20230126 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20230120

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Initial Review
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
Yes
No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
12/12/2022
BIMS # Assigned* Version#*
20230126 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Winston-Salem Regional Office - (336) 776-
9800
Information for Initial Review
What amout is owed?*
$240.00
$570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood:[e-mail]
la. Name of project:
Nelson's Creek at Mocksville
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Richard Denzler
1 b. Primary Contact Email: * lc. Primary Contact Phone: *
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
1/20/2023
Nearest Body of Water
Nelson's Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.912004
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-80.574557
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Davie
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 29 - Residential Developments
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
ld. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
ld. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
BRD Land Investment
2b. Deed book and page no.:
1229/0867
2c. Contact Person:
Leigh Polzella
2d. Address
Street Address
234 Kingsley Park Dr., Suite 110
Address Line 2
City
Fort Mill
Postal /Zip Code
29715
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
State / Province / Region
SC
Country
USA
Yes No
Yes No

2e. Telephone Number: 2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Richard Denzler
3b. Business Name:
C2C Development
3c. Address
Street Address
PO Box 4628
Address Line 2
City
Mooresville
Postal / Zip Code
28117
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address: *
rdenzler06130@road ru n ner. com
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Michelle Measday
4b. Business Name:
ECS Southeast LLC
4c. Address
Street Address
5260 Greens Dairy Road
Address Line 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27616
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
Nelson's Creek at Mocksville
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Mocksville
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
5739218586/5739216537/5739313251/57394
06292/5739101949
2b. Property size:
Total: 159.14

2c. Project Address
Street Address
Highway 601
Address Line 2
City
Mocksville
Postal / Zip Code
27028
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
Nelson's Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401011404
4. Project Description and History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4a. 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 currently consists of undeveloped wooded land. Surrounding area consists of commercial uses, residential uses and undeveloped wooded land.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.37
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
6,627
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The site will be developed with a single-family residential subdivision including 385 single-family homes with 196 units included in Phase I and 189 units included in Phase 2 with
associated amenities, including roadways, stormwater management facilities, landscaping and lighting.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Appropriate erosion control measures will be used while the site is prepared and leveled to the desired building elevation. Standard construction equipment such as cranes, excavators,
dump trucks, and similar vehicles would be used for the project. Proper erosion and sedimentation control measures would be employed throughout the project. Typical materials and
machinery will be used on -site during the construction process.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes
Comments:
No Unknown
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2022-00993
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Wendell Overby
Soil & Forestry Services of Carolinas, PA
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
10-5-2022
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes No

6b. If yes, explain.
Nelson's Creek bifurcates the site. Phase I is located west of Nelson's Creek and Phase II is located east of Nelson's Creek. All wetland and stream impacts for both phases are included
in this application.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries
Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
Buffers
2a. Site #* (?)
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type*(?)
2c. Type of W.*
2d. W. name
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of Jurisdicition*
(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W1
Grading
P
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
7A
Yes
Corps
0.040
(acres)
W2
SESC
T
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
7A
Yes
Corps
0.004
(acres)
W3
SESC/Retaining Wall
Construction
T
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
7B
Yes
Corps
0.016
(acres)
W4
Grading
P
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
8A
Yes
Corps
0.003
(acres)
W5
SESC
T
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
8A
Yes
Corps
0.001
(acres)
W6
Fill (incl. riprap)
P
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
8B
Yes
Corps
0.003
(acres)
W7
SESC
T
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
8B
Yes
Corps
0.001
(acres)
W8
Grading
P
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
1A
Yes
Corps
0.001
(acres)
W9
SESC
T
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
1A
Yes
Corps
0.001
(acres)
0
0
P
NCWAM TYPES
0
No
Corps
0.000
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.023
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.070
2i. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.047
The plans depict the impacts in SF. Permanent wetland impacts: 2,031 SF (0.0466 acre). Temporary wetland impacts: 916 SF (0.023 acre). SESC: Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, assessed as a temporary impact for fill/grading and retaining wall construction. Area to be restored upon
construction completion.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.Impact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width
3h. Impact
length*
Si
Road Crossing
Permanent
Culvert
S1/Nelson's Creek
Perennial
Corps
5
Average (feet)
96
(linear feet)
S2
Road Crossing
Construction/streambed
stabilization/protection
Temporary
Stabilization
S1/Nelson's Creek
Perennial
Corps
4
Average (feet)
95
(linear feet)
S3
Road Crossing Rip -Rap
Temporary
Rip Rap Fill
S1/Nelson's Creek
Perennial
Corps
4
Average (feet)
46
(linear feet)
S4
Road Crossing/Grading
Permanent
Fill
S2
Intermittent
Corps
5
Average (feet)
22
(linear feet)

S5
Road
Crossing/Construction/Strea
mbed Stabilization/protection
Temporary
Stabilization
S2
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
5
(linear feet)
S6
Road Crossing Riprap
Temporary
Rip Rap Fill
S2
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
16
(linear feet)
S7
Road Crossing
Permanent
Culvert
S3
Intermittent
Corps
3
Average (feet)
2
(linear feet)
S8
Road Crossing
Construction/streambed
stabilization/protection
Temporary
Stabilization
S3
Intermittent
Corps
3
Average (feet)
5
(linear feet)
S9
Road Crossing Riprap fill
Temporary
Rip Rap Fill
S3
Intermittent
Corps
3
Average (feet)
12
(linear feet)
Si0
Road Crossing
Permanent
Culvert
S4
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
114
(linear feet)
Sil
Road Crossing
Construction/streambed
stabilization/protection
Temporary
Stabilization
S4
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
10
(linear feet)
S12
Road Crossing Riprap fill
Temporary
Rip Rap Fill
S4
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
25
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
234
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
448
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
214
3j. Comments:
Total permanent streambed impacts: 869 SF (0.0199 acre). Total temporary streambed impacts to stabilize streambed during construction: 485 SF
(0.0111 acre). Total rip -rap impact/no functional loss: 337 SF (0.008 acre). Refer to impacts plans for detailed measurements of LF and SF.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Nelson's Creek flows through the center of the site and was measured at approximately 3,320 LF across the entire project study area (PSA). With the
feature bifurcating the site, impacting the feature was unavoidable. Initially two crossings of Nelson's Creek were proposed. A northern crossing to
access upland and potentially five building lots was eliminated from the development design avoiding permanent impacts to 104 LF of stream. The
remaining crossing of Nelson's Creek connects Phases I and II and is necessary to the overall subdivision. Three additional stream impacts are
proposed at the headwaters of streams that eventually drain into Nelson's Creek. Impacts to the lower portions portions of these feeder streams were
avoided in the design of the residential development. Approximately 3.37 acres of wetlands are located within the PSA. The development will impact
approximately 0.048 acre of wetlands. Wetland impacts were unavoidable at the Wetland Impact Area 1A and 7A locations. The wetlands at these
locations are located at the rear of residential lots and for safety reasons, retaining walls were avoided. However, impacts were minimized at these
locations with 2:1 grading minimizing further impacts into the adjacent wetland.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impact to streams could not be avoided with this project due to the location of Nelsons Creek through the center of the parcel. Site disturbance shall be
minimized to the extent practicable in order for the proper installation of the project elements. The construction techniques shall be conducted in
accordance with NCDENR standards. Temporary and additional erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the construction process. Silt
fencing will be placed at the bottom of the slopes to deter sediment and erosion control during development activities. Temporary erosion, sedimentation,
and pollution controls will be installed prior to and maintained during the entire construction duration and until final stabilization is established.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
The project permanent impacts are less than 0.02 acre of streambed and less than 0.10 acre of wetlands.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
If no, explain why:
The project is not located in a watershed requiring riparian buffers.
2. Stormwater Management Plan

2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250? *
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
Yes No
N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
Local Government State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
Phase II NSW USMP Water Supply
Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
Mocksville/Davie County
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? *
Yes No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is a stand along project split into two phases with all impacts accounted for in this permit application.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
Yes No N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated at a
treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Davie County Public Utilities
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
No Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes No

5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
Yes No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
IPaC and NC NHP. A request for concurrence of findings was sent to USFWS on December 15, 2022. A response letter from USFWS was received on
January 6, 2023 and is included with this permit application. The USFWS response letter stated that the development project "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect" Michaux's sumac or Schweinitz's sunflower.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat? *
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
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 status?*
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC HPO Web Mapper. Joppa Cemetery is located adjacent to the southeastern corner of the PSA. The applicant contracted with an archaeological
consultant to conduct survey at the site at the guidance of the NCHPO. The archaeological report is included with this permit application. The NCHPO
response letter dated November 9, 2022 confirmed no further evaluation is required is included with the permit application. A 60 meter buffer adjacent to
the cemetery is the be maintained.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA MSC Mapping and development plans.
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Impact Plans.pdf 15.33MB
49-16067 Nelson_s Creek 404-401 Permit Application 2023-Jan.pdf 90.79MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Michelle Measday
Signature
Michelle Meesdai
Date
1/20/2023

NELSONS CREEK AT MOCKSVILLE
YADKINVILLE ROAD AND COUNTRY LANE
MOCKSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27028
ECS PROJECT NO. 49:16067
FOR: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JANUARY 20, 2023
E

ECS Southeast, LLP
"One Firm. One Mission."
-sigiamme Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
January 20, 2023
ECS Project No. 49:16067
Reference: Request for Jurisdictional Determination, Nelsons Creek at Mocksville, Yadkinville Road
and Country Lane, Mocksville, Davie County North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is pleased submit this 404/401 Permit Application Request for the
above -referenced site. ECS services has prepared this permit application in accordance with General
and Regional Conditions for a Nationwide Permit 29, Residential Developments.
If there are questions regarding this report, or a need for further information, please contact the
undersigned.
ECS Southeast, LLP
H;atkb Mu/ t
Michelle Measday, CFM, PWS
Environmental Senior Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-861-9910
Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS
Environmental Principal
[e-mail]
704-525-5152
5260 Greens Dairy Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 • T: 919-861-9910 • F: 703-834-5527 • ecslimited.com
NC Engineering No. F-1078 • NC Geology No. C-553

January 20, 2023
ECS Southeast, LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
ECS Project # 49:16067

January 20, 2023
ECS Southeast, LLP
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: ORM Form
Appendix II: Figures
Appendix III: Property Cards
Appendix IV: Agent Authorization
Appendix V: PJD
Appendix VI: Impact Plans
Appendix VII: USFWS Documentation
Appendix VIII: NC HPO Documentation
ECS Project # 49:16067

January 20, 2023
ECS Southeast, LLP
ECS Project # 49:16067
Page 1

Appendix I: ORM Form

Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 n
Regulatory Action Type:
0 Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
29
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- 2022-00168
Prepare file folder ❑
Begin Date (Date Received):
Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Nelsons Creek (ECS 49:16067)
2. Work Type: ❑Private
❑Institutional ❑ Government n Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
The site will be developed with a residential use with associated roadway, utilities, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management
measures.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: BRD Land & Investment/C2C Land Development LLC
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Michelle Measday/ ECS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: NA
7. Project Location — Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
East of Yadkinville Road, South of Country Lane, Mocksville, Davie County, North Carolina
(35.912004, -80.574557)
8. Project Location — Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B 1 a]: 5739218586/5739216537/5739313251/5739406292/
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Davie County
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Mocksville
1 1. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]: Nelsons Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]: Upper Pee Dee / 03040101
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑ Pre -Application Request
n Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Appendix II: Figures

C2C LAND
U
DEVELOPMENT LLC
d
NELSON'S CREEK
QUAIL RIDGE LANE
& IVY LAND
MOCKSVILLE,
DAVIE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DAVIE COUNTY
co
w
N
L6
I I
N
a U
00 in
N
03/09/2022
I.fi

Appendix III: Property Cards

12/12/22, 4:57 PM
DAVIE COUNTY. NC
Appraisal Card
12/12/2022 4:57:22 PM
BRD LAND & INVESTMENT Return/Appeal Notes: Parcel: H4-000-00-116-01
PLAT: UNIQ ID SPLIT FROM ID 12777
30000/0300 970624
8318622 NN: 26 - CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ID NO: 5739216537
COUNTY TAX ;' 130), FIREADVL12 (100), MOCKSVILLE CITY 1130) CARD NO. 1 of
1
Reval Vear: 2021 Tax Vear: 17.441 AC TRACT 1 H WV 601 17.0103 AC SRC=
2023
Appraised by 17 on 31/01/2323 06001 JOPPA TW-36 CI- FR EX- AT- LAST ACTION
02 12 20221003
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
MARKET VALUE
DEPRECIATION
CORRELATION OF VALUE
TOTAL POINT VALUE I
USE
MOD
Eff.
Area
QUAL
BASE
RATE
RCN
EYB
AYB
CREDENCE TO
BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
TOTAL QUALITV INDEX
97
03
% GOOD I
DEPR. BUILDING VALUE - CARD 0
TYPE: Ve ant
STYLE:
DEPR. OB/XF VALUE - CARD 0
MARKET LAND VALUE - CARD 467,780
TOTAL MARKET VALUE - CARD 467,780
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - CARD 467,780
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - PARCEL 467,780
TOTAL PRESENT USE VALUE - PARCEL 0
TOTAL VALUE DEFERRED - PARCEL 0
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - PARCEL 467,780
PRIOR
BUILDING VALUE 0
013XF VALUE 0
LAND VALUE 0
PRESENT USE VALUE 0
DEFERRED VALUE 0
TOTAL VALUE 0
PERMIT
CODE I DATE I NOTE I NUMBER I AMOUNT
ROUT: WTRSHD:
SALES DATA
OFF.
RECORD
DATE
DEED
INDICATE SALES
BOOK PAGE
MO(YR
TYPE
Q/UV/I
PRICE
1229 0843
8 92z WD
Q
V 450300
HEATED ARE
NOTES
SPLIT 2022
SUBAREA
UNIT ORIG % 1 SIZE ANN DEP °/ OB/XF DEPR.
CODEQUALITYDESCRIPTIONCOUNTLTHWTH UNITS PRICE COND IBLDG# FACT AYBEYB RATE OVR COND VALUE
GS RPL
TYPE AREA % CS
TOTAL OB/XF VALUE 0
FIREPLACE
SUBAREA
TOTALS
BUILDING DIMENSIONS
LAND INFORMATION
HIGHEST AND
BEST USE
USE
CODE
LOCAL
ZONING
FRON
TAGE
DEPTH
DEPTH
/ SIZE
LND
MOD
COND
FACT
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
AND NOTES
RF AC LC TO OT
ROAD
TYPE
LAND
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
LAND
UNITS
UNT
TYP
TOTAL
ADJST
ADJUSTED
UNIT PRICE
LAND
VALUE
OVERRIDE
VALUE
LAND
NOTES
COMMERCIAL
0700
518
0
1.3000
3
0.5503
LOC
PS
53,000.03
17.310
AC
3.550
27,530.00
467775
TOTAL MARKET LAND DATA
17.010
467,780
TOTAL PRESENT USE DATA
Owner: BRD LAND & INVESTMENT
https://maps.daviecountync.gov//ITSNet/AppraisalCard.aspx?parcel=H40000011601 1/1

12/12/22, 5:00 PM
DAVIE COUNTY. NC
Appraisal Card
12/12/2022 5:00:26 PM
MURPHY ]OE ERVIN REVOC TRUST Return/Appeal Notes: Parcel: H4-000-00-116
PLAT: UNIQ ID
00030/0000 12777
52422300 NN: 08 - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE ID NO: 5739218586
COUNTY TAX (100), FIREADVLI2 (103), MOCKSVILLE CITY (100) CARD NO. 1 of
1
Reval Year: 2021 Tax Year: 26.5 AC HN/Y 601 (3.25 AC) 3.2530 AC SRC= Inspection
2023
02 12 _ AT- LAST ACTION
Appraised by 19 on 31/01/2321 06001 JOPPA TW-06 CI- FR- EX
20221025
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
MARKET VALUE
DEPRECIATION
CORRELATION OF VALUE
TOTAL POINT VALUE I
USE
MOD
Eff.
Area
QUAL
BASE
RATE
RCN
EYB
AYB
CREDENCE TO
BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
TOTAL QUALITY INDEX
97
00
% GOOD I
DEPR. BUILDING VALUE - CARD 0
TYPE: Va ant
STYLE:
DEPR. OB/XF VALUE - CARD 0
MARKET LAND VALUE - CARD 339,320
TOTAL MARKET VALUE - CARD 389,320
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - CARD 339,320
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - PARCEL 389,320
TOTAL PRESENT USE VALUE - PARCEL 0
TOTAL VALUE DEFERRED - PARCEL 0
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - PARCEL 389,320
PRIOR
BUILDING VALUE 0
OBXF VALUE 0
LAND VALUE 674,990
PRESENT USE VALUE 0
DEFERRED VALUE 0
TOTAL VALUE 674,990
PERMIT
CODE I DATE I NOTE I NUMBER I AMOUNT
ROUT: WTRSHD:
SALES DATA
OFF.
RECORD
DATE
DEED
INDICATE SALES
BOOK PAGE
MOYR
TYPE
Q/UV/I
PRICE
3125 0729
2 198`
WO
U
V 0
HEATED ARE
NOTES
SUBAREA
UNIT ORIG % 1 SIZE ANN DEP °/ OB/XF DEPR.
CODEQUALITYDESCRIPTIONCOUNTLTHWTH UNITS PRICE COND IBLDG# FACT AYBEYB RATE OVR COND VALUE
G5 RPL
TYPE AREA % CS
TOTAL OB/XF VALUE 0
FIREPLACE
SUBAREA
TOTALS
BUILDING DIMENSIONS
LAND INFORMATION
HIGHEST AND
BEST USE
USE
CODE
LOCAL
ZONING
FRON
TAGE
DEPTH
DEPTH
/ SIZE
LND
MOD
COND
FACT
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
AND NOTES
RF AC LC TO OT
ROAD
TYPE
LAND
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
LAND
UNITS
UNT
TYP
TOTAL
ADJST
ADJUSTED
UNIT PRICE
LAND
VALUE
OVERRIDE
VALUE
LAND
NOTES
COMMERCIAL
0700
3
3
1.3030
3
0.5530
SIZE
PS
5.30
141570.030
SF
0.553
2.75
389318
03.25
AC
TOTAL MARKET LAND DATA
389,320
TOTAL PRESENT USE DATA
Owner: MURPHY JOE ERVIN REVOC TRUST
https://maps.daviecountync.gov//ITSNet/AppraisalCard.aspx?parcel=H400000116 1/1

12/12/22, 5:01 PM
DAVIE COUNTY. NC
Appraisal Card
12/12/2022 5:01:20 PM
BRD LAND & INVESTMENT Return/Appeal Notes: Parcel: H4-000-00-122
HWV 601 PLAT: UNIQ ID
30001/0003 12784
8318622 NN: 26 - CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ID NO: 5739313251
COUNTY TAX I130), FIREADVL12 (103), MOCKSVILLE CITY (130) CARD NO. 1 of
1
Reval Vear: 2021 Tax Vear: 2323 15.286 AC HN/Y 601 DANIELS 15.2860 AC SRC= Tenant
02 12 _ AT- LAST ACTION
Appraised by 19 on 31/01/2323 06004 ELISHA CREEK TW-36 CI- FR- EX
23221239
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
MARKET VALUE
DEPRECIATION
CORRELATION OF VALUE
TOTAL POINT VALUE I
USE
MOD
Eff.
Area
QUAL
BASE
RATE
RCN
EYB
AYB
CREDENCE TO
BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
TOTAL QUALITY INDEX
97
03
% GOOD I
DEPR. BUILDING VALUE - CARD 0
TYPE: Va ant
STYLE:
DEPR. OB/XF VALUE - CARD 0
MARKET LAND VALUE - CARD 398,250
TOTAL MARKET VALUE - CARD 398,250
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - CARD 398,250
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - PARCEL 398,250
TOTAL PRESENT USE VALUE - PARCEL 0
TOTAL VALUE DEFERRED - PARCEL 0
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - PARCEL 398,250
PRIOR
BUILDING VALUE 0
OBXF VALUE 0
LAND VALUE 225,4110
PRESENT USE VALUE 0
DEFERRED VALUE 0
TOTAL VALUE 225,400
PERMIT
CODE I DATE I NOTE I NUMBER I AMOUNT
ROUT: WTRSHD:
SALES DATA
OFF.
RECORD
DATE
DEED
INDICATE SALES
BOOK
PAGE
MOYR
TYPE
Q/UV/I
PRICE
1229
3049
0854
0478
8 2322
4 1945
WO
WO
Q
X
V 430300
V 0
HEATED AREA
NOTES
AC S2 CORR/ROUGH
TO 15.930
OK SIDE BY SURVEY, FROM 17.2 AC
AC 2/7/2031 SPLIT 2022
SUBAREA
UNIT ORIG % 1
CODEQUALITYDESCRIPTIONCOUNTLTHWTH UNITS PRICE COND IBLDG#
SIZE ANN DEP W. OB/XF DEPR.
FACT AYBEYB RATE OVR COND VALUE
G5 RPL
TYPE AREA % CS
TOTAL OB/XF VALUE
FIREPLACE
SUBAREA
TOTALS
BUILDING DIMENSIONS
LAND INFORMATION
HIGHEST AND
BEST USE
USE
CODE
LOCAL
ZONING
FRON
TAGE
DEPTH
DEPTH
/ SIZE
LND
MOD
COND
FACT
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
AND NOTES
RF AC LC TO OT
ROAD
TYPE
LAND
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
LAND
UNITS
UNT
TYP
TOTAL
ADJST
ADJUSTED
UNIT PRICE
LAND
VALUE
OVERRIDE
VALUE
LAND
NOTES
COMMERCIAL
07113
53
5133
1.3000
3
0.5003
55
53,0011.03
15.930
AC
3.500
25,330.00
398250
0
9900
9900
0
0
1.3000
3
1.0003
1.03
15.286
AC
3.000
0
TOTAL MARKET LAND DATA
15.930
398,250
OTAL PRESENT USE DATA
Owner: BRD LAND & INVESTMENT
https://maps.daviecountync.gov//ITSNet/AppraisalCard.aspx?parcel=H400000122 1/1

12/12/22, 5:01 PM
DAVIE COUNTY. NC
Appraisal Card
12/12/2022 5:01:54 PM
BRD LAND & INVESTMENT Return/Appeal
Notes. parcel: I4-000-00-077
COUNTRY LN PLAT: UNIQ ID
03000/3030 14956
8318622 NN: 38 - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE ID NO: 5739436292
COUNTY TAX (100), FIREADVL12 (130), MOCKSVILLE CITY (100) CARD NO. 1 of 1
Reval Year: 2321 Tax Year: 124.819 AC COUNTRY LANE 122.3730 AC SRC= Inspection
2023
Appraised by 19 on 31/01/2.123116034 ELISHA CREEK TNI-06 CI-FR EX- AT- LAST ACTION
12r 20221209
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
MARKET VALUE
DEPRECIATION
CORRELATION OF VALUE
TOTAL POINT VALUE I
USE
MOD
Eff.
Area
QUAL
BASE
RATE
RCN
EYE
AYB
CREDENCE TO
BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
TOTAL QUALITY INDEX
97
00
°0 GOOD I
DEPR. BUILDING VALUE - CARD 0
TYPE: Va ant
STYLE:
DEPR.OB/XF VALUE - CARD 0
MARKET LAND VALUE - CARD 763,553
TOTAL MARKET VALUE - CARD 763,550
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - CARD 763,550
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - PARCEL 763,550
TOTAL PRESENT USE VALUE - PARCEL 0
TOTAL VALUE DEFERRED - PARCEL 0
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - PARCEL 763,550
PRIOR
BUILDING VALUE 0
OBXF VALUE 0
LAND VALUE 763,550
PRESENT USE VALUE 58,710
DEFERRED VALUE 704,840
TOTAL VALUE 763,550
PERMIT
CODE I DATE I NOTE I NUMBER I AMOUNT
ROUT: WTRSHD:
SALES
DATA
OFF.
RECORD
DATE
DEED
INDICATE SALES
BOOK
PAGE
MOYR
TYPE
Q/W/I
PRICE
1229
1229
0320
11194
U132
0044
3867
3861
3693
3733
3696
3126
8 2022
8 2022
11 1999
5 1997
8 1977
8 1944
NW
8113
8ND
\ND
91)3
8112
C V
Q V
Q V
X V
X V
X V
0
2100300
748500
0
0
0
HEATED AREA
NOTES
9.641 AC SHELTON CO'S 1LT 1 LT CHARLES
18AC HORNE PROP 2AC POND SPLIT 2022
R YOUNG
SUBAREA
UNIT ORIG ^/a 1 SIZE ANN DEP
CODEQUALITYDESCRIPTIONCOUNTLTHWTH UNITS PRICE COND IBLDG# FACT AYBEYB RATE
^/ OB/XF DEPR.
OVR COND VALUE
G5 RPL
TYPE AREA 95 CS
TOTALOB/XF VALUE 0
FIREPLACE
SUBAREA
TOTALS
BUILDING DIMENSIONS
LAND INFORMATION
HIGHEST
AND BEST
USE
USE
CODE
LOCAL
ZONING
FRON
TAGE
DEPTH
DEPTH
/ SIZE
LND
MOD
COND
FACT
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
AND NOTES
RF AC LC TO OT
ROAD
TYPE
LAND
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
LAND
UNITS
UNT
TYP
TOTAL
AD]ST
ADJUSTED
UNIT PRICE
LAND
VALUE
OVERRIDE
VALUE
LAND
NOTES
RURAL AC
11123
1374
0
13.68111
4
1.11330
-35 +20 +25 -20 -10
PW
8,21113.30
124.323
AC
3.749
6,141.80
763549
3
9900
9900
0
0
1.3113U
U
1.00311
1.311
122.370
AC
0.3113
0
TOTAL MARKET LAND DATA
124.323
763,550
OTAL PRESENT USE DATA
Owner: BRD LAND & INVESTMENT
https://maps.daviecountync.gov//ITSNet/AppraisalCard.aspx?parcel=1400000077 1/1

12/12/22, 5:05 PM
DAVIE COUNTY. NC
Appraisal Card
12/12/2022 5:05:04 PM
C2C LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC Return/Appeal Notes: Parcel: H4-000-00-122-01
PLAT: UNIQ ID SPLIT FROM ID 12784
30000/0300 9]0]03
8319349 NN: 26- CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ID N0: 5739201949
COUNTY TAX ;' 130), FIREADVL12 (100), MOCKSVILLE CITY 1130) CARD NO. 1 of
1
Reval Year: 2021 Tax Year: 3.685 AC US HWV 601 3.5800 AC SRC=
2023
Appraised by on 36004 ELISHA CREEK TN/-36 CI- FR EX- AT- LAST ACTION
02 12 20221209
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
MARKET VALUE
DEPRECIATION
CORRELATION OF VALUE
TOTAL POINT VALUE I
USE
MOD
Eff.
Area
QUAL
BASE
RATE
RCN
EYB
AYB
CREDENCE TO
BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
TOTAL QUALITY INDEX
99
30
°/ GOOD I
DEPR. BUILDING VALUE - CARD 0
TYPE: New Parcel
STYLE:
DEPR. OB/XF VALUE - CARD 0
MARKET LAND VALUE - CARD 0
TOTAL MARKET VALUE - CARD 0
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE - CARD 0
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE -PARCEL 0
TOTAL PRESENT USE VALUE - PARCEL 0
TOTAL VALUE DEFERRED - PARCEL 0
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - PARCEL 0
PRIOR
BUILDING VALUE 0
OBXF VALUE 0
LAND VALUE 0
PRESENT USE VALUE 0
DEFERRED VALUE 0
TOTAL VALUE 0
PERMIT
CODE I DATE I NOTE I NUMBER I AMOUNT
ROUT: \NTRSHD:
SALES DATA
OFF.
RECORD
DATE
DEED
INDICATE SALES
BOOK PAGE
MOIYR
TYPE
Q/UV/I
PRICE
1233 0546
10 322
QC
C
V 0
HEATED ARE
NOTES
SUBAREA
UNIT ORIG % SIZE ANN DEP °/ OB/XF DEPR.
CODEQUALITYDESCRIPTIONCOUNTLTHWTH UNITS PRICE COND BLDG# FACT AYBEYB RATE OVR COND VALUE
G5 RPL
TYPE AREA % CS
TOTAL OB/XF VALUE 0
FIREPLACE
SUBAREA
TOTALS
BUILDING DIMENSIONS
LAND INFORMATION
HIGHEST
AND BEST
USE
USE
CODE
LOCAL
ZONING
FRON
TAGE
DEPTH
DEPTH
/ SIZE
LND
MOD
COND
FACT
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
AND NOTES
RF AC LC TO OT
ROAD
TYPE
LAND
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
LAND
UNITS
UNT
TYP
TOTAL
ADJST
ADJUSTED
UNIT PRICE
LAND
VALUE
OVERRIDE
VALUE
LAND
NOTES
9900
9900
0.0003
0
3.0300
1.30
0.580
AC
0.030
0
TOTAL MARKET LAND DATA
0
TOTAL PRESENT USE DATA
Owner: C2C LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC
https://maps.daviecountync.gov//ITSNet/AppraisalCard.aspx?parcel=H40000012201 1/1

Supplemental Table 1
Property Owners List
PIN
OWNER
DEED BOOK/PAGE NUMBER
ADDRESS
EMAIL
PHONE
5739-21-8586
BRD Land & Investment
1229/0867
234 Kingsley Park Dr. Ste 110, Fort Mill, SC 29715-6468
[e-mail]
704-609-0418
5739-21-6537
BRD Land & Investment
1229/0843
234 Kingsley Park Dr. Ste 110, Fort Mill, SC 29715-6468
[e-mail]
704-609-0418
5739-31-3251
BRD Land & Investment
1229/0854
234 Kingsley Park Dr. Ste 110, Fort Mill, SC 29715-6468
[e-mail]
704-609-0418
5739-40-6292
BRD Land & Investment
1229/0867
234 Kingsley Park Dr. Ste 110, Fort Mill, SC 29715-6468
[e-mail]
704-609-0418
5739-10-1949
BRD Land & Investment
1229/0867
234 Kingsley Park Dr. Ste 110, Fort Mill, SC 29715-6468
[e-mail]
704-609-0418

Appendix IV: Agent
Authorization

i
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP -.Setting the Standard for Service-
+• Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
,-csstercd Erg,n._onnn Firn
Agent Authorization
�(0C-(
Property/Site: k-7)\L,.» LLcI k�4�� 1-tc�GCs� t_Z CSC
Address of Site: 1,\ T Ik 51 CL/Lt r= N l vSe--
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 54- Z-itora34 °51-3612]132,51 S-43°t-ldioZqz
Owner Information:
Name: � L n) • I LAI
Address: v t tS -k) Ir t ; E 110
Cam G-t kt. -ESA 1-1S-1 o Li Ci)
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Property Owner Certification:
1 Ci 'cat M , e No-1
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and/ or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to enter upon the property
herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal/State jurisdiction under
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. I also authorize ECS to act in my behalf in the processing of this request and to furnish
supplemental information in supportf this request, including stream/wetland matters in
coordination with the USACE and tie l CDWR field verification and permit application:
Property Owner Signature:
AsuLQ,i
Date: I • i •
ECS Capitol SENicas, PLLC • ECS Florida. LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic. LLC • ECS Midwest. LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Texas, LLP
www,ecslimtted,corn

Appendix V: PJD

Requestor:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail:
Size (acres)
Nearest Waterway
USGS HUC
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2022-00168 County: Davie U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Mocksville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Wendell Overby
813 Davidson Drive NW
Concord. NC 28025
704-239-2001
[e-mail]
gmail.com
159
Nelson Creek
03040101
Nearest Town Mocksville
River Basin
Coordinates
Upper Pee Dee
Latitude: 35.912004
Longitude: -80.574557
Location description: 159 acres located east of YadkinvilleRoad. south of Country Lane, in Mocksville. NC. PINs I400000077.
H400000122, and H400000116.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Z
There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the a bove-described pro ject area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean WaterAct (CWA)(3 3 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has beenverifiedby the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of thesewaters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated April 2001. Therefore,
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation ofimpacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other re source protection
measures, a permit decision made on thebasis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictionalwaters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 33 1). However, youmay
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above -described project area/property, that maybe subject to Section 404
of the Clean WaterAct (CWA)(3 3 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not een properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
m erely an effective presumption of C WA/RHA jurisdiction over a II of the waters, including wetlands a t th e project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters ofthe United States within the above-describedproject area/property subj ectto the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 ofthe Clean WaterAct
(CWA)(3 3 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceedfive years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above -described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 ofthe Clean WaterAct (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or ourpublishedregulations, this
determ ination may be relied upon for a periodnotto exceedfive years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your proj ect area/property delineated. As the Corps maynotbe
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verifiedby the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on yourproject area/property have been delineated and th e delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineationmap dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed an dverified by the Corps. Once

SAW-2022-00168
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction ofa ll areas subj ect to CWA jurisdiction on yourproperty which, provided
there is no change in the law or ourpublished regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signedby the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination maybe relied upon for a periodnotto exceed five years from the date ofthis notification.
❑ There are no wa ters of the U.S., to include wetlands, presenton the above-describedproject area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or ourpublished
regula do n s, this determination may be relied upon for a periodnot to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one ofthe 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Ma nagementin Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill m aterial within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department oftheArmy permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Pla cement o f dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters ofthe United States without a Department of the Armypermit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Jean B. Gibby at [phone], Ext. 24 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 02/28/2022.
D. Remarks:
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determinationhas been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may notbe valid for the wetland conservationprovisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or a nticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wet land determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification ofAp p eal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request forAppeal(RFA) form. Ifyou request to a ppeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Flo or M9
Atlanta, Georgia 3 0303 -8803
AND
PH I LI P.A. SI TANNIN@USACE. ARMY. MIL
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Officewithin 60 days ofthe date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address byNot applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date of JD: 02/28/2022 Expiration Date ofJD: Not applicable

SAW-2022-00168
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:

SAW-2022-00168
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/Pp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Property Owner: Robert and Jane Jones
Address: 477 Joe Road
Mocksville, NC 27028
Telephone Number: 336-655-5079

SAW-2022-00168
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Wendell Overby
File Number: SAW-2022-00168
Date: 02/28/2022
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
x
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION 1- The following identifies your lights and options regarding an administrative appeal
Additional information may be found at orhttp://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
of the above decision.
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. _
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a)modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. Ifyou received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and wa ive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certa in terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Adm inistrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denia I of a permit underthe Corps of Engineers Adm inistrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appealthe approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appealthe approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD underthe Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

SAW-2022-00168
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION I1EQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe yourreasonsforappealingthedecision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where yourreasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum forthe
record of the appeal conference ormeeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer ha s determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FORTESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/orthe
appealprocess you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Jean B. Gibby
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appealprocess you may
also contact:
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
CESAD-PDS-O
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appealprocess. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunit to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals onInitial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Jean B. Gibby, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 18 January 2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wendell Overby 813 Davidson Dr NW Concord NC 28025
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Nelson Creek; SAW-20
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: Davie City: Mocksville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.912004
Long.: -80.574557
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
n Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 1 February 2022
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)

Site Number Latitude Longitude
W1 35.91533 N
W2 35.91456 N
W3 35.91437 N
W4 35.91387 N
W5 35.914005 N
W6 35.91394 N
W7 35.91134 N
W8 35.91038 N
W9 35.90986 N
W10 35.90946 N
W11 35.90867 N
T1 35.91404 N
T2 35.91445 N
T3 35.91057 N
T4 35.90886 N
TS 35.91107 N
T6 35.913728 N
- 80.57743 W
- 80.57690 W
-80.57631 W
-80.57689 W
-80.57576 W
- 80.57501 W
-80.57116 W
- 80.57030 W
-80.57049 W
- 80.56953 W
-80.56896 W
- 80.57798 W
-80.576004 W
- 80.570883 W
-80.57218 W
- 80.57464 W
-80.57727 W
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in
review area
Type of aquatic resource Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject
0.15 ac wetland 404
0.15 ac wetland 404
0.11 ac wetland 404
0.06 ac wetland 404
0.06 ac wetland 404
1.2 ac wetland 404
0.67 ac wetland 404
0.1 ac wetland 404
0.1 ac wetland 404
0.5 ac wetland 404
0.27 ac wetland 404
820 If non -wetland 404
1170 If non -wetland 404
2150 If non -wetland 404
1564 If non -wetland 404
418 If non -wetland 404
505 If non -wetland 404

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:Wetland delineation sketch map
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
n Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
n 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: 1:24,000 Mocksville
■❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Davie Co
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI Mapper
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
■❑ Photographs: ■❑ Aerial (Name & Date): Davie County GIS Jan 2022
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
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.
ignature aclz.X4
rat�j
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
f
28 February 2022
-4-4,41101/17/22
Signature and da▪ te of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
1 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.

CI -
CO
Z
0
Q)
Crl
0
co
c
.E
112
a_
c
a)
E
0
0
a)
>
a)
0
c
J ,--1
U NI
N O
U N
4, —
v L
•a) <
0
L
0_
cu
U
tn
c
O
tn
Z

Appendix VI: Impact Plans

CO

3111113 3 H S
m
m
NJ
z
CD
z
r
m
cn
n
:AEI G3NJ3HJ
:1:138Wf1N 801

31111133HS
:AEI G1>IJ3HJ
:a38Wf1N 8OF

OV1
U7
01
U1
V V 00 0000 l0 ll00
O V7 O kJ" O U9
NJn
A
V
P.
00
---"'
4.- " 48" RCP@ 2.(
N
L_
W
_-
al
xi
D
r EXISTING
S
RU
No,
CB 1
—
—
I
c
e
I
T
VIN=787.3,
V IN
VIN
VOUT
=
=
789.5
778.O1
=773
'
o
o
RM=795.20
I
I
I
I
t
—
xi
n
v
rn
-PROPOSED
CROSS-SECTI�
FOR RIPRAP
d-N,
al
T
JJ
z
V V V V
V 00 CO
O O O
3111113 3 H S
m
m
z
CD
z
W
:AEI G3)1J3HJ
:1:I38Wf1N 80f

Appendix VII: USFWS
Documentation

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0024789
Project Name: 49-16067 - Nelson's Creek Residential Development
December 13, 2022
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The enclosed species list
fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Please note that new species information can change your official species list. Under 50 CFR
402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list
should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends you visit the ECOS-IPaC website at
regular intervals during project planning and implementation to ensure your species list is
accurate or obtain an updated species list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A biological assessment (BA) or biological evaluation (BE) should be completed for your
project. A BA is required for major construction activities (or other undertakings having similar
physical impacts) considered to be Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c))
(NEPA). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a BE be
prepared to determine effects of the action and whether those effects may affect listed species
and/or designated critical habitat. E?ects of the action are all consequences to listed species or
critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other

12/13/2022 2
activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action
if it is reasonably certain to occur and would not occur "but for" the proposed action..
Recommended contents of a BA/BE are described at 50 CFR 402.12. More information and
resources about project review and preparing a BA/BE can be found at the following web link:
https://www.fws. gov/office/asheville-ecological-services/asheville-field-office-online-review-
process-overview.
If a Federal agency determines listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected
by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR
402. The Service is not required to concur with "no effect" determinations from Federal action
agencies. If consultation is required, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed
species, proposed critical habitat, and at -risk species be addressed within the consultation. More
information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of
permit or licensed applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook"
at the following web link: https://www.fws.gov/media/endangered-species-consultation-
handbook.
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Act, there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project -
related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds,
including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12
and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). More information about MBTA and BGEPA can be found at the
following web link: https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds.
We appreciate your consideration of Federally listed species. The Service encourages Federal
agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species in their project planning
to further the purposes of the Act. Please contact our staff at 828-258-3939, if you have any
questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference the
Consultation Code which can be found in the header of this letter.
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List
■ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
■ Migratory Birds
■ Wetlands

12/13/2022 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

12/13/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2023-0024789
Project Name: 49-16067 - Nelson's Creek Residential Development
Project Type: Commercial Development
Project Description: Residential Development
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.91223495,-80.57252857921665,14z
Counties: Davie County, North Carolina

12/13/2022 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME
STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
Insects
NAME
STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME
Candidate
STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Endangered
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

12/13/2022 4

12/13/2022
USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish
Hatcheries
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

12/13/2022 1
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actl and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds Sep 1 to
Jul 31
Breeds Mar 15
to Aug 25
Breeds May 1
to Jul 31

12/13/2022 2
NAME
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
BREEDING
SEASON
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

12/13/2022 3
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season 1 survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Ban-BCCe 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 III"--'----1111 IIII 1111 1111
Vulnerable
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide —++— —III 1111 1111 1111 1:1 1111—I ---- -,---
(CON)
Prairie Warbler II!I
„" 1111 --- --' ---
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
BCCdRangewide Thrush
I •--- ---- —111 1111 1111 1111--
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

12/13/2022
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the l0km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

12/13/2022 5
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell

12/13/2022 6
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

12/13/2022 1
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
WETLAND INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THIS SPECIES LIST WAS GENERATED.
PLEASE VISIT HTTPS://WWW.FWS.GOV/WETLANDS/DATA/MAPPER.HTML OR CONTACT THE FIELD
OFFICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

12/13/2022
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: ECS Limited
Name: Michelle Measday
Address: 5260 Greens Dairy Road
City: Raleigh
State: NC
Zip: 27616
Email [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

f U.s. `
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 6, 2023
Ms. Michelle Measday
ECS Southeast, LLP
1812 Center Park Drive, Suite D
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Subject: Nelson Creek Residential Subdivision in Mocksville, Davie County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Measday:
On December 15, 2022, we received (via e-mail) your information requesting our comments on the
subject project. We have reviewed the information that you presented for this request and the following
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
- 1543) (Act).
On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District Court of California vacated the 2019
regulations implementing section 7 of the Act. On September 21, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted a request to stay the U.S. District Court of Northern California's July 5, 2022, order that
vacated the 2019 Act regulations. As a result, the 2019 regulations are again in effect, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) has relied upon the 2019 regulations in issuing our written concurrence on
the action agency's "may affect, not -likely -to -adversely -affect" determination. However, because the
outcome of the legal challenges to the 2019 Act regulations is still unknown, we considered whether our
substantive analyses and conclusions would have been different if the pre-2019 regulations were applied
in this informal consultation. Our analysis included the prior definition of "effects of the action." We
considered all the "direct and indirect effects" and the "interrelated and interdependent activities" when
determining the "effects of the action." We then considered whether any "effects of the action" that
overlap with applicable ranges of listed species would be wholly beneficial, insignificant, or discountable
to the species. As a result, we determined the substantive analysis and conclusions would have been the
same, irrespective of which regulations applied.
Project Description
According to the information provided, C2C Land Development, LLC proposes to construct a residential
subdivision and associated infrastructure on approximately 159 acres off Yadkinville Road in Mocksville,
Davie County, North Carolina.
Federally Listed Species
An assessment of suitable habitat and potential impacts to two species was conducted by environmental
specialists with ECS Southeast, LLP in June and August of 2022. The findings were compiled and
included in the review request submitted to our office on December 15, 2022. The following species with
federal designations and their associated habitats were evaluated:

Species
Status'
Michaux's sumac
Rhus tnichauxii
E
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
E = endangered.
The review request states that suitable habitats for Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower are
present on site; however, the species were not observed during surveys. Based on negative results of
visual surveys conducted in August of 2022, we would concur with "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" determinations from the lead federal action agency for these species.
Suitable habitat for tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) may present at the site. On September 14, 2022,
the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register to list the tricolored bat as endangered under the
Act. The Service has up to 12 months from the date the proposal published to make a final determination,
either to list the tricolored bat under the Act or to withdraw the proposal. The Service determined the bat
faces extinction primarily due to the range -wide impacts of WNS. Because tricolored bat populations
have been greatly reduced due to WNS, surviving bat populations are now more vulnerable to other
stressors such as human disturbance and habitat loss. Species proposed for listing are not afforded
protection under the Act; however, as soon as a listing becomes effective (typically 30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register), the prohibitions against jeopardizing its continued
existence and "take" will apply. Therefore, if you suspect your future or existing project may affect
tricolored bats after the potential new listing goes into effect, we recommend analyzing possible effects of
the project on tricolored bats and their habitat to determine whether consultation under section 7 of the
Act is necessary. Conferencing procedures can be followed prior to listing to ensure the project does not
jeopardize the existence of a species. Projects with an existing section 7 biological opinion may require
re -initiation of consultation to provide uninterrupted authorization for covered activities. Please contact
our office for additional guidance or assistance.
We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the federally listed species
discussed above. However, obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of the identified action may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) the identified action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Fish and Wildlife Resource Recommendations
We offer the following general recommendations for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources:
• Equipment Use in Riparian Areas and In -Stream. Equipment should be operated from the
streambank. If in -stream work is necessary, stone causeways, work bridges, or mats (designed for
the specific location and type of equipment) should be used. Work pads on streambanks or
approaches to in -stream work areas should minimize disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment
operated in riparian areas and in/near aquatic resources should be inspected daily and maintained
regularly to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids, or other toxic materials. Construction staging, toxic material storage, and equipment
maintenance, including refueling, should occur outside of the riparian area. The project proponent
should report any toxic material spills in riparian areas and/or aquatic resources to the Service
within 24 hours.
2

• Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities near aquatic resources, streams,
and wetlands have the potential to cause bank destabilization, water pollution, and water quality
degradation if measures to control site runoff are not properly installed and maintained. In order
to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, best management practices specific to
the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed prior to land -disturbing
activities and should be maintained throughout construction. Natural fiber matting (coir) should
be used for erosion control as synthetic netting can trap animals and persists in the environment
beyond its intended purpose. Land disturbance should be limited to what can be stabilized
quickly, preferably by the end of the workday. Once construction is complete, disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native riparian grass and tree species as soon as possible. For
maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested;
however, if the areas are maintained in grass, they should not be mowed. The Service can provide
information on potential sources of plant material upon request.
A complete design manual that is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, can be found at the following
website: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources.
• Impervious Surfaces/Stormwater/Low Impact Development (LID). Increased development
contributes to the increased quantity and decreased quality of stormwater entering project area
waterways. Additionally, increased development outside the floodplain increases stormwater
flows already caused by the lack of or loss of riparian buffers and floodplain development. Recent
studies1 have shown that areas of 10 percent to 20 percent impervious surface (such as roofs,
roads, and parking lots) double the amount of stormwater runoff compared to natural cover and
decrease deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35 — 50 percent impervious
surface, runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above 75 percent
impervious surface, runoff is 5.5 times higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration is
decreased by 80 percent. Additionally, the adequate treatment of stormwater at project sites is
essential for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat. Impervious surfaces also collect
pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them (via stormwater
runoff) to receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this
nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the United States, posing
one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is also linked to chronic and acute illnesses in
human populations from exposure through drinking water and contact recreational.
Increased stormwater runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat, causing
streambank and stream channel scouring. Additionally, impervious surfaces reduce groundwater
recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can
induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. To avoid any
additional impacts to habitat quality within the watershed, we recommend that all new
developments, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area created, implement
stormwater retention and treatment measures designed to replicate and maintain the hydrograph at
the preconstruction condition.
'Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
Published October 1998, Revised August 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2: EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
3

We recommend the use of low impact development techniques,2 such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for retaining
and treating stormwater runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large retention
ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce environmental impacts
from development.
Where detention ponds are used, stormwater outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior to
reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow for
the slow discharge of stormwater, attenuating the potential adverse effects of stormwater surges;
thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the purpose of
stormwater control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no stormwater control measures
or best management practices should be installed within any stream (perennial or intermittent) or
wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can be
used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and store
heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids within
the concrete.
Use of any of the proposed stormwater collection devices described above will dramatically
decrease the quantity and increase the quality of stormwater runoff.
• Stream Buffers. Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems.
They accomplish the following:
o Catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams.
o Enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source pollutants.
o Act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and by
allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains stream
flows during dry periods).
o Catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams.
o Stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology.
o Provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved organic
carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web.
o Maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained adjacent to all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds
supporting federally listed aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. These buffers should extend a
minimum of 200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from
the banks of all intermittent streams (or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is
'We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-
nonpoint-source pollution/urban-runoff-low-impact-development) for additional information and fact sheets
regarding the implementation of low -impact -development techniques.
4

greater.) Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission,
etc.), and other infrastructure that requires maintenance, cleared rights -of -way and/or compromise
the functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
• Stream Crossings. Bridges or spanning structures should be used for all permanent roadway
crossings of streams and associated wetlands. Structures should span the channel and the
floodplain in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic
and ten-estrial organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams, wetlands, and
floodplains.
Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream,
approaches and abutments do not constrict the stream channel, and the crossing is perpendicular
to the stream. Spanning some or all of the floodplain allows stream access to the floodplain,
dissipates energy during high flows, and provides terrestrial wildlife passage. When bank
stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Tf fill in
the floodplain is necessary, floodplain culverts should be added through the fill to allow the
stream access to the floodplain during high flows.
If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts preserve the natural stream substrate, create less disturbance during
construction, and provide a more natural post -construction channel. Culverts should be of
sufficient size to leave natural stream functions and habitats at the crossing site unimpeded.
Culvert installation and presence should not change water depth, volume (flow), or velocity levels
that permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material
during bankfull events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
• Utility Line Crossings. In the interest of reducing impacts to natural resources, utility crossings
(i.e., sewer, gas, and water lines) should be kept to a minimum, and all utility infrastructure
(including manholes) should be kept out of riparian buffer areas. If a utility crossing is necessary,
we recommend that you first consider the use of directional boring. Directional boring under
streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and riparian buffers.
Tf directional boring cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the only viable method,
every effort should be made to ensure that impacts to in -stream features are minimized and
stabilized upon completion of the project. Our past experiences with open -trench crossings
indicate that this technique increases the likelihood for future lateral movement of the stream
(which could undercut or erode around the utility line), and the correction of such problems could
result in costly future maintenance and devastating impacts to natural resources. Therefore, as
much work as possible should be accomplished in the dry, and the amount of disturbance should
not exceed what can be successfully stabilized by the end of the workday. In -stream work should
avoid the spring fish spawning season and should consider forecasted high flow events.
Regardless of the crossing method, all utility lines should cross streams perpendicularly. We
strongly encourage that a qualified biologist monitor the work area until the work is complete in
order to identify any additional impact -minimization measures. The Service may be available to
assist you in this effort.
To determine if any maintenance is required, the work site should be monitored at least every 3
months during the first 24 months and annually thereafter. Moreover, we recommend the
development of a riparian monitoring and maintenance program that would outline procedures for
5

the prompt stabilization of streambanks near the utility crossing (should any streambank erosion
or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Ms. Rebekah Reid of
our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-23-322.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
6

•
N �•NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■w■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
mow
December 13, 2022
Michelle Measday
ECS Southeast LLP
5260 Greens Dairy Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
RE: Nelsons Creek; 49-16067
Dear Michelle Measday:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-20279
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
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 found within the project area or is 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.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are 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.butlerCci ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

0
\
0
e
\
0
/
0
z
/
/
0
E
0
0
0
0
/ 0/
cg
3
(00'
= z o Q
m0v
Cu4E
m 3 g 2
\®-//
- \ S
/
co
0
\
0
0
0
0
E
/
\
\
/
\
/
0
/ /2
/ <
o
J /
%
/
/
/
/
0
E
0
0
0
0
/
Element Occurrences Documented
\ co
c 2
ea
0 0
n®
0
\
1
E
/
0
E
E
/
Scientific Name
Observation
/
0
±
E
0
/ 0
RO
IU
\
0
NO 9 s
0 0 0
3
9
\
O
>1 >1 > >
w w w s w 7
/ a a 0 0 0 0 0
® % ® % ® % / 2 0_
E E.E «y-
2 7 7 / .7 \
3 3 3 G
3-Medium
3-Medium
\ \
1993-05-20
Cherokee Clubtail
Macromia margarita
0 0
\
1948-06-22
Papillose Tortula
1939-04-09
Winter Grape -fern
/ / op 0
0
177
\ / NO
0 0
_- > > 4-
030E
0 z 0 z
/ / / / 0
0 0 c 0 2
Vascular Plant
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Local Government
m
2
\ /
o_o
0 0
U 0
® 0 0 0
0 ^-s
% 0 0 H
9
/
0
0
0
3
1Ii
0 E j 2
\ to
Z .5
O
\ \®/
y 0
//0/
\\Uo
to
> \
/ \ 0 H
Local Government
Town of Mocksville
Town of Mocksville Open Space
/
ncnhde.natureserve.or

NCNHDE-20279: Nelsons Creek
,oi,eiuia e,
3
IS Highway 158
Summit Dr
pa uosipeyj
a
00
Q)
December 13, 2022
i
aro
0
w C
C 0
m
u 00
v -0
O
0- O
Do
+,
v
O
m d
El
Managed Area
M
O
M
(1)
0)
m
a

Appendix VIII: NC HPO
Documentation

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Rcid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
November 9, 2022
Brooke Brilliant
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[e-mail]
Re: Nelson Creek Site Residential Development, Mocksville, ECS Project Number: 49-16067,
Davie County, ER 22-0912
Dear Ms. Brilliant:
Thank you for your letter of October 11, 2022, transmitting the final archaeological survey report for the
above -referenced project. We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
Five sites were recorded (3 1 DE190-31 DE194), all of which consist of early to middle twentieth-century
historic components. All five sites were recommended not eligible for NRHP listing. We concur with the
recommendation of not eligible for all five sites and agree that no further archaeology is warranted in
conjunction with this project.
According to the report, there will be a 60-meter buffer maintained between the project's construction
activities and the Joppa Cemetery and will include wooded green space between the project area and the
eastern boundary of the cemetery.
Please note that cemeteries are protected under NC General Statutes Chapter 14-148 and 14-149, and are
afforded consideration under Chapter 65. If unmarked human skeletal remains are encountered during
construction, the provisions of North Carolina General Statute Chapter 70, Article 3 apply. Construction
activities should immediately cease, and the county medical examiner should be contacted.
The Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the photographs and descriptions of the structures and has
determined that no further evaluation is necessary. There will be no historic structures affected by the
proposed project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 22-0912, November 09, Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review(&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
14y Ramona Bartos, Deputy
�L) State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Michelle Measday, ECS Southeast, LLP
[e-mail]
Samantha Dailey, USACE [e-mail]
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

NCHPO HPOWEB

Archaeological Survey of the
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
FINAL REPORT
ER 22-0912
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
October 2022

Archaeological Survey of the
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
ER 22-0912
Prepared for
ECS Southeast, LLP
5260 Greens Dairy Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
Prepared by
Robert Jordan
Archaeologist
d the supe
n of
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
October 2022

Management Summary
Between June 20 and 23, 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC),
conducted an archaeological survey of the Nelson Creek tract in Davie County, North Carolina. This
investigation was requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO; correspondence dated April
20, 2022). ACC contracted with ECS Southeast, LLP, Inc., to conduct this investigation. The goals of this
investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those
resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate.
The project tract consists of 159.2 acres located northwest of the town of Mocksville. The tract is
partially bounded on the north by State Road 1461/Country Lane and on the west by US Highway
601/Yadkinville Road. The eastern and southern boundaries are comprised of property lines. Nelson Creek
flows through the central portion of the tract. The majority of the tract is wooded.
Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA), as well as the Office of Survey and Planning's
website (HPOWEB). No previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the project tract. One
archaeological site is located within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract. This prehistoric site has not
been assessed for NRHP eligibility. It will not be affected by the proposed construction in the project tract.
Fourteen historic resources are located within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract. These
resources include the Joppa Cemetery (DE0005), and the North Main Street and Downtown Mocksville
Historic Districts. The Joppa Cemetery is the burial site for the parents and brother of Daniel Boone. It has
been placed on the Study List and is considered potentially eligible for the NRHP. Both historic districts
have been listed on the NRHP.
The archaeological survey consisted of excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel
transects spaced 30-meters apart in the 60.5 acres determined to have high potential for the presence of
archaeological remains. The remaining 98.4 acres were considered to have low archaeological potential and
were investigated through pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests.
Five archaeological sites were identified during this investigation (Table i.1). One of these sites is
an isolated historic artifact that cannot be dated. The remaining sites are historic building remains and a
farmstead dating to the early to middle twentieth century. None of these sites retain the potential to provide
new or significant data on twentieth century settlement in the project area. All are recommended not eligible
for the NRHP.
Table i.l.
Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Proiect Tract.
Site Number
Description
NRHP
Recommendation
31DE190
Historic Isolate, Unknown Historic Period
Not Eligible
31DE191
Historic Building Remains, Early 20t' Century
Not Eligible
31DE192
Historic Building Remains, Middle 20th Century
Not Eligible
31DE193
Historic Building Remains, Early -Middle 20th Century
Not Eligible
31DE194
Historic Farmstead, Early -Middle 20t" Century
Not Eligible
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
ii

Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
The Project Area 6
Investigation Methods 7
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview 14
Environmental Overview 14
Cultural Overview 19
Chapter 3. Background Research Results 28
Chapter 4. Archaeological Survey Results 31
References Cited 47
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog and Projectile Point Report
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
tti

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project tract 6
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract 7
Figure 1.3. Views of the various environmental settings in the project tract. 8
Figure 1.4. Aerial image showing the project tract. 9
Figure 1.5. LiDAR map showing high potential areas in the project tract. 11
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area. 14
Figure 2.2. Map of the Yadkin River basin showing the location of the project area. 15
Figure 2.3. Map showing the soil types present in the project tract. 17
Figure 2.4. Aerial views of the project tract between 1955 and 2021. 18
Figure 3.1. Map showing previously recorded cultural resources in the project vicinity 28
Figure 3.2. 1887 Davie County map showing the project area. 29
Figure 3.3. 1927 Davie County soil map showing the project tract. 30
Figure 3.4. 1936 highway map showing the project tract. 30
Figure 4.1. Map showing high potential areas and low potential transect coverage in the project
tract. 31
Figure 4.2. View of the soil profiles in the project tract 32
Figure 4.3. Map showing identified archaeological sites 33
Figure 4.4. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE190. 34
Figure 4.5. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE191. 35
Figure 4.6. Brick firebox and chimney fall. 36
Figure 4.7. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE192. 37
Figure 4.8. Building footer and logs 38
Figure 4.9. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE193. 39
Figure 4.10. Collapsed roof and siding 40
Figure 4.11. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE194. 42
Figure 4.12. Building details 43
Figure 4.13. View of buildings at site 31DE194 44
Figure 4.14. View of setting in portion of project tract adjoining the Joppa Cemetery, looking west45
Figure 4.15. View of setting in portion of project tract adjoining the Joppa Cemetery looking north45
Figure 4.16. Project design plans showing buffer between Joppa Cemetery and proposed
development. 46
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
iv

List of Tables
Page
Table i.1. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract. ii
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2022). 16
Table 2.2. Native American Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity. 20
Table 3.1. Summary of Historic Resources in the Project Tract Vicinity. 29
Table 4.1. Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract. 32
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
v

Chapter 1. Introduction
Between June 20 and 23, 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC),
conducted an archaeological survey of the Nelson Creek tract in Davie County, North Carolina. This
investigation was requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO; correspondence dated April
20, 2022). ACC contracted with ECS Southeast, LLP, Inc., to conduct this investigation. The goals of this
investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those
resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate. Ms. Dawn Reid served as Principal Investigator. Mr. Robert Jordan
served as Field Director. He was assisted in the field by Mr. Devin Henson and Mr. Richard McCoy. The
survey required 12 person days to complete.
The Project Area
The Nelson Creek tract is
located in the central portion of
Davie County, northwest of the
town of Mocksville (Figure 1.1). It
is 159.2 acres in size (Figure 1.2).
The tract is partially bounded on
the north by State Road
1461/Country Lane and on the
west by US Highway
601/Yadkinville Road. The eastern
and southern boundaries are
comprised of property lines.
Landforms within the tract
include broad uplands and narrow
ridge tops. Side slopes are
moderately steep to very steep.
Nelson Creek flows through the
central portion of the tract. The
creek springs from a pond located
just outside the northern boundary
of the tract. An unpaved road
extends from Yadkinville Road to
this pond. The majority of the tract
is wooded with secondary mixed
pine and hardwood forest. The
northern portion of the tract is
overgrown with high grasses and
immature hardwoods and thick
brush. Drainages in the tract are
densely overgrown. Figure 1.3 presents general views of the different environmental settings in the tract.
Figure 1.4 presents an aerial view of the project tract.
Figure 1.1.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
Map showing the location of the project tract.
6

Figure 1.2.
Topographic map showing the project tract (1984 Mocksville, NC USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle).
Investigation Methods
This investigation was comprised of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation,
Laboratory Analysis and Project Documentation. Each task is described below.
Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, as well as the Office of Survey and
Planning's website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously recorded resources in the project
vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. The Davie County soil
survey (on-line version) was consulted to determine soil types and general environmental information of
the project area. Historic maps of the county including the 1887 county map, the 1927 soil map, and the
1938 county highway maps, among others, and aerial photographs dating back to 1955 were also reviewed.
Archaeological Field Survey focused most intensively on portions of the project tract determined
to have high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. Close -interval contour topographic maps,
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) images, and soil data of the survey area were consulted prior to
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
7

Row 1 (1-r): Woods in eastern portion of tract, woods in southern portion of tract, Row 2: Drainage in central portion of tract; Row
3 (1-r): Northeastern portion of tract, northwestern portion of tract
Figure 1.3.
Views of the various environmental settings in the project tract.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
8

Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
Aerial image showing the project tract.
9

initiation of fieldwork. Approximately 60.5-acres within the project tract were considered to have high
potential for archaeological deposits (Figure 1.5). The high potential areas were surveyed with shovel tests
excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart. The remaining 98.5 acres
consisted of poorly drained soils, drainages, or steep side slope and were considered to have low
archaeological potential. These areas were examined through pedestrian walkover with judgmentally placed
shovel tests and visual examination of exposed ground surface. Shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter
intervals for archaeological site delineations.
In addition, a 10-meter interval bi-directional walkover of approximately 2.0 acres immediately
adjacent to the Joppa Cemetery boundary was conducted to ensure that no graves were located beyond the
cemetery's eastern wall. A metal probe was used at 10-meter intervals to test variations in soil compaction
that could indicate the presence of a grave shaft. Due to the irregularity of the topography and the density
of the undergrowth, it was determined that ground penetrating radar (GPR) would be ineffective. This
survey strategy was developed in consultation with Ms. Lindsay Ferrante, Deputy State Archaeologist with
OSA.
An archaeological site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30-meter or
less diameter of surface exposure or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts
and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or
management reason. Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in
the field showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded
using a Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made
by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a
site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the
NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options
(e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material were processed in the Clayton laboratory
facilities of ACC. Artifacts were washed and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience number, based
on artifact contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), was assigned to each positive excavation location.
Within each provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes were then assigned a catalog number.
Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case of
lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.
Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and
Moore 2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999;
and Whatley 2002;) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts were examined in detail and
classified by artifact type and raw material.
Historic artifacts were identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g.,
slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-
1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges
are categorized using Aultman et al. (2018), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
10

Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
U
ct
U
Q.)
czt
Q)
czt
Q)
Q
0
W
��W424
0
0
11

History (FLMNH; 2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004).
Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights are recorded, and all diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were
labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink.
All artifacts are placed in acid -free resealable plastic bags with acid -free labels listing the
provenience and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis
sheets, field notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts are prepared according to federal guidelines and
submitted to OSA for final curation, provided that a deed of gift is signed by the property owners.
Documentation, including photographs of recovered artifacts, are included in the curation package, which
will be submitted to OSA for final curation.
Project Documentation. Project documentation involved the compilation of all data gathered during
the previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings,
field survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a
variety of project maps. The data obtained from the background research and field investigations are
included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during this investigation.
Evaluating NRHP Eligibility
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways,
and its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of
history,
B. Is associated with lives of persons significant in the past,
C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Archaeological sites are usually evaluated relative to Criterion D. As locations of human activities, which
include physical remains of those activities, archaeological sites are potential sources of important
information. However, some archaeological sites, particularly those representing historic period occupation
or use, can be considered eligible under Criterion A if they are associated with an important event or pattern
of events; under Criterion B if they are associated with important people; or Criterion C if important
structural elements are preserved (Savage and Pope 1998; Townsend et al. 1993).
The National Park Service defines two requirements for archaeological sites to be eligible under
Criterion D (Savage and Pope 1982:21):
1. The site must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human
history or prehistory, and
2. The information must be considered important.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
12

The National Park Service provides clarification for the first requirement by stating that an
archaeological site is eligible for the NRHP if that site "has been used as a source of data and contains more,
as yet unretrieved data" (Savage and Pope 1998:21). Regarding the second requirement, Glassow (1977)
recommends careful consideration of specific site attributes (integrity, clarity, artifact frequency, and
artifact diversity) in determining whether an archaeological site contains important information. Butler
(1987:8821) defines "important information" as the potential of an archaeological site to contribute to
current "theoretical and substantive knowledge" of archaeology in the site's regional setting. In other words,
under Criterion D, importance or significance can be defined as research potential. The research potential
of an archaeological site can be determined by demonstrating that the site retains relatively intact
archaeological contexts such as: culturally or temporally diagnostic artifacts, intact cultural features,
discrete artifact clusters denoting activity areas, or preserved organic materials associated with the site
occupation. To be considered eligible, these data should be capable of addressing important research
questions by testing hypotheses, supporting current scientific interpretations, or reconstructing cultural
chronologies through appropriate analytical methods.
As indicated by Glassow (1977) aspects of integrity are also important in determining the NRHP
eligibility of archaeological sites. However, because archaeological sites have been altered by
environmental conditions and human land -use activities and information potential relies less on overall
condition of the site, location and association are the most important aspects of integrity for archaeological
sites. To be eligible for the NRHP, an archaeological site must possess artifacts in or near their original
depositional location that can be employed to determine the past use of the locale and the approximate date
of its past use. Integrity of location indicates occurrence of artifacts, artifact clusters, middens, or features
in sufficient numbers to permit quantitative assessments of their horizontal and vertical distributions across
the site. These cultural deposits must occur within relatively intact soil deposits that represent specific
human activities, suite of activities, or natural events that occurred on the site. The relationships between
cultural and natural remains are critical to understanding how the site was created (i.e., the kinds of human
activities that occurred at the site to produce the artifacts and features) and how the site has changed since
its initial occupation. The presence of artifacts and features that can be employed to make these
interpretations is essential to recommending a site eligible for the NRHP. Townsend et al. (1993) states
"under Criterion (D), integrity of association is measured in terms of strength of the relationship between
the site's data or information and the important research questions."
It is important to note that the ability of an archaeological site to generate information beyond that
already known must be evaluated. If artifacts and features encountered in a newly discovered site occur at
numerous previously recorded sites in a region, then the new site is not expected to generate new
information. The site could be recommended not eligible for the NRHP even though it may contain adequate
numbers of temporally and/or functionally sensitive artifacts within intact natural or cultural deposits.
Alternatively, a site that produces extremely rare artifacts or evidence of extremely rare activities may be
considered eligible for the NRHP even if it lacks these associations.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
13

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
The project area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province (Figure 2.1). This region
encompasses approximately 56,980 square kilometers. The Piedmont is bordered on the east by the Coastal
Plain and on the west by the Blue Ridge Mountains and stretches from New Jersey to central Alabama.
Elevations in the Piedmont range anywhere from 90 meters to almost 460 meters. This region is generally
characterized by gently rolling to hilly landscapes. Elevations in Davie County range from 630 to 1,010
feet (Knight 1995). Elevations in the project tract range between 750 to 820 feet above mean sea level.
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.
The Piedmont was formed by volcanic activity and is composed of sedimentary, igneous, and
metamorphic rock irregularly distributed throughout the region (Ward 1983). The major geologic
formation within the region is the Carolinian Terrane, formerly called the Carolina Slate Belt. This
formation was formed by lava flows and beds of breccia, ash, tuff, and slate. This area has not only
been mined for precious metals, but also for clays that are commonly used for brick and tile
(McCachren 1994).
Drainage
The project area is located within the Yadkin River basin (Figure 2.2). The project tract is drained
by Nelson Creek, which flows from a spring -fed pond just north of the project tract through the central
portion of tract. Nelson Creek joins Elisha Creek east of the project tract. Elisha Creek joins Dutchman
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
14

Nelson's Creek Tract
Yadkin(Upper Pee Dee River Basin
nCounty
River/Lake
Figure 2.2.
Map of the Yadkin River basin showing the location of the project area.
Creek, which flows into the Yadkin River near the community of Jerusalem. The Yadkin River begins near
Blowing Rock in northwest North Carolina, flowing east until it merges with the Uwharrie River, forming
the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River flows south and east into South Carolina, draining into Winyah Bay
near Georgetown, South Carolina.
Climate
Davie County's climate is usually hot and humid in the summer due to the tropical air from the
Gulf of Mexico that persistently covers the area. Winters are cool but short due to the protection offered by
the mountains to the west. During the winter, temperatures average 40° Fahrenheit (F). In the summers the
average high temperature is 75° F. Total annual precipitation averages 46 inches, and the average seasonal
snowfall is 10 inches (Knight 1995).
Soils
There are six soil types present in the project tract (Table 2.1, Figure 2.3). Approximately 91.1
percent of the project tract is classified as well -drained. The most prevalent of these soils is Fairview sandy
loam, accounting for 39.7 percent of the tract. Tomlin clay loam accounts for 35.6 percent of the tract. Both
of these soil types are described as moderately eroded, as is Clifford sandy clay loam, which accounts for
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
15

13.1 percent of the project tract. Minority soil types include Codorus loam, which is frequently flooded,
and Mocksville sandy loam.
Table 2.1.
Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2022).
Soil Type
Description
% Coverage
Clifford sandy clay loam (CfB2)
Well -drained, 2-8% slope, moderately eroded
13.1
Codorus loam (CoA)
Frequently flooded, 0-2% slope
8.9
Fairview sandy loam (FaD, FcC2)
Well drained, 8-15% and 15-45% slope, moderately eroded
39.7
Mocksville sandy loam (MsB, MsC)
Well -drained, 2-8% and 8-15% slope
2.5
Tomlin clay loam (ToB2, ToC2)
Well drained, 2-8% and 8-15% slope, moderately eroded
35.6
Urban land (Ur)
Developed
0.2
Geology
The project area is located within the Piedmont and is on the boundary between the Carolinian
Terrane and the Charlotte Belt, two major geologic belts. The Charlotte Belt is characterized by both felsic
(lighter colored) and mafic (darker colored) igneous rocks, including granites and gabbro. The Carolinian
Terrane includes many different types of volcanic and sedimentary rocks, including mudstone, siltstone,
and argillite, also called Carolina Slate. The majority of Davie County is underlain by metamorphosed
mafic rock.
There are three Triassic basins in North Carolina. The Upper Triassic Davie County Basin covers
the extreme northern portion of the county and extends into Yadkin County. These basins formed nearly
150 million years ago when North America separated from the African continent. Sheets of diabase underlie
the Triassic sedimentary rock in these basins (Goldsmith et al. 1988).
Paleoenvironment and Indigenous Plant and Animal Species
Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) and include a general warming trend,
melting of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. This sea level
rise was dramatic along the coast (Brooks et al. 1989), with an increase of as much as 100 meters. About
12,000 years ago the ocean was located 50 to 100 miles east of its present position. During the last 5,000
years there has been a 400 to 500-year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (Brooks et al.
1989; Colquhoun et al. 1981).
The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern
United States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture
augmented the northward advance of the oak -hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al.
(1985), palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance
between 9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was
gradually being replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).
From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a thinning
of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Hickory and gums were generally less important,
with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
16

Soil Type
In Urban land (Ur)
Tomlin clay loam (ToC2; ToB2)
. Mocksville sandy loam (MsC; MsB)
Fairview sandy clay loam (FcC2)
Fairview sandy loam (FaD)
Codorus loam (CoA)
Clifford sandy clay loam (CfB2)
Figure 2.3.
Map showing the soil types present in the project tract.
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).
Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. Several large mammal species (e.g.,
mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period 12,000
to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large mammals,
readapted their strategy to exploit smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.
Current Environment
Aerial images of the project area dating back to 1955, available through historicaerials.com and
Google Earth, were reviewed to determine past land use in the project tract. In 1955, the project tract was
characterized by woods. Portions of the tract appear to have been logged during the late 1990s. in 2010, the
eastern portion of the tract was cleared. It is now overgrown. Figure 2.4 presents views of the project tract
from 1993 to 2020.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
17

Figure 2.4.
Aerial views of the project tract between 1955 and 2021.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
18

Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre -Contact, Contact,
and Post -Contact. The Pre -Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups and cultures that
were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is the time of
exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post -Contact era is the time after the
establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations usually were in rapid decline.
Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of
particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion first summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in central North Carolina,
emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory. Table 2.2 provides a
summary of the chronological sequence of Native American occupation of the region.
Pre -Contact Era
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The actual dates applied to the Paleoindian Period are
currently being debated. The accepted theory about the peopling of North America dates the influx of
migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This date corresponds with the
exposure of a land bridge linking Siberia to the North American continent (Driver 1998; Jackson et al.
1997). Recently, however, researchers have suggested that this migration occurred as much as 15,000 to
20,000 years ago and was led by seagoing travelers (Green et al. 1998; Steele and Powell 1993; Sutton
2011). These recent theories are supported by such discoveries as Kennewick Man, a skeleton recovered in
Washington, and the Gordon Creek Woman, who was recovered from a site in northern Colorado.
The Kennewick Man skeleton has been determined to be over 11,000 years old (Morell 1998;
Preston 1997; Slayman 1997).The Gordon Creek Woman has been dated to 9700 BC or nearly 11,700 years
old (Swedlund and Anderson 1999). Other discoveries, such as the Monte Verde site in South America that
has been dated to 12,500 years before present (BP) continue to fuel this controversy (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997).
The major artifact marker for this period is the Clovis lanceolate fluted spear point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). Smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway
point types, are characteristic of the later portion of the period (Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first
described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton. Perkinson (1971, 1973) recorded
Paleoindian fluted points in North Carolina. Fluted Clovis points have been recovered from surface
contexts, but no intact Clovis sites have been reported in the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Hargrove
1991). Intact Paleoindian deposits have not been encountered in the Blue Ridge Province of North Carolina.
However, diagnostic projectile points have been recovered from several locations, including Clovis and
Dalton-Hardwaway types. Clovis points are generally found as isolated finds (Perkinson 1971, 1973), while
the Dalton -Hardaway points are more common in the mountains (Purrington 1983:110). This indicates to
many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period, and that groups were small
and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well scheduled
and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates
and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen et al. (1986) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia. O'Steen et al. (1986) noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period.
Sites of the earliest portion of the period seem to be restricted to the flood plains, while later sites were
distributed widely in the uplands, showing what O'Steen et al. (1986) interpreted as "settling in" and
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
19

Table 2.2.
Native American Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity.
Period
Paleoindian (12000 — 8000 BC)
Early Archaic (8000 — 6000 BC)
Palmer Phase (8000-7000 BC)
Kirk Phase (7000- 6000 BC)
Middle Archaic (6000 — 3000 BC)
Stanly Phase (6000 — 5000 BC)
Morrow Mountain Phase (5000 — 4500 BC)
Guilford Phase (4500 — 4000 BC)
Halifax Phase (4000 — 3000 BC)
Late Archaic (3000 —1000 BC)
Early Woodland (1000 — 300 BC)
Badin Phase
Middle/Late Woodland (300 BC -1100 AD)
Yadkin Phase
Uwharrie Phase
Mississippian (1000-1500 AD)
Teal Phase (1000-1200 AD)
Town Creek Phase (1200-1400 AD)
Leak Phase (1400-1500 AD)
Characteristics
-Hunter-gatherers
-Flute projectile point: Clovis, Dalton, Hardaway
-Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
-Notched points: Palmer, Kirk
-Production of textiles
-Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
-Temporary camps, no substantial dwellings
-Stemmed points, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford,
Halifax
-Increased site size, more permanence as evidenced by
burials, hearths, and other cultural features
-Stemmed projectile points, Otarre Stemmed, Savannah
River
-First incidence of ceramic production ca. 2000 BC:
Stallings Island Fiber Tempered (in coastal areas)
-Regional differences more pronounced
-Badin ceramics, Fabric Impressed or Cord Marked
-Large triangular projectile points
-Introduction of the bow and arrow
-Yadkin Triangular projectile points
-Changes in ceramic temper from sand to crushed quartz
-Yadkin ceramics: Fabric Impressed, Cord Marked,
Simple/Check Stamped
-Uwharrie ceramics: Incised, Net impressed, Cord
Marked
-Palisaded villages and ceremonial centers
-Mound construction
-Complicated stamped ceramics
-Small triangular projectile points
-Reliance on farming
exploitation of a wider range of environmental subsistence resources. If this pattern holds true for the
Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and small mammal resources and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna; population
growth could be another factor.
Archaic Period (8,000 - 1,000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures. Coe's (1964) excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont
provided a chronological sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. This sequence has
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
20

been applied to sites in the Blue Ridge. Coe's (1964) sequence for the Archaic Period has been divided into
three subperiods: Early (8,000-6,000 BC), Middle (6,000-3,500 BC), and Late (3,500-1,000 BC).
Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and
Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched
points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as being
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points
are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples
have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982), using a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980),
described late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Task groups were sent out to
collect and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task groups, in this definition, are
seen as specialized and focused on a particular resource or set of resources. Claggett and Cable (1982) have
presented a model that describes an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and
extending into the Middle Archaic. According to this model, the Early Archaic, and probably extending
into the Middle Archaic, human groups moved away from a logistical organization toward a "foraging"
organization. Foraging involved more generalized procurement of resources (e.g., animal and plant foods,
lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base camp.
Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of
increased population in the Southeast and crowding within group territories (Sassaman 1983). This increase
in population led to increased social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly
expedient as reflected in their almost exclusive use of local resources (especially lithic material).
The transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod is defined by the appearance/introduction of Stanly
points, a broad -bladed stemmed form. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites
throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow
Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Coe dates Halifax Side Notched points to between 4,000 and
3,000 B.C. In 1964, Coe saw Halifax points as occurring only in the northern North Carolina Piedmont and
indicating relationships of this area to the Mid -Atlantic and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have
a wider distribution in the Southeast and are thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late
Archaic subperiods.
The Late Archaic subperiod can be divided into two phases (Savannah River and Terminal Archaic
[Otarre phase]) and are represented by a gradual change in diagnostic projectile points and a slight shift in
settlement focus. The Savannah River phase (3,000 to 1,000 BC) is recognized by large, broad -bladed,
straight -stemmed points made of quartzite commonly known as the Savannah River or Appalachian
Stemmed points (Coe 1964; Purrington 1983). Steatite bowls, groundstone axes and gorgets, and other
flaked stone tools can also be attributed to this phase. Purrington (1983:125) states that "the remains of this
phase are among the most abundant in the Appalachian Summit which may suggest increased population
density as well as increased visibility of archaeological remains." In the Great Smoky Mountains, Bass
(1977) found evidence of three Savannah River site categories: base camps in the major valleys; seasonally
dispersed smaller camps in coves and benches; and short term extractive sites on ridges and saddles, which
were visited from a valley base camp. In contrast, Purrington (1983:127-129) found that the Savannah River
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
21

phase sites of the upper Watauga Valley are less common in the floodplains than sites of the preceding
phase.
The diagnostic artifact of the Otarre phase is the small to medium stemmed projectile point, the
Otarre Stemmed type. Keel (1976) identifies this type as exhibiting a wider range of variability than
Savannah River points, suggesting perhaps a greater localization of populations. The Savannah River phase
settlement and subsistence pattern continues in the Otarre phase (Purrington 1983:130-131). Evidence
suggests that the Otarre phase is a legitimate temporal division based on minor stylistic changes in projectile
points which occurred in the absence of major cultural shifts.
Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1450 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures and
the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy triangular
point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions of the
Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally
crude triangular points while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Aside from the adoption
of pottery technology, little observable cultural change occurred at the Archaic -Woodland transition (Coe
1964; Miller 1962).
Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either
cord -marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay)
temper. This suggests the influence of coastal populations commonly identified with grog -tempered
ceramics Yadkin Phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly better
workmanship and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology (Coe 1964). The
introduction of the bow and arrow allowed significant changes in hunting strategies. Bow and arrow hunting
enables independent procurement of animals in addition to group hunting tactics generally associated with
spear hunting. Nascent horticulture was also emerging during this period, but subsistence strategies
remained focused on hunting animals and gathering wild plants (Ward and Davis 1999).
Prior to the rise of Pee Dee culture that followed the Middle Woodland Period, settlement patterns
in the North Carolina Piedmont began to shift in complexity and location from those identified within the
Archaic Period. This new pattern, which has been termed the Piedmont Valley Tradition (PVT), is
characterized by increasingly nuclear settlements situated in floodplains (Jones and Ellis 2016).
Archaeological features such as post molds from circular, wooden post houses and a range of pit features,
in addition to artifacts and ethnobotanical remains, have been used to develop PVT settlement models
(Ward and Davis 1999).
In the Yadkin River Valley, an analysis of 30 PVT settlement archaeological sites conducted by
Jones and Ellis (2016) suggested that long-term settlements of this period tended to be more dispersed than
general and short-term settlements of the same period, which may suggest that more space was required.
Larger long-term settlements were also noted as being farther from overland trails and located within
relatively large floodplain areas, which Jones and Ellis (2016) suggest reflects the possibility of a need for
defense as well as for extensive agricultural land area.
Mississippian Period (1000-1500 AD). In much of the southeast, the Late Woodland Period follows
the Middle Woodland and precedes the Mississippian Period. However, in the southern Piedmont region,
and the area between the Uwharrie Mountains and the North Carolina -South Carolina state line, the Pee
Dee culture (1000-1400 AD) follows the Middle Woodland Period. The Pee Dee culture was influenced by
South Appalachian Mississippian traditions; it, as well as other South Appalachian Mississippian cultures,
is identified by elaborate ceremonialism, mound construction, and large political territories (Ward and
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
22

Davis 1999). The Pee Dee culture is divided into three phases: Teal Phase, Town Creek Phase, and Leak
Phase (Oliver 1992).
The Teal Phase (1000-1200 AD) coincides with the beginning of the Pee Dee culture. Diagnostic
ceramics of the time period include sand tempered Pee Dee complicated stamped wares and fine cord
marked and simple stamped sherds known as Savannah Creek. Subsistence relied on hunting, fishing and
farming. Not much is known about domestic architecture, although ceremonial structures were rectangular.
Mortuary practices include the use of burial urns (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Town Creek Phase (1200-1400 AD) was the apex of Pee Dee culture. The Town Creek site, a
mound site located in nearby Montgomery County, North Carolina, was the ritual ceremonial center of a
region encompassing the project area. Filfot cross and textile wrapped ceramics were the most popular
ceramic surface treatments. During this phase, maize was a major staple of the diet. Urns were used as
burial containers during the Town Creek Phase, although excavated pits were also used (Ward and Davis
1999).
The Leak Phase (1400-1500 AD) marks the decline of the prehistoric Pee Dee culture. Ceramics
from this period show an increase in complicated stamped, plain, and textile wrapped surface treatments.
Cazuela bowls also began to appear. Agricultural crops, including maize and beans, were an essential part
of subsistence during this phase. Hunting, fishing, and wild plant foraging supplemented Mississippian
period diets (Ward and Davis 1999).
Contact Era
In the decades following the expedition of Christopher Columbus, the coast and interior portions
of what would become North Carolina were explored. Much of this activity was initiated by Spain in the
hope of preserving its hegemony over North America. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543) and Juan Pardo
(1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina during
the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990; 1994). One interpretation of Spanish records claims soldiers
visited Indian villages near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove
1998). The Spanish are also reported to have built garrisons near Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998).
Recent work at the Berry site in Burke County may have identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of
Xualla or Joara, visited by de Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s (Moore 2005). Diseases
introduced by these explorers brought about dramatic changes in the population and culture of the Native
Americans, causing entire villages to disappear before 1700 (Fossett 1976).
Despite these military incursions and the establishment of minor outposts, the Spanish presence in
the Carolinas could not be sustained. Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English
privateers resulted in the withdrawal of Spanish forces to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). England's
interest in the New World was heavily promoted by Walter Raleigh. A courtier in the court of Queen
Elizabeth I, Raleigh secured the financial and political support necessary to attempt the first permanent
settlement of the New World by English colonists in 1585 (Powell 1989). Although his efforts failed,
Raleigh's single-minded ambition ultimately led to the establishment of the Jamestown colony in 1607
(Noel Hume 1994).
The disastrous mismanagement and resulting loss of life in Virginia during the first two decades of
the colony's existence resulted in the revocation of the Virginia Company's charter in 1624 (Noel Hume
1994). Preoccupied with the civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, the
authorities in Virginia showed little interest in North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period the area
around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina was inhabited by traders, hunters, trappers,
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
23

rogues, and tax evaders (Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for
the independent and self-reliant.
Post -Contact Era
The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the distribution of rewards to those
who had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell 1989). This initiated the Proprietary
colonial period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until 1729. Years of turmoil brought about by an
unstable system of government culminated in war with the Tuscarora Indians.
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit near what is now
Charlotte. In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the
Pacific Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South
Carolina. During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Catawba and
Waxhaw. The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South
Carolina. Lederer traveled along a Native American trail, that would later become known as the Trading
Ford, in 1670 (Bingham 2006). Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson, the colony's Surveyor General, traveled
from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson's 1700-
1701 excursion followed a well -established Native American trading path that passed near present day
Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson's journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree,
Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close contact with European
colonists. In 1701, Lawson stopped at Trading Ford and spent time with the Saponi (Bingham 2006).
The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade.
This trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves.
It drew Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal
hostilities. Itinerant traders based in Charleston, South Carolina, and Virginia vied for clients among the
North Carolina Piedmont settlements. Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora
Indians broke out in 1711 after the death of the colony's Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of
the Tuscarora (Powell 1989). The war ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits.
These conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to
the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).
As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch -Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). In 1744, a series of treaties
allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the Warrior Path, from the Five Nations
of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon Road settlers from northern
colonies used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas and Georgia well into the
1800s. Few settlers resided in the central Piedmont prior to 1748, but the influx of several religious groups
contributed to its settlement during the early eighteenth century into the late nineteenth century.
The Regulator movement began in the late 1760s due to backcountry farmers' frustrations with
county government's administration. The majority of the local population were engaged in agriculture and
resented the rapid ascension of lawyers and "Scotch" merchants to positions of influence over the county's
court. General dissatisfaction with newcomers' meddling coalesced into a backcountry crusade against a
corrupt appointee of Governor Dobbs and frequent office holder, Edward Fanning (Whittenburg 1977).
Beginning with the formation of the Sandy Creek Association in 1766 and attempted prosecution
of corrupt government officials, backcountry "Regulators" obstructed sheriffs from tax collection and
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
24

prevented courts from operating. Tensions between the Regulators and the colonial administration began
to boil, bordering on conflict. The increased prominence of Baptist movement, which had popular appeal
with the Regulators because of its democratic religious policies, provided a divisive threat to the traditional
Anglican beliefs held by many British Tories, paralleling the mounting political discontent (Powell 1989).
This ultimately culminated in the start of the War of Regulation, in which the Regulators mounted a
rebellion against the North Carolina colonial government to rid the colony of British oppression.
Hillsborough riots in October 1770 resulted in an escalation of the dispute. Led by Governor
William Tryon, an armed expedition of an eastern county militia routed the Regulators on May 16, 1771,
at Alamance. The skirmish took place along Alamance Creek, just a few short miles south of the city of
Burlington. The North Carolina provincial militia put down the rebellion, leading to the end of the War of
Regulation. However, these hostilities between the Regulators and British rule are considered an early step
down the road to the American Revolution (Powell 1989).
Less than four years after the battle of Alamance, the Atlantic colonies allied themselves against
King George's government. North Carolinians were divided between the Tory and Whig causes. Tories
supported royal prerogatives and many former Regulators suspicious of local authority were assumed to be
sympathetic to the Tory cause. A local loyalist militia was organized under the command of Dr. John Pyle
in 1776, and that same year, General Griffith Rutherford recruited 300 men to the Whig banner. Their first
objective was the defense of western frontier communities under attack by the Cherokee (Blackwelder
1953).
In January 1781, American forces under the command of General Daniel Morgan met British forces
under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton at the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina.
Morgan orchestrated a surprising victory over the British, leaving Tarleton to retreat to his commander
General Cornwallis. Morgan, concerned about Cornwallis coming after him, turned north to make his way
to Virginia (NPS 2022). Cornwallis pursued, crossing the Broad and heading for the Catawba River.
Cornwallis marched his troops through Davie County along the Old Georgia Road, crossing Dutchman
Creek (Roth 2011). Morgan crossed the Catawba not long before heavy rains swelled the river, delaying
Cornwallis from crossing for two days. Morgan rejoined General Nathaniel Greene's army in February
1781. They were unable to stop the British from crossing the Catawba River, and the British advanced
toward Salisbury to rest for the night. While the British rested, Greene and Morgan crossed the Yadkin
River at Trading Ford, in adjacent Davidson County. Morgan forded the river at midnight, and the infantry
crossed in boats in early morning. Rains in the mountains swelled the Yadkin River, and with a lack of
boats to cross the river, the British pursuit of Greene and Morgan was again delayed (Lossing 1852). Greene
and Morgan retreated to the north meeting Cornwallis at Guilford Courthouse. Although the British gained
another victory at Guilford Courthouse, they suffered great losses. After moving into Virginia, Cornwallis
surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781.
North Carolina was slow to join the newly minted states in ratifying the Constitution. Political
leaders were opposed to joining a federated union of states and the first vote on ratification was
overwhelmingly defeated. This reluctance delayed a second ratifying convention until November of 1789,
when the vote was carried in the affirmative (Moorehead 1953). North Carolina was second to last in joining
the Union.
During this time, agriculture was the dominant way of life; products produced included tobacco,
corn, and soybeans, and pigs, chickens, and cows were also relied on as sources of food. Farms became
smaller as their frequency increased, and the population of enslaved African Americans rose as larger
plantations also expanded.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
25

Known as the Forks of the Yadkin, the area that became Davie County was formally created
from Rowan County in 1836. It was named after William R. Davie, who served as governor of North
Carolina from 1798 to 1799. Davie was also known as a leader in the founding of the University of North
Carolina. The county seat was established at Mocksville, which had formerly been known as Mocks Old
Field and had been used as a secret meeting place for colonial forces. Mocksville was formally incorporated
in 1839 (Wall 1985).
Moving south from Pennsylvania, Squire Boone purchased land along Dutchman's Creek in Davie
County in 1753. He sold 50 acres to his son, Daniel Boone, in 1759. The well-known Boone family were
active in local politics during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Daniel Boone became a
legendary hunter and frontiersman. In 1769, he and six other men traveled down the Ohio River, crossing
the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky. In 1771, Boone established a settlement in Kentucky with his family
(Daniel 2006). Squire and Sarah Boone, Daniel Boone's parents, are buried in the Joppa Cemetery adjacent
to the project tract.
North Carolina separated from the Union on 20 May 1861, at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon
(Murray 1983). Minutes later, the Secession Convention ratified the provisional constitution of the
Confederate States of America. Within a few weeks, North Carolinians were arriving at regimental training
camps throughout the state (Barrett 1963). Although initially a strong Unionist area, Davie County provide
nearly 1,200 men to the Confederate army (Roth 2011).
Governor John Willis Ellis, who presided over the secession, became ill in June of 1861 and died
on July 7. Henry Clark, then the President of the North Carolina Senate, assumed the governorship and
was tasked with providing a place to hold Union Prisoners of War. The Maxwell Chambers textile mill in
Salisbury was turned into a POW camp and saw its first prisoners, transferred from the Raleigh State
Fairgrounds, by December 1861. The following year, Confederate deserters were incarcerated at the camp
and soon outnumbered the Union POWs. The camp was designed to hold approximately 2,500 people, but
by late 1864, the prison population grew to more than 10,000 prisoners, mostly from battles in Atlanta and
Richmond. Conditions at the prison grew worse due to the overcrowding, and it's estimated that the death
rate spiked from 2 percent to 28 percent (Brown 2006). The harsh conditions and a need for workshops
necessitated the transfer of prisoners. The speed of the transfer was hastened in March 1865 with the news
of General George H. Stoneman's raids (Barrett 1963).
The project area played another important role as a supply center for the Confederate army due to
its railroads and a bridge that crossed the Yadkin River. These transportation and supply routes, along with
the POW camp in Salisbury, made the project area a prime target during Stoneman's raid. General
Stoneman was commander of the cavalry and began a raid of southwestern Virginia before entering
Tennessee and freeing 4,000 troops in Knoxville. He then turned to Virginia and North Carolina to disrupt
the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, the North Carolina Railroad, and the Danville -Greensboro Railroad.
Having disabled the railroads in southwestern Virginia, near Greensboro, and High Point, Stoneman turned
toward Salisbury and camped 11 miles outside of town on April 11, 1865. By this time, all the POWs,
except the sick, had been evacuated from the prison camp in Salisbury. Other military targets in Salisbury
included a military depot, a military hospital, an ordnance plant, a major railroad depot, and the state district
headquarters for the Commissary of Subsistence (Barrett 1963).
On April 12, Stoneman approached Salisbury, and within 20 minutes, had taken the town. He
destroyed the military stores, the Confederate prison, four cotton mills, 7,000 bales of cotton, a steam
distillery, railroad shops, 15 miles of railroad track, a tannery, and ordnance works. After taking Salisbury,
a detachment of Union troops was sent to the railroad trestle crossing the Yadkin River, north of Salisbury.
At the bridge, the Union troops encountered entrenched Confederate troops on the north side of the river
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
26

(Barrett 1863). In either late 1864 or early 1865, concerns grew of an invasion from Union General William
T. Sherman from the south and General Stoneman from the north and west. To protect the bridge crossing
of the Yadkin River, a system of earthworks, called Fort York, were built on the north side of the river. The
earthworks had an inner line consisting of 240 yards of infantry trenches and three artillery batteries, and
an outer line of 385 yards of trenches and four batteries. The railroad crossing and Fort York are
approximately 1.2 kilometers west of the project tract. Union troops fired artillery at the fort until night fall
but were unable to take the bridge and retreated to Salisbury. This skirmish, which took place three days
after Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, was the last Confederate victory in
North Carolina (Kickler 2016).
Having been a rural farming area, the economic growth of Davie County dramatically decreased as
many men went to fight for the Confederacy. Textile mills and factories began to produce clothing, shoes,
and other goods that weren't sold but were rather sent to the troops (Watford 2001). It wasn't until the
1890s that the county began to fully recuperate from the effects of war. Rapid growth during the early
twentieth century focused largely on industry. It was mostly thanks to the revitalization of the furniture
industry in Davie and adjacent counties that the area was again able to flourish, exporting goods along the
existing and new railroad lines coming into the county.
Today, the county has a population of over 42,000 individuals (Davie County Economic
Development 2022). Major employers include numerous furniture makers and distributors, textile mills,
and other manufacturing companies. Due to its relatively central location in the Triad, it boasts the 17'
strongest economy in the state (White 2019).
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
27

Chapter 3. Background Research Results
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and
through the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Survey and Planning Branch online historic
resource database (HPOWEB). There are no previously recorded archaeological sites present within the
project tract. One previously recorded site is located within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract (Figure
3.1). This site, 31DE147, is a prehistoric lithic scatter that was recommended for further work to determine
its National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. This site will not be affected by development
of the project tract.
DE0409
Joppa Cemetery
(Resource DE0005)
IDE0708I
DE0395
DE0383
Cultural Resources
�.) Previously Recorded Site
♦ Historic Resource
Joppa Cemetery
Downtown Mocksville Historic District
= North Main Street Historic District
n North Main Street Historic District Expansion
31DE147
DE0413
North Main Street
Historic District Expansion
(Resource DE0761)
North Main Street Historic District
(Resource DE0582)
Includes Resources DE583-DE624, DE652,
and DE668-DE683
I DE0646I
IDE0648I
DE0640
DE0654
Downtown Mocksville Historic District (Resource DE0568)
includes Resources DE569, DE571, DE573, DE577,
DE662, DE664, DE665, and DE667
IDE064ii
DE0656
Nelson's Creek Tract
Project Traci
Mile Buffer
0 250 500 750 1,000
Meters
Figure 3.1.
Map showing previously recorded cultural resources in the project vicinity (1984
Mocksville, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
Fourteen historic resources are located within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract (see Figure
3.1; Table 3.1) These resources include houses, commercial buildings, and two historic districts that contain
numerous individual resources. The North Main Street (with its boundary extension) and Downtown
Mocksville historic districts are listed on the NRHP. The Joppa Cemetery is considered to be one of the
oldest cemeteries in Davie County, dating back to 1756. It contains nearly 350 burials including those of
Squire and Sarah Boone, parents of Daniel Boone, as well as his brother, Israel. Daniel Boone lived with
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
28

Table 3.1.
Summary of Historic Resources in the Proiect Tract Vicinity.
Resource #
Description
NRHP Status
DE0005
Joppa Cemetery
SL
DE409
William Frost House
SD
DE413
Basil Gaither House
SLD
DE383
John H. Clement House
SO
DE395
Dwiggins Service Station
SO
DE568
Downtown Mocksville Historic District
NRHD
DE582/761
North Main Street Historic District and Boundary Expansion
NRHD
DE640
Austin-Dwiggins House
SO
DE642
Casey Family House
SO
DE646
Junius A. Craven House
SO
DE648
William F. Dwiggins House
SO
DE654
Sanford -Leonard House
SO
DE656
Cletus Sparks House
SO
DE708
Slave House, Gone
SD
SO -Survey Only, SL-Study List, SD -Survey Only, Gone; SLD-Study List, Gone; NRHD-Listed Historic District
his family in Bear Creek as a young adult. The rear boundary of the cemetery is delineated by a dry-stone
wall approximately 2 feet high. This resource has been placed on the Study List and is considered to be
potentially eligible for the NRHP. Project plans call for a minimum 60-meter buffer that will remain as
wooded green space between the eastern boundary of the Joppa Cemetery and the project development in
order to avoid inadvertent impacts. A number of the resources are no longer extant. None of these resources
will be affected by development of the project tract.
Several maps dating to the early and middle twentieth century were also reviewed for this
investigation. The 1887 Davie County map shows the Joppa Cemetery immediately outside of the project
tract (Figure 3.2). Two buildings are shown in the project tract on the 1927 county soil map (Figure 3.3).
The Joppa Cemetery is also shown on the 1927 soil map, the 1936 county highway map (Figure 3.4), and
subsequent topographic maps. The current topographic map shows one building standing in the project tract
(see Figure 1.2).
1887 County map
Project Tract
0 200 400 500 B00 'V"
Meters
Figure 3.2. 1887 Davie County map showing the project area.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
29

Figure 3.3. 1927 Davie County soil map showing the project tract.
~N
}rdati. w FJm St
poyw0011 �n
Figure 3.4.
1936 highway map showing the project tract.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
30

Chapter 4. Archaeological Survey Results
This investigation resulted in the comprehensive survey of the 159.2-acre Nelson Creek
development tract in Davie County, North Carolina. Prior to beginning field work, factors such as soil
drainage, topography, and proximity to water were used to define portions of the project tract that had high
potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. High potential areas totaled approximately 60.5 acres
and were surveyed with shovel tests excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30
meters apart. Low potential areas totaled 98.5 acres and typically coincided with drainages, poorly drained
soils, and steep slope. These areas were investigated through pedestrian walkover with judgmentally placed
shovel tests and visual examination of exposed ground surface. In total, 294 shovel tests were excavated in
the project tract. In addition, 10-meter interval bi-directional transects were conducted on approximately
2.0 acres immediately adjacent to the Joppa Cemetery. Metal probes were used at 10-metere intervals to
test variations in soil compaction that could be indicative of a grave shaft. This task was intended to confirm
that no previously unidentified graves extend beyond the cemetery boundary. Figure 4.1 shows survey
coverage.
A
Nelson's Creek Tract
Project Tract
Pedestrian Transect
High Potential 10-meter Bidirectional Survey
Road - 2-ft Contour
0 75 159 225 300
Meters
Figure 4.1.
Map showing high potential areas and low potential transect coverage in the project tract
Soils throughout much of the project tract are severely eroded. In many areas, red clay subsoil is
present at or just below the ground surface. Two typical soil profiles were encountered in the project tract.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
31

Tests excavated in the wooded portions of the tract typically exposed brown (7.5YR4/4) silty clay overlying
yellowish red (5YR5/6) compact silty clay subsoil which was encountered at an average depth of 10
centimeters below the ground surface (cmbs). Soil profiles exposed in shovel tests excavated in the
overgrown areas in the northern portion of the tract consisted of the same soil profile, with subsoil being
encountered at an average depth of 15 cmbs. Figure 4.2 presents representative views of these shovel test
profiles.
Top (1-r): Woods Profile 1 and Profile 2
Bottom: Northeastern portion of tract Profile 1
Figure 4.2.
View of the soil profiles in the project tract.
Five archaeological sites were identified during this investigation (Table 4.1; Figure 4.3). All of
these sites have historic occupations dating to the early to middle twentieth century. Each of these sites are
discussed in detail below.
Table 4.1.
Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Proiect Tract.
Site Number
Description
NRHP Recommendation
31DE190
Historic Isolate, Unknown Historic Period
Not Eligible
31DE191
Historic Building Remains, Early 20th Century
Not Eligible
3 1DE192
Historic Building Remains, Middle 20th Century
Not Eligible
31 DE193
Historic Building Remains, Early -Middle 20th Century
Not Eligible
31 DE194
Historic Farmstead, Early -Middle 20th Century
Not Eligible
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
32

(2Y
Nelson's Creek Tract
.01
J Project Tract
Archaeological Site u�
100 200 300 400
Meters
Figure 4.3. Map showing identified archaeological sites (1984 Mocksville, NC USGS 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangle).
Site 31DE190
Site Type: Historic Isolate
Component: Unknown Historic
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTMs (NAD83): 3974324 N 538380 E
Elevation: 822 ft amsl
Soil Type: Tomlin clay loam
Site 31DE190 was identified south of an unpaved road in the western portion of the project tract
(see Figure 4.3). The site is situated on a ridge toe overlooking Nelson Creek. The site area is wooded with
hardwood forest.
Nine shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals at this site. None of the shovel tests yielded
subsurface artifacts. One shovel test location that was positive for artifacts on the ground surface resulted
in site boundaries measuring 15 by 15 meters. Shovel test soil profiles typically exhibited 5 centimeters of
brown (7.5YR4/4) loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil. Figure 4.4 presents the site
plan map and views of the soil profile and site setting.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
33

31DE190 to,
Site Plan
o Negative Shovel Test
X Surface Find(s)
LDatum: N500 E500
0 15 30
fllf'.tiCS'
J30
is
500
485
470 485 500 515 530 545 560
70
455
<40
Figure 4.4.
Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE190.
A single brick was recovered from the ground surface at this site. No other artifacts were observed
in the site area, and none were recovered from shovel tests. No buildings are reflected in this location on
the historic maps examined for this investigation.
Site 31DE190 is an isolated brick dating to an unknown historic period. No subsurface artifacts
were recovered. This site is not associated with any buildings shown on historic maps. This site has no
further research potential and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31DE191
Site Type: Historic Building Remains
Component: Early 20 Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTMs (NAD83): 3974283 N 538215 E
Elevation: 838 ft amsl
Soil Type: Tomlin clay loam
Site 31DE191 is a collapsed historic building and associated artifacts located along an unpaved
road in the western portion of the project tract (see Figure 4.3). The site is situated on a knoll top. The site
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
34

area's vegetation consists of hardwoods. Although shown on topographic maps, the road is overgrown and
no longer identifiable.
A 15-meter interval grid consisting of eight shovel tests was excavated at this site. Surface artifacts
were recovered from the ground surface at one shovel test location. Based on the extent of the positive
shovel test and building remains, site boundaries of 15 by 30 meters were defined. Soil profiles in the shovel
tests excavated in the site consisted of 5 centimeters of brown (7.5YR4/4) loam overlying strong brown
(7.5YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil. Figure 4.4 presents the site plan map, views of the soil profile and site
setting.
Shopping Center
31 DE191
Site Plan
Q Negative Shovel Test
X Surface Finds)
• Brick Pile
• Chimney Remains
ADatum: N500E500
0 1j 30
lIW1YA'
Site Boundary
0
��i...._R o /
Building Remains
Project Boundary
`Tree Line
55
Woods
530 545
575 590
sec
5
4,1
455
440
410
195
Figure 4.5.
Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE191.
Three artifacts were recovered at this site. These consist of one piece of clear bottle glass, one brick
fragment, and one wire nail. A house is shown in this location on the 1927 map (see Figure 3.3). Based on
aerial images, this house was no longer extant by 1955. The wire nail postdates 1890 (IMACS 2021), which
is consistent with an early twentieth century occupation of the house.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
35

Architectural remains present at this site consist of a partially intact brick chimney box and chimney
fall (Figure 4.6), and wooded siding. Based on the extent of the remains, the house measured 17 by 10
meters in size. The subject property was acquired by Robert Nelson Jones in 1999 from members of the
Angell family. No data on the potential occupants of this house could be identified.
Figure 4.6.
Brick firebox and chimney fall.
Site 31DE191 is the remains of an early twentieth century house that has collapsed. It retains no
structural integrity. Artifacts in the site area are sparse and the occupants cannot be identified. This site has
fulfilled its research potential at this level of investigation and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31DE192
Site Type: Historic Building Remains
Component: Middle 20th Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTMs (NAD83): 3974398 N 538068 E
Elevation: 832 ft amsl
Soil Type: Tomlin clay loam
Site 31DE192 is the remains of a historic building located in the western portion of the project tract
(see Figure 4.3). The site is situated on a gradual slope. The site area's vegetation consists of hardwoods.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
36

A 15-meter interval grid of nine shovel tests was excavated at this site. Artifacts were recovered
from the ground surface at one shovel test location. Based on the extent of the positive shovel test and
building remains, site boundaries of 15 by 15 meters were established. Soil profiles in the shovel tests
excavated in the site area consisted of 5 centimeters of brown (7.5YR4/4) loam overlying strong brown
(7.5YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil. Figure 4.4 presents the site plan map and views of the soil profile and site
setting.
Woods
Site Boundary
31DE192
Site Plan
o Negative Shovel Test
X Surface Find(s)
A Datum: N500 E500
0 iy 30
meters
0
470
485
0
500
Building Remains
//
515
530
545
550
30
515
455
440
Figure 4.7.
Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE192.
Five brick fragments and two pieces of brown bottle glass were recovered at this site. The bottle
glass consists of the embossed base of a bottle and one complete bottle with suction scars on the base as
well as an embossed symbol and date on the base. The embossing on both dates them to 1947 and they were
produced by the Armstrong Cork Company, Glass Division (Glass Bottle Marks 2022). Both are beer
bottles. No buildings are reflected on historic maps or aerial images in this location, but the bottle and bottle
fragment indicate a middle twentieth century use of the site.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
37

Architectural remains present at this site consist of a row of brick, fieldstones, and logs that were
likely the siding of the building (Figure 4.8). Building dimensions cannot be accurately determined. It is
possible that this building was a tobacco barn or other farm outbuilding.
Site 31DE192 is the remains of a middle twentieth century barn or outbuilding. It is not shown on
historic maps or aerial images. It retains no structural integrity. Artifacts in the site area are sparse. This
site has fulfilled its research potential at this level of investigation and is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
Figure 4.8.
Site 31DE193
Building footer and logs.
Site Type: Historic Barn/Outbuilding
Component: Early -Middle 20r' Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTMs (NAD83): 3974308 N 538107 E
Elevation: 838 ft amsl
Soil Type: Tomlin clay loam
Site 31DE193 is the remains of a historic building located in the western portion of the project tract
(see Figure 4.3). The site is situated on a narrow ridge toe. The site area's vegetation consists of hardwoods
with dense undergrowth.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
38

A 15-meter interval grid of 14 shovel tests was excavated at this site. Artifacts were recovered from
the ground surface at one shovel test location and from the upper 5 centimeters of soil in another shovel
test. Based on the extent of the positive shovel test locations and building remains, site boundaries of 30 by
40 meters were defined. Soil profiles in the shovel tests excavated in the site area consisted of 10 centimeters
of dark brown (7.5YR3/3) loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil. Figure 4.4 presents
the site plan map and views of the soil profile and site setting.
Shopping Center
31DE193
Site Plan
o Negative Shovel Test
• Positive Shovel Test
X Surface Find(s)
A Datum: N500 E500
n 15 30
9797979.
970
Woods
a1
Building Remains
0
Project Tract
.5 500 515 50
575 590
Figure 4.9.
Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE193.
Two wire nails were collected from the ground surface at a shovel test location placed in the center
of the building remains. Wire nails came into common usage post 1890 (IMACS 2021). A shovel test
excavated 15 meters east of the building remains yielded four pieces of clear bottle glass which are not
temporally diagnostic.
Portions of this building have collapsed; however, it appears to have had two stories. It had wood
siding and a seamed metal roof (Figure 4.10). Based on the portions of the building still partially intact, it
appears to have been a barn or other farm outbuilding. The building dimensions are estimated to be 15 by
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
39

5 meters. No buildings are reflected on historic maps in this location, but a barn is shown on aerial images
dating to 1955. By 1965, the building is overgrown and presumably no longer in use.
Figure 4.10. Collapsed roof and siding.
Site 31DE193 is the remains of an early -middle twentieth century barn or outbuilding. It is not
shown on historic maps but is reflected on aerial images predating 1965. It retains no structural integrity.
Artifacts in the site area are sparse. This site has fulfilled its research potential at this level of investigation
and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
40

Site 31DE194
Site Type: Historic Farmstead
Component: Early -Middle 20th Century
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTMs (NAD83): 3974510 N 537952 E
Elevation: 836 ft amsl
Soil Type: Clifford sandy clay loam
Site 31DE194 is the remains of a historic farmstead building located in the western portion of the
project tract (see Figure 4.3). The site is situated on a ridge top at the terminus of an unpaved road extending
into the tract from Highway 601. The site area is characterized by tall grass; trees have grown up around
each of the buildings present. This complex is first reflected on historic maps in 1927 and is labeled as the
Austin farm on the1936 highway map (see Figures 3.3 and 3.4). Aerial images show six buildings in this
complex, although they appear to be abandoned by 1955. They are completely overgrown by 2006.
The Austin farm, owned by Lemm and Bettie Austin, was subdivided and the property ownership
transferred to Ernest E. and Margaret Murphy. The Murphys subsequently transferred the property to
Armand T. and Annie L. Daniel, who transferred it to J.L. Blackwelder. All of these transactions took place
in 1945. No information could be found on Lemm and Bettie Austin other than that they were African
American. James Leonard Blackwelder is listed in census records as a farm laborer until 1940, when he is
shown as farming on his own account.
A 15-meter interval grid of 60 shovel tests was excavated at this site. Artifacts were not recovered
from any of the shovel test locations, but a light scatter of surface artifacts extended across the site area.
Based on the extent of the building remains, site boundaries of 70 by 110 meters were defined. Soil profiles
in the shovel tests excavated in the site area consisted of 5 centimeters of dark brown (7.5YR3/3) loam
overlying a thin lens of very pale brown (10YR8/3) silty loam. Strong brown (7.5YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil
was encountered at a depth of 10 centimeters. Figure 4.4 presents the site plan map and views of the soil
profile and site setting.
Although no shovel test locations yielded artifacts, a general surface collection was recovered. This
assemblage consists of four pieces of clear bottle glass and two wire nails. The glass has stippling, indicating
a post-1940 manufacture (Lindsey 2022). Wire nails postdate 1890 (IMACS 2021). These artifact dates are
consistent with map data and with the farmstead being occupied in the early to middle twentieth century. It
is possible that the Austin occupation extended to 1945 when they subdivided and sold the property. It is
also possible that J.L. Blackwelder subsequently farmed the property and lived at the farm complex until
its abandonment.
The remains of five buildings and a well were documented at this site (Figure 4.12). Building 1 is
the main house. It is a 3-bay vernacular with asphalt shingle siding and a seamed metal roof. It has a central
brick chimney and two porches extending from the rear portion of the building. Building 2 is an outbuilding
with a mix of shingle, wood plank, and seamed metal siding and a seamed metal roof This building may
have been for equipment storage. Building 3 is a concrete block pump house situated immediately adjacent
to a concrete capped well. Building 4 is a large two-story multi -bay barn with wood plank siding and a
seamed metal roof. Building 5 is a small shed with wood plank siding and a seamed metal roof It may have
served as a chicken coop. Building 6 is an animal barn with wood plank and shingle siding and a seamed
metal roof. All of these buildings are in dilapidated condition. Figure 4.13 presents views of each of these
buildings.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
41

Agricultural Field
Site Boundary
0
0
0,
Project Boundary
Woods
Woods
0
General Surface=1.0
31DE194
Site Plan
o Negative Shovel Test z
ct Tree Line
*Large Tree
A Datum: N500 E500
15 30
470 485 500 5 5 530 5 5 560 575 590 605 620 635
60
545
530
515
500
485
470
455
440
425
4i0
Figure 4.11. Plan map and views of the site setting and soil profile at site 31DE194.
-ACC Inc,%
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
42

Building 1 Building 2
Outbuidling
31 DE194
Building Details
0
0 20 40 feet
0 (6 12 meters
Building 3
Well
Wood
Structure
Concrete Block
Pump House
Building 4
Barn
Building 5 Building 6
Outbuilding
Outbuilding
Figure 4.12. Building details.
Site 31DE194 is the remains of an early -middle twentieth century farmstead. It is reflected on
historic maps and aerial images dating back to 1927 when the property was owned by the Austin family.
Based on aerial images, the complex was abandoned and became overgrown by in the late twentieth century.
Although still standing, the farmhouse and associated buildings are all in dilapidated condition. No data
was recovered to suggest that the site occupants played significant roles in the development of the project
area. The artifact assemblage is sparse and soils in the site vicinity are disturbed. With the documentation
of the farmstead layout, this site has fulfilled its research potential. It is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
Summary and Recommendations
This investigation has resulted in the comprehensive examination of the 159.2-acre Nelson Creek
tract for the presence of archaeological resources. Five archaeological sites were identified during this
investigation. One of these sites is an isolated historic artifact that cannot be dated. The remaining sites are
historic building remains and a farmstead dating to the early to middle twentieth century. None of these
sites retain the potential to provide new or significant data on twentieth century settlement in the project
area. All are recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
The portion of the project tract adjoining the Joppa Cemetery is largely sloped and contains a small
drainage (Figures 4.14 and 4.15; see Figures 1.5 and 4.1). No evidence of potential graves was identified
during the 10-meter interval bidirectional walkover and soil probing. It is therefore determined that, with
the planned 60-meter area slated to remain wooded green space (Figure 4.16), the proposed project
development will have no adverse impact on the Joppa Cemetery.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
43

Figure 4.13. View of buildings at site 31DE194 (top r-1: Building 1, Building 2; middle r-1: Building 3, Building
4; bottom r-1: Building 5, Building 6).
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
44

Figure 4.14. View of setting in portion of project tract adjoining the
Joppa Cemetery, looking west.
Figure 4.15. View of setting in portion of project tract adjoining the
Joppa Cemetery looking north.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
45

—
_ J tA...
ENTRANCE
COWRY EAN(f5R1461 \
J
ENTRANCE R1
- YADNINVILLE AD/601
s.
Forested Open
Space
_Joppa`
Cemetery
Figure 4.16. Project design plans showing buffer between Joppa Cemetery and proposed development
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
46

References Cited
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Gillo, Nick Bon -Harper, Leslie Cooper, Jillian Galle, and Lindsey Bloch
2018 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document. http://www.daacs.org.
Barrett, John G.
1963 The Civil War in North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
1987 North Carolina as a Civil War Battleground, 1861-1865. pp. 74. North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Bass, Quentin R. II
1977 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains. Master's
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Bingham, William H.
2006 Trading Ford. Electronic Document. https://www.ncpedia.org/trading-ford.
Blackwelder, Ruth
1953 Settlement and Early History. Orange County 1752-1952. Hugh Talmage Lefler and Paul
Wager, eds. pp. 14-40. The Orange Printshop, Chapel Hill, NC.
Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun, and J.G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence -Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology. Albert C. Goodyear TTT and Glen T. Hanson eds. pp. 91-100. The
University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, SC.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Topology with Principal Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristic for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation, Archaeology Series
15.
Brown, Louis A.
2006 Confederate Prison (Salisbury). Electronic Document. https://www.ncpedia.org/
confederate-prison-salisbury.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
47

Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
West Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Butler, William B.
1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. In American Antiquity 52(4): 820-
829.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. Structure
and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, eds. pp. 137-
153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
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, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States.
Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14. L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo eds. pp. 144-150.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1991 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663 —1943. pp. 87-88. State Department
of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC.
Cross, Jerry L.
2005 John Willis Ellis, Electronic Document. https://www.ncpedia.org/ellis-john-willis-
research-branch.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.
Daniel, J.M.
2006 In Search of Daniel Boone -His Presence in the Yadkin Valley. Electronic document,
https://www.davidsoncountyhistoricalmuseum.com.
Davie County Economic Development
2022 Community and Demographics. Electronic Document. https://www.daviecountyedc.com.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
48

Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent
Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present. Geobotany,
1st edition. Robert C. Romans, ed. Springer US, New York, NY.
1987 Long -Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary
Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Dillehay, Tom D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol.1: The Archaeological Context
and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Driver, Jonathan C.
1998 Human Adaptations at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49/50:141-150.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document,
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Occasional Paper, 1. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Washington
D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore
R. Reinhart, eds. pp. 5-53. Special Publication, 19. Archaeological Society of Virginia,
Courtland, VA.
Glass Bottle Marks
2022 Electronic document, https:/GLASS BOTTLE MARKS — Glass Factory Information.
Glassow, Michael
1977 -Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity
42:413-420.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
49

Goldsmith, Richard, Daniel J. Milton, and J. Wright Horton, Jr.
1988 Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1° x 2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey.
Gonzalez, Mark
2002 An Overview of Homer Laughlin Dinnerware. L-W Book Sales, Gas City, Indiana.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
Green, T. J., B. Cochran, T. W. Fenton, J.C. Woods, G.I. Titmus, L. Tieszen, M.A. Davis, and S.J. Miller.
1998 The Buhl Burial: A Paleoindian Woman from Southern Idaho. American Antiquity
63(3):437-546.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191.
Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer System
Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Raleigh, NC.
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Raleigh, NC.
Herbert, Joseph, M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704. Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds. pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Intermountain Antiquities Users Guide (IMACS)
2021 Computer System Users Guide. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology
125(3):195-199.
Jones, Eric E., and Peter Ellis
2016 Multiscalar Settlement Ecology Study of Piedmont Village Tradition Communities, A.D.
1000-1600. pp. 85-114. Southeastern Archaeology, 35:2.
Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
50

Kickler, Troy L.
2016 Fort York. Electronic Document. https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/fort-york/.
Knight, David T.
1995 Davie County, North Carolina Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
Lautzenheizer, L., and J. M. Eastman
1993 Identification of a Piedmont Chert Quarry. Southern Indian Studies 45:38-56.
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Lindsey, Bill
2021 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document,
https://sha.org/bottle/index.htm,
Lockhart, Bill
2010 Bottles on the Border: The History and Bottles of the Soft Drink Industry in El Paso, Texas,
1881-2000. Electronic document. https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/EPChap7c.pdf.
Lockhart, Bill, Beau Shreiver, Bill Lindsey, and Carol Serr
2021 Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. Electronic Document.
https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/AnchorHocking.pdf
Lossing, Benson John
1852 The Pictorial field -book of the Revolution or, Illustrations by Pen and Pencil, of the
History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence. Harper and
Brothers, New York.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp.257-314. Academic Press, New York.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2(1):1-52.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
51

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(4):659-663.
Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia -North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew D. Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29(1):1-22.
Moore, David G.
2005 Foraging into the New World: Early Spanish and Native American Cultures in Contact at
the Berry Site. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, SC.
Morehead, John Motley
1953 Orange County in the Era of the American Revolution. Orange County 1752-1952. Hugh
Talmage Lefler and Paul Wager, eds. pp. 41-67. The Orange Printshop, Chapel Hill, NC.
Morell, Virginia
1998 Kennewick Man: More Bones to Pick. Science 279(5347):25-26.
Murray, Elizabeth Reid
1983 Wake: Capital County of North Carolina. Vol.l . Capital County Pub. Co., Raleigh, NC.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, with a New
Afterward. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
National Park Service
2022 The Battle of
Cowpens,
Electronic Document.
https://www.nps.gov/cowp/learn/historycul ture/the-battle-of-cowpens.htm.
North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina Before 1770, Electronic Document.
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence.
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds. pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
52

Oliver, Billy L. continued
1999 Typology. Paper presented at the Uwharries Lithics Research Conference, February 25,
1999.
O'Steen, Lisa D., R. Jerald Ledbetter, Daniel T. Elliott, and William W. Barker
1986 Paleo Indian Sites of the Inner Piedmont of Georgia: Observations of Settlement in the
Oconee Watershed. Early Georgia 13:1-63.
Peck, Rodney M.
1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number One. Southern Indian
Studies 23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two. Southern Indian
Studies 25:3-60.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Preston, Douglas
1997 The Lost Man. New Yorker June 16:70-81.
Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 33:1-
19.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium.
Mark A. Mathis, ed. pp. 83-160. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department
of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Quarterman, Elsie, and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.
Ready, Milton
2005 The Tar Heel State: A History of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia, SC.
Roth, Marie
2011 Brief History of Davie County. Davie County Historical and Genealogical Society,
Mocksville, NC.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
53

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, GA.
Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.
Slayman, A. L.
1997 A Battle Over Bones: Lawyers Contest the Fate of an 8400-Year-Old Skeleton from
Washington State. Archaeology 50(1):16.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Steele, D. G., and J. F. Powell
1993 Paleobiology of the First Americans. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(4):138-146.
Sutton, Mark Q.
2011 A Prehistory of North America. Routledge, New York, NY.
Swedlund, Alan, and Duane Anderson
1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New interpretations and Protocols
Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4):569-576.
Tolbert, Noble J.
1986 Ellis, John Willis, Electronic Document. https://www.ncpedia.org/biography/elis john-
willis.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
54

Townsend, Jon, Jr., John H. Spinkle, and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Trelease, Allen W.
2006 North Carolina Railroad, Electronic Document. https://www.ncpedia.org/north-carolina-
railroad.
United States Depart Bent of Agriculture (USDA)
2022 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.god/app/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1984 Mocksville, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Townsend, Jan, Jr. John H. Sprinkle, and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin, 36. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington
D.C.
Wall, James
1985 History of Davie County in the Forks of the Yadkin. North Carolina Office of Archives
and History (reprint), Raleigh, NC.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds. pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Watford, Christopher M.
2001 The Civil War Roster of Davidson County, North Carolina. pp. 4. McFarland and
Company, Jefferson, NC.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. pp. 12. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Atlanta.
Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
30(1):7-133.
White, Jeanna Baxter
2019 Davie County — 17th Strongest Economy in the State. Electronic document,
https://www.daviecountyblog.com.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
55

Whittenburg, James P.
1977 Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina
Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly 34(2):215-238.
Zug, Charles G. III.
1986 Turners and Burners, The Folk Potters of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Nelson Creek Tract
Davie County, North Carolina
56

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog

Artifact Catalog
Nelson's Creek
Site Number 31DE190
Provenience Number: I
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
1 ml 2
Site 1, 500N 500E, Surface
Weight (g) Description
2060 Brick
Comments
Site Number 31DE191
Provenience Number: 1.0
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
1 ml
2 m2
3 ni3
Quantity
1
1
Site 02, SOON 500E, Surface
Weight (g)
8.7
14.6
7.9
Description
Clear Bottle Glass
Brick Fragment
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Comments
Site Number 31 DE 192
Provenience Number: 1.0
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
m1 5
2 m2 1
3 m3
Site 03, SOON 500E, Surface
Weight (g) Description
113.1 Brick Fragment
38.2 Brown Bottle Glass
210 Brown Bottle Glass
Comments
Complete base fragment of bottle glass.
Embossed on bottom is "I" and "47,"
with a circled "A" in the middle. This
indicates it was produced by the
Armstrong Cork Company. Suction
scars present on the base. The stippling
indicates post-1940 production. Bottle
is likely from 1947, given the "47"
embossed on the base (Glass Bottle
Marks 2022)
Complete bottle. Stippling present
throughout. Suction scars present on
base, along with "13," an encircled
"A," and a "47." The encircled "A"
indicates production from the
Armstrong Cork Company, and the
"47" gives it a production date of 1947
(Glass Bottle Marks, 2022)
Site Number 31 DE193
Provenience Number: 1.0 Site 4, SOON 500E, Surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 ml 2 9.8 Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Comments
Provenience Number: 2.1
Site 04, 500N 515E, 0-5cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 m2 4 6.7 Clear Bottle Glass
Comments
Site Number 31DE194
Provenience Number: 1.0 Site 5, General Surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 m 1 4 49.6 Clear Bottle Glass
m2 2 12.7 Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Page 1 of 1
Comments
Stippling on 3 of the fragments,
indicating a date of post 1940 (Lindsey
2022).

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

DAWN M. REID, RPA
President
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Zooarchaeology
Palynology and Sediment Particle Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina
North Carolina Archaeological Society
Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Council of South Carolina Professional
Archaeologists
North Carolina Council of Professional
Archaeologists
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
July 2008 to present President, ACC, inc., Clayton, NC.
June 2007 to present President, Heritage Partners, LLC
June 2003 to June 2008 Vice President, ACC, inc., Clayton, NC.
2000 to June 2003 Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh.
1998 -2000 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Feb. 1995-Dec. 1998 Project Manager, Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Borrow Pits, Georgia
Department of Transportation. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
June 1992-Feb. 1995 Senior Technician. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
May 1993-July 1993 Assistant Field Director, Naranjal, Yucatan, Mexico, University of California, Riverside,
CA.
Jan. 1992-May 1992 Field Assistant, Archaeological Research Unit, Riverside, CA. Lithic Analyst,
Ca-ORA-1070, Macko Archaeological Consulting, Newport Beach, CA.

1991 Field Assistant, Castle Mountain, University of California, Riverside, CA.
Staff Archaeologist/Researcher, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, CA.
Excavator, Ca-ORA-36 and Ca-ORA-486, Archaeological Research Management,
Mission Viejo, CA.
Assistant Crew Chief, 42-KA-1568, California State University, Long Beach, CA.
Staff Archaeologist, Archaeological Research Unit, Riverside, CA.
Field Assistant, 42-KA-1568, International Technology, Irvine, CA.
Field Assistant, Ca-SDi-11068B, Gallegos and Associates, San Marcos, CA.
1989 Excavator, AZ BB:9:88 ASM, Foundation for Field Research, Tucson, AZ.
Reports and Publications
2021 Bobby Southerlin and Dawn Reid
Archaeological Assessment of the River Tract, Harnett County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy and Dawn Reid
Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Highway 55 Cellular Tower Tract in Mount Olive, Wayne County, North Carolina;
ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research for Carthage Study Area, Moore County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy, Dawn Reid, and Luan Cao
Archaeological Survey of the Hobnob Solar Facility Tract, Hoke County, North Carolina; ACC, Tnc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Archaeological Survey at the J. Beale Johnson House, Wake County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research ,for the Charlotte Pipe Retail Study Area, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; ACC,
Tnc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Buckhorn Mountain Solar Facility, Tazewell County, Virginia; ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Survey of the Highgate Development Phase 5 Tract, Johnston County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy, Dawn Reid, and Brooke Brilliant
Archaeological Survey of the 1101 Olive Branch Road Tract, Durham County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy, Dawn Reid, and Olivia Heckendorf
Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Catalina Solar Farm Tract, Saluda County, South Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research for the Piedmont Natural Gas Line 479, Robeson County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed River Trail Solar Facility, Carroll County, Virginia; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Bobby Southerlin and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Hobnob Solar Facility Tract, Hoke County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.

2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Thorpe Hydro -Tennessee Creek Hydro Transmission Line Rebuild, Jackson County,
North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid and Bobby Southerlin
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Hartwell Solar, LLC Solar Farm Tract, Anderson County, South Carolina;
ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy and Dawn Reid
Archaeological Survey of the Hunter's Bay Development Tract: Phase II, Brunswick County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2021 Luan Cao, Dawn Reid, and Bobby Southerlin
Cultural Resources Survey of the Price Landing Forest Health Project, Francis Marion Ranger District, Berkeley County, South
Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Abigail McCoy and Dawn Reid
Archaeological Survey of the Hunter's Bay Development Tract, Phase I, Brunswick County, North Carolina; ACC, Tnc., Clayton,
NC.
2021 Richard McCoy, Olivia Heckendorf, and Dawn Reid
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Powhatan Solar Facility Tract, Powhatan County, Virginia; ACC, Inc, Clayton,
NC.
2021 Dawn Reid and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Survey of the West Smithfield Industrial Park Tract, Johnston County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid and Michael Keith O'Neal
Archaeological Survey of the Timbermill Wind Energy Facility Project Area, Chowan County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2021 Richard McCoy, Dawn Reid, and Michael Keith O'Neal
Archaeological Survey of the Falls Village Development Tract, Durham County, North Carolina; ACC, Tnc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Windshield Survey and Limited Shovel Testing, North Wilkesboro -Antioch Tie Utility
Corridors, Wilkes County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Cuthbertson Feasibility Analysis Study Area, Union County, North Carolina; ACC,
Tnc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Sigsbee A&B 44kV Rebuild, Spartanburg County, South Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Campobello A&B 44kV Rebuild, Spartanburg County, South Carolina; ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Apalache Retail Tap Upgrade, Spartanburg County, South Carolina; ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2021 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Aditva Solar Facility, Louisa County, Virginia, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Bobby Southerlin and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Landrace Solar, LLC Tract, Horty County, South Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.

2021 Dawn Reid and Bobby Southerlin
Supplemental Phase II Investigations at 31 WL178; Addendum to: Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County
Landfill: Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178; Wilson County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2021 Bobby Southerlin, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, Christopher R. Moore, and Lesley Rayment
Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178; Wilson County, North
Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 R. M. McCoy and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed North Ridge Powhatan Solar Facility, Powhatan County, Virginia, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research for the Turnersburg Tap 44kV Segment 1, Alexander and Iredell Counties, North
Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research for the Turnersburg Tap 44kV Segment 2, Iredell County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Clinton North Substation Siting Study, Sampson County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research fbr the Climax 44kV Transmission Line Rebuild, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North
Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid and Abigail McCoy
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of ' the Crescent Mills Development Tract, Johnston County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Documentation and Evaluation of Two Cemeteries in the Wilkes Solar Tract, Wilkes County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research for the Doster Road Transmission Line Rebuild, Union County, North Carolina, ACC,
Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Evaluation of an Abandoned Cemetery (31PR171) in the Woodsdale Township of Person County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Trinity Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Parkwood Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research far the Cherokee Reservation Ret 66 kV Tap Rebuild, Swaim and Jackson Counties,
North Carolina; ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Delaware Solar Facility, Southampton County, Virginia, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Flaggy Run Solar Facility, Southampton County, Virginia, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.

2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Catalina Solar, LLC Tract, Saluda County, South Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
A Study of Faunal Remains from Site 38CH1291, Charleston County, South Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
A Study of Faunal Remains from Site 38CH1282, Charleston County, South Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Troutman 44 kV Transmission Line Rebuild/Upgrade, Iredell County, North Carolina,
ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Bobby Southerlin, Luan Cao, and Dawn Reid
Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation of the Goldsboro Industrial Campus Tract, Wayne County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Michael Keith O'Neal and Dawn Reid
Archaeological Survey of the Olde Town Master Plan Community Tract, Wake County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Lowe 44kV Transmission Line Rebuild Extension, Lincoln County, North Carolina,
ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Archaeological Evaluation at Ward Mill, Watauga County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research, Shoals kV Rebuild, Greenwood County, South Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Background Research Page -Guilford Transmission Line, Guilford County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Luan Cao and Dawn Reid
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Robinson Borrow Pit 2, Northampton County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton,
NC.
2020 Luan Cao and Dawn Reid
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the David Rose Borrow Pit Tract, Nash County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Luan Cao and Dawn Reid
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Eggers Borrow Pit Tract, Nash County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Luan Cao and Dawn Reid
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Lick Creek Solar Facility, Stokes County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Siting Study: Benson I ISkV Transmission Line Study Area, Johnston, Harnett, and Sampson Counties, North
Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
2020 Abigail McCoy, Dawn Reid, and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Survey of the Johnston County Landfill Expansion Area #1, Johnston County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
2020 Abigail McCoy and Dawn Reid
Archaeological Survey of the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site, Burke County, North Carolina, ACC, Inc., Clayton, NC.
Additional References Upon Request

1.0 I. 1.-69ti-61.6 LO9LZ ON `46!eIe I
0917 elms `pJeneInos eseq01seM OZOti
lord `1sea1-11nos - se4eioossy 6uueeul6u3 ueouewo
SU!Jaau!Su3
NV3kI2IftJV/\)Y
eootiiilage,,
,NO..‘ IN, N01.(b ,./
`®q: \ �°°°oo°o°oo°O�iI,,0 •B®�
v o °� z Vi °°V°
w N o\ i
m ▪ Q° V Q w `o o .Ito LJJ CO o m
=
0 2LLo i0=oo 0 wZOF_m g,
m o N D o o o
▪ i� °° Q w Q O o°o � �
'''B0.,itt
iEO \'' e```
FOR INFORMATION, ONLY
STREAM
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 23 SF (9.70 LF)
PERMANENT 217 SF (114.50 LF)
PERMANENT NO FUNCTIONAL
LOSS 49 SF (25.27 LF)
M PACT
NUMBER
-
-
-
cn
cn
cn
STREAM
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 14 SF (4.77 LF)
PERMANENT 5 SF (1.56 LF)
PERMANENT NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
36 SF (12.11LF)
IMPACT
NUMBER
m
m
cn
m
STREAM
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 13 SF (4.84 LF)
PERMANENT 115 SF (21.82 LF)
PERMANENT NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
42 SF (15.91 LF)
IMPACT
NUMBER
N
ri
N
cn
Lc)
cn
STREAM
M PACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 435 SF (94.96 LF
PERMANENT 532 SF (96.54 LF)
PERMANENT NO FUNCTIONAL
LOSS 210 SF (46.42 LF)
IMPACT
NUMBER
r-i
Ln
�
�
N
*SEE SHEET 4
*SEE SHEET 3
*SEE SHEET 3
*SEE SHEET 2
WETLANDS
w
a
LL-
LL- Li— LL LL-
�V)�v)Nv)
, Lo m Ns m
^LnrnmNrlN
rl rl
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
I— >- >- I— >- I— >-
zczr2Cz1=
Lu Q Q Lu Q Lu <
z=(=zocz=
<oo<oao
Lu Lu Lu Lu LuLLJ Lu
IMPACT
NUMBER
aamaamm
N-N-N-00000000
WETLANDS
Q
L_ u_
Lu
cr) L )
oc
Q
al
N ,1
M PACT
SPECIFICATION
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
NUMBER
Qa
*SEE SHEET 3
*SEE SHEET 2
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT
AREA
2,031 SF
LL-
LO
rn
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STIPULATION FOR REUSE
w w
• O of
cc te w—
O
• =N
p111
CC
wz�
s
d w J
Q v
L)LL uu
O
Z w CC
�a-0
aNa
CC w
=
N�Z
z
�0Li
I— I__ LL Ju-I p Zzp
o z O a x w 0 O w
Z w H y1 t5
(nc = w �w OQ
w wvfUp cif w
F LL ow[ O p x w
0 __0u wccah_
Q a 0C U C CC H F-
oogwU,-W"z<
w,w„¢ o--0 -L9ZNz
_ < C a LU CC w U O
0 CO 0- w 0<' Li
�0vfI_�
wN cjvfcC �
wCO w Q U_ H H H Z
H H = 0
a 5 cc x Z_ c - Z
pvfdI0vf<0<
8ZOLZ tutio.ztJ 1111oN
AINflOJ RIAVU `TTIIAS)JOIY\i
311S find
- dVW 1DVd W 1
uoisinipgns
OII!AS)IDow le No0.13 s,uoSION
JOB NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
U
LU
Q
co
CO
z
N
N
N
NOISIn3Zl
31V0
'0N
TOTAL STREAM IMPACT AREA
114.27 LF
234.42 LF
LL.
SI
n
ai
al
485 SF
LL
cn
LO
00
337 SF
TEMPORARY LENGTH
PERMANENT LENGTH
PERMANENT NO
FUNTIONAL LOSS LENGTH
TEMPORARY
PERMANENT
PERMANENT NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
3NO 3SVHd
OMI 3SVHd
1
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
0
0
U
z�
0
U)
U
11
z
8mp•s31glgx3 pedwi bob\s31glgx3 3aedwl\sgma 8uppoM18mp\Ib000ini) apins,aoIJ boo-j \sgol\:z

I01. 1.-69ti-61.6 LO9LZ ON `46!eIe I
09V ens `pJeneinos eseq01seM OZOi
lord `1seay1nos - se4eloosso 6uueeu16u3 ueouewo
SU!JaeUiSU]
NV3ftI2II%JV
®``�ee1BBIAAAAA/i,
N 011 bl �i®o
000000000 d,(
C7 0
� o zzwN or
o° < <ti o�
:Qo° UiyQyL W oQ -
o
Q
p�w8=orn D
o ° —
=Uo wZF_OL
o � U o°o z
o C7cn0 0°
''✓�°OOO000000°°° VC 00`0
�
"IltIARee® ``COO®
FOR INFORMATION, ONLY
:NOISIA3b
31V0
'0N
STIPULATION FOR REUSE
w w
✓i z CDz CD a DELU 00 L.
L.
�O,nzww H,n N
a [ N ¢� 0 §
N LL= w O w o a
Ow
_Ln ww oc J07D
Loti_ 0 cc
0 0 w Q
aQa z .,.riO Z0~O
LLJZ Z Z a
w ffi ti
wJOO LLO71J,
¢,n=w,nHOd(D
C7LLz�ooOw �Q�w
w w Lp c)Z 2
N O ='
cn= w Q m U,, LU Q U H=_
F- I- F- ~ O¢
= z CDQ 7D oOc S Z w C 0 Z
F-oUo,nwF-o,n000
8ZOLZ tutio.ztJ 1111oN
AINflOJ RIAVQ `aTIIAS)JOIY\i
I V3HV - dVW
l�b�d W l - Z
uoisinipgns
OII!AS3100 le No0.13 sIu0SION
JOB NUMBER:
2
Q
0O
z
N
N
O
1-
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
11111110""
III iDlIIII
In,
111111111111,
IIIIu,,I.
WETLANDS
Q
u_
cn u_ U u_ u_
to rn m rl
- .� lD .� N r-I N
c-I
M PACT
SPECIFICATION
z CC ce z cc z cc
w Q Q uJ < uJ <
zcccczcczc
<00<0<0
uJ uJ uJ uJ uJ uJ uJ
AZ I- I- AZ I- 0_ I-
IMPACT
NUMBER
Q Q m Q Q m CC
��Nco000000
STREAM
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 435 SF (94.96 LF
PERMANENT 532 SF (96.54 LF)
PERMANENT NO FUNCTIONAL
LOSS 210 SF (46.42 LF)
IMPACT
NUMBER
Cr)
N
cn
\GEDROPOS
RADE I
0
zw
Na
Ar
w
7
—,....-
ift
W
In
0
a
0
9-
w
Oc
w
A—
>
w
cc
1.
O
n
1.
1.
1.
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
PERMANENT
IMPACT
PERMANENT
RIPRAP NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
)JJJJJ_
)JJJJJ_
JJJJJ)_
JJJJJ)_
JJJJJ)_
JJJJJ)_
)JJJJJ_
JJJJJ)_
JJJJJ)_
JJJJJ_111111
ROM
1"'
100„
"„
100„
"„
100.4
"„
0441
02
+ <
o
AY
co.)
Z
0
0
�EW 1 AND EW 3 I
SEE SHEET 3 I
FOR RIPRAP
CROSS-SECTION
00
O
a-i
a
1 I /-PROPOSED
W
0
Q
cc
\inw
n
al
V
z
Lt.
/ GRADE \ I
I
I
/
/V
II
I
r
I�
I
11
o
k.
a
IHW2AND HW4�
I 93'- 60" RC1
its
n
N.
0
r. O
0
N
O
Ln
r-I
O
O
O
Ln
+
O
0
+
O
J.
JJJJJ
JJJJJ
JJ JJJ
JJJJJ)
JJJJJ)
JJJJJ
JJJJJ)
JJJJJ
JJJJJ)
JJ JJ
JJ JJJ
J JJJ
JJ JJJ
J JJJ
J )JJJ
JJ
JJ
J
Ar` f r:
A `;�A. �� `�401010.00
J
-
-
M
M
8mp•s;lglgx3 pedwl bOb\s;lglgx3 pedwl\sOma SupiJoM Mp\(bOOOTZM) alllns)ooA bOO-TZ\sgor\:

auiaaauiau3
I O I I -69ti-6I 6 LO9LZ ON `46!eIe I
09V a ng `p.Jeneino8 esego1se OZOi
lord `1seay1nog - se4eioossy 6uueeui6u3 ueouewo
Oul..100LOu3
NV3kI2VIV )r
z
FOR INFORMATION, ONLY
NOISIn3Zl
31V0
'ON
STIPULATION FOR REUSE
cw W H J w p Z Z o
Z= O z O a x w 0 O W
�OcnZ W W r•un� Nj
ce ceUJ -- N W= W W O Q
W
v U p to
• _ -- LL:i W cc p 2 W
E�0 0-W~=
p p= 1 0' w Q~
W W
¢ Q__a¢wWUJ>`CacH0
wZ>zzrw c,C,CC00=
,> 00 w 0 w a
ul w v ° 0- z z N Z
L)▪ 0=7DacEa wvO
(.7"zInc,0� p<tOw
a • K N OLL z= oc O Q p->
O N a
Mp=w<c0 L) V H=2p
HHW QLup ~I—Z
= Z O a 5 c 2 Z w. z a
HOUpcnar•Ocn=O¢
8ZOLZ tutio.ztJ 1111oN
AINflOJ RIAVQ `H IIAS)JOIY\i
Z V3HV
- dVW lJVd W I
uoisinipgns
OII!ASNDow le No0.13 s,uoSION
JOB NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
U
Q
w
a
a
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
M
•
•
Cl_
aw
00 J
D_
C0 O
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
PERMANENT
IMPACT
PERMANENT
RIPRAP NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
J
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_
1JJJJJ_
111111
�,�'�„
"„
100•'
"„
100•'
"„
I,"'1-1-1-1-1-1-
"„
I,"'
.-I
DO
0
m
w
z gO
U
m
Z N
O ▪ Ln
)o
z
0
N
m
U
9
ri
a
LL
0
0
vi
_
❑ Z
a
a
06
N
00
W
• Z
0
CO u
A - Nelson Creek Dr.
ing eliminated)
STREAM 1
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 14 SF (4.77 LE)
PERMANENT 5 SF (1.56 LF)
PERMANENT NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
36 SF (12.11LF)
M PACT
NUMBER
co
L/
rfl
L)
M
(n
WETLANDS
Q
LJJ
Q
LL LL
(/) Cr)
(NI c1
M PACT
SPECIFICATION
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
NUMBER
Qa
. 1 rl
STREAM
IMPACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 13 SF (4.84 LF)
PERMANENT 115 SF (21.82 LF)
PERMANENT NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
42 SF (15.91 LF)
IMPACT
NUMBER
(-NI
N
N
(/')
L/')
(n
V
N
8mp•s)lglgx3 pedwi bob\s;lglgx3 3aedwl\sgma 8uppom—\Bmp\(b00oini) apinspoW boo-TZ\sgol\:z

\ \ l
l I \ , I
\\\\\I\I (�l\\\\\ \ \ \\\
\1
\�\1 / \\\\ \
\ \�—N � Il
1 /
I/
\ � — x\ l I ( I l \ \ \ \
I I I( Ij I/ / l
I 1 I,//�I (/ /
\\ �li/l� lllllll „
IOU -69ti-61.6 LO9LZ ON `46!eIe2I
09V ens `pJenalnos esego1se OZOi
•V'd `1seay1nos - se4eloossy 6uueeul6u3 ueouewy
Suiaaeu!Su]
NV3ftI2II%JV
®``111111IAAAAA/i,
®o0e\ P, N 011 bl ii®o
0 0000.00000006b /®®
,� 0 zZL,JCf)) 0r
0° aOG1—Q ti o�
Q 1.
°° W Q LLJ DO o Q-
0 pGu,U=oo %° -
= 0 u. Z Q F_ rfl O LJ
o Ln U 0°O
-y° ��10 0
0<Z<En o'
''sue °A°°000°o°°°°o rA 0.'
FOR INFORMATION, ONLY
:NOISIA3b
31V0
'0N
STIPULATION FOR REUSE
w w w
✓i z x O z O a x 2 O p Ea
O✓ i z w w H c n N
N a[ N � Z D 0 Zi
• w N LL= X w O w o a • x'-'-'woc J0�2w
0 0 w Q
a¢z°C1 cc~O
Z ZzQ aw u-Z
LZ• w JOO LLILL�• i0w
Ln
w N a o • a 0 z--
U O= x d w w 0
C7LLz�oCO- �Qrw
w O
zap -
N O x H
pw 00 Ug Q d H=x
H z F- > CD Q
x z O Q x oOC S Z w< w Z
8ZOLZ tutio.ztJ 1111oN
AINflOJ RIAVQ `H TIIAS)JOIY\i
£V3HV-dVW
lDVd W I - ti
uoisinipgns
aIllASNDole Na0.13 sIuOSION
JOB NUMBER:
2
on
UJ
d
Q
m
cc
N
O
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
LL
J
U
0
a
I 1 \
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
PERMANENT
IMPACT
PERMANENT
RIPRAP NO
FUNCTIONAL LOSS
JJJJJJJJJJJJJ_JJJJJJ_JJJJJJ_JJJJJJ_JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJJJJJJ_111
JJJJJJ_
JJJJJJ_iiiiii
LOAN
I 'I H"�
l )1 1��I r� I I I
\ I
I \
I// (' �; �-'��\ \
////� `// \� — \\\\ \‘ 1 \ 1
1IIIII /////--\
►///c(/ /lr
/
\_--- I 1 \ / / r
/
� � I
if (� I/ l ( <'
) j\\\\\
/\\\/1111)
11/
rl(/I\\\\
111I`\\
1 l ( I
/ — ) 11) \(
\) 1 \ \
////' / / /
\
\ \ \ > I
\
I / '//// / �� i . I
1 \ // // lll�
\,x,\'\ \////� \\\\\\C
.\\r
/
I
II
I
1 L
/ L-
LL
J
LJ1
N
1
LT
cr
d1
0
a
z
0
U
u-
LL
/
/ i /
i
/ / 7 V
/ /
/ / i i //
—, //
/ ----
' / /
1-----/i —ice_
—� -��- --
— --/ — i
-- _—_�,/�i- \\
i--�/ �— -
- — '\
/� =i
i
Ln
o rn 0000 o^ko
0o I� 0
Lel
I
z
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+
rr
I—
LL
LL
S
CA
LL
LU
FOR RIPRAP
CROSS-SECTI1
PROPOSED
GRADE
rq
eq
r
(it
M3)
817'ELL
=1n0
A
I
(ET
MH)
90'8LL
=NIA
I
(899
9D)
8S'68L
= NI
A
I
/
'
(VL9
93)
VE'L8L
0Z'S6L
= NI
A
= W
I
a
4
'd
c
o
o
J
zi
93 '0N
na
s
EXISTING]
/—
—
" 48" RCP@ 2.(
GRADE
/
\
\
0
c
0-
U
N
LA in
O O 0in o000 000 r, O^ U00
00 CO A, A, A, A, A, A, A,
1
LU
UJ
a1.1.1
0-
az
" 0
CO
I—
ENDWALL PER
A
M
NCDOT STANDARDS
//
7
i
STREAM
M PACT
SPECIFICATION
TEMPORARY 23 SF (9.70 LF)
PERMANENT 217 SF (114.50 LF)
PERMANENT NO FUNCTIONAL
LOSS 49 SF (25.27 LF)
M PACT
NUMBER
-
-
ml-
V)
8mp•s;lglgx3 pedwl bOb\s;lglgx3 pedwl\soma 8uppoM \ Mp\(b0001 ) a111ns polN too-R\sgor\:Z