ltr_corps_add_info_20230915

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
521 East Morehead Street, Suite 425
Stantec Charlotte NC 28202-2695
September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Regulatory Program Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Ste 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; Corps ID# SAW-2023-00898;
DWR#20230712; Catawba County
Dear Ms. Stygar,
On behalf of the applicant, Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) is
pleased to submit this response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) request for additional
information dated August 17, 2023.
Prior to answering your questions, please let us revise the impact assessment. At the request of the NC
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Impacts SA2 and SA3 have been changed from
temporary impacts to indirect impacts. Also, at Impact SA6 the length of stream between SA2 and SA3 has
been added to the impacts table as an indirect impact. The overall permanent impacts and conversion
impacts remain the same. The temporary impacts decreased from 369 LF to 229 LF of stream. The
Preferred Alternative will now result in permanent impacts to 889 LF (0.08 AC) stream channel and 0.08 AC
of wetlands, conversion impacts to 0.19 AC of wetlands, temporary impacts to 229 LF (0.07 AC) of stream
channel and indirect impacts to 140 LF of stream (0.013 ac). An updated set of Jurisdictional Impact Maps
is provided in Attachment 1.
DESIGN CHANGES
Impacts SA2. SA3 and SA6
NCDEQ stated in a Request for Additional Information dated June 26, 2023, that "Based on the current
proposed plan the Division believes indirect impacts to the remaining portion Stream SA between Impacts
SA 1 and SA4 will be significantly isolated and short and will therefore be unable to maintain existing uses at
the current function. Therefore, it is necessary to include these indirect impacts to Stream SA within the
impact table and provide mitigation for this section. "The impacts map has been updated to include indirect
impacts to 140 LF of stream channel as shown in the figure below and in Attachment 1. The temporary
stream impacts at SA2 and SA3 have been changed to indirect impacts and a new indirect impact to 84 LF
of stream channel has been added as impact SA6.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 2 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
PERMANENT IMPACTSA4
362 LF± (0.04 AC±)
k_-
I
0
:
.
CONCRETE ENCASED
0
FIBER DUCT BANK
0
9
93p
c
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
920
915 m^
INDIRECT IMPACT SA3
15 LF± (n o01 AC±)
s
STREAM SB
n 0-40
STREAM SA
�w, -0a p01
• PERMANENT IMPACT SRI
INDIRECT IMPACT SA6
°0
o
96 LF± {0_ )I AC±J
'
�q�tr�i
a
a
INDIRECT IMPACT SA2
�.
P
41 LI 117104 AC±)
_
FRENCH
S
�j
DRAIN
-
ff
1!jjf+rr! fI
PERMANENT IMPACT SAI
151 L F± (0.01 AC±)
J
Figure 1. Updated Impacts SA2, SA3 & SA6
An updated impacts table is provided in Table 1 below with the modified impacts highlighted and in bold
text.
Design with community in mind

0
(D
cQ
3
n
O
3
3
c
3
D
OQ
Cn
*
N
Cn
N
N
Cn
Cn
N
Cn
to
N
N
ou
Cn
w
CA
co
a)
m
X
X
X
0
oo
a
a
D
a�
a
n
m
m
m
m
m
�
N
...
CA
(A
0.
W
N
W
0
A
W
N
�
0
ert
0
O
Co
OCl
�
OC!
O00n
1
0
cy
M
c
r
C
7
w
=-
aO
i
°°'m
A
�
M
K
�
-1
y
to+
W
0
07
�
�CA
CD
Cl
n
fib
n
3
7
—
n
3
7
"o
o
0
a
a
o
a
a
Oi
X
y
CA
n
M
U)
!Z
C1
flt
-
2)
n
Cf
C!
0
Cl
0
Cn
o
0
0
Oi
�
n
.�
0
0
tv
n
rt
N
O
r
rt
CD
N
CyA
CD
y
y
CQ
O
O
O
o
p
o
o
O
p
O
O
O
O
0
O
0,
a
0o
a
o
C
O
CD
N
O
0
O
O
n
n
CCDD
CCD
N
CD
O
co?
?
0)
W
,
,
,
(O
N
1
co
COO
O
n
(D
O
O
00
O
a
CD
a
w
n
a
n
O
O
t0
O
a
(D
3
G
n
,
,
,
,
,
,
(.0n
,
,
,
,
,
2)
CD
a
c
3
3
�
Gt
C1
O
O
p
y
O
Co
O
O
O
C
O
a
,
,
p
p
Ca
,
,
,
,
p
CJ
,
,
,
,
O
n
CD
n
CCD
CA
CD
O
N
3
to
O
Cn
(J1
O
N
r
�N
r
0)
0)O
-7
m
0
0
0
0
0
a
w
CD
Oo
Oo
n
D
co
A
CO)
n
a
ID
3
O
,
,
,
,
,
,
.�+
r
A
n
CD
CD
G
N
CD
Q
Cl
0
y
l<
-VKcn
a N�
CD ;r,�
m
v

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 4 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action ID# SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
Update to Mitigation
The required stream compensatory mitigation has been modified to include the indirect impacts at a 1:1
ratio. The purchase of 1,625 credits is now proposed to be provided through a credit purchase from the
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee Program. An updated mitigation table is provided
in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Updated Mitigation
Impact
Length of Impact
(L)
Mitigation Ratio
(MR)
Compensation
Requirement
CR
LF
(L x MR
SE2
16
N/A (PNNL)�
0
SE3
99
1:1*
99
SE4
28
N/A (PNNL)-
0
SA1
151
2:1
302
SA2
15
1:1
15
SA3
41
1:1
41
SA4
382
2:1
764
SA5
19
N/A (PNNL)*
0
SA6
84
1:1
84
SB 1
96
2:1
192
SX1
64
2:1
128
SF1
34
N/A (PNNL)�
0
TOTAL
889
Total CR
1,625
'Permanent No Net Loss Impacts (Riprap)
'SE is Low quality (NCSAM)
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Your questions are presented first, followed by our answers in italics.
A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed work is
the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any
other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and provide
justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland areas.
Specifically, please add to the alternatives analysis provided in your Individual Permit application
dated May 18, 2023:
a. What is the minimum MW required to achieve the purpose and need of the proposed project?
Response: A minimum of 240 MW was determined to be the MW necessary to make the
project viable in the Charlotte region.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 5 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
b. Please explain how five (5) buildings at 48 MW each would provide 488 MW of total storage.
Response: The reference to 488 megawatts (MW) of storage provided in the overview in
Section 1.1 of the narrative was incorrect. The correct amount of storage provided by the 5-48
MW buildings is 240 MW as described in Section 6.3 on Page 35 of the narrative.
c. In section 1.3.8 the applicant has indicated that the 100-year floodplain is present within the
project area. The duct banks will be installed under the creek bed and there is no anticipated
change in floodplain elevation." Please provide additional information on the process,
description of duct bank, and how there will be no impacts. Furthermore, Impact SC1 and SX2
the applicant indicated that the project will temporarily impact 112 LF of stream channel in Lyle
Creek for the installation of two separate duct bank crossings. With graphics in Appendix B of
the application, which does not have the appropriate cross -sections. When using nomenclature
please be accurate that there are no duplicitous or provide exact locations of the required
graphics.
Response: There are two crossings of Lyle Creek at impacts SC1(56 LF) and SC2 (56 LF),
and one crossing of an unnamed tributary at impact SX1 (91LF). These temporary impacts are
for the open trenching installation of twenty-four (24) four inch (4') conduits encased in
concrete. The contractor will be required to divert flow to one-half of the creek channel and
provide coffer dams during the open cut installation. The fiber duct bank is planned to be
installed at a profile to provide a minimum of 24" of cover over the encasement. Upon
completion of the first half of each crossing, the contractor will re-establish the creek channel
with native material removed during the excavation process. Once the first half of the crossing
is completed, the contractor will shift the coffer dam and divert flow to the other half of the
creek. No equipment will be allowed in the live creek channel. The creek bed will be restored
with natural materials removed during construction and the banks will be stabilized with native
vegetation and bio-degradable matting. Figure 2 below depicts a typical duct bank construction.
Figure 3 and 4 below depicts the profiles of crossings SC I, SC2 and SX1 (Attachment 1 on
Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 5-1). Lastly, Figure 5, Attachment 1 Exhibit 5, depicts the plan view of
Impacts SX2.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 6 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
FINISH ODE -
14
TYPICAL DUCTBANK NOTES-
I. THESE DETAILS DO NOT REPRESENT ALL CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE TELECOM SITE PLAN. CIVIL
DOCUMENTS, AND COORDINATED MODEL TO VERIFY CONDUIT QUANI TIES PROPOSED CONDUIT LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION TO
BE CONFIRMED THROUGH SUBVITTED SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO TRENCHNG
2 CONCRETE LIMITS TO EXTEND TO BUILDING FACE AND UNDER THE BUILDING FOUNDATON TO THE EXTENT RECIARED BY THE ON 27
SPECIF1CA71016.
3 MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOP OF ENCASED TELECOM DUCTBANK TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3• BELOW FROST LINE AND A MINIMUM OF 37"
BELOW FINAL GRADE.
4. INSTALL THE DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE CONTI NUOUSL> ALONG THE DUCTBAW AT NO POINT SHALT_ THE MARKING TAPE BE
NSTALLED LESS THAN 12 INCHES ABOVE DUCT BANK ENCASEMENT. MINIMUM DEPTH OF MARKING TAPE TO BE 12 INCHES BELOW
RNISHED GRADE
3 REFER TO DIV6IDN 31 - EARTHWORK SPECSFICATiON FOR TRENCH EXCAVATION AND EACKF1 LL REOUIREhENTS.
PAVEMENT SECTION FINISH GRADE PAVEMENTSECTION
W HERE APPLICABLE
COMPACTED SELECT BACKFILL
DUCT BANK TO BE MARKED
WITH DETECTABLE WARNING
-
I TAPE AS SPECIFIED
.".a•-s:
I
35M PSI CONCRETE WITH*4
BAR AT D.C.
LONGITMNALLY AND 04 TIES
_
- -
AT 24 O.C.
REF£RTOSPECFICA71ON
SECTION 27 05 43.10 FOR
REOU REMENTS
�4-INCHCONDUR{TYP OF24�
CONDUIT SUPPORTS
EVERY 5-0'
4• TFRCK COMPACTED
SELECT BACKPLL
COMPACTED
In
��
DUCT SAW TO BE
DETECTABLE WARNING
TAPE AS SPSC$FEDWITH
II
�IIf
III
c�rIr�rIr�-�
Ur.A
I�SECTION 27 L FOR
.A�.Ar.Ar.N.REOVIREMENTS
U .0 .U,rU'UrU
�!L���.�r�►s�wr..
rt
CONDUIT SUPPORTS
OF .._ i
I
,
WI w
i ?-3 iM -� •ic Af.4� - - - 3-, I�
TYPICAL (2414` CONDUIT TYPICAL I2414' CONDUIT
DLICTBANK CONCRETE ENCASED ID4,CTBANK CONCRETE ENCASED
UNDER ROADWAY
Figure 2. Typical Duct Bank Construction
885
L ..... I . ... .. . I ..... I . .. I .. I . . ..1 ......1 .. 1
885
SCJ STABILIZE BANKS WITH NATIVE
VEGETATION INCLUDING
880
BIO-DEGRADABLE MATTING . ......: ... ...
$80
EXISTING
GRADE @ CONCRETE ENCASED
CIL OF
SECTION FIBER DUCT BANK
875
i
870
,. -..-. -
870
SX2
t 1
865
- 24" COVER :
865
RESTORE CREEK BED WITH
NATURAL MATERIALS
860
.. .... . .... .. .. .. REMOVED DURING
860
CONSTRUCTION
855
855
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 2+87
IMPACTS SC 1 T SX2
RnPn�Fn SCALE: HQR 1"=50'; VERT 1"=10'
Figure 3. Profiles For Impact SCII and SX2
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 7 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023.00665;
Catawba County
660
EXISTING GRADE @ CIL OF SECTION
i \
i \ STABILIZE BANKS WITH NATIVE
VEGETATION INCLUDING -- 675
\ BID -DEGRADABLE MATTING
670
1
1 /
24COVER� F66D
BSS
FIBER
CONCRETE ENCASEDDUCT
CREEK BED
RESTORE C WITH
NATURALREMOVED
BANK
CON
CONSTRIALSUCTION
DURING STRUCTION
850
u747
n
[+1N
nrn
0nm
NN
rn
��:
mm
0+00
mm
wm
mm mm
1+50 2+00
0+50
1+00
IMPACT SC2
Figure 4. Cross -Section of Impact SC2
TEMPORARY IMPACT Sit
r 91 LF± (0.01 AC±)
I
LU
3 A I
• 4
t y r
•t t a
Figure 5. Impact SX2
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 8 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
d. Please provide all North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM forms) and North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms for this site.
Response: Please See Attachment 2
The applicant has indicated under the purpose and need section 4.2 that, "The State of North
Carolina encourages data centers to locate within the state and currently provides three sales
and use tax exemptions for purchase of items related to data centers and their operations." The
Corps is seeking a demonstration that the site selection criteria was not solely monetarily
based. Further in the narrative, the applicant indicates, that "Because Catawba County is
already home to several data centers, the county has existing fiber and electrical infrastructure
to serve additional sites as well as low taxes, making it a desirable location for data centers."
Furthermore, "Microsoft has guaranteed a $1 Billion minimum investment in Catawba County
associated with four data center sites." Please provide further detailed analysis that the
proposed data centers could not be viable outside of Catawba County, North Carolina.
Response: The site selection criteria were not solely monetarily based. Except for the cost of a
particular piece of land, monetary issues are secondary or tertiary to the siting criteria. New
regions are not selected based on state or local incentives, but on regional data demand,
therefore, incentives tend to be incidental to the creation of a region.
An off -site analysis describing siting criteria in more detail and the search for land that would
allow the development of a regional network in North Carolina is provided in Attachment 2. A
summary is below. -
Once a region is identified, initial analysis for available parcels requires the identification of.-
1. Areas with access to long -haul fiber.
2. Areas with access to sanitary sewer and water lines.
3. Areas with access to electrical transmission lines and/or be identified future power service
expansion.
4. Parcels that ideally intersect all three of the above lines or are less than 0.25 miles away
from them and do not cross multiple other parcels (requires easements).
5. Available land that meets or exceeds a certain acreage. Based on recent projects,
approximately 100 acres is required to allow for the construction of 5-48 MW data centers
with a substation and stormwater management ponds while avoiding jurisdictional features.
6. Potentially hazardous sites or environmental justice sites within the vicinity.
7. Potential environmental issues (wetlands/waters of the US, other environmental issues,
artifacts, and endangered species).
The site selection criteria noting the preference for statutory incentives for taxes and or local
rebates/incentives is included as a criterion after the initial search is completed. If there are
enough parcels available in multiple jurisdictions, these criteria have a role to play in
determining the preferred location.
f. Please provide a revised table that compares the selection criteria outlines below to your offsite
alternatives, refer to Table 10 in your application submittal. Please use the following selection
criteria and quantify as appropriate: Minimum MW required to achieve the purpose and need of
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 9 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
the project; Proximity to other data centers (in miles); Utilities (Sewer, water, electric, existing
infrastructure); number of buildings, minimum parcel acreage required; zoning (industrial);
proximity to large scale infrastructure/development; proximity to floodplain (miles); aquatic
resources on alternative parcels (wetlands and waters); amount of impact of waters/wetlands
on those parcels.
Response: A revised version of Table 10 is provided in Attachment 4
g. The applicant indicated that site selection and suitability, "9. Land that is: a Least impactful to
the environment (wetlands/waters of the US, other environmental issues, artifacts, and
endangered species) b. not close to airports, freeways, schools, churches, and shopping
centers." Please clarify why the applicant is unable to potentially work with land that is close to
the above listed restraints.
Response: Developers utilize site selection checklists to determine the optimal site for a
project. With regards to datacenters, the site selection process is very detailed.
Physical risk assessments are conducted at different points during the land acquisition process.
Areas prone to hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes are generally avoided. Proximity to
transportation routes for hazardous materials or chemicals such as freeways, gas pipelines,
railway lines and airport take -off and landing zones can pose a physical risk to datacenter
infrastructure.
Proximity to community gathering points such as schools, churches and shopping centers is
avoided for environmental justice and security reasons. Dense residential neighborhoods are
also avoided where possible to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and maintain
security.
h. Please revise any design drawings that could potentially be affected by the above referenced
request for information.
Response: No design changes are proposed beyond those detailed in the first section of this
response. Revised impact maps can be found in Attachment 1.
i. Please provide further clarification as to why Catawba County was selected for the project
location. Further, please provide additional justification as to why the following site selection
criteria were chosen:
Statutory incentives for taxes and or local rebates/incentives: Example- property tax
abatements, income tax free zones, enterprise zones.
Response: Please refer to the answer provided under A. (e) above and the off -site analysis
provided in Attachment 3 for additional information on the use of incentives as a criterion.
j. Please provide the air permit for the proposed 3MW and 500kW diesel- fired generators.
Please provide further information on why additional diesel -fired generators are necessary for
the proposed site design.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 10 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
Response: Air permitting for the required generators will begin once the types of generators
are determined during building design. The air permit for this project will be provided upon
receipt. Generators are necessary for backup power in the event of a power outage.
k. Section 6.2.2.1 Offsite Alternatives: The applicant determined that Catawba County, was the
most appropriate project location based on the site selection, and other suitability criteria. The
applicant did not state which other areas, counties, and/or cities were considered for the
proposed development in the North Carolina Regional Network Gateway. Therefore, please
provide other locations that were considered along with reasons/justifications as to why those
sites were not chosen.
Response: Please refer to the off -site analysis provided in Attachment 3.
I. In the alternatives analysis has indicated that every alternative is five (5) single story buildings,
(Example: Summary Site 1 would not meet the project purpose because of insufficient
developable areas for the required data storage capacity and would have greater impacts to the
aquatic environment.") Please provide reasoning/justifications as to why two-story buildings are
not feasible or considered under the alternative analysis.
Response: Two-story options were considered but were deemed impractical due to the
following additional reasons:
• Multiple story buildings may decrease the building footprint but there would be an increase
in the overall footprint of the generator and transformer equipment yard adjacent to each
building and require additional equipment to be placed outside, such as chillers. In addition,
parking areas will remain the same size.
• Multiple story buildings do not decrease the required utilities (electrical and fiber conduits,
water and sewer lines, and stormwater pipes) which all have required separation distances.
• Construction of each data center building, whether single -story or multi -story, requires
adequate acreage for construction laydown areas. These areas must be located directly
adjacent to the data center buildings and associated equipment construction area. The
laydown area supports the construction/building area and includes:
o Site office and trade parking --250-300 spaces
o Construction equipment such as the telescopic booms, man lifts, and scissor lifts
necessary for steel beam installation.
o Construction power generation.
o Area to organize and stack structural steel and staging for building construction. Steel
beams must be located within easy reach to allow erection of building structures.
o Stormwater, water and sewer pipe staging.
A photo of an existing laydown area from another region is provided below. Please note
that the set-up of the laydown area is completed by a general contractor and the needs for
each site are project specific.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 11 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
Figure 5. Example of a laydown area
m. Alternative Site 1 and Alternative Site 2: The applicant stated that, "it appears only 2 buildings
(96 MW) could be built onsite: Building 2 could not be built as shown with associated roads
because the footprint exceeds the property boundary." Please provide additional information as
to why various size buildings were not considered feasible. In addition, if there was not enough
developable land available for the basic project purpose, why was this considered a feasible
alternative?
Response: Based on recent projects, approximately 100 acres is needed to allow for the
construction of 5-48 MW data centers with a substation and stormwater management ponds
while avoiding jurisdictional features to the greatest extent feasible. At 108 and 119 AC, the
Site 1 and 2 met the acreage required to be considered viable for the proposed project. While
at least 5-48 MW buildings are necessary to meet the regional need, that number is considered
a minimum. If there are multiple unbuilt parcels adjoining each other, neighboring parcels may
be analyzed to see if they could be acquired if the project were to move forward on the site.
"The area at the rear of the property along Pinch Gut Creek contains steep slopes and grading
would have impacts to at least 1.5 AC of a FEMA regulated 100-year floodplain and the
associated floodway. Engineering requirements would be extensive; mitigation for the impacts
would not be possible onsite; and permitting requirements, if possible, would extend the
timeline for construction." Please provide additional details as to why mitigation for the impacts
is not possible onsite and were considered as part of the alternatives analysis, when the
proposed LEDPA for the preferred action alternative does not have onsite mitigation proposed?
Please provide additional details as to why the extension of the timeline of construction are
considered under the selection criteria.
Response: The mitigation referenced in the description of Offsite Alternative 3 would be for fill
within the FEMA regulated floodplain and not for mitigation of wetland and/or stream impacts.
None of the sites propose onsite mitigation for floodplain impacts.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 12 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
With regards to the timeline for construction, data centers are planned well ahead of time to
meet growing need (usually about 2 years). Some redundancy is built into the timeline but any
unexpected increases of 6 to 12 months or more would affect when additional data storage
would be available, thereby affecting regional service capabilities.
Offsite alternative 3 states, "Existing electrical service is inadequate. Required substation would
be +4,600 FT from Town of Maiden substation and +5,000 FT from Duke Energy 230KV
transmission line. Connection would require extensive coordination with Duke Energy to
provide a new transmission line and would extend the timeline of construction by more than a
year due to planning and permitting requirements." In addition, "No existing fiber in proximity.
This would require an extension from existing lines." Please provide additional details for all
alternatives in regard to this statement. What is the distance/location to the utility substation,
building hook -in that indicates that this was a key component to determining offsite alternatives.
In addition, please provide this information for the LEDPA. Furthermore, in Table 10, please
define "adjacent" in regard to "other utilities."
Response: In the context of utilities necessary for the project, the term "adjacent" references
utilities located along the project boundary, preferably along roads. The extension of offsite
utilities requires approval of the provider and easements across multiple properties which may
not be acceptable to the property owners. For Offsite Alternative 3, the closest fiber connection
point is located approximately 0.43 miles away, on the other side of Route 321 (Business). In
both Alternative 1 and 2 connections to the utility were likely to be onsite as existing Duke
Energy Transmissions lines are on site. Revised Table 10 can be found in Appendix 4.
Onsite avoidance and minimization planning included: Two-story buildings options were
considered but did not support the construction schedule (longer initial construction duration).
Construction is planned to start mid-2024. Schedules and need -by dates for this site are driven
by customer demand. The current demand necessitated the use of Single -Story Pre -
Engineered Metal Buildings (PEMB) construction due to the short duration to design and erect,
anticipated to be 18 months. Please provide further information to the construction feasibility of
buildings other than PEMB. In addition, the construction timeline and need -by dates need
further explanation. If this project is not completed within 18 months, does it make it unviable?
Please provide comparisons, cost analysis, and other considerations and supporting
documentation.
Response: PEMB construction was selected because it provides the smallest building footprint
and fastest construction timeline to achieve capacity needs. Utilizing concrete tilt -up or precast
construction would lengthen the building footprint. Additional footprint would ultimately result in
the need for additional wetland and WOUS impacts. Standard building delivery is 18 months
and the impacts on permitting timelines, supply chains, and engineering submittal approvals for
the other construction types would prevent delivery within the necessary timeframe. Use of the
other building types would result in delaying construction from 2024 to 2025 and completion to
2026.
B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize losses of
Waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding
development and modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse
impacts.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 13 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
I have evaluated the avoidance and minimization included in your application and have determined
the details to be generally sufficient for our evaluation.
Response: Acknowledged.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all appropriate and practicable
minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or
wetlands or provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.
The applicant has chosen to purchase 1,485 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 0.35 wetland
mitigation units (WMUs) from a combination of a private mitigation bank and the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to offset the unavoidable loss of 889 LF of stream channel
and 0.27-acre wetland.
Response: Acknowledged. Please note that the totals have been updated based on requests from
NCDEQ. The applicant now proposes the purchase of 1,625 credits to be provided through a credit
purchase from the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee Program
Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your permit request.
The applicant has provided Threatened and Endangered Species information including proposed
listed species. "The tri-colored bat has been proposed to be federally listed as endangered and is
expected to be officially listed before this site goes to construction. Roosting habitat is present
across the site in the form of forested areas. Acoustic surveys are scheduled to occur at the end of
May 2023 for this species and further analysis and results will be provided at that time." Please
provide the results of the acoustic surveys, and any avoidance and minimization measures based
on the survey results that the applicant proposes.
Response: Acknowledged. The acoustic surveys were conducted in between June 22-29, 2023. A
probable absence for tri-colored bat was confirmed by the survey. The survey results are currently
in review with the USFWS (Attachment 7), and the results of the coordination will be provided upon
completion.
2. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office. "There are five known archaeological sites within the proposed area of disturbance:
31 CT255, 31 CT254 and 31 CT289- 31 CT291: Sites 31 CT255 and 31 CT254 are not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places and no further archaeological work is necessary
on these sites. However, according to our records, sites 31 CT289- 31 CT291 were recorded in
January 2023 by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc for the above referenced project." Based on the
Corps review area, there are numerous sites within the overall project area that were assigned
archaeological numbers with the Office of State Archaeology in January of 2023. The Corps
requests a copy of the survey results, and files that were complied. The Corps requests to be
copied on any correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office. NCSHPO indicated that
this information request is required. Please provide the Corps with a copy of the historical report
(HSSR) and any correspondence between the applicant and NCSHPO. Your response to this item
needs to include 1) date(s) of field survey; and 2) approximate timeframe when the survey and
report will be available to the Corps and NCSHPO.
Design with community in mind

September 13, 2023
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Page 14 of 14
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR# 20230684; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00665;
Catawba County
Response: Acknowledged please see Attachment 5.
3. Please provide your responses to the public comments received.
Response: Acknowledged, please see Attachment 6.
Thank you for your assistance with the permit applications, If I can be of further assistance, please contact
me at [phone] or Spencer. Davis(cDstantec.com if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
eVA40-00ma
Spencer Davis
Senior Regulatory Specialist
Phone:[phone]
[e-mail]
Attachment 1: Updated Jurisdictional Impact Maps
Attachment 2: NCSAM & NCWAM Forms
Attachment 3: Off-Stie Analysis
Attachment 4: Table 10 Revised
Attachment 5: Cultural Resource Survey
Attachment 6: Public Notice Comment Responses
Attachment 7: Acoustic Bat Survey
Cc: Krysta Stygar (USACE), Claire Wolanski (Microsoft), Loretta Cummings (Stantec)
Design with community in mind

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 1:
Updated Jurisdictional Impact Maps

. ... ... ... .. . . ...
\ .ml
anon'
cn
O
m
cn
y
\ W c�r0I
Z co >
cn C—
D m
p
m� �.� O�
I ji
mm i
m
D m
D
A F� 'anoo�.. �� mI
D W �w
TO T
O �
_ m
m
cn
m
0 o
m
b
m
3PAT
C 7
w O
w w
W
a
I
1
>
z o
O
og
z
p�vo m
`2 N
0 0 cn
o
p z
?� Mz
/A
o1 o
o
z a
n
< m
N
O
n N
0 3
n
0
m O
o D
< O
D O
nD
Z O
0MI
O
m o w
c
my
3O
�0
x0
F z
A x
D
m
o
xml
0
OD Z
0 Z
m
D
D
A y
Z
w
n
ye
—Z—�m
N \ 1
oo�
o
C
c>— YYY
i
- 0Ull.11 >0�
o
m xx xx�
mm W:Ew
�� 1m
3 Dz c K Dz
f �� ova N� wti
Y ^C VOA
Nmm
Sy�V
C (n O O r r v m v m v v D D
O O JJ D ;o A .11 A .11 m m
A O N ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G7 p p tCii O o m m m m m m O O
0 z Op = p O O O O O 0 3
D D
z z O
oc D y Z 1 v v
v m o o c p 3 � x m
m r D x v 3
m m O A W m 0Op z 0AI z z rAil
A { D z D o D m IT, D D
Z m O { Z z z
G> m < m m 3 r
m m m, x m m K
3 o z z °
D z o p
m
�
n o 1 n

FILE PATH:ZAPr.ja \OANC\ID23005300CL- CL30G Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Sat\ExMblt Skatcba5\ENV Impact— W-04-ENV Impaais recorer.OwpZ:\FoIMa\OANCt20230053000L CL Lyle Creak Site\CADD\Plan Set\Ekblblt Sketcbea\ENVI.pa EMIbIta\CL-ENVImpa racover.Ewg,SSEA ,,7flW2o2302550PM
\\ ` o
,M —�
....��Wn�� pal �D N�1 m I 1
\I m 2 D p D o o O D N ''
I 'I Mm
cm\��zl I+ m µ
T W
3mo p;o oD A m
xI
Zm D 70 1 1
1 4 o vZom ny nm m m
7 _ I MID Lfl -V _
/
co
-n '+
µ
D 910
—ell I Z II, o Z \ 905
_ f4'
� 900
t D > I+ 895
_ 1 o m o A 890
Cn o o D
w IDG oz wA 885
m
I A m m .
I V I
v
1 III \ \
Ic'�I II 0�
II 1 V � A 88s
I � \ 8so
0 o I
cn
0 0 ��'� wozo 1 �
o Ho
v n n
mwp9y O ND=O
_ O oA m0m t0mo N0m
D
D A A A A A m m
m O O O O O O vO m
mA-4 =m � T A A
o K c NO OO O O O O O
A z O w W 0
O T T mm0
r m OO= o pZz zzn O z -I
*oa o ooc m mv X. , M*
< mo O A m vO O D D
3m Friz Fill
O n mzZON () Z_oD MCU) m 0 m3 Z
�32 0 m p w
D 3zi > z Z y Zo om y
O O 1vXDmr3u'
T 3 V
1 Z O (> n -
D Z En
Q.
Z—Om

FILE PATNZAP-dt\OANC\202300—l---LNe Creek Slle\CADO\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sket—\ENVImpact ErMbIW-04-ENV Mpa recover-a:\Rolede\OANC--l-CL--Creek Slte\CA00\Plan Sel\Eablblt Sketcbea\ENV Impel E—ft\CLTOaENV Impala reppver.d— SSEAACY, 7JlW0230:25:57 PM
l
O O
0
W m OD (D O O 0 0 O to
m O N O Cn O G1 0 O N D N
a rT
+� 894.12
�O mm Tm
;o
m m0
_m rz
z0 ��
m0 m
O l/> �_ D m
r " T '
r" o+ 892.70
i iP co .... � . .
p Cn 0 907.64 c w ' A A ....
r (p
cn r V T T
II m
v o Cb A m
o N � i
(J T : N
AVJ� 0 Zl m 1 �O
m + 890.86 ........:...... z .............).............. C .;.. z ...... ...T o
903.08
Ii (�O D 0 a I N m m
10, O
//) iC
m A O O m
m mA K
X W 0 mz
W 888.32 co z I _,T�� 0 m A
OD W OD N aD ,�07 w�ID O� (o (o (P (fl n {
(mil O N O D CCi 0� (,mil O n cn T`
0
m p
T
O m
O
0
T O
N Z
m
O
O
Z
N
m i O
0
D
0
-C r O
m tcn
C i o m
{v Z O
o p w TI =
we Im O
o C Z
n o N V n
O
n
N`0 c
N
_ N Z
o�?z `�oznao
o
o > zc m_
2 O D C N O O r r v v v v v v D D
y { m O O m 3 O O O O O O v v
N m A V = � V v V v V v A A
6 { m K c C) 0 O O O 0 O O O O
A to O C. O 0 w 0 0 0 to N X X
00 (N7 o m o o z m T 0 0 0 0 0 0
O = o D D
m z z Z z z o m m m m m m m
mr � m o y o v_ m o o c A v M. X. - M*
A Zl 0 Z < O W m O A m O z O D D A w n O m Fri 0
x coD �O� m 0 L7 m Z or
mil) 20 rn = 3 m m m w 3
W j r Z D 3zi y z Z y
NZo om
mOOo r
u'
v 3 v
1 Z Z n
D
D
Z-Om

FILE PATH:ZAPralede\OANC\ID23008300CL-CLTOA Lvle Creek Slte\CADD\Plan Set\ExMblt Sketcbae\ENVInroad—blte\C— ENVImpacts recover.Cwa2:\%oleda\OANCt20230063000L CLTOCLvle Creek Slte\CADD\%an Set\Eablbd Skdcbea\ENV Impact EMIIbIte\CLTOa-ENVInroads recove.— SSEAACY,]I1 W-3 4:28:M PM
r
A 11 p 1 = S
z O m
'•Z �•••.•: T Z ;o O
11
D� \0 0
am
V� \
goo r �
o
o
o
\ \
O 9
y o
z o
o �
n
o O
u Z
m O
m
n Do ZO
O� Om
37
3 C.)x O
gym n-n
vZ D
m O
N D
N z
0
m0�00 m
mv� O fA
O
OOmp
2 n 0
Z
= m
V1
(7
m
v {
O< m
r
m z
m
0 z
D
O
Ell
o Z
VE
<
O
m
O w
F z
m
m O
m _
m O
z D
O
o
A
m Or
m Z
A
D
2
" D
m
C 4l O >0 r r V � V � V � D D
O O A D 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v
m A m 3 0 0 m m m m m m A A V
0 0 0 m O 0 w m m m m m O Ox
00 z0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z � Z 5' z m* m m m m m
Z m
Om m r D (� A m V m 3 3 M*
m m O A '> 0 O z O Z z m -
A { A n A O A I'll
m > Z
Z p O r O
0 D 4 < f�fl f�fl 3
m
K O z Z n
> z 0 0
v
n In n

/
¥
871.001 a
= «
_
>
C)y
\-
f
®
_a
\..\
+
\�
.
CO
?
e«j
§`
/
871.30
\
\ ) /
\
/
o
)/§��
e
/
(
\
[
$
; j
A
-
z
q
§
§
�
\
/ c
s
!
■
||
§
A\
\! \
§\|\
d
k
:>
$ƒm{
_
-
-
\
2 §
§ ƒ
ƒ ,
ƒ ,
ƒ
)
`
g
ƒ \
$
3 (
! !
!
(
\ )
\
\ K
§
)
(
-
-
- -
§
®
\R 3
)
)
)
k
\
§
t/ 2<
m -
CO -
/
Fri
) /
) f
Pl0 m
�
-
m
Fri
--
)
;_, E
2
;
°
>m
z
m
k\
§!\
(
{i
`§
\
§
( |
|
`
:
¥ \
_
\
Q \
/ \
2
>
\
®
In ®
,
° ®
®
,
-z�\
I

FILE PATH:ZAPr.j—\0ANC\2o220063o0CL-CI— Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Plans E.hlblt Sketches\ENVImpact EMlbbWCLT04 ENV Impacts recover.tlwg2::\Protects\OANC\20230063000L CLT04 Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Plan Set\Exblbd Sketches\ENV Impart Elh0ts\CLTo4 ENVImpelsrecover.dw9,SSEA ,,7/16/20234:2619PM
♦�'0o
s
\ m
�p6
m
D
A
M
O
O,
D
A
—
FF
1+
o D
♦�
D
m
^
\ \\ \\\Ir
\ \
�♦ A��� ��
ro� ��o0 �
Nocno 0 ♦� \ i
_0
0y�j 0 m00 M.
0 `z G70mA
> Z n 0
O v O Z
FL,y ° m
z {
o
N A y
0 C) Oc m
Z D 0 9
m r O< m 0 D
m
'wpoN�A xl �_ 0 Z n
y O Z C) 0
OM m z
M. co D M cn A
3n x a vZ Di z D
i O
O No m a
W Z A z
D D
O
m
m
O
m
5
2
O
PHO
� 0 N
7 °° m0
g
Ao
G)m
♦ 7AO
♦ °o ROW
<0
\
\
m
C
O
NO
OA Dn
r �
r V �
V
� V �
D
D
0
V
0 (0ii
O
m�
O O
m m
O
m
O O 0
m m m
O
O
p0
Z
Z
ZO cO
m
x
z
0 0 0
N Z m
0
0 0 0
m m T
m
m
Om
W
m
m
z
r D
O A
{
oc
O
A m V
m 0 O
z
V 3 3
O z z
x
m
m
'�
.lDl
0 0 A
ry
A z z
K
z
ZIMp
O
r
0
K
z z
0 0
n
Z
m
v
n
0 - n

FILE PATH:ZAPMe \OANC\2o23006300CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketches\ENV Impact ErMbIW-04-ENV CL Lyle Creek Slte\CARD\%an Set\Eablbd Sketches\ENVI.pa EMlblts\CL-ENVImpactsrecover.dw,SSEA ,7JlW2o2302628PM
cr,
ccll
o cn
W
o
C.
cn
00 -4
o
W
cn
m
o
W
cn
++
875.18
0
875.18
z
m
m
/
Z
/
—
D
/
0 M
O
+
872.97
0
DW ...........
z 0
.:.....
..........
........�....
...............
872.97
0
D
m
—
2 T1
p
O �J
mD�
O f
0
+
861.53
'
<
A
m<w
O "' y
X
m
:
o 0
......... ......
. .�......;..........;
......
O ..
.,........—
2
z
861.53
m �
����
D W
how
7
����
0
WZz
v
—
N
i
' cz x
m
iP
o
OCDm�
m0g
' Uzi
�.
+
872.00
p �;m
lO z
0
0
— c W .......
Gzi
..................
......�
z ..
G)
„ .........
m
—
672.00
n�m
m
0
03 C)
vzi>m
0
z
cox:
—
W
�n0
Zm�
N
+
871.14
p =
871.14
<
0
W
W
ccnn
c°Dn
o cn
W
o
m
cn
o
cn
w
o
W
cn
0
mu
0
0050
m 0
O
I
G)Om�
z� n
o
D
_ m
{ m
C
Z
O
m o
A
O m
A
0 r
D
3
r v
O
0
v v
0 0
O O
v v
O O
0 0
v
0
O
D D
m v
v v
rn
v {
m
"�ZviII
0
V 0
C
0 0
O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0
O
0 0
O O
x
D
0 m
o
O
O
Z m
0 2
C D
0 000000x
Z
ti V
v
D D
m
O y
O
O
m
O
C A
m
m i
3
- M*
0
<
W
m O
A
m m
O
O D
D
zo
m
m
Z
L7
m
O
<
m
m
r
to 3
IFF Z 0
O A
D 0
0
D
0
D
p
O
fmn O
0
D
m D
m
In
Z
D
0
— Z —0
I
m

FILE PATH:ZAPM—\OANC\2023666306CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADO\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketcbea\ENV Impact& W\C100 EL- Lyle Creek Slte`,CAOD\Flan SM\ hblt Sketcbea\ENV Impart Exblblls\CLTOa ENV Impala recover.dw SS—,, 711W-34:26:36 PM
m
D
Z
m
- Z
µ
oD
on
DU)
µ D
I
/
Nco
� O
V
�j
—0.0
0
�� A
0� ` µ >
o z
x
/ I
N Z
m
<±
o
Z
D
O
o ` D
En A
Z
µ D
n
-n
D
ti U)
Z
^O
�O N
p
A
Am
oy
o
T1
m
T�
rF3
�
�-4
FF
Ou
m nD
y
o�
oD
m
o0
n D
v
/
D �
o0 ooy
nD
N
W
0I 0+50.0DI
N A
0r0
In r>
z
T
Ami
om
A
m �5
o
C
C
N
W (�
F o
C
N Cl
D o
C
m W
�
n
a
m
N
N O
O
>2
_
N
p U)
O
v D
2 m� p0
9p v
O
D Z
y °
O
m
{ rn
6
o
0
N
C)
V {
A y
Oc m
Z
O
D
m
o
0 D
m
'wpoN�A
r
m rn
Z1 �_ O
Z
m o
n
P
y o
Z In
om
m
0 w
z
x
coD
ml0
=
A 0
�n
O
x
a
�Z
Di
z D
i
O
O No
Or
A
z
m z
D
D
0
9
m
�;o 0
p A
n m
Dn__—
\ _gym
/
n
r
O
v
C
O
4l
O
O
A
m
>0 r
D �
3
r
� 0
�
V
0 0
�
V
0 0
� �
D
0 m
� A
D
v
m
A
V 0
0
O
O
O O
O
A
O
C)
0
0
C. O
O
m
0
m m
0
00
ZO
T
=
T
p O
m m
0 0
o p
m
o
Z
T
� z
5' z
m*
m m
m m
m
z
OT
V
m
m
m
r
O
D O
A
A m
m 0
O z
3
O
3
M*
m
{
z
z m
m
1
�
Zl
z2Z2
a
r
m
O
ap
<m
m
m
z
z 0
>
z
p
p
v
n
S
n
n

FILE PATNZAP-da \OANC\202300—l---W. Creek Slte—E\Plan Set\E&Nblt Sket—\ENVI—D1,11, —04- ENV Nostra recovera:\N.,—d OANCt20230063000LEL--Creak Sit.\CAOO\Plan SetVNNI,d Sk.icM1ea\ENV Impact EMIbIte\CLTOa- ENV Inroads recove.—SSEAACY,%I13t20230:26:C3 PNI
O CP
D
m
2
O
;fl
G
m
A
O
O
O
A
rn
w
A ;
X
. .:.....:.>..:.....:.....:.........
W
m
_
�1
0
O
O —
m
c�
O
0
.................
0
O —
RIM: 900.72
INV IN: 889.03 (S-102) —
t S-100VV OUT: 888.28 (S-100)
IN:887.93(S-101)
m
N
O
w = 00
W O
Ul O
m
(0
Ul
co Lo co
O O
O U1 O
m co co
N N
of O Vl
co
W
O
co co co
W A A
(P O Ul
(00
O
O
+
(WO O
CT O
Z m
x
O
CIl
O N
O 01 O
N W W
CT O 0
A
O
A
CT
— O
936.51
z
�x
n
y
TO
z 0
D +
906.52
77
O _
z
\/
z�
mm
w
(n t
902.56
/ :
.;. @ o ..
.
O
>
908.92
G
m
/
p
p�m
wo
A
+
899.85
...........
..................
O
Z M
m
N+
897.77
I I t
t I l t
l
t l
co
N
z
(00
O
(OO
0l
O
O
O
O (D O N N W
(Jt O En O 0l O
W A A
Cn C. Cn
0
�%
O
O
co
0
m
8 co co W A
O
N
O
Clt
O CT r o L" O O O
V
m
O+
. Om mI
o
o
o900.33
(nO
0
Dw
0
°
D
om
n�
z oo
zm
m
o_xli
6
921.50
...
o
m
n<X
0n
<
(n
T
m(/)
zm
V
z X45924
II
p
W
0
(0
O
x
Z 0
O,§
O O co O (0
IN)N W
O
(n
_
O
O D
x Z
D N
O 0 O N O
O
r
m
rm
I■■■y■I
0�50
0 O O
0
■
I
I
O
G m
zQ �
O
D
_ m
{ m
C
Z
O
N
O
A
0
A
m
O r
D
3
r v
O
0
v v
O O
0 0
v v
0 0
O O
v
O
0
D
m
v
D
v
v
rn
{
OG
m
O
"
O
5
V C)
C
to O
0 0
O
Ox m
O O
0 0
mm mo
0 0
0 O
0
0
O
0
X
0
O
>(
cNi
D
m
o
O
z
Z
O
m
O x
C D
0
Z
O O
ti v
o
v
D
D
m
O y
O
O
r
O 0
C A
V
V
3
-
M*
o
<
W
m
m
O
AFri
{
m
O
O D
D
,ll
-1
O Z
A
A
n
A O
A
y
Z
m
m
Z
L7
m
O
<
m
m
r
to
3
Z o
O A
�
D Lnn
K O
, D
p
D
p
O
m O
0
D
V D
V
A
v
O En
RO D
O
Q
—z—om

FILE PAIN:ZAProjede\OANC\2023006300CL CLT04 Lyle Creek She\CADD\Plan $M\E%hlblt Sketches\ENV lmpad ExhlbIW\CLT04-ENV lmpeds recover.tlwg2\Prolecis\DANC\2023006300CL CLT04Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Pla,3t\ExhIbd Sketches\ENVImpacl Evh.bilsCLT04 ENVmp _ ver.tlwg,SSEANCy,]18I20234:26:49PM
\\ C
AN
o
c'o°�°�a—
�°
Co
10
or
ED
;:'l: • { I
''.' I \� y l I+ j
0 co 00
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...'l'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':'.'.'.'.'.'. \ sal \\\ \\\
...mom cp
A m c�si O t�5\ COS r ;:.,.•.''.'''•'''.'.'.'!'.'.''•''•.'.(•/.•'.'.'•''' �� \ \
o
o�
D<
/ D
���% - 100YR; A
71
o
N
��
o
[0
��
mozOp
zGmo
�w
o
�
I
�
HH111H
G)
I
o 9p
O
D
= m
C
Z
m O
o A
O I-
D
I- o,
A
v o,
A
v o,
A
v D
A v
D
v
y
{ m
O
O m
A
3
O
O O
,
O O
O v
A
v
A
o
N
{
A y
00
m
T
O
o z
V
C �'
N O
V
O
O w
v
O O
m 0
v bi
O O
m to
v
O O
N X
O
X
o
p
(N7
r
m
m
p
z
Z O
M""
O =
z Z
o m
m m
m m
o 0
m m
0 D
m m
D
m
mr
w
A
�
m
o Z
z
o a
< O
o
W
v_ m
m O
o o
A
0
c A
ED n
v
O Z
v 3
O D
D A
n
Zl
O
m
{
n `$
n y
Z O
TI
O Z
A
�
n
A n
A
y
z
or
M.
co
ml0w
m 0
0
m
Z
6-3
3l)
>z
20
N =
z
3
m m
m
Z>
w
3
m
D�
G) n
> LX
Z
o
Z
o
77
O
NO
A
m O
y
o
v
3 V
Ul
Z
D
A z
z �
n v
n
D o
Q
D
-z=om

O
0
o w
V
V7 0
m ou
O O
V7 O
Go coc0
M 0
V7 O
A
c� m
O 1
N O D
w
cn
cn
w 00
m
cn
O cn
0
0
00 m 00 0e
v )< 00 0.
VI
cn CD cn
— +0 880.00
890.00
Z V
z 0
o+ 873.94
0 0-{I-- �' I
0
D O
Q 873.94
O! !
z n
z
F0
of
n I
00 M
�
+ 880.73
+
:U
m ............_
aO
O
+ 875.59
... .. O
..
0 903.85 vi
�,to
— 0 875.59
o
.
x +0 882.12 \
I I
I I
In
�W 006.02 �X
D
866.02
o
a m Z m
a
c0 m
r
m
D + 866.02
V ry N
UlmO CD
ID
O O
c7t O
ID 0
o O
00
O
0 O
=
/1
l '
C
W y
G)
_
<
—r oMW.
z o
U)
/ : 6) m
ne
m
o
+ 873.26
...:.....
../.:....
��n-
M m
a
m 0 W M
m�_c0
w c0
c0 0
c0 m
0
-'
<
0 873.26
/ D z x
m_cn
_ cn CDcn0zo
cn o
u, o
m
mn�
�0 879.961 1my
DC11
�m
�n
V� 873.59
Z0�
Do :�
z@
_
q
xO� 873.59
zvmm0
Om>O
..l Az O m
lJ :�
N
z3Cm
I pm:
881.53 .... ;..
..:......:.....
:......:......_
wo
A Km
m T
firn^+
VJ 882.444
+
D m.....
A m
I D 0
xA 906.43
874.49
cn 874.49
O Z A m .:.....
x D
00 m
m w
w c0
c0 0
zO�o
v
o
cn
cn co
ccOri o
Z oo
G
u0i o
? A
O 0
N
+ 874.89
CO 874.89
=
—
co n rn
O 00
co
00 0u
0c
0e 00 0e
o0
ccnn
0 cO1n
o
cno Ol
to
O p
z
0
m
nF
O
N
>
0
O
(1)
r
M
cp
f
0
Z
m
n
M
O
M
Z
11
�/
c ■
o
0I
z
m
Pr
z c0z
) o
0
_ D
m
{
C
Z
o
N O
O A
A n
O r r v v
D A A
3 O O
v v
A A
O O
v v
A A
O O
D
v
A
A
D
v
v
A
y
{
A cn
m
A
O
K -1
� � v v
C O O
0 O O w 0
v v
O O
0 0
V v
O O
N 0
O
X
0
X
p 0
00 m
Ap
o z
M"" o 0
O = o
0 0
0 0;
D
>K
D
O fr-
m0 z
D
O
z
O
Z
z z 5" o m
O 0 c A V
m m
V
m m
3 3
m
-
m
M*
? m 0
<
W
m
m O
A p , m O
{22
i O
D D
A
' Z O -n
0 Z
A
n A
0 A
m m
>
Z
0r
U) jimj
r
m A
LZj m
z *
Z
z
D
O D
0
z O
i 2
0
x
7 O No
A
m O
y
v
3
v
Z
n
D
Z U
0
Q.
I

FILE PATH:ZAPralecis\OANC\ID23008300CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketches\ENV Impact ErMbIW-04-ENV Impacts recover.dwgZ:\%oleds\OANCt20230063000L CL Lyle Creek Slte\CARD\%an Set\Eablbd Sketches\ENVImpel EMIbIts\C_T ENVImpactsrecover.dw SSEAACV,]/l W/ 3022A3PM
41
W
00
I t\
i o00 0 ,
C
W
D �
o �
0 /
z
0
C 4lO O (7 r r V � V � V � D D
O
m A m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A V
0 0 (pit O O O 0 O O O y O O
I I m m m m m m
p0 ZO 0O = p O p p o p o
z N Z m m m m m m m
Z T
mm m r D O C m V m 3 9 M
m m O A m 0 O z O z z m
{Fri m_ z2Z2 � Zl KrO
am
< m
m A m
m
z z 0
> z p p
v
n
S
n n

(
_to
)
§
KID
=
a
=
\
k /
!
�
/
-
883.00
Fl�,
883.00
\
\
(
\
2
\
(
)/§��
e
/
(
\
[
A
-
$
§0
§
\
/ c
s
0
!
■
||
\! \
§\\
|
§
d
A\
k
K
\
2 §
§ ƒ
ƒ ƒ
ƒ ƒ
ƒ
)
`
g
ƒ \
$
3 (
! !
!
0
(
\ )
\
\
K
§
- -
) §
(
-
-
\R 3
)
)
)
®
k
\
§
t/ 2<
m -
ED -
/
Fri
) /
) f
PlC) \ )
m
-
m
�
�
)
;_, E
2
°
m
<Z
M 4*
k\
§!\
(
{ )
\
§
( |
|
`
:
m r
-IFF
\
: R
) ;
)
_
§
-
®
,
�
®
—z�\
I

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 2:
NCSAM & NCWAM Forms

NC SAM SHEETS

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies user mianuai version /.-i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): CLT04 2. Date of evaluation: 3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
3. Applicant/owner name: Microsoft 4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
5. County: Catawba 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SA 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow El Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? []Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types —assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o
U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L @
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ®A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
®C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 FIB 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04
Stream Category Pb1
Date of Assessment 3/20/2023
Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
CLT04
3. Applicant/owner name:
Microsoft
5. County:
Catawba
7. River basin:
Catawba
2. Date of evaluation: 03/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SB 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m N ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent g w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation N ❑1 Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >- 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ®A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 FIB 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment 03/20/2023
Stream Category Pb1
Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
CLT04
2. Date of evaluation: 03/2/2023
Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
3. Applicant/owner name:
Microsoft
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
5. County:
Catawba
6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin:
Catawba
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SC (Lye Creek) 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 10 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 30 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ®Size 4 (>- 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o
U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L @
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/a mph ipod/crayfish/sh ri mp)
® ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
® []Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >- 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ❑A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ®B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 FIB 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment
03/2/2023
Stream Category Pa4 Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): CLT04
3. Applicant/owner name: Microsoft
5. County: Catawba
7. River basin: Catawba
2. Date of evaluation: 03/20/2023
Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SD 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 8 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? []Yes []No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow []Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A B
valley shape (skip for ❑
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 miz) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes [:]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? []Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑1 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation NC ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r �6 ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala ma nders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
El Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ®A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
®B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 FIB 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment
03/20/2023
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
CLT04
3. Applicant/owner name:
Microsoft
5. County:
Catawba
7. River basin:
Catawba
2. Date of evaluation: 03/20/2023
Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SE 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent g w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation N ❑1 Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala ma nders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑ B 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment
03/20/2023
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): CLT04
3. Applicant/owner name: Microsoft
5. County: Catawba
7. River basin: Catawba
2. Date of evaluation: 03/20/2023
Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SF 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? []Yes []No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow []Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat []Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
[]Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect []Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses 7, N ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation NC ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) m ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
'********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala ma nders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
El ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ❑A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ®A
Mature forest
®B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑ B 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment
03/20/2023
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): CLT04
3. Applicant/owner name: Microsoft
5. County: Catawba
7. River basin: Catawba
2. Date of evaluation: 03/20/2023
Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
4. Assessor name/organization: Stantec
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Lyle Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SX 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
El ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types —assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o -
U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y
❑I
Sand bottom
®C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L @
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ®Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ❑A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ®B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
®B ®B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑ B 46 to < 67 ❑ C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 ❑ E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CLT04 Date of Assessment
03/20/2023
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC WAM SHEETS

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version o.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WA
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker/ Melissa Ruiz
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.731350,-81.205389
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? U Yes L�J No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
El ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >- 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
®F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >- 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>- 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
®B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA Date of Assessment 3/20/2023
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker/ Melissa
Ruiz
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WB
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.735604.-81.203829
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
®C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ®E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
®D ®D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >- 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
®H ®H ®H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>- 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>- 500 acres
®B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
El
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
®A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
®A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ®B ®B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Receives flow from Lyle Creek as well as SD. Flow from Lyle Creek is during high flow events only.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WB Date of Assessment 3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WC
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
F- Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.734673.-81.203829
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >- 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I 01 ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>- 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>- 500 acres
®B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ®C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Although sparse black willow is present along wetland therefore classified wetland as a Headwater Forest.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC Date of Assessment
3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
accompanies user manual version 5.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WD
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.7344600.-81.19585600
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
®F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ®B ®B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD Date of Assessment
3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user ivianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WE
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.73249600,-81.19691500
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? L_J Yes L� No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
El ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ®E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >- 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>- 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
®F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WE Date of Assessment 3/20/2023
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WF
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.73212400,-81.19733500
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ®C ®C >- 20% coverage of pasture
®D ❑D ❑D >- 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
❑A
❑A
❑A
>- 500 acres
❑B
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
❑D
From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
❑E
From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F
❑F
❑F
From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G
❑G
❑G
From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H
❑H
❑H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I
❑I
❑I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J
®J
❑J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K
❑K
®K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
®F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes []No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ®B ®B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WF Date of Assessment 3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version o.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
3/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WF2
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker, Melissa Ruiz/
Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
F- Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deorees)
35.73459600,-81.20594700
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ®E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ®> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
❑A
❑A
❑A
>- 500 acres
❑B
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
❑D
From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
❑E
From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F
❑F
❑F
From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G
❑G
❑G
From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H
❑H
❑H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I
❑I
❑1
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J
®J
®J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K
❑K
❑K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>- 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
®B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
17113 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ®C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WF2 Date of Assessment
3/20/2023
Trevor Walker, Melissa
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Ruiz/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version o.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
CLT04
Date of Evaluation
03/20/2023
Applicant/Owner Name
Microsoft
Wetland Site Name
WX
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Trevor Walker/ Stantec
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Lyle Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050101
County
Catawba
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
F- Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.731065,-81.207288
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
®A ®A ®A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >- 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ®A >_ 100 feet
®B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
®G ®G ®G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
®B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v) ®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WX
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 03/20/2023
Assessor Name/Organization Trevor Walker/ Stantec
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 3:
Off -Site Analysis: North Carolina

® Stantec
Additional Offsite Alternatives Analysis - Charlotte Region
The following summary provides the research and analysis performed while choosing a project location
within the Charlotte Region of North Carolina.
Initial analysis for available parcels includes:
1. A need for additional data storage must be identified in a region. Because the Charlotte, North Carolina
area was identified as requiring additional data storage, a search for locations began in this area.
2. Access to long -haul fiber. These fiber lines follow specific routes and limit the areas where data centers
can be located. An example of the long -haul fiber lines available in the Charlotte Region is provided in
Appendix A on Figure 1.
3. Access to sanitary sewer and water lines. This criteria limits the location of parcels to areas within an
urban service area as defined by a locality. Urban service areas are generally clustered along main
access roads and within cities and towns.
4. Access to electrical transmission lines. Access to 256 kV power is required for data center campuses.
Land needs to be located adjacent to or near an existing power line. Creating a new transmission line is
avoided when possible because the energy company would have to obtain a certificate of
environmental compatibility and public convenience and necessity from the NC Utilities Commission, a
process including the preparation of a detailed application with numerous alignment options that can
take up to 24 months. Once the certificate is approved, the process of obtaining easements from
affected property owners and eventual construction of the line can extend the timeline by 12 to 18
months. In addition, energy companies typically have their own long-term plans and are not open to
modifying their plans for a single project. A map of the locations of electrical transmission lines in the
Charlotte, NC region is provided in Appendix A on Figure 2.
5. Parcels that ideally intersect all three of the above requirements or are adjacent to them.
6. Available land that meets or exceeds a certain acreage. Based on recent projects, 100 acres or more is
optimal to allow for the construction of five-48 MW data centers with a substation and stormwater
management ponds while avoiding jurisdictional features.
7. Avoidance of potentially hazardous sites or environmental justice sites within the vicinity.
8. Avoidance of potential environmental issues (wetlands/waters of the US, other environmental issues,
cultural resources, or endangered species).
Counties such as Cabarrus and Gaston which are located closer to Charlotte have been growing at a faster
rate and are deterring industrial development which has forced industrial and manufacturing developers to
focus on the counties further away from the city.
Rowan Countv
The initial land search in Rowan County, NC, included a limited number of large parcels or multiple parcel
compilations located along or near the 185 corridor. This area contains access to long -haul fiber lines,
electrical transmission lines (Appendix A; Figures 1 and 2), access to sanitary sewer and water lines
(Appendix B; Figures 1 and 2). As potential parcels were assessed, the additional presence of an airport,
railways and major natural gas pipelines limited development on the parcels that met the required criteria.
Airports pose a risk of crashes within the takeoff and landing zones and railways are used to transport
hazardous materials. Natural gas pipelines are also considered a hazard and are avoided. There are
required building safety setbacks in excess of 200 feet from the centerline of a natural gas line, which
Design with community in mind

® Stantec
indicates how dangerous building in the proximity can be and it also greatly affects buildable area. Figures
showing the locations of these hazards are provided in Appendix A on Figures 3 and 4 and in Appendix B
on Figure 4. At the time Rowan County was attracting a lot of developer interest, and this led to competition
for available land resources. Acquiring land was a struggle due to quick turnover of industrial properties and
this led to an expansion of the search area to surrounding counties.
Iredell County
The search also included the Statesville area in Iredell County. Long -haul fiber is generally located along
Interstate 40 in this area (Appendix A; Figure1). The Statesville urban services area straddles the
intersection of Interstates 40 and 77 (Appendix C; Figure 1). There is an airport located on the southeast
side of 140 which also restricted the search area (Appendix C; Figure 2). Because there are also limited
existing electrical transmission lines that intersect with the Statesville urban service area (Appendix A;
Figure 2), a single potential parcel was identified which would have required a rezoning from agricultural
use to an industrial use. As no other parcels were identified within the required 12.5 miles (20 km) to
maintain latency, development in this area was eliminated.
Lincoln Count
The areas within Lincoln County that offer access to sanitary sewer and water lines are limited to properties
within the city of Lincolnton (Appendix D; Figure 1) and near Lake Norman in the east of the County
(Appendix D; Figure 2). Fiber lines and electrical transmission lines are also located in and around
Lincolnton and near Lake Norman in the east (Appendix A; Figures 1 and 2). The electrical transmission
lines are maintained by the city rather than the utility which adds a layer of coordination required for access
to electricity. The Lake Norman area also has an interstate natural gas line across the area crossing from
the southeast to northwest and a railway line following along NC Highway 16. (Appendix A; Figures 3 and
4).
Industrial zoned parcels within the urban service areas are limited (Appendix D; Figures 3 and 4). Industrial
uses are allowed under the GMC (General Manufacturing and Commercial District) zoning in the City of
Lincolnton and under IC (Industrial Center) in the county of Lincoln. Data centers are not listed as a by -right
use under either industrial zoning and would require the submittal and approval of a conditional use permit.
Within Lincoln County, only four potential sites were identified. Of these, two were in Riverbend Preserve, a
highly controversial development with the local citizens. Microsoft prides itself on building positive
connections in the communities in which it's data centers are located; therefore, these parcels were not
investigated any further. The other two parcels were in the Indian Creek Industrial Park and were
purchased by another buyer before any decisions by MSFT were made.
Catawba Countv
The availability of sanitary sewer and water in multiple, separate jurisdictions within Catawba County (cities
of Hickory, Conover, Newton, Claremont and the towns of Maiden, Brookford, Long View and Catawba)
allowed for more opportunities to find sites meeting the required criteria (Appendix E; Figure 1). Fiber lines
and electrical transmission lines are also located within all of these jurisdictions (Appendix A; Figures 1 and
2). Natural gas lines are limited to a small area in the southeast of the county (Appendix A; Figure 3). The
availability of multiple jurisdictions and their sizes limited the impact of the rail lines (Appendix A; Figure 4).
Catawba County also offered many large, rural parcels that were zoned for industrial use. Examples of local
zoning maps are provided in Appendix E on Figures 2 and 3. In addition, Catawba County already has data
centers located within it and this familiarity made coordination with the jurisdictions easier. Data centers are
already listed as allowed uses within industrial districts in multiple jurisdictions thereby limiting the need for
rezoning or conditional use permits (for example, the City of Conover, Town of Maiden).
Design with community in mind

® Stantec
APPENDIX A -Infrastructure Maps:
Charlotte Region
Design with community in mind

K
0
y
�
r"7
* LLL
� p
x
w
r�
S
O
rt
r-t.
CD
D
m
a)
CD
r
ca
c
m
Z
CD
O
�T
mn

00
�
VJ
N
O
N
O
(D
n
N
O
O
•+
W
n
00
O
ca
o
N
O
O
v
U)
D
U
L
0'
r
CD
I
L_J
I
S
CD
0
O
W
N
o
O
C
�
T
�
m
`G
0 0
m 0
C
D N O TO
� C
D
y N
o O
m 3 O
m
m
U) L No
n
a
3
n
0
Q
■
I
i
I
I
1
I
1

omm

® Stantec
APPENDIX B -Rowan County Maps
Design with community in mind

0
0
0
cn
cn
m
I
cn
0
m
m
2)
mn
(F
CD
-L

/� -,ZIP
' � .\�•/ ( \ �
� � ` � \. � \
2
k\
/
\§
ill
X
0
0
0
CD
m
0
m
m
2)
mn
m
Ilk.)

•• r,
ti
rn
m
1
ill
j1yy
rF
1
. [p
w
CL
LO
G}
O
c
CY
4*
CT �
F
mn
i
m
W

® Stantec
APPENDIX C - Iredell County Maps
Design with community in mind

Iredell County, North Carolina Figure 1 August 17, 2023
UrbanStatesville
a=
A# V#
�.
IP
.,s�! } i � �,
t
GoO
' r
9�� r +r ' � �• �' 111
Print • scale is approximate.
Critical layoutor
activities should not be done using
1RFL�EI_1.
resource.this
MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT D•
updatedIredell County, North Carolina makes no claims and no
warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or
accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.
0.0
o-., 08/03/2023

Map Theme Legends
Urban Service Areas (USA)
Statesville USA
Statesville USA Long Range
Troutman USA
Mooresville USA

Iredell County, North Carolina Figure 2 August 17, 2023
Iredell County Airport Overlay
fu� 2t
Paint SSa 7154
716G
,g, .f 1 7tG7
f r Scotts 't
19U7
15SS
1537 ti07�
53A Luray
S d 4A
CO
—
Wesi�` Statesville
T 1505 137i / p 4 �
1� 1 M5 '
roll.
va
Eufola `
" ,377 19ARIlJM � C SPRIHGS
2Ai�2 II
Troutman
,00,��
1324
� 21
,l 1"- 1
land Long Island
East Monbo s`� 1
� tasz t3tA 1
•� r
tazt l '-
4 Bells i
- Crossroads V
1" = 12000 ft
Print map scale is approximate.
Critical layout or measurement
activities should not be done using
this resource.
MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
Iredell County, North Carolina makes no claims and no
warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or
accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.
Geometry updated 06/05/2023
Data updated 08/03/2023

Map Theme Legends
Statesville Airport Approach Zones
Runway
l Non -Precision Instrument Runway Approach Zone
Precision Instrument Runway Approach Zone
Conical Zone
Horizontal Zone
Primary Zone
01 Transitional Zone

® Stantec
APPENDIX D -Lincoln County Maps
Design with community in mind

c
N
cl
N
O
N
w
N
r
o 0
0
0
o
0
ccnn in
,rn
N
CJl
0
Z
{, a
Af RDSrARpoVVV
vo
s ryS5 l p 4
�4 � S'GE -ph4k5 ��1fa. d'�ti I co
ST 1 ��
H r H rry�
74
iNN r.: •:::. a :,,
cn
so CQ
•" fi�rr,, C' , �� �j AN .
ous
0-
BUCKO
VO
ti _ -�
03
a gar �`�• �'°- � � I
Ao Z VAN lk �
WILL ., 3A �0
'o va
.
n
0
0
rfL
I<
r
MIL
-1
CD

a
� I d
'3
3 = O
ir
3fb
a m
Uri.
5 U co
m CM.
�
"
UL-A.a•
4 o
�3La a
'm 3 � ' C
N fD
_ 7 a 4 1
m
Ln
r n un
3 C o
Lb�lQ�
m__=='
w q,
I�L �.
4 w
-n
CD
CD
fr.
mn
I(D
m

I
C
C
N
N
O
N
w
A_
ryElRL
a 3 @
rt: fi — ii fD fl
��
V?
A
v 7 -
-
?
-
m
rn
—
T
a
n
Ro
r�
WIL r � + �cH e ,Orr A c
&
�� • � lS C13fN17 �� � p� �
"71
8uot,
C!1cn-
-
til
mn
OF
r.
ml
W

ro
3 rb
� w a
�s3Xr
a 4
u3v 4,n
- n �
� rh
rein O �
'D El P
n� 3
�aa�n
. '
6 .,o
,ry
a�
� v
Ww�
CL
Q w
_9
n
m
m
0
0
O
O
N
(D
Q�
3
p ft
i A
F.
4..6-
I
=-
JR
416
SWA
l
is---�
-ILI Z
elm
� � 3 a w �• � m 'm � O o r'�� .t
46

® Stantec
APPENDIX E -Catawba County Maps
Design with community in mind

a
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
M
�
�
m
n
a
a
0
w
rA'f
a
am
I
m
O
m
Q
a
rf
N
nl R
f1a
�v,
CL
3
m
w
N
O
Q
a
a
!C
a
CD

rr
■
rr
� n
ev eu
� w
z
_N
z
❑
o
z
n
z
� ❑
n
n
n
�
w N
N
E
E
m
Q
a
3
3
m
t0
N.
.M o m St
F�i'.oti r
w f)LLN
� rl
_l
- a
13"
U 0
_. .. r %,I Oak Rd rc➢
p Qti
A
3
p $ 5 1tl
of
o s—y r
r
t R
R� �Ll }
Ike
At
d �• I
x Ix
)lk
s Im
tr T�
n4
hAl
x- n
n
tD,
t�
2 2`
P
o c,+ n' .. A Crrarlutte st
m j 14 _ Q
a .. J3
O A
Nor[h west g� S°ti`a 4lg o7 x� i sRy
vr� r a
U7 uyoH R7:, rich ` � o
m a stl N 2 �
L� o a� awaN c
sx �Ave.s = ry
anv LLIgV4 Tl
'� ry rSt A�e N P 4p
P
O �'u yCC Cain- Rd
[moo Py dull] aa1
n
° %
Im! bH. QJ >o
,6 ] o N
4 �`a � yt4� Pg abPlag 5u15upM5
n
Fo� P?/ Yaa17
U
a
IV

0
T
1.0
n 4
z
t Fi{I�I0 0
i ii. z
P PIC
r'j; D
M M
€
ID®000
MEMO
HIM
F F }
6B
1ja
n
�, • ! f
,1
� o 0 000000000000 opo� �ppp E4`��q y
��600 ova � � ��'ei�4��i4•i �.'. •.•.. on c.o o��� f 2 i� 1■
i1 ell
Q�Q
CITY OF CONOVER
NORTH CAROUNA
CC !! Zoning piSMCIS 4 April. 2023

E3 m
a a
°1fm 5t a
g i s i■
Q N
l� � F
ti q ~d 1.
• r "' R t ` a
E //J [o
Q
.N add ° � N
$ � 4
.a
�n
�Oby Rd
1 Q
R
w � � GarenC®
a
d 7 iE£ a
lb c F r P
n n'
vr d v^ oyi
C C m °
m
A
MN LEE -SA
d N�5;5 yes i r -
� ry
�yrW7 W o �
a o
4th sr SW yy
� o key
m �
n Z O
x 1oSA"� �
Y J[JVrj ro _
a
� pti um su+g4� �� � �•ME
-
a
P dx
m
Pk
Mc❑❑nald wYS Sp o N �
it F w
�yRd Jf'"'ar°od Rd
my a fat s .
ti
rri
h „ 3
s ea M" X_ m
m 2 n x
m m a Qa
3 -hyn' I�
N
Cu 'c ■ �3� fi
� ma oSf
? oN '-
� all
�e..Cjp@,f Vv41� avv� j L
to Q asn°H t =
J 7 u 0 G
O �
0 C
f➢
N sp
a ,
n NortAwesr'87 Asa"a OR
N a,u°H �Illn D, S m °$
� entl a4ro 0Qb oHF
Z px e
> any u yd M m isr Aye
G
G e Cline Rd
pb aull� aa-r
m
I fi
Z S F-- r4@ rl i
r 4
. � LJ
_ n 1.41
' o a Ptl a{plig 6ul5ul.5
mn
(D

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 4:
Table 10 Revised

0
CD
7
f
3
3
c
7
K
3
D
OQ
Q
0 CD
CD
Q O
O
CD CD
Q
O
x O
P
O CO
�D
CD n
-O O
-0 O
`G CD
is
O O.
c �
CL
v
� v
0
v
a
N
00
U7
r
n
0
CD
3
O
v
CD
v
3
0
v
CD
3
0
3
0
3
CD
CD
7
O
c
7
CD
7
CD
O
0
CD
v
O
3
v
G
CD
c
0
D T
D
m
m
-0
N
°
v
Z
0
-V
-V
N
CD
3
r
0
y
IV
=
<
C O
0
O
3
CD
S
_K
7
=
<
O
w
f1
n
s'
CD
::
CD
-
0
CD
C.
CD
x
n
lu
o
cn
cn
D
o
c
N
-0
-O0
N
,
C
m
O
n
A
w
2)
°:
o
o
3
O
x
a
.2.
m
a
<
0
n
N (n
cn
N
cn
cn
r.
to
O
C.
°'
n
0.0
=
CC
°'
cc
CD
CD
CD
CD
—
0
O
N
m
CD
0
0
0
cn
CD
N
67
A
C
C.
C.
0
y
N
0
O
z
7
O
Q.
.�
0
N
D
CDO
0
O
G1
C1
K
3
CD
N 0 "0 7
0O
O
Cfl
O
N
(n
O
N
(Jl O
0
O
N
S
N O
C n
-O
3
p
00
w
NO
A
0
CD
CAD
CD
n
cn
Can
�
n
CD
0
3
3
�
V
TI
x°
-�
CD
o D
r
m
y
�n
Q
-
co
m
v
o
o
0
21 v
v
CD
0
o
x
3
a
n
cn
A
w
m
0
3
m
O CD
�,
a
CD
v'
g-
w
in
m
<
o
°
m
v
-�
b
CD
CD
r.
r
N
N
CD
(D CL
0
n
CD
55,
0
cj,(D
o
o
m
m
`�
o
�
z
m
m
o
a
m
U)
Z
c
o
x
o
°
c
m
0
3
3
W
0
3.
3
0
'-'
o
0
c
n
K
tin
0
D
CD
N
o
r
r
a
o'
C�
to
cm
v
o
`�
o
CD
0
C
g
<'
m
D
n
m
�.
CD
7
-a
-0
0
o
O
CL
0
0
1
3
0•
rn
0
00
3
0
0
'00
O
0O
CD
—
CQ
cn
cn
D
�
n7
o
0
m
00
00
N
a)U)o
c
CD
a
CD
s
m
a
(D
_a
0
l<
v
=
r
CL
cn
0
CCD
O
o
CD
x
m
�n
v
cn
�
0
CD
cn
CT
CD
CD
3
0 0 cn
r O CO
O 00
m
o
Z
r
A
O
cn cn
D
°
v
CD
m
0
iv m
w m
�
ycn
cn
3
0
m
cn
p
N
O
w
o
o
r
°
a
v
to
D M
D
a
v
CD
n
N
3
CD
O
w
D
3
3
A
mcn
a
�
-•
c) o
o
0
o
o
CD
a
m
v
°
co
0)
3
o
3
n
w
o�
Z
D
n
CD
3:E
:*
m*
_
3
_
CD
�
CD
0
O
3
cn
0
CD
to
CD —
CD
_
�
=
O
O
CD
CD
T
r
Q
O
N to
v
to
n
C•
N'
N
�1
C7
'6'
m
o
v=
°
o
C2 =
o
_
�,
m
°
0
0
c_n
t°n
_°
0
cn
o
°
�
3
cn
°
v
O
3
O
3
m
0
CD
CD
-O 'a
CD
't3
CDCD
0
m
CD
0
cc
-CL 0
3
co
w
v
Cl
cn
O
O
7
G CZ
O
O
C2
o
�
3CD
C
NN
co
o
to
N
o 0
r-
0
Q
=•
CD
N
to
7
C
O O
O
0
—
7
CD
'°0
0
n
CD
@ N
CD
O
to
N
a
"O
0
a
to
c°n
c°n
O
(n
0 3
S
�•
CD
C1
CD
0_
3
CD
-a3
-
U)
=
v
v 0
O
0
co
CD
co
CL x
x
v
ton
7
IV 3
N
CD
O CD
CD
O <
G
cn
O m
- m
m
o
w n
r
A
- o
�
D
OL
N
pp
N
to
-°
CD
v
v
w
00
OO
OC)
r
CD
CD
v
o
o°
a
o
a
v
CD
to
m
CD
3
-
3
-
D
C�
3
3
m
A
CD
o
cn
c
0
0
CD
0
a
x
CD
°_
*
0
m
N
°
0
0)
3
3
_
_
D
c
to
c�i
0
O <
0°
N
<
3�
CD
0
�
�
CD
�
3
�
Cp
�
�
a
CD
U)
--
_
N
Q
00
O
c
CD
p
T`
3
r
rG
N
.c-.
D
o
CD N
"O
fll
3
O
O
n
cn
C•
CD
CD
O
n
N
(D
n
0
CD
'O
cn
g
0
CD
v -°
a ox
=-a
_
°o
o
m
m
rn
°
CD
0
3
°
m
CD
o
3
o
3
m
CAD
�'
(D
.-.
cn
�
cc
CD
N
O
3
Q
CD
'C
C
O
C7
C7
00
=
to
O CD
m
7
n
7•
O
�.
<
CD
0
�
O
3
_
r<
D
Q
O
m
�•
m
U)
cQ
v
v
7
N
O
0
�
O
CD
CD
O
0
a
D
n
CD
o
0
o
0
°
3
'°0
CT
CD
c°i
v
v
-a
a
OOL
3
c°n
u)
CD
3
to
<
n
•�
CD
0)
0)N• v
COD
cnv
CD
-
°
v
o
U)
to
�.
°
° a
CD
m 3
x
3
v
°
co
°
Q
cn
o
°
C o
v
to
6
CD
v
o
m
v
O C/)
co
N 00
m
o
r
cn
O O
M-CD
D
CL
�_.
N
o cn
—4
cn
cn
3
CD
cn
0
ao
ao
co
--4
m
v
CD
o C
o
0-
v
CD
a
m
coi
3
3
3
3
m
CL
D
v
r
T'
nCD
�n
°
C
�
m
o
0
D
n
X
Z
g°
CD
m
x
3
w
C3
D
0
m
CD
cn Z
°
0
°
z
3
m
v
N
°
m
C�
g
w
w
cfl
O
n
(D
cn
to
O —
N
—
N
O
O
CD
D
3
<
0
3
N m
3
N
°
n
cn
<'
CD
A
o
N
`G
G)
T.
m
0
CD
�_
to
—
-a
o
°
�_
CD
r
Z
O
3
O
3
o
c
(D
3
(n
m
CO
a
-°
cm
N
n
c
n
C7
w
m
a
y.
m
v
D
v
:
v
3
0s
CD
..
CD
7
a
CD
°
°
�
n
n
CD
o
a
n
v
<
°
CD
N
00
0
00
3
O
0
�
7•
O
C1
"a
O
0
0
C
3
0
0
-n
n7
3
r
m
N
v
a
cn
-a
c
cn
CD
cn
CD
.G
0
�z
0.
y
0
CD
to
N
0
O
CD
3
7
0
a
n.
CD
n7
3
0
x
o.
CD
C2
CD
v
CD
0-
W
LA

0
CD
cQ
0
O
3
3
c
D
Z
3
D
a
Gl
v
CD
7
Fn'
C1
CD
m
a
CD
X
0
CD
0
CD
CT
0
c
a
v
m
3-0
K
r-
m
o
o
g
cn
c�
CD
ID
r-
N
ID`x.
a'
3
CD
CD
0
N
CQ
..:
O
ID
a
SU
ID
D
`
—y
M
4
z
m�
e
k
a)
tu
D
°
ci
�°
o
o
o,
O
C1
y
0
cD0
iL
C1
cn
n:
CD
0
CD
cD
``D
`
IV
c
(A
°
w
�
CD
o
o
n1
a_
Co
CD
a
3
o
D
m
°
CD=
�'
m
ycn
x
-=
cn
o
m .
—
�•
�O
0
N
CD
CD
0
p
m
CD
m
(Q
(n
Q
O
p
CCD
�•
0
-O
0O
N
<<
0
O
X
CD
li
A�
CT
m
3
0
'
'o
cn
cn
(]
A
m
m
CD
m
0
m
CT
0
C0
•<
C
o
<•
cn
cn
0
N
m
=
C
CAD
�•
SCD
N
N
Vl
0
O'
O
CDCD
(n
�.
CD.
CD
o
m
y
CD
Fr
m�
<
m
c•
3
m
CD
o-
3
7
-
oo
o
CD
om
�
O
--
O
CD
O
O�
3
v
Q
m
-
oyaC
v
o
o(n
m
CD
CD
�_
(n
3
Q
0
0
o
-
v
CD
m
o
c(n
o
�.
o
0
0
o
a
�'
o
o
o.
CD=
3
v
a
v
o
v
�_
CD=
cn
oo
CD
a'
a
v
CQ
M
CD
3
OL
r
CD
°
a
CD
co
a
a
z
n
<
m
o
y
o
v
a
m
o
CD
c
m=
a)m
iv
D
o
o
C0
W
O-
�_
m
CD
N
O
Ul
3
CD
ao
fD
O
O
CP
p
C)
�•
Z
o
77
<
O
Sv
0
<
0
3
C�
m
CD
(nCD
M
m.
�'
Cn
D
0
CD
to
X
O
w
CD
N
N
X
fl;
_
CD
r
N
cOii
n
n
CD
3
a)rn
A
CDiv
cQ
m•
cQ
cn
z
CD i
_
O
>
C
CD
cDcn
C
O
CD
�'
(Di
CD
a
m
cn
m
c
=
�
E
C)
o
cn
�
-0
CD
O-
CD
0
O
(D
<
D
(D
m
_
3
Cn
O
SU
0
-0
O
CD�
CD
CD
x
3
CD
�_
;3,
CD
o
Q
C
<
�'
�•
CD
�
O
M
U)
0
CC
=r
M
cz
-
cn
L
_
0
•
CC
CD
cn
n
N
CD
(D
O
CD
o
CDCD
_•
is
cn
a7
G.W
OCD
7
CD
<
7
O
(n
R
(D
Q
�
O
x
-0
cQ
m
M
x
rn
CDO:
m
CD
r
CL
0
-.
�
D
cn
m
cQ
co
co
cn
z
O _
p
m
c
m
<
0)
a
CD
-a
m
CD
m
cn
m
m
o
CD
c
CD
o
o
o
CD
o
-
cQ
m
CD
CD
D
O
<
O
Cn
Z
CD
m
�
<
<
3
pn
C
OL
CD
CD
(Q
O
cn
<
fD
N
7
to
cn
�
Oo
Q.
m
-6
cn
3
7
a
3
cn
CD
7
0.
3
(D
cn
0c
3
cn
CD
-0CD
=
m3�
O
cnCD
cn
N
�.
cn
3
0
fD
N
CD
57
CD
m
Q
D
0
0
3
0
N
Q
o
3
o
c
5•
3
-0-
r
CD
(D
X.
CD
Z
to
p
cn
p
CD
C
m
x
cn
..
c
iv
c
CD
z
cQ
C
m
3
cn
CD
cn
v
D
s
CD=
m
j
CD
a
(�
0
O
Cb
o
0
a
m
CD
p
C)
�
rw
cn
a
3
3
cn
o
o
c
o
cn
CD
x
O
O
m
0
a
CD
c
v
7OL
�.
Q
O
O
n
0
Cn
0
CD
A
O
o
O
O
O
cD
3
s
C2
cQ
�.
CD
CO
CD
cn
CD
N
-n
CD
Sn.
1
N
7
al
K
O
�•
Cp
W
O
C1
CD
n
y
CD
n
=
O-
T
o
3
N
CD
—
CD
(DEt
O
n
CD
O
O
O
CD
O
n
�
CD
�•
�.
co

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 5:
Cultural Resource Surveys

(3 Stantec
A Phase I Archaeological Survey of
Approximately 89.72 Hectares
(221.71 Acres) Associated with the
Proposed Lyle Creek (CLT04) Data
Center in Catawba County, North
Carolina
March 3, 2023
Prepared for:
Microsoft
Attn: Lexi Jones
[phone]
Prepared by:
Donald Sadler, Project Archaeologist
Sandra DeChard, Senior Architectural
Historian
and
Brynn Stewart, Senior Principal
Investigator
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5209 Center Street
Williamsburg, VA 22188
[phone]

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
The conclusions in the Report are Stantec's professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning
the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information
existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The
Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which
the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the
project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient's own risk.
Stantec has assumed all information received from the Client and third parties in the preparation of the Report
to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such
information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained
therein.
This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec's contract with the Client.
While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client
is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by
any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at Stantec's discretion.
Prepared by
Donald Sadler, MA, Project Archaeologist
Reviewed by
Brynn Stewart, MA, Senior Principal Investigator
Reviewed by 4
Ellen M. Brady, MA, RPA, Cultural liesources Practice Leader
Approved by
Loretta Cummings, PhD, Principal

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT.........................................................2.1
2.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................2.1
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY.................................................................................2.1
2.3 HYDROLOGY..............................................................................................................2.1
2.4 SOIL MORPHOLOGY..................................................................................................2.1
2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................2.2
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT................................................................................................3.1
3.1 PRE -CONTACT NATIVE AMERICAN CONTEXT........................................................3.1
3.1.1 Pre -Clovis (?-13,000 BC)...........................................................................3.1
3.1.2 Paleoindian Period (PRIOR TO 9500 BP)...................................................3.1
3.1.3 Archaic Period (8000-4000 BP)..................................................................3.2
3.1.4 Woodland Period (4000-400 BP)................................................................3.3
3.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT..................................................................................................3.4
4.0 HISTORIC MAP REVIEW............................................................................................4.1
5.0 RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................................5.1
5.1 OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................5.1
5.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................5.1
5.2.1 Archaeological Sites....................................................................................5.1
5.2.2 Architectural Resources..............................................................................5.2
6.0
SURVEY METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................6.1
6.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.....................................................................................6.1
6.1.1 Shovel Testing............................................................................................6.1
6.1.2 Laboratory Methods....................................................................................6.2
6.1.3 Definitions...................................................................................................6.2
6.1.4 Expected Results —Archaeological Site Identification.................................6.2
6.2
REPORT PREPARATION............................................................................................6.2
7.0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................7.1
7.1
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................7.1
7.2
AREA A........................................................................................................................7.1
7.3
AREA B........................................................................................................................7.4
7.4
AREA C........................................................................................................................7.6
7.5
AREA D........................................................................................................................7.8
7.6
AREA E......................................................................................................................7.10
7.7
AREA F......................................................................................................................7.12
7.8
AREA G......................................................................................................................7.14
7.9
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS.................................................................................7.17
7.9.1 Newly Recorded Archaeological Sites.......................................................7.17

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................8.1
9.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................9.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Soils in the Project Area..............................................................................................2.1
Table 2 Summary of Observations for Historic Maps................................................................4.1
Table 3 Summary of Observations for USGS Topographic Maps.............................................4.1
Table 4 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project
Area...........................................................................................................................5.2
Table 5 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within a 1-Mile Radius of the
ProjectArea...............................................................................................................5.2
Table 6 STP E12 Soil Profile in Area A....................................................................................7.1
Table 7 STP E16 Soil Profile in Area B....................................................................................7.4
Table 8 STP B5 Soil Profile in Area C......................................................................................7.6
Table 9 Explanation of Unexcavated Shovel Tests in Area D...................................................7.8
Table 10 STP A5 Soil Profile in Area D....................................................................................7.8
Table 11 STP B6 Soil Profile in Area E..................................................................................7.10
Table 12 STP D3 Soil Profile in Area F..................................................................................7.12
Table 13 STP 132 Soil Profile in Area G..................................................................................7.14
Table 14 STP C17 Soil Profile................................................................................................7.18
Table 15 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 CT289..................................................................7.21
Table 16 STP C5 Soil Profile..................................................................................................7.24
Table 17 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 CT290..................................................................7.26
Table 18 Recommendations for Archaeological Resources within the Project Area .................8.1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map.................................................................................................1.2
Figure2 Soils Map...................................................................................................................2.3
Figure 3 Detail of A new map of North & South Carolina, & Georgia, Depicting the
Project Area Vicinity (Kitchin 1765; Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division) .....................................................................................................................4.2
Figure 4 Detail of Carolina septentrionale et meridionale en 4 feuilles, traduite de
I'Anglois, Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (Le Rouge et al. 1777; Library of
Congress Geography and Map Division)...................................................................4.3
Figure 5 Detail of North Carolina, Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (Lewis and Tanner
1805; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division)..........................................4.4
Figure 6 Detail of A new map of the state of North Carolina: constructed from actual
surveys, authentic public documents and private contributions, Depicting the
Project Area Vicinity (Williams 1854; Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division).....................................................................................................................4.5
Figure 3 Detail of Map of Catawba County, North Carolina, Depicting the Project Area
Vicinity (Yoder 1886; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division)..................4.6
Figure 8 Detail of Reconnaissance erosion survey of the State of North Carolina,
Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (United States Soil Conservation Service
1934; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division...........................................4.7

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 9 Detail of 1895 Hickory, NC Topographic Map Depicting the Project Area Vicinity
(USGS 1895; http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/, accessed 2022).......................4.8
Figure 10 Detail of 1970 Newton, NC Topographic Map Depicting the Project Area
Vicinity (USGS 1970; http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/, accessed 2022)..........4.9
Figure 11 Previously Identified Archaeological Resources within a 1.6-Kilometer (1-Mile)
Radiusof the Project Area.........................................................................................5.3
Figure 12 Previously Identified Architectural Resources within a 1.6-Kilometer (1-Mile)
Radius of the Project Area.........................................................................................5.4
Figure 13 Base Map of Archaeological Investigations within the Project Area ..........................7.2
Figure 14 General Conditions of Fields within Area A; View to the East...................................7.3
Figure 15 General Conditions in Northern Portion of Area A; View to the South.......................7.3
Figure 16 High Brush Conditions in Central Portion of Area B; View to the North.....................7.5
Figure 17 Terrain within Southern End of Area B; View to the North........................................7.5
Figure 18 General Conditions in Southern Portion of Area C; View to the North......................7.7
Figure 19 High Brush Conditions in Central Portion of Area C; View to the North....................7.7
Figure 20 General Conditions in Southern Portion of Area D with Subsoil on Surface;
Viewto the North.......................................................................................................7.9
Figure 21 High Brush and Woodland in the Northern Portion of Area D; View to the East ........ 7.9
Figure 22 General Conditions in Central Portion of Area E; View to the North .......................7.11
Figure 23 Sloped Woodland in Northern Portion of Area E; View to the Southwest................7.11
Figure 24 General Conditions in Central Portion of Area F; View to the North ........................7.13
Figure 25 Sloped Woodland Conditions in Northern Portion of Area F; View to the North ......
7.13
Figure 26 Grading and Pond Construction in Area G in 2017 (Google Earth 2017,
Accessed2023).......................................................................................................7.15
Figure 27 Disturbed Conditions in Northern Portion of Area G; View to the North..................7.16
Figure 28 Subsoil on Surface in Disturbed Portion of Area G; View to the West.....................7.16
Figure 29 General Conditions in Southwest Portion of Area G without Disturbance; View
tothe East...............................................................................................................7.17
Figure 30 Base Map of Archaeological Investigations within Sites 31 CT289, 31 CT290,
and31 CT291...........................................................................................................7.19
Figure 31 Debris Pile from Bulldozed Structures at Site 31 CT289; View to the South ............
7.20
Figure 32 General View Looking Toward Site 31 CT289 within Area D with Subsoil on
Surface; View to the North.......................................................................................7.21
Figure 33 Example of Cultural Material Recovered within Site 31 CT289. A: Coca-Cola
Bottle; B: Glass Jar Fragment; C: Midcentury Modern Ironstone Rim Sherds; D:
Royal China "Currier & Ives" Pattern Rim Sherd; E: Midcentury Modern
Ironstone Rim Sherd; and F: Ironstone Base Sherd with Transferprint .....................7.22
Figure 34 Open Septic Tank at Site 31 CT289; View to the North...........................................7.23
Figure 35 General View of Site 31 CT290 within Area D; View to the East..............................7.25
Figure 36 Open Rock -Lined Well Located in the Center of Site 31 CT290; View to the
North........................................................................................................................7.25
Figure 37 Example of Cultural Material Recovered within Site 31 CT290. A: Complete
Iron Cut Nails and B: Ironstone Sherds....................................................................7.26
Figure 38 General View of Site 31 CT291 within Area D; View to the Southeast .....................7.28
Figure 39 Stone Footing of Bridge as Site 31 CT291 Reaches Lyle Creek; View to the
North........................................................................................................................7.29
iii

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ARTIFACT INVENTORY...........................................................................A.1
APPENDIX B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORMS.......................................................... B.1
APPENDIX C KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES..................................................................CA
iv

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Executive Summary
From December 3 to 19, of 2022, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a Phase I
archaeological survey of approximately 89.72 hectares (221.71 acres) associated with the Lyle Creek Site
(CLT04; the Project), a proposed data center in Catawba County, North Carolina. The Project, as
currently designed, will comprise five (5) datacenter buildings, each with five (5) co -located facilities
(colos), substations, and one (1) administration building with a total capacity of 240MW. The Project Area
was defined as the entire approximately 89.72-hectare (221.71-acre) parcel and included overgrown
brush, woodland, and large areas of slope and modern ground disturbances. The Project Area is
bounded to the south by NC Highway 16 (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all
other directions by private parcels. The work was conducted at the request of Microsoft (Client).
The Phase I survey was designed to locate and identify cultural resources within the defined Project Area
and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations regarding their potential eligibility for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Phase I survey included pedestrian survey of the entire Project Area conducted concurrently with
systematic subsurface testing. A total of 552 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals
along transects spaced 30 meters (98.4-feet) apart throughout the Project Area. Two shovel tests were
positive for cultural material. Five radial shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter (49.21-foot) intervals to
determine the bounds of newly identified cultural resources. No radial shovel tests were positive for
additional cultural material. A total of 69 shovel tests were not excavated within otherwise testable areas
due primarily to the presence of slope, wetland, and visible and extensive ground disturbance. These
areas were subject to pedestrian survey where possible.
Three new archaeological sites were identified during this investigation. Two newly recorded
archaeological sites (31 CT289 and 31 CT290) are late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact
scatters centered around former farmsteads. The third (Site 31 CT291) is a nineteenth to twentieth-
century road trace. Due to the paucity of artifacts and the lack of subsurface features within these sites,
each resource appears to lack research potential. As such, Stantec recommends Sites 31CT289,
31 CT290, and 31 CT291 as not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D; Criteria A through
C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of these resources. No further archaeological
work is recommended for the Project Area.
Recommendations for Archaeological Resources within the Project Area
Resource
Resource Type
Association
Stantec Recommendation
31 CT289
Artifact Scatter
Late 19th to Mid-20t" Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
31 CT290
Artifact Scatter and Well
Late 19th to Mid-20t" Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
31 CT291
Road Trace
19t" to 20th Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
v

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Abbreviations
amsl above mean sea level
DEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
NCDNCR North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
NC HPO North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
n.d. no date
NHL
National Historic Landmark
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
OSA
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
ROW
Right of Way
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
STP
Shovel Test Pit
USDI
United States Department of the Interior
USGS
United States Geological Survey
vi

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
From December 3 to 19, of 2022, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a Phase I
archaeological survey of approximately 89.72 hectares (221.71 acres) associated with the Lyle Creek Site
(CLT04; the Project), a proposed data center in Catawba County, North Carolina. The Project, as
currently designed, will comprise five (5) datacenter buildings, each with five (5) co -located facilities
(colos), substations, and one (1) administration building with a total capacity of 240MW. The Project Area
was defined as the entire approximately 89.72-hectare (221.71-acre) parcel and included overgrown
brush, woodland, and large areas of slope and modern ground disturbances. The Project Area is
bounded to the south by NC Highway 16 (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all
other directions by private parcels (Figure 1). The work was conducted at the request of Microsoft (Client).
The cultural resources survey was conducted pursuant to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies,
Technical Reports, and Curation (North Carolina Office of State Archaeology [OSA] 2017a). Stantec
designed the survey to identify archaeological resources that may be present in the Project Area and to
obtain sufficient information to make recommendations based on their potential eligibility for listing on the
NRHP. To accomplish this, both documentary research and cultural resources survey were conducted in
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA-PL89-665), as amended, the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 11593, relevant sections of 36 CFR
60 and 36 CFR 800, and with reference to state and federal (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation [United States Department of the Interior {USDI)
1983]) guidelines for conducting cultural resources investigations. Laboratory curation of cultural material
collected during the survey were made with regard to federal (36 CFR 79) and guidelines.
Senior Principal Investigator Brynn Stewart oversaw the project. Project Archaeologist Donald Sadler
authored the report. Archaeological Crew Chief Mark Jacobs directed the fieldwork and was assisted by
Archaeological Technicians Kacie Allen, Jonnie Barkmeier, Ashley Bocan, Taft Kiser, Jonathan Smith,
and Wes Stewart. Laboratory Manager Emily Curme processed and analyzed all artifacts recovered
during the investigation. GIS Technician Elise Ljiko prepared the report graphics and project maps.
Copies of all field notes, maps, correspondence, and historical research materials are on file at Stantec's
office in Richmond, Virginia.

16
v •��o` tee: F: '-'�J _ �p• t�1t ( �y � 4a p
Y 1
l�..��..��..r % CO
Ch
1 � ♦ lJ;l � u 4�f
•
969
i
Il
•` J
N
. 0 1,000 2,000
1 Project Area Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:24,000
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-21
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-04
C"I"'Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes NIS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
T. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet
Figure No.
2. Data Sources: Microsoft, NC Geodetic Survey
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Title
Project Location Map
Page 1.2
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project Area comprises overgrown brush, woodland, and large areas of slope and modern ground
disturbances. The Project Area is bounded to the south by 1st Avenue North (NC 16), to the northwest by
the Conover Solar Park, and in all other directions by private parcels. Utility corridors border the Project
Area to the north and east while Lyle Creek extends through the Project Area.
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The Project Area lies within the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The Piedmont
province covers approximately 45 percent of the state of North Carolina and consists of rolling hills and
low, long ridges, along with a few low mountains, such as the Uwharrie and South Mountains. The Project
Area is situated on Paleozoic intrusive rocks, including granites, diabase, and quartz diorite. Elevation
within the Project Area ranges from 265 to 290 meters (868 to 951 feet) above mean sea level (amsl)
(North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] 2015; North Carolina Geological Survey
1985).
2.3 HYDROLOGY
The Project Area lies within the Catawba River Basin and is drained by Lyle Creek. Lyle Creek flows into
the Catawba River, which merges with the Wateree River, a tributary of the Santee River. The Santee
River flows into the Atlantic Ocean.
2.4 SOIL MORPHOLOGY
Soils within the Project Area are well drained and primarily include loams. However, the area along Lyle
Creek is frequently flooded. In addition, small portions of the area are considered severely eroded or
gullied. Larger portions exhibit moderate erosion and a small are to the north of the creek to the northeast
portion of the Project Area is stony. Table 1 presents the soil types found within Project Area and serves
as a key to Figure 2.
Table 1 Soils in the Project Area
Symbol
Map Unit Name
% Slope
Drainage Description
DaA
Dan River loam, frequently flooded
0-2
Well Drained
FaE3
Fairview clay loam, severely eroded
10-25
Well Drained
PxF4
Poplar Forest-Udorthents complex, gullied
25-45
Well Drained
TmB
Tomlin loam
2-6
Well Drained
2.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Symbol
Map Unit Name
% Slope
Drainage Description
TmC
Tomlin loam
6-10
Well Drained
TmD
Tomlin loam
10-15
Well Drained
TmE
Tomlin loam
15-25
Well Drained
ToC2
Tomlin clay loam, moderately eroded
6-10
Well Drained
WwF
Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, stony
25-45
Well Drained
W
Water
—
—
2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES
The character of the topography, the proximity of water resources, and the types of soils all have a direct
effect on the variety of flora that is attracted to the setting and in turn, the fauna that relies on that
ecological setting for sustenance. The quantity and variety of both plants and animals in an area has a
direct influence on human habitation. Native American populations successfully utilized a wide variety of
native flora and fauna whose seasonal availability was well known to them.
During the Holocene, prior to European contact, this region of North Carolina supported a diverse biotic
and floral community. The riverine area was dominated by hardwoods, including chestnut, hickory, and
several species of oak, as well as several soft woods, such as southern pines and hemlock (NCpedia
n.d.; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2018a, 2018b).
Today the Piedmont region is largely forested with conifers in the dry steep slopes and ridgetop habitats;
oaks (scarlet, chestnut, post, and blackjack), hemlock, and hickory are also present and in floodplains,
ash, red maple, oaks (willow and swamp chestnut), sycamore, box elder, American elm, river birch, tulip
poplar, and sweetgum are prevalent. The habitat supports numerous species of bird, including cardinals,
black and mallard ducks, Canada goose, wild turkey, mourning dove, northern bobwhite quail, and a
variety of raptors, including great horned owl and red -shouldered hawk. Additionally, white-tailed deer,
beaver, bobcat, coyote, gray and red fox, fox and southern flying squirrels, mink, muskrat, racoon, and
striped skunk. The Piedmont province is also inhabited by numerous amphibians, reptiles, and fish,
including black and white crappie, bluegill, crayfish, largemouth bass, and Roanoke hogsucker, Corn
snakes, cottonmouth, eastern box turtle, and southern leopard frog are also present (NCpedia n.d.; North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2018a, 2018b).
2.2

C1 Project Area
Soils
9-i'00homam►
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North
Carolina FPS 3200 Feet
2. Data Sources: ESRI, Microsoft, INC Geodetic
Survey, USDA NRCS SSURGO Soil Survey
3. Orthoimagery © INC OneMap, INC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
400 800 N
Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:9,600
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-21
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-04
Clienr/Project 203401899
Microsoft
MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
2
Figure No.
Title
Soils Map
Page 2.3
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
Native American occupation in North Carolina's Central Piedmont region can generally be divided into
three primary periods: Paleoindian (prior to 9500 years before present (BP), Archaic (8000 to 4000 years
BP), and Woodland (4000 to 400 years BP). These divisions are based on changes in material culture
and settlement systems (OSA n.d.; Friends of North Carolina, Inc. 1984). In recent decades, the
possibility of human presence in the region that pre -dates the Paleoindian period has moved from remote
to probable. For this reason, a Pre -Clovis discussion precedes the traditional tripartite division of North
Carolina's Native American history. Seventeenth -through twentieth-century historical overview has also
been included. The cultural context, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation and Chapter 3 of the OSA's 2017 guidelines,
provides the historic, social, and environmental information required for evaluation of any cultural
resources present within the proposed Project Area.
3.1 PRE -CONTACT NATIVE AMERICAN CONTEXT
3.1.1 Pre -Clovis (?-13,000 BC)
The 1927 discovery of a fluted point in the ribs of an extinct species of bison at Folsom, New Mexico
proved that ancient North Americans had immigrated during the Pleistocene. It did not, however,
establish the precise timing of the arrival of humans in the Americas, nor did it adequately resolve
questions about the lifestyle of those societies (Meltzer 1988:2-3). Both the stratigraphic record and the
radiocarbon assays from several sites, including the Cactus Hill site in Sussex County, Virginia (Site
44SX0202), suggest the possibility of human occupation of North America before the fluted -point makers
appeared on the scene (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Buried strata at the Cactus Hill Site have returned
radiocarbon dates of 15,000 years ago from strata situated below levels containing fluted points (McAvoy
and McAvoy 1997:165). To date only a handful of pre -Clovis sites have been identified in North America,
including in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Mexico, and more recently potentially in Idaho and
Washington (Wade 2019; Davis et al. 2019; Waters et al. 2011). Though the likelihood of identifying pre -
Clovis sites within the Project Area is extremely low, it is possible that pre -Clovis peoples inhabited the
Catawba County region.
3.1.2 Paleoindian Period (PRIOR TO 9500 BP)
In the decades following the discovery at Folsom, New Mexico, the association of fluted points with the
bones of large, extinct mammals, in particular mastodons, on the western plains coupled with the scarcity
of other Paleoindian sites, led to the inference that the Paleoindian subsistence strategy centered on the
pursuit of big game. This picture, however, exaggerates the reliance of western Paleoindian groups on
large game, and appears to be of limited relevance to eastern Paleoindian life. The archaeological data
from Virginia compiled by Dr. Ben McCary records numerous discoveries of fluted points, but no
3.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
unambiguous association between extinct large game and fluted points (Boyd 1989:139). A similar
situation occurs throughout the eastern United States. For this reason, many archaeologists now hold that
eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers (e.g., Grayson and Meltzer 2003; but see Fiedel and
Haynes 2004).
Most large Paleoindian sites in the southeastern United States are quarry or quarry -related (Meltzer
1988:21), though multiple band aggregation sites also occur (McAvoy 1992:145). Recognizable sites
most often result from long-term habitation or repeated use of the same location. It follows from the
presence of primarily quarry or quarry -related sites that stone outcrops were regularly revisited. Though
the full range of available lithic resources was used to manufacture fluted points (e.g., Phelps 1983), a
number of studies have noted a focus on cryptocrystalline materials (e.g., chert, jasper, chalcedony)
(Gardner 1974, 1989; Goodyear 1979). The recovery of cryptocrystalline materials at locations far
removed from quarries indicates exchange, extensive group movement, or both characterized the
Paleoindian era. In addition, the very limited differences between sites and within sites suggest that most
people had access to all available resources, while the small size of most Paleoindian sites indicates
group size generally was limited to extended families. Evidence of the Paleoindian period, in the form of
fluted points produced from rhyolite, has been found in the eastern North Carolina Piedmont (Perdue and
Oakley 2010; Daniel 2005). Paleoindian period sites are best represented in the Carolina Slate Belt,
particularly the Uwharrie Mountains in Stanly and Montgomery counties to the southeast of the Project
Area. The concentration of Paleoindian activity in this region may be associated with the presence of
outcrops of fine-grained rhyolite (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Hardaway Site in Stanly County, located approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles) down the Yadkin
River from the town of Salisbury and southeast of the Project Area, contains Paleoindian period
components and is one of the best-known prehistoric sites in the North Carolina Piedmont (Fuka et al.
2022). The site includes evidence of continuous use from as early as 14,000 years ago to the historic
period (Barnes 2007). Joffre Coe's late Paleoindian through Early Archaic period chronological sequence
based on Hardaway -Palmer -Kirk Complex lithic traditions was derived from data collected at this site
during excavations in the 1950s (Fuka et al. 2022).
3.1.3 Archaic Period (8000-4000 BP)
The Paleoindian period transitioned into the Archaic period in part due to climate change resulting in the
extinction of large game. This transition included a shift from large game hunting to a seasonal rotation of
hunting and gathering. Archaic peoples continued to live a primarily nomadic lifestyle; however, there is
evidence that some settled into larger and more permanent sites. From the coast to the mountains, the
Archaic period began with wandering bands of hunter -gatherers who faced a wide variety of changing
environmental conditions. These bands occasionally came together at favored locations in major river
valleys, but most of their time was spent scattered across the landscape foraging for food and raw
materials. As Archaic peoples became more familiar with their environments, they learned which plants
were edible and better understood the habits of their quarry. These advancements in knowledge led to
advancements in technology. For instance, the increased use of flora in part led to the development of
3.2

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
grinding stones and mortars. Increased evidence of fire cracked rock (FCR) on Archaic sites reveal
advancements in cooking. The development of the atlatl with polished weight stones, and the polished
grooved axes found on Archaic sites are further evidence of an evolution in stone tool technology as well
as material culture. Toward the end of the Archaic period, large groups began to settle more permanently,
living most of, if not all, of the year in areas rich in raw material and food resources (Perdue and Oakley
2010).
3.1.4 Woodland Period (4000-400 BP)
The increased sedentism of the Late Archaic period ushered in the Woodland period, which was
characterized in part by the use of horticulture. Horticultural practices represented the beginnings of plant
domestication, including corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers. The development of ceramic technology
and the use of pottery for cooking and storing of food is also a defining characteristic of the Woodland
period. In addition, changes in stone tool manufacturing occurred during this period, including such
innovations as the production of small triangular project points for use with the bow and arrow (Coe and
Wilson 1976.:2-6; Perdue and Oakley 2010). Both large and small camps became common, as did larger
and permanently occupied villages with substantial houses of wood or wattle and daub and thatched
roofs. Some seasonal movements to collect available plants or hunt animals was still common during the
Woodland period.
The introduction of ceramic technology is a hallmark of the Early Woodland period. Based especially on
data from the Doerschuck Site in Stanly County, Badin, Yadkin, Vincent, and Clements ceramic phases
are used to define the Early and Middle Woodland chronology in the region starting with the Badin phase
(Ward and Davis 1999). Badin vessels are characterized as well -made, straight -sided jars with conical
bottoms made from clay coils tempered with sand or pebbles. Common surface treatments are cord -
wrapped and fabric -wrapped paddle stamping. The high quality of Badin vessels has raised the question
of a possible technological predecessor between the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (Coe
1964). Possible pre-Badin specimens, for example, have been discovered in ceramic assemblages from
Site 31 CH8 in the Haw River valley (Claggett and Cable 1982).
Broad-spectrum hunting -fishing -gathering continued to characterize the region as a whole throughout the
Middle Woodland period. Shellfish, anadromous and resident fishes, deer, waterfowl, and turkey ranked
high among the important fauna in the Middle Woodland diet. Various nuts, amaranth, and chenopod
seeds also appear to be important resources during this period. After 300 BC, large shell middens
containing dense concentrations of artifacts become increasingly common, indicating repeated use of at
least one type of site. Middens and the presence of houses at a number of sites indicate longer stays,
though populations remained far from sedentary (Gallivan 2003). People continued to reside for much of
the year in relatively small settlements, and interior storage features rarely occur on Middle Woodland
sites (Gallivan 2003:75-98).
3.3

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
Overall, the Middle Woodland of the North Carolina Piedmont is marked by adaptations of styles and
techniques of neighboring regions. The primary use of sand -tempered ceramics is seen as having been
influenced by cultures from coastal regions to the south, while the use of cord- and fabric -wrapped
paddles to treat the surfaces of pottery is a tradition from the north in Virginia (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Late Woodland period of the North Carolina Piedmont marks the beginning of regional and societal
processes described as the Piedmont Village Tradition. Population density continued to rise, and
settlements increased in size. An increase in conflict is interpreted based on the presence of larger
villages with defensive stockades. Still, smaller hamlets persist well into the Late Woodland (Ward and
Davis 1999). The increase of an agricultural subsistence strategy is seen as a major influence of these
practices. This increasing dependence on agriculture is reflected in large storage pits for holding surplus
crops (Coe 1952; Newkirk 1978; Woodall 1990).
Intensified use of cultivated plants, particularly maize, beans, and squash, distinguished the Late
Woodland adaptation from that of earlier periods. European accounts describe a heavy reliance on slash -
and -burn agricultural methods. In addition to cultigens and shellfish, Late Woodland peoples throughout
the region continued to rely on various mammals, fish, and birds for sustenance (Dent 1995:251).
Perhaps as a consequence of the greater importance of cultigens in the diet, access to expanses of
arable land ranks among the most important factors influencing site selection (Dent 1995; Potter 1993).
3.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT
The English first arrived in the region that would become North Carolina in the late sixteenth century, after
Spanish and Italian explorers had already visited the area, and found it inhabited by multiple American
Indian groups. Some of these groups had previously been encountered by the Spanish, who were the first
Europeans to explore the North Carolina region in the early sixteenth century. Spanish expeditions
included those launched by Francisco Gordillo and Pedro de Quejo in 1521 and Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon
in 1526. An Italian explorer, Giovanni da Verrazano, also visited the general vicinity in 1524. These
Spanish forays into the North Carolina region were generally brief and no permanent settlements were
established (Powell 1989; Olsen and Millis 2003). However, these expeditions made inroads into the
North Carolina Piedmont region, wherein modern Catawba County is located.
Some of the earliest European/Native American interactions in the region that would become Catawba
County likely occurred around 1567, the year in which Juan Pardo led a Spanish expedition that explored
what would eventually become modern North and South Carolina as well as eastern Tennessee. When
Pardo reached the Catawba River, he noted in his journal that the area was controlled by the Catawba
people (Hudson 1990). However, it appears likely that extended interactions between Europeans and the
Catawba did not begin until the late seventeenth century, possibly around 1670 when the Charles Towne
colony was being established (Moore 2006).
3.4

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
By the first decade of the 1700s, hostilities between European colonists and several Native American
tribes across the southeast reached a boiling point, resulting in two armed conflicts known as the
Tuscarora War (1711-1715) and Yamasee War (1715-1717), respectively (Powell 1989). In his accounts
of his travels throughout the Carolina backcountry, colonist John Lawson (1709; see Fenn and Wood
2003) noted some of the primary issues that led these conflicts, including European encroachment on
traditional lands, hunting rights, and Indian enslavement. Despite Native Americans participating on both
sides of each of these conflicts, ultimately the Europeans were the victors. The Tuscarora War ended in a
short-lived treaty after more than 1,400 Native Americans were killed by violence or disease and some
1,000 more were enslaved (Powell 1989). During the so-called Yamasee War, the Catawba and other
tribes lent support to the Europeans against the Yamasee and their tribal allies. That conflict ended with
in 1717; however, the consequences of both conflicts were far reaching. Following the conflict, the
Carolinas were no longer proprietary colonies but belonged entirely to the English Crown as colonial
expansion continued. In addition, Native American populations had suffered due to death and
enslavement and the tribal confederacies were reconfigured as Native peoples were further pushed from
their homelands (Fuka et al. 2022; Powell 1989).
The earliest permanent Europeans settlements in what would later become Catawba County were
established around the 1750s and were occupied by colonists of German, Swiss, and/or Scotch -Irish
descent (Bayley 2006). Each group had different reasons for moving to the region. For instance, the
German and Swiss communities were looking for greater political and religious autonomy in addition to
economic advancement whereas the Scotch -Irish were often fleeing persecution during the reign of King
James I (Preslar 1954). Regardless of the motivations, these groups often arrived in the region from as
far north as Pennsylvania. While the Germans tended to settle south of the Catawba River, the north side
of the river was more frequently settled by Scotch -Irish colonists (Preslar 1954:39-41).
Regardless of their nation of origin, European settlers in the area that would become Catawba County,
like those throughout the North Carlina colony, primarily engaged in agriculture, which would remain a
key industry into the twentieth century (Freeze 1995; Catawba College 2021; Catawba County
Government 2020a; Hahn 1911:7 and 10-11). In addition to agriculture, gold mining also became a
successful industry in the region at the turn of the nineteenth century, with Catawba County as part of one
of the country's largest gold -producing areas (Catawba County Government 2020).
By the early nineteenth century, the residents of what was then northern portion of Lincoln County north
of the Catawba River, began to become increasingly dissatisfied with their access to county services and
became increasingly isolated from the southern half of the county as communities expanded and grew.
Efforts to form a new county to resolve some of these issues was spearheaded by Nathanial Wilson, a
descendant of Irish immigrants, who was elected to the state's House of Commons in 1842 on the
promise of splitting off from Lincoln County (Preslar 1954:219; Corbitt 1987:91; Catawba County
Government 2020a).
3.5

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
The petition made by the residents was successful, and at the end of 1842, Catawba County, named after
the region's Catawba tribe, was officially established. The county was then bounded by Iredell, Lincoln,
Caldwell, Alexander, and Burke counties. In 1845, the new county seat was designated at the town of
Newton, with a courthouse constructed shortly thereafter. It remained the seat of the county until 1924
(Corbitt 1987:92; Preslar 1954:265; Bayley 2006; Catawba County Government 2020a). By the 1850
census, Catawba County residents included 7,293 free individuals, including 21 African American men
and women, and 1,569 enslaved individuals (Hahn 1911:7).
In the mid -nineteenth century, in the decades following the creation of Catawba County, the area outside
of Newton was agrarian with a vast majority of residents employed as farmers or day laborers. During the
mid -nineteenth century, crops included cotton, potatoes, corn, wheat, and other grains, as well as various
fruits. Dairy and cattle farming and bee keeping were also part of the agrarian economy (Hahn 1911:7;
Bayley 2006).
During this time, the town of Newton, one of the few incorporated towns within the county in the mid -
nineteenth century, had approximately 9,065 free residents, including 32 African Americans. The
occupations listed reflect those of a mid -nineteenth century rural town, albeit the county seat, and
included house carpenters, shoe, cabinet, and carriage makers, saddlers, and blacksmiths. Other
occupations included teachers, which suggest the town had a school, a preacher, doctor, tailor, tanner,
hotelier, and stage driver (United States Federal Census 1860; Hahn 1911:7-8). The latter two indicate
Newton had a hotel for passengers traveling by stagecoach from other areas of North Carolina and likely
beyond. In addition, in 1860, approximately 1,664 enslaved individuals were enumerated in the census for
both the county and within the town of Newton (United States Federal Census — Slave Schedules 1860).
The landscape of Catawba remained rural and agrarian through the remaining decade of the nineteenth
century; however, the population of Catawba County steadily increased. In 1890, just over 18,600
residents lived in the county. By 1910, the number had risen to just under 28,000 (Hahn 1911:8). Farming
still employed most of the residents outside of the four main towns. A majority of the residents in the
surrounding area of Conover, the location of the proposed project, were employed as farmers or farm
laborers. The handle factory and the railroad employed some residents but were a distance second in
total numbers. Others were employed at a wagon factory, in the building trades, and cottage industries
such as blacksmithing, shoe making and as dressmakers (United States Federal Census 1900).
During the next several decades, with the increase in new manufacturing facilities, the rural areas of the
county experienced some residential growth. However, farming still employed a significant number of
residents in this area. By 1930, in the Newton and Conover areas, in addition to farming, a large number
of people were employed at the cotton mill, hosiery, handle, and glove factories, and the railroad. Several
other main employers included colleges, sawmills, and a carriage factory (United States Federal Census
1930).
3.6

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
Resulting, in part, from the increase in manufacturing, the population of Catawba County also increased.
In 1930, the county contained just under 44,000 residents. By 1940, the population had increased to
51,653 and by 1950, to 61,794 (United States Census 1950:33-10). Manufacturing continued to thrive
through the twentieth century, with approximately 40 percent of the population of the county employed in
industrial -related jobs. Agriculture, with advancements in technology and production methods such as
erosion mitigation, diversification of crops, and new ways to maintain healthy soils, also flourished
(Preslar 1954:488-490).
In the late twentieth century, Catawba County became more accessible with the construction of 1-40
which was completed in the mid-1970s. Today, while still rural in many respects, Catawba County retains
its textile and furniture manufacturing as a major economic base while expanding into the
telecommunications market. Additionally, new business sectors in biomedical and pharmaceutical
manufacturing as well as retail development and marketing efforts to attract tourists and retirees have
expanded the county's economic base. The County has also expanded its infrastructure, improved its
roads and highways as well as its public education system (Catawba County Government 2020a).
3.7

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
4.0 HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
Historic maps were reviewed as part of the background research conducted for the archaeological
survey. Online map repositories, including the Library of Congress, the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Historical Topographic Map Explorer, the online David Rumsey Map Collection hosted by
Cartography Associates, and state and county maps of Virginia compiled online at www.mapgeeks.org
were examined to identify historic maps which depict the Project Area. The details and observations from
this review are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 Summary of Observations for Historic Maps
Figure
Year
Observations, Property and Adjoining Sites
This map shows key terrain throughout North Carolina, including mountains and rivers. The
3
1765
Catawba River and the then South Carolina state line are depicted as are settlements along
waterways. The map offers no details of the Project Area vicinity.
Similar to the preceding map, this map shows major rivers and topography throughout the
4
1777
region. While no details are shown for the Project Area, Lyle's Creek, identified as "Liles Cr." is
depicted as are major roadways in the wider area and structures as well as mills.
This map depicts mountains, waterways, and roads within the wider region, as well the
5
1805
locations of settlements such as Salisbury to the northeast and Statesville to the southeast. The
map offers no details of the Project Area.
This map show roadways, waterways, and Lyle Creek but offers few additional details within the
6
1854
Project Area vicinity. A railroad alignment is shown to the south by the use of dashed lines,
indicating that it is proposed rather than built.
This map depicts roadways, waterways, railroads, towns, and properties with individual
7
1886
landowner or resident names, including occupation in the immediate Project Area vicinity. Lyle's
Creek is depicted but there is no detail for the Project Area.
This 1934 map does not offer detail for the Project Area but shows Lyle's Creek, railways, and
8
1934
nearby Conover and Claremont. This map indicates that the Project Area is within a region
known for moderate sheet erosion and occasional gullies.
Table 3 Summary of Observations for USGS Topographic Maps
Figure
Year/Quad
Scale
Observations, Property and Adjoining Sites
An 1895 topographic map depicts roads, drainages, and
1895
structures in the vicinity of the Project Area. A road that was not
9
1:125,000
present on the 1886 Yoder map appears across the Project
(Hickory, North Carolina)
Area. This road is not labeled, and it may represent a new route
taken by Route 16 that was not present in 1886.
This 1970 topographic map depicts the Project Area as rural
1970
and undeveloped. A house is depicted in the location of newly
10
(Newton, North Carolina)
1:24,500
recorded Site 31 CT289 and the roadbed of newly identified Site
31 CT291 is also depicted.
4.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
North;lei N
Not to ScaleYE'�'��e`
1
JAI rrrrrrrlr r
�,•_
�IJJlY, rs*Af' i • " tY1.fho M� a .
lip
Project Area
Nt
�lfie, .�� Vicinity
rtrut ,. . ' Z s.
Syr �i lj E'-' t'1°` _ 1�r�.�i• r.r . �� ;
_ 11rJ:•irk-``
�'1Je'4 ` k f
Figure 3 Detail of A new map of North & South Carolina, & Georgia, Depicting the Project
Area Vicinity (Kitchin 1765; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
4.2

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
f f ,
North;.' %
Not to Scale (� North
n►+v� rla e f h fir
'"M11
:+ A Project Area
Vicinity
17
ti
Figure 4 Detail of Carolina septentrionale et meridionale en 4 feuilles, traduite de
I'Anglois, Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (Le Rouge et al. 1777; Library of Congress
Geography and Map Division).
4.3

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
North;
Not to Scale
r
lei e
�r
Project Area
froI'td
.i •
;,pv?b5 - � .�tr� Vicinity � . •, ��,� .�"
qW
Ar
}� 4
— "CA'�
Figure 5 Detail of North Carolina, Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (Lewis and Tanner
1805; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
4.4

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
North.
Not to Scale
t
�7%
Project Area
Vicinity
A
Aft'
Figure 6 Detail of A new map of the state of North Carolina: constructed from actual
surveys, authentic public documents and private contributions, Depicting the Project
Area Vicinity (Williams 1854; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
4.5

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
North;
Not to Scale }
���--'
YJ,l�akwF
rNllrh
� rt,+�ih
f �
� )b •
—
Ok oa
.'"L 14 T
I�JrPCC+
Project Area
i' iMfirJrr
Vicinity
XurVk,Y,Vellk 1�.
'z X,lftrru�t
.d. JSIr+I.LK'
,0
J'
J tl0.4r• lr �/lsa�l.
`5 +l,.Flgar,ur
A
y
PIN w
Y.W Ap
=1..}! Iletil
Figure 7 Detail of Map of Catawba County, North Carolina, Depicting the Project Area
Vicinity (Yoder 1886; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
I
4.6

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
F North;
Not to
Scale
•� 1
r
r
ti
w ! ! ■ !
i •Project
Vicinity
Pr
Figure 8 Detail of Reconnaissance erosion survey of the State of North Carolina,
Depicting the Project Area Vicinity (United States Soil Conservation Service 1934; Library
of Congress Geography and Map Division.
4.7

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
ScaleOr
Not to t
J�
Ilk
1
�� . i ■
11 i
Figure 9 Detail of 1895 Hickory, NC Topographic Map Depicting the Project Area Vicinity
(USGS 1895; http://historicalmaps.arcqis.com/usgs/, accessed 2022).
4.8

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC MAP REVIEW
North;
Not to Scale
tProject Area
Vicinity
I !
• �i
.f
Figure 10 Detail of 1970 Newton, NC Topographic Map Depicting the Project Area Vicinity
(USGS 1970; http://historicalmaps.arcais.com/usas/, accessed 2022).
4.9

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RESEARCH DESIGN
s.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.1 OBJECTIVES
The Phase I archaeological survey was designed to locate and identify archaeological resources within
the Project Area. Stantec designed the survey to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations
about the research potential of identified cultural resources based on each resource's potential eligibility
for listing on the NRHP. A cultural resource is gauged to be significant if it meets at least one of four
NRHP criteria:
A. Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history.
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master.
D. Capable of yielding important information about the past.
Criterion D typically applies to archaeological sites. In order to be capable of yielding important
information about the past, generally a site must possess artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other
cultural features that make it possible to test historical hypotheses, corroborate and amplify currently
available information, or reconstruct the sequence of the local archaeological record.
5.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The background research for the Phase I archaeological survey included an on -site review and collection
of data from the OSA. The OSA files of archaeological sites were examined, and information was
retrieved on sites located within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the survey corridor. Additionally, North
Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO) files of architectural surveys were examined, and
information was retrieved on sites located within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the Project Area.
Background research also focused on relevant sources of local historical information and available
historical maps, which were examined to provide an historical context for the Project Area and to check
for any buildings and other cultural features present within the Project Area.
5.2.1 Archaeological Sites
No previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the Project Area. Eight previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the Project Area. Of the eight
previously recorded archaeological sites in the Project Area vicinity, four are Native American and four
are historic. Native American resources include two isolated finds, one lithic scatter, and one site of
indeterminate function. The historic resources include dwellings, artifact scatters, and a farmstead. Six
5.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RESEARCH DESIGN
sites have been determined to be eligible for NRHP inclusion, one site has not been formally evaluated by
the OSA for potential NRHP eligibility, and one site has been destroyed (Table 4; Figure 11).
Table 4 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project
Area
Resource
Resource Type
Association
Reference
NRHP Status
31CT199
Dwelling;
Artifact Scatter
19th to 20th Century
NCOSA1996
Not Eligible (OSA 1997)
31 CT
Unknown
Pre -Contact
Unrecorded
Unassessed
31 CT200
Farmstead
20th Century
NCOSA1996
Not Eligible (OSA 1997)
31 CT201
Artifact Scatter
19th to 20th Century
NCOSA1996
Not Eligible (OSA 1997)
31 CT253
Isolated Find
Pre -Contact
NCOSA 2012
Not Eligible (OSA 2012)
31 CT254
Lithic Scatter
Pre -Contact
NCOSA 2012
Not Eligible (OSA 2012)
31 CT255
Isolated Find
Pre -Contact
NCOSA 2012
Not Eligible (OSA 2012)
31 CT284
Dwelling
Late 20th Century
NCOSA 2022
Destroyed
5.2.2 Architectural Resource -
No previously recorded architectural resources are located within the Project Area. Six previously
recorded architectural resources are located within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the Project Area
(Table 5; Figure 12). Of these, the majority (n=4) represent houses; however, none of the houses have
recorded dates. The additional resources were a circa 1910 farm and a cemetery. One resource has
been demolished. One resource, the circa 1910 Heffner Farm, has been determined to be not eligible for
NRHP inclusion by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR). The
remaining architectural resources within the Project Area vicinity have not been formally evaluated for
potential NRHP eligibility.
Table 5 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within a 1-Mile Radius of the
Project Area
Site #
Resource Type
Date
Recorded By
NRHP Recommendation
CT0516
House
n.d.
Wallin 1977
Demolished
CT0790
E. Hollar House
n.d.
Wallin 1977
Unassessed
CT0794
Frederick Smith House
n.d.
Wallin 1977
Unassessed
CT0795
Joham Theobold Hunnsucker House
n.d.
Wallin 1977
Unassessed
CT0796
Saint John's Church Cemetery
n.d.
Wallin 1977
Unassessed
CT1574
Heffner Farm
c. 1910
Davenport 2016
Not Eligible (NCDNCR 2016)
a
5.2

ZC
CT
FI 1, - _ _ �.`. BM
`_•
`<� -�,'
t ♦
1� � I CT201 4
,5" t' r`1►♦ �4
�,✓�
CT284
1 r
-- _ � rr •` r. a I
CT199
\.
>
0 1,250 2,500 N
C� Project Area Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
Historic Site Location
1:30,000
Prehistoric Site Location
1-Mile Buffer ® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-23
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-04
Clienf/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet Figure No.
2. Data Sources: Microsoft, Stantec, NC Geodetic Survey, and
NC State Historic Preservation Office
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Title
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Previously Identified Archaeological
Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the
Project Area Page 5.3
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

ZC
10Y
-.raw
Wit, r AW �'�� ♦� CI'.i
00 .0000,
42�
CT0794
�)lill__
i; CT0516
��
- . 31 -
CT0790 CT1574
Z.
Jr
0 1,250 2,500 N
Surveyed Only
♦ Feet
♦ Surveyed, Gone (At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:30,000
CProject Area
Q 1-Mile Buffer ® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-21
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-04
Clienr/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet Figure No.
2. Data Sources: Microsoft, NC Geodetic Survey, and NC State �2
Historic Preservation Office
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Title
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Previously Identified Architectural
Resources within a 7-Mile Radius of the
Project Area Page 5.4
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
6.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
6.1.1 Shovel Testing
Stantec field archaeologists conducted systematic pedestrian survey throughout the entire 89.72-hectare
(221.71-acre) Project Area in conjunction with systematic shovel testing. The Project Area was divided
into seven survey areas (Areas A—G) for greater ease in recordation. Shovel tests were excavated at no
greater than 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along transects spaced 30 meters (98.4-feet) apart. Radial
shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter (49.2-foot) intervals around positive shovel tests to determine
the extent of newly identified cultural resources. Shovel tests were not excavated in areas exhibiting more
than 15 percent slope, that were wet, or that were determined to retain a low probability based on
observed disturbance during pedestrian survey.
All shovel tests measured approximately 38 centimeters (15 inches) in diameter and were excavated to
sterile subsoil. Soil from all shovel tests was passed through 6.35-millimeter (0.25-inch) mesh screen. For
each excavated shovel test, the stratigraphic profile was recorded with complete descriptions using
Munsell color designators (Munsell Color 1994) and U. S. Department of Agriculture soil texture
terminology (Soil Survey Staff 1999).
• A (Topsoil or surface vegetation) — Organic or humus layer consisting of grass, leaf litter, or
other surface materials.
• Ap (Plow Zone) — A horizon soils that have been impacted by plowing and agricultural
practice; usually an organic layer that has formed through decomposition of A horizon soils
mixed with leftover organic matter from agricultural practices.
• E (Eluviated) — Leached of clay, minerals, and organic matter, leaving a concentration of
sand and silt particles of quartz or other resistant materials — missing in some soils but often
found in older soils and forest soils. Often interpreted as a transition layer between A and B
horizon soils; often present in intact archaeological site settings and is representative of a
living surface.
• B (B Horizon [Subsoil]) — Rich in minerals that leached (moved down) from the A or E
horizons and accumulated here. Typically denoted as the culturally sterile B Horizon (Subsoil)
as deposits tend to predate human occupation.
All pertinent data including: the site location, the location of features, any permanent landmarks, the
topography, the vegetation, any disturbed areas, the location of surface survey, and subsurface tests
including metal detector hits was digitally collected utilizing ESRI's Collector for ArcGIS installed on Apple
iPads enabled with GPS location services and supplemented by a Trimble R1 GPS Receiver. Field
survey notes were collected by Stantec's Project Archaeologists and Crew Chief documenting daily
progress, conditions, and access issues.
6.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
6.1.2 Laboratory Methods
All archaeological data and specimens collected during the archaeological survey were transported to
Stantec's laboratory in Richmond, Virginia, for processing and analysis. Prior to washing, artifacts from a
given provenience were first emptied into a screened basket and sorted. Next, the provenience
information from the field bags was confirmed with the bag catalog and transferred onto bag tags. Stable
objects were washed with tap water using a soft brush. Washed items were then placed by provenience
on a drying rack.
Once dry, the artifacts were re -bagged by provenience and material type. Artifacts of a given provenience
were placed in clean 2-millimeter (0.08-inch) thick re -sealable polyethylene bags that were perforated to
allow air exchange. After processing and re -bagging, the entire artifact assemblage was then cataloged
for analysis. Stylistic attributes were described using current terminology and recorded by count into a
database for analysis.
6.1.3 Definitions
This field survey designated the archaeological site as any apparent location of human activity from
casual or single -episode discard, to having sufficient archaeological evidence to indicate further testing
would produce interpretable archaeological data.
6.1.4 Expected Results - Archaeological Site Identification
Native American sites are generally found within 305 to 457 meters (1,000 to 1,500 feet) of a significant
water source, on moderately well- to well -drained soils on low relief landforms. The Project Area is
located across gently sloping land, with relatively level area present. Four prehistoric archaeological sites,
or sites with prehistoric components, have been previously identified within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius
of the Project Area. These sites represented lithic scatters and isolated finds of indeterminate temporal
affiliation. This volume of prehistoric sites suggests that there is a moderate to high probability for the
Project Area to contain additional Native American resources.
The Project Area primarily crosses residential pasture and light woodland. As historic map review has
shown, there has been scattered nineteenth and twentieth-century residential activity in the vicinity. Four
previously identified archaeological sites within a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius of the Project Area were
historic in nature. These sites ranged from nineteenth to late twentieth-century farmsteads and artifact
scatters. This volume of historic sites suggests that there is a moderate to high probability for the Project
Area to contain additional historic resources.
6.2 REPORT PREPARATION
The results of the archival research, fieldwork, and laboratory analysis were synthesized and summarized
within this report. The report describes the results of each of these facets of the Phase I survey research
and is illustrated by selected maps and drawings. Appendix A presents a descriptive catalog of all
6.2

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
artifacts recovered from surface and excavated contexts. Appendix B represents archaeological site
forms for newly identified archaeological sites. Appendix C presents resumes for key personnel.
6.3

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
'.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project Area comprises a mix of overgrown brush, woodland, large areas of steep slope, and modern
ground disturbances. The Project Area is bounded to the south by NC 16, to the northwest by the
Conover Solar Park, and in all other directions by private parcels. Utility corridors border the Project Area
to the north and east while Lyle Creek extends through the Project Area (Figure 13).
7.2 AREA A
Area A is located in the eastern portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the west by Area B, to the
north by Lyle Creek and Area E, to the south by NC 16, and to the east by private property. The terrain
within Area A predominantly comprises gently sloping open grass fields with areas of light woodland
(Figures 13-15).
A total of 145 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along 10 transects (Transects
A—J) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area A. Two shovel tests (STPs G9 and J10) were not
excavated due to their locations within a ditch. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material and no
new archaeological sites were identified during survey within Area A (Figure 13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area A (STP E12) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/4 brown sandy clay (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 10 centimeters (0 to 3.94 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was
Stratum 11, a layer of 7.5YR4/6 strong brown sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from
approximately 10 to 20 centimeters (3.94 to 7.87 inches) in depth (Table 6).
Table 6 STP E12 Soil Profile in Area A
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-10
7.5YR4/4 Brown
Sandy Clay
A Horizon
11
10-20
7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.1

y
aaW
DAaWaWa
. cn �w
a m co
a�1<1
a4
_, Da c,
♦ate
W
*,00 *4 <1 W N
<o am
Waaaaaaa
aa
''� WN n�w aC ama rn
nW V
/CIIDV
Na
D
W N 0 A fn cn
r ONE N ♦ , ,,.�aaaaoaaaaA N a a,�` , ,' ♦tip , a♦�a a NOa'`eo co �
aN to
.# W
am �DaN a s // ONa w21 a<D C0 V: OMnl A
Gt
s 1p a A w� Nil �J �a '� a V �I a
J
00
a a a Ta���� aC)
A•, a ?� W N� -� O O� a V a ut V A
1 .&
A •
m •,.Ry�. I N•.
♦ a Al a N� a O� mO) air �I W�a m C
\ Jco
C
a W< a W� �� a W� �°� �°� W� W� W W W W
W
Vt A W N O c0 0 V Of N
aaaaaa�J.1D,�a)Lt,
A W. N __ N
A W
N
•A W� N �� p fO� oNo4
D D r
C7
`
r co Do
co� OWD� .,I W^ W W W�W�W/�W 01 N
V Q) CDN W A N
A
IJ
Go N
W '
VO `a N a 8-1 O< Wl
A
)
L a
W O�N
V
<cl lol < � V O l� C"V
Qo O �1l
A
L C
j
a
/�
, aT"�p�j wm<W�NI WI?1 NI Ta v1 v L"
A
W W
� aW
fDJ �� p�1 a a D V O N
nco CMD�-O00
A
W ` a a co
w
/ O
��� im0 V O�1 N
A
W ` O a W�
<�a 'O �I <O �I Oo �lN G.1 A N
_
A
\/
D
=1 w 00 .41 a,�-1 aw�D�D� alpV W D ODf M A W N D_ N
a a a a a W W N W a
G7� A� < < O< II 0001 W1 GDiI W< AI WV W � W
:a O� CD
O� CO V� a (J1� a WJ N� Gj'Ol CO -4 QI� CAI 0 W1 N a N
•,� a�� a/ a�,� a.-1 a a!a acv o 0 0 o D
�� N� a T� m/� m m m m m m m R1 m fn� AEI 00 co
ID O C.
V� a T�?� W� N� a C� O� .I M, 61 �/� N� A a V a M
�,,•a aO� aV�� N1?jfaN��jO�cO- Cv<V�OT1�VTi�? a�aOl
N A a a
70,1 Oo< V a N C
N ♦♦�o� -.-I w D
ao
♦N
3 ♦1aN�
d OOO�
o.
D D
0�1.
a
a
3 (n �`
om
�a
No
o p
f w
o N
CD
�
w �.
o
n
a 3 3 3
Op3
0
o
fD
y m
°'
.O•.
o
_.
N
N N N N
Al
K.
D
p
Z
5
Z
cu -0 Z Z
CD
0 z ,N,
O
�
CD
NCD
�
CL
CDR
CD
0
3
o � z
o'N
m
0)O
O < O O
2.
c
o -@o!
"
CDN
y
o
(OA
N
3 o N
.•'
D
()
_{
-n
Cf) O
n�
0
,�.
W
z
o v
�o
z
°
0
2 j
��
z
O
s
D
C4
0
d
<
o
p96)
O
3CD
W
D
O
�
o
CD
m"
w
N
3
o A
6. O
3
�
O (D
p
N
T
O
A A n
V aD
NG)m
10N10
O
w
N N N
N
obi
A >
0

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 14 General Conditions of Fields within Area A; View to the East.
Figure 15 General Conditions in Northern Portion of Area A; View to the South.
7.3

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.3 AREA B
Area B is located within the eastern portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the north by Area E, to
the west by Area D, and to the south and east by private property. Portions of Area B include drainage
areas to the southwest and extreme slope to the southeast and north. The remaining terrain within Area B
predominantly comprises gently sloping fields with overgrown brush and woodland (see Figure 13;
Figures 16 and 17).
A total of 96 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along 11 transects (Transects
A—J and JU) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area B. A total of 38 shovel tests were not
excavated due to their location on slope. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material and no new
archaeological sites were identified during survey within Area B (see Figure 13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area B (STP E16) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/3 brown sandy loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 5 centimeters (0 to 1.97 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was
Stratum 11, a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from
approximately 5 to 15 centimeters (1.97 to 5.91 inches) in depth (Table 7).
Table 7 STP E16 Soil Profile in Area B
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-5
7.5YR4/3 Brown
Sandy Loam
A Horizon
II
5-15
7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.4

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 16 High Brush Conditions in Central Portion of Area B; View to the North.
y N 'f f
so -
Figure 17 Terrain within Southern End of Area B; View to the North.
7.5

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.4 AREA C
Area C is located in the southwestern portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the northeast by Area
F, to the south by NC 16, and to the west and north by private property. The eastern half of Area C has
been disturbed by a church with paved parking lot and soccer fields and was not subject to shovel testing.
The remaining terrain within Area C predominantly comprises gently sloping open grass fields with
overgrown brush (see Figure 13; Figures 18 and 19).
A total of 24 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along three transects
(Transects A, B, and JU) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area C. Three shovel tests (STPs
A11, B12, and 1313) were not excavated due to prior grading and the presence of subsoil on surface. No
shovel tests were positive for cultural material and no new archaeological sites were identified during
survey within Area C (see Figure 13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area C (STP 135) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish -brown sandy clay (Redeposited Fill) and extended in
depth from approximately 0 to 20 centimeters (0 to 7.87 inches) below ground surface. Underlying
Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 2.5YR3/6 dark red clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from
approximately 20 to 30 centimeters (7.87 to 11.81 inches) in depth (Table 8).
Table 8 STP B5 Soil Profile in Area C
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-20
2.5YR3/4 Dark Reddish Brown
Sandy Clay
Fill
11
20-30
2.5YR3/6 Dark Red
Clay
Subsoil
7.6

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 18 General Conditions in Southern Portion of Area C; View to the North.
Figure 19 High Brush Conditions in Central Portion of Area C; View to the North.
7.7

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.5 AREA D
Area D is located in the central portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the east by Area B, to the
southwest by Area F, to the west by Area G, and to the north and south by private property. An
abandoned paved parking lot is present to the south, while sloping drainage (Lyle Creek) extends through
the western portion of Area D. The remaining terrain within Area D comprises light woodland with gently
rolling open fields of high brush. Some areas exhibit subsoil on surface (see Figure 13; Figures 20 and
21).
A total of 180 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along 14 transects (Transects
A—L, Z, and JU) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area D. A total of 25 shovel tests were not
excavated primarily due to their location within wetland, push piles, disturbed area, and on slope (Table
9). Two shovel tests were positive for cultural material and five radial shovel tests were excavated at 15-
meter (49.21-foot) intervals around positive tests to determine the bounds of newly identified cultural
resources. No radial shovel tests were positive for additional cultural material. Shovel testing, surface
collection, and field observation in conjunction with historic topographic map review resulted in the
identification of three new archaeological sites (31 CT289, 31 CT290, and 31 CT291) during survey within
Area B (see Figure 13).
Table 9 Explanation of Unexcavated Shovel Tests in Area D
STP Count
STP Number
Location
16
A9, B1n, C3-4, CT F12-13, G9-12, H25, J17,
J23, L21, Z14
Slope
4
B21-23,D24
Landscaped
3
C5s, C5w, C6
Wetland
2
C20-21
Push Pile
A representative shovel test profile for Area D (STP A5) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR3/4 strong brown sandy clay loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth
from approximately 0 to 12 centimeters (0 to 4.72 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I
was Stratum 11, a layer of 5YR4/4 reddish -brown sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from
approximately 12 to 24 centimeters (4.72 to 9.45 inches) in depth (Table 10).
Table 10 STP A5 Soil Profile in Area D
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-12
7.5YR3/4 Dark Brown
Sandy Clay Loam
A Horizon
11
12-24
5YR4/4 Reddish Brown
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.8

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 20 General Conditions in Southern Portion of Area D with Subsoil on Surface;
View to the North.
Figure 21 High Brush and Woodland in the Northern Portion of Area D; View to the East.
7.9

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.6 AREA E
Area E is located in the northeastern portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the south by Lyle
Creek and Areas A and B and in all other directions by private property. The northern portion of Area E
consists predominately of a sloped landform. The remaining terrain within Area E consists of sloping
landforms with overgrown brush and patches of light tree growth along Lyle Creek (see Figure 13;
Figures 22 and 23).
A total of 35 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along three transects
(Transects A—C) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area E. No shovel tests were positive for
cultural material and no new archaeological sites were identified during survey within Area E (see Figure
13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area E (STP 136) consisted of three strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 5YR4/6 yellowish -brown sandy loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 36 centimeters (0 to 14.17 inches) below ground surface. Stratum I was underlain by
Stratum II, a layer of 5YR4/6 yellowish -brown sand (E Horizon) that extended in depth approximately 36
to 65 centimeters (14.17 to 25.59 inches). Underlying Stratum II was Stratum III, a layer of 5YR3/4 dark
reddish -brown sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 65 to 75 centimeters
(25.59 to 29.53 inches) in depth (Table 11).
Table 11 STP B6 Soil Profile in Area E
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-36
5YR4/6 Yellowish Red
Sandy Loam
A Horizon
11
36-65
5YR4/6 Yellowish Red
Sand
E Horizon
111
65-75
5YR3/4 Dark Reddish Brown
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.10

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 22 General Conditions in Central Portion of Area E; View to the North.
Figure 23 Sloped Woodland in Northern Portion of Area E; View to the Southwest.
7.11

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.7 AREA F
Area F is located in the southwestern portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the southwest by
Area C, to the northeast by Area D, to the northwest by Area G, and to the southeast by private property.
Large portions of Area F contain sloped landforms and disturbed ground. The remaining terrain within
Area F consists of gently rolling open grass fields and woodland (see Figure 13; Figures 24 and 25).
A total of 43 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along seven transects
(Transects B—G and JU) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area F. One shovel test (STP E9) was
not excavated due to slope. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material and no new archaeological
sites were identified during survey within Area F (see Figure 13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area F (STP D3) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR3/3 dark brown sandy clay loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 20 centimeters (0 to 7.87 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was
Stratum 11, a layer of 5YR5/8 yellowish -red sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from
approximately 20 to 30 centimeters (7.87 to 11.81 inches) in depth (Table 12).
Table 12 STP D3 Soil Profile in Area F
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-20
7.5YR3/3 Dark Brown
Sandy Clay Loam
A Horizon
11
20-30
5YR5/8 Yellowish Red
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.12

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 24 General Conditions in Central Portion of Area F; View to the North.
tjv
s
I
!p
f.
4
Au'p
Figure 25 Sloped Woodland Conditions in Northern Portion of Area F; View to the North.
7.13

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.8 AREA G
Area G is located in the western portion of the Project Area and is bordered to the east by Area D, to the
southeast by Area F, and in all other directions by private property. The majority of Area G has been
disturbed by the construction of an adjacent solar site and now contains artificially terraced land, subsoil
on surface in some areas, retention ponds, a sewer line, and a power station. This area of disturbance
had previously been timbered; however, significant grading of the area appears to have occurred
sometime between 2015 when the adjacent solar array was constructed and 2017 when the disturbance
is visible on aerial images. The remaining terrain within Area G consists of brush covered woodland (see
Figure 13; Figures 26-29).
A total of 29 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals along four transects (Transects
A—D) spaced 30 meters (98.4 feet) apart within Area G. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material
and no new archaeological sites were identified during survey within Area G (see Figure 13).
A representative shovel test profile for Area G (STP 132) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/3 brown sandy loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 10 centimeters (0 to 3.94 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was
Stratum II, a layer of 5YR5/8 yellowish -red sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from
approximately 10 to 20 centimeters (3.94 to 7.87 inches) in depth (Table 13).
Table 13 STP 132 Soil Profile in Area G
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-10
7.5YR4/3 Brown
Sandy Loam
A Horizon
11
10-20
5YR5/8 Yellowish Red
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
7.14

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Not to Scale
40,
A
It
.'wo r
' r s-
111 �+
Wal �u'z_ jC
perce
ndy's ,r" i` t +�ell
4
�.
r1`
Figure 26 Grading and Pond Construction in Area G in 2017 (Google Earth 2017,
Accessed 2023).
7.15

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
c a
ate t f "k
IG-0
I t Jly •$! f /J
Figure 27 Disturbed Conditions in Northern Portion of Area G; View to the North.
Figure 28 Subsoil on Surface in Disturbed Portion of Area G; View to the West.
7.16

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 29 General Conditions in Southwest Portion of Area G without Disturbance; View
to the East.
7.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
7.9.1 Newly Recorded Archaeological Sites
Three new archaeological sites were identified during Phase I survey of the Project Area. All three sites
were located within Area D.
7.9.1.1 31 CT289
Site Date: Late 19t" to Mid-20t" Century
Site Type: Farmstead
Site Size: 138-x-77 meters/0.85 hectare
Survey Methodology: 30-meter (98.04-feet) interval shovel tests and surface collection
Total Shovel Test Pits: 16
Positive Shovel Test Pits: 0
Prehistoric Artifacts: 0
Historic Artifacts: 20
Features: None
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
7.17

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Site 31 CT289 is a late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact scatter centered around a razed
former farmstead. The site is located on a gently sloping landform north of NC 16 and northwest of
Smithfield Drive NW in the central portion of Area D. The terrain within Site 31CT289 consists of light
brush and grass on truncated topsoil with exposed subsoil throughout. Debris piles from razed structures
were noted within the site. Situated on Tomlin loam at or near approximately 295 meters (968 feet) amsl,
Site 31 CT289 measures approximately 138-x-77 meters (452-x-253 feet) with the long axis extending
east to west and encompasses approximately 0.85 hectare (2.11 acres) in extent (see Figure 13; Figures
30-32). A total of 20 artifacts were recovered within the bounds of the site.
A representative shovel test profile for Site 31 CT289 (Area D STP C17) consisted of two strata. Stratum I
was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR3/3 dark brown sandy clay loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth
from approximately 0 to 5 centimeters (1.97 inches) below ground surface. Stratum I was underlain by
Stratum 11, a layer of 5YR4/6 yellowish -red sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from
approximately 5 to 15 centimeters (1.97 to 5.91 inches) in depth (Table 14).
Table 14 STP C17 Soil Profile
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-5
7.5YR3/3 Dark Brown
Sandy Clay Loam
A Horizon
11
5-15
5YR4/6 Yellowish Red
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
Identified during surface collection in Area D, Site 31 CT289 primarily comprised historic domestic
material. The site yielded: four cut iron nails (1835-), two molded colorless bottle glass fragments, one
colorless automatic bottle machine (ABM) jar fragment (1904-), one complete aqua embossed Coca-Cola
bottle (1958), one press -molded Whiteware body sherd (1820-), one press -molded Ironstone body sherd
(1842), one press -molded Ironstone transferprinted base sherd (1842-), one press molded underglaze
printed blue Royal China "Currier & Ives" pattern Ironstone transferprinted rim sherd (c. 1950s), three
press molded underglaze printed color decor Ironstone body sherd (likely c. 1950 to c. 1970s), and nine
press molded underglaze printed color decor Ironstone rim sherds (likely c. 1950 to c. 1970s) (Table 15;
Figure 33; Appendix A).
The artifacts recovered from Site 31CT289 were primarily domestic (n=31; 88.6 percent) with architectural
debris (n=4; 11.4 percent) comprising the remainder of the assemblage. Architectural debris included four
cut iron nail fragments, which generally reflect nineteenth century activity. While architectural artifact were
few, remains of a former structure were also evident by the brick rubble piles present within the site. One
pile included a portion of articulated bricks possibly representing chimney remains on top of the larger
loose pile of brick debris (Figure 31). Domestic material included bottle and jar glass and ceramic sherds,
primarily dating to the twentieth century. While whiteware and Ironstone both have production periods
beginning in the early nineteenth century, they are ware types still produced today. In addition, several
Ironstone sherds were decorated in styles with temporal ranges in the mid- to late twentieth century. The
glass assemblage also included primarily twentieth century material, including ABM jar fragments and a
1958 Coca Cola bottle.
7.18

A20
JU3 JU2 JU1 31 CT291
1
A18'
0 A17 Area E
JU4
� ' A16
B1N
C1
JU72
A15.
B1
Al B1
.
JU11
A14
JUS
B1S
A13
C-2 B2
JUJU3
0
. .31CT290
A2 B2
C-2
JU9 'JU8
H2
JU6
C.3 B3 A3
JU7 JU6
JU8
B3
C3
D3 E3 F3 G3
H3
13
,JU9 JU7
C4• 134 A4
.
JU10 JU11
C5N V
JU2
B4
G4
JU4
D4 E4 (;4
H4
14
0
65 g5 AS
JU14
JU13 1:
G5S
)-W:63,
B5
C5
D5 E5 F5 ,G5;
HS
IS
JU12
C6
Z6
JU,1
0
JU15
0 17
B6
C6 OD6 E6y E6 G6
H6
I6
JU76
G7 B7 A7
VArea
6
JU17
0
G8 g8 A8
0 B7
Z8
C7
V
D7 E7 F7 :' G7
7 0 '7 o-
H,
17
G9
JU18
F9 E9 D9
0 ^"�
C9 � A9
B9
y
V B15
Z9
C8
0
D12 E16 F121�9,
0 V Area
a B'77
H1"5,
6fi14
F13
H14
G10
JU19
F10 E10 D10
C10 B10 A10
Z10. N
C9
0
D13 E15
0 0
Q
0 JU21 G11
_
F11 E11t D11
-
C11,
I
B13
C10
E14 F14
0
H13
JU20
B11 A11
Z11
0
0
JU22
0 e
312
C1t1
E13 F15
H12
'7
112
0
G12
F12 E12 D12
C12 B12 Al2
Z12
0
0 0
Area D
0 Q 0
E12
Hg
111
H13 G13
JU23
F13 E13 D13
°�C13
—7 B11
F16
0
0
0
B13 A13
Z13
114 14
H
'F� E114" D114
C14 B14
Q .-
D11 E8 F8 F8
V
H9
V
110
A14
0 7 0
Z14
Q
"
GV
D10 !F9
H10
19
115 H15 G15
F15 E15 D15
C15 B15 A15
B9
I 0
G12
7,
E9 „
0
0
17
116 H16 G.16
F.16 E�1y6 D16
17
C16�B16 A16
BS
C13
Q
D9 E10 F10 G
D8 Q-
H11
18
0
0
J17 117 H17
0 V Q
0
Q
C14
D8 E11 F11
.. 0
G17
F17 E17 D17
`
C17 B17 A17
V
Q 0 0
•
•��
J18 G18_
7
s p
118 H18
.,F18 E18 D18
C,18 B18 A18
0 Q V
J19 J19 119 " H19 G119
.,
F119 E19 D19
o o ..c
C19 B19 A19
e _
31 CT289
����,''•--t
K1 = J20 120 H2O G20
0 p
F20 E20 D20
7 V,
C20 B20 A20
,
0
� Well
C �Project Area
0 150 3001
Feet
N
Historic Artifact
0 Archaeological Site
(At original document size of 8.5X11)
Primary Negative Shovel Test Pit
Cultural Survey Area
1:3,600
Q Primary Not Dug Shovel Test Pit Disturbed
® Stantec
Primary Positive Shovel
Test Pit Slope
Radial Negative Shovel Test Pit
Wet/Waterlogged
Proiect Locatine Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-20
p Radial Not Dug Shovel Test Pit
20-Foot Contour
Catawba County, North Carolina
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
IR by BSS on 2023-01-04,
ClienWrol-t
Microsoft
203401901
Notes
MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North
Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Figure No.
2. Data Sources: ESRI, Microsoft, INC Geodetic
30
Survey
3. Orthoimagery © INC OneMap, INC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Title
Archaeological Sites 31CT289,
31CT290,and 31CT291
Page 7.19
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 31 Debris Pile from Bulldozed Structures at Site 31CT289; View to the South.
7.20

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 32 General View Looking Toward Site 31CT289 within Area D with Subsoil on
Surface; View to the North.
Table 15 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 CT289
Artifact Group
Object
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Transect
Stratum
Total
Architectural
Nail
iron
cut
B1
1
4
Architectural Total
4
Domestic
Bottle
glass
automatic
bottle, soda
SC1
Surface
1
machine aqua
automatic
jar
SC2
Surface
1
machine colorless
molded colorless
bottle
SC1
Surface
2
refined
press molded/
Ceramic
earthenware
Ironstone/White
SC2
Surface
13
Granite
C5
1
11
transferprinted
SC2
Surface
2
press molded/
SC1
Surface
1
Whiteware
Domestic Total
31
Grand Total
35
7.21

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 33 Example of Cultural Material Recovered within Site 31CT289. A: Coca-Cola
Bottle; B: Glass Jar Fragment; C: Midcentury Modern Ironstone Rim Sherds; D: Royal
China "Currier & Ives" Pattern Rim Sherd; E: Midcentury Modern Ironstone Rim Sherd;
and F: Ironstone Base Sherd with Transferprint.
Historic map review identified structures in the location of Site 31CT289 in the mid -twentieth century (see
Figure 9). In 1951, the Newton, NC topographic map depicts a structure at the end of a driveway in the
location of the southeast end of Site 31 CT289. This structure appears to have been a house and an
outbuilding is also shown to the west, generally at the opposite end of the site. Both structures as well as
a third structure were visible in these locations on aerial photos as recently as 2021. In that same year, all
structures in this location were demolished and the ground was graded. The only remaining feature of the
farmstead is an open, collapsed septic tank which was located just south of the original primary
residence. Today, only the brick debris pile, septic tank, and artifact scatter documented during this
survey remain of the former farmstead.
7.22

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 34 Open Septic Tank at Site 31CT289; View to the North.
Recommendations: Site 31 CT289 is late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact scatter centered
around a former farmstead. The farmstead included three structures, two of which appear on a 1951
topographic map (see Figure 10) as well as aerial images until 2021, when all three structures were
demolished. The site has been graded and the recovered artifact scatter was primarily surficial. A brick
rubble pile is now located where a structure once stood with an open, collapsed septic tank just south of
the former structure. The artifact scatter primarily suggests twentieth century domestic occupation of the
former structure. While a septic tank feature remains, the site has been otherwise destroyed and retains
no subsurface integrity and little research potential. Stantec recommends Site 31CT289 as not eligible
for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A through C were not considered applicable to the
evaluation of this resource. No further archaeological work is recommended for Site 31 CT289.
7.23

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
7.9.1.2 31 CT290
Site Date: Late 19th Century to Mid-20th Century
Site Type: Artifact Scatter
Site Size: 149-x-47 meters/0.53 hectare
Survey Methodology: 30-meter (98.04-feet) interval shovel tests w/ 15-meter (50-feet) radials
Total Shovel Test Pits: 10
Positive Shovel Test Pits: 2
Prehistoric Artifacts: 0
Historic Artifacts: 15
Features: Well
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site 31 CT290 is a late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact scatter centered around a former well.
The site is located on a gently sloping landform south of Lyle Creek in the northern portion of Area D.
Situated on Tomlin clay loam at or near approximately 272 meters (893 feet) amsl, Site 31CT290
measures approximately 149-x-47 meters (489-x-154 feet) with the long axis extending northeast to
southwest and encompasses approximately 0.53 hectare (1.32 acres) in extent. The terrain within Site
31 CT290 consists of open sloping grass fields with small tree clusters (see Figures 13 and 30; Figures 35
and 36). A total of 16 artifacts were recovered within the bounds of the site.
A representative shovel test for Site 31 CT290 (Area D STP C5) consisted of two strata. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/3 dark brown sandy clay loam (A Horizon) and extended in depth from
approximately 0 to 20 centimeters (0 to 7.87 inches) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was
Stratum II, a layer of 5YR4/6 yellowish -red sandy clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from
approximately 20 to 30 centimeters (7.87 to 11.81 inches) in depth (Table 16).
Table 16 STP C5 Soil Profile
Stratum
Depth (cm)
Color
Soil Type/Texture
Interpretation
1
0-20
7.5YR4/3 Dark Brown
Sandy Clay Loam
A Horizon
11
20-30
5YR4/6 Yellowish Red
Sandy Clay
Subsoil
Originally identified on Transect B in Shovel Test 1 in Area D, newly identified Site 31 CT290 primarily
comprised domestic and architectural material. The site yielded: four complete iron cut nails (1835-), eight
press -molded Ironstone body sherds (1842-), and three press -molded Ironstone rim sherds (1842-)
(Table 17; Figure 37; Appendix B).
7.24

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
W
N��N A,. 1.4&ON
„4 ��". ' '�''• y� Y yam{ M��.�.y`a.�L, ' v
;+'_
Figure 35 General View of Site 31CT290 within Area D; View to the East.
Figure 36 Open Rock -Lined Well Located in the Center of Site 31CT290; View to the
North.
7.25

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Table 17 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 CT290
Art Group
Object
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Transect
Stratum
Total
Architectural
Nail
iron
cut
131
I
4
Architectural Total
4
Domestic
Ceramic
refined
earthenware
press molded/
IronstoneANhite Granite
C5
1
11
Domestic Total
11
Grand Total
15
Figure 37 Example of Cultural Material Recovered within Site 31CT290. A: Complete Iron
Cut Nails and B: Ironstone Sherds.
Site 31 CT290 primarily yielded domestic artifacts (n=11; 73 percent) with architectural material (n=4; 27
percent) comprising the remainder of the assemblage. Architectural material was limited to four iron cut
nails all recovered from a single shovel test located at the northern end of the site. This shovel test was
approximately 55 meters (180.45 feet) north of the well. There was no other evidence of a former
structure in this location and no structures appear in this portion of the Project Area on historic maps.
However, a structure did appear a short distance southeast of the site location on the 1895 Hickory, NC
topographic map (see Figure 9) and may be the house with which the well was once associated. It is also
possible that outbuildings or other structure associated with a larger farmstead once stood in this area,
though no evidence of architectural features aside from the well were observed. The domestic material,
which comprised the bulk of the recovered assemblage, was likewise limited in both distribution and type.
7.26

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
All domestic material was represented by Ironstone sherds recovered from a single shovel test at the
southwest end of the site. While none of the sherds mended, it is possible that some or all represent
sherds from a single vessel. This material was identified approximately 67 meters (219.81 feet) southwest
of the well. The presence of the Ironstone suggests domestic activity. While Ironstone has a long
production period beginning in the early nineteenth century and extending to the present, it appears likely
that this material relates to prior nineteenth to early twentieth century occupation in the area. However,
the structure depicted on the late nineteenth century map appears to have been demolished prior to the
mid -twentieth century when historic topographic maps no longer illustrate the resource. All of the artifacts
recovered from Site 31 CT290 were collected from the A Horizon, which capped subsoil.
Recommendations: Site 31 CT290 is late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact scatter around an
open stone -lined well. The well and the artifacts appear to have been associated with occupation of a
former structure depicted on an 1895 topographic map as located to the southeast of these resources, on
the west side of a road that may be the same as the road trace of Site 31 CT291 discussed below. This
structure is no longer present on the property and would have been located northeast of Site 31 CF0289.
This structure was no longer depicted on topographic maps by 1951 (see Figures 9 and 10). The artifact
scatter appears to represent general debris related to the wider former domestic occupation. The artifacts
were separated by more than 100 meters (328.08 feet) and were limited in type, including only iron cut
nails and Ironstone sherds. All nails were recovered from a single shovel test and likewise all Ironstone
sherds were recovered from the second positive shovel test. All artifacts were present in the A Horizon
and aside from the well, no surface or subsurface features were identified. Given the paucity of artifacts,
the limited nature of the recovered cultural material, and the presence of this material in the A Horizon, it
appears that the site lacks depth and research potential. While the artifacts are generally present around
a well, there is no evidence remaining of a former structure in this location. Therefore, Stantec
recommends Site 31 CT290 as not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A through
C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No additional archaeological
work is recommended for Site 31 CT290.
7.9.1.3 31 CT291
Site Date: 191h Century to Early 20th Century
Site Type: Road Trace
Site Size: 0.83 kilometers/0.52 miles
Survey Methodology: Observation
Total Shovel Test Pits: 0
Positive Shovel Test Pits: 0
Prehistoric Artifacts: 0
Historic Artifacts: 0
Features: Stone Bridge Footing Remains
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
7.27

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Site 31 CT291 represents a historic road trace extending north from NC 16, continuing east of Sites
31 CT289 and 31 CT290, and terminating within the Project Area at Lyle Creek. The road trace is a dirt
two -track at the southern end where it connects with NC 16; however, as it extends northeast toward the
creek it appears as a grassy, wooded, partially depressed linear feature. The site primarily extends the
eastern edge of Area D, turning northwest slightly into Area D before reaching the creek. Situated on
Tomlin loam, Tomlin clay loam, and Dan River loam at or near approximately 270 to 303 meters (887 to
994 feet) amsl, Site 31CT291 measures approximately 0.83 kilometer (0.52 mile) with the long axis
running north to south and is approximately 6 meters (20 feet) in width with some portions cut
approximately 3 meters (10 feet) in depth from the current ground surface elevation. Site 31CT291
extends through open areas exhibiting exposed subsoil and high brush as well as areas of light woodland
before reached Lyle Creek. At the creek, the remnants of a stone bridge footing are located in the creek
bed (see Figures 13 and 30; Figures 38 and 39).
Figure 38 General View of Site 31CT291 within Area D; View to the Southeast.
7.28

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 39 Stone Footing of Bridge as Site 31CT291 Reaches Lyle Creek; View to the
North.
Recommendations: Site 31 CT291 is a historic road trace likely dating to the nineteenth century and
continuing in use, at least in part, through the twentieth century. The road may be the same as that
depicted on the 1895 topographic map of the area (see Figure 9). The road shown on the map appears
more sharply angled to the northeast and is depicted crossing Lyle Creek further southeast than the
existing roadway. However, it is possible that the map is not accurately drawn. In both instances, the road
trace extends from what is today NC 16 in a generally northeasterly direction and makes a turn to the
northwest at the northern end prior to crossing the creek and continuing beyond the Project Area. Site
31 CT289 appears to have been located just off of this road and it is likely that the few artifacts and the
well at Site 31 CT290 were associated with a former structure which also fronted on this road, which is
also visible on mid -twentieth-century aerials. A stone bridge footing is present in the bed of Lyle Creek
where the road trace meets the creek; however, no other evidence of a former bridge was observed
within the Project Area or on the far side of the creek as viewed from within the Project Area. While Site
31CT291 may offer insight into earlier transportation routes within Catawba County, the eroded roadbed
offers little further research opportunity as an archaeological resource. Stantec recommends Site
31CT291 as not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A through C were not
considered applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No additional archaeological work is
recommended for the portion of Site 31 CT291 within the Project Area.
7.29

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From December 3 to 19, of 2022, Stantec conducted a Phase I archaeological survey of approximately
89.72 hectares (221.71 acres) associated with the Lyle Creek Site (CLT04), a proposed data center in
Catawba County, North Carolina. The Project, as currently designed, will comprise five (5) datacenter
buildings, each with five (5) colos, substations, and one (1) administration building with a total capacity of
240MW. The Project Area was defined as the entire approximately 89.72-hectare (221.71-acre) parcel
and included overgrown brush, woodland, and large areas of slope and modern ground disturbances. The
Project Area is bounded to the south by NC 16, to the northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all
other directions by private parcels.
The Phase I survey was designed to locate and identify cultural resources within the defined Project Area
and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations regarding their potential eligibility for listing
in the NRHP.
Phase I survey included pedestrian survey of the entire Project Area conducted concurrently with
systematic subsurface testing. A total of 552 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals
along transects spaced 30 meters (98.4-feet) apart throughout the Project Area. Two shovel tests were
positive for cultural material. Five radial shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter (49.21-foot) intervals to
determine the bounds of newly identified cultural resources. No radial shovel tests were positive for
additional cultural material. A total of 69 shovel tests were not excavated within otherwise testable areas
due primarily to the presence of slope, wetland, and visible and extensive ground disturbance. These
areas were subject to pedestrian survey where possible.
Three new archaeological sites were identified during this investigation (Table 18). Two newly recorded
archaeological sites (31CT289 and 31CT290) are late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-century artifact
scatters centered around former farmsteads. The third (Site 31 CT291) is a nineteenth to twentieth-
century road trace. Due to the paucity of artifacts and the lack of subsurface features within these sites,
each resource appears to lack research potential. As such, Stantec recommends Sites 31CT289,
31CT290, and 31CT291 as not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D; Criteria A through
C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of these resources. No further archaeological
work is recommended for the Project.
Table 18 Recommendations for Archaeological Resources within the Project Area
Resource
Resource Type
Association
Stantec Recommendation
31 CT289
Artifact Scatter
Late 19th to Mid-20t" Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
31 CT290
Artifact Scatter and Well
Late 19th to Mid-20t" Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
31 CT291
Road Trace
19t" to 20th Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
8.1

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
9.0 REFERENCES
Barnes, Mark R.
2007 The Hardaway Site: A Treasure Preserved. In Mammoth Trumpet 22:9-13.
Bayley, Elizabeth
2006 Catawba County. In Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Boyd, C.C., Jr.
1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 53-70. Special Publication No. 19 of
the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz, Richmond
Catawba College
2021 History of Catawba College. Available at: https://catawba.edu/coIIegehistory/, accessed 17
February 2023.
Catawba County Government
2020 About Catawba County. Available from: https://www.catawbacountync.aov/county-
government/about-catawba-county/, accessed November 2022
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Vol 1. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.
Coe, Joffrey L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. In Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, N.S. 54(4), Philadelphia.
1995 Tooewn Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre, and Jack H. Wilson, Jr.
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Randleman and Howard Mills Reservoirs. The Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
IE

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
Corbitt, David Leroy
1987 The formation of the North Carolina counties, 1663-1943. Available from:
https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/pl6062coII9/id/290103, Accessed 17 February 2023.
Daniel, Jr., I. Randolph
2005 The Archaeology of North Carolina: the Paleo-Indian Period. In Tar Heel Junior Historian, North
Carolina Museum of History.
Davis, L.G., D.E. Madsen, L. Becerra-Valdivia, T. Highman, D.A. Sisson, S.M. Skinner, D. Stueber, A.J.
Nyers
2019 Late Upper Paleolithic Occupation at Cooper's Ferry, Idaho, USA, --16,000 Years Ago. In Science
Vol. 365:891-897.
Dent, Richard J., Jr.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.
Fenn, Elizabeth A., and Peter H. Wood
2003 The Tuscarora War: North Carolina Before 1770. In The War We Lived in North Carolina,
edited by Joe A. Mobley, pp. 3-106. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Fiedel, Stuart, and Gary Haynes
2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer's "Requiem for Overkill." In Journal of
Archaeological Science 31:121-131.
Freeze, Gary R.
1995 The Catawbans: Crafters of a North Carolina County 1747-1900. Catawba County Historical
Association, Inc., Newton, North Carolina.
Friends of North Carolina, Inc.
1984 North Carolina Prehistoric, Part One: The Cultural Sequence. In Newsletter of the Friends of
North Carolina Archaeology, Inc. 1(2):9-10.
Fuka, Matthew, Elizabeth Heavrin, Sarah Anderson, Robert Clarke, and Josu6 Nieves
2022 A Cultural Resource Desktop Review for the Proposed CLT-AZ2 Stover Assemblage Site
Catawba County, North Carolina. On File, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.
Gallivan, Martin D.
2003 James River Chiefdoms: Thee Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
9.2

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional
Publication No. 1, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington,
D. C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Circa 9200 to
6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and
Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-51. Dietz Press, Richmond.
Goodyear, A. C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North
America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer
2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. In Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585-593.
Hahn, George W.
1911 The Catawba Soldier of the Civil War. Clay Printing Company, Hickory, North Carolina.
Hudson, Charles
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.
Kitchin, Thomas
1765 A new map of North & South Carolina, & Georgia. Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division.
Le Rouge, Georges -Louis, Henry Mouzon, and Charles Cornwallis
1777 Carolina septentrionale et meridionale en 4 feuilles, traduite de I'Anglois. Library of Congress
Geography and Map Division.
Lewis, S., and H.S. Tanner
1805 North Carolina. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division.
McAvoy, Joseph M.
1992 Nottaway River Survey, Part I. Clovis Settlement Patters: The 30-Year Study of a Late Ice Age
Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special Publication No. 28 of
the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.
9.3

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research
Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. In Journal of World Prehistory 2:
1-52.
Moore, David G.
2006 Catawba Indians. In Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Munsell Color
1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New
Windsor, NY.
NCPedia
n.d. Wildlife of North Carolina's Piedmont region. NCpedia. Available from
https://www.ncpedia.org/wildlife/piedmont, Accessed November 2022.
Newkirk, Judith A.
1978 The Parker Site: A Woodland Site in Davidson County, North Carolina. MA thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
NETROnline
2023 Conover, North Carolina, Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed
January 2023.
North Carolina Department Environmental Quality
2015 Physiographic Provinces of NC. September 29, 2015. Available from:
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1316f4eb4e3349298c3bd006
3ab8fb89, Accessed November 2022.
North Carolina Geological Survey
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, Scale 1:500,000, in color. North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section: Raleigh, North Carolina.
Available from:
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281 cbd24b84239b29cd2ca
798d4a10, accessed November 2022.
9.4

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017a North Carolina Office of State Archaeology Archaeological Investigation Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation.
North Carolina Department of Natural & Cultural Resources. November 2022.
2017b Archaeological Site Form Handbook. Last Updated May 31, 2017. https://files.nc.gov/dncr-
arch/PDF/OSA site form handbook V7.pdf, accessed November 2022.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
2018a Habitats: Piedmont. Learning. Available from: http://ncwildlife.org/Learning/Habitats/Piedmont,
accessed November 2022.
2018b Habitats. Learning. Available from: http://ncwildlife.org/Learning/Habitats, accessed November
2022.
Olsen, Heather, and Heather Millis
2003 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed PCS Phosphate Aurora Facility Expansion, Beaufort
County, North Carolina. Report submitted to CZR Incorporated by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc.,
Durham.
Perdue, Theda, and Christopher A. Oakley
2010 Native Carolinians: The Indians of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Office of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Phelps, David Sutton
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural
Resources, Raleigh.
Potter, Stephen R.
1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Preslar, Charles J., Jr.
1954 A History of Catawba County. Catawba County Historical Association, Inc., Newton, North
Carolina.
9.5

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
United States Census Bureau
1950 Number of Inhabitants: North Carolina. Available from:
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/l 950/population-volume-
2/06586136v2p33chl .pdf, Accessed 21 February 2023.
United States Department of the Interior (USDI)
1981 Department of the Interior's Regulations, 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1983 Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Interagency Resources Division, Washington D.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1895 Hickory, North Carolina 1:125,000 Quadrangle.
1970 Newton, North Carolina 1:24,500 Quadrangle.
United States Soil Conservation Service
1934 Reconnaissance erosion survey of the State of North Carolina. Library of Congress Geography
and Map Division.
Wade, Lizzie
2019 First people in the Americas came by sea, ancient tools unearthed by Idaho river suggest:
16,000-year-old occupation predates possible land route into the continents. Available from: First
people in the Americas came by sea, ancient tools unearthed by Idaho river suggest I Science I
AAAS, Accessed 2023.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont, A.D. 1000 to 1700. Monograph 2.
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., H. Gregory McDonald, Carl Gustafson, Morten Rasmussen,
Enrico Cappellini, Jesper V. Olsen, Damian Szklarczyk, Lars Juhl Jensen, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, and
Eske Willerslev
2011 Pre -Clovis mastodon hunting 13,800 years ago at the Manis site, Washington. In Science
334(6054):351-3.
Web Soil Survey
2022 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Series
Classification Database. Available from:
http://soiIs.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/scfile/index.htmI Accessed November 2022.
Williams, Wiley J.
2006 Yamasee War. In Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Woodall, J. Ned
1990 Archaeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Publication 25. North
Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Yoder, R. A.
1886 Map of Catawba County, North Carolina. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division.
9.7

APPENDICES

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Appendix A ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Appendix A ARTIFACT INVENTORY
m
A.1

Artifact Inventory
MS CL To4
Context Count and Description
Area D, 31CT289
F.S.#: 1 Surface Collection 1 ON OE
TPQ: 1958
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1820-), Whiteware body sherd
2 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, bottle, colorless
1 Bottle Complete object, glass, automatic machine, Applied label "Coca Cola" on contour bottle,
"58-13" embossed date code on waist (1958)., bottle, soda, aqua, Applied Color Label
F.S.#: 2 Surface Collection 2 ON OE
TPQ: 1950
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, (1904-), jar, colorless
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842-) spalled., Ironstone/White
Granite base sherd transferprinted
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842-), Ironstone/White Granite body
sherd
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, underglaze printed blue, Royal China
"Currier & Ives" pattern (1950 - 1970). Given away as premiums through the A & P stores and
Winn -Dixie during the 1950s., Ironstone/White Granite rim sherd transferprinted
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, underglaze printed color decor,
midcentury modern style geometric patterns. Likely c1950-c1970s., Ironstone/White Granite
body sherd
9 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, underglaze printed color decor,
midcentury modern style geometric patterns. Likely c1950-c1970s., Ironstone/White Granite
rim sherd
Recorder: E.A.Lindtveit Page 1 of 2

Context Count and Description
Area D, 31CT290
F.S.#: 3, Transect B ST 1, Stratum I ON OE
1 Nail Complete object, iron, cut, modern (1835-)
3 Nail Complete object, iron, cut, modern (1835-)
F.S.#: 4, Transect C ST 5, Stratum I ON OE
TPQ: 1835
TPQ: 1842
8 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842-), Ironstone/White Granite body
sherd
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842-), Ironstone/White Granite rim
sherd
Recorder: E.A.Lindtveit Page 2 of 2

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Appendix B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORMS
Appendix B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORMS

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITE/VESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: Stantec
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
CODE: 135
1899-01
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: CT
9. QUAD MAP: Newton 1970
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 811209
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE: R13
MAP UNITS: 2 -Feet
MAP DATUM: 2 - NAD 27
MAP NORTHING: 354358
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
***ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 12/17/23 RECORDED BY: Ashley Bocan
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes PROJECT NAME: A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
an Approximately 89.72-Hectare (221.71 Acre) Parcel
Associated with the Proposed CLT04 Data Center in Catawba
County, North Carolina
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S):
18. CODING DATE: 1/9/23
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. Stantec (135)
2. OSA-109 E. Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
CODED BY: Donald Sadler
20. ACCESSION NUMBER:
1.
2.
3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 6 - 1st Terrace
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 868 FT. AMSL
ORDER:
1.
2.
3.

Site #: 31
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 6 % SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 1 - North
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 9 - Sandy Clay
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: TmB SOIL SERIES NAME: Tomlin Loam
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 9 - Disturbed or Upturned
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 586 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 3 - Catawba
33. SITE SIZE 6 - 5001-10,000 sq. m./5981-11,960 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 70 % GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 90 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 3 - Heavy Erosion 26 - Pasture
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 5 - 76% - 100% DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 1 - Major Earth Moving/Dredging 3 - Land Clearing
39. COLLECTION MADE: 1 -Yes
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY: 1 - Controlled 5m surface collection
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 8500 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS: 3 - Shovel Test
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREQUENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
LJ
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
LJ
32 - PPt. Fra otched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
LJ
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
H
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
35 - End Scraper (Type I
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
❑
36 - End Scraper (Type II
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
LJ
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
❑
38 - Side Scraper (Type I
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31
9 -Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III
11 - Kirk Stemmed
L
41 - Pointed Scraper
12 - Stanly Stemmed
L
42 - Oval Scraper
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
L
43 - Pisgah Triangular
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
L
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 - Guilford Lanceolate
L
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
L
46 - Co ena Triangular
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
L
47 - Connestee Triangular
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
❑
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
L
52 - Plott
_ET23
--Roanoke Large Triangular
L
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
L
54 - MacCorkle
TI
25 - Caraway Triangular
L
55 - Bradley Spike
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
L
56 - Swansboro
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
L
57 - Yadkin -Eared
28 - Randolph Stemmed
L
58 - Piscataway
29 - PPt.(Notched)
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
30 - PPt. Stemmed
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
55. REFINED DATE FROM:
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
REFINED DATE TO:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 — 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE: FUEL:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
HISTORIC ARTIFACTS
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP:
❑ I - Construction Tools ❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools ❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 4

Site #: 31
78. AGRICULTURE:
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 3 -Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
❑ 1 - Farm Tool
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
® 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
® 9 - Other soda bottle
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Unknown
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: The site is located on a gently sloping landform north of North Carolina Highway 16 and
northwest from Smithfield Drive NW . Site is located on Parcel Number xxxxxxxxxxx / Pin ID: xxxxxxxx
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: No Further Work Required
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Site 1899-01 represents a low density late nineteenth to mid -twentieth-
century artifact scatter centered around a former farmstead. No architectural material was present in the assemblage, and no
structures are present at this location on an 1895 historic topographic map (see Figure 9). Structures first appear at this location
on historic aerials as early as 1951 (NETROnline 2023). Recent aerial photographs show the compound has recently been
bulldozed. The site appears to be a small scatter of general debris and retains little to no research potential. Stantec recommends
Site 1899-01 as not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A through C were not considered applicable to the
evaluation of this resource. No further archaeological work is recommended.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The former farmstead has been completely razed and bulldozed. Architectural debris
push piles are present at the site and subsoil is exposed on the surface. Natural impacts to the site primarily include erosion and
bioturbation from fauna in the field.
94. TESTING RESULTS: Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals. No shovel tests were positive for
cultural material. In total, 20 historic artifacts were collected during surface survey. These consisted of bottle glass and
Whiteware and Ironstone sherds. Much of the recovered material was generally diagnostic of the twentieth century. No
architectural material was present within the recovered assemblage, however; push piles of brick debris, and an open septic
tank, are evident at the site indicating the presence of former structures. The domestic material was also limited and was
primarily comprised of Ironstone fragments, which have production ranges well into the twentieth century. No evidence of
surface or subsurface cultural features was identified. The soils in and near the site appear previously disturbed. Large areas of
exposed subsoil are present at the site. .
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION:
99. COMMENTS:
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

fur-
� I 7t
h \ /
�._ •1
1 ��
_ t t U
/
// q • J,
- 5\ a• —�
—�
•
'
�. a \''��� � a
.£R
1899-03 r `^
1899-01 c' Q mil
1
` f
!��-
�} r—
Uh
rlff
A
` \ aQ�.
,• r,, , ,fin r
0 1,000 2,000 N
O Archaeological Site Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:24,000
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2023-01-05
TR by MGS on 2023-01-05
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-05
Clienr/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet Figure No.
2. Data Sources: NC Geodetic Survey, Stantec
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Title
Site Location Map
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITE/VESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: Stantec
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
CODE: 135
1899-02
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: CT
9. QUAD MAP: Newton 1970
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 811208
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE: R13
MAP UNITS: 2 -Feet
MAP DATUM: 2 - NAD 27
MAP NORTHING: 354412
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
***ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 12/16/23 RECORDED BY: Ashley Bocan
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes PROJECT NAME: A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
an Approximately 89.72-Hectare (221.71 Acre) Parcel
Associated with the Proposed CLT04 Data Center in Catawba
County, North Carolina
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S):
18. CODING DATE: 1/9/23
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. Stantec (135)
2. OSA-109 E. Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
CODED BY: Donald Sadler
20. ACCESSION NUMBER:
1.
2.
3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 6 - 1st Terrace
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 893 FT. AMSL
ORDER:
1.
2.
3.

Site #: 31
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 6 % SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 1 - North
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 9 - Sandy Clay
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: ToC2 SOIL SERIES NAME: Tomlin Clay Loam
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 3 - Pasture
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 153 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 3 - Catawba
33. SITE SIZE 6 - 5001-10,000 sq. m./5981-11,960 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 % GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 0 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 0 - Unknown 26 - Pasture
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 2 - 1% - 25% DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 3 - Land Clearing 6 - Erosion
39. COLLECTION MADE:
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY: surface collection
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS: 3 - Shovel Test
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:
ff PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOUENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
Lj
32 - PPt. Fra otched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
Lj
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
❑
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
❑
35 - End Scraper (Type I
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
❑
36 - End Scraper (Type II
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
❑
38 - Side Scraper (Type I
LJ
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
Lj
39 - Side Scraper (Type II
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III
11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑
41 - Pointed Scraper
12 - Stanly Stemmed
L
42 - Oval Scraper
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
L
43 - Pisgah Triangular
ET-14
--Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
L
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 - Guilford Lanceolate
L
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
L
46 - Co ena Triangular
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
L
47 - Connestee Triangular
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
L
48 - Madison
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
❑
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
❑
52 - Plott
23 - Roanoke Large Triangular
L
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
L
54 - MacCorkle
TI
25 - Caraway Triangular
L
55 - Bradley Spike
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
L
56 - Swansboro
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
L
57 - Yadkin -Eared
28 - Randolph Stemmed
L
58 - Piscataway
29 - PPt.(Notched)
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
30 - PPt. Stemmed
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
55. REFINED DATE FROM:
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
REFINED DATE TO:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 — 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT:
DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
HISTORIC ARTIFACTS
FUEL:
FEET
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ I - Construction Tools ❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools ❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 3 - Toys ❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 4

Site #: 31
78. AGRICULTURE:
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
❑ 1 - Farm Tool
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 1 - Window Glass
® 2 - Nails
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 -Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
® 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Unknown
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: The site is located on a gently sloping landform north of North Carolina Highway 16 and south
of Lyle Creek. Site is located on Parcel Number xxxxxxxxxxx / Pin ID: xxxxxxxx
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: No Further Work Required
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Site 1899-02 represents a low -density late nineteenth- to mid -twentieth-
century artifact scatter around an open stone well. Structures are present at this location on a 1951 historic aerial photograph
(NETROnline 2023). This artifact scatter appears to represent general debris related to this domestic occupation. Given the
probable mid -twentieth century occupation of the site, the paucity of material, and the lack of subsurface features, Stantec
recommends Site 1899-02 as not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A through C were not considered
applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No additional archaeological work is recommended within the project area.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site is located witihn a clearing- former aerials indicate an architectural complex
stood here as early as 1951. Natural impacts to the site primarily include erosion and bioturbation from fauna in the field.
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31
94. TESTING RESULTS: Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter (98.4-foot) intervals. Two shovel tests were positive for
cultural material. In total, 15 historic artifacts were collected during surface survey. These consisted of four cut nails and 11
Ironstone sherds. Much of the recovered material from Site 1899-02 was generally diagnostic of the late nineteenth century to
the twentieth century, however; the recovered domestic material has production ranges well into the twentieth century. While
architectural material was present, it was minimal and included only cut nails. The stone well may be related to structures
present at this location on a 1951 historic aerial (NETROnline 2023). The domestic material was also limited and was
completely comprised of Ironstone fragments. Ironstone has a production range beginning in the nineteenth century but lasting
well into the twentieth century. No evidence of surface or subsurface cultural features was identified. All artifacts were
recovered from within a shall topsoil (Stratum I).
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION:
99. COMMENTS:
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

fur-
� I 7t
h \ /
�._ •1
1 ��
_ t t U
/
// q • J,
- 5\ a• —�
—�
•
'
�. a \''��� � a
.£R
1899-03 r `^
1899-01 c' Q mil
1
` f
!��-
�} r—
Uh
rlff
A
` \ aQ�.
,• r,, , ,fin r
0 1,000 2,000 N
O Archaeological Site Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:24,000
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2023-01-05
TR by MGS on 2023-01-05
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-05
Clienr/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet Figure No.
2. Data Sources: NC Geodetic Survey, Stantec
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Title
Site Location Map
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITE/VESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: Stantec
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
CODE: 135
1899-03
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: CT
9. QUAD MAP: Newton 1970
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 811209
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE: R13
MAP UNITS: 2 -Feet
MAP DATUM: 2 - NAD 27
MAP NORTHING: 354358
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
***ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 12/17/22 RECORDED BY: Ashley Bocan
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes PROJECT NAME: A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
an Approximately 89.72-Hectare (221.71 Acre) Parcel
Associated with the Proposed CLT04 Data Center in Catawba
County, North Carolina
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S):
18. CODING DATE: 1/9/23
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. Stantec (135)
2. OSA-109 E. Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
CODED BY: Donald Sadler
20. ACCESSION NUMBER:
1.
2.
3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 6 - 1st Terrace
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 994 FT. AMSL
ORDER:
1.
2.
3.

Site #: 31
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 6 % SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 1 - North
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 9 - Sandy Clay
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: TmB SOIL SERIES NAME: Tomlin loam
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 9 - Disturbed or Upturned
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 0 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 3 - Catawba
33. SITE SIZE 6 - 5001-10,000 sq. m./5981-11,960 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 70 % GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 90 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 13 - Heavy Construction 26 - Pasture
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 2 - 1% - 25% DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 1 - Major Earth Moving/Dredging 3 - Land Clearing
39. COLLECTION MADE: 2 - No
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 2 - No
43. TESTING METHODS:
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREQUENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
LJ
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
LJ
32 - PPt. Fra otched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
LJ
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
H
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
35 - End Scraper (Type I
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
❑
36 - End Scraper (Type II
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
LJ
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
❑
38 - Side Scraper (Type I
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31
9 -Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III
11 - Kirk Stemmed
L
41 - Pointed Scraper
12 - Stanly Stemmed
L
42 - Oval Scraper
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
L
43 - Pisgah Triangular
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
L
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 - Guilford Lanceolate
L
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
L
46 - Co ena Triangular
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
L
47 - Connestee Triangular
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
❑
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
L
52 - Plott
_ET23
--Roanoke Large Triangular
L
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
L
54 - MacCorkle
TI
25 - Caraway Triangular
L
55 - Bradley Spike
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
L
56 - Swansboro
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
L
57 - Yadkin -Eared
28 - Randolph Stemmed
L
58 - Piscataway
29 - PPt.(Notched)
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
30 - PPt. Stemmed
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
55. REFINED DATE FROM:
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
REFINED DATE TO:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 — 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE: FUEL:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
HISTORIC ARTIFACTS
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP:
❑ 1 - Construction Tools ❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools ❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 4

Site #: 31
78. AGRICULTURE:
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 3 -Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
❑ 1 - Farm Tool
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Unknown
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: The site is located on a gently sloping landform south of Lyle Creek. Site is located on Parcel
Number xxxxxxxxxxx / Pin ID: xxxxxxxx
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: No Further Work Required
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Site 1899-03 represents a historic road trace. The road is not depicted on
an 1895 topographic map of the area but is present on mid -twentieth-century aerials. The road trace seems to connect
previously identified Sites 1899-01 and 1899-02, both representing twentieth-century farmsteads, to North Carolina Highway
16. A stone bridge footing connected to the roadway is present within Lyle Creek. While Site 1899-03 may offer insight into
earlier transportation routes within Catawba County, the eroded road bed offers little further research opportunity as an
archaeological resource. Stantec recommends Site 1899-03 as not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D; Criteria A
through C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No additional archaeological work is recommended
within the project area.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site is located across gently sloping fields and pasture and within light woodland
from NC Highway 16 to Lyle Creek and the stone foundation asscociated with the resource is located within Lyle Creek.
Natural impacts to the site primarily include erosion and bioturbation from fauna in the field.
94. TESTING RESULTS: Field observation was used to locate Site 1899-03
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION:
99. COMMENTS:
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

fur-
� I 7t
h \ /
�._ •1
1 ��
_ t t U
/
// q • J,
- 5\ a• —�
—�
•
'
�. a \''��� � a
.£R
1899-03 r `^
1899-01 c' Q mil
1
` f
!��-
�} r—
Uh
rlff
A
` \ aQ�.
,• r,, , ,fin r
0 1,000 2,000 N
O Archaeological Site Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:24,000
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2023-01-05
TR by MGS on 2023-01-05
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-05
Clienr/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet Figure No.
2. Data Sources: NC Geodetic Survey, Stantec
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Title
Site Location Map
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF APPROXIMATELY 89.72 HECTARES (221.71 ACRES)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LYLE CREEK (CLT04) DATA CENTER IN CATAWBA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Appendix C KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
Appendix C KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES

Donald Sadler, MA
Project Archaeologist
(3 Stantec
Mr. Sadler has over 23 years of professional experience as an archaeologist. He has excavated on sites across Virginia,
including Jamestown, as well as Greece, Bermuda, Georgia and Maryland, on both academic and professional projects.
He has over a decade of experience as the primary field archaeologist supervising excavations at the Phase I, II and III
levels involving the prehistoric and Euro-American history of the Chesapeake region. His duties at have included Phase I
and II evaluations as a field technician and Field Supervisor. He has also assisted Senior Principal Investigators in report
writing, management summaries, and historic research. Donnie has experience in historic ceramic analysis, 18th-century
material culture analysis, managing archaeological collections, and database management.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts, Historical Archaeology, College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2006
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology with Honors, minor in
History, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg,
Virginia, 2001
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
HAZWOPER 40 hour Certificate, Statewide, Virginia,
2018
Confined Space Awareness Training, Statewide,
Virginia, 2016
RPA certified course "Metal Detecting for the
Archaeologist', Nationwide, US, 2015
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Data Recovery of Site 44JC0664, James City County,
Virginia
Donald oversaw the data recovery effort for Site 44JC0664, a
Colonial era domestic site with a Civil War encampment
component. Donald managed all field staff, monitored
mechanical excavations, participated in feature excavation, and
participated in photodocumentation of the site as well as the
production of scale drawings. The site was situated within an
active construction zone and Donald coordinated with on -site
contractors and ensured that all staff followed safety protocol.
Donald is currently synthesizing the recovered data and writing
a detailed technical report describing the results of the
investigation.
Documentary Research for the Sammons Cemetery,
Albemarle County, Virginia
Documentary Research for the Sammons Cemetery. Report
on file at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in
Richmond, Virginia.
City of Fredericksburg - Phase I Archaeological Survey,
Phase II Evaluation, and Phase III Data Recovery for
the Proposed Courthouse Facility at the Intersection of
Princess Anne and Charlotte Streets, (Southeastern
Quadrant of Block 42), City of Fredericksburg, Virginia
Three -stage archaeological investigation of a historic domestic
site in the City of Fredericksburg in advance of the construction
of a new Courthouse facility. The project resulted in the
identification of 18th and 19th century domestic deposits
including a Civil War period cellar dating to 1863. Work
included archaeological fieldwork, extensive historic research,
site interpretation, and final reporting. Also included was the
development of an interpretive display featuring the sites to
satisfy public participation requirements and highlight the
significance of the lot and the site. Responsibilities included
field supervision and direction for all fieldwork, field notes, and
reporting.
Phase IA/Stage I Analysis for the Proposed Dominion
Virginia Power Warrenton -Wheeler -Gainesville 230 kV
Transmission Line Project, Fauquier and Prince William
Counties, Virginia
Donald managed a cultural resources crew for the completion
of a Phase IA/Stage I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
proposed - 20 mile Warrenton -Wheeler -Gainesville 230 kV
Transmission line project.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately
9.4 Miles of the Proposed Dominion Virginia Power
Dahlgren 230 kV Transmission Line*, King George
County, Virginia
Donald and crew conducted a Phase 1 Cultural Resources
Survey of a proposed Dominion Power 230kV utility line in King
George County, Virginia. The proposed route of the Dahlgren
line covers a distance of approximately 9.4 miles. Work
included archaeological and architectural survey for the APE
defined by the project for the entire corridor.
* denotes projects completed with other firms Design with community in mind

Donald Sadler, MA
Project Archaeologist
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately
39.0 Miles of Proposed Improvements to the Dominion
Virginia Power 500 kV Transmission Line from the
Lexington Substation to the Dooms Substation, Augusta
and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia
Donald and crew conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources
Survey of a proposed Dominion Power 230kV utility line in
August and Rockbridge counties, Virginia. The proposed route
of the Lexington to Doom line covers a distance of
approximately 39 miles. Work included archaeological and
architectural survey for the APE defined by the project for the
entire corridor.
Benns Church Substation Rebuild Project, Isle of Wight
County, Virginia
Donald directed the field effort for a Phase 1 survey of
approximately 3.332 acres associated with the Dominion
Virginia Power Benns Church Substation Rebuild Project and
Phase 11 evaluation of Site 441W0275, a Woodland period
temporary camp site. Responsibilities included directing field
staff in systematic shovel testing and test unit excavation,
photodocumentation of the project APE and Site 441W0275,
and the production of scale drawings associated with the
Phase 11 evaluation effort.
Dahlgren 230 kV Transmission Line Project, King
George County, Virginia
Mr. Sadler led the field effort for a Phase I survey of
approximately 9.4 miles associated with the Dominion Virginia
Power Dahlgren 230 kV Transmission line project in King
George County, Virginia. Mr. Sadler was responsible for crew
management, coordination with local landowners, systematic
shovel testing, and recordation.
VDOT - Archaeological Survey for Proposed
Improvements to 1-64, Segment 2, James City and York
Counties, Virginia
Archaeological survey support for proposed improvements to
Segment 2 of the 1-64 improvement project in James City and
York Counties Virginia. The project included archaeological
survey of approximately 7 miles of proposed roadway
improvements and expansion. The project included traditional
archaeological survey as well as metal detecting for military
related resources. Responsibilities included field supervision
and direction for all fieldwork, field notes, and reporting.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
(3 Stantec
US Coast Guard Training Facility, Yorktown —
Archaeological Monitoring for Water Line Replacement,
Yorktown, Virginia
As subconsultant to Tetra Tech Tesoro, Donald provided
archaeological monitoring for the replacement of a water line
supporting the USCG TRACEN facility. The water line crossed
the NRHP-listed Yorktown National Battlefield. Services
included daily on -site monitoring, recordation of soil profiles
and conditions and documentation of archaeological deposits.
Fort Monroe — On -call Archaeological Support Services,
Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia
Donald provided on -call archaeological support services to the
Fort Monroe Authority, Hampton, Virginia. Fort Monroe is a
former Army Base a portion of which was transferred to the
Commonwealth of Virginia in 2011. Services provided included
emergency response services, Phase 1 level archaeological
survey, archaeological monitoring, and reporting.
Cemetery Verification and Delineation Study for Site
44KGO223 along the Proposed Dominion Virginia Power
Dahlgren 230 kV Transmission Line, King George
County, Virginia
Donald led the field effort, monitoring mechanical excavations
to identify potential grave shaft features and overseeing the
metal detecting effort. The project proved that the site did not
extend into the proposed transmission line right-of-way.
Cemetery Removal and Reburial at the Abberly at
Stafford Development, Stafford County, Virginia
Donald assisted with a cemetery documentation and
excavation of 29 burial features at Abberly in Stafford County,
Virginia. The project included documentation, removal and
reburial of the cemetery. Responsibilities included directing the
field effort and documenting and removing burial features.
Cemetery Recovery for the Abberly at Stafford
Development, Stafford County, Virginia
Donald led the field effort, monitoring mechanical excavations
to identify potential grave shaft features and overseeing and
participating in the archaeological recovery of human remains.
Donald managed field staff during the recovery effort and
assisted with the reburial effort.

Sandra DeChard ® Stantec
Senior Architectural Historian
Ms. Sandra DeChard is an Architectural Historian with over 25 years of experience in cultural resources as an
architectural historian and archaeologist working in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
New Jersey, Maryland, Arizona, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Her experience includes large- and small-scale architectural Phase I level surveys for transmission line corridors
and transportation infrastructure as well as cost share projects in conjunction with local municipalities, Phase II
level survey, stabilization plans, historic structures reports, and National Register of Historic Places nominations.
Her range of experience also extends to detailed historical research and archival review, scaled architectural
drawings and other technical drawings, signage and heritage tourism brochures, as well as museum displays.
Additionally, Sandra was a founding member and Chairperson of the Martinsville, Virginia Architectural Review
Board and has lectured on various Art, Art History, and Architectural topics as educator in humanities and as a
guest speaker.
Sandra's current responsibilities at Stantec include architectural surveys at the Phase I and II levels, managerial
tasks associated with architectural investigations, writing and editing technical reports, consultation with and
representation of clients before state and national review agencies, and developing and managing project
budgets and scopes of work.
EDUCATION
M.A. Preservation Studies, Architectural History,
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000
B.S. Interior Design, University of Delaware, Newark,
Delaware, 1989
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Section 106 Certification, Richmond, Virginia, 2014
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Transmission & Distribution, Transmission Lines
Dominion Energy Virginia - A Phase I Cultural
Resources Survey of Approximately 7.39 Miles
Associated with the Fudge Hollow to Low Moor Line
# 112 138 kV Transmission Line Partial Rebuild, City of
Covington, Alleghany County, Virginia
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project which included the
documentation of 124 resources at a Phase I level
within the defined APE of the project. The project
also included the evaluation of the resources for
NRHP eligibility.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Dominion Energy Virginia - A Phase I Cultural
Resources Survey of Approximately 14.5 Miles
Associated with the Proposed Valley to Dooms 500
kV Rebuild Project in Augusta County, Virginia
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project which included the
documentation of 306 resources at a Phase I level
within the defined APE of the project. The project
also included the evaluation of the resources for
NRHP eligibility.
Roadways
NCDOT - Historic Structures Survey Report T.I.P. No.
U-6077, Widening of SR 4315/Kernersville Road from
SR 2632/Sedge Garden Road to Harmon Creek
Road, Forsyth County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the project which included an intensive level survey
of two resources within the area of potential effect
for the proposed road improvements. The project
also included a National Register of Historic Places
eligibility evaluation for each of the resources
surveyed.

Sandra DeChard
Senior Architectural Historian
NCDOT - Historic Structures Survey Report for T.I.P.
No. U-3609B, Widening US 13 (Berkeley Boulevard)
from SR 1003 (New Hope Road) to SR 1572 (Saulston
Road) in the City of Goldsboro, Wayne County,
North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the project which included an intensive level survey
of two resources within the area of potential effect
for the proposed road improvements. The project
also included a National Register of Historic Places
eligibility evaluation for each of the resources
surveyed.
NCDOT - Building Inventory for TIP# U-5863, Widen
NC 133 (Castle Hayne Road) from 1-140/US17
(Wilmington Bypass) to SR 1310 (Division Drive, New
Hanover County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the project which included building inventory of
136 resources within the area of potential effect for
the proposed road improvements.
NCDOT - Historic Structure Survey for TIP# R-5743B,
Widen US 23/US441 from US 64 to SR 1652 (Wide
Horizon Drive)/SR1 152 (Belden Circle) to South of
SR1649 (Prentiss Bridge Road), Franklin, Macon
County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the project which included an intensive level survey
of five resources within the area of potential effect
for the proposed road improvements. The project
also included a National Register of Historic Places
eligibility evaluation for each of the resources
surveyed.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
® Stantec
VDOT - A Phase I Architectural Survey for the
Proposed Cochran Mill Road Bridge Replacement,
Loudoun County, Virginia
Sandra served as architectural historian for the
survey. The survey included the documentation of
three resources at a Phase I level including the
bridge as well as two resources immediately
adjacent to and in view of the Cochran Mill Road
Bridge.
VDOT - An Architectural Survey for the Route 15/29
Bridge Replacement*, Culpeper County, Virginia
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the survey. The survey entailed the recordation of
three resources, including the bridge, within the
study area. Evaluations of NRHP eligibility for each
resource were also conducted.
Bridges
City of Atlanta- Architectural Survey of the Powers
Ferry Road Bridge over Nancy Creek, Powers Ferry
Road, Atlanta, Georgia
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian, Principal Investigator for the survey. The
survey documented the bridge at a Phase I level
and utilized historic background research as well as
an architectural evaluation of the resource's
integrity in order to make a recommendation of
the bridge's NRHP eligibility.
VDOT - Page County Bridge National Register of
Historic Places Nomination Form*, Page County,
Virginia
Ms. DeChard conducted detailed research and
authored the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) nomination form for the Page County
Bridge, Page County, Virginia.

Brynn Stewart, MA
Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator
(3 Stantec
Brynn is the Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator for Cultural Resources in Stantec's
Williamsburg, Virginia, office. She has over 18 years of experience in cultural resources management. Brynn
meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for a professional archaeologist. She has
served as a Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist on numerous transportation and energy -related
projects as well as private development projects.
Brynn manages in-house technical staff, supervises technical document preparation, and provides quality
control and peer review for cultural resources studies. Her expertise includes all phases of cultural resource
management (archaeological assessments and Phase I, II, and III excavations) in compliance with local,
state, and federal laws and regulations. Brynn's experience includes managerial tasks associated with all
aspects of cultural resource management projects such as consultation with and representation of clients
before state and national review agencies, writing and editing technical reports, preparing and managing
project budgets, and developing and implementing archaeological research designs.
Brynn also has experience in the processing and analysis of artifact collections with special interest in
Colonial -era ceramics and lithic analysis and the development and production of interpretive materials
including pamphlets and exhibits.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts, Anthropology, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2009
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, Washington
College, Chestertown, Maryland, 2004
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
OSHA Excavation Safety: Satisfies 29 CFR
1926.650
OSHA Confined Space Safety: Satisfies 29 CFR
1910.246, 29 CFR 1926.1001, 29 CFR 1915.1001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Ore Bank Undergrounding Project, Rockingham
County, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed
scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project.
Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field
personnel. She was responsible for coordinating with the Civil
War Trust and will author the technical report upon completion
of on -going investigations.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Abberly at South Campus Development, Stafford
County, Virginia (Principal Investigator)
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed
scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project.
She directed pre -fieldwork planning, managed field personnel,
and participated in Phase II evaluation of Site 44ST1141.
Brynn synthesized data collected during evaluation and
served as the lead author of the resulting technical report.
Data Recovery of Sites 44PW 1305 and
44PW 1306 for the Eagles Pointe Landbay A
Section 2 Development Project, Prince William
County, Virginia
Brynn is serving as Principal Investigator for this on -going
project. She developed the scope of work and budget prior to
the awarding of the project. Brynn coordinated with the client
and the County Archaeologist on the Data Recovery Plan she
developed. She has managed field personnel and coordinated
with the VDHR to procure both an Anticipatory Permit and a
Burial Permit for the excavation of a single burial identified
within Site 44PW1306. Brynn coordinated the placement of
public notice as part of the Burial Permit and gave a
presentation concerning the burial feature to the Prince William
County Historical Commission, which served as a public
meeting as a result of responses received for the said public
notice. Brynn is currently coordinating the reburial of the
recovered remains with a local cemetery and will author the
resulting technical report.

Brynn Stewart, MA
Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator
Data Recovery of Site 44JC0662, James City
County, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, directing pre -fieldwork
planning and overseeing the field effort. Brynn participated in
feature excavation. She coordinated the field effort with the
client as well as site inspectors and was responsible for
coordinating with local Native American tribal representatives
with an interest in the project. Brynn participated in shovel
testing and monitoring activities, synthesized the data collected
during the project, and served as lead author on the resulting
technical report.
Poplar Grove National Cemetery Archaeological
Investigations and Monitoring, Dinwiddie County,
Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, coordinating with the
NPS and field staff. The NPS conducted rehabilitation at the
cemetery, including the replacement of 5,700 headstones,
rehabilitation of the Superintendent's lodge, restoration of site
furniture and signs, replacement of the flagpole and site
utilities, preservation of the cemetery wall, and rehabilitation of
the landscape. Brynn participated in shovel testing and
monitoring activities, synthesized the data collected during the
project, and served as lead author on the resulting technical
report.
Berkmar Data Recovery, Charlottesville, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, assisting in the
development of a scope of work and budget prior to the
awarding of the project. Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning
and managed field personnel. She was responsible for
coordinating with client representatives, conducting
excavations, compiling and interpreting fieldwork results, on-
going lithic analysis, and is in the process of co-authoring the
resulting technical report.
Trowbridge-Pantego Transmission Line Project,
Washington and Beaufort Counties, North
Carolina
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, coordinating with
Project Managers and field personnel. Brynn directed pre -
fieldwork planning and was responsible for compiling and
interpreting fieldwork results. She is currently in the process of
co-authored the resulting technical report.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
(3 Stantec
Fredericksburg Courthouse Project, City of
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, directing pre -fieldwork
planning and managing field personnel during
Phase I, Phase II, and Phase Ill investigations of eighteenth -
century through nineteenth-century deposits. She also
participated in fieldwork, synthesized data collected during all
three phases of work, and served as the lead author of the
resulting technical report. She helped develop and produce a
public exhibit of artifacts on display in the new Courthouse.
Dominion Virginia Power Splice Pit within the
Colonial National Historic Park, James City
County, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, leading the field effort
and interpreting data post -field effort. She also authored the
resulting technical report.
Mosby Substation (Laydown Yard and Storm
Water Management Basin Area) Project, Loudoun
County, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, managing the field effort
and interpreting data post -field effort. She also authored the
resulting technical report.
Goose Creek to Loudoun 500kV Transmission
Line Improvement Project, Loudoun County,
Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed
scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project.
Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field
personnel. She was responsible for coordinating with client
representatives, compiling fieldwork results, interpreting sites,
entering site data into V-CRIS, and co-authoring the resulting
technical report.
Warren County Power Station Proposed Auxiliary
Parking Lot, Warren County, Virginia
Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed
scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project.
Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field
personnel. She was responsible for compiling fieldwork results
and authoring the resulting technical report.

(5 Stantec
A Phase I Architectural Survey
Associated with the
Approximately 89.72-Hectare
(221.71 Acre) Lyle Creek (CLT 04)
Data Center Site in Catawba
County, North Carolina
March 9, 2023
Prepared for:
LexiJones
Microsoft Corporation
[phone]
Prepared by:
Sandra DeChard, Senior Architectural
Historian
and
Brynn Stewart, Senior Principal
Investigator
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5209 Center Street
Williamsburg, VA 22188
[phone]

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-HECTARE
(221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The conclusions in the Report are Stantec's professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning
the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information
existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The
Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which
the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the
project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient's own risk.
Stantec has assumed all information received from the Client and third parties in the preparation of the Report
to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such
information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained
therein.
This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec's contract with the Client.
While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client
is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by
any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at Stantec's discretion.
4 Al
Prepared by _C
Sandra DeChard, Senior Architectural Historian
Y�nf+��r�Cy,•
Reviewed by
Ellen M Brady, MA, RPA, Cultural Resources Practice Leader
Approved by
Travis Crayosky, Senior Principal

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................
ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................... II
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................2.3
2.1 DEFINITIONS...............................................................................................................2.3
2.2 OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................2.3
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT................................................................................................3.5
3.1 OVERVIEW OF CATAWBA COUNTY..........................................................................3.5
4.0 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT.....................................................................................4.8
4.1 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY.........................................................................................4.8
4.2 RESIDENTIAL HISTORY.............................................................................................4.8
5.0 PROPERTY TYPES...................................................................................................5.12
5.1.1 Nineteenth Century Residential Architecture Types..................................5.12
5.1.2 Twentieth Century Residential Architectural Styles...................................5.14
5.1.3 Agricultural -Related Resources.................................................................5.16
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................6.17
7.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................7.19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Surveyed Architectural Resources within the Architectural Study Area......................5.12
Table 2. NRHP Recommendations for Architectural Resources Surveyed within the
SurveyArea.............................................................................................................6.18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location.........................................................................................................1.2
Figure 2 Detail of Map of Catawba County, North Carolina, Depicting the Railroad Lines
in Catawba County (Yoder 1886; Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division).....................................................................................................................3.6
Figure 3 Detail of Map of Catawba County, North Carolina, Depicting the Project Area
Vicinity (Yoder 1886; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division)..................4.9
Figure 4 Detail of Newton, NC USGS Topographic Map 1:24000 (1970;
https://Iivingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html).............................................4.10
Figure 5 Detail of 1993 Google Earth Aerial Map of the Area to the North/Northeast of
Conover (Google Earth 2023)..................................................................................4.11
Figure 6 Plat Map Dated January 11, 2001, for Property (Catawba County Registry of
Deeds Plat Book 52:108).........................................................................................5.13

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 7 Frederick William Smith House (CT0794), 1710 NC Highway 16, View Looking
Southeast................................................................................................................5.14
Figure 8 House (CT1812), 3469 Smithfield Drive NW, View Looking North............................5.15
Figure 9 House (CT1812), 3469 Smithfield Drive NW, View Looking Southwest ....................5.15
Figure 10 Machine/Maintenance Shop (CT1811), 1710 NC Highway 16, View Looking
Southwest................................................................................................................5.16
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY MAPPING...............................A.1
APPENDIX B KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES..................................................................B.1

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Executive Summary
On November 29, 2022, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a Phase I architectural
resources survey for the Lyle Creek Site (CLT 04; the Project), a proposed data center in Catawba
County, North Carolina. The survey included the approximately 221.71-acre Project site (Project Area)
and resources on adjacent parcels or within view of the proposed Project site. The Project, as currently
designed, will be comprised of five datacenter buildings, each with five co -located facilities (colos),
substations, and one administration building with a total capacity of 240MW. The Project Area terrain
consists of overgrown brush, woodland, and large areas of slope, and modern ground disturbances. The
Project Area is bounded to the south by 1st Avenue North (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar
Park, and in all other directions by private parcels. The work was conducted at the request of Microsoft
Corporation (Client).
Architecture Resources
The defined Study Area for architectural survey included the entire approximately 221.71-acre Project
Area as well as resources located on adjacent parcels or within view of the proposed Project Area. Two
new individual resources, based on tax parcel data and the field survey, were located within the
architectural Survey Area. Background research conducted on the North Carolina Historic Preservation
Office's (NC HPO's) HPOWEB database indicated that one previously recorded resource was located on
parcels adjacent or within view of the proposed Project site. A total of three architectural resources were
surveyed for this Project.
The three individual recorded resources, based on the current survey, are generally reflective of the mid -
nineteenth to mid -twentieth century development of Catawba County, and lack direct and/or important
associations under Criterion A, B, or C for historical significance necessary for listing on the NRHP. As
such, it is recommended that the resources are not individually eligible for listing on the NRHP. Criterion
D, typically associated with archaeological sites, was not considered in evaluating the architectural
resources documented during the survey.
No further architectural survey work is recommended as part of the CLT04 project.
HPO #
Resource Name/Address
Date
NRHP Recommendation as a Result of the
Survey
CT0794
House, 1710 NC 16
1854
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
CT1811
Machine/Maintenance Shop, 1151
c. 1960
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
NC 16
CT1812
House, 3469 Smithfield Drive NW
1972
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
M

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Abbreviations
GIS
NCHPO
n.d.
NHL
NHPA
NRHP
ROW
Stantec
USDI
USGS
Geographic Information System
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
no date
National Historic Landmark
National Historic Preservation Act
National Register of Historic Places
Right of Way
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
United States Department of the Interior
United States Geological Survey

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 29, 2022, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a Phase I architectural
resources survey for the Lyle Creek Site (CLT 04; the Project), a proposed data center in Catawba
County, North Carolina. The survey included the approximately 221.71-acre Project site (Project Area)
and resources on adjacent parcels or within view of the proposed Project site. The Project, as currently
designed, will be comprised of five datacenter buildings, each with five co -located facilities (colos),
substations, and one administration building with a total capacity of 240MW. The Project Area terrain
consists of overgrown brush, woodland, and large areas of slope, and modern ground disturbances. The
Project Area is bounded to the south by 1st Avenue North (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar
Park, and in all other directions by private parcels. The work was conducted at the request of Microsoft
Corporation (Client).
Stantec designed the architectural survey to identify historic architectural resources 50 years old or over
that may be present in the Project Area, on adjacent parcels to the Project Area, or within view of the
Project Area and obtain sufficient information to make recommendations on their potential eligibility to the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). To accomplish this, both documentary research and cultural
resources survey were conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(NHPA-PL89-665), as amended, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Executive
Order 11593, relevant sections of 36 CFR 60 and 36 CFR 800, and state (North Carolina Historic
Preservation Office's (NCH PO) Architectural Survey Manual [2021]) and Report Standards for Historic
Structure Survey Reports/Determination of Eligibility/Section 1061110 Compliance Reports in North
Carolina [2019], and federal (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and
Historic Preservation [United States Department of the Interior {USDI) 1983]) guidelines for conducting
cultural resources investigations and National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation (USDI 2002).
Senior Principal Investigator Brynn Stewart oversaw the project. Senior Architectural Historian Sandra
DeChard authored the report. Ms. DeChard oversaw the architectural fieldwork conducted by
Architectural History Technician Olivia McCarty. GIS Analyst Elise Ljiko prepared the report graphics and
project maps and Ellen M. Brady provided technical and quality reviews. Copies of all field notes, maps,
correspondence, and historical research materials are on file at Stantec's office in Richmond, Virginia.

16
v •��o` tee: F: '-'�J _ �p• t�1t ( �y � 4a p
Y 1
l�..��..��..r % CO
Ch
1 � ♦ lJ;l � u 4�f
•
969
i
Il
•` J
N
. 0 1,000 2,000
1 Project Area Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:24,000
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2022-12-21
TR by MGS on 2023-01-11
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by BSS on 2023-01-04
C"I"'Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes NIS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
T. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FPS 3200 Feet
Figure No.
2. Data Sources: Microsoft, NC Geodetic Survey
3. Topographic map © USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic
Map, Newton, NC Quadrangle, 1996 Title
Project Location Map
Page 1.2
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The Phase I field survey strategy consisted of a systematic identification of potential historic architectural
resources dating to 50 years or older located within the project site and on adjacent parcels or potentially
in view of the project utilizing tax parcel and the online NCHPO HPOWEB database data. One previously
recorded resource was identified on a parcel which had the potential to view the proposed Project. Newly
identified resources within the architecture survey area were documented and the information recorded
on the NCHPO Historic Property Field Data Form. Sketch plan maps were drawn for each newly recorded
resource and the buildings/structures photographed as visible. The Phase I architectural survey was
conducted from public ROW only unless permission was specifically granted by the owner at the time of
the field survey.
2.1 DEFINITIONS
Architectural resources include all standing structures or buildings that are 50 years or older. Potential
eligibility of architectural resources requires that one or more of the NRHP Criteria, such as association
with significant events in the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A), association with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B), and/or representative of a type, period, or method of
construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C), be met. Where individual structures do not meet these
National Register criteria, but constitute a cohesive group of related buildings, a potential NRHP district
may be considered.
2.2 OBJECTIVES
The Phase I survey was designed to locate and identify architectural resources within the Project Area, as
well as to document any standing structures 50 years of age or older located within the Project Area, on
adjacent parcels, or within view of the Project Area. Stantec designed the survey to obtain sufficient
information to make recommendations about the research potential of identified cultural resources based
on each resource's potential eligibility for listing on the NRHP. A cultural resource is gauged to be
significant if it meets at least one of four NRHP criteria:
Criterion A: Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history.
Criterion B: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Criterion C: Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a
master.
Criterion D: Capable of yielding important information about the past.
Where individual structures do not meet these NRHP criteria, but constitute a cohesive group of related
buildings, a potential NRHP district may be considered. The resource, to be eligible, must also have a
high degree of integrity. The seven aspects of integrity, which conveys the historical significance of the
M
2.3

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
resource's original design, include location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association. The resource should meet at least five of these aspects to be considered to have a high level
of integrity. As part of the assessment of each resource's potential NRHP eligibility, the seven aspects of
integrity - location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association - were applied to
identify those primary qualities and characteristics that qualify the resource for listing on the NRHP. The
seven aspects of integrity, according to the NRHP, are defined below (USDI 2002):
Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event took place. Integrity of location refers to whether the property has been moved
or relocated since its construction.
Design: Design is the composition of elements that constitute the form, plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of
the place.
Materials: Materials are the physical elements combined in a particular pattern or configuration to
form the aid during a period in the past. Integrity of materials determines whether or not an
authentic historic resource still exists.
Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period of history.
Feeling: Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic
sense of a past period of time. Although it is itself intangible, feeling is dependent upon the
significant physical characteristics that convey historic qualities.
Association: Association is the direct link between a property and the event or person for which
the property is significant.
M
2.4

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 OVERVIEW OF CATAWBA COUNTY
Prior to its formation in 1842, the area that would become Catawba County was settled by Swiss and
Scotch -Irish settlers along with German pioneers from Pennsylvania, who established several reformed
churches in the first half of the nineteenth century. As the county was rural, farming was the main
occupation, however gold mining was also conducted for a brief time (Bayley 2006; Catawba College
2021; Catawba County Government 2020a; Hahn 1911:7 and 10-11).
However, the residents of what was then the northern area of Lincoln County north of the Catawba River,
began to become increasingly dissatisfied with their access to county services and became increasingly
isolated from the southern half of the county as communities expanded and grew. Efforts to form a new
county to resolve some of these issues was spearheaded by Nathanial Wilson, a descendant of Irish
immigrants, who was elected to the state's House of Commons in 1842 on the promise of splitting off from
Lincoln County (Preslar 1954:219; Corbitt 1987:91; Catawba County Government 2020a).
The petition made by the residents was successful, and at the end of 1842, Catawba County, named after
the Catawba tribe in the area, was officially established. The county was then bounded by Iredell, Lincoln,
Caldwell, Alexander, and Burke counties. In 1845, the new county seat was designated at the town of
Newton, with a courthouse constructed shortly thereafter. It remained the seat of the county until 1924
(Corbitt 1987:92; Preslar 1954:265; Bayley 2006; Catawba County Government 2020a). By the 1850
census, Catawba County residents included 7,293 free individuals, including 21 African American men
and women, and 1,569 enslaved individuals (Hahn 1911:7).
In the mid -nineteenth century, in the decades following the creation of Catawba County, the area outside
of Newton was agrarian with a vast majority of residents employed as farmers or day laborers. During the
mid -nineteenth century, crops included cotton, potatoes, corn, wheat, and other grains, as well as various
fruits. Dairy and cattle farming and bee keeping were also part of the agrarian economy (Hahn 1911:7;
Bayley 2006).
During this time, the town of Newton, one of the few incorporated towns within the county in the mid -
nineteenth century, had approximately 9,065 free residents, including 32 African Americans. The
occupations listed reflect those of a mid -nineteenth century rural town, albeit the county seat, and
included house carpenters, shoe, cabinet, and carriage makers, saddlers, and blacksmiths. Other
occupations included teachers, which suggest the town had a school, a preacher, doctor, tailor, tanner,
hotelier, and stage driver (United States Federal Census 1860; Hahn 1911:7-8). The latter two indicate
Newton had a hotel for passengers traveling by stagecoach from other areas of North Carolina and likely
beyond. In addition, in 1860, approximately 1,664 slaves were enumerated in the census for both the
county and within the town of Newton (United States Federal Census — Slave Schedules 1860).
M
3.5

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
While Newton remained one of the most populated towns in Catawba County, the towns of Conover,
Catawba, and in particular, Hickory, began to develop in the mid -to late nineteenth century as a result of
the railroad's expansion in the 1880s. In 1886, two main railroads had been constructed and connected at
Newton; the Western North Carolina Railroad, which ran east -west through the four towns, and the
Chester & Lenoir Narrow Gauge Railroad, which ran north -south, and joined the Western North Carolina
Railroad at Newton. Each town had its own depot with intermittent stops along the Western North
Carolina Railroad route. Transportation, in addition to the railroads, also included a network of secondary
roads as well as several ferry crossings on the Catawba River (Figure 2).
The 1886 map also depicts the continued agrarian nature of Catawba County with the exception of the
four main towns. While the area was relatively rural, small family -owned stores and numerous churches of
several denominations were dispersed throughout the county. Industries depicted were also likely smaller
ventures and included water powered grist mills along the Catawba River and its tributaries as well as
four, likely larger cotton mills, the Long Island Cotton Mill, Maiden Cotton Mills, Newton Cotton Mills, and
the Monbo Cotton Mill. Other manufacturing included the Weedon Spoke & Handle Factory in Newton,
the Piedmont Wagon Shops in Hickory, and the Smith & Yount Sash Mill in Conover. Several colleges
were also depicted on the map and include Concordia College in Conover, Catawba College in Newton,
and in Hickory, Mt. St. Joseph's College and Claremont College as well as a private school, Highland
Academy (Figure 2).
�
•'
l
w.
a
rr
-
North;
-,`
Not to Scale
.� �:-_•- �^
r „�
t
1
Figure 2 Detail of Map of Catawba County, North Carolina, Depicting the Railroad Lines in
Catawba County (Yoder 1886; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
a
3.6

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
CULTURAL CONTEXT
The landscape of Catawba County remained rural and agrarian through the remaining decade of the
nineteenth century; however, the population of the county steadily increased. In 1890, just over 18,600
residents lived in the county. By 1910, the number had risen to just under 28,000 (Hahn 1911:8). Farming
still employed most of the residents outside of the four main towns. A majority of the residents in the
surrounding area of Conover, the location of the current Project, were employed as farmers or farm
laborers. The handle factory and the railroad employed some residents but were a distance second in
total numbers. Others were employed at a wagon factory, in the building trades, and cottage industries
such as blacksmithing, shoe making and as dressmakers (United States Federal Census 1900).
During the next several decades, with the increase in new manufacturing facilities, the rural areas of the
county experienced some residential growth. However, farming still employed a significant number of
residents in this area. By 1930, in the Newton and Conover areas, in addition to farming, a large number
of people were employed at the cotton mill, hosiery, handle, and glove factories, and the railroad. Several
other main employers included colleges, sawmills, and a carriage factory (United States Federal Census
1930).
Resulting, in part, from the increase in manufacturing, the population of Catawba County also increased.
In 1930, the county contained just under 44,000 residents. By 1940, the population had increased to
51,653 and by 1950, to 61,794 (United States Census 1950:33-10). Manufacturing continued to thrive
through the twentieth century, with approximately 40 percent of the population of the county employed in
industrial -related jobs. Agriculture, with advancements in technology and production methods such as
erosion mitigation, diversification of crops, and new ways to maintain healthy soils, also flourished
(Preslar 1954:488-490).
In the late twentieth century, Catawba County became more accessible with the construction of 1-40
which was completed in the mid-1970s. Today, while still rural in many respects, Catawba County
retains its textile and furniture manufacturing as a major economic base while expanding into the
telecommunications market. Additionally, new business sectors in biomedical and pharmaceutical
manufacturing as well as retail development and marketing efforts to attract tourists and retirees have
expanded the county's economic base. The County has also expanded its infrastructure, improving its
roads and highways, as well as its public education system (Catawba County Government 2020a).
M
3.7

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
4.0 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
4.1 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
Catawba County, historically, was, and continues to be, an agrarian county. The agricultural development
in the mid -nineteenth century, and earlier, consisted of small to mid -sized farms and the county was
sparsely settled (Figure 3). Although the types of crops and livestock produced for individual farms is not
easily known, the county as a whole produced potatoes, cotton, and grains were most often grown mainly
on a subsistence level in the early nineteenth century due to the lack of adequate roads. A number of
farms appear to have raised dairy cattle, sheep, and swine (Hahn 1911:7; Bayley 2006; Kooiman 1989).
During the mid -to late nineteenth century, larger farms were becoming more common. Two large farm
parcels in the county belonged to Solomon Warlick, who owned 100 improved acres out of 608 total
acres, and David Barker, who owned 700 unimproved and 100 improved acres.
While the Civil War brough economic hardship to the agricultural industry of the state of North Carolina as
a whole, the residents of Catawba County did not own large numbers of slaves. As a result, the
agricultural economy was quicker to rebound after the Civil War. To maintain agricultural production after
the Civil War with the absence of slave labor, farmers often hired day laborers to help with planting,
harvesting, and day-to-day operations (Kooiman 1989).
The growth of the towns in the early twentieth century drew residents from rural areas to jobs in the more
populated centers. Even with this shift, 88 percent of the workforce in Catawba County continued to be
employed in farming. During the early 1920s, the average area of land under cultivation on agricultural
parcels was 75 acres with approximately 259 farms listed in 1925 (Kooiman 1989).
4.2 RESIDENTIAL HISTORY
While farms dotted the landscape during the mid -nineteenth to the mid -twentieth century, non-agricultural
development began to increase, although not substantially, in the areas around the four most populated
towns. Residential development also increased along major secondary routes during the late nineteenth
century; however, the early to mid -twentieth century development was not prolific. Development in
earnest began in the 1960s and 1970s. Among the types of dwellings constructed, Ranch -style houses
and other types were common. Small residential neighborhoods were constructed in the late 1970s and
early 1980s including the development across from the Frederick William Smith House (CT0794) which
comprises houses built during the mid-1980s. The House (CT1812), constructed in 1972, is located at the
edge of this neighborhood. Other planned residential communities were located one the north side of
Conover Boulevard to the east of Conover, and along the east side of Country Home Road to the north of
the town (Figure 4). As the century progressed, the residential, as well as modern commercial
development, expanded into the once rural landscape (Figure 5). Today the area in the vicinity of the
proposed Project site contains large areas of modern residential development.
M
4.8

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
North;
Not to Scale }
1
l r; f I�rrw
1
■urrl.
is
N
�'yrf reel 14` " J t 'srrnure
0000, ai
�i - Y �T,yYY.L. L�r Sfd)Ii+fne.
Bic 1
.,�!,sinrlJk
t f4
+ i,, Project Area
+'% •� Vicinity
J.Y?i,rlgr. �
1'
U r. iGrclt +
Y�
A'0, fi-.Slr�•
4i IS' m..,r
ti
Y0°14"TneeL � �.ptH fl
�� .i•.��lilr
#liv. Mf.
.ter
-4. M lr.«
1---
Vicinity (Yoder 1886;r Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
a
4.9

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
Project Area
Vicinity
ti
North;
Not to Scale
1 •t'�xtip�i�r .
N. f
Figure 4 Detail of Newton, NC USGS Topographic Map 1:24000 (1970;
https://livingatias.arcqis.com/topoexpiorer/index.htm1).
a
4.10

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
Figure 5 Detail of 1993 Google Earth Aerial Map of the Area to the North/Northeast of
Conover (Google Earth 2023).
a
4.11

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY TYPES
5.0 PROPERTY TYPES
Two new individual resources, based on tax parcel data and the field survey, and one previously recorded
resource are located within the architectural Survey Area (Table 1). The surveyed resources include a
machine/maintenance shop (CT1811), and two houses (CT0794 and CT1812; Appendix A). The
residential resources reflect the mid -nineteenth to mid -twentieth century expansion of the area around
Newton and include vernacular and Ranch -style dwellings with varying degrees of architectural integrity.
Table 1 Surveyed Architectural Resources within the Architectural Study Area
HPO #
Resource Name/Address
Date
Tax Parcel ID
CT0794
Frederick William Smith House, 1710 NC 16
1854
374208788260
CT1811
Machine/Maintenance Shop, 1151 NC 16
c. 1960
374207575927
CT1812
House, 3469 Smithfield Drive NW
1972
374207686161
5.1.1 Nineteenth Century Residential Architecture Types
Dwellings associated with early to mid -nineteenth century farms were often two-story, three -bay, side
gable, frame residences. Common to this house type, were exterior end chimneys and one-story front
porch. Though these dwellings were often vernacular in appearance, modest Federal and Greek Revival
embellishments were often added. The Frederick William Smith House (CT0794) falls within this house
type. In the time after the Civil War, I -Houses became a popular house type in rural Catawba County.
Weatherboards were the most common sheathing material on houses constructed in the nineteenth
century, both before and after the Civil War (Kooiman 1989).
5.1.1.1 Vernacular
Frederick William Smith House (CT0794)
The Frederick William Smith House was last surveyed in 1977. The property consists of the main house,
a shed, and a well house. Currently, the house sits on 0.96 acre, although appears to have been part of a
larger, 29.04-acre farm parcel (Figure 6). The house is an example of mid -nineteenth century vernacular
architecture; however, has lost its agricultural association. The house, constructed around 1854, is two
stories with three bays and a large two-story gable -roofed ell. The exterior is clad in what appears to be
aluminum siding and the gable roof in seamed metal. A one-story, hipped -roof, three -bay porch is
centered on the fagade and features wood column supports and a vinyl -clad cornice. The dwelling is
supported by a brick foundation and also features exterior end brick chimneys. Fenestration includes six -
over -six vinyl sash windows and a single -leaf, modern entry door flanked by sidelights and a transom
(Figure 7). The secondary agricultural buildings which were associated with the dwelling are no longer
extant. Domestic -related secondary resources were present and included a shed and well. The shed on
the property is located to the west of the house within a tree line and is only partially visible from the
public ROW. The building is one-story, with a front gable roof clad in seamed metal, weatherboard
M
5.12

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY TYPES
exterior walls and an off -center, single -leaf entry door. To the southeast of the house is a well house with
low concrete block walls and a metal -clad gable roof.
II
1
ILI
Susan E. !lodges
Figure 6 Plat Map Dated January 11, 2001, for Property (Catawba County Registry of
Deeds Plat Book 52:108).
5.13

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY TYPES
Figure 7 Frederick William Smith House (CT0794), 1710 NC Highway 16, View Looking
Southeast.
5.1.2 Twentieth Century Residential Architectural Styles
5.1.2.1 Ranch Style
The Ranch -style, the popularity of which is evident in the many planned developments of the 1950s and
1960s, originated in 1930s California. The style became dominant in the 1940s with the increased
dependence on the automobile. Prior to the 1940s, many urban and suburban dwellers resided in
compact houses on small lots and walked to the streetcar lines. The increasing popularity of the
automobile allowed people to move further out from the city and indulge in more expansive lots. The
Ranch house's design allowed a lateral expansion of dwellings, emphasizing the fagade, and could fit on
larger residential lots with more open space between houses (McAlester and McAlester 1993:479).
House (CT1812)
The Ranch -style house located at 3469 Smithfield Drive NW is a one-story, multiple bay dwelling with low
profile and overhanging eaves which are typical design features of the early 1970s. Constructed in 1972,
the dwelling's exterior walls are brick veneer with the side gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. A two -bay
engaged porch with cast metal supports shelters the front entry and a brick chimney projects through the
ridge line just southeast of the modern front door. The dwelling also features six -over -six wood sash
windows (Figure 8). The east end of the building features a two -bay garage, formerly a carport with its
eastern gable end partially enclosed by vinyl siding. Extending from the garage wing is a long, narrow,
gable -roofed ell which features an additional garage bay (Figure 9). The addition appears to have been
added between 1984 and 1998 according to aerial photography (https://historicaerials.com/viewer). The
M
5.14

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY TYPES
only secondary resource present on the property at the time of the survey was a poured concrete well
(Figure 9).
Figure 8 House (CT1812), 3469 Smithfield Drive NW, View Looking North.
Figure 9 House (CT1812), 3469 Smithfield Drive NW, View Looking Southwest.
a
5.15

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY TYPES
5.1.3 Agricultural -Related Resources
5.1.3.1 Machine/Maintenance Shop (CT1811)
The machine/maintenance shop located on the property of 1151 NC Highway 16 was part of a larger farm
complex. The buildings on the parcel, with the exception of the surveyed structure, have been
demolished. The building, constructed around 1960, is one-story and has seven bays on the southwest
elevation and five on the northeastern elevation. The walls are constructed of concrete block with
weatherboards in the gable ends and a metal clad side gable roof. Areas of the sheathing are missing,
and sections of the roof framing are visible. Fenestration comprises two -over -two metal hopper -style
windows and wood entry doors (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Machine/Maintenance Shop (CT1811), 1710 NC Highway 16, View Looking
Southwest.
M
5.16

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 29, 2022, Stantec conducted a Phase I architectural resources survey for the Lyle Creek
Site (CLT 04), a proposed data center in Catawba County, North Carolina. The survey included the
approximately 221.71-acre Project site (Project Area) and resources on adjacent parcels or within view
of the proposed Project site. The Project Area terrain consists of overgrown brush, woodland, and large
areas of slope, and modern ground disturbances. The Project Area is bounded to the south by 1 st Avenue
North (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all other directions by private parcels.
Two newly recorded individual resources, based on tax parcel data and the field survey, and one
previously recorded resource, according to research conducted on the NC HPO's HPOWEB database,
are located within the architectural Survey Area.
The individual recorded resources, the Frederick William Smith House (CT0794), the
machine/maintenance shop (CT1811), and the Ranch -style House (CT1812) surveyed during the current
investigation are generally reflective of the mid -nineteenth to mid -to late twentieth century development of
Catawba County and lack direct and/or important associations under Criterion A, B, or C for historical
significance necessary for listing on the NRHP. As such, it is recommended that the resources are not
individually eligible for listing on the NRHP (Table 2). Criterion D, typically associated with archaeological
sites, was not considered in evaluating the architectural resources documented during the survey.
Criterion A: The resources, under NRHP Criterion A do not individually express any distinctive themes
relating to the development of Catawba County and do not contribute significantly to the county's growth.
It is recommended therefore that the resources do not meet the criteria necessary for individual listing on
the NRHP under Criterion A as the properties were constructed in response to the general development
of the area. Additionally, the agricultural association of the machine/maintenance shop has been lost due
to the demolition of the other farm buildings and dwelling on the property.
Criterion B: The resources surveyed do not appear to be associated with any known individuals who
made significant contributions to the historical development of Catawba County. Although limited
information about the owners of the properties is known, it does not appear that they would be considered
of transcendent importance to the Nation's history and therefore the resources do not meet the criteria
necessary for listing on the NRHP under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The resources do not appear to have significant architectural integrity for listing on the
NRHP under Criterion C and are of common building types. In addition, the resource is utilitarian in
design and does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction nor
does the building represent the work of a master. Additionally, the Frederick William Smith House has
been altered by the replacement of its original siding with aluminum and vinyl siding to the porch's
cornice, and the replacement of its original windows with vinyl sashes. It is therefore recommended that
the resources surveyed do not meet the criteria necessary for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C.
No further architectural survey work is recommended as part of the CLT04 project.
M
6.17

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 2. NRHP Recommendations for Architectural Resources Surveyed within the
Survey Area
HPO #
Resource Name/Address
Date
NRHP Recommendation as a Result of the
Survey
CT0794
House, 1710 NC 16
1854
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
CT1811
Machine/Maintenance Shop, 1151
c. 1960
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
NC 16
CT1812
House, 3469 Smithfield Drive NW
1972
Recommended Not Eligible for Listing on the NRHP
a
6.18

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
7.0 REFERENCES
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP)
2000 36 CFR 800: Part 800- Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. Federal Register,
December 12, Washington, D.C.
Bayley, Elizabeth
2006 "Catawba County" in Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell, available at:
https:Hwww.ncpedia.org/geography/catawba, accessed 17 February 2023.
Catawba College
2021 "History of Catawba College," available at:.https://catawba.edu/collegehistory , accessed 17
February 2023.
2022 Catawba County Online Tax Assessment Records. https://gis.catawbacountync.gov/parcel/,
accessed November 2022.
Catawba County Registry of Deeds.
https://www.catawbarod.org/DocumentView.asp?RgturnTo=BookAndPage.asp, accessed 4 January
2023.
Catawba County Government
2020a "About Catawba County," available at: https://www.catawbacountync.gov/countv-
government/about-catawba-county/, accessed 17 February 2023.
Cloues, Richard
2010 Ranch Houses in Georgia: A Guide to House Types (Sub -Types). Available at:
https:Hgadnr.org/sites/default/files/hpd/pdf/RanchHousesinGeorgiaTwo.pdf, Accessed 7 February
2022.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1987 The formation of the North Carolina counties, 1663-1943, available at:
https:Hdigital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/pl6062coII9/id/290103, accessed 17 February 2023.
Hahn, George W.
1911 The Catawba Soldier of the Civil War, available at:
httos://www.carolana.com/NC/Counties/The Catawba Soldier of the Civil War G W Hahn 19
11.pdf, accessed 17 February 2023.
M 7.19

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES
Kooiman, Barbara M.
1989 "Historic and Architectural Resources of Catawba County, North Carolina" National Register of
Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, available at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdcr/nr/CT1299.pdf, accessed 2 March 2023.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1993 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
2019 Report Standards for Historic Structure Survey Reports/Determination of Eligibility/Section
1061110 Compliance Reports in North Carolina.
2022 HPO Site Files
Preslar, Charles J., Jr.
1954 A History of Catawba County. Catawba County Historical Association, Inc., Newton, North
Carolina.
United States Census Bureau
1950 "Number of Inhabitants: North Carolina," available at:
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/population-volume-
2/06586136v2p33chl .pdf, accessed 21 February 2023.
United States Department of the Interior (USDI)
1981 Department of the Interior's Regulations, 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places.
1983 Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
2002 "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation." National Register Bulletin 15. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Interagency Resources Division, Washington D.C.
United States Federal Census 1860, 1900, and 1930
United States Federal Census Non -Population Slave Census 1860.
Yoder, R. A.
1886 Map of Catawba County, North Carolina. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division,
available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/2001620490/, accessed 17 February 2023.
M 7.20

APPENDICES

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Appendix A ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY MAPPING
APPENDIX A ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
MAPPING

Fepla H;i,II�jRd
1�• w�
,
II
.�['
.,,
-Llk
1 ,
16
1
� ; CT0794
I 1
� 1
�
t♦
i n '� ��
#.%
000, e yA
s
t
2a�
�O
0 400 800 N
Previously Recorded Resource Feet
11 Project Area (At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:9,600
® Surveyed Architectural Resource
® Stantec
Project Location Prepared by ECL on 2023-01-31
TR by MGS on 2023-02-09
Catawba County, North Carolina IR by SLD on 2023-01-31
Clienf/Project 203401899
Microsoft
Notes MS CLT04 Environmental Permitting
T. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North
Carolina FPS 3200 Feet
2. Data Sources: ESRI, Microsoft, NC Geodetic Figure No.
Appendix B
Survey, NC State Historic Preservation Office,
Stantec Title
3. Orthoimagery© NC OneMap, NC Center for Surveyed Architectural Resources
Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors
or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

A PHASE I ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY 89.72-
HECTARE (221.71 ACRE) LYLE CREEK (CLT 04) DATA CENTER SITE IN CATAWBA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Appendix B KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
APPENDIX B KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
a
B.1

Sandra DeChard
Senior Architectural Historian
Ms. Sandra DeChard is an architectural historian with over 25 years of cultural resources experience working
in the Mid -Atlantic, South, Mid -West, New England, and Northwest regions. Her experience includes large -
and small-scale architectural Phase I level surveys for transmission line corridors, transportation
infrastructure, solar and wind projects, and visual effects evaluations, Phase II level surveys, stabilization
plans, historic structures reports, cost share projects, and National Register of Historic Places nominations in
consultation with state historic preservation offices and local, state, and federal agencies. Her experience also
extends to detailed historical research and archival review, scaled architectural drawings, signage and
heritage tourism brochures, as well as museum displays. Additionally, Sandra was a founding member and
Chairperson of the Martinsville, Virginia Architectural Review Board and has lectured on various Art, Art
History, and Architectural topics as educator in humanities and as a guest speaker. Sandra's current
responsibilities at Stantec include architectural surveys at the Phase I and 11 levels, managerial tasks
associated with architectural investigations, writing and editing technical reports, consultation with and
representation of clients before state and national review agencies, and developing and managing project
budgets and scopes of work.
EDUCATION
Advanced Diploma in Local History, Oxford
University, Oxford, England 2022
Certificate of Higher Education in History, Oxford
University, Oxford, England 2020
M.A. Preservation Studies, Architectural History,
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000
B.S. Interior Design, University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware, 1989
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Section 106 Certification, Richmond, Virginia,
2014
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Bridges
VDOT — Page County Bridge National Register of
Historic Places Nomination Form*, Page County,
Virginia
Ms. DeChard conducted detailed research and
authored the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) nomination form for the Page County
Bridge, Page County, Virginia.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Transmission
A Phase I Architectural Survey of Approximately 4
Miles Associated with the Proposed Line 239
Lakeview-Hornertown 230kV Rebuild Project in
Halifax County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project which included a Phase I
survey of 82 resources within the area of potential
effect for the proposed transmission line rebuild.
UC Synergetic — Archaeological Identification
Survey of Approximately 32.82 Hectares (81.12
Acres) and Architectural Windshield Survey
Associated with the Western Carolinas
Modernization Project, Asheville, Buncombe
County, North Carolina
Sandra served as Architectural Historian for the
project which included a windshield survey of 161
resources within a 1.5-mile area of potential effect.

Sandra DeChard
Senior Architectural Historian
Roadways
NCDOT — Historic Structures Survey Report
Interchange Improvements SR 2500 (Blue Ridge
Road) from US 70 to South of 1-40 and South of I-
40 to SR 2713 (Old Lake Gap Road),
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian. The project included an intensive level
survey of two resources for the purposes of
evaluating the resources' NRHP eligibility.
NCDOT — Building Inventory for TIP# U-5863,
Widen NC 133 (Castle Hayne Road) from I-
140/US17 (Wilmington Bypass) to SR 1310
(Division Drive), New Hanover County, North
Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project which included a building
inventory of 136 resources within the area of
potential effect for the proposed road
improvements.
NCDOT — Historic Structure Survey for TIP# R-
5743B, Widen US 23/US441 from US 64 to SR
1652 (Wide Horizon Drive)/SR1152 (Belden
Circle) to South of SR1649 (Prentiss Bridge
Road), Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
Ms. DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project, which included an
intensive level survey of five resources within the
area of potential effect for the proposed road
improvements. The project's intent NRHP eligibility
for each of the resources surveyed.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Railroads
NCDOT — Historic Structures Survey Report for
T.I.P. No. Z-5700, Crossing No. 629724M, North
Church Street, Four Oaks, Johnston County, North
Carolina.
Ms. DeChard served as Architectural Historian for
the project which included an intensive level
survey of an individual resource and a re-
evaluation of NRHP status of an historic district
within the area of potential effect for the proposed
rail crossing improvement. The evaluation also
included a consideration of inclusion of the
individual resource to the National Register listed
district as well as a National Register eligibility
evaluation for the individual resource surveyed.
Defense/Military
United States Army Reserve — Army Reserves
Centers in North Carolina: A Brief History
Sandra DeChard served as Senior Architectural
Historian for the project. The project was part of an
MOA for the Thomas B. Smothers Army Reserve
Center. The Administration Building and OMS
were determined eligible for listing on the NRHP
by the NC SHPO. It was also determined that the
disposal of the property out of Government
ownership constituted an undertaking pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and that the disposal would result in an
adverse effect to historic properties. To mitigate
the adverse effect the MOA required the
documentation of the Thomas B. Smothers ARC in
the form of an historic narrative to include a history
of the Thomas B. Smothers ARC and a general
history of ARCs in North Carolina.

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 6:
Public Notice Comment Responses

ti
tiA
rC
A
n
a
3
C
�s
mro
o
a
a
x
n
3
C
o'
a
E
°
c. S. OR o w
w o
y�. E.
c
E
o b
w
a o
�
y
<
❑ co ro °
`n oy °'
s m
's m '� �
" o y �
.. � �,
�-�7� � m o
�
OR
o r22.
y
v
p' (�
.t C O�t'
N O
O C
O
'y W
N
.. 0.
P `� �^aj' O y�y
p
°O O 'wU'°J
'O
m
w
mtz
. 2
4r.
ol
tiro Ci
m❑❑o
'� �
_ayw
m»a�rro»�
" �
So , er
E
0' o.
'b
Aa
..
c
c
2.
c
o
C
Bro o= mty°
°< o
C7
�
n m
C »
W
ao C
w p
a 13
a
m tpi O
ov �
two
� °,❑
'i
y 'rrl '�
p^
N
mop �o
C7
�v
w
m
'S' m'
m
'�f°°. o. a ❑ o'
�
R
cJ �
a
o
T E
°
o
T
B
o
yM
�
B
o a
m p ro
0
G.
ao
va
° M
m w o »
a a

o�
�
o�
rn
a
n
w
p
R'
m
T
w
d
a
o:
c
a
»'
�vw
byy.
a a
o °
2
yey
`G
o
IJ
°71.
w
o�.o
N
o
s a
4.
ro
° a
� C`R' � O' � � y ° G '� v `< •w• � w C 4 W
C
'roL� o
F O
ir
°y w �. E b o b a s °=. m y n .°^. -, no,
c b
on F
tlQ 'O
RSw N
a 0 N N CF p S: 0
O
9 w >• a n S.
p a
p
❑ .. w. <' � oN�
a�'m .°n may pip � �
y
<BL
= m
$ ors
� ^ p � � y '°'. � o 0 0° °: yay ' ❑
°m °iAl
y w
m ,wo
a y y'
s
n m 'o ro
_off o<.
o ro
ors.
C'] w
w o a o o
p
�' � A O
.3 .J 0 O N
C
w
I
,< a
o

O C
w �
N ry
w
N
a'
o ao
o'o
b�
yid
�
�b
a
O o
0
rn
<,I a7HOm ° 'Q
m m
a'
cZo o c.
rp .y
N .y's' O O G a• E+ G pp O
'� a
R 'S N ""
V°-n 1.
o w o .j m n m �. ° m m m °,
° o• �' a• ° o
" v p :j a �, w �. a ,- c 5 a o b. o
° '°
io io o
o oa oo
�_ v' o
w (�
0
�, z "y °=, R w o C
o a• w a
� •,, io m' C] o °E'. m
ty a. a h v, o• a
5' � � � '� m o- � w °'� o o
'o
�
�
w
" ❑ ro �. 2 c. '7y �_ o
a y 'a .'-
a
°
S' w �^ w
,°. `°' S o 5 E° E w^ ova •"i
o y
n 'a
a
m o, O �' E .� ,� •" 5 5:
E r� T� e b y� m a 5 w
�,m
� w v.
Wgry o
ya
^.
y
ts
o°
a
g.'3.
o°c
..n. 4' Ch two 5 .a. g a G
�
^ ° �
y
�.
m
w � m B � � �,
?; � o N 'ti � c a � x � � o
�
p a a•
o
ro N H O
O h U 2
y W a 0. m�c,
< O 4 O R" "'�' co a O o EL
O o
O�
a
EL
C
o O N � N
o CFl
al �'
�_ C] b
R -o
cL
�' a
w
a.
'O y �
p
a
t5o
h O
O a
a w
y
w °_ 7 .• m 9 B
m o
a°�°
o
a

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
521 East Morehead Street, Suite 425
Stantec Charlotte NC 28202-2695
August 15, 2023
Project/File: 203401899
Stephanie Goss, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Dear Mrs. Goss,
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR#20230712; Corps ID#
SAW-2023-00898; Catawba County
On the behalf of Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) is pleased to
submit this response to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)'s request for
additional information dated June 26, 2023. Your questions are presented first, followed by our answers in
italics.
1. If the USACE requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please
provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE to ensure we have all relevant
information to complete our review in accordance with ISA NCAC 02H .0506(b).
Response: Acknowledged. A copy of our response to Public Notice comments received from the
USACE will be provided to DEQ DWR when they are submitted to the USACE.
2. The Division appreciates the applicant's efforts to provide evaluations of multiple on -site alternatives to
document avoidance and minimization of impacts. In order to complete the Division's avoidance and
minimization evaluation, please indicate the proposed width of the roads at the stream crossing
locations (i.e. how many lanes, how wide per lane, etc). In addition, please specify the proposed road
side slopes and provide a discussion regarding the feasibility of reducing slopes and/or using retaining
walls to further minimize stream impacts at both crossing locations.
Response: The road crossing at Impacts SE1-SE5, utilizes a 2:1 slope to the greatest extent possible.
This 30' roadway is constrained by the need for multiple utilities to be located within the roadbed; to
include 49"x41 " fiber duct, 8" domestic waterline, 12" fire line, and also includes a 5' wide concrete
sidewalk as depicted in the cross section attached in Attachment 1 (Figure 1-1).
The 30'roadway crossing at Impact SA4 cannot utilize 2:1 slopes. A retaining wall is being used to limit
the direct impact to features upstream from grading. This roadway is also constructed as part of the
building pad and requires almost 40ft of fill. This roadway is also collocated with 49 x41 fiber duct and
BMP stormwater piping as depicted in the cross section attached in Attachment 1 (Figure 4-1)
The roadway crossing at SX1 utilizes retaining walls to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetland
system. Utilizing a 2:1 slope in this location would increase the permanent impacts required by this
Design with community in mind

August 15, 2023
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 2 of 4
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR##; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00898; Catawba County
project. The roadway is also constrained by the property boundaries and the need to pick up the offsite
water from an adjacent pond.
Additionally, the designer generally limited the use of 2:1 slopes immediately adjacent to the streams
presents a safety hazard for landscape maintenance and security personnel required to access to the
security fence which will be installed around the facilities. Safety is a primary focus of project design.
Generally, the use of 2:1 slopes would require periodic flat benches along the slope to ensure long-term
stability. Per Section 6.02 of the NCDEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
requires the "use of slope breaks, such as diversions or benches to reduce the length of cut -and -fill
slope to limit sheet and rill erosion and prevent gullying." Slope breaks for 2:1 slopes are required at
least every 20 feet. At the SX and SA crossings, the height of the slopes will be in excess of 20 ft and
this benching would results in minimal overall reduction of stream impacts.
Based on these considerations, the proposed 3:1 side slopes, reduce stream impacts as much as
practical while ensuring proper safety and maintenance can be sustained throughout the life of the
project.
3. Pursuant to ISA NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued upon
determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards which includes
designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria and the state's antidegradation policy, as defined in
rules of ISA NCAC 02B .0200... In assessing whether the proposed activity will comply with water
quality standards, the Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute to a
violation of water quality standards; (3) would result in secondary or cumulative impacts that cause or
contribute to, or will cause or contribute to, a violation of water quality standards;" Based on the current
proposed plan the Division believes indirect impacts to the remaining portion Stream SA between
Impacts SA1 and SA4 will be significantly isolated and short and will therefore unable to maintain
existing uses at the current function. Therefore, it is necessary to include these indirect impacts to
Stream SA within the impact table and provide mitigation for this section.
Response: Acknowledged. The project impacts and impact mapping have been revised to incorporate
SA2 & SA3 as indirect impacts. SA6 has been added to the impacts to account for the remaining
isolated portion of stream SA outside of project limits of disturbance (LOD). The revised impacts table is
shown below in Table 1 and the revised mapping can be found in Attachment 1.
Design with community in mind

August 15, 2023
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 3 of 4
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR##; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00898; Catawba County
Table 1— Revised Impact Summary
Impact
Type Of Impact
Impacts
Permanent
Conversion
Temporary
Indirect
Stream
Wetland
Wetland
Stream
Stream
AC
LF
AC
AC
AC
LF
AC
LF
SE1
Construction Access
-
-
0.001
20
-
-
SE2
Riprap Inlet
0.001
16
-
-
-
-
SE3
Road Crossing -
Culvert
0.005
99
-
-
-
-
-
SE4
Riprap Outfall
0.001
28
-
-
-
-
-
SE5
Construction Access
-
-
-
0.0003
6
-
-
WB
Overhead Powerline
Conversion
0.19
-
-
-
-
SC2
Duct Bank Crossing
-
-
-
0.03
56
-
-
SA1
Fill Roadway/Pad
Site
0.01
151
-
-
-
-
SA2
Construction Access
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.004
41
SA3
Construction Access
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.001
15
SA4
Culvert Stormwater
0.04
382
-
-
-
-
-
SA5
Riprap Outfall
0.002
19
-
-
-
-
-
SA6
Indirect Impact
0.008
84
SB1
Fill Roadway/Pad
Site
0.01
96
-
-
-
-
-
SC1
Duct Bank Crossing
-
-
-
0.03
56
-
-
SX1
Road Crossing -
Culvert
0.004
64
-
-
-
-
SX2
Duct Bank Crossing
-
-
-
-
0.01
91
-
-
WX1
Road Crossing -
Fill/Retaining Wall
-
-
0.08
-
-
-
-
-
SF1
Riprap Outfall
0.003
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
0.08 AC
889 LF
0.08 AC
0.19 AC
0.08 AC
229 LF
0.013
140
4. Please provide a clear detail of what the proposed impacts are for SF1. The application states that the
impact is for riprap as a result of the BMP spillway, however it is unclear if this riprap is proposed only
Design with community in mind

August 15, 2023
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 4 of 4
Reference: Request for Additional Information: Lyle Creek Data Center; DWR##; Corps Action IN SAW-2023-00898; Catawba County
on the stream bank or within the channel. The profile view provided does not denote where the riprap is
proposed to be located in relation to the stream bottom or stream bank. If riprap is proposed within the
stream bed, please explain why that is required and why velocity/erosion potential can not be controlled
before discharge into the stream bed.
Response: Impact SF1, 34 LF (0.003 ac) of stream channel, is required for the installation of the
outfall for BMP #8. Riprap is proposed within the stream channel. In order to meet the requirements of
the NC Erosion Control Manual, for an outlet with a proposed flowrate of 34.7 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and a velocity of 3.6 feet per second, Class B riprap will be required. The riprap must be 10.5 LF in
length with an ending width of 14 LF. Of the total riprap apron area length, only 4 LF of 10.5 LF of the
riprap will be in the stream. All work will be completed in the dry via pump around or other dewatering
device. The profile view has been revised Attachment 1 and the Riprap Dissipater Sizing data has been
provided in Attachment 2.
Thank you for your assistance with the permit applications, If I can be of further assistance, please contact
me at (571)-249-6395 or Spencer. Davis(a_stantec.com if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Spencer Davis
Regulatory Specialist
Phone:[phone]
[e-mail]
Attachment:
Attachment 1 — Revised Impact Mapping
Attachment 2 — Riprap Dissipator Sizing BMP #8.
Design with community in mind

Attachment 1 — Revised Impact
Mapping

. ... ... ... .. . . ...
\ .ml
anon'
cn
O
m
cn
y
\ W c�r0I
Z co >
cn C—
D m
p
m� �.� O�
I ji
mm i
m
D m
D
A F� 'anoo�.. �� mI
D W �w
TO T
O �
_ m
m
cn
m
0 o
m
b
m
3PAT
C 7
w O
w w
W
a
I
1
>
z o
O
og
z
p�vo m
`2 N
0 0 cn
o
p z
?� Mz
/A
o1 o
o
z a
n
< m
N
O
n N
0 3
n
0
m O
o D
< O
D O
nD
Z O
0MI
O
m o w
c
my
3O
�0
x0
F z
A x
D
m
o
xml
0
OD Z
0 Z
m
D
D
A y
Z
w
n
ye
—Z—�m
N \ 1
oo�
o
C
c>— YYY
i
- 0Ull.11 >0�
o
m xx xx�
mm W:Ew
�� 1m
3 Dz c K Dz
f �� ova N� wti
Y ^C VOA
Nmm
Sy�V
C (n O O r r v m v m v v D D
O O JJ D ;o A .11 A .11 m m
A O N ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G7 p p tCii O o m m m m m m O O
0 z Op = p O O O O O 0 3
D D
z z O
oc D y Z 1 v v
v m o o c p 3 � x m
m r D x v 3
m m O A W m 0Op z 0AI z z rAil
A { D z D o D m IT, D D
Z m O { Z z z
G> m < m m 3 r
m m m, x m m K
3 o z z °
D z o p
m
�
n o 1 n

FILE PATH:ZAPr.ja \OANC\ID23005300CL- CL30G Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Sat\ExMblt Skatcba5\ENV Impact— W-04-ENV Impaais recorer.OwpZ:\FoIMa\OANCt20230053000L CL Lyle Creak Site\CADD\Plan Set\Ekblblt Sketcbea\ENVI.pa EMIbIta\CL-ENVImpa racover.Ewg,SSEA ,,7flW2o2302550PM
\\ ` o
,M —�
....��Wn�� pal �D N�1 m I 1
\I m 2 D p D o o O D N ''
I 'I Mm
cm\��zl I+ m µ
T W
3mo p;o oD A m
xI
Zm D 70 1 1
1 4 o vZom ny nm m m
7 _ I MID Lfl -V _
/
co
-n '+
µ
D 910
—ell I Z II, o Z \ 905
_ f4'
� 900
t D > I+ 895
_ 1 o m o A 890
Cn o o D
w IDG oz wA 885
m
I A m m .
I V I
v
1 III \ \
Ic'�I II 0�
II 1 V � A 88s
I � \ 8so
0 o I
cn
0 0 ��'� wozo 1 �
o Ho
v n n
mwp9y O ND=O
_ O oA m0m t0mo N0m
D
D A A A A A m m
m O O O O O O vO m
mA-4 =m � T A A
o K c NO OO O O O O O
A z O w W 0
O T T mm0
r m OO= o pZz zzn O z -I
*oa o ooc m mv X. , M*
< mo O A m vO O D D
3m Friz Fill
O n mzZON () Z_oD MCU) m 0 m3 Z
�32 0 m p w
D 3zi > z Z y Zo om y
O O 1vXDmr3u'
T 3 V
1 Z O (> n -
D Z En
Q.
Z—Om

FILE PATNZAP-dt\OANC\202300—l---LNe Creek Slle\CADO\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sket—\ENVImpact ErMbIW-04-ENV Mpa recover-a:\Rolede\OANC--l-CL--Creek Slte\CA00\Plan Sel\Eablblt Sketcbea\ENV Impel E—ft\CLTOaENV Impala reppver.d— SSEAACY, 7JlW0230:25:57 PM
l
O O
0
W m OD (D O O 0 0 O to
m O N O Cn O G1 0 O N D N
a rT
+� 894.12
�O mm Tm
;o
m m0
_m rz
z0 ��
m0 m
O l/> �_ D m
r " T '
r" o+ 892.70
i iP co .... � . .
p Cn 0 907.64 c w ' A A ....
r (p
cn r V T T
II m
v o Cb A m
o N � i
(J T : N
AVJ� 0 Zl m 1 �O
m + 890.86 ........:...... z .............).............. C .;.. z ...... ...T o
903.08
Ii (�O D 0 a I N m m
10, O
//) iC
m A O O m
m mA K
X W 0 mz
W 888.32 co z I _,T�� 0 m A
OD W OD N aD ,�07 w�ID O� (o (o (P (fl n {
(mil O N O D CCi 0� (,mil O n cn T`
0
m p
T
O m
O
0
T O
N Z
m
O
O
Z
N
m i O
0
D
0
-C r O
m tcn
C i o m
{v Z O
o p w TI =
we Im O
o C Z
n o N V n
O
n
N`0 c
N
_ N Z
o�?z `�oznao
o
o > zc m_
2 O D C N O O r r v v v v v v D D
y { m O O m 3 O O O O O O v v
N m A V = � V v V v V v A A
6 { m K c C) 0 O O O 0 O O O O
A to O C. O 0 w 0 0 0 to N X X
00 (N7 o m o o z m T 0 0 0 0 0 0
O = o D D
m z z Z z z o m m m m m m m
mr � m o y o v_ m o o c A v M. X. - M*
A Zl 0 Z < O W m O A m O z O D D A w n O m Fri 0
x coD �O� m 0 L7 m Z or
mil) 20 rn = 3 m m m w 3
W j r Z D 3zi y z Z y
NZo om
mOOo r
u'
v 3 v
1 Z Z n
D
D
Z-Om

FILE PATH:ZAPralede\OANC\ID23008300CL-CLTOA Lvle Creek Slte\CADD\Plan Set\ExMblt Sketcbae\ENVInroad—blte\C— ENVImpacts recover.Cwa2:\%oleda\OANCt20230063000L CLTOCLvle Creek Slte\CADD\%an Set\Eablbd Skdcbea\ENV Impact EMIIbIte\CLTOa-ENVInroads recove.— SSEAACY,]I1 W-3 4:28:M PM
r
A 11 p 1 = S
z O m
'•Z �•••.•: T Z ;o O
11
D� \0 0
am
V� \
goo r �
o
o
o
\ \
O 9
y o
z o
o �
n
o O
u Z
m O
m
n Do ZO
O� Om
37
3 C.)x O
gym n-n
vZ D
m O
N D
N z
0
m0�00 m
mv� O fA
O
OOmp
2 n 0
Z
= m
V1
(7
m
v {
O< m
r
m z
m
0 z
D
O
Ell
o Z
VE
<
O
m
O w
F z
m
m O
m _
m O
z D
O
o
A
m Or
m Z
A
D
2
" D
m
C 4l O >0 r r V � V � V � D D
O O A D 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v
m A m 3 0 0 m m m m m m A A V
0 0 0 m O 0 w m m m m m O Ox
00 z0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z � Z 5' z m* m m m m m
Z m
Om m r D (� A m V m 3 3 M*
m m O A '> 0 O z O Z z m -
A { A n A O A I'll
m > Z
Z p O r O
0 D 4 < f�fl f�fl 3
m
K O z Z n
> z 0 0
v
n In n

/
¥
871.001 a
= «
_
>
C)y
\-
f
®
_a
\..\
+
\�
.
CO
?
e«j
§`
/
871.30
\
\ ) /
\
/
o
)/§��
e
/
(
\
[
$
; j
A
-
z
q
§
§
�
\
/ c
s
!
■
||
§
A\
\! \
§\|\
d
k
:>
$ƒm{
_
-
-
\
2 §
§ ƒ
ƒ ,
ƒ ,
ƒ
)
`
g
ƒ \
$
3 (
! !
!
(
\ )
\
\ K
§
)
(
-
-
- -
§
®
\R 3
)
)
)
k
\
§
t/ 2<
m -
CO -
/
Fri
) /
) f
Pl0 m
�
-
m
Fri
--
)
;_, E
2
;
°
>m
z
m
k\
§!\
(
{i
`§
\
§
( |
|
`
:
¥ \
_
\
Q \
/ \
2
>
\
®
In ®
,
° ®
®
,
-z�\
I

FILE PATH:ZAPr.j—\0ANC\2o220063o0CL-CI— Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Plans E.hlblt Sketches\ENVImpact EMlbbWCLT04 ENV Impacts recover.tlwg2::\Protects\OANC\20230063000L CLT04 Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Plan Set\Exblbd Sketches\ENV Impart Elh0ts\CLTo4 ENVImpelsrecover.dw9,SSEA ,,7/16/20234:2619PM
♦�'0o
s
\ m
�p6
m
D
A
M
O
O,
D
A
—
FF
1+
o D
♦�
D
m
^
\ \\ \\\Ir
\ \
�♦ A��� ��
ro� ��o0 �
Nocno 0 ♦� \ i
_0
0y�j 0 m00 M.
0 `z G70mA
> Z n 0
O v O Z
FL,y ° m
z {
o
N A y
0 C) Oc m
Z D 0 9
m r O< m 0 D
m
'wpoN�A xl �_ 0 Z n
y O Z C) 0
OM m z
M. co D M cn A
3n x a vZ Di z D
i O
O No m a
W Z A z
D D
O
m
m
O
m
5
2
O
PHO
� 0 N
7 °° m0
g
Ao
G)m
♦ 7AO
♦ °o ROW
<0
\
\
m
C
O
NO
OA Dn
r �
r V �
V
� V �
D
D
0
V
0 (0ii
O
m�
O O
m m
O
m
O O 0
m m m
O
O
p0
Z
Z
ZO cO
m
x
z
0 0 0
N Z m
0
0 0 0
m m T
m
m
Om
W
m
m
z
r D
O A
{
oc
O
A m V
m 0 O
z
V 3 3
O z z
x
m
m
'�
.lDl
0 0 A
ry
A z z
K
z
ZIMp
O
r
0
K
z z
0 0
n
Z
m
v
n
0 - n

FILE PATH:ZAPMe \OANC\2o23006300CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketches\ENV Impact ErMbIW-04-ENV CL Lyle Creek Slte\CARD\%an Set\Eablbd Sketches\ENVI.pa EMlblts\CL-ENVImpactsrecover.dw,SSEA ,7JlW2o2302628PM
cr,
ccll
o cn
W
o
C.
cn
00 -4
o
W
cn
m
o
W
cn
++
875.18
0
875.18
z
m
m
/
Z
/
—
D
/
0 M
O
+
872.97
0
DW ...........
z 0
.:.....
..........
........�....
...............
872.97
0
D
m
—
2 T1
p
O �J
mD�
O f
0
+
861.53
'
<
A
m<w
O "' y
X
m
:
o 0
......... ......
. .�......;..........;
......
O ..
.,........—
2
z
861.53
m �
����
D W
how
7
����
0
WZz
v
—
N
i
' cz x
m
iP
o
OCDm�
m0g
' Uzi
�.
+
872.00
p �;m
lO z
0
0
— c W .......
Gzi
..................
......�
z ..
G)
„ .........
m
—
672.00
n�m
m
0
03 C)
vzi>m
0
z
cox:
—
W
�n0
Zm�
N
+
871.14
p =
871.14
<
0
W
W
ccnn
c°Dn
o cn
W
o
m
cn
o
cn
w
o
W
cn
0
mu
0
0050
m 0
O
I
G)Om�
z� n
o
D
_ m
{ m
C
Z
O
m o
A
O m
A
0 r
D
3
r v
O
0
v v
0 0
O O
v v
O O
0 0
v
0
O
D D
m v
v v
rn
v {
m
"�ZviII
0
V 0
C
0 0
O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0
O
0 0
O O
x
D
0 m
o
O
O
Z m
0 2
C D
0 000000x
Z
ti V
v
D D
m
O y
O
O
m
O
C A
m
m i
3
- M*
0
<
W
m O
A
m m
O
O D
D
zo
m
m
Z
L7
m
O
<
m
m
r
to 3
IFF Z 0
O A
D 0
0
D
0
D
p
O
fmn O
0
D
m D
m
In
Z
D
0
— Z —0
I
m

FILE PATH:ZAPM—\OANC\2023666306CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADO\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketcbea\ENV Impact& W\C100 EL- Lyle Creek Slte`,CAOD\Flan SM\ hblt Sketcbea\ENV Impart Exblblls\CLTOa ENV Impala recover.dw SS—,, 711W-34:26:36 PM
m
D
Z
m
- Z
µ
oD
on
DU)
µ D
I
/
Nco
� O
V
�j
—0.0
0
�� A
0� ` µ >
o z
x
/ I
N Z
m
<±
o
Z
D
O
o ` D
En A
Z
µ D
n
-n
D
ti U)
Z
^O
�O N
p
A
Am
oy
o
T1
m
T�
rF3
�
�-4
FF
Ou
m nD
y
o�
oD
m
o0
n D
v
/
D �
o0 ooy
nD
N
W
0I 0+50.0DI
N A
0r0
In r>
z
T
Ami
om
A
m �5
o
C
C
N
W (�
F o
C
N Cl
D o
C
m W
�
n
a
m
N
N O
O
>2
_
N
p U)
O
v D
2 m� p0
9p v
O
D Z
y °
O
m
{ rn
6
o
0
N
C)
V {
A y
Oc m
Z
O
D
m
o
0 D
m
'wpoN�A
r
m rn
Z1 �_ O
Z
m o
n
P
y o
Z In
om
m
0 w
z
x
coD
ml0
=
A 0
�n
O
x
a
�Z
Di
z D
i
O
O No
Or
A
z
m z
D
D
0
9
m
�;o 0
p A
n m
Dn__—
\ _gym
/
n
r
O
v
C
O
4l
O
O
A
m
>0 r
D �
3
r
� 0
�
V
0 0
�
V
0 0
� �
D
0 m
� A
D
v
m
A
V 0
0
O
O
O O
O
A
O
C)
0
0
C. O
O
m
0
m m
0
00
ZO
T
=
T
p O
m m
0 0
o p
m
o
Z
T
� z
5' z
m*
m m
m m
m
z
OT
V
m
m
m
r
O
D O
A
A m
m 0
O z
3
O
3
M*
m
{
z
z m
m
1
�
Zl
z2Z2
a
r
m
O
ap
<m
m
m
z
z 0
>
z
p
p
v
n
S
n
n

FILE PATNZAP-da \OANC\202300—l---W. Creek Slte—E\Plan Set\E&Nblt Sket—\ENVI—D1,11, —04- ENV Nostra recovera:\N.,—d OANCt20230063000LEL--Creak Sit.\CAOO\Plan SetVNNI,d Sk.icM1ea\ENV Impact EMIbIte\CLTOa- ENV Inroads recove.—SSEAACY,%I13t20230:26:C3 PNI
O CP
D
m
2
O
;fl
G
m
A
O
O
O
A
rn
w
A ;
X
. .:.....:.>..:.....:.....:.........
W
m
_
�1
0
O
O —
m
c�
O
0
.................
0
O —
RIM: 900.72
INV IN: 889.03 (S-102) —
t S-100VV OUT: 888.28 (S-100)
IN:887.93(S-101)
m
N
O
w = 00
W O
Ul O
m
(0
Ul
co Lo co
O O
O U1 O
m co co
N N
of O Vl
co
W
O
co co co
W A A
(P O Ul
(00
O
O
+
(WO O
CT O
Z m
x
O
CIl
O N
O 01 O
N W W
CT O 0
A
O
A
CT
— O
936.51
z
�x
n
y
TO
z 0
D +
906.52
77
O _
z
\/
z�
mm
w
(n t
902.56
/ :
.;. @ o ..
.
O
>
908.92
G
m
/
p
p�m
wo
A
+
899.85
...........
..................
O
Z M
m
N+
897.77
I I t
t I l t
l
t l
co
N
z
(00
O
(OO
0l
O
O
O
O (D O N N W
(Jt O En O 0l O
W A A
Cn C. Cn
0
�%
O
O
co
0
m
8 co co W A
O
N
O
Clt
O CT r o L" O O O
V
m
O+
. Om mI
o
o
o900.33
(nO
0
Dw
0
°
D
om
n�
z oo
zm
m
o_xli
6
921.50
...
o
m
n<X
0n
<
(n
T
m(/)
zm
V
z X45924
II
p
W
0
(0
O
x
Z 0
O,§
O O co O (0
IN)N W
O
(n
_
O
O D
x Z
D N
O 0 O N O
O
r
m
rm
I■■■y■I
0�50
0 O O
0
■
I
I
O
G m
zQ �
O
D
_ m
{ m
C
Z
O
N
O
A
0
A
m
O r
D
3
r v
O
0
v v
O O
0 0
v v
0 0
O O
v
O
0
D
m
v
D
v
v
rn
{
OG
m
O
"
O
5
V C)
C
to O
0 0
O
Ox m
O O
0 0
mm mo
0 0
0 O
0
0
O
0
X
0
O
>(
cNi
D
m
o
O
z
Z
O
m
O x
C D
0
Z
O O
ti v
o
v
D
D
m
O y
O
O
r
O 0
C A
V
V
3
-
M*
o
<
W
m
m
O
AFri
{
m
O
O D
D
,ll
-1
O Z
A
A
n
A O
A
y
Z
m
m
Z
L7
m
O
<
m
m
r
to
3
Z o
O A
�
D Lnn
K O
, D
p
D
p
O
m O
0
D
V D
V
A
v
O En
RO D
O
Q
—z—om

FILE PAIN:ZAProjede\OANC\2023006300CL CLT04 Lyle Creek She\CADD\Plan $M\E%hlblt Sketches\ENV lmpad ExhlbIW\CLT04-ENV lmpeds recover.tlwg2\Prolecis\DANC\2023006300CL CLT04Lyle Creek Slte\CADD\Pla,3t\ExhIbd Sketches\ENVImpacl Evh.bilsCLT04 ENVmp _ ver.tlwg,SSEANCy,]18I20234:26:49PM
\\ C
AN
o
c'o°�°�a—
�°
Co
10
or
ED
;:'l: • { I
''.' I \� y l I+ j
0 co 00
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...'l'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':'.'.'.'.'.'. \ sal \\\ \\\
...mom cp
A m c�si O t�5\ COS r ;:.,.•.''.'''•'''.'.'.'!'.'.''•''•.'.(•/.•'.'.'•''' �� \ \
o
o�
D<
/ D
���% - 100YR; A
71
o
N
��
o
[0
��
mozOp
zGmo
�w
o
�
I
�
HH111H
G)
I
o 9p
O
D
= m
C
Z
m O
o A
O I-
D
I- o,
A
v o,
A
v o,
A
v D
A v
D
v
y
{ m
O
O m
A
3
O
O O
,
O O
O v
A
v
A
o
N
{
A y
00
m
T
O
o z
V
C �'
N O
V
O
O w
v
O O
m 0
v bi
O O
m to
v
O O
N X
O
X
o
p
(N7
r
m
m
p
z
Z O
M""
O =
z Z
o m
m m
m m
o 0
m m
0 D
m m
D
m
mr
w
A
�
m
o Z
z
o a
< O
o
W
v_ m
m O
o o
A
0
c A
ED n
v
O Z
v 3
O D
D A
n
Zl
O
m
{
n `$
n y
Z O
TI
O Z
A
�
n
A n
A
y
z
or
M.
co
ml0w
m 0
0
m
Z
6-3
3l)
>z
20
N =
z
3
m m
m
Z>
w
3
m
D�
G) n
> LX
Z
o
Z
o
77
O
NO
A
m O
y
o
v
3 V
Ul
Z
D
A z
z �
n v
n
D o
Q
D
-z=om

O
0
o w
V
V7 0
m ou
O O
V7 O
Go coc0
M 0
V7 O
A
c� m
O 1
N O D
w
cn
cn
w 00
m
cn
O cn
0
0
00 m 00 0e
v )< 00 0.
VI
cn CD cn
— +0 880.00
890.00
Z V
z 0
o+ 873.94
0 0-{I-- �' I
0
D O
Q 873.94
O! !
z n
z
F0
of
n I
00 M
�
+ 880.73
+
:U
m ............_
aO
O
+ 875.59
... .. O
..
0 903.85 vi
�,to
— 0 875.59
o
.
x +0 882.12 \
I I
I I
In
�W 006.02 �X
D
866.02
o
a m Z m
a
c0 m
r
m
D + 866.02
V ry N
UlmO CD
ID
O O
c7t O
ID 0
o O
00
O
0 O
=
/1
l '
C
W y
G)
_
<
—r oMW.
z o
U)
/ : 6) m
ne
m
o
+ 873.26
...:.....
../.:....
��n-
M m
a
m 0 W M
m�_c0
w c0
c0 0
c0 m
0
-'
<
0 873.26
/ D z x
m_cn
_ cn CDcn0zo
cn o
u, o
m
mn�
�0 879.961 1my
DC11
�m
�n
V� 873.59
Z0�
Do :�
z@
_
q
xO� 873.59
zvmm0
Om>O
..l Az O m
lJ :�
N
z3Cm
I pm:
881.53 .... ;..
..:......:.....
:......:......_
wo
A Km
m T
firn^+
VJ 882.444
+
D m.....
A m
I D 0
xA 906.43
874.49
cn 874.49
O Z A m .:.....
x D
00 m
m w
w c0
c0 0
zO�o
v
o
cn
cn co
ccOri o
Z oo
G
u0i o
? A
O 0
N
+ 874.89
CO 874.89
=
—
co n rn
O 00
co
00 0u
0c
0e 00 0e
o0
ccnn
0 cO1n
o
cno Ol
to
O p
z
0
m
nF
O
N
>
0
O
(1)
r
M
cp
f
0
Z
m
n
M
O
M
Z
11
�/
c ■
o
0I
z
m
Pr
z c0z
) o
0
_ D
m
{
C
Z
o
N O
O A
A n
O r r v v
D A A
3 O O
v v
A A
O O
v v
A A
O O
D
v
A
A
D
v
v
A
y
{
A cn
m
A
O
K -1
� � v v
C O O
0 O O w 0
v v
O O
0 0
V v
O O
N 0
O
X
0
X
p 0
00 m
Ap
o z
M"" o 0
O = o
0 0
0 0;
D
>K
D
O fr-
m0 z
D
O
z
O
Z
z z 5" o m
O 0 c A V
m m
V
m m
3 3
m
-
m
M*
? m 0
<
W
m
m O
A p , m O
{22
i O
D D
A
' Z O -n
0 Z
A
n A
0 A
m m
>
Z
0r
U) jimj
r
m A
LZj m
z *
Z
z
D
O D
0
z O
i 2
0
x
7 O No
A
m O
y
v
3
v
Z
n
D
Z U
0
Q.
I

FILE PATH:ZAPralecis\OANC\ID23008300CL--Lyle Creek Slle\CADD\Plan Set\E&Mblt Sketches\ENV Impact ErMbIW-04-ENV Impacts recover.dwgZ:\%oleds\OANCt20230063000L CL Lyle Creek Slte\CARD\%an Set\Eablbd Sketches\ENVImpel EMIbIts\C_T ENVImpactsrecover.dw SSEAACV,]/l W/ 3022A3PM
41
W
00
I t\
i o00 0 ,
C
W
D �
o �
0 /
z
0
C 4lO O (7 r r V � V � V � D D
O
m A m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A V
0 0 (pit O O O 0 O O O y O O
I I m m m m m m
p0 ZO 0O = p O p p o p o
z N Z m m m m m m m
Z T
mm m r D O C m V m 3 9 M
m m O A m 0 O z O z z m
{Fri m_ z2Z2 � Zl KrO
am
< m
m A m
m
z z 0
> z p p
v
n
S
n n

(
_to
)
§
KID
=
a
=
\
k /
!
�
/
-
883.00
Fl�,
883.00
\
\
(
\
2
\
(
)/§��
e
/
(
\
[
A
-
$
§0
§
\
/ c
s
0
!
■
||
\! \
§\\
|
§
d
A\
k
K
\
2 §
§ ƒ
ƒ ƒ
ƒ ƒ
ƒ
)
`
g
ƒ \
$
3 (
! !
!
0
(
\ )
\
\
K
§
- -
) §
(
-
-
\R 3
)
)
)
®
k
\
§
t/ 2<
m -
ED -
/
Fri
) /
) f
PlC) \ )
m
-
m
�
�
)
;_, E
2
°
m
<Z
M 4*
k\
§!\
(
{ )
\
§
( |
|
`
:
m r
-IFF
\
: R
) ;
)
_
§
-
®
,
�
®
—z�\
I

Attachment 2 — Riprap Dissapator Sizing
BMP #8

Outlet S-328
Project Name: CLT04 Data Center
S-328 (BMP8 Outlet)
Outlet flowrate 34.68 cfs (10-year) Pipe Area 9.6211275 ft/sec
Pipe diameter 42 inches
Outlet pipe slope 0.71% percent
Des. flow velocitv 3.60 ft/sec
Figure 8.06.c
25
20 7..Zone
u
w 15
Z
'u
0
> 10
5 ne 3
ne 1
sec
Zone 2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe diameter (ft)
USE Zone from graph above =
2
Outlet pipe diameter
42 in.
Length, La =
10.5 ft.
Outlet flowrate
34.7 cfs
Width @ pipe=
10.5 ft.
Width @ end of riprap= 14 ft.
Outlet velocity
3.6 ft/sec
Stone diameter =
6 in.
Material =
Class B
Thickness =
22 in.
La, Scour
Zone
Material
D50 Thickness
La, Culvert
Hole Width
1
Class A
3 9
3 x D(o)
4 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6 22
3 x D(o)
6 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
3
Class I
13 22
4 x D(o)
8 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
4
Class I
13 22
4 x D(o)
8 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
5
Class II
23 27
5 x D(o)
10 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
6
Class II
23 27
6 x D(o)
10 x D(o) 3 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method
- Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in
NC Erosion
Control Manual
*Use 6.0-Ft Apron Length, La for Culvert
Protection within a defined channel. Refer to table 8.06d.
**Use 13-Ft Apron Width for 48-in pipes
***Minimum thickness of riprap is 1.5 times the maximum stone diameter (Use 12-in riprap thickness for 6-in stone
diameter)
Rip Rap Dissapator Sizing_BMP 8.xls
Page 1 of 1

(3 Sta ntec
Attachment 7:
Acoustic Bat Survey

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
($ Stantec
CLT04 Data Center Project
Catawba County, North Carolina
Acoustic Bat Survey
USFWS Consultation Tracking Number
2023-0063262
September 11, 2023
Prepared for:
Microsoft Corporation
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Sean Wender, PWD

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1.2
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................2.2
3.0 SURVEY METHODS.....................................................................................................3.3
4.0 RESULTS......................................................................................................................4.4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................5.5
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ACOUSTIC DETECTOR LOCATION MAP
APPENDIX B ACOUSTIC SURVEY STUDY PLAN
APPENDIX C TABLES
APPENDIX D FIELD DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX E PHOTOS
IN

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Microsoft Corporation is proposing to construct the CLT04 Data Center Project (Project) located in
Catawba County, North Carolina. The proposed project area is approximately 221 acres and is bounded
to the south by 1st Avenue North (NC 16), to the northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all other
directions by private parcels. The Project, as currently designed, will be comprised of five data center
buildings, each with five co -located facilities (colos), substations, and one administration building with a
total capacity of 240MW. The boundaries of the Project are included on the attached Acoustic Bat
Detector Location Map (Appendix A; Figure 1).
As part of project coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Consultation Tracking
Number: 2023-0063262), the federally proposed and state endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis
subflavus) has been identified as potentially occurring within the project area. Dominion Energy Virginia
requested Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conduct acoustic surveys to determine presence of
this species within the proposed project area.
This report describes the methods and results of the acoustic bat survey. The survey followed methods
described in Appendix C of the March 2023 Range -wide Indiana Bat & Northern Long-eared Bat Survey
Guidelines' (2023 Survey Guidelines) and detailed in the Acoustic Bat Survey Study Plan approved by
USFWS on June 15, 2023, attached as Appendix B.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Currently the project area is vacant with the majority of the property south of Lyle Creek having been
farmed for over 30 years with wooded areas along the stream valleys. There were previously two
commercial uses that fronted NC Highway 16; however, the buildings have been removed and only
concrete pads and asphalt remain. The parcel in the northwest portion of the site consists of previously
graded commercial pad sites. Shrub and sapling growth within the fallow fields lack suitable roosting
characteristics for tricolored bats. Upland forests are composed of mature hardwoods with suitable
potential roosts throughout the community. Forested riparian corridors are also composed of mature
hardwoods with suitable roosting potential and are associated with Lyle Creek. Dominant tree species
within the Project include American sycamore (P/atanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), river
birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and white oak (Quercus alba). Suitable flight
corridors for bats exist throughout the site. Aerial imagery on the attached Acoustic Detector Location
Map (Appendix A) reflects current landcover within the Project.
' https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS Range -
wide IBat %26 NLEB Survey Guidelines 2023.05.10 O.pdf
Accessed 5/15/2023.
2.2

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Methods follow those detailed in the study plan submitted to USFWS and approved on June 15, 2023.
The plan follows methods described in Appendix C of the March 2023 Range -wide Indiana Bat &
Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines (2023 Survey Guidelines) for conducting acoustic bat
surveys to determine presence/absence for the tricolored bat.
Per methods outlined in the 2023 Survey Guidelines: Phase 2 Acoustic Surveys, a minimum of 14
detector nights per 123 acres of suitable habitat are required for non -linear projects. At least 2 detector
locations per 123 acres are required over the course of at least 2 calendar nights until a minimum of 14
detector nights have been surveyed. The proposed project area totals 221 acres and consists of
approximately 60 acres of forested clearing as well as some clearing of linear forested rows and
individual trees is required for the Project. The level of survey effort was based upon the acreage of
proposed tree clearing as well as other suitable non -forested habitat within the project area, which
exceeds 123 acres. Therefore, Stantec performed the work in accordance with the accepted protocol,
deploying acoustic bat detectors at 4 locations within the Project for 7 nights, resulting in 28 detector
nights of effort. This level of effort meets the standard level of effort outlined by the 2023 Survey
Guidelines.
Per 2023 Survey Guidelines, a detector night was considered acceptable if temperatures remained above
50°F (10°C) during the first five 5 hours of recording time, precipitation did not exceed 30 minutes
duration or was not intermittent throughout the first five 5 hours of recording time, and sustained winds did
not exceed 9 miles/hour during the first five 5 hours of recording time. Verification of weather conditions
was based on hourly data collected by the nearby weather station at the Hickory Regional Airport. A
summary of weather conditions is provided in Appendix C; Table 1
Stantec used Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini Bat acoustic bat detectors with built-in microphones for
the survey. Detectors were deployed according to the criteria in the 2023 Survey Guidelines and placed in
areas suitable to support bat activity including potential flight corridors that were suitable as tricolored bat
foraging habitat. Detectors were placed in open areas within or adjacent to forested habitats such that
vegetation did not block the detector microphone's area of reception. Coordinates of the final detector
locations are detailed in Appendix C; Table 2. Notes on surrounding habitat, detector deployment and
operation, and analysis also were recorded and are included on data sheets in Appendix D. Personnel
responsible for deploying and downloading detectors and analyzing data were also recorded.
Photographs of each location, showing both the surrounding habitat and the "detector -view", are included
in Appendix E. The audio and data storage settings were set according to defaults recommended by the
manufacturer, with detectors programmed to record from 30 minutes before sunset until 30 minutes after
sunrise. Prior to the deployment of the detectors, each microphone was tested with a Wildlife Acoustics
Ultrasonic Microphone Calibrator to verify that the microphone was performing properly.
Stantec processed the acoustic data using the automated classifier Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro) software
(Version 5.4.8, with classifier version 5.4.0, S/A:-1), which is included on the USFWS' list of approved
candidate software packages for rare bat identification. Per the approved methods, we analyzed the
3.3

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
appropriate number of nights of valid data (7) from each survey location that met the required weather
parameters described above to meet the requirements for non -linear projects. Species range maps for
bats in North Carolina were used to determine appropriate species for analysis (North Carolina
Biodiversity Project and North Carolina State Parks 20232). In coordination with the USFWS Asheville
field office the potential species evaluated in the automated program analysis included: the big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus — EPFU), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis — LABO), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus —
LACI), silver -haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans — LANO), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus — MYLU),
evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis — NYHU), federally proposed and state endangered tricolored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus — PESU) and Mexican free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis - TABR).
Species presence each night was based on a nightly maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of 0.05 or less,
as calculated by KPro. According to 2023 Survey Guidelines, a MILE of less than 0.05 indicates probable
presence and a MLE equal to or greater than 0.05 indicates unlikely presence (probable absence). Since
no files classified as tricolored bat by KPro met the nightly MLE criteria, no qualitative analysis was
conducted per criteria in the 2023 Survey Guidelines. Data files can be made available upon request.
Field evaluations and deployment of the detectors was performed by Stantec biologist Sean Wender, a
USFWS approved survey contact for acoustic bat surveys in Virginia. Initial analysis was conducted by
Sean Wender and the results of the analysis were also reviewed by Laura Berube, a Stantec biologist
with 12 years of acoustic analysis experience. Laura Berube's resume is provided in the attached
acoustic survey study plan (Appendix B). No manual vetting of files was required for the Project as
previously discussed and detailed further in Section 4.0.
4.0 RESULTS
Acoustic surveys were conducted at 4 survey locations within the project area (Appendix A; Figure 1).
Surveys were conducted until 7 suitable detector nights were collected for each survey location, between
June 22-26 and 28-29, 2023, resulting in a total of 28 detector nights for the Project. The location of
each survey location and specific survey dates are included in Appendix C; Table 2.
A total of 5,686 bat passes were recorded and classified by KPro through automated analysis to 8
different species (Appendix C; Table 3). An additional 119 bat passes were recorded but could not be
classified to species by KPro. The most frequently classified species were the Mexican free -tailed bat (n =
1,808; 32%), eastern red bat (n = 1,256; 22%), and little brown bat (n = 955; 17%). Additional species
classified by KPro included the hoary bat (n = 591; 10%), big brown bat (n = 358; 6%), silver -haired bat (n
= 339; 6%), evening bat (n = 260; 5%), and tricolored bat (n = 119; 2%).
KPro calculated probable presence (nightly MLE <0.05) for the following 5 species: big brown bat, eastern
red bat, hoary bat, little brown bat, and Mexican free -tailed bat. Each of these 5 species were calculated
with probable presence at each survey location (Appendix C; Table 3). KPro did not calculate a nightly
2 https://authl.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/accounts.php. Accessed 5/15/2023.
4.4

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
MLE of less than 0.05 for tricolored bat and, therefore, no manual vetting of files classified as tricolored
bat was conducted per USFWS guidelines.
Per USFWS requirements, an electronic version of the USFWS bat spreadsheet Southeastern US 2023
form has been included with the submittal of this report. All reporting documentation and raw data
including log files will be maintained by Stantec for 7 years and be made available to USFWS upon
request.
a.0 CONCLUSIONS
Acoustic bat surveys for the Project followed USFWS 2023 Survey Guidelines, collecting the appropriate
number of detector nights of valid data based on the extent of potential habitat within the project area. No
bat passes classified as the tricolored bat met the MLE criteria.
Based upon the results of the acoustic survey, probable absence of the federally proposed and state
endangered tricolored bat has been confirmed for the Project.
5.5

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Appendix A
Detector Location Map
5.1

MW
n
O
c
Cl)
e-'
n
I Uuu�
Q
4 D 7 7
a a
Q c -0
a � a
3 y C
O Q
O n
5 Q o
O 3
O
Q
0
a
J
.w
Y7!{�
_14

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Appendix B
Acoustic Survey Study Plan
5.2

PROJECT & SURVEY INFORMATION
Project Name:
C LT04
Project Proponent's Name (e.g., client/company/institution):
Project Location: State(s): North Carolina
Latitude: 35.731135
nd Monitoring (v. l.oy
Proposed Survey Start Date: 6/21 /2023
Microsoft Corporation
County(s): Catawba
Longitude: -81.205389
REQUIRED: Attach or provide links to Google Earth' KMZ files (preferred) and/or shapefiles
(mapping must show project boundaries, impacted forest habitat (if known) and all proposed survey sites)
Files are attached: Yes[Z] No❑
File Links:
Project Summary. In the space provided below, please provide a concise statement of what the project proponent is proposing to do
including any activities that will permanently or temporarily alter the current environment and existing habitat features).
The approximate 221-acre project area is bounded to the south by 1st Avenue North (NC 16), to the
northwest by the Conover Solar Park, and in all other directions by private parcels. Currently the
property is vacant with the majority of the property south of Lyle Creek having been farmed for over
30 years with wooded areas along the stream valleys. There were previously two commercial uses
that fronted NC Highway 16; however, the buildings have been removed and only concrete pads
and asphalt remain. The parcel in the northwest portion of the site consists of previously graded
commercial pad sites. The project, as currently designed, will be comprised of five data center
buildings, each with five co -located facilities (colos), substations, and one administration building
with a total capacity of 240MW. For the purposes of this survey all forested areas within the project
LOD were considered suitable potential roosting habitat for the tricolored bat.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Project Manager/Primary Point of Contact (POC):
Field Survey Crew Leader (if different from POC):
Institution/Company Name:
Stantec
Sean Wender
Mailing Address: 1011 Boulder Springs Drive, Suite 225 Richmond, VA 23225
POC Email Address: [e-mail]
USFWS Sec. 10 Permit No.(s) (if applicable):
State Permit No.(s) (if applicable):
Phone: [phone]
Cell Phone:
Unless otherwise directed by the Service, surveyors may complete this Tillable form, in lieu of a traditional narrative format, and
submit it (and supporting files) to the Ecological Services Field Office in the state(s) where the work is to be completed
(https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities). Use of this form is not a requirement at this time. Our goal is to improve pre -survey coordination
and to expedite the Field Office review and approval process. Please submit your study plan at least 15 working days in advance of
your proposed survey start date. Suggestions for improving this document may be sent to Indiana bat(c,fws.gov.
1

Have project proponents been informed that abiding by protective time -of -year restrictions (where available) may be
sufficient to avoid take of bats and (in some cases) may negate the need for a bat survey? Yes❑✓ No ❑
Have project proponents been informed that the Service does not require presence/probable absence surveys for
federally listed species and that presence can be assumed in a project area containing suitable habitat? Yes❑✓ No ❑
Will this survey be conducted on private or public lands? (Check both if applicable): Private❑✓ Public ❑
Has permission of all necessary landowners/managing agencies been obtained? Yes❑✓ No❑
If no, explain:
Does this project have a federal nexus? Yes❑✓ No❑ Unsure❑
If yes, explain:
Clean Water Act Section 404/404 Individual Permit
IPaC2 Consultation Code (if applicable): _2023-0063262
Purpose of Survey:
Survey Target Species:
Official P/A Survey❑✓ Research❑
Educational Outreach/Training ❑ Other:
Indiana bat (IBAT) ❑
Tricolored bat (TCB)❑✓
Monitoring❑
Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) ❑
Other:
Hasa Phase-1 Habitat Assessment* of the project area been conducted? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
If yes, how was the habitat assessment conducted? On -the -ground: ❑ Aerial imagery ❑
(*if available, attach a written report)
Is suitable habitat present (or assumed present) for all "target" species? Yes❑✓ No❑
If no, explain:
Combo ❑
Does this project fall within the outer -tier of any "target" species known home range? Yes❑ No❑ Unsure ✓❑
If yes, which species:
Project Confi urg ation
Is this project linear (> 1 km in total length)? Yes ❑ No❑✓ Combo ❑ Unsure ❑
If yes, how many 1-km sections containing suitable IBAT/NLEB habitat in km (mi) will be impacted?
Is this project non -linear? Yes❑✓ No ❑ Combo❑ Unsure ❑
If yes, how many acres of suitable IBAT/NLEB habitat is in the overall project area?
75
If yes, how many acres of suitable IBAT/NLEB habitat will be directly impacted/cleared? 30
METHODOLOGY & SURVEY LEVEL OF EFFORT
ACOUSTICS
Total number of detector sites proposed to be surveyed: 2
Total number of detector nights for entire survey: 14
Number of detector nights/site: 7
2 https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
3 Survey level of effort (acoustic or netting) must be spread over at least two calendar nights/survey site.
N

Total proposed number of calendar nights to complete the entire survey: 7
Detector(s) (Brand, Model): Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini Bat Microphone(s): directional ❑ omnidirectional ❑✓
Recording Format: Full Spectrum[Z] Zero -Crossing❑
FWS-Approved' Acoustic Bat ID Software: KPro vers. 5.4.8 KPro Classifier, NA vers. 5.4.0 BCID vers.
Other Candidate Programs (e.g., Sonobat) vers.:
Species to be included for automatic software ID classification analysis:
EPFU❑✓ CORA❑ COTO❑ LABO❑✓ LACI❑✓ LANO❑✓ LASED TABR❑ MYCI❑ MYEV❑ MYGR❑ MYLU❑✓
MYLE❑ MYSE❑ MYSO❑ MYTH ❑ MYVO❑ NYHU❑✓ PESU❑✓ Others:
Will qualitative anal (i.e., manual vetting) be used? Yes ✓❑ No ❑ Unsure ❑
Name(s) of qualified biologist(s) who will be conducting qualitative/manual acoustic identifications (attach resume or link
with qualifications): Trevor Peterson, Laura Berube, Caroline Byrne
MIST -NETTING
Total number of net sites to be surveyed: Total number of net nights/site:
Total number of net nights for entire survey (No. of sites X No. of net nights/site):
Total proposed number of calendar nights to complete the entire survey:
A) Maximum number of net set-ups that will be operated/checked (I0-mininterval) on a given calendar night at
a given survey site:
B) Minimum Number of personnel present to operate/check X (see A) net set-ups on a given site:
C) Proposed Staffing Rate (A divided by B):
Staffing Rate
Number of Section 10-permitted biologists per net site (or state -permitted in USFWS R5):
Will any bats be banded? Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, describe your proposed bands (color and letter -numbers) and banding scheme:
Will any biological samples be collected from captured bats (e.g., guano, hair, swab, wing punch)? Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, explain:
RADIO -TRACKING
Will any bats be radio -tagged and tracked? Yes❑ No❑
If yes, please answer following:
Which species will be radio -tagged?
Name of USFWS Section 10 permitted biologist(s) who will apply transmitter(s):
Make/model and approximate weight of transmitter(s) to be used:
Estimated life -span of transmitters to be used:
Frequency range (MHz) of transmitters (e.g., 150.xxx or 172.xxx):
If radio -tracking multiple targeted bats/species, what criteria will be used in selecting which bats will be tracked?
Will all radio -tagged bats be tracked min. of 4-hrs. search effort/day) to their diurnal roosts for the minimum
recommended period of 7 days? Yes No ❑
' https://www.fws.gov/media/automated-acoustic-bat-id-software-programs

If no, explain:
Will night-time foraging data/telemetry be collected? Yes❑ No
EMERGENCE SURVEYS
After diurnal roost sites of radio -tagged bats are identified, will emergence surveys be conducted at each identified roost
(assuming landowner permission is obtained)? Yes❑ No ❑
If yes, how many emergence surveys/roost?
Have you identified a small number (e.g., <10) of potentially suitable roost trees* that you propose to conduct emergence
surveys for? Yes ❑ No ❑
(*If yes, provide photographs of each tree documenting that all of the tree can be observed by the surveyor along with
coordinates (lat/long and/or KMLIshapefile) of all trees to be surveyed.)
POTENTIAL HIBERNACULA SURVEYS
Are you aware of any known hibernacula used by the target species within the project area itself or nearby?
Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑
If yes or unknown, list sites or explain:
Has your desktop analysis identified any natural or man-made features that could be used as a hibemaculum by any of the
target bat species? Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown ❑
If yes, underground features (e.g., caves, mines, tunnels, bunkers, cisterns) present: Yes ❑
If yes, above -ground features* (e.g., crawl spaces) present: Yes ❑ No❑
If unknown, explain:
No ❑
Are you requesting approval of a field survey for potential hibernacula at this time? Yes*[:] No ❑
(*If yes, attach a separate narrative explaining how the project area(s) will be surveyed for potential hibernacula.)
Are you submitting the results of a Phase 1 Habitat Assessment of potentially suitable hibernacula identified from field
surveys? Yes*❑ No❑
(*If yes, provide a Phase I Habitat Assessment Data Sheet for each potential hibernaculum/portal(s)5 identified to be surveyed.)
ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION
Will the proposed bat survey deviate from the current version of the USFWS summer survey guidelines?' Yes❑ No0
If yes, provide justification for any departures or modifications to the guidelines (if applicable) below:
I hereby acknowledge that the information being provided to the Service is accurate and complete as of today's date.
Signature:
Digitally signed by Sean M. A/ ^/A 0 A
Sean M. Wender Wender (�,.,:J 1 {`.,J+LJLJ
Date: 2023.05.11 16:21:49-04'00'
Date:
5 If multiple cave entrances/portals, please list all locations.
6 Attach additional pages to this form, if needed.
7 Proposed surveys deviating from the current IBAT & NLEB Summer Survey Guidelines will only be accepted with a thoroughly described
justification. Coordinate with your local USFWS Field Office (https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities) for acceptable modifications.
4

MW
I Uuu�
Q
4 D 7 7
a a
Q c o
a � a
3 y C
O Q
O n
5 Q o
O 3
O
Q
0
a
J
.w
Y7!!
_14

i�c
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
03�/ Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0063262
Project Name: CLT04- Lyle Creek Site
March 31, 2023
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

03/31/2023
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 BABE 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 maybe 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-
handhnnk.
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

03/31/2023
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]

03/31/2023
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0063262
Project Name: CLT04- Lyle Creek Site
Project Type: Clearing Forest
Project Description: Tree clearing for data center/solar farm for Microsoft
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/035.7364021,-81!19819275842687,14z
Counties: Catawba County, North Carolina

03/31/2023 3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 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
Fisheries1, 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.
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
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
REPTILES
NAME
Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Population: U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC, TN, VA)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
INSECTS
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
STATUS
Threatened
Proposed
Endangered
STATUS
Similarity of
Appearance
(Threatened)
STATUS
Candidate

03/31/2023
4
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexasrylis nani flora Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

03/31/2023
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.

03/31/2023
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
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.
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 25
and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 31
and Alaska.

03/31/2023
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10
and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31
and Alaska.
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.

03/31/2023
Survey Effort (1)
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.
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 I survey effort — no data
SPECIES
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC
I i I I I I I
—' i --'——+�
Vulnerable
Chimney Swift
+� ++
III
IIII
IIII
Nib—'+—+++
BCC Rangewide
k■i"'�I
(CON)
Prairie Warbler
'IIII
IIII
IIII
—rt
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
WoodRpeckerangewide
+�'— ++++ +��— —�++ +III
IIII
IIII
IIII
V_BCC
(CON)
Wood Thrush
+�+—+++++��— —�++ Jill
BCC Rangewide
IIII
qIII
IIII
(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/avoidine-and-minimizinp--incidental-take-mip-ratorv-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.

03/31/2023 4
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.
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
(BCQ 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 10km 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?

03/31/2023 5
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
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 Lorin.
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

03/31/2023
C.
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
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.

03/31/2023
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.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
■ PSS1Ax
■ PF01Ax
RIVERINE
■ R5UBH
■ R4SBC
■ R2UBH
FRESHWATER POND
■ PUBHh

03/31/2023
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers
Name: Trevor Walker
Address: 521 East Morehead Street
Address Line 2: Suite 425
City:
Charlotte
State:
NC
Zip:
28202
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
9802977631

Laura Berube
Project Scientist
12 years of experience • Topsham, Maine
Laura is a Project Scientist for projects involving avian
studies for pre- and post -construction projects in the
Northeastern United States. Laura is a wildlife
biologist with strong bird identification skills and the
ability to identify bird species by both sight and sound.
She has recently performed diverse avian studies for
a number of renewable energy projects in the
Northeastern United States, with field work including
visual raptor surveys, eagle point count surveys,
nocturnal migrant radar surveys, breeding bird
surveys, and acoustic bat surveys. Laura is proficient
in data management, analysis, summary, and
vigorous QAQC for a variety of avian wildlife surveys.
Laura is also proficient in acoustic bat analysis
including the use of automated analysis programs:
Kaleidoscope, BCID, EchoClass, and Sonobat.
Laura is also responsible for conducting vernal pool
surveys and natural resource assessments and
supporting wetland delineations to assist with the
preparation of local, state, and federal permit
applications. She has worked on a variety of natural
community and rare plant surveys and projects
ranging from general reconnaissance observations to
quantitative community- and species -specific surveys.
These projects have involved natural community
mapping and analysis for transportation projects, utility
corridors, and development sites.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
• Stantec Consulting. 2010-present. Project Scientist.
• University of Maine. 2009. Wildlife Department Field
Assistant.
EDUCATION
Bat Conservation and Management - Acoustic Data
Management Workshop, Bat Survey Solutions, LLC -
Janet Tyburec and John Chenger, Fairfield, Maine, 2015
Bachelor of Science, Wildlife Ecology, University of
Maine, Orono, Maine, 2010
Wilderness First Aid Certified, SOLO, Topsham, Maine,
2014
40-Hour HAZWOPER Certification, Topsham, Maine,
2014
OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification, ClickSafety,
Topsham, Maine, 2012
MEMBERSHIPS
Secretary/Treasurer, 2014-2019, The Wildlife Society,
Maine
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
NATURAL RESOURCE SERVICES
Record Hill Wind Farm Raptor Surveys, Roxbury, Maine
Conducted raptor surveys to determine species, locations,
and behavior in relation to proposed wind turbines.
Analyzed data for reporting purposes related to impact
assessment and permitting efforts.
Rollins Wind Farm Post -Construction Mortality Monitoring
and Raptor Surveys, Maine
Conducted bird and bat mortality ground searches (a
requirement of utility -scale wind power developments in
Maine). Evaluated as having high searcher efficiency
scores for the on -the -ground trials. Responsible for
scavenger surveys, which involved the placement and
monitoring of carcasses and use of game cameras. Also
conducted raptor surveys to determine species, locations,
and behavior in relation to proposed wind turbines.
Analyzed data for reporting purposes related to impact
assessment and permitting efforts.
Eastern Box Turtle Protection Plan and Construction,
Brewster, Massachusetts
Conducted regular fence inspection in accordance with
and NHESP-approved Eastern Box Turtle Protection Plan
designed to protect box turtles in compliance with MESA
during construction of a pump station development
project. Responsible for documenting the presence of
any box turtles in the vicinity of the fencing and reporting
deficiencies in the fencing to appropriate personnel.
Stetson I and II Wind Farms Post -Construction
Monitoring, Maine
Conducted bird and bat mortality ground searches (a
requirement of utility -scale wind power developments in
Maine). Evaluated as having high searcher efficiency
scores for the on -the -ground trials. Responsible for
scavenger surveys, which involved the placement and
monitoring of carcasses and use of game cameras.
Oakfield Wind Project Avian Studies I Maine
Conducted raptor surveys to determine species, locations,
and behavior in relation to proposed wind turbines.
Analyzed data for reporting purposes related to impact
assessment and permitting efforts.

Ecological Characterizations I Coos County, New
Hampshire
Conducted surveys for rare, threatened, and endangered
species of plants and wildlife, assessments of existing
wildlife habitat values, and mapping of wetland and
stream resources in a remote area of New Hampshire.
Hand Analysis of Bat Data I Topsham, Maine
Conducted analysis of bat detector data to determine
species of bats for multiple project sites. Analysis results
were then provided to clients to assist with their project
planning and permit applications in compliance with
applicable local, state, and federal natural resource
regulations.
Wind Project I Eastern Maine
Project scientist responsible for organization, progress,
and safety of field staff through the field work phase
(wetland delineations, vernal pool surveys, and other
natural resource mapping) of large-scale wind power
development. Responsible for data management and
associated reporting of findings to accompany state and
federal permit applications.
Natural Resource Advisory Role in Oil Spill Response
Large Interstate Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico 12010
Natural Resource Advisor
Natural Resource Advisor (NRA) conducting
environmental oversight of oil spill cleanup activities in
compliance with an emergency consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. NRAs worked
directly with operational cleanup crews to implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs served as
the formal technical guidance issued under the
emergency consultation. The objective of this work was
to minimize secondary impacts of the cleanup activities
on protected resources, including sea turtles, migratory
and nesting shorebirds, beach mice, mangrove wetlands,
estuaries, coastal wetlands, and dune systems.
Implemented BMPs and conducted surveys for piping
plover and sea turtles within designated critical habitats.
Conducted training and oversight of cleanup crews and
prepared daily reports documenting NRA activities.
Worked closely with cleanup operations to provide
education on BMPs and documenting daily compliance
for use in USFWS consultation process and evaluation of
secondary impacts to protected resources as part of the
Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA).
Proposed Wind Project Bird and Bat Surveys, Coye Hill,
Connecticut
Conducted pre -construction wind project development
surveys and impact assessments for a proposed wind
project in Connecticut. These assessments included
raptor surveys, acoustic bat surveys, and breeding bird
surveys.
Beech Hill Wind Project I Aroostook County, Maine
Assisted in wetland delineations, vernal pool surveys, and
Global Positioning System surveys for a proposed 34-
turbine wind project and associated 67-mile transmission
line. Identified streams and Wetlands of Special
Significance based on the criteria in the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection's Natural
Resource Protection Act. Characterized wetland and
waterbody resources based the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et. al 1979).
Documented the biological and physical characteristics of
potential vernal pool habitat based on the criteria of the
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Proposed Wind Project I Central Maine
Conducted wetland delineations, vernal pool surveys, and
Global Positioning System surveys over an area totaling
approximately 6,800 acres for a proposed 55-turbine wind
project in Central Maine. Determined wetland boundaries
using the technical criteria described in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Identified streams and
Wetlands of Special Significance based on the criteria in
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's
Natural Resource Protection Act. Characterized wetland
and waterbody resources based the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et. al 1979).
Documented the biological and physical characteristics of
potential vernal pool habitat based on the criteria of the
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Orangeville, Marsh Hill, and Sheldon Wind Projects, Post
Construction Monitoring I Western New York I Technician
Supervisor
Supervised four post -construction monitoring technicians.
Responsible for timecard and expense approval, tracking
completion of safety trainings, and communicating with
staff about needs while in the field.
Proposed Solar and Infrastructure Update Projects
Vermont I Project Manager
Wrote the proposals and was Project Manager for
proposed projects requiring northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) surveys. Responsible for client
and agency communication, managing of field staff and
field survey completion, and the completion of final reports
and delivery to client to assist with their project planning
and permit applications in compliance with applicable
state and federal natural resource regulations.
Proposed Wind Project I Maine I Project Manager
Project Manager for proposed wind project requiring pre -
construction avian and wildlife surveys. Responsible for
client and agency communication, managing of field staff
and field survey completion, and the completion of final
reports and delivery to client to assist with their project
planning and permit applications in compliance with
applicable state and federal natural resource regulations.

Proposed Wind Project, Down East Maine
Conducted pre -construction wind project development
surveys and impact assessments for a proposed wind
project in Maine. These assessments included raptor
surveys, eagle point count surveys, acoustic bat surveys,
nocturnal radar surveys, and breeding bird surveys.
Analyzed and reported on data for reporting purposes
related to impact assessment and permitting efforts.
Post -construction Avian Fatality Monitoring at a
Developed Wind Project I New Hampshire I Project
Manager
Project Manager of the post -construction monitoring
survey conducted at a developed wind project in New
Hampshire. Responsible for client and agency
communication, managing of field staff and field survey
completion, and the completion of final reports and
delivery to client and applicable state and federal natural
resource agencies to assist with the compliance of the
permit.
Automated Program Analysis of Bat Data I Topsham,
Maine
Conducted analysis of bat detector data using
Kaleidoscope, BCID, and Sonabat software to determine
species of bats for multiple project sites. Analysis results
were provided to clients to assist with their project
planning and permit applications in compliance with
applicable state and federal natural resource regulations.
Agency Meeting and Site Visit for Proposed Wind
Project, Down East Maine
Attended a pre -application agency consultation meeting
for a proposed wind project in Down East Maine.
Attended a site visit at proposed project area with client
and agency representatives. Provided information on pre -
construction wildlife field surveys conducted by Stantec
at proposed wind project.
Data Manager I Topsham, Maine
Responsible for managing data related to bird and bat
studies conducted by the office. Responsible for the
retrieval, and placement of data to assist in effective
report writing and limiting of possible liability.
Rollins Wind Project Invasive Species Monitoring
Lincoln, Maine
Conducted invasive species surveys along a recently
constructed transmission line right-of-way according to
the standards and methods developed in the Invasive
Species Management Plan.
Ichthyoplankton Sampling I Field Technician
Assisted in ichtyoplankton field sampling to characterize
the marine egg and larvae community present and
potentially susceptible to impingement and entrainment
at the cooling water intake structure of a facility
withdrawing cooling water from Penobscot Bay, in
support of the Clean Water Act 316(b) for a confidential
client. The results of the sampling will be included in
316b report and would be used to inform the design of
the impingement control system to be eventually
installed.
Schedule Coordinator I Topsham, Maine
Proposed Wind Project, Western New York
Conducted eagle point count surveys to determine eagle
locations and behavior in relation to proposed wind
turbines. Assisted in survey design, mapping, and
implementation. Preformed quality assurance and control
on data to inform potential collision risk of eagles as a
result of the project.
Proposed Linear Project I New Brunswick, Canada
Conducted surveys for rare, threatened, and endangered
species of plants and wildlife, assessments of existing
wildlife habitat values, and mapping of wetland and
stream resources.
Groton Wind Farm, Raptor Surveys, Breeding Bird
Surveys, Nocturnal Migrant Radar Surveys I Grafton
County, New Hampshire I Task Manager
Responsible for the staffing and scheduling of field
surveys. Also responsible for task managing the
completion of sections of the final report to be delivered to
the client. Conducted raptor, breeding bird, and nocturnal
migrant radar surveys.. Analyzed data for reporting
purposes related to impact assessment and permitting
efforts.
Bull Hill Wind Farm Post -Construction Monitoring, Maine
Conducted bird and bat mortality ground searches (a
requirement of utility -scale wind power developments in
Maine). Responsible for scavenger surveys, which
involved the placement and monitoring of carcasses and
use of game cameras. Responsible for searcher
efficiency trials, which involved the placement and
monitoring of carcass retrieval by other surveyors.
Proposed Wind Projects I Maine I Task Manager
Responsible for the staffing and scheduling of field
surveys including visual raptor surveys, eagle point count
surveys, breeding bird surveys, and acoustic bat surveys.
Also responsible for task managing the completion of
sections of the final reports to be delivered to clients to
assist with their project planning and permit applications in
compliance with applicable state and federal natural
resource regulations.
Proposed Wind Project I Northern California
Analyzed crepuscular radar data targeting federally
threatened and state endangered marbled murrelets
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) and reviewed and
managed acoustic bat survey data for reporting purposes
related to impact assessment and permitting efforts.
Block Island Wind Farm, Offshore I Rhode Island
Conducted analysis of bat detector data using
Kaleidoscope software and provided quality review of bat
call determinations by the software to determine species
of bats. Analysis results were provided to the client to
assist with the project's compliance of applicable state
and federal natural resource regulations.

Proposed Wind Project, Offshore I Northeast and Mid -
Atlantic US
Conducted analysis of bat detector data using
Kaleidoscope software and provided quality review of bat
call determinations by the software to determine species
of bats. Analysis results were provided to the client to
assist with planning and permit applications in
compliance with applicable state and federal natural
resource regulations.

EDUCATION
PhD Ecology and
Environmental Sciences ,
University of Maine, Orono,
ME, 2020
AB, Biology/Environmental
Studies, Summa cum Laude,
Phi Beta Kappa, Bowdoin
College, Brunswick, Maine,
2002
Semester Program in Costa
Rica, Tropical Field Biology,
Environmental Studies, and
Spanish, Duke University,
Durham, North Carolina, 2000
CERTIFICATIONS &
TRAINING
Habitat Conservation Plan
Training, US Fish and Wildlife
Service National Conservation
Training Center,
Shepherdstown, WV, 2010
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, Northeast Regional
Migration Monitoring Network
Member, Northeast Bat
Working Group
Member, The Wildlife Society
Maine, May 2011-present
PUBLICATIONS
Peterson, T.. Predicting and
managing risk to bats at
commercial wind farms using
acoustics. A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the
degree of doctor of
philosophy, University of
Maine., 2020.
Pelletier, S.K., K.S. Omland,
K.S. Watrous and T.S.
Peterson, Information
synthesis on the potential for
bat interactions with offshore
wind facilities - final report. US
Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Headquarters.
Herndon, Virginia. OCS Study
Trevor Peterson PhD
Project Manager, Senior Wildlife Biologist
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
RENEWABLE ENERGY, OFFSHORE
Tracking Bats using Nanotag Telemetry in the Gulf of Maine
Senior Biologist and Project Manager. Developed and implemented survey
techniques to track bats along the Maine coast using nanotag technology.
Constructed and installed 5 telemetry receivers along the coast to
supplement an existing network of monitoring stations. Project was funded
by Stantec and supported by federal, state, academic, and NGO partners.
Regional Offshore Acoustic Bat Monitoring I Gulf of Maine, mid -Atlantic,
Great lakes
Senior Biologist and Project Manager. Developed and implemented survey
techniques and data analysis for long-term (2009-2014) acoustic bat
monitoring in the Gulf of Maine, mid -Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Surveys
included long-term monitoring at over 40 locations including remote islands,
offshore weather buoys, ships, and coastal sites. Project was funded by
Stantec, the US Department of Energy, and supported by federal, state,
academic, and NGO partners.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Avian and Bat Surveys at New Creek Wind Energy Project I Grant County,
West Virginia
Project Manager, Field Supervisor, Expert Witness. Managed pre -
construction agency consultation and bird and bat surveys, and coordinated
field efforts, including breeding bird surveys, raptor surveys, bat mist -netting
surveys, bat telemetry surveys, acoustic bat surveys, carcass monitoring,
and curtailment studies. Managed post -construction fatality monitoring and
nacelle -height acoustic monitoring to design activity -based informed
curtailment programs to reduce impacts to bats.
Avian and Bat Surveys at Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project I Randolph
and Barbour Counties, West Virginia
Project Manager, Field Supervisor, Expert Witness. Conducted bird and bat
field surveys within proposed wind project. Coordinated pre -construction
and post -construction field efforts, including breeding bird surveys, raptor
surveys, bat mist -netting surveys, acoustic bat surveys, carcass monitoring,
and curtailment studies. Managed correspondence between the developer,
operator, and state and federal wildlife agencies. Prepared survey reports,
avian bird and bat risk assessment, testimony, and a site -specific Avian and
Bat Protection Plan.
Activity -based Informed Curtailment: Using Acoustics to Design and
Validate Smart Curtailment at Wind Farms 12019 - 2022 1 Prinicipal
Investigator
Dr. Peterson serves as the principal investigator for this multi -year study of
the use of acoustic bat data recorded at wind turbines to design and
evaluate activity -based informed curtailment alternatives designed to
manage risk to bats with minimal loss of renewable energy generation.
NATURAL RESOURCE SERVICES
Acoustic Bat Surveys: Proposed Road Corridors I Tennessee
Technical and Field Supervisor. Conducted acoustic bat surveys in a variety

BOEM 2013-01163. 119 pp,
2013.
Peterson, T.S., S.K. Pelletier,
S.A. Boyden, and K.S.
Watrous. Offshore acoustic
monitoring of bats in the Gulf
of Maine. Northeastern
Naturalist 21(1): 86-107,
2014.
Peterson, T.S. Bats offshore!.
WREN Webinar Presented
Online, 2016.
Peterson, T.S., S.K. Pelletier
and M. Giovanni. Long-term
bat monitoring on islands,
offshore structures, and
coastal Sites in the Gulf of
Maine, mid -Atlantic, and
Great Lakes - final report.
Prepared for the US
Department of Energy, 2016.
Peterson, T.S.
Unprecedented change in
Maine bats; evidence of the
widespread effects of white -
noise syndrome. Presented at
the Maine Chapter of the
Wildlife Society 41 st Annual
Meeting, Bangor, Maine,
2017.
Peterson, T.S. Bats in the
rotor zone... managing risk
with acoustics. Presented at
the 2nd International Bat
Echolocation Symposium,
Tuscon, Arizona, 2017.
Johnson, J.S., L.E. Dodd, J.D.
Kiser, T.S. Peterson, and K.S.
Watrous. Food Habits of
Myotis leibii along a Forested
Ridgetop in West Virginia.
Northeastern Naturalist 19(4):
665-672, 2012.
Johnson, J.S., K.S. Watrous,
G.J. Giumarro, T.S. Peterson,
S.A. Boyden, and M.J. Lacki.
Seasonal and geographic
trends in acoustic detection of
tree -roosting bats. Acta
Chiropterologica, 13(1): 157-
168, 2011.
Johnson, J.S., J.D. Kiser, K.S.
Watrous, and T.S. Peterson.
Day -roosts of Myotis leibii in
the Appalachian Ridge and
Valley of West Virginia.
Northeastern Naturalist 18 (1):
95-106., 2011.
Peterson, T.S., A. Uesugi,
and J. Lichter. Tree
recruitment limitation by
introduced snowshoe hares,
Lepus americanus, on Kent
Island, New Brunswick.
Canadian Field Naturalist 119
(4). 569-572, 2005.
of habitats within 67-kilometer long segments of multiple potential highway
corridors within a National Forest for the Tennessee Department of
Transportation. Completed data analysis and prepared survey reports.
Eastern Box Turtle Protection Plan, Construction Monitoring, and Relocation
Duxbury, Massachusetts
Field Scientist. Mr. Peterson developed a protocol to protect box turtles
during construction in compliance with MESA, and participated in fieldwork
efforts, which included pre -construction searches, construction monitoring,
turtle handling/relocation, and habitat management.
Blue -Spotted Salamander Surveys and Relocation I Reading,
Massachusetts
Field Scientist. Mr. Peterson developed and implemented a survey protocol
to inventory, identify, and relocate blue and yellow -spotted salamanders
from an upland area proposed for development. Coordinated
communications with state wildlife agencies.
Diamondback Terrapin Habitat Assessment and Nesting Surveys
Massachusetts
Field Scientist. Mr. Peterson developed survey protocols and conducted an
assessment of suitable habitat features to evaluate mating and nesting
activities of a newly discovered diamondback terrapin population at a former
landfill proposed for mixed use development in southern Massachusetts.
Indiana Bat and Rare Bird Surveys at Proposed Wind Energy Project
Jefferson and Oswego Counties, New York
Project Manager and Field Supervisor. Coordinated multiple years of habitat
evaluations, acoustic bat surveys, and radio telemetry surveys for Indiana
bats at a proposed wind project in northwestern New York. Mr. Peterson
also coordinated and conducted field surveys for breeding birds and rare
birds within the area.
Spotted Turtle and Vernal Pool Monitoring on Greenbush Railroad
Southeastern Massachusetts
Project Manager, Field Team Leader, Field Technician. Managed a field
crew responsible for monitoring the water quality, invertebrate diversity,
amphibian populations, and plant communities within vernal pools located in
a commuter rail corridor. Led efforts to document and track populations of
spotted turtles within the same corridor. Assisted with development of
amphibian/turtle crossing structures, and protocols for testing the
effectiveness of these structures.
Natural Community Surveys and Resource Inventory I Moosehead Lake
Region, Maine
Field Scientist. Mr. Peterson conducted natural community surveys and rare
species surveys, classified natural communities, identified rare plants and
animals, and evaluated potential wildlife habitat within parcels proposed for
development and conservation within a large proposed development in
Maine's north woods.

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Appendix C
Tables
5.1

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Table 1: Weather Conditions
Survey Date
Temperature (IF)
Minimum
Mean Wind Speed
(mph)
Precipitation
Finches
6/22/2023
64
3.3
0
6/23/2023
64
2.5
0
6/24/2023
64
3.9
0
6/25/2023
64
3.4
0
6/26/2023
68
3.5
0
6/28/2023
57
2
0
6/29/2023
60
1.3
0
Table 2: Survey Location Details
Survey
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Survey Dates
Survey Hours
D 1
35.73293
-81.20665
6/22-26, 6/28-29/2023
-2000 - 0700
D2
35.73652
-81.20264
6/22-26, 6/28-29/2023
-2000 - 0700
D3
35.73638
-81.19740
6/22-26, 6/28-29/2023
-2000 - 0700
D4
35.73310
-81.20001
6/22-26, 6/28-29/2023
-2000 - 0700
5.1

r N
O
A
w
N
�
r+ N
O M
3
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o,
o,
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
of
rn
rn
m
o,
rn
of
rn
rn
of
o,
o,
rn
rn
o,
o,
rn
rn
s
,�
N
lD
N
W
N
01
N
Ul
N
N
W
N
N
N
lD
N
00
N
C)
N
Ul
N
N
W
N
N
N
lD
N
00
N
Cl
N
W
N
-Pb
N
W
N
N
N
lD
N
00
N
Ol
N
L l
N
A
N
W
N
N
�
_W
m
m
04
cr
L l
lD
V
V
W
00
F-
-P.0
lD
O
O
V
Ul
N
N
V
W
m
V
N
�
W
N
W
V
Ln
T
c
(A
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
iD
0
N
N
O
i
O
W
O
O
i--
r
m
'+
F-I
F-I
F-I
w
F"
O
O
F-I
W
w
F,
F,
F-
V
F,
F�
F ,
O
F"
W
�
I-'
N
00
O
H'
V
00
sv
m
y
W
N
W
N
A
W
M
Ln
Ln
Ul
F-
F-
�
F"
NM
F�
FA
W
M
V
W
�
F
N
W
N
N
w
y
IA
rt
M
Ql
a)
F"
O
4:�b
O
V
O
O
M
N
W
Ql
W
V
In
In
O
A
V
W
W
N
O
M
(A
W
W
O
A
C
r
sv
rt
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
m
'*
x
rt
0p
r(D
V
y
(D
O
m
rD
O+
N
A
O
Ul
00
F-
W
V
m
N
V
Ln
In
O)
O
V
Ol
Cn
00
w
Cn
N
w
N
N
O
y
A_
n
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Z
�
ram+
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
m
Q
I-+
F+
N
N
O
w
In
N
F+
O
O
F+
W
w
I-,
w
I-b
F+
I-b
I-b
N
F,
Fh
N
F+
O
F+
F+
v
m
LA
M
z
D
N
N
F"
�
N
W
I-,
I-�
F
N
I�
W
I--�
I�
Vf
=
O
00
00
N
A
M
W
(J7
O
F�
F"
V
M
M
L-
N
Ln
00
A
W
Ul
Ul
F
O
�
W
V
Z
O
_
n
zT
0
0
3
m
•-'
a
r
'+
r
mLA
N
w
3
'*
m
Ln
Ul
N
W
00
fjl
N
Ul
N
W
�
N
-D-
N
V
O
M
F-
-D-
Ol
W
N
N
w
W
Ql
V
00
F"
Ql
CJ1
00
q1
N
W
Ol
N
V
Ph
�
00
Ol
N
00
00
V)
O
S
-Ph
O
m
c
O
O
O
O
C)O
O
O
O
O
O
3
A
3
a'
lD
iD
Oo
O
Cn
O
O
O
O
O
i
m
r+
F,
U'1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
v
LA
m
m
m
N
w
W
V
F-
W
V
00
V
00
l0
VW
lD
F�
N
O
V
F�
A
V
�
V
Ul
Ln
W
F
M
M
LA
<
r)
=
3
C
QrQ
a
O
r
m
LA
M
m
o
N
W
41�
W
W
01
V
M
ID
M
Ul
N
1-11
W
N
N
-rb.
V
F-1
I--'
W
N
W
N
N
CA
—1
C
W
SZ
Cr
r
m
'+
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F,
v
N
m
X.
W
F-'
-0.
Ul
l0
W
Ol
00
lD
w
l0
Ln
F�
N
N
N
W
A
F�
F�
N
I"
U7
N
N
F"
w
N
Ul
4�.
V
P.
W
W
.0.
N
00
4�b
m
00
.0b
V
N
a)
W
0
00
M
N
O
�
F-
A
�
F-
W
Iv
70
�► fD
D
m
A
0
A
o
A
O
A
O
A
O
A
O
m
M
0
0
0
0
0
o
Q-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F+
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
0
F+
I-+
I-+
a,
s
rD
w
rD
n
rD'
V)
70
rD
n
O
0-
rD
a
N
N
C
G
rD
r
O
n
v
0
D
Ln

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Appendix D
Field Data Sheets
5.1

Stantec Presence/Absence Acoustic Bat Detector Datasheet ®Stantec
Detector Location ID: Project ProjNumber:IW%roject Name:
Lat: — ll� I t 'Dbd� C�-T.a � Pg of
���� State: �L County Weather Weather Conditions During
` ►�C Depi1m
Long:. �t—�O S Date Meats Critsrls (YIN)
Site Selector: Sean Wender Low TemD �^
Deployer: Sean Wender Rain (Y/N)
Date Deployed: / �dol/a 3 Rain length
Date Collected:
713Id-3 Wind Avg.
Detector Setup
Detector Make: //Wildlife Acoustics Detector Model: Song Meter Mini Bat Dist to Obstruct (ft): to
Microphone Model: �pCt; . Directionality: Omnidirectional Mic Height (AGL;ft): 10
Weatherproofing: NA Mic Angle: 0 Call Data Type: Full Spectrum
Mic Direction (deg): In -Field Calibration: PASS FAIL Notes:
VEGETATION AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS Detector Startup
Habitat Type: L me�L `ri @..rz a''/` (USFWS answers: creek/npanan, pond, mine
portal, field edge, bottomland forest, cave entrance, Detector # O Dx q
bridge, o en field, upla d forest sWcNre, other)
Canopy Closure (%): N: E: l S: JD W: lO Avg:557,E SD Card ID (A/B): A
Estimated Subcanopy Closure: Closed ` Moderate Open % Closure_EQCard Formatted: N�CS
Do inant Sized Canopy Species:_. .. Avg. DBH inches b'�'l
Battery: �6 S v
l.(0��} ]y. �u Qi2 �Q f6 Firmware up to date: �c S
3. v 14• rime/Date Correct: �e S
1
3.
Subcanopy Dominant Species
I'#
Roost Tree Potential Consists of:
Roost Tree Numbers for Area:
Travel Corridor Present:
Overall Habitat: 6;)
Avg. DBH inches ' Confirm Schedule: Record 30 min before sunset to
`'f f j "_ '1 _ 30 minutes after sunrise
14.
3.
—
Large Trees Snags
High Moderate Low
es No
Good Fair Poor
Potential Mist Net Locations: (Yes) No Number
o �T
Detector Retrieval
Nights of Data (verify with SD card reader):
�;surN
Sufficient Data Collected (Y/N):
h If No describe issue in notes:
None
If Yes download data from SD card in office to server
and/or external hard drive. Do not delete data.
Replace SD card with alternate card (A or B).
If deployment of a new detector is required fill out
applicable sections on a new datasheet.
Notes:

A-PPENDIX A: PHASE i HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
'se A dil i0r4l 5 ch 10 A"cs(i di1crrtc hall ilal 1 6�ii a mull• k siIcs in a m'cct area
brcltrdr a nrap dMcnV &arena afsaenpla srres if nrrrs 11 &scneAl habdW of multiple sires irr a peajeer aw
A singie JWsf cmr bt uwdfar muinplt sample siber,fhabdat to dw saw
mple She Description
mplc site Ngsy.
01
attr Resources at Sam Sale
ream'Typc Erdrerncrld fraerntrtunl Pe!
told len h
ols/Ponde and aoocsslhle to
and rise}
etlends Permrrnnt Seasarte[
L aC.l
felt Resaaren at Sample SRe
—.—A*. W, 1 C4—m idctnn•f'rLVn
iotlnasfa Specks
3talmTrees
N ;Jtr�iaac
-
ul+v4l'
Trees wI
loStalirtR Bark
[�
m Coep ojWn 01
Smal1(3-S n)
med (9-3 5 n)
Largc (s 15 in)
Ve Trees (%)
_
, ,,,...,
W, ti�� yt ucru ucca w icn cunu8lu�, im[f` tintl�, Crc1•lCSs, C7 honows. `�6S
wrthixi dkr w clnracterisera we not cmmdercd aeimbk.
;iL
Ucticrmfx c�� eondnron a{!-urater
xxueex L�t cme
IS THE H iWAT SVPI'ABLE FOR 1nDLANA RATS? S ` J
IS THE HABITAT SUITABLE FOR NORTHERN LOMC-EARED BATS? le S
2•11 :01,� 3-21.4Vi, 4-41Wk
5-61.80'k 6-81- I00ti
S�rAo,.4^ A-1 C`vt�1�4r
CLj Ci +-� W"In
I V
Attach aerlel photo of project sht wilh all fOrealed ere*a labeled and a geuer id descrlptloa of the Irebitatl
Ph04rspiric Documentation; habitat slroRs at edge and imeriar from muhiple lots am:
underatory+midztor} dcanop} cam Plez d Poe* al suinblo -V and 4VC tame; paler salacca
21

..w�� U Stantec
Stantec Presence/Absence Acoustic Bat Detector Datasheet
Detector Location ID: {1� Project Number: Project Name: ',LMap c_LT.� Pg of
Lat: Lam— State; County: Weather Conditions During
.� Deployment
Long:. ' . � .� Date Meta crltwis ffIN)
Site Selector: Sean Wender Low Temp —Criteria Met
Deployer: Sean Wender Rain (Y/N) See Report
Date Deployed: 61 Rain length
(hrs) Table l
Date Collected: "�' 3 a.3 Wind Avg. 'I I '
Detector Make: Wildlife Acoustics
Microphone Model: 12' 1F- ti
Weatherproofing: NA
n 0
Mic Direction (deg): d,
Detector Setup
Detector Model: Song Meter Mini Bat
Directionality: Omnidirectional
Mic Angle: 01
In -Field Calibration] PASS FAIL
Dist to Obstruct (ft): 50
Mic Height (AGL;ft):
Call Data Type: Full Spectrum
Notes:
V t13t I AI IVN ANV MA161I A I L,HAKAU I tKla I IL b Detector Startup
Habitat Type: � �(, f 4 G (USFWS answers: creeVnpanan, pond, mine (� 1
O pone], field edge, bottomlend forest, Cave envance, Detector # 0�jql p`
bridge, open field, upland loresl, struclure, olherj
Canopy Closure (°I°): N: E: S: SO W: Q Avg: 3s7c, SD Card 0 (AIB):
Estimated Subcanopy Closure: Closed Moderate pen % Closures
Card Formatted: �t5
Dominant Sized Cana y Species: Avg. DBH inches Battery: 4r S
2' &
Firmware up to date: 'CcS
►fc+G"� �itf tJieL� ` KJ
3' l -QA 4. Time/Date Correct: qt 5
10
Subdominant Sized Canopy Species: Avg. DBH (inchesl Confirm Schedule: Record 30 min before sunset to
2. 30 minutes after sunrise
4• 1 y Detector Retrieval
Subcanopy Dominant Species 1. - Nights of Data (verify with SD card reader): It
r, l_►��n Cif. C
2. �\ ` \k 3. •�1 Sufficient Data Collected (Y/N): �� S
Roost Tree Potential Consists of: arge Trees Snags th If No describe issue in notes:
Roost Tree Numbers for Area: High Moderate Low If Yes download data from SD card in office to server
Travel Corridor Present: es No and/or external hard drive. Do not delete data.
Overall Habitat: Great Good Fair Poor None Replace SD card with alternate card (A or B).
If deployment of a new detector is required fill out
Potential Mist Net Locations: No Number applicable sections on a new datasheet.
Site Sketch: y��--� Notes:
94
S�
�Il \ U cc
j� �
xv

APPENDIX A: PHASE 1 HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
lncdtrde a map deptdirtg 6-ma a of-T—pLo ves f assv "g &,epee+ habitats at malopir errs in a pmject' ovra
.4 MASk Oed ran be and jar muDy& sanspIa,lees tf habitat u de rm w
sample Site nesrriplion
Sample Site No.(s}
U {oust,- (.;101- 4�(-A4I�L
1Yater Resources at Sample She
Stream •f3pc E rnerxl inScrmawril Pc: a rll Desmbecamimg condrtson of water
X mod Im h)sources' �qll
Panl�lPopd+ j1 Oxn KW aaessiblc to bars?
Id aad sine}
50 \1K1,51ory(20-_ L'ndersicrl• [_ I-1.10!ti. -1l= O'4ti 3-21- ;, 4-11-W,
5-+61.got,* 6-8 1-1 DOS-■
im In ant 5ptelts
%latuY Tms
Tern w!
3oiialits}t Sark
w Composition of Smeil (3.8 6) Med (9,15 in) Large (n15
vt Iles, (%) 'L n L I ?-\
otaauing spin trees with 0x1o[IKn buk. cwb. creviees orboDows. Snap
wT60M these ehavactoistics are not cormduad suitabk-
LS THE HAIMAT SMAME FOR 1N1']IANA RATS? Yc 5
IS THE HABITAT SUITABLE FOR NORTHERN LON&EARED BATS? TC 5
ditiaoaf Comr><n1�i�Ls: GG (1'1�
C
Gi'}4' �Q� �N+•�S 11G-r� {v�+�.�� �]� aU �t•�C ��'t�3 �3 C735�1��
Atiaeh atrial plrolo or project she w th aB fareated areas labeled mW a girwral description 4f tht hmbtltsi
Photographic Domrmtntslion: habitat shots stadge and irtcrior from mutupk lacat,oru-
undaatorytmidata ksmom. exzapier of polcmat suitable mop mrd gore trees; ►rEkrsmFccs
21

Stantec
Stantec Presence/Absence Acoustic Bat Detector Datasheet
Detector Location ID: project Number:20VM Project Name: Adds C LT Uy Pg of
Lam 1'1 j State: County: Weather Conditions During
a• ( <JV-'. j Deployment
Long -��l0 Date Meats Criteria (YIN)
Site Selector: Sean Wender Low Temp - 1
teria Met
Deployer: Sean Wender Rain (Y/N) See Report
Date Deployed: I `,,( Rain length
Date Colle (hrs) Fable I
cted: J-/�3 I Wind Avg.
Detector Setup Q
Detector Make: Wildlife Acoustics Detector Model: Song Meter Mini Bat Dist to Obstruct (ft): 5
Microphone Model: Q1 � rn Directionality: Omnidirectional Mic Height (AGL;ft): 10
Weatherproofing: NA Mic Angle: 0 Call Data Type: Full Spectrum
Mic Direction (deg): n S' In -Field Calibration ASS FAIL Notes:
VEGETATION AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS
Detector Startup
Habitat Type: C rta k ietp e►ti j f• t� (USFWS answers: creeldnpanan, pond, mine /�
W� portal, field edge, totlanland forest, cave enUance, Detector # 0% I
�` bddge, open field, upland forest, structure, other)
Canopy Closure (%): N:�Q E: V S: W: is Avg: a5
SD Card ID (A/B): Pi
Estimated Subcanopy Closure: Closed oderate Open % Closure_ Card Formatted:
Dominant Sized Canopy Species: \ Ava. DBH (i`nches)T r /T Battery: YC �
1 r `1tx� 9i �C.Y� l D iff• 1 2 �1.� L.lAia� i► ►k- `4- r4: Firmware up to date:�. S
3. L, ,k., 4. Time/Date Correct: YG5
Subdominant Sized Canopy Species: Av . DBH (inches) Confirm Schedule: Record 30 min before sunset to
1. 1_ - \ jr 1 j 2.� �` / t 1 Q 30 minutes after sunrise
3. ` ►µ^/` 19 4. 1` Detector Retrieval
Subcanopy Dominant Species 1. /(m D Nights of Data (verify with SD card Treader): II
2. 3. Sufficient Data Collected (Y/N): t
Roost Tree Potential Consists of: arge 4rees Snags oth If No describe issue in notes:
Roost Tree Numbers for Area: igh Moderate Low If Yes download data from SD card in office to ser
Travel Corridor Present: 6;1 No and/orextemal hard drive. Do not delete data.
Overall Habitat: Great Good Fair Poor None Replace SD card with alternate card (A or B).
If deployment of a new detector is required fill out
Potential Mist Net Locations: es No Number 1 applicable sections on a new datasheet.
S' tch: Notes-
4,N I r \
V �. L d� MCI\ i p
� 1.

APPENDIX A: PHASE I HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
ly giess &qctc habim 13m At
!nclrrd, a mop dePlen rg docaknes of sampla ores ifassrm"S &-vmit hahaatr al mlrlApk sirs in a project asra
srngleAtet cat & wd jar mninpk &mpia ores if wuaf is dw 7mmt
Site lhscripitan
size N,0 (sp
Q�
►!'atrr Kesourrts at Sample Site
SIM=T}pe
1t and Irn th)
E+hemersl
lrttcrmdzent
I'crcrlmai
oe
poolsl>sonds
(N and size)
n
[�
Crd t X=Lbie to bets?
Wellands Permanent[ Ord
(a s. ac. Q
Forta Resourcesat 52mpte Site
CloaurrMtrmil}'
C Sa
%lidstorr (20
undrrst N (<2(
�
s
D6101 cant Sptries
aI'Alatrre Tuts
LA
W w yt
% Trees wI
Wo5adal Sark
}
Sire Coampositlon or
Lhc Trees t%)
Small o-Sir)
mm (4.15 in)
Large (>15 in)
0
tio. of Suitable Smex
Standing} deal tress with cxfoha n b" cml-s, aeviCes. or hoQou- &mgs
w6asa Arse c}sa7acYeisdw we not cmisidmod =tabk.
tNxJ"L mD li h?,Z, # 6t5l
srnbc CxLming Condit pop a1 water
acev �\'Vj c,mt
`30�� -. bt! 1 �Q� bcq
1-]-ICr'ti 2-I1 JUG 3-214C,'a 4-41-6(P'%
5-61-SM 6-81-I0(ra
IS TUE IFLUBTAT SUTTABLE FUR IMANA BATS? _ �10 Q
IS THE HABITAT SUrTABLE FOR NORTHERN LOHGEAREQ BATS? iG S
may Comments:
Allnch atrial photo of project 3Ite with all forested areas lubeLed and a general description or the habltal
Pholmgrapkk Uorumenladow habaal >!ou atedst and inlcrior (ream multiple Iocazicm.
undmtoryimidsamylcanop}: ccmnplcs of pownuat auitablc sraass mid iive [roe, wsrcr wwom
21

y`, ® Stantec
Stantec Presence/Absence Acoustic Bat Detector Datasheet
Detector Location ID: N Project Numberld3'i0IMProject Name: C.LT OLA Pig of
Lat: -13� State: County: Weather Conditions During
j p C Deployment
Long: Date M..acm.rarn+)
Site Selector: Sean Wender LowT emp - Criteria Met
Deployer: Sean Wender Rain (Y/N)See Report
Date Deployed: Rain length
G/)Xln . (hrs) Table —
Date Collected:� !3 a.'� Wind Avg. —
I Detector Setup
Detector Make: Wildlife Acoustics Detector Model: Song Meter Mini Bat Dist to Obstruct (ft): (Qd
Microphone Model: Wv N Directionality: Omnidirectional Mic Height (AGL;ft): 10
Weatherproofing: NA Mic Angle: 0 Call Data Type: Full Spectrum
Mic Direction (deg): I V In -Field Calibratlon:lPASS FAIL Notes:
VEGETATION AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS Detector Startup
Habitat Type: V:Ck� G�%a (USFWS answers: oeek/npanan, pond, mine O Dom?
portal, field edge, bollomland forest, cave entrance, Detector
badge, Open Feld, upland forest structure,
!;her
SD Card ID (AIB)
Canopy Closure (%): N:Q E: O S: 0 W:;f—) Avg:
,:J
Estimated Subcanopy Closure: Closed Moderate Ope % Closure_Q— Card Formatted: TCS
Dominant Sized Canopy Species: Avg. DBH inches Battery: Ye S
w� �16/
�`,,,f ` �I rt 2' 1 ��a ` / �''� Firmware up to date: 6
3. U� L5 `l 1 4. n~
Time/Date Correct: Yc'�
Subdominant Sized Canopy Species- Av . DBH (inches) Confirm Schedule: Record 30 min before sunset to
MMJ1\ er 30 minutes after sunrise
3. �� 4. Detector Retrieval
Subcanopy Dominant Species iNights of Data (verify with SD card reader): I'
i 3. Sufficient Data Collected (YIN): Y
1JCtad
Roost Tree Potentiar'Consists of: Large e _ Snags Both If No describe issue in notes:
Roost Tree Numbers for Area: High Moderate Low If Yes download data from SD card in office to server
Travel Corridor Present: Yes � andlor external hard drive. Do not delete data.
Overall Habitat: Great Good Fair Poor None Replace SD card with alternate card (A or B).
If deployment of a new detector is required fill out
Potential Mist Net Locations: Yes No Number applicable sections on a new datasheet.
Site

APPENDIX A. PHASE 1 HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
d'lql&wtbk3ilcl�
Inc" o map dfpictirg lGconurs of smepl, silts if asse=itg &SCMie habk= at multiple -Ines in a prolerl Wva
,4 Pngk Aefr cmt bt usrd far mukple =fV1r Sorel if Wffal rs riot sow
at Somw She
artd Irn lh
ibl��eld1 � rrrld aCCC
and size) [ S
ellands I permuwm I
crt�rvnr{l Lksknhe CMSung Con:hLW r t,I water +
wwr 5 sr^ . rrr•'k'C
lobus?
rest Reaourcea at Sample She
rAmiDeruity :ux n (> So`, 11xlslon•f20-5 ) undcrx ,n =fir} 1-1.10'ti''ll ti 3'?I-f0"R 4-31-6004,.
rn inant Specks
Alatrre Treca M•�CsCM 's16Co okbTR I VLp tprl�t ct
Trees wl
fouAliing Bark I 1 o
m Compotiriar,of Sma11(3.8 m}I hied (9•I5 trr) I.argC (7l5 in)
vt Tries t%) I L ] n "7Tl�---
ia�.du yS vsay vies ■� nn rciPlialfryj hy}: CtVC i�S, pGv 1Cp. 44IrDl]Oxs. Swags
W41}r=arm Ch-Bder=CS are Mac mm& fed =tab it
IS THE HAMTAT SUITABLE FOR lh'DL►NA BATS? Ojo ,, ]]
IS THE HABITAT SUITABLE FOR RORTHERX LONG-EARED BATS? Tt �
Comments:
Attach aerial photo of project Ot with all rorested arera lubekd anti a general description onhe haDitar
Photograplrk Documentation: habi m shats at o4c and ixcritu from mull,pL- Iowjorrs;
uradCWDryimidstor}' canopy: staropICS of poWnUml suitable WMV and Lre hoes: wetcr SCU=
21

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEY REPORT
Appendix E
Photos
5.1

CLT04 Project Acoustic Bat Survey
Representative Photographs
Photo 1: View Northeast. Microphone deployed at location D1.
Photo 2: View Northwest. Detection zone of microphone at location D 1.
Photographs taken by: S. Wender
Stantec
June 22, 2023

CLT04 Project Acoustic Bat Survey
Representative Photographs
Photo 3: View West. Microphone deployed at location D2.
Photo 4: View Southwest. Detection zone of microphone at location D2.
Photographs taken by: S. Wender
Stantec
June 22, 2023

CLT04 Project Acoustic Bat Survey
Representative Photographs
Photo 5: View Northeast. Microphone deployed at location D3.
Photo 6: View Southeast. Detection zone of microphone at location D3.
Photographs taken by: S. Wender
Stantec
June 22, 2023

CLT04 Project Acoustic Bat Survey
Representative Photographs
Photo 7: View South. Microphone deployed at location D4.
Photo 8: View West. Detection zone of microphone at location D4.
Photographs taken by: S. Wender
Stantec
June 22, 2023