permit so I
2

appreciate that those have already been requested and ask that you send those to me ASAP once received
from the banks.
7. Minimization and avoidance:
a. The lots shown near SCM#B5 and SCM#B4 appear to be very close to wetlands in this area. Please
provide a grading plan or more detailed plan/zoomed in plan to verify wetlands won't be impacted at
these locations.
b. Impact R3 shows the pipe outlet into the stream at a 90 angle. This can often create an unstable
condition. It might be worth tweaking the road location to the east or west to avoid any sharp bends in
the stream or re -aligning the pipe to outlet at the stream in a more straight -on manner, even if that
means a short area of stream re -alignment. Please consider these comments and provide a response.
c. On the below section of the plan, it appears that impacts to tributary 13 could be completely avoided
and impacts to Tributary 14 could be further minimized if you redesigned the access road to align with
the southernmost road as shown below. Please justify why the development access road can't be
redesigned to minimize/avoid impacts to these tributaries.
® Pages from SAW-2 21-01521 ADMIN FILE MARCH 172022.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Pro 0C (32-bit)
File Edit View E-Sign Window Help
Home Tools Pages from SAW-2.,. X
CD * ®Q o
Comment
2 /2
ao 0 2f111% -- y 5 t o
Q T T T4 Ta T 0 a' 8- fib- 41- Aa
PROP. PERM. WETLAND'
IMPACT (11) %
�1 ISOLATED WETLAND 111000
t0.31 AC.
/ PROP. PERM. IMPACT (R3)�� J1•,'—
-14
`� TRIBUTARY 9 r ..1 1:
�- f 142 LF �� R'� 00
41 f.013 AC. ,9 li
PROP. PERM. WETLAND
IMPACT (12)
ISOLATED WETLAND
*0.16 AC.
FUTURE PERM. WETLAND
IMPACT (13)
ISOLATED WETLAN ❑
*0.33 AC.
11.Wx 8.50 in
//
PROP. P
TRIBUTAF
*111 LF
*.005 A
PROP. F
TRIBUTAI
f 110 U
f.010
1 comment
PAGE2 1
O K7RGRCCA 416 PM
0 Polygon
a
3

If you have any questions regarding the information requested in this email, don't hesitate to reach out to me.
Sincerely,
Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Crystal Amschler
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext 4231
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
4

N Pagsbom SAW-209-01521 ADMIN FILE MARCH 17V.pM- AtlobeAoobal No DCFQ bg — 0 X
File Edit View E-Sign Winslow Help
J� lTools
Pages from SAW-2_ • fps
O 2 R 2 v O O m% Ty" L5 III \
' COMMer q O T T To Ta T TD ® �9 8' &i- 4- Aa cwse
2A 1 wmm¢M Q 4 T •• Ca
7# PROP. PERM. WETLAND mono o MGL2
0 K]KGIEI 4.16 PM 0
o=
oaarman
CO
o
pp
0
�o
r , _ �� \
T Wx8.501n <

WETLANDS
WATERS, INC.
Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Request for Additional Information
Albemarle Road Site
SAW-2021-01521
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Ms. Amschler,
April 25, 2022
This letter is provided by Wetlands & Waters, Inc. on behalf of Forestar Group, Inc. in response to a request by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for more information relating to the above referenced project. Responses are
in bold.
1. Please provide information to indicate that Phase I of the project is independent, and could act as a stand
along project, from other phases of the project.
The project is designed to be developed in "cluster style" development phases, where each phase of the overall
project can function as a standalone development, independently from previous or subsequent phases. The
phased aspect of construction enables the developer to turn over the finalized first phase for occupation by
the end user without having reliance upon future proposed phases.
The currently proposed Phase I road network and sanitary sewer infrastructure can be constructed and
function independently of future proposed development; this infrastructure functions similarly to a NC DOT
public thoroughfare road or county sewer infrastructure that are permitted independent of adjacent
development. Proposed future subdivision roads and sanitary sewer infrastructure that are only for the
purpose of serving additional independent residential site development are not included with this application.
Impacts to aquatic resources are necessary in this first phase of development to access high ground and to
establish integral infrastructure for site development. Further, the overall site design has been driven by
numerous factors, but in particular is governed by the Rezoning Plan, the Planned Residential Development
Standards and Proposed Development Standard Conditions and applicable provisions of the Town of
Midland Development Ordinance. These development standards dictate aspects of the development such as
residential area clustering and dimensions, open space requirements, ingress/egress requirements, road
improvements, and road standards.
The distribution of regulated aquatic resources within the overall project area results in impacts to these
resources being unavoidable. The currently proposed roadway and sanitary sewer impacts have been
minimized from early iterations of site conceptual design and are consistent with allowances and constraints
defined in Nationwide Permits 14 and 58.
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

.1 Y4WETLANDS
w& WATERS, INC.
The currently proposed road network provides utility beyond the proposed residential development within
the project area. The road network is free -flowing, provides an alternate connection for traffic between
Albemarle Road (Highway 24/27) and Pioneer Mill Road, and isolates residential lot entrances to local streets
with overall lower traffic loads, effectively secluding residences from the primary thoroughfare system. Per
the Town of Midland Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and development standards, buildings are to be
oriented to (homes entrances are only allowed on) internal streets.
Sanitary sewer impacts are necessary to develop the site, and have been designed to minimize impacts to the
greatest extent practicable through efforts such as co -location within permanent road crossings and
perpendicular crossing alignment. Where the proposed sanitary sewer alignment deviates outside of a
proposed roadway, the alignment is designed to tie into existing sanitary sewer manholes.
The currently proposed sanitary sewer impacts are associated with residential development that can occur
within upland portions of the site, with the exception of areas where road access to high ground is necessary
east of Tributary 1—in which case sanitary sewer infrastructure is co -located within road crossings to
minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable, and proposed impacts are within Nationwide Permit
allowances.
2. Section 106 issues need to be addressed in order to determine consultation requirements for the project:
a. Based on previous discussions, there is a barn/structure on site that could possibly be eligible for
listing on the National Registry. Please provide the report on this site for our evaluation and for us
to forward to SHPO as necessary for concurrence on eligibility determinations. Also, please
identify the location on the project plan or on a project map so its clear where this structure is in
relation to proposed impacts.
The report of findings provided by TRC Companies is included with this response. Please see file TRC —
Albemarle Road Tract 5-17-2021. The location of the house structure identified in the report has been added
to the revised project plans (Sheet 4 of 17), included with this response. Please see file Prelim Impact
Area 2022-4-14.
Architectural merits notwithstanding, the integrity of the structure is severely compromised and repair,
restoration, or removal of the structure from the project area is not practicable. The project proponent will
endeavor to catalog the structure in accordance with the standards identified in the TRC report. During
construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project, the structure will be demarcated by orange construction
fencing until the structure itself or components thereof are donated to a local preservation society or an
organization such as Preservation North Carolina.
b. There may be view shed issues associated with the historic farm located adjacent to the
property. In order to determine if there are view shed issues, you should provide a photographic
report looking out from the location/property boundary of the farm, onto the subject property and
in particular Phase I, and provide any other helpful information such as elevations of the historic
farm compared to that of the proposed development areas and any existing vegetation that would
act as a screen that would be left in place to create a buffer.
Field photographs and a map of photo locations is included in this response. Please see file 220414—Albemarle
Road Viewshed Evaluation.
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

J WETLANDS
WATERS= INC.
3. Impact tables: Impact tables have impacts labeled as S 1-S 17 and W 1-W6 for stream and wetland impacts
respectively. The plan labels impacts for streams as Rl-R9 and wetland impacts with F# or I# (I think,
hard to see on the plan). Please revise the impact table in the PCN to correspond with impact labels shown
on the plan (or vice versa) to allow cross reference of review between the two documents.
PCN impact tables have been revised to match plan labels. Please see file 220408_Revised Impact
Tables Albemarle Road SAW-2021-01521.
4. Culverts: some of these culverts are large diameter going into narrow streams. For example, Stream
Impact R8 at Tributary 14 is 6' culvert going into a 2' wide stream. Consideration should be taken to
ensure the stream is not over -widened at these locations. With round culverts I know there is a little bit
more leeway with the widths of the opening of the culvert to align with existing stream widths so that
should be considered when setting the elevation of the pipes in the streams while still adhering to burial
requirement as best as possible. If stream widths can't be maintained, then a smaller base flow pipe should
be considered in conjunction with a floodplain pipe to carry higher flows. This would also apply at R2
(tributary 10) and R1 (Tributary 11).
Per the project engineers, the proposed culvert sizing at stream crossings R1, R2 and R8 are based on the
drainage area at each crossing, and smaller culvert sizes would not safely pass storm flows. The narrow
OHWM at impact R8 is a result of entrenchment of the stream system rather than a result of the drainage
area. Crossing 8 has a drainage area approaching 60 acres and the design meets current engineering safety
standards.
5. Utility lines: so if I'm interpreting the plans correctly, the sewer line is being proposed throughout the
entire project along the future road network, but the actual road network for the entire project isn't
currently being included in the permit request? The plans don't differentiate between future phases of
sewer line and the currently proposed. The plans should be revised to clarify this.
The current proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure has been distinguished on the attached revised plans
(Sheets 16 and 17) with a bolded outline, and impact labels corresponding to the PCN impact inventory have
been added. The currently proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure does not align within the future proposed
road network in all areas (see specifically proposed temporary wetland and stream impacts SS-1, SSW-2, SS-
2, and SSW-1).
The road network that is essential for access to high ground and site ingress/egress requirements is what is
currently being proposed.
a. The current sewer plan shows the sewer line crossing tributary 1 three times. Some of these
impacts are shown as proposed temporary, some are shown as future temporary. It appears as
though with this permit request, you are only requested two crossings, one near wetland C1000-
1100 and one at wetland A100-200 (there are no impact numbers shown on the plans so not sure
which impacts these would correspond to on the impact table). In particular the crossing at A100-
200, it is unclear where this sewer line goes and if it ties into anything on the other side of the
crossing. Please clarify these impacts and revise the plans to more clearly show where the sewer
line is going in this location. Additionally please provide some justification on why multiple
stream crossings are being requested for the sewer line.
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

WETLANDS
WATERS, INC.
The plans have been revised to better illustrate that proposed temporary wetland and stream impacts SS-1,
SSW-2, SS-2, and SSW-1 facilitate connection of the proposed sewer network to an existing sanitary sewer
easement located south of and parallel to Tributary 1.Operational constraints require that newly proposed
sanitary sewer infrastructure tie into existing manholes to allow the operational sewer line to remain in
service. Additionally, constructing a new sanitary sewer trunkline parallel to Tributary 1 west of the existing
sewer easement would result in additional impacts to forested floodplain wetlands.
b. Also, I'm not seeing any sewer line impacts on sheet 16 of 17. Just want to verify that that's the
case and I'm not missing anything.
Sheet 16 shows the currently proposed sewer network and respective sewer impacts, whereas Sheet 17
indicates the location of the currently proposed sewer network but no impacts are required for its
construction.
6. Mitigation: based on the RIBITS, the Upper Rocky River Umbrella Mitigation Bank only has 267.75
SMUs, so this would not be enough to cover the impacts for this project. As such, you would need to
obtain the remaining mitigation credit through DMS. Also, just to be clear, are you requesting mitigation
for all permanent stream impacts (1,275 if of stream channel) at a 2:1 ratio? In the PCN you indicated that
SOAs have been requested. I assume those are mitigation acceptance letters? Those would be required
prior to issuance of a permit so I appreciate that those have already been requested and ask that you send
those to me ASAP once received from the banks.
We are requesting mitigation for all permanent stream bed loss at a 2:1 ratio (546 linear feet of stream bed
loss due to culvert placement, 2:1 ratio, total of 1,092 linear feet of mitigatable loss). We are not proposing
mitigation for energy dissipators (riprap), as crossing designs incorporate riprap keyed into channel beds to
ensure continued aquatic life passage.
An SOA from Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, dated March 18, 2022, is included with this response.
Please see file Albemarle Road Site SOA 031822.
7. Minimization and avoidance:
a. The lots shown near SCM#B5 and SCM#B4 appear to be very close to wetlands in this
area. Please provide a grading plan or more detailed plan/zoomed in plan to verify wetlands won't
be impacted at these locations.
Project design has not yet been completed at the level of detail that a grading plan is available for these areas;
however, specific discussion regarding minimization of impacts in these areas through the use of retaining
walls or subdivision redesign have occurred and been incorporated in project design (as shown on the
included plans). The applicant is aware that lot fills within residential subdivisions of this magnitude may
require extensive review of adverse environmental effects and avoidance and minimization efforts by
stakeholder agencies.
b. Impact R3 shows the pipe outlet into the stream at a 90 angle. This can often create an unstable
condition. It might be worth tweaking the road location to the east or west to avoid any sharp
bends in the stream or re -aligning the pipe to outlet at the stream in a more straight -on manner,
even if that means a short area of stream re -alignment. Please consider these comments and
provide a response.
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

WETLANDS
WATERS, INC.
The proposed culverts at crossing R3 have been slightly realigned to lessen the angle of the culvert outlets
relative to the existing streambed and bank locations (see Sheets 10 and 11 of 17). The revised design also
incorporates a low -flow culvert set to carry baseflow on the inside meander of the stream at the discharge
location. Additional riprap outside of the channel bed has been incorporated to fortify bank stability. Riprap
will be underlain by fabric as required by the USACE Regional Conditions.
c. On the below section of the plan, it appears that impacts to tributary 13 could be completely
avoided and impacts to Tributary 14 could be further minimized if you redesigned the access road
to align with the southernmost road as shown below. Please justify why the development access
road can't be redesigned to minimize/avoid impacts to these tributaries.
The proposed road alignment is the result of several factors. The proposed residential product for this
currently proposed phase of development is an age -restricted community, and isolating residential entrances
off of main thoroughfare collector streets is safer development design. Per the Town of Midland Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) and development standards, buildings are to be oriented to internal streets.
Per NCDOT requirements and the approved Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), development of the site
requires road improvements to Pioneer Mill Road (indicated on Sheet 5 of 17), which consist of constructing a
100' right -turn site entrance deceleration lane and a 100' left -turn site entrance lane, and maintaining a
distance of separation from Albemarle Road.
The proposed road network where crossings R7 and R8 are currently proposed was initially designed to
accommodate more residential lots, a pocket park, and a stormwater control measure; subsequent project
redesigns and additional environmental due diligence resulted in redesigning this area of the site and a
subsequent reduction of proposed impacts to what is currently proposed.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional project information. Should you require further
information please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best,
Meagan Jolly
[phone]
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY - °
W N U m z 3
w
2
W
H
N
0
Q
O
IL
Q
W
�
(
0
z
Q
U
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
[
w
m
o
W
J
Q
F-
H
0 1000' 2000' 4000'
U
W
J
Q
W
co
( IN FEET)
HORIZONTAL 1 inch = 2000ft.
w
0
1 OF 17

WATER OF THE US
WETLAND D2000 `\
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND D1800
ABUTTING
f0.21 AC.
\
ABUTTING
t0.07 AC.
WATER OF THE US
i
WETLAND D1400
WATER OF THE US
ABUTTING
WETLAND D1700
t0.13 AC.
WATER OF THE US
ABUTTING
i
WETLAND AA/BB1000
t0.10 AC.
WATER OF THE US
ABUTTING
WETLAND D1600
±512 AC
ABUTTING
/
t0.05 AC.
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND D1500
-WATER OF THE US
ABUTTING
D1300
t0.04 AC.
AWETLAND
ABUTTING
BUTT
'i
-`
AC. POND P3
4
-WATER OF THE US
NRPW
WETLAND D1200
NON -JURISDICTIONAL
ABUTTING
t0.182 AC.
t0.06 AC.
WATER OF THE US
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND C1400
WETLAND D1100
ABUTTING
ABUTTING
t0.35 AC.
f0.01 AC. J
z
—WATER OF THE US
WETLAND D1000
ABUTTING
4-1 Sd er
=�—WATER OF THE
US
-WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 5-A
PERENNIAL RPW
±606 LF
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 4
PERENNIAL RPW
t3655 LF WATER OF THE US
WETLAND C1000-1100
ABUTTING
f1.13 AC.
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND C1600
ABUTTING
f0.02 AC.
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 5
INTERMITTENT RPW
±324 LF
\ WATER OF THE US
POND P2
IMPOUNDMENT
w
L
tO.06 AC.
WATER OF THE US _
WETLAND K1200
ABUTTING
f3.9 AC.
L .:
/
WATER OF THE US
`f
`J
TRIBUTARY 6
INTERMITTENT RPW
±700 LF
WATER OF THE US—
SP1
IMPOUNDMENT
- t0.01 AC.
WETLAND C1300/1500
ABUTTING
t 1.37 AC.
FORS USACE PERMITTING ONLY
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 2-A
INTERMITTENT RPW
±235 LF
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 2
PERENNIAL RPW
f 1720 LF
WATER OF THE US
POND P1000
IMPOUNDMENT
f3.11 AC.
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 2 J/
INTERMITTENT RPW
t935 LF
WATER OF THWETLAND I
Y :.:. ABUTTING
A101
% t 1 1.85 AC.
WATER OF THE US � � � N, '\ �
TRIBUTARY 7
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND C1200
ABUTTING
t0.03 AC. ri
WATER OF THE US"
WETLAND A300
WATER OF THE US ADJACENT
TRIBUTARY 3 t0.85 AC.
INTERMITTENT RPW \�
t2220 LF t)
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND A400
ABUTTING _
t1.13 AC.
PERENNIAL RPW
f1425 LF WATER OF THE US
WATER OF THE US
WATER OF THE US TRIBUTARY 1
WETLAND B1000-1100
WETLAND K1100 PERENNIAL RPW
ABUTTING
ADJACENT WETLAND ±4340 LF
±12.94 AC.
t0.01 AC.
WATER OF THE US MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET 3 OF 17
-IMPOUNDMENT
spi
V""
f0.02 AC.
J
R
w
0
� a
� m
w
m N
N
z C I I
v
W O aj Z
w J
Q U
z
0
U
x
0
z
0
a
N �
U
O
Lu
W
cn =
0 u
Q ,
O
w O o
J � Z
< a
Q 0 �
Z o
O
Lu O
w
J U �
Q Z U)
w
V! J
wLu
U)
Lu
w
K
0
2 OF 17

E
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET 2 OF 17
WATER OF THE US WATER OF THE US
SP1
IMPOUNDMENT IMPOUNDMENT
f0.01 AC. t0.02 AC.
41
WATER OF THE US WATER OF THE US
WATER OF THE US
WETLAND K1000 TRIBUTARY 8 TRIBUTARY 13
ABUTTING INTERMITTENT RPW PERENNIAL RPW -
f2.47 AC. ±685 LF ±530 LF
o m
o w
v p
t0
WATER OF THE US a
TRIBUTARY 7-A -
INTERMITTENT RPW WETLAND 111000
t100 LF NON -JURISDICTIONAL w N m
ISOLATED WETLAND m 04 o Y
t0.31 AC. M N v
J WATER OF THE US F m
TRIBUTARY 9 w w
PERENNIAL RPW ! w
WATER OF THE US WATER OF THE US \ a p � p
WATER OF THE US
TRIBUTARY 9 TRIBUTARY 14 TRIBUTARY 13
INTERMITTENT RPW INTERMITTENT RPW PERENNIAL RPW z
±2095 LF ±720 LF ±802 LF J
0
WATER OF THE US � / c�
TRIBUTARY 10
INTERMITTENT RPW / WATER OF THE US / o
±335 LF TRIBUTARY 13-B z
INTERMITTENT RPW o
WATER OF THE US ±321 LF a
TRIBUTARY 10 J
1200
INTERMITTENT RPW WETLAND / SDIC C L ±1425 LF NON -JURISDICTIONAL
ISOLATED WETLAND O
WATER OF THE US t0.16 AC. WATER OF THE US Lu N
WETLAND Y1100 TRIBUTARY 13-A I- L j
/ ABUTTING WATER OF THE US WETLAND 1100 INTERMITTENT RPW w
t0.04 AC. t190 LF WETLAND Y1000 NON-JURISDIC1p =
WATER OF THE US Q cn
TRIBUTARY 11 WATER OF THE US ABUTTING ISOLATED WETLAND
INTERMITTENT RPW WETLAND Z1100 t0.09 AC. f0.33 AC. 0 cn
/ ±560 LF ABUTTING Z
t0.05 AC. / Lu -i O z
Of I_
WATER OF THE US \ \ < 0 0
WETLAND Z1000
ABUTTING \ / w O cog
t0.03 AC. m 0 F
Q
w
W Lu
da aoa co
�y K
o� F
U)
W
rr
0
LL
3 OF 17

EXISTING
HOUSE
SCM#
B2
v 6cr:
FUTURE PERM. IMPACT (R4)
TRIBUTARY 6
±85 LF
/
•
FOR USACEPERMITTING ONLY
IMINIPmmil
Will IBM NW.
• 0, - 4,62- - „
i
U 0
2 LA 2
w
IFIIN2WA IMIMI J i
[
4 OF 17

__� � �� • � . ,,1 �� 11 i "
QUM
TRIBUTARY 14
UTURE PERM. IMPACT (R9)
WN
_`
OVA �� ! ���--- ' ^`�♦ ! �� _/
TRIBUTARY 100�11
±.006 ISOLATED WETLAND
I
•

\ PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP) \
\ (DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
\ 11\ EXIST. TRIBUTARY 13oo
PROP. LENGTH OF
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
39' (163 SF / 0.004 AC.)
STREAM IMPACT R7-RR
i
i
PROP. PERMANENT
STREAM IMPACT (R7)
!/y' (TRIBUTARY 13)
(±110 LF / ±0.013 AC.)
PROP. 103 LF OF 72"
RCP CULVERT
(BURIED V)
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
'-
l
i
:XIST. TRIBUTARY 13-B
mom
1
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 13 n
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 13-A _
'la0
a
Lu cow
co N Y
H �I in
W W Z
o a a
Of o U o
a
z
0
U
0
z
0
z
J
0
2
w
t= w
U) j
o Z
Q Q
0
of
w cl) U
Q
w 0
m m w
Q
Lu
Q
w
a
Q
U)
Lu
w
0
6 OF 17

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
E
m
O
O
L0
¢ �vEm z
+
PROPOSED
GRADE
O
(TYP)
r
r
w
690
o
w
o
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (TYP)
L
Lu
m
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
z
c
w
v
ui
Z
Q
O
H
Q
Q
Z
J
of
of
Q
U
F
0
U
z
680
a
0
W W
= J
—
Q of
a-
W' M
W U
J � Z
F_D
1,02*11
< < o
w m �
PROP. LENGTH OF
oo w
F—
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
_
_100
Q <
39' (163 SF / 0.004 AC.)
1' MIN. BURY DEPTH
w
_
—
—
(TYP)
Lu
670
EXI
TIN
G
OU
D
Q
co
of
_
SNP)co
of
co
-
668
w
of
0
7 OF 17

Y
1'
PROP. LENGTH OFF /
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP): u
39' (78 SF / 0.002 AC.) / \
STREAM IMPACT R8-RR
PROP. 97 LF OF 72"
RCP CULVERT
(BURIED V)
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 14
1 '
/ PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP)
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
' PROP. PERMANENT
STREAM IMPACT (R8)
J-- , (TRIBUTARY 14) _ —
(±111 LF / ±0.013 AC.)
A
� 1
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 14—'
m
'la0
a
Lu co
m N Y
w ui z
o a a
Of o o o
a
z
0
Of
U
0
z
0
in
J
2
Lu
Lu
U)
o Z
o Q
Lu U
} Z
Q
Lu 0
m m w
Q Lr- <
w
w
Q
Q
U)
Lu
w
0
8 OF 17

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
E
m
O
O
O
O
l^
T
690'
w
0
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (TYF
N
'v
m
(DESIGNED BY OTHER£
MENFAMMEMEMEMAllz
?
c
11
w
v
�
ui
z
Q
O
�o�o
H
Q
a
z
680
0
Of
0
0
a
0
1' MIN. BURY DEPTH
Lu LU
(TYP)
E
N
000
PROP. LENGTH OFFMMEJFW
�
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
¢MIN
E.9mm'sMEMEMIN
39' (78 SF / 0.002 AC.)
of
A1,674,/ol",
U
z
WIWA
a
Q
MEMEMEMEMEMEMMIN
(Y 0
W m 0
670
co
Lu
J
Q
W
of
co
of
Q
F
Cl)
W
K
w
9 OF 17
■■��■�
■■■■■■■■■Ill

PROP. PERMANENT I
— STREAM IMPACT (R3) 7 \
(TRIBUTARY 9)
(±142 LF / ±0.020 AC.)
PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP) I I
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS) I I I
PROP. LENGTH OF
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
33' (137 SF / 0.003 AC.)
STREAM IMPACT R3-RR'
j
/ EXIST. TRIBUTARY 9
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
7/-
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 9
'la0
a
Lu cow
co N Y
H �I in
0
z
w ui
W J
Of Q U
d 0 c
2
Lu R;:
L L,
� z
Q Q
J
LL O) U
J } Z
(ifQ Q d
w
oJ0 E
Q �
Lu
w
a
Q
U)
Lu
w
0
10 OF 17

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
E
m
0
0
un
o
0
+
PROPOSED GRADE
0
+
un
+
w v Q
s"gym z W ry w U
680�
(TYP
w
o
+
0
6800
o
w
o
a
PROPOSED RETAINING W,
PROPOSED GRADE
d
Lu
m
(DESIGNED BY
(TYP)
m
o
Y
z
N
C
I I
W
V
�J�
W
Z
670
�o<o
60" RCP
z
0
U
PROP. LENGTH
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RA
1' MIN. BURY DEPTH
2IMENINSWEEMMEWIMEz
33' (137 SF / 0.003 A
(TYP)
670
o
Pj
a
L
I
sommommEMEMERNG
GROUND
0
W
� W
662 MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMI
N J
0
Q�
O
W U
� � z
E STIG
RUND
� 0
m
In J E2 Lu
Lu
Q F
co
J
Q
W
660
a
U)
w
W
K
0
W
11 OF 17
■II■■■■■■■■■Ill
��■■■■■■�5��
it
■
�■■■■■■_■■sail

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY — °
I I 1 I
f _ I STREAM PERMANENT
A
( )
— I (TRIBUTARY 10)
(±97 LF / ±0.011 AC.)
I I o� w
0
PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP) / I I I /�
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS)Lu co
I EXIST. TRIBUTARY 10 }
co
w w < <
0 a
o o
PROP. LENGTH OF
z
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP): —
33' (85 SF / 0.002 AC.) �Y
STREAM IMPACT R2-RR /
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 10
PROP. 86 LF OF 60" I I I I J
/ I RCP CULVERT
(BURIED 1') II /
_ w
Lu
QQ
S 0
cim
W � U
III I Q orf
� Q 0
w
co
ui
IIIII, Q
ui
Q
U)
Lu
w
0
12 OF 17

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
E
m
w
0
0
qq
Im
OPROPOSED GRADE +
(TYP)
690
a
W
00
cN�l
m
Y
�
Z
o
N
C
11
=
5�:
V
�
on-
H
O
Q
N
Q
0
PROPOSED RETAINING WA LL (TYP)
z
(DESIGNED BY OTH R
Ir
F
O
z
0
z
680
to,
F
1' MIN. BURY DEPTH
a
/ (TYP)
Lu
J
/
N u-
PROP. LENGTH OF
Q 0
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
O
33' (85 SF / 0.002 AC.)
of
W
U
EXIS ING GROUND
n,
w m c�
m W
Q ~ <
673
co
J
of
w co
of
¢
U)
W
K
0
13 OF 17

- � 1
EXIST. TRIBUTARY 11
PROPERTY LINE
PROP. LENGTH OFJ
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
39' (98 SF / 0.002 AC.)
STREAM IMPACT R1-RR
PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP)
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
< �� J
� c
PROPERTY LINE
PROP. PERMANENT
STREAM IMPACT (R1)
(TRIBUTARY 11)
(±86 LF / ±0.006 AC.)
1
PROP. PERMANENT
WETLAND IMPACT (13)
WETLAND Z1000
w \ \ (±0.03 AC.)
v
\
PROP. 85 LF OF 72" , J
RCP CULVERT
(BURIED 1') 11 11
'la0
Q
Lu
w co
co N Y
H �I m
W W Z
o a a
Of o 0
a
z
0
w
U
tY
0
z
0
z
J
0
2
w
H w
U) j
0 Z
Q Q
w U
} Z
Q
0
LLJ 0
pp m w
Q
w
w
Q
U)
Lu
w
0
14 OF 17

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
E
m
0
0
ul)
w
PROPOSED GRADE
o
m
(TYP)
700
�
w
a
�
�
w
m
cN14
m
Y
�
z
o
N
C
I I
=
w_
V
w
Z
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (TYP)
a
H
o
Q
ai
Q
o
(DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
Q
z
J
/ /
U
F
O
z
0
690
°
0
3.
w w
= J
PROP. LENGTH OF
/
V MIN. BURY DEPTH
Q 0
DISTURBED AREA (RIP RAP):
/ (TYP)
O
39- (98 SF / 0.002 AC.)
U
wIA
--
a
ol
/\—EXISTING
GI ROUND
&
w co 0
m E w
Q ~ �
co
683of
w
a
w
Q
co
of
Q
co
w
w
K
0
15 OF 17

I NA
� E
FOR USACE f ERMITTING ONLY o <s
w
2
CV
LL LL
H O
U)
o
Q w
O w
O�f =
LL U
Z Z
Q J
IL LY Of
LL C7
pm LL w
J F--
Q LL �
w
J
Q
L1J
Q
Q
U)
LU
W
O
LL
16 OF 17

SCM#
A5
� E
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY o <s
W gwA- zI
J Vr� �W/
v
MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET 16 OF 17
IIIIII ,`
SC
2
SCM#
lA6
SCM#
A4
SCM#
A3
v
2
CV
W LL.
O
Cn CV
C:j W
Q W
O =
W' (n
W U
J Z z
Q J CL
Z:)
IL
o' Of
W C7
pm W w
J I
Q W �
w
w
a
a
U)
LU
w
O
LL
17 OF 17

Pre -Construction Notification — Supplemental Information SAW-2021-01521
Albemarle Road Project
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
Ia. Which Sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
X Wetlands
X Streams - Tributaries
_Open Waters
_Pond Construction
Buffers
1. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland
area impacted.
2a. Wetland
2b. Type of Impact
2c. Type of
2d.
2e. Type of
2£ Area of
Impact
Wetland (if
Forested?
Jurisdiction
Impact (Acres)
Number —
known)
(Corps — 404,
Permanent
10; DWR —
(P) or
Non-404, other)
Temporary
T
F 1 (P)
Culvert
Freshwater
Yes
404
0.04
Forested
F2 P
Culvert
Headwater
Yes
404
0.03
I1 (P)
Grading
Basin
Yes
Non-404
0.31
I2 P
Grading
Basin
Yes
Non-404
0.16
SSW-1 (T)
Utility Easement
Freshwater
Yes
404
0.16
(Sanitary Sewer)
Forested
SSW-2 (T)
Utility Easement
Freshwater
Yes
404
0.12
(Sanitary Sewer
Forested
2 . Total Wetland
Impacts
0.82 acre
2h. Comments:
Nationwide Permit 14 Impacts
Proposed permanent impacts F 1 and F2 are necessary to construct road access to high ground and to
provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the project area.
Proposed permanent impacts I1 and I2 are necessary to grade (balance) the area to construct road
access to high ground and to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the project area.
Total proposed NWP 14 permanent wetland impacts (404 jurisdiction): 0.07 acre
Total proposed NWP 14 temporary wetland impacts (404 jurisdiction): N/A
Total proposed non-404 permanent wetland impacts (NC Isolated Wetland): 0.47 acre
Nationwide Permit 58 Impacts
Proposed Temporary impacts SSW-1 and SSW-2 are necessary to construct sanitary sewer
infrastructure.
Total proposed NWP 58 permanent wetland impacts (404 jurisdiction): N/A
Total proposed NWP 58 temporary wetland impacts 404 jurisdiction): 0.28 acre
Rev. 04-08-2022 MJ

Pre -Construction Notification — Supplemental Information SAW-2021-01521
Albemarle Road Project
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the
site, then com lete this question for all stream sites im acted.
3a. Stream
3b. Type of
3c.
3d.
3e. Type of
3£
3g.
(ACRES
Impact
Impact
Stream
Perennial
Jurisdiction
Average
Impact
OF
Number —
name
(PER) or
(Corps —
Stream
Length
IMPACT)
Permanent
Intermittent
404,10
Width
(Linear
(P) or
(INT)
DWR —
(Feet)
Feet)
Temporary
Non-404,
T
other
R1 (P)
Culvert
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
86
0.005
11
R2 (P)
Culvert
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
97
0.006
10
R3 (P)
Culvert
Tributary
INT
404
4
142
0.013
9
R7 (P)
Culvert
Tributary
PER
404
4
110
0.01
13
R8 (P)
Culvert
Tributary
INT
404
2
111
0.005
14
RI -RR (P)
Energy
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
39
0.002
Dissipator
11
Ri ra
R2-RR (P)
Energy
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
33
0.002
Dissipator
10
Ri ra
R3-RR (P)
Energy
Tributary
INT
404
4
33
0.003
Dissipator
9
(Ri ra )
R7-RR (P)
Energy
Tributary
PER
404
4
39
0.004
Dissipator
13
Ri ra
R8-RR (P)
Energy
Tributary
INT
404
2
39
0.002
Dissipator
14
Ri ra
SS-1 (T)
Utility
Tributary
PER
404
8.5
30
0.006
Easement
1
(Sanitary
Sewer
SS-2 (T)
Utility
Tributary
PER
404
8.5
30
0.006
Easement
1
(Sanitary
Sewer
RI-T (T)
Dewatering
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
40
0.002
11
R2-T (T)
Dewatering
Tributary
INT
404
2.5
40
0.002
10
R3-T (T)
Dewatering
Tributary
INT
404
4
40
0.004
9
Rev. 04-08-2022 MJ

Pre -Construction Notification — Supplemental Information SAW-2021-01521
Albemarle Road Project
R7-T (T)
Dewatering
Tributary
PER
404
4
40
0.004
13
R8-T (T)
Dewatering
Tributary
INT
404
2
40
0.002
14
3h. Total Stream and Tributary Impacts
989
0.078
Linear
Acres
Feet
3i. Comments:
Nationwide Permit 14 Impacts
Proposed permanent impacts Rl, R2, R3, R7, R8 are necessary to construct road access to high ground
and to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project area. Culvert details at each crossing
are as follows:
R1 72" RCP, 102.56 LF @ 1.02%
R2 72" RCP, 96.93 LF @ 3.05%
R3 60" RCP, 111.02 LF @ 2.43%
R7 60" RCP, 86.03 LF @ 4.78%
R8 72" RCP, 84.85 LF @ 3.12%
Proposed permanent impacts Rl-RR, R2-RR, R3-RR, R7-RR, R8-RR are necessary to provide energy
dissipation at culvert outlets. Riprap will be keyed into the channel bed to facilitate continued aquatic
life passage.
Proposed temporary impacts Rl-T, R2-T, R3-T, R7-T, R8-T request up to 40 linear feet of temporary
impacts for dewatering to establish work -in -the -dry conditions, and will utilize coffer dam and pump -
around (or similar) methods to dewater.
Total proposed NWP 14 permanent stream impacts (404 jurisdiction): 729 linear feet, 0.052 acre
Total proposed NWP 14 permanent loss of stream bed (404 jurisdiction): 546 linear feet, 0.039 acre
Total proposed NWP 14 temporary stream impacts (404 jurisdiction): 200 linear feet, 0.014 acre
Nationwide Permit 58 Impacts
Proposed temporary impacts SS-1, SS-2 are necessary to construct sanitary sewer infrastructure.
Total proposed NWP 58 permanent stream impacts (404 jurisdiction): N/A
Total proposed NWP 58 temporary stream impacts (404 jurisdiction): 60 Linear Feet, 0.012 acre
Rev. 04-08-2022 MJ

4
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Statement of Availability March 18, 2022
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Crystal Amschler
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue #208
Asheville, NC 28801
Re Project: ALBEMARLE ROAD SITE
This document confirms that FORESTAR GROUP, INC. (Applicant) for the ALBEMARLE ROAD
SITE (Project) has expressed an interest to utilize 0.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits AND
1,092.00 Warm Stream Credits from the Water & Land Solutions, LLC sponsored Upper Rocky
Umbrella Mitigation Bank specifically 0.7 wetland credits and 1,092.00 stream credits from the Upper
Rocky site, in the Yadkin 03040105. As the official Bank Sponsor, Water & Land Solutions, LLC, attests
to the fact that 267.75 stream credits are available and currently in inventory for reservation at this time.
WLS anticipates an additional release of 1,350.75 warm stream credits and 1.286 riparian wetland credits
by April 30, 2022. The projected releases will satisfy the Project's remaining credit need of 824.25 stream
credits and 0.7 riparian wetland credits.
These mitigation credits are not considered secured, and consequently are eligible to be used for alternate
purposes by the Bank Sponsor, until payment in full is received from the Applicant resulting in the
issuance of a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the Applicant has
fully secured credits from the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation
obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate within three (3) days of receipt of the
purchase price. Banker shall provide to Applicant a copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate and
a documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger(s), indicating the permit
number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificate, with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 252-423-0880.
Best Regards,
Samm o Hinnant
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615

�r TrRC
May 17, 2021
Mr. Alex Bonda
Entitlements Manager — Carolinas Division
Forestar
Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715
705 Dogwood Rd. T 919.414.3418
Ashevitte, NC 28806 TRCcompanies,com
Re: Cultural Resources Background Study and Field Visit for the Albemarle Road Tract, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Bonda:
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed a cultural resources background study and
conducted an initial field visit of the ca. 700-acre Albemarle Road Tract in Cabarrus County, North
Carolina (Project Tract) (Figure 1). This work was conducted to assess the potential for intact
archaeological remains or other cultural resource concerns on the tract and to assist in future planning.
The work included background research concerning the property's environmental characteristics and
history, a review of previous cultural resource investigations and previously recorded resources on and
near the tract, and a limited field reconnaissance. The background research was conducted by Paul Webb,
Hannah Smith, and Ted Karpynec, and the field visit was conducted by Paul Webb and Jeff Johnson
along with staff from Wetlands and Waters, Inc. The graphics were prepared by Matt Par6.
LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Albemarle Road Tract encompasses approximately 700 acres in southern Cabarrus County and is
partially bounded to the southwest by the Mecklenburg County line; it extends to and across Lower Rocky
River Road to the northwest, to Morrison Road to the north, and to Pioneer Mills Road to the east. The
tract occupies rolling terrain that is bisected north -south by Caldwell Creek, a north -flowing tributary of
the Rocky River. Most of the tract is wooded, although much of the western portion (west of Caldwell
Creek) is in pasture. Elevations range up to about 683 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) west of Caldwell
Creek and approximately 716 ft AMSL to the east; generally speaking, the area to the east is slightly more
rugged than to the west. Overall, approximately 502 acres of the tract exhibit 10% or less slope, with the
steeper slopes primarily along the ridges east of Caldwell Creek (Figure 2). Unimproved roads extend into
the tract from the north, northwest, and east.
There are 19 soil types mapped within the Project Tract, three of which cover almost half (48.9%) of the
tract. Those include: Cullen clay loam, Sedgefield sandy loam, and Cecil sandy clay loam; those and most
other soils are upland soils found along the ridges, upland flats, and ridge slopes. The predominant
lowland soils along Caldwell Creek are Chewacla sandy loam and Wehadkee loam, both of which are
frequently flooded; together, those cover approximately 11.3% of the parcel (USDA NRCS 2021).
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
The background research included a review of readily available historic period maps and local history
data obtained from online resources and TRC's library, and a review of data concerning archaeological
sites, historic structures, and cemeteries on file at the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office/Office

of State Archaeology (NC HPO/OSA) and other repositories and available online. Limited deed research
was also conducted using online sources.
Local History and Historic Map Review
Like the rest of the North Carolina Piedmont, Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties have been occupied for
at least 10,000 to 12,000 years. By about A.D. 1000 the area was likely occupied by Siouan speaking
tribes, although there is little direct evidence of dense late prehistoric to historic period occupations in
Cabarrus County. By the early 1700s these populations were generally moving west to avoid the influx of
Euro-American settlers, and by 1715 these communities were collectively referred to as the Catawba.
Cabarrus County is situated northeast of the principal 18th century Catawba villages, which were located
along the Catawba River in what is now South Carolina, but it is likely that 18th century Catawba
frequented the area. At present, the Catawba Indian Nation is the only federally recognized tribe that
generally requests to be consulted on projects in Cabarrus County (e.g., https:Hconnect.ncdot.gov/
resources/Environmental/EAU/CR/Archaeology/Documents/NCDOT%20Tribal%20Coordination%20Pr
otocol.pdf).
Euro-American settlement of Cabarrus County began by the mid-18th century; most early settlers were
Scots -Irish (Ulster Scots) or German immigrants who entered the area from the north, moving down the
Great Wagon Road through the Shenandoah Valley. The Project vicinity was reportedly settled primarily
by Scots -Irish, as evidenced by the foundation of Rocky River Presbyterian Church in the 1750s. The
population increased throughout the late 1700s, and Cabarrus County was officially formed in 1792.
Preliminary deed research indicates that by the mid- 19th century much of the tract had been acquired by
members of the Pharr and Morrison families. The Morrisons had entered the area as early as the 1760s,
and had intermarried with the Pharr family by the 1820s (Lore et al. 1950).
Unfortunately, the available early to mid- 19th century maps showing Cabarrus County are large scale and
lack detail concerning settlement locations in the county. A good example is Thomas Harris's ca. 1875
county map (Harris 1875) (Figure 3), which depicts Caldwell Creek (and the accompanying notation
"Gold Mines") but does not appear to show structures within the Project Tract.
Gold had been discovered in Cabarrus County as early as 1799, and by 1803 John Reed and others were
actively engaged in mining. Mining continued at a relatively low level until about 1825, but the decade
from the mid-1820s to mid-1830s saw considerable activity. Production began to decline by the 1840s,
however, and was later exacerbated by the discovery of gold in California. Despite those circumstances,
active mining continued until the Civil War, and later efforts to revive the Carolina gold industry
continued until almost World War II (Knapp and Glass 1999; Pope and Bostwick 2012).
The first map of the Project area that approaches modern standards is the 1910 Cabarrus County soils
map; although this map can be georeferenced only approximately, it appears to show at least nine
structures and several roads within or bordering the tract (USDA Bureau of Soils 1910) (Figure 4). A
church is depicted on this map on the east side of Pioneer Mills Road, just outside the tract in an area that
now appears to be wooded. A similar pattern of structures (including the church) is shown on a 1921 Post
Office rural delivery route map (U.S. Post Office 1921) (Figure 5).
The first USGS quadrangle maps that include the parcel date to 1949 and appear to depict eight houses
and several outbuildings on the tract (USGS 1949a, 1949b) (Figure 6) (although the nearby church
depicted on the 1910 map is not shown). A near -contemporary 1948 aerial photograph lacks fine-grained
resolution but indicates that most of the tract west of Caldwell Creek was cleared and presumably in
cultivation at that time; contouring is clearly evident in many areas (Figure 7). By the 1990s parts of that
2

area had been reforested, and many of the former structures had been removed (USGS 1987, 1993) (see
Figure 1).
Archaeological Sites and Archaeological Sites.
A review of the files and records at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) indicated that
there has apparently been no previous systematic archaeological survey conducted or archaeological sites
recorded on the tract. The only site recorded nearby is 3ICA183, which is a precontact Native American
site located on the Spears House property to the northeast; it has not been assessed for National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and no details are available concerning its age. The most substantial
nearby survey was conducted by TRC in 2006 for the Cedarvale Development at Pioneer Mills (Olson
and Webb 2006); that survey identified or revisited a moderate density of both precontact and 19th to early
20th century historic period sites (including the Pioneer Mills Gold Mine), including two that were
considered NRHP eligible or were unassessed for NRHP eligibility.
Historic Structures
Records on file at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO) and the NC HPO
online database (HPOWEB 2021) depict one historic structure mapped within the tract; that is resource
CA0495, the (Walter) Morrison House, which is located off of Gatewood Road in the northwestern part
of the property (Figure 8). As recorded in 1979, the house was a two-story frame house with a front porch
and rear ell; the house is still standing, although the porch and ell have been removed. This structure has
not been assessed for NRHP eligibility and is discussed in more detail below.
A second structure (CA0851) has been recorded adjacent to the parcel; that is the Spears House/Caldwell
Creek Farm, which was listed on the NRHP in 1989 (Figure 8). It is a log house that reportedly dates to
the late 18th century that was restored to its early 19th century appearance in the 1980s. That house may
have been originally constructed by Samuel Steward who sold the property to William Wallace Spears
prior to 1800; the property passed to the Pharr family in 1867 (Ray 1989).
Cemeteries
No cemeteries are shown on the tract on USGS and other located maps or on available online sources
(https://cemeterycensus.com/nc/caba/index.htm; https://ncgenweb.us/cabarrus/cemeteries/;
https://www. findagrave. com/cemetery-browse/USA/North-Carolina/Cabarrus-County?id=county_ 1663;
https:Hdigital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/pl50l2colll/id/37044/). Available records indicate that many
members of the Morrison and related families are interred at known cemeteries elsewhere, however,
including those associated with the Rocky River Presbyterian Church (e.g., https://www.findagrave.com/
memorial/32818682/samuel-morrison; Blume and Blume 1958). There are no indications in those records
of a cemetery associated with the former church across Pioneer Mills Road from the tract.
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
A field reconnaissance of portions of the tract was conducted on April 29, 2021 by Paul Webb and Jeff
Johnson of TRC who were shown the tract by Chris Huysman, Tamp Bandy, and other staff of Wetlands
and Waters, Inc. The reconnaissance focused on several areas of the tract:
• The Morrison House and nearby ruins located off of Gatewood Road;
0 An associated road trace leading from the vicinity east toward Caldwell Creek;

• Collapsed bridge abutments along Caldwell Creek that are presumably associated with that road
trace;
• Additional standing (ruinous) structures and outbuildings south of Morrison Road; and
• Former gold mining pits east of Caldwell Creek and accessed off of Pioneer Mills Road.
The reconnaissance was limited to surface inspection and no intensive pedestrian survey or shovel testing
was conducted.
POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS INVOLVING THE
TRACT
TRC has developed the following information on potential cultural resources issues and constraints that
might be encountered during development of the tract based on the background research, field
reconnaissance, and our general experience with cultural resources permitting in North Carolina.
General Permitting and Consultation Requirements
The potential need for cultural resources investigations will be driven primarily by the apparent need for a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, which would trigger consultation with the NC
HPO/OSA and the Catawba Indian Nation under 36CFR800 (Protection of Historic Properties), the
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Local authorities may
also request consideration of cultural resources as well.
Assuming that consultation is required, the NC HPO/OSA would likely request an archaeological survey
of the USACE permit area as well as consideration of potential historic structures issues; such requests
would usually be provided to the USACE following the HPO/OSA's review of the USACE permit
application. Depending on scheduling requirements and Forestar's assessment of the likely USACE
permit requirements (specifically, the likely scope of the permit area), however, Forestar may want to
initiate consultation with the NC HPO/OSA prior to submitting the permit application by filing an
Environmental Review request through the NC HPO/OSA portal (https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdcr/historic-
preservation-office/environmental-review/Project_Review Checklist.pd£)
Any required archaeological survey should be conducted by a firm or individuals on the approved
Consultants list (and selected by Forestar); the selected consultant would be required to consult with the
NC HPO/OSA archaeologist responsible for Cabarrus County (Dr. David Cranford) regarding appropriate
survey methods. Assuming that a survey is required, TRC recommends that Forestar and its consultant
actively engage with the NC HPO/OSA regarding the scope of the survey and that it be limited to areas of
potential ground disturbance. The Catawba Indian Nation would likely concur with the NC HPO/OSA
and request to be notified should Native American graves or other items of potential tribal concern be
notified. The resulting report must meet OSA (2017) guidelines.
Given the presence of the Morrison House (CA0495) and the nearby Spears House/Caldwell Creek Farm
(CA0851), the NC HPO will likely request a resurvey of the Morrison House and information regarding
potential visual effects of the Project on the Spears House/Caldwell Creek Farm. Any such work should
also be conducted by an HPO-approved consultant.
The initial scoping, survey, and agency review would likely require up to six months to complete,
including time for initial HPO project review; development and approval of a proposal; fieldwork,
analysis, and reporting; and agency review. Although the preferred treatment of any eligible resources
4

would be avoidance, depending on the results of the survey, additional investigations (i.e., intensive site
evaluations) and/or consultation might also be necessary.
Potential Resource Types
Precontact to Contact Period Archaeological Sites. Given its size and location in the North Carolina
Piedmont, the tract certainly contains a large number of archaeological sites, most of which likely date to
the Archaic (ca. 7500-700 B.C.) or Early to Middle Woodland (700 B.C.—A.D. 1000); later sites are less
likely to occur but might also be present. Most of these sites are probably situated in upland areas,
including along stream margins; sites are also likely on any well -drained landforms within the generally
poorly drained bottomlands. Most of these sites will likely be evidenced by scatters of stone tools and
chipping debris, although some ceramics might also be present. Given the past agricultural use of much of
the area there has been certainly been considerable erosion over much of the uplands, however, and most
Native American sites in those areas are unlikely to have sufficient integrity to be NRHP eligible.
In the event that NRHP eligible precontact sites are present, it should be possible to avoid impact to such
resources through Project redesign or to mitigate potential Project effects through data recovery
excavations. The only case in which this might be impossible would be if human graves are present or
suspected, which would only be likely on sizeable late precontact to contact period (ca. A.D. 1000-1750)
sites.
Historic Period Archaeological Sites. A number of historic period archaeological sites are certainly
present on the tract, including those associated with standing or ruined structures, the former road
network, gold mining, or other late 18' through mid-20th century activities.
Generally speaking, most late 19th century through 20th century domestic or agriculture -related sites
would require documentation but would not be NRHP eligible. Earlier domestic or agriculture -related
sites could possibly be NRHP eligible, however, especially if there is evidence of discrete mid- 19th
century or earlier deposits (i.e., filled -in cellars, refuse -filled pits, etc.) or if they could be associated with
enslaved populations. As with precontact sites, however, any such eligible sites would likely be limited in
scope and could either be avoided or cleared for construction after data recovery excavations.
The former road leading toward Caldwell Creek, as well as the associated bridge abutments (Figures 9
and 10), should be recorded as an archaeological site but in the absence of highly unusual design features
or historic associations (which are considered unlikely) would not be determined NRHP eligible.
Gold mining pits (either exploratory or remnants of actual mining) appear to be present in at least two
locations between Caldwell Creek and Pioneer Mills Road (Figure 11), and other evidence of mining may
be present elsewhere on the property. These likely date to the first half of the 19th century and may be
those documented by Ebenezer Emmons in 1856:
I have observed that the Pioneer [Mills] mine is in the immediate vicinity of several other mines;
thus, upon the Morrison plantation there are four veins, all of which carry gold. The first is one mile
south west of the Pioneer mine. Around an old shaft the refuse ore I found rich in gold. The vein
stone is quartz, interspersed with the sulphurets.
It is uncertain if some of these pits may be associated with underground workings or if they are simply
exploratory pits.
All such mining remains should be recorded and assessed for NRHP eligibility; this will likely require
additional background research in addition to fieldwork. Depending on the results of this research, it is
possible that some or all of these features may be determined NRHP eligible as an archaeological site or

cultural landscape. Although avoidance of any significant features would be recommended, if this is
impossible (due to safety or Project design requirements) mitigation through extensive recordation should
be possible.
Although geotechnical work to identify the possible subsurface extent of these features is advisable, it
should be postponed until the initial archaeological evaluation can be completed if at all possible.
Cemeteries. As noted above, there are no recorded cemeteries on the tract, and it appears that many
members of the prominent early landowners in the area (i.e., the Morrisons, Spearses, and Pharrs) are
buried in church cemeteries elsewhere. Given the tract's size, however, it would be unusual if unmarked
or poorly marked late 18t1i to late 19th graves or cemeteries are not present. Any such graves or cemeteries
would likely be situated on high ground in the vicinity of former occupation sites and might be
recognized by the presence of fieldstones and associated linear, east -west oriented depressions. Any such
cemeteries that have not been totally plowed over and obliterated should be recognizable during the
archaeological survey.
One location that should be specifically checked for a potential cemetery, however, is the high ground
across the road from the former early 20th century church site on Pioneer Mills Road at the eastern edge of
the tract (Figure 12). While land records have not been researched and there are no known indications of a
cemetery at this site, such a location would not be unusual for a small church cemetery.
Any such graves or cemeteries (including Native American graves) should be recorded as archaeological
sites and would be protected by North Carolina state laws, which are codified in North Carolina General
Statutes 14-148 (Defacing or desecrating grave sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, plowing over or covering up
graves; desecrating human remains), and Chapter 70 Article 3, the (Unmarked Human Burial and
Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act). These laws do not require proactive measures to search for
additional unknown graves prior to development, however, but lay out procedures to be followed in case
such graves or human remains are encountered during archaeological surveys of construction activities.
In the event that graves or cemeteries are discovered, they could potentially be moved from the property if
necessary under the procedures outlined in General Statute 65-106, Removal ofgraves; who may disinter,
move, and reinter; notice; certificate filed; reinterment expenses; due care required.
Standing Structures. As noted above, there is one previously recorded historic structure on the Project
Tract —the Morrison House (CA0495), which reportedly dates to the early 19th century and is believed to
have been associated with Walter (or William Walter) Morrison. William Walter Morrison (1860-1910)
obtained the property containing the house in the early 1880s, apparently as part of the division of his
grandfather Samuel Morrison's (1779-1872) lands following Samuel's death; given the likely early 19th
century age of the house, it was presumably built during Samuel Morrison's tenancy. As recorded in
1979, the Morrison house was a two-story wood -frame house with a front porch and an ell projecting
from the rear (Figures 13 and 14). Although the house retained interesting architectural details, including
doors, mantels, and a staircase in the central hall, even at that time the two end chimneys were collapsing
and it was in poor condition.
The house has continued to deteriorate over the past 40 years, and at some time the front porch and rear
ell were totally removed (Figures 15-21). The chimneys have also completely fallen. Interestingly,
however, the removal of clapboards over portions of the exterior have exposed brick in -fill or "nogging"
in the first -story walls, as well as aspects of the timber framing. The brick nogging is of particular
interest, as it is an unusual construction technique; as of 1981 there was only one surviving example of
this construction technique in Cabarrus County (the Davis Farm near Harrisburg) (Kaplan 1981:5-6,
190).
0

The Morrison House is in poor condition, and a structure in such condition would normally not be
considered eligible for the NRHP due to its failing integrity. In this case, however, the structure may merit
formal NRHP evaluation due to the presence of the unusual nogging. Although it most likely would be
determined not eligible for the NRHP, the HPO may request further documentation of this construction
technique, and that agency or local preservation groups might be interested in salvaging selected materials
if the structure cannot be preserved.
In addition to the Morrison House, there are various other standing or ruinous structures on the Project
Tract (Figures 22-25). Although a few may have sufficient integrity to be recorded as structures, none is
likely to require extensive evaluation or be determined eligible for the NRHP.
The Spears House/Caldwell Creek Farm (CA0851), located adjacent to the Project Tract across Caldwell
Creek to the northeast, is listed on the NRHP, and the HPO may request that measures be taken to avoid
visual impacts to this property from the proposed development. While the entire parcel containing the
Spears House is listed on the NRHP, given the location of the Spears House itself in the northeastern part
of the property and the presumed requirement for a vegetative buffer along Caldwell Creek on the Project
Tract (mirroring a similar existing buffer on the Spears House property), it is possible that no additional
measures to buffer the Spears House property will be required (Figure 26).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC has conducted background research and a field visit for the ca. 700-acre Albemarle Road Tract in
Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The background research demonstrated that there has been no previous
systematic archaeological survey of any part of the Project Tract, and there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites on the property. A single historic structure (CA0495, the Morrison House) was
recorded on the Project Tract in 1979 and is still standing. There are no previously recorded historic
period cemeteries on the Project Tract. The field visit included a preliminary inspection of the Morrison
House and other standing or ruinous structures, as well as an examination of a road trace and associated
bridge abutments and apparent 19th century gold mining pits.
Like any comparable tract in the North Carolina Piedmont, the Albemarle Road Tract has the potential to
contain a variety of cultural resources associated with over 10,000 years of Native American, Euro-
American, and African -American occupation. A variety of precontact Native American archaeological
sites are certainly present, primarily along the uplands and in any well -drained areas along Caldwell
Creek and other drainages. Similarly, a variety of late 18th to 20th century historic period sites are certainly
present, including former house sites and the road trace and gold mining pits observed during the field
visit. Although these archaeological resources merit recordation, most are not likely to be determined
eligible for the NRHP and thus require further consideration in the development process. Erosion has
likely damaged the integrity of most upland precontact sites, for example, and in the absence of preserved
subsurface features (i.e., structural remains, pits), such sites are unlikely to be determined eligible for the
NRHP. Most historic period sites (with the possible exception of the gold mining pits and any other pre
mid- 19th century sites) are also unlikely to be NRHP eligible.
Although it is possible that NRHP eligible sites are present, most would potentially be localized and could
possibly be avoided through redesign. If that is not possible, barring the presence of Native American
graves, any potential impacts to sites could presumably be mitigated through data recovery excavations.
There is some potential for historic period cemeteries on the tract, although none are known. Any
cemeteries that might be present could either be avoided or presumably relocated in accordance with
North Carolina General Statute 65-106.
7

Finally, the Morrison House merits further study, although given its condition it is not likely to be
determined NRHP eligible. Even if it were eligible, however, impacts to the property could presumably
be mitigated though additional documentation and salvage of materials.
Ultimately, the need for any cultural resources investigations on the Project Tract will be determined by
federal and state agencies as part of the permitting process; assuming that a USACE permit will be
required, the scope of the work will largely be determined based on the USACE's definition of the
associated permit area. Depending on the overall Project schedule, however, Forestar may wish to initiate
consultation with the NC HPO/OSA prior to submitting the USACE permit application, and thus perhaps
accelerate the overall timeline required for any necessary cultural resources investigations. In any event,
TRC recommends actively engaging with the OSA project reviewer to ensure that the survey area is
limited to those parts of the tract that would potentially be disturbed by development.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this Project. We hope that this report is useful as you
continue Project planning, and we would be pleased to continue to assist you with the permitting process.
If you have any questions about our work or this report, or need any additional assistance regarding
archaeological resources, please feel free to contact me at [phone]/[e-mail].
Sincerely,
GL-e � uw-
Paul A. Webb
Cultural Resources Program Leader

REFERENCES
Blume, Clarence F., and Mabel Rumple Blume
1958 Historic Rocky River Church Buildings and Burying Grounds. Rocky River Historical Society, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina.
Emmons, Ebenezer
1856 Geological Report on the Midland Counties of North Carolina. George P. Putnam and Son, New York.
Harris, Thomas C.
Ca. 1875 Map of Cabarrus County. https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/235/rec/2.
HPOWEB
2021 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Electronic document,
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed April 2021.
Kaplan, Peter R.
1981 The Historic Architecture of Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Historic Cabarrus, Inc., Concord, North
Carolina.
Knapp, Richard F., and Brent D. Glass
1999 Gold Mining in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Lore, Adelaide, Eugenia Lore, and Lt. Col. Robert Hall Morrison
1950 The Morrison Family of the Rocky River Settlement of North Carolina, History and Genealogy. Observer
Printing House, Concord, North Carolina.
Office of State Archaeology
2017 North Carolina Office of State Archaeology: Archaeological Investigations Standards and Guidelines.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA—Guidelines—Dec2Ol7.pdf
Olson, Heather, and Paul Webb
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cedarvale Development, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. TRC
Garrow Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill. Submitted to Pioneer Mill (Charlotte) AIP IV, L.L.L.P.
Pope, Natalie Adams, and Brad Bostwick
2012 Gold Mining in the Carolinas: A Context for Archaeological Resources Management. New South
Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to Haile Gold Mine, Kershaw, South Carolina.
Ray, Jill
1989 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Spears House.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1949a Concord SE, North Carolina. 1:125,000 scale topographic map.
1949b Midland, North Carolina. 1:24,000 scale planimetric map.
1969(87)Concord SE, North Carolina. 1:24,000 scale topographic map.
1993 Midland, North Carolina. 1:24,000 scale topographic map.
United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Bureau of Soils
1910 Soil Map, North Carolina, Cabarrus County Sheet.
https:Hdc.lib.unc. edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/291 /rec/ 10
United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
2021 Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.httn; accessed April 2021.
United States Post Office
1921 Rural Delivery Routes, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1746/rec/ 12
0

PRO]ECT AREA)
'' � � `� r , 7� ��i ,.� •• It +,a
AO
rV
Rs
JS
�. .I 1 . ��Cy1N� �f fi � 1� '' �•r �� I �--+} � 6 ` F �� ' � r `1� , -•f, J , ``_
fir'' ,�- � � 1 y�. �, 1'•: �: r ,� '�
Concord SE (1969 [PR 1987])
mrd Ifidlmld (1993), 2 C' 0 l
1, S Mnule Q=drangk Maws N
Mile,
0 4,000
W E
Feet
c
Kilometers
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Figure 1. Location of the Project Tract in Cabarrus County.
I1

Figure 2. Portions of the Project Tract (in yellow) exhibiting 10% or less slope.
11

Figure 3. Southern Cabarrus County as depicted on the ca. 1875 Harris map.
12

1
PROJECT AREA
Of
Ink
Cf
cc-- r
i
i
19JO Cabarnfs (ounry S;dAfgp Q I
N
Mks,
vv E
I�M;I
5
Caharrus County. North Carolina kilometers
Figure 4. The Project Tract as depicted on the 1910 Cabarrus County soils map.
13

Wr
��. �1 PIONEER
I M I LL•
r
Figure 5. Portion of ca. 1921 Rural Delivery Route map showing the Project vicinity.
14

Z° •
9
• y" X• V� Al
n u
ton
I 04
—� PROIECT AREA
as
■ • �.n a a
o fi=��a• r
-- ----'-------- --Pb-- ------------ - - - - -
------ -
I
6p
IJ
11 4
•
i
q'M vv �j t
o t
z • 'ki
nd
++k �
H
ri
n
u
u yF
1' • ■ 4yF�'• s���
y • ,
44,
H
Il
Concord 5E (19491�
and Mfdfand (1949), NC 0 1
7,5 A inute Quadrangle Maps N
Riffles
❑ 4,000
w
C99W Feet
0 1
S
Kilometer",
Cabarrus County: North Carolina
Figure 6. Mid-201h century USGS (1949a, 1949b) maps depicting the Project Tract.
15

Figure 7. Aerial photograph (1948) showing land use on the tract west of Caldwell Creek.
16

S�ie.r. H�ii:e —
C
CA04 S6' I —Munson Cvna<
931 Spoa House ■ Lag Hw�x 19R1
■ 1909
0
r
I 3
/ J
ter'
CKLBNBURG
r3
s 3
Figure 8. Location of the Morrison House and Spears House in relation to the Project Tract.
Figure 9. Road trace along tree line southeast oCthe Morrison House.
17

Figure 10. Presumed collapsed bridge abutment along Caldwell Creek.
Apparent gold mining pits
5
a
Figure 11. Presumed 191h-century gold mining pits west of Pioneer Mills Road.
IN

{
j.
former Probable
- church location
� � O
A
Potential cemetery location ;,,—�
Figure 12. Potential cemetery location along Pioneer Mills Road.
Figure 13. The Morrison House (CA0495) in 1979, view of front (south) elevation facing nortl
19

i
�JS" -
r-AN
r-
r
Figure 14. The Morrison House (CA0495) in 1979, view of front (south) and west elevations, facing
northeast.
Figure 15. The Morrison House in 2021, view of front (south) and east elevations.
20

r
'y:
.,.-....-....'.k�s�. i1,"� .r ,a.71s1.V:��',v�d: r:. -.:w;4J: •.�,.,..,.. ,kA�` - .. .. .-_ -- .�� � -

rigure ia. ine Lviorrison house in /-u/-i, view or nricx noggmg ano Unner training on iron eievation.
M1'
� •J.
V
�Qgy. ySiF
1
AV >r
Figure 19. The Morrison house in 2021, view of central hall and stair.
22

R�3
�f
11A
±_W -
' $
MAL
VA
irtiC
Figure 20. The Morrison house in 2021, view of mantel in east first -floor room.
Figure 21. The Morrison house in 2021, view of west second -floor room.
23

WAAM.
.. _ � _,. his=.^.'.,� '.•�`'.. .. - 4y
G /_I

Figure 24. Collapsing house in north -central part of Project Tract.
Figure 25. Collapsed house south of the Morrison House.
25

Figure 26. View of existing vegetative buffer along Caldwell Creek between the Project Tract and
the Spears House.
26