NC0024406_Pre-Construction Notificaition Form_20091020

I
v'LT F WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
October 20, 2009
_ To: Jeff Poupart, NCDWQ
Ronald E. Lewis, Duke Energy
Through: Jay Sauber/��
From: Bryn H. Tracy
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Review of Pre -construction Notification. Form, Duke Energy Permanent Pump Facilities, Belews
Creek Stream Station, NPDES Permit No. NCO024406
I have reviewed the document: "Pre -construction Notification Form, Duke Energy Permanent Pump Facilities,
Belews Creek Stream Station" as it relates to §316b of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Parts 9 and 122-125).
Duke Energy conducted pre -construction fishery and mussel surveys in the Dan River near the proposed
pumping facility in February and July 2009, respectively. The facility, pumping make-up water from the Dan
River to Belews Lake, will use fine mesh screens (2 mm screen openings), an approach velocity of < 0.5 feet
per second, and a fish recovery system returning any impinged fish back to the Dan River. In my opinion,
operation of this facility as described should have no impact on the fishery resource or on any threatened or
endangered fish or mussel species in the Dan River. Pumping will be avoided during the April -May spawning
period and pumping will cease when the flow in the Dan River, as measured near Pine Hall, drops below 110
cubic feet per second.
The Roanoke Logperch, a federally Endangered species, is not known to occur in the Dan River as far
upstream as the proposed facility. In fact, it has only been found in North Carolina within the past three years
at sites below the Town of Madison's Water Supply Dam. A state Threatened species, the ' - leve Jumpro-QK
may occur in the river but it was not encountered during the February survey. In North Carolina the species
has been found in the upper Dan River and tributaries from central Stokes County to central Rockingham
County as far east as near the confluence of the Smith and the Dan rivers. It is highly unlikely that operation of
the proposed facility will have a deleterious impact on this species. However, additional confidence can be
gained by Duke Energy sampling during other seasons in the vicinity of the facility or by describing in more
detail the distribution and habitat requirements of the larval, juvenile, and adult stages of the species. This
.knowledge would ensure that the facility's operation does not negatively effect the species.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Gil Vinzani, DWQ
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Location: 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
Nne
orthCarolina
Naturally

t
E M&Duke
riffEnergyo
Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
3195 Pine Hall Road
Belews Creek, NC 27009
[phone] OFFICE
[phone] FAX
Pre -Construction Notification Form
Duke Energy Permanent Pump Facilities
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS)
Prepared for
ACOE and NC DWQ
Prepared and Submitted By
Duke Energy &
Dewberry & Davis Inc.
September 2009

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Duke Power/Belews Creek Permanent Pumping Station
2b. County:
Rockingham
2c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Madison, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Duke Power Company
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
Deed Book 805 Page 423
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Ronald E. Lewis
3d. Street address:
P. O. Box 1006
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, Nc 28201-1006
3f. Telephone no.:
980.383.5710
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Pagel of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
R. Scott Ehrhardt, PE
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Dewberry
5c. Street address:
551 Piney Forest Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Danville, VA 24540
5e. Telephone no.:
434.797.4497
5f. Fax no.:
434.797.4341
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
790301043527
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.3333 N Longitude: - 80.0297
W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
239.24 (portion in Rockingham County) acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Confluence of Belews Creek and Dan River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV (Dan River, Belews Creek, & Belews Lake)
2c. River basin:
Roanoke
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Corn field, wooded areas
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
See Attachment C.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Perennial = 13,200 LF Intermittent = 4,200 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Reference Summary Memorandum
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Reference Summary Memorandum
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
®Yes El No El Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
®Preliminary El Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Andy Williams
Agency/Consultant Company: ACOE, Raleigh, NC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
7/21/2009
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ❑ T
MCC Building
Open Water
❑ Yes
® No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.045
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.045
2h. Comments: See Sheet 2.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Raw Water Intake
Dan River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
110
15
S2 ® P ❑ T
Raw Water Intake
Belews Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
66
10
Intake, pipe, coffer
® PER
® Corps
S3 ❑ P ® T
dam, and bank
Dan River
[:1 INT
DWQ
110
425
disturbance
Intake, pipe, coffer
® PER
® Corps
S4 ❑ P ® T
dam, bank
Belews Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
66
480
disturbance
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
930
3i. Comments: See Sheet 2.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number-
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ®P ❑ T
Belews Lake
Utility Construction
Lake
0.082
02 ❑ P ® T
Belews Lake
Utility Construction
Lake
0.261
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
0.343
4g. Comments: See Sheet 7.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar -Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
im act
required?
B1 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ PEI T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Summary Memorandum and Attachments.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Summary Memorandum and Attachments.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑Yes ®No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
7%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: < 24% Impervious
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Rockingham County
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
® Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ® No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ® No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ® No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
N/A
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
[:1 Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Website. Also reference Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of attached PCN section
entitled "Impact Surveys & Mitigation"
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Reference Sections 3.2, of attached PCN section entitled "Impact Surveys & Mitigation".
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Reference Section 3.5 of attached PCN section entitles "Impact Surveys & Mitigation".
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
®Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Project results in no net fill increase.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Maps #3710698400K and 371069200K dated
July 3, 2007
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

r,E Duke
Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
3195 Pine Hall Road
Belews Creek, NC 27009
[phone] OFFICE
[phone] FAX
Project Summary Memorandum
Duke Energy Permanent Pump Facilities
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS)
Prepared for
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Prepared and Submitted By
Duke Energy &
Dewberry & Davis Inc.
September 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.1 Capacity Selection 9
4.2 General Design Criteria 9
4.3 Intake Selection 9
4.3.1
General
Page
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Background
2
4.3.4
2.1 Power Plant Operations
2
4.4 Pump Station
2.2 Belews Lake Levels
2
Wetwell and Pumps
2.3 Temporary Pumping Operations
3
Screening and Fish Recovery
2.3.1 General
3
14
2.3.2 DENR Authorization to Pump
4
3.
Water Needs Assessment
6
14
3.1 General
6
15
3.2 Water Use Audit
6
3.3 Conservation Measures
6
3.4 Model Results of Belews Lake
7
3.5 Conclusions
8
4.
Proposed Permanent Intake & Pump
9
4.1 Capacity Selection 9
4.2 General Design Criteria 9
4.3 Intake Selection 9
4.3.1
General
9
4.3.2
River Survey
10
4.3.3
Alternative Intakes
10
4.3.4
Location Selection and Sediment and Bed Load Concerns
12
4.4 Pump Station
14
4.4.1
Wetwell and Pumps
14
4.4.2
Screening and Fish Recovery
14
4.5 Construction
14
4.5.1
Avoidance, Mitigation, and E&S
14
4.5.2
Site Restoration
14
4.5.3
Sequence of Construction and Schedule
15

5. Force Main to Belews Lake 17
APPENDICES
A-1
5.1
Background
17
A-3
5.2
Permanent Installation
17
6.
Permits
18
Water Model, Audit Results and Flow Schematic
6.1
General
18
Photographs
6.2
Summary of Environmental Studies and Field Investigations
19
FIGURES
2.1-1
BCSS Annual Power Generation (MW)
2
2.2-1
Belews Lake Levels
3
3.4-1
Belews Lake Water Surface Elevations
7
4.5-1
Project Schedule
16
APPENDICES
A-1
Temporary Pumping Authorization Letters
A-2
Temporary Pumping Plan
A-3
Dan River Statistical Data
A-4
Presentation to the City of Eden
A-5
Environmental Abstracts Related to Environmental Studies
A-6
Water Model, Audit Results and Flow Schematic
A-7
Preliminary Intake Conceptual Drawings
A-8
Photographs

Project Summary Memorandum
1. Introduction
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, plans to construct a permanent system for pumping water from the Dan
River into Belews Lake on an "as needed" basis to ensure an adequate lake level to support generation at
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS). Belews Lake is the source of condenser cooling water for
BCSS. Exceptional drought conditions during 2001 — 2002 and again in 2007 and 2008 created
low water levels in Belews Lake. Due to these conditions, a plan was developed to temporarily
pump water from the Dan River to Belews Lake. Temporary pumping occurred from December 2002 to
March 2003 and again from January to March 2008 and from December 2008 to March 2009 under
permits issued by the NC Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ). In addition to the NC DWQ, the
temporary pumping plan was reviewed and approved by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR),
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), NC Division of Land Resources (DLR), and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (USACOE). Copies of these temporary permits may be viewed in the Appendix.
To comply with environmental regulations limiting sulfur emissions, the BCSS installed two new flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) units, or scrubbers, in 2008. The first FGD unit began operation on January 26,
2008 and the second unit began operation on May 1, 2008. These scrubbers place a significant additional
demand on Belews Lake. Their combined demands amount to 8.4 cubic feet per second (CFS) or 5.4
million gallons per day (MGD). Had these scrubbers been operational during the 2001 — 2002 drought,
BCSS would have been unable to generate electricity for a two month period during late 2002.
In conjunction with the temporary pumping project in 2008/2009, Duke Energy agreed to support
installation and maintenance of a new USGS stream gage at the Pine Hall bridge crossing the Dan River
just upstream of the temporary and proposed permanent pumping intake location. Duke Energy and US
Geological Services have completed improvements and successfully placed the Pine Hall gauging station
into operation in December 2008 providing better flow monitoring capability near the intake. Telemetry
capability and direct access to new gage station data will enhance control decisions.
Based on the additional water demand associated with the new scrubbers and the recent history of
pumping needs, Duke Energy proposes construction of a permanent intake and pump station for the
purpose of withdrawing water from the Dan River and transferring it to Belews Lake.

2. Background
2.1 Power Plant Operations'
Figure 2.1-1
BCSS Annual Power Generation (MW)
• No changes in output forecasted for the next 5 — 10 years
• Pollution Control Devices
o SCR — Installed in 2003 on both units, no increase in water consumption
o FGD —Unit 1,— Startup on Jan 26, 2008
o FGD — Unit 2 — Start up on May 1, 2008
• As a result of the low lake levels in early 2002, vortices began to develop around the
intake pumps. Flow straighteners were installed at the intake to disrupt the vortices and
improve pump performance.
2.2 Belews Lake Levels
• Full Pond Condition — operating procedure requires the gates to be open at elevation
724.5 feet
• Belews Lake Low Level — severe CCW pump vibration — below 717 feet
• Belews Lake Critical, Level — CCW pump suction failure —cannot operate below 715 feet
2

Figure 2.2-1
2.3 Temporary Pumping Operations
2.3.1 General
Temporary pumping operations were carried out in 2003 per authorization of NC DWQ
(Appendix A-1). The reasons for the decision to pump, when to pump, and how much to pump are well
documented in the October 25, 2002 submittal to NC DWQ (Appendix A-2). In late 2007 and 2008,
similar drought conditions again led Duke Energy to request and receive permission for the temporary
pumping operation. A summary of the general operational decisions is as follows:
• Initiate pumping when lake level drops more than 3 feet below full pond (724.5 — 3 =
721.5 feet msl)
• Pump during the historically high river flow winter months of Dec — Mar (Appendix A-3)
• Pump when the river flow is sufficiently high according to USGS gage station
• Belews Lake — there are no documented endangered or threatened species
3
Oelews Lake Level (2001- 2009)
♦
♦
725
724
2001
----2002%%
/
2003
----2004
op
i
/
2007
---- 2008 ��
�
2009
— —Fu Pon
— —Station Off -Line
— — Intake Pump Cavitation
—��/ 717.23
723
722
721
01,
p
720
m
719
2005
----2006 %
W
718
717
716
715
1 4 7
10 13
16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37
40 43 46 49 52
Week
2.3 Temporary Pumping Operations
2.3.1 General
Temporary pumping operations were carried out in 2003 per authorization of NC DWQ
(Appendix A-1). The reasons for the decision to pump, when to pump, and how much to pump are well
documented in the October 25, 2002 submittal to NC DWQ (Appendix A-2). In late 2007 and 2008,
similar drought conditions again led Duke Energy to request and receive permission for the temporary
pumping operation. A summary of the general operational decisions is as follows:
• Initiate pumping when lake level drops more than 3 feet below full pond (724.5 — 3 =
721.5 feet msl)
• Pump during the historically high river flow winter months of Dec — Mar (Appendix A-3)
• Pump when the river flow is sufficiently high according to USGS gage station
• Belews Lake — there are no documented endangered or threatened species
3
♦
♦
2001
----2002%%
/
2003
----2004
i
/
2007
---- 2008 ��
�
2009
— —Fu Pon
— —Station Off -Line
— — Intake Pump Cavitation
—��/ 717.23
2.3 Temporary Pumping Operations
2.3.1 General
Temporary pumping operations were carried out in 2003 per authorization of NC DWQ
(Appendix A-1). The reasons for the decision to pump, when to pump, and how much to pump are well
documented in the October 25, 2002 submittal to NC DWQ (Appendix A-2). In late 2007 and 2008,
similar drought conditions again led Duke Energy to request and receive permission for the temporary
pumping operation. A summary of the general operational decisions is as follows:
• Initiate pumping when lake level drops more than 3 feet below full pond (724.5 — 3 =
721.5 feet msl)
• Pump during the historically high river flow winter months of Dec — Mar (Appendix A-3)
• Pump when the river flow is sufficiently high according to USGS gage station
• Belews Lake — there are no documented endangered or threatened species
3

2002 Proposed Pumping Rates
Flow at
Francisco
Flow at
Pine Hall
Pumping
Rate Number
of Pumps
(cfs) in Service
(cfs)
(cfs)
50.0
100
0 0
54.1
108.2
8.2 1
58.2
116.4
16.4 2
62.3
124.6
24.6 3
66.3
132.6
32.6 4
70.4
140.8
40.8 5
74.5
149
49 6
78.6
157.2
57.2 7
82.7
165.4
65.4 8
86.8
173.6
73.6 9
90.8
181.6
81.6 10
94.9
189.8
89.8 11
99.0
198
98 12
2.3.2 DENR Authorization to Pump
2008 and 2009
Approved Pumping
Rates
Flow at
Pine Hall
Pumping
Rate
(cfs)
(cfs)
110
0
120
10
130
20
140
30
150
40
160
50
170
60
180
70
190
80
200
90
>210
100
An original pumping plan was reviewed during the fall and winter of 2002 by staff of NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC), NC Division of Land Resources (DLR), and the US Army Corp
of Engineers. This plan was also presented to downstream municipalities including the City of
Eden (Appendix A-4).
Operational Goals of Plan (Ref. Appendix A-2)
• Maintain level in Belews Lake above 720 feet msl to enable plant to operate lake cooling
water pumps and avoid plant shut -down.
• When lake level is projected to be below 720 feet in early spring initiate temporary
pumping. This is the minimum lake level that will insure adequate water is available
through the upcoming summer and fall operation.
• Begin pumping in December and pump through end of March to achieve a minimum lake
level of 724.5 feet msl.
To ensure uninterrupted power production at this base load facility, while mitigating effects on
the aquatic community and downstream users, DWQ has issued three authorization letters dated
December, 13, 2002; January 15, 2008; and October 31, 2008, enabling Duke to pump water
from the Dan River to Belews Lake in accordance with the pumping plan.
Irl

Summary of Conditions for Withdrawal (Based on 2002 and 2008 Authorization Letters)
• Pumping must avoid the April -May fish spawning period
• Pumping will not lower the flow in the Dan River below 100 cfs (year 2002) or 110 cfs
(years 2008 and 2009)
• Minimum rate of pumping is 10 cfs and maximum rate of pumping is 100 cfs
• Intake pumps will be positioned above the river bottom and have an approach velocity
less than or equal to 0.5 ft/s across screening mesh with openings of less than 1 cm2
• The withdrawal location will be near the confluence of the spillway channel below
Belews Lake Dam and Dan River
• The facility will perform routine monthly lake monitoring during the period of pumping
to assess limnological conditions
Mitigation of potential environmental impacts that were considered and addressed prior to the
start of temporary pumping is summarized in Figure 2.3-1. These listed mitigation measures
were implemented during the temporary pumping events (2002, 2008, 2009). Based on
monitoring that occurred during these events, these mitigation measures were effective in
avoiding any significant environmental impacts (Appendix 5) and are listed below.
Potential Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures
Potential Impact
Mitigation
Fish Spawning
Avoid pumping during April — May spawning
season.
Fish Virus (Spring Viremia of Carp)
N/A — Issue reviewed between 2002 and 2008 by
transport from Dan River to Belews Lake
DENR lead fisheries biologist and declared not
to be an issue. No evidence that the pathogen
survived in the system and no evidence was
found in monitoring in 2004.
Fish Entrainment and Impingement
Utilize intake screens with <0.5 fps approach
velocity and openings of less than 1 cm2
Violation of Water Quality Standards
Maintain flow -by above 7Q10 at all times and
pump during low temperature periods.
Damage to Aquatic Habitat in Dan River
Avoid locating intake in area of high value
habitat.
Limnological Condition in Belews Lake
Diffuse pumped water into deeper lake area in
vicinity of dam.
Perform monthly lake monitoring.
5

3. Water Needs Assessment
3.1 General
In the past 8 years there has been three periods when Belews Lake was more than 3 feet below
full pond and temporary pumping was implemented to maintain minimum operating level in
Belews Lake. Although it is recognized that 2002 was a period of record drought, the drought
conditions that occurred in 2007 and 2008 that also warranted temporary pumping were not as
severe. The drought of 2007/2008 continued into 2008/2009.
In recognition of the regular demand for temporary pumping and the associated high cost of this
activity, Duke has performed water audits to determine if opportunities exist to minimize water
usage.
3.2 Water Use Audit/Balance
Appendix A-6 contains the results of a recent water use survey/balance conducted by Duke. A
flow schematic/water balance is included in this survey and has been updated as early as
September 2007 to reflect the addition of two new scrubbers that were placed in operation in
early 2008 to comply with the facility air permit. As noted from this survey, the total average
estimated water demand of these scrubbers is 5.4 MGD (8.4 cfs). This increase in demand alone
represents an annual increase in water usage of 1,971 MG and represents approximately 1.8 feet
of water level in Belews Lake.
Even before the installation of the new scrubbers, the water demand of BCSS on an average year
would lower the level in Belews Lake by 2-4 feet by the end of fall. Therefore, this deficit with
the scrubber in operation is now expected to be increased 60%.
Duke reports that there have been no further changes in their processes that would have resulted
in any significant increase in water usage other than the scrubbers.
3.3 Conservation Measures
Duke has now implemented measures to reduce water released to the wetlands that served to pre-
treat process wastewater prior to discharging into the ash pond. It is estimated that this measure
reduced water demand by up to 1.0 MGD.
Other measures are being considered for conservation, but are not expected to have near the
impact as reduction of wetland supply and will represent only 25% +/- of the increase in
additional water supply associated with the new scrubbers.
It is important to note that water conservation measures that do not reduce evaporative losses
will ultimately result in a reduction of year-round discharge from the facility wastewater
treatment facilities and produce no net affect in annual water balance/flows in the Dan River.
Any conservation measures that do not reduce evaporative losses will serve to reduce wastewater
0

flows that now augment flows in the Dan River during summer months when transfer pumping
operations are halted.
3.4 Model Results of Belews Lake
Figure 3.4-1 illustrates the resulting levels in Belews Lake with and without the scrubbers in
operation. As expected, the model predicts that lake level recovery is not possible without
pumping from the Dan River. The level in Belews Lake falls well below the minimum operating
level of 715 feet msl.
726
725
724
723
722
721
720
719
718
717
716
715
714
713
712
711
Figure 3.4-1
Belews Lake Water Surface Elevations
Historical, Modeled Scrubber Withdrawal, and Stage Minimum
...•
N W 1 N N_ 1 N
O co m .P A N O co CO N ? N O W W N? N W
1 W 1 1 1 1 --• --� --� O N N N N N O N N O N O N N O N O N W
W CO W (O (O (O (O 8 8 8 (O W O O O N O O O O O O N O O O N O O N O O O N O O O N
W V W (O W W W W W (O (O (D O O O OO O O O O N O O O W O O P O O O (J7 O O m 0 0
m V V V 00 00 00 W W (O O O O00 N N IO W W W -P O) (n CTI (O Q) m C)
Although temporary pumping with a transfer capability of 100 cfs has been utilized, the cost of a
permanent pumping intake and pump station was estimated to exceed $10,000,000. In lieu of
this, a smaller 50 cfs station was investigated. Although it was concluded that a 50 cfs station
would on average be able to keep up with demand it was not satisfactory to meet demands during
extended drought periods. Further, with the occurrence of three periods of significant drought in
the past 7 years and the high cost of the temporary pumping it was concluded that the larger 100
cfs station would result in the lowest overall cost and provide greater flexibility in operation.
7
93
NO
11111FIS""'Pol
NOW
2
NO
a IN
Historical stage without scru bar withdrawsl
Historical stage with scrubber withdrawal
stag, minimurn
...•
N W 1 N N_ 1 N
O co m .P A N O co CO N ? N O W W N? N W
1 W 1 1 1 1 --• --� --� O N N N N N O N N O N O N N O N O N W
W CO W (O (O (O (O 8 8 8 (O W O O O N O O O O O O N O O O N O O N O O O N O O O N
W V W (O W W W W W (O (O (D O O O OO O O O O N O O O W O O P O O O (J7 O O m 0 0
m V V V 00 00 00 W W (O O O O00 N N IO W W W -P O) (n CTI (O Q) m C)
Although temporary pumping with a transfer capability of 100 cfs has been utilized, the cost of a
permanent pumping intake and pump station was estimated to exceed $10,000,000. In lieu of
this, a smaller 50 cfs station was investigated. Although it was concluded that a 50 cfs station
would on average be able to keep up with demand it was not satisfactory to meet demands during
extended drought periods. Further, with the occurrence of three periods of significant drought in
the past 7 years and the high cost of the temporary pumping it was concluded that the larger 100
cfs station would result in the lowest overall cost and provide greater flexibility in operation.
7

In periods of successive drought years, spring flows in the Dan River decline to the point that
withdrawals under conditions of the DWQ authorization jeopardize the ability to fill the lake to
the desired 724.5 feet. Therefore, projections on water levels in Belews Lake need to be
performed with a high degree of conservatism and pumping performed annually to ensure the
lake reaches full pond (724.5 feet msl) by the end of the allowable pumping period. The use of a
larger pump station will further assure the success of this strategy to combat successive years of
drought.
3.5 Conclusions
• Temporary pumping from December 2008 through March 2009 represents the P
temporary pumping event required over the past 8 year period.
• The aforementioned scrubbers have placed additional demand on Belews Lake. Had the
scrubbers been installed prior to the 2001-2002 drought, the level in Belews Lake would
have dropped below 715 feet resulting in BCSS being shut down.
• Conservation measures can reduce water demand. However, if these conservation
measures do not reduce evaporative losses, they will have no net average affect on water
flows in the Dan River. These measures will however reduce the total volume of water
that will have to be pumped each spring to Belews Lake.
• Based on conditions that have prevailed over the past 7 years, the use of a smaller pump
station (i.e. 50 cfs) may require frequent augmenting with portable pumps to achieve
desired lake levels. The high cost of portable pumping operations appears to favor the
construction of a larger 100 cfs intake and pump station.

4. Proposed Permanent Intake and Pump Station
Major Design Components
• Two (2) new river intakes (Appendix A-7 sheets 1 and 2)
• New permanent pump station with fine screening and fish recovery system (Appendix
A-7 sheets 2 through 8)
• Reroute and install exiting HDPE force mains to Belews Lake (Appendix A-7 sheet 1)
• Permanent force main terminationldischarge into Belews Lake (Appendix A-7 sheet
7)
• Upgrade of USGS Pine Hall gage station.
• New electric substation to serve pump station (Appendix A-7 sheet 6).
4.1 Capacity Selection
Based on the information presented in Section 3, a permanent intake and pumping capacity not
exceeding 100 cfs is proposed.
4.2 General Design Criteria
Proposed key design criteria for this project which are selected to comply with established
regulatory guidelines and/or to ensure mitigation objectives in Figure 2.3-1 are achieved are as
follows:
• Intake screen or structure approach velocity less than 0.5 fps
• Screen opening size: 2 mm
• Select location of intake to enable operation during low water conditions and minimize
potential impacts from sediment or bed load.
• Select intake location and type to minimize potential impact to recreational users.
• Fish recovery system
• Capability to pump at different pumping rates (i.e 25 — 100 cfs)
• Control features to match pump rates with maximum available flow in river
• Telemetry capability and direct access to gage station data for control decisions.
• Alarm features
4.3 Intake Selection
4.3.1 General
The geographic and man-made formations in the vicinity of the confluence of Belews Creek and
the Dan River were considered in selecting a location for and type of intake which will be most
suitable. Two (2) options involving more geographically remote solutions were considered but
ruled out early in the evaluation process. Four (4) local options were deemed to have merit for
further consideration and are detailed in the following sections.
E

The two (2) options that were ruled out involve gravity flow diversion from the Dan River into
Belews Lake or alternatively to construct an intake and pump station at an existing dam on the
Dan River located approximately 5.5 miles downstream of Belews Creek confluence.
The Belews Lake normal full pond is 724.5 feet msl. The top of the dam is approximately 741
feet msl. The normal low water surface elevation at the confluence of Belews Creek and Dan
River is approximately 561.0 feet msl. The Dan River has a mild slope and turns away from
Belews Lake a short distance upstream of the confluence. Therefore, the elevations involved
naturally disqualify any attempt to bring Dan River water to Belews Lake via gravity flow.
Five and a half river miles downstream near Pine Hall Brick is the closest existing dam. This
dam provides depth for an intake structure at Pine Hall Brick. The transmission distance to
Belews Lake from this location makes this option very costly and will significantly exceed the
cost of a local withdrawal option. Environmental impacts related to the construction of such a
long transmission force main(s) will also exceed those of a local intake option.
4.3.2 River Survey
An extensive river survey was performed in the Dan River in the vicinity of Belews Creek
confluence. This survey was performed to characterize the channel, determine presence of bed
load and sediment, and select best locations for the intake structure(s). Elevation information
was used to develop topographic mapping of the entire river channel upstream and downstream
of the proposed intake. The Dan River, river bottom, main channel, and Belews Creek are
illustrated in Appendix A-7 Sheets 1 and 2 and in photographs (Appendix A-8).
Virtually no larger grain material or cobble was found in the area surveyed. Deposition of sand
and light sediment deposits were noted inside the mouth of Belews Creek and in the Dan River
downstream of and on the opposite side of the channel from Velocity Cap #1. All remaining
channel bottom areas consisted of weathered bedrock with good integrity. This bedrock will
ensure stable river channel conditions throughout the expected life of a new intake.
River embankments are highly eroded and consist of alluvial soils with indigenous vegetation.
They extend approximately 15-18 feet above the weathered bedrock river channel.
4.3.3 Alternative Intakes
Four local intake options were evaluated in detail and are as follows;.
➢ Wedgewire T -Screen with Air Burst
These screens are very popular due to their simplicity and effectiveness in protecting
aquatic life. Based on the river survey, the only area within the channel with the potential
to accommodate a nest of these screens is at the confluence with Belews Creek. Although
there appears to be adequate room to "squeeze" these screens within this area, the depth
is not adequate for proper operation or for allowing recreational users to pass over these
10

screens during low flow periods. Assuming a minimal economic diameter of these
screens of 24 inch and positioning these screens a minimum 1 foot off the bottom of the
channel, the top of these screen will be within approximately 6 inches of the water
surface during low flow periods when pumping is allowed. During summer months when
river flows continue to decrease; these screens will totally obstruct the main channel for
recreational use.
➢ Side Channel Diversion Flume
These diversion flumes consist of a side -channel concrete diversion flume with a
midsection throat comprising of a deeper (i.e. below river bottom) segment that
accommodates a series of wedgewire T -screens. These intakes are most effective when
sufficient depth, as noted above, is not available for adequate screen submergence. To
maintain adequate scouring velocities through the flume the structure is typically
positioned on exterior scouring segments of the river and most ideally where a natural
hydraulic jump occurs across the river channel. Unfortunately, neither condition exists
within the reach of river being considered for this intake. Also in consideration of
creating a hydraulic jump in the channel this is possible but only at great expense and
modification to the existing channel. Use of such an intake configuration as the channel
currently exists, will ultimately result in deposition of sediment and debris in the flume
that will require extensive maintenance.
➢ Canal and Intake Pond
Consideration was given to the construction of a side channel canal in the flood plain
paralleling Dan River and routing this channel into Belews Creek or as a dead-end
termination into a constructed impoundment/ pond.
The flood plain elevation is typically between 18 and 24 feet above the river bottom
along this stretch of river. At the time of the river survey when flows were at near low
design level, the water surface elevation was about 561 feet msl and the top of bank was
580 feet msl. A new canal would need to be at least 18-20 feet deep into highly erodible
alluvial soils and another 10 feet+/- into bedrock. The presence of this bedrock at or near
560 msl +/- would require extensive rock removal in the canal and especially within an
even deeper impoundment (i.e pond) which would serve as a sediment trap and provide
adequate depth for conventional T-wedgewire type screens.
A continuous flow type canal terminating into Belews Creek will require the construction
of a J -hook in the Dan River to create sufficient hydraulic grade difference to maintain
desired channel velocities. The canal and impoundment will be prone to damage when
floodwaters of the Dan River periodically overtop the existing river bank. During normal
operations the removal of sediment from the canal and impoundment will be more labor
and equipment intensive than other options considered. Finally, this configuration would
have very notable impacts at the banks at the river confluence and will eliminate a
significant quantity of highly productive agricultural land.
11

➢ Velocity Cap
The velocity cap consists of an EPA approved low profile horizontal intake structure.
Although these intakes do not provide in -channel fine screening, the intake is effective in
deterring fish and other aquatic species. Testing of the screen has confirmed that when
fish encounter water moving in a horizontal direction they will swim away opposite the
direction of flow. By keeping the approach velocity below 0.5 feet at the outer perimeter
of the cap, the fish are able to escape and prevent being drawn into the pump station.
Velocity caps are commonly used within the power industry due to the associated high
volume withdrawal capability and the fact these intakes are effective in minimizing
potential environmental impact.
Two (2) 50 cfs velocity caps for this project are illustrated in Appendix A-7 Sheets 1
through 5.
A summary of intake options and their benefits are as follows:
Option
Quantit
Size
Primary Benefits
Disadvantages
Velocity Cap
2
10 feet diameter
Cost effective,
May require fine screening
(each)
located out of main
and fish recovery in
river channel,
wetwell.
minimum visibility
and impact
Wedgewire
12
Placed in grid:
Fish protection
More difficult to construct,
T -screen
12 feet by 26
provided at river
obstructs main river channel
(24" barrel)
feet
(insufficient depth), requires
debris protection
Canal and
1
15-20 ft wide
Will enable use of
Extensive earthwork and
Intake Pond
canal up to 1000
conventional fine
rock removal, sediment
ft in length.
screens and off-
deposition and removal,
channel pump
damage caused by flooding.
station
Side Channel
1
Large Concrete
Will not obstruct
River conditions not
Diversion
flume with inlet
river channel and
suitable for proper operation
Flume
and outlets to
allows use of
without major modification
Dan River
simple wedgewire
to existing river channel,
screens
highly visible structure at
bank of river..
4.3.4 Location Selection and Sediment and Bed Load Concerns
As shown in Appendix A-7 Sheets 1 through 8, the conceptual layout of the intake and pump
station will include two (2) velocity cap type intakes with one 42" outlet/discharge pipe each
conveying flow to the pump station wetwell. The minimal size and low profile of the velocity
12

cap type intake enables the intakes to be positioned out of the main river channel and therefore
will not result in any significant obstruction of the channel especially for recreational users.
Regarding bed load (i.e. gravel and coble stone), the velocity cap riser pipe will be elevated
approximately 1 foot off the bottom of the channel to repel bed load. Bed load will typically be
transported along the channel bottom (bottom of water column) and around the velocity cap riser
pipe. In addition, the locations proposed for both velocity caps are in areas that have natural
upstream features that will serve to direct bed load away from the velocity cap. A recent survey
of the channel bottom confirms the absence of bed load in these areas. Further, the absence of
bed load in depositional/quiescent areas throughout this reach of this river suggests that
conditions upstream exist where bed load production is either just not prevalent and/or is
permanently depositing before reaching the intake locations.
The characterization of the river bottom did reveal varying degrees of sediment particularly
downstream and on the opposite side of the river from the first velocity cap (velocity cap No.
1) location. This sediment primarily comprises of fine to medium grain sand. A much
lighter sediment comprising of very fine sands, organic debris and loamy soil mix was found in
Belews creek just upstream from the confluence with the Dan River. This is the approximate
location of velocity cap No. 2. Though the sediment in this area was significant (1 - 1.5 feet
worst case) the steady state load/transport of this material to this location is not believed to be
significant (i.e. lake is keeping channel fairly dry with little opportunity for scouring the
sediment out of this area even during significant rain events.) These sediments are believed to
originate primarily from the adjacent flood plain agricultural area along Belews Creek and from
dispersion type transport of finer sediment that is being continuously transported down the Dan
River.
Based on the above and with withdrawals occurring during higher flow winter periods, a
moderate sediment load entering the velocity caps is anticipated. However, it is expected that
natural upstream features above velocity cap No.1 will redirect bedload and larger sand away
from this velocity cap and toward the opposite bank. Sediment at velocity cap location No. 2
will be present but is expected to be much finer and lighter which will make it easy to keep in
suspension throughout intake piping and pump station wetwell.
Velocities in the 42" line to the wetwell will be adequate to transport sediment to the wetwell
without depositing in the piping. However, once the flow enters the pump station wetwell there
will be stilling features to disperse flow evenly to (4) traveling screens. Approach velocities to
these screens will be less than 0.5 fps. Under these conditions, the lighter sediment will remain
in suspension and be transported through the screens and pumped to Belews Lake. Channel
velocities to each pump will be adequate to prevent deposition. The heavier sediment (sand
particles) will however have an opportunity at the screen inlet to deposit.
Sediment load that does deposit in front of the screens will settle into a sump and will
periodically be re -suspended using a water or air sparging system and pumped out using a small
submersible trash pump that will be located in this sump. The discharge from this pump would
be routed to a small sediment pond with an opportunity to gravity flow clarified water back to
the wetwell via a simple riser/decant outlet.
13

4.4 Pump Station
4.4.1 Wetwell and Pumps
Based on the presence of rock in the bottom of the Dan River and in Belews Creek, it is assumed
that the bottom of the wetwell will be constructed in rock. This assumption will be verified by
geotechnical analysis. The pump motors and controls will be located above the 100 year flood
plain (elevation 588.00 feet). The pump station wetwell will be approximately 58 feet by 48 feet
and 49 feet deep. Preliminary design drawings can be seen in Appendix A-7 Sheets 2 through 5.
The four pumps will be vertical turbine type designed for 25 cubic feet per second each. This
will allow graduated pumping based on available river flows.
4.4.2 Screening and Fish Recovery
Screens will meet the design criteria mentioned above of 2mm fine screening, 0.5 fps approach
velocity, and have an integrated fish recovery system. Fish will be lifted to the top of the pump
station and discharged back into the Dan River downstream of intake velocity cap #2 via a
submerged fish chute (Appendix A-7 Sheets 1 through 5).
4.5 Construction
4.5.1 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures
• Proper erosion and sediment (E&S) control measures must be maintained at all times.
• Excavation, final grading and site restoration will all be addressed in a detailed sediment
control plan. This will also include measures to minimize the release of sediment during
installation of the proposed intake velocity caps.
• Intakes are positioned out of the main channel and close to the bank to increase the
opportunities of local E&S protective measures.
• Wetlands have been delineated over much of the project area and avoidance/mitigation
measures will be implemented, as needed.
4.5.2 Site Restoration
Sheet No.2 in Appendix A-7 illustrates conceptual lay -back of disturbed river bank to a
slope of 2.5:1. These disturbed slopes will be re -vegetated with approved indigenous
plants. Areas surrounding the pump station and cleared right-of-ways will be vegetated
with grass mixtures.
14

4.5.3 Sequence of Construction and Schedule
• Figure 4.5-1 provides a description of major construction components and periods of
construction. The start of construction coincides with the completion of temporary
pumping operations after March 2010 and will last through November 2010.
• If review of plans allows, the intake will be constructed beginning in the spring of 2010.
Warmer summer month's construction of the intakes will be avoided if possible due to
the greater potential for environmental impact. As a contingency for a missed
opportunity in the spring and to enable final connection to the pump station the months of
October and November 2010 are reserved for this activity.
• A target startup of the system, so that another temporary pumping operation can be
avoided, will be December 2010.
15

Figure 4.5-1
Duke Energy / Belews Creek Permanent Pumping Station
Project Schedule 2009 -2010
luly 09
T
2009
_
- 2010 .,
J
A S
O`
TASK
u
u e
c,,
t'::
No
v
De
clan,
��•
Fe�
b
Ma
r�
Ma �_
A c ' Jurte
Jul •
Au
Se
wOct .
No
vu
.,Dee o
Design
Intake &
Pump Station
Forcem ai n
& Belews
Outfall
Electrical
Substation
Regulatory
Review &
Revision
Bid & Award
Pre -Purchase
Major
Equipment &
Delivery
Construction
Forcemain
& Belews
Outfall
Electrical
Substation
Intake
Pump
Station
Startup
T

5. Force Main to Belews Lake
5.1 Background
Duke Energy purchased and installed six 18" HDPE force mains for use during the first
temporary pumping operation conducted in 2002. These lines have remained in place since that
time and were reused during the temporary pumping operation conducted in 2008 and 2009. The
force mains currently are routed along the surface of the ground, through a corn field, under the
bridge on Lindsey Bridge Road (NC -1138), up and over a hill, through the roadway atop the
dam, and down the surface of the dam and into the grassy field beside the lake. During
temporary operations, the force mains are placed in Belews Lake
5.2 Permanent Installation
The plan is for these force mains to be permanently installed during this project. The force
mains would be joined in a common manifold connected to the pump discharge piping. There
are two options being considered for their installation. Both options involve boring under
Lindsey Bridge Road (NC -1138). Duke Energy currently favors Option #1.
Option
Installation
Benefits
Opportunities
#1
Only bury piping
Cost effective, Surface
Design with ability to drain
under road and
piping proven in 2002 &
piping back to pump station
through dam
2008, Easy maintenance
when not in use
#2
Bury all piping
Piping protected from
More costly, More difficult to
vandalism and freezing
inspect and repair
17

6. Permits
6.1 General
This project is an essential component of Duke's strategic plan to ensure uninterrupted power
production at this base load facility. The project will be coordinated with regulatory agencies,
downstream users, and the Dan River Basin Association to develop an equitable plan that
mitigates effects on the aquatic community and downstream users.
To this end, Duke invited representatives from the Dan River Basin Association, Town of
Madison and the City of Eden to a public meeting to review the project and ask any questions.
This meeting was held at the Town of Madison on April 17, 2009. The primary item of concern
was possible impacts to recreational users. In response Duke emphasized that the intakes are
strategically placed to avoid obstruction of the main channel where boaters travel. In addition,
Duke will not be withdrawing water during low flow periods in the summer when flow
conditions for recreational users are at a minimal level.
Multiple permits will be required for the work. A new preconstruction notification form (PCN)
for the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality was released on
December 10, 2008. This form is to be used for submittals submitted after January 12, 2009.
The PCN process requires that impact to historic areas, endangered species, and aquatic species
be addressed. Several agencies, federal and state will have input during the permit process.
Description of Work
Application Process
Permit
Pump Station and MCC
PCN —1 copy to USACOE
USACOE 401 Certification
Building
(Nationwide 12)
PCN — 7 copies to DWQ
NCDWQ 404 Certification
Erosion and Sedimentation
NC Division of Land Quality — Plan
Control Plan — Regional
Approval Letter
NCDENR Office
Stormwater Management Plan
Letter Describing Impact to
Local Floodplain Administrator
Floodplain
Approval
Raw Water Main
Erosion and Sediment Control
NC Division of Land Quality — Plan
Plan- Regional NCDENR
Approval Letter
Office, PCN for wetland impact,
Local Stormwater Management
submittal to Dam Safety for
Program Approval
route over earthen dam section.
Withdrawal
PCN and Erosion and Sediment
Authorization to Operate
Control Plan
Substation
Erosion and Sedimentation
NC Division of Land Quality — Plan
Control Plan — Regional
Approval Letter
NCDENR Office
Stormwater Management Plan
Local Stormwater Management
Program Approval `

6.2 Summary of Environmental Studies and Field Investigations
Preliminary findings from the development of this Summary Memorandum were presented by
Duke Energy and Dewberry and Davis Inc to representatives of NCDENR on October 18, 2008.
Divisions of DENR that were represented at this meeting included the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), the Division of Water Resources (DWR) and the NC Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC). At this meeting it was concluded that other environmental studies and related tasks
would need to be performed to address the following concerns:
➢ Possible presence of endangered or threatened species including the Bigeye Jumprock
Sucker.
➢ Possible impact to critical fish habitat
➢ Presence of endangered or threatened Mussels
➢ Possible impact to wetlands
In order to address the environmental concerns of DENR that were raised in the October 2008
meeting and to satisfy the requirements of the withdrawal application Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN), Duke performed additional environmental studies and related field
investigations in 2009. The following studies and their status are to be included with the PCN
being submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE);
➢ Wetland Survey (complete)
➢ Fish Survey (complete) .
➢ Mussel Survey (in progress —field survey complete)
➢ Terrestrial Ecology (complete)
➢ Cultural Resources (complete)
➢ Erosion and Sediment Control Design (to be completed during design phase)
➢ Floodzone Designation Determination (complete)
Each of these studies, to be included with the PCN application, outline Findings of Significance
and Avoidance and Mitigation measures that final design and operation will be based upon. A
summary of the findings of the environmental studies and related design investigations are
provided below.
Wetland Protection — The force main piping will be installed via directional bore beneath SR
1.138 and adjacent drainage area. A Nationwide Permit 12 will be obtained for a 0.045 acre open
water type wetland that will be permanently impacted during construction. This wetland was
recently created by Duke Energy during construction of the access road that is used for
temporary pumping operations. Avoidance of this impact will come at a great cost due to the
necessary placement of the pump station and the related placement of fill material to enable
access and maintenance of the pump station, fish recovery system, and motor controls..
Fish and Mussel Protection — Proposed design utilizing velocity cap intakes minimizes potential
for any permanent impacts over other design options that were investigated. Erosion and
Sediment control measures will be important to lessen the potential for temporary impacts. No
19

fish species of special concern were found in the immediate area of the intakes. A mussel survey
revealed the green floater mussel, a North Carolina listed endangered species, in an area 300
meters downstream from the intake location. The area surrounding intake #1 consists of
weathered bedrock riverbed and high velocity areas that are not conducive habitat for mussels.
Intake #2 is to be constructed in the heavily silted mouth of Belews Creek, which is not
conducive habitat for mussels. Ideal mussel habitat consists of small sandy areas or areas of fine
pea gravel with low flow velocities along the banks of a river. These conditions are not present
at the intake locations. The James River Spiny Mussel was not detected in the mussel survey.
Terrestrial Ecology - No land species of special concern were identified. Native vegetation
common to this area and reach of river will be the focus of design selection for re-establishing
vegetation in areas of disturbance. River banks disturbed during construction will be sloped
back as depicted in Sheet No. 2 (Drg. No. 50017459). Reinforced erosion matting and heavy
staples are proposed along the disturbed river bank in lieu of rip -rap.
Cultural Resources - The force main will be routed as shown in Sheet No. 1 (Drg. No. 50017459)
to avoid potential disturbance to Archeological Site No. 31RK203 identified in the 2009 site
cultural resources survey.
Erosion and Sediment Control - Formal detailed design will be required before an approvable
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan can be developed. Goals of this plan will be to minimize
disturbance, avoid where possible further concentration of storm flows, strategically place
adequate silt fencing, install check dams, and diversion ditching. Due to the existence of a rocky
bottom in the area of the intakes, the cofferdam required for construction of the proposed
velocity caps will be equal to Portadam curtain type with an estimated height of approximately
8-10 feet. Erosion and Sediment control design features will be subject to approval by NCDENR
Division of Land Quality and USACOE.
Floodzone - A no net fill increase strategy will be implemented in the final design and grading
scheme for the pump station and fill material on which a motor control building will be placed.
This will be accomplished by removing soil from the river banks while sloping back for
stabilization and using this soil, or equivalent volume of soil, to place beneath the motor control
building pad. This will require submittal and approval of design plans by the USACOE and
Rockingham County.
20

Proposed Pumping Rates
Withdrawals will be variable based upon available river flow; a flow measuring device will be
installed near the intake location. The Division of Water Resources target flow
recommendation for the Dan River at this site is 110 cfs. Pumping will not lower the in -stream
flow rates to less than 110 cfs. Thus, the in -stream flow rate should be sufficient for NPDES
discharges and water withdrawals. The minimum pumping rate will be 10 — 20cfs, and the
maximum pumping rate will be 100 cfs. The following is an outline of proposed pumping
rates.
Table 1— Proposed Pumping Rates
River Flow
cfs
Pumping Rate
cfs
>210
100
200
90
190
80
180
70
170
60
160
50
150
40
140
30
130
20
120
10
110 or less
0 -
Proposed Pumping Schedule
Pumping is scheduled to begin in December 2008, and withdrawals will vary based on
available river flow as outlined in Table 1. At the maximum proposed pumping rate, 61 days
of continuous pumping would be required to raise the lake level from 716 to 720 feet msl from
December through mid-February. If the lake level drops to 715 feet msl, then 101 days of
continuous pumping would be required to raise the lake level from 715 to 720 feet msl from
December through mid-March.

Appendix A-2
Temporary Pumping Plan

IMG - 2472[1]
IMG -2476[l]

IMG -2477
0015

IMG-0019bright
IMG -0021

IMG -0028
IMG -0019

IMG -0030
river 006

.efi1�
te
T
�l r^�-. � sem- �_ � , '�-�'• `¢ar
It
•.�' --
Id

River 008
IMG -0180

SECTION 3.1- WETLANDS & BOTANICAL SPECIES
SUMMARY
The project area was surveyed for the presence of wetlands and one small jurisdictional wetland was
documented in the following Wetland Inventory. On 7/21/2009, Andy Williams of the ACOE visited the
project site and confirmed the delineation of this wetland. The wetland was subsequently surveyed and
determined to be 0.045 acres in size. The project site was also investigated for the presence of
endangered and threatened botanical species and findings are inventoried in the following report.

INVENTORY FOR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED BOTANICAL SPECIES
IN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROPOSED
DAN RIVER PERMANENT WATER WITHDRAWAL STRUCTURE,
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Small wetland adjacent to the proposed Dan River water withdrawal structure.
prepared for
Duke Energy of the Carolinas
Charlotte, North Carolina
by
L. L. Gaddy, Ph. D.
terra incognita
125 South Edisto Avenue
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
August 2009

INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy permanent water withdrawal project is located north of Stokesdale in
southwestern Rockingham County near the Stokes County line. Specifically the project
would involve .a corridor of land from just north of the Belews Lake Dam (see figure in
Appendix) to the south side of the Dan River (see figure). A system of six 18" (45.7 cm)
intake pipes will pump water from the Dan River from two locations, one just upstream
of the junction with Belews Creek and the other from Belews Creek just upstream from
its junction with the Dan River. The pumped water supply would help maintain water
levels in Belews Lake that have been impacted by the additional consumption demand by
the Belews Creek Steam Station's flue gas desulfurization units as well as the region's
recent droughts. (Additional project details may be found in "Duke Energy Permanent
Pump Facilities," a project summary memorandum prepared by Dewberry & Davis for
Duke Energy in December of 2008).
METHODOLOGY
Terra incognita was asked to conduct an inventory of the project area for potentially -
occurring jurisdictional wetlands and endangered and threatened botanical species.
Fieldwork was carried out in April, June, and July of 2009. Jurisdictional wetlands
found in the study area were delineated in the field with "wetland boundary" flags; a
formal survey of Wetland 1 was conducted by Dewberry and Davis in August of 2009.
All habitats present in the project area were visited. Findings are given below.

FINIDINGS
Jurisdictional Wetlands
One small jurisdictional wetland was found in the project area. Wetland 1, which was
originally created by Duke Energy in 2002 as a catchment pond during construction of
the road to the existing pump station site, is an open water wetland approximately 0.045
acres (0.018 ha) in size (see Appendix figure). The central portion of the wetland is
shallow [maximum depth to 18 inches (45.7 cm)], open water. Duckweed (Lemna
valdiviana) was observed floating in the open water; cattail (Typha latifolia) is found in
the northern portion of the wetland; and clumps of common needlerush (Juncus effusus)
line the margins of the wetland's open water. The edges of the wetland are also
vegetated with scattered small seedlings and large saplings of sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciva), box elder (Acer negundo), and green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Any impacts to this wetland should be covered under
Nationwide Permit 12, the national utility permit.
M

Plant Communities
Habitats present in the proposed project area, including the 3,280 ft (999.7 m) waterline,
were: riverbank/levee mixed hardwoods, bottomland cornfield, bottomland mixed
hardwoods, north slope mixed hardwoods, xeric pine -mixed hardwoods, and non -forested
areas. These habitats are described in detail below:
1) Riverbank/Levee Mixed Hardwoods. The riverbank/levee mixed hardwood
type was dominated by bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), sycamore, river
birch (Betula nigra), winged elm (Ulmus alata) in the canopy with ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Cornus florida), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina) in the understory. Trees were generally 10 to 16 inches (25.4 to 40.6
cm) in dbh. The shrub layer was dominated by cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and
widely scattered multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
2) Bottomland Cornfield. The bottomland cornfield was dominated by corn (Zea
mays) and remnant bottomland weedy species such as curly dock (Rumex
crispus), chaffseed (Verbesina officinalis), and ironweed (Veronica
noveboracensis).
3) Bottomland Mixed Hardwoods. The bottomland mixed hardwood type was
found just north of Lindsey Bridge Road and was composed of a mixture of red
maple, sycamore, sweet gum, green ash, winged elm, tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), and box elder. Trees here ranged to 24 inches (70.0 cm) in dbh.
3

4) North Slope Mixed Hardwoods. Along and just south of Lindsey Bridge Road
(SR 1138), a north slope mixed hardwood forest was present. Here, red oak
(Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), American beech (Fagus grand folia),
and tulip poplar were the dominant canopy trees, ranging to 24 inches (70.0 cm)
in dbh. The understory was dominated by dogwood, sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). In the herbaceous layer,
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), American alumroot (Heuchera
americana), hairy chickweed (Stellaria pubera), and Solomon's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum) were common. The pipeline here will be placed
underground and should have little impact on the majority of these woods.
5) Xeric Pine -Mixed Hardwoods. South of the north slope mixed hardwoods
toward Belews Lake, the proposed pipeline will pass through areas of Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana)- and Virginia pine -mixed hardwood dominated forest.
Trees here range to 16 inches (40.6 cm) in dbh and include Virginia pine, chestnut
oak (Quercus prinus), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), and white oak (Quercus
alba). Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) and blueberries (Vaccinium spp.)
were in the understory.
6) Openings. In addition to the bottomland cornfield area, the pipeline will follow
an old roadbed/right-of-way south of the north slope mixed hardwoods. Here,
saplings and blackberries (Rubus sp.) and glades of Vietnam grass (Microstegium
vimineum) dominate. The pipeline will follow the old roadbed to the shores of
Belews Lake where a low grass cover in maintained by regular mowing.
11

Endangered Species
County North Carolina Natural Heritage species lists for Rockingham and Stokes
Counties indicate that 42 elements are known from Rockingham County and 66 elements
have been reported for Stokes County. Furthermore, a review of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program's interactive geographic database revealed that only two listed
species are known from within a two-mile (3.2 km) radius of the project area (N. C.
Natural Heritage Program. Virtual Workroom, April, 2009). The two species are:
creeping sunrose (Crocantheum propinquum), a "significantly rare peripheral" found on
rock outcrops and in glades and the green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), a state -listed
"endangered" (and federal "special concern" species) found primarily in the New and
Watauga River systems.
During the course of my inventories of the above-described plant communities, no habitat
for the creeping sunrose is found in the project study area. Furthermore, no other state -
or federally -listed species or habitat for such species was found in the Dan River Intake
Project Area.
Detailed information on the green floater and other mussels in the vicinity of the
proposed project area is available in Alderman and Alderman (2009).
9

IN -01 t'7V_t1r-1 B[GItt-wil
ALDERMAN, J.A AND J.D. ALDERMAN. 2009. The Mussel Communities in the Dan
River, Rockingham and Stokes Counties, NC, Near a Proposed Permanent Water
Withdrawal Structure.
DUKE ENERGY. 2008. Project Study Memorandum: Duke Energy Permanent Pump
Facilities, Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS). Duke Energy and Dewberry & Davis.
17 p. and Appendices.
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM. 2009: www.ncnhp.org.
County element lists: Stokes :and Rockingham Counties. Last updated on January 9,
2009.
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM. 2009. Virtual Workroom.
Interactive geographic database search performed in April of 2009.
G

47
t ° YY�yy y}yam
^6�5` �- `T'4.� "s ^�.&T �.
F%rM
'" �� 125 -�`4�'.' "
•'+L
h
wx,: ". +t+s§
1# R�:' W a1$L ye
L
4 .� - " T # «` w `5+'=y#$N S'" 'b �. 1' may, y,�. .N� g x �•
♦'32"ie&yY
y vIm• } a a.. a�<9ST.�';q 4 S- :. .y q e, s:,l;. x
't � . �: � � ,: \ .a �
$" � wy...•.. a
' Y tS+ � ,yp„
s� it '�.
�'."P' 1
`� ` I.:' .Nt, 4•1^AN �"t`��`�^ 2F" aM 'S.k �, "mew: x.0 f �1 _..:,'�
,
'N as
�bx�e'R .fid �aim�'�° y� �.��H.� i� �w��• `tri.'
"4{ BCLL�i� py"�
Z
sx .. E
'rra
e A�°
#
MhAP
zn
e {°'.. '� `°•. s' x b ,:,��',"`"' s
OUTFALL'
sus STATION ` a�a,,a. 4� * t�
NEW POWER SUPPLY
s'w Ta s 10'1CC SUILDING� t s
r
DEf4ECTION POINT ryFOR
. 3,280 HDPE RA1V p�
AJi41'{F.C4.{}0{CAL
Slit AVOIDANCE 1VAiERLfNLE ROUTING # ., : , .
MCC BUILDING
045 ACRES *r�
�' . �"�*. w
,s. , ;�.s ���, �"'�3.iM ��a�zi - _ r t'=. alw.?�.
�.xP. ,'"s�,.. �.,Im`. >a �„•.�'�t��"�'��
DIRECTIONAL DRILL UNDER
ki 77A,777! '4 �, � GRAi/EL DR. SR I158 &
{ a
> x
t� UP HILL x
w f,
�' 30'x12G' > tRhtANr.IVT :� r�'�
*zll: SEOIAIEN,ATiON PEND ARCgv 41
HEOLOCIOAL SITE '.
FISi2 RETURN x
NC 31RK2O3 �.
Y
TROUGH S,At%DN x t x
IJ � �" 4 Y�"
., oq•�
_ � �, W �
VELOCIi`•' CAP �i `' ���� � ` REVISED JUNE 2004
6.
s /4' p ASt�hOh1ENT NO_i SUMMARY
MEMORMOUM FORCFJJAlN
RE -ROU,
Y
k
t
.
REyi DATE :JD1 Na. 11PHOJECI lyn IDES' DPTR CHKD EriGA BFPO I
4ELEVS CHEEK PERVAYEUT PUlPS7:4 PAWECT
rwa 6ELM;?cv iC
tI
®Duke
Energy9
X10 x.s# I ow 11c. COWACHU;SIVE SITE LAYOUT

SECTION 3.2 - FISH SURVEY
SUMMARY
While state and federally -listed species are known to exist in the Dan River, most are confined to
upstream regions of differing geological character. However, the Roanoke hog sucker (state rare) and
the riverweed darter (state species of concern) were collected in this survey, although only at the
Downstream location in the vicinity of a large gravel bar. The state threatened bigeye jumprock, with a
known February peak of reproductive activity, was not observed during this survey. Potential impacts to
bigeye jumprock associated with winter operation of the proposed BCSS water withdrawal structure
appear negligible.

THE FISH COMMUNITY IN THE DAN RIVER,
ROCKINGHAM AND STOKES COUNTIES, NC, NEAR A PROPOSED
PERMANENT WATER WITHDRAWAL STRUCTURE
by
David J. Coughlan and Barry K. Baker
Corporate Environment, Health & Safety Services
Duke Energy Corporation
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
June 1, 2009
Duke
Energy

THE FISH COMMUNITY IN THE DAN RIVER,
ROCKINGHAM AND STOKES COUNTIES, NC, NEAR A PROPOSED
PERMANENT WATER WITHDRAWAL STRUCTURE
INTRODUCTION
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) is a Duke Energy baseload generation facility located in
Stokes County, NC. The plant uses Belews Lake to provide once -through cooling water and
service water. Belews Lake receives minimal inflow and the water budget for the reservoir is
limited, especially in low rainfall years. In 2008, two new flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
units, or scrubbers, were installed at BCSS. These two FGD units place an additional
consumptive demand on Belews Lake of approximately 8.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 5.4
million gallons per day. Droughts (from 1998 — 2002 and in 2007 — 2008) have necessitated
supplementation of Belews Lake with temporary pumping from the Dan River in 2003,2008,
and 2009. Based on past pumping needs and the additional water demand of the scrubbers,
Duke Energy is seeking to install a permanent intake in and pumping station near the Dan
River.
Preliminary meetings with resource and permitting agencies have identified several
conditions for withdrawing water from the Dan River as a result of potential environmental
impacts and include: pumping must avoid the April -May fish spawning season, pumping will
not lower Dan River flows below 100 cfs, pumping rates will range from 10-100 cfs, pump
intakes will be screened and positioned above the bottom, intakes will have approach
velocities < 0.5 feet per second, the intake location will be near the confluence of Belews
Creek and the Dan River, and on-going routine Belews Lake monitoring will assess
limnological impacts. Additionally, at a joint Duke Energy / resource agency meeting
convened on November 11, 2008, NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) staff identified a
potential conflict between the winter pumping timeframe and the spawning period of the state
threatened bigeye jumprock Scartomyzon ariommus. Studies in Virginia have identified the
later parts of February as times when oocyte maturation and spawning of bigeye jumprock
occur (Henebry and Jenkins, Roanoke College, personal communication). A survey of Dan
River fishes in the Fault Basin near the proposed permanent intake location was conducted
during February 2009 to evaluate the likelihood of impact to bigeye jumprock during a time
known to be crucial to reproduction.
2

METHODS
All available habitat types (pool, run, sand and gravel bar, cobble, woody debris, and
shoreline) at locations upstream (Upstream), downstream (Downstream), and in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed permanent intake structure (Intake) in the Dan River were
sampled for fish (Table 1 and Figure 1). Upstream and downstream locations were selected
based on significant distance from the proposed intake. Additionally, the presence of gravel
and cobble substrates which are utilized by spawning suckers and nearby pools and runs
where suckers stage prior to spawning were targeted.
Dan River fish collections were made in February 2009 with boat -mounted electrofishing
equipment. Locations were electrofished during periods of relatively low river flow and high
water clarity to maximize fish collection efficiency. At all locations, fish were electrofished
with pulsed DC current at settings adjusted to achieve maximum sampling efficiency, while
minimizing injury to the fish. All netted fish were identified, measured (total length in mm),
and returned to the river, with the exception of a few specimens that were preserved in
formalin and returned to the laboratory for taxonomic identification and/or vouchers.
Catch statistics were tabulated as the number of species and number of individuals per 1,000
seconds of electrofishing time. Water temperature (°C) and dissolved oxygen concentration
(mg/L) were measured at each location with a calibrated thermistor and dissolved oxygen
probe, respectively. Water samples for specific conductance (gS/cm) were collected at each
location, refrigerated, and measured with a calibrated Hydrolab® datasonde at our
Huntersville laboratory.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Three locations on the Dan River near the proposed permanent BCSS water withdrawal
structure were sampled during February 2009 (Figure 2). The Downstream location was
sampled on February 16 while the Upstream and Intake locations were sampled on February
21. Sampling occurred during periods of low river flow (approximately 550 — 650 cfs
measured at the USGS 02071000 Wentworth gage) with good water clarity. The collection
of bottom -dwelling suckers and darters was not problematic.
3

Water Quality
Water temperatures during February were low and ranged from 2.7 to 8.6 °C (Table 2).
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were high at these cold water temperatures and ranged from
11.6 to 13.6 mg/L. Specific conductance at these three river locations ranged from 123 to
159 µS/cm and increased from upstream to downstream. Measured conductivities exceeded
the range (37 to 84 µS/cm) observed by NCDWQ at nine stream fish community assessment
sites in this same Dan River 01 subbasin (#030201) in 2004 (NCDENR 2005).
Fish Community
A total of 24 fish species, representing five families, was collected at the three Dan River
locations in February 2009 (Table 2). This Dan River fish collection was comprised of
numerous cyprinid (7), catostomid (6), percid (6), centrarchid (3), and ictalurid (2) species.
This diverse fish assemblage is a subset of those expected from the distribution maps of
Menhinick (1991) and the studies of Rohde et al. (2001 and 2003) for the Fault Basin region
of the Dan River (extending from Walnut Cove to Madison, Table 3). The studies of
Menhinick (1991) and Rohde et al. (2001 and 2003) represent multi-year collection efforts
and their higher observed species counts would be expected to exceed those collected in the
present two-day survey.
Cyprinids (minnows) represented the highest proportion of the individuals collected at each
location and comprised 68.3%, 84.8%, and 47.0% of the total numbers at the Upstream,
Intake, and Downstream locations, respectively. Catostomids (suckers, see photos in Figure
3) and percids (darters) were always the second and third most numerous families,
respectively, except at the Intake location, where centrarchids (sunfish) were third most
abundant.
The number of species collected increased with downstream direction and ranged .from 14 to
21. All 14 species collected at the Upstream location were found at one or both downstream
locations. Thirteen of '16 species collected at the Intake location were also taken at the
Downstream location; however, three Intake species (quillback Cyprinus carpio, bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus, and Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum) were only collected at the
Intake location. Each of these three species has an affinity for calm to moderate -gradient
waters with varied substrates that include sand, features typified by the pool habitat located at
the Dan River - Belews Creek confluence just downstream of the proposed permanent intake
location,
11

The Downstream location was dominated by a large gravel bar and the most numerous
species collected there was Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans, comprising 30.5% of
all individuals. The Downstream location featured five darter species, the state -listed rare
Roanoke hog sucker Hypentelium roanokense, and the only collection of smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu during this survey.
One interesting observation from this study was the collection of spottail shiner Notropis
hudsonius throughout the study reach. Neither Menhinick (1991) nor Rohde et al. (2001 and
2003) indicate collection of spottail shiner this far upstream in the Dan River, and our data
would indicate their presence throughout the Fault Basin.
Pollution Tolerance and Trophic Status
The presence or absence of various fish species may provide clues regarding conditions in a
specific water body. These conditions may include habitat quality, water quality, biotic
interactions, and energy supply. The ability of NC fish species to tolerate pollution and the
trophic status of adult stages of these same species has been documented (NCDENR 2006).
Each species is assigned a pollution tolerance rating of tolerant, intermediate, or intolerant, in
addition to a trophic status of either herbivore, omnivore, insectivore, or piscivore (Table 4).
Pollution tolerance and trophic status summaries by location are presented in Table 5.
In general, individuals with an intermediate tolerance to pollution dominated fish
communities at the three sampling locations, and their numbers ranged from 73 to 88% of all
fish collected. The highest percentage of fish with intermediate pollution tolerance occurred
at the Intake location. Fish tolerant of pollution were more common (approximately 21% of
the community) at the Upstream location and this percentage decreased with downstream
direction. Four species intolerant of pollution were collected from this reach of the Dan
River (smallmouth bass, riverweed darter Etheostoma podostemone, chainback darter
Percina nevisense, and Roanoke darter P. roanoka), although none were collected at the
Intake location.
Insectivores dominated fish assemblages at the three sampling locations and typically
comprised slightly in excess of 90% of all individuals collected. The only piscivores
(smallmouth bass) were collected at the Downstream location. No herbivores were collected
at any location, and the combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores was about 10% or
less at all locations. Based on atrophic comparison, all three sampling locations appeared
similar.
5

Rare Fishes
The Dan River fish community includes several species with limited populations that receive
special attention from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (NC Natural Heritage Program search for Rockingham and Stokes counties
performed 3/12/09, http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html). The Roanoke hog
sucker is a state rare species. The Blue Ridge sculpin Cottus caeruleomentum, cutlips
minnow Exoglossum maxillingua, and riverweed darter are state species of concern. The
bigeye jumprock is a state threatened species, and the rustyside sucker Thoburnia hamiltoni,
orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti, and Roanoke logperch Percina rex are state endangered
species. The rustyside sucker and orangefin madtom are also federally -listed as species of
concern, while the Roanoke logperch is federally endangered.
The Roanoke hog sucker and the riverweed darter, while collected at the Downstream gravel
bar location, are typically found in .the Blue Ridge physiographic province and Inner
Piedmont region of NC (upstream of the Triassic Basin and proposed intake) based on the
surveys of Rohde et al. (2001 and 2003). The Roanoke logperch was not collected in this
survey. It is currently known in NC only from reaches of the Mayo River and various Dan
River locations and tributaries downstream of the dam in the Town of Madison; these
locations are all downstream of the proposed intake. As expected, none of the other state or
federally -listed species were encountered in this survey, as these species are typically
restricted to the upper reaches of the Dan River.
While six catostomid species were,collected among the three locations, no bigeye jumprock
were collected during this survey. The study of Rohde et el. (2001 and 2003) documented the
majority of bigeye jumprock collection locations to occur in the Inner Piedmont, upstream of
the Fault Basin, where the proposed permanent intake would be located. Menhinick (1991)
appears to show bigeye jumprock upstream of the Fault Basin and in smaller order tributary
streams. Occasional collections of bigeye jumprock at a large gravel bar in Eden, NC (Duke
Energy 2006), well downstream of the proposed intake appear to indicate the propensity of
this species for gravel substrate and flowing water; features that do not characterize the
proposed intake location.
R

CONCLUSION
Electrofishing samples during February 2009 demonstrated a diverse fish community at
locations upstream of, downstream of, and in the vicinity of the proposed BCSS permanent
intake structure. This Dan River fish community was composed of 24 fish species that
included seven cyprinids, six catostomids, six percids, three centrarchids, and two ictalurids.
The fish community was dominated by species with an intermediate pollution tolerance rating
and species known to feed on insects. Four species considered intolerant of pollution were
collected. The observed Dan River fish community was a subset of those documented by
Menhinick (1991) and Rohde et al. (2001 and 2003) for a limited reach of the Dan River
Fault Basin.
While state and federally -listed species are known to exist in the Dan River, most are
confined to upstream regions of differing geological character. However, the Roanoke hog
sucker (state rare) and the riverweed darter (state species of concern) were collected in this
survey, although only at the Downstream location in the vicinity of a large gravel bar. The
state threatened bigeye jumprock, with a known February peak of reproductive activity, was
not observed during this survey. Potential impacts to bigeye jumprock associated with winter
operation of the proposed BCSS water withdrawal structure appears negligible.
LITERATURE CITED
Duke Energy. 2006. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in the Dan River
near Dan River Steam Station. Duke Energy, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Menhinick, EF. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2005.
Basinwide assessment report: Roanoke River basin. NCDENR, Division of Water
Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. 2006. Standard operating procedure. Biological monitoring: Stream fish
community assessment program. NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section. Raleigh, North Carolina.
7

Rohde, FC, RG Arndt, and SM Smith. 2001. Longitudinal succession of fishes in the Dan
River in Virginia and North Carolina (Blue Ridge/Piedmont Provinces). Proceedings of
the Southeastern Fishes Council 42:1-13.
Rohde, FC, RG Arndt, DJ Coughlan, and SM Smith. 2003. An annotated list of the fishes
known from the Dan River in Virginia and North Carolina (Blue Ridge/Piedmont
Provinces). Proceedings of the Southeastern Fishes Council 44:1-10.

Table 1. Description, habitat types sampled, and geographic coordinates of three fish sampling locations on the Dan River, Stokes
and Rockingham counties, NC, in February 2009.
Location Geographic coordinates
Name Description Sampled habitat Upstream end Downstream end
Upstream Immediately upstream and downstream of the Pine Hall
Gravel bars upstream & downstream
N 36° 19.134
N 36° 19.189
Road Bridge; approximately 1.65 river miles upstream
of bridge, pools under bridge, runs,
W 80° 03.044
W 80° 02.883
of the Dan River/ Belews Creek confluence
and sandy areas
Intake Upstream of the proposed intake location in the Dan
Bedrock, woody debris, pool at
N 36° 19.946
N 36° 20.069
River and downstream of the Dan River / Belews Creek
confluence, sand bars, and gravel
W 80° 01.805
W 80° 01.773
confluence
runs
Downstream Downstream of the proposed intake location in the
Long gravel bar reaches, bedrock,
N 36° 20.871
N 36° 20.893
vicinity of a large gravel bar; approximately 2.37 river miles
pools, sand banks, and runs
W 80° 01.065
W 80° 01.254
downstream of the Dan River / Belews Creek confluence
g

Table 2. Scientific and common names of fishes, number collected, percent of total, catch
statistics, and measured water quality parameters at three sampling locations on the
Dan River, Stokes and Rockingham counties, NC, in February 2009.
10
Upstream
Intake
Downstream
Scientific name
Common name
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Cyprinidae
Cyprinella analostana
Satinfin shiner
14
17.07
15
8.43
9
5.96
Luxilus albeolus
White shiner
26
31.71
4
2.25
23
15.23
Luxilus cerasinus
Crescent shiner
1
1.22
2
1.32
Lythrurus ardens
Rosefin shiner
9
10.98
45
25.28
23
15.23
Nocomis raneyi
Bull chub
4
4.88
3
1.69
7
4.64
Notropis amoenus
Comely shiner
77
43.26
5
3.31
Notropis hudsonius
Spottail shiner
2
2.44
7
3.93
2
1.32
Catostomidae
Carpiodes cyprinus
Quillback
4
2.25
Catostomus commersoni
White sucker
1
1.22
4
2.25
1
0.66
Hypentelium nigricans
Northern hog sucker
12
14.63
8
4.49
46
30.46
Hypentelium roanokense
Roanoke hog sucker
2
1.32
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden redhorse
2
2.44
2
1.12
4
2.65
Moxostoma pappillosum
V -lip redhorse
3
3.66
1
0.56
2
1.32
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus brunneus
Snail bullhead
1
0.56
2
1.32
Noturus insignis
Margined madtom
2
1.12
2
1.32
Centrarchidae
Lepomis auritus
Redbreast sunfish
2
2.44
3
1.69
5
3.31
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
1
0.56
Micropterus dolomieu
Smallmouth bass
4
2.65
Percidae
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
2
1.32
Etheostoma nigrum
Johnny darter
1
0.56
Etheostoma podostemone
Riverweed darter
1
0.66
Etheostoma vitreum
Glassy darter
1
1.22
3
1.99
Percina nevisense
Chainback darter
1
1.22
2
1.32
Percina roanoka
Roanoke darter
4
4.88
4
2.65
Total number of individuals
82
100.00
178
100.00
151
100.00
Total number of species
14
16
21
Shock time (sec)
1582
1918
1699
Individuals/1,000 sec
51.8
92.8
88.9
Surface water temp. (C)
2.7
3.4
8.6
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
13.6
13.1
11.6
Conductivity (uS/cm)
123.3
133.5
158.8
10

Table 3. Scientific and common names of fishes collected in the Fault Basin of the Dan
River (from the Town of Walnut Cove downstream to the Town of Madison near
the Mayo River confluence in Stokes and Rockingham counties) in two previous
studies and the present study.
Scientific name
Common name
Menhinick
(1991)
Study
Rohde et al.
(2001 & 2003)
Present Study
(2009)
Esocidae
Esox americanus
Redfin pickerel
X
Esox niger
Chain pickerel
X
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central stoneroller
X
Carassius auratus
Goldfish
X
Clinostomus funduloides
Rosyside dace
X
Cyprinella analostana
Satinfin shiner
X
X
X
Cyprinella lutrensis
Red shiner
X
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp
X
X
Luxilus albeolus
White shiner
X
X
X
Luxilus cerasinus
Crescent shiner
X
X
X
Lythrurus ardens
Rosefin shiner
X
X
X
Nocomis leptocephalus
Bluehead chub
X
X
Nocomis raneyi
Bull chub
X
X
X
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner
X
X
Notropis amoenus
Comely shiner
X
X
Notropis chiliticus
Redlip shiner
X
X
Notropis hudsonius
Spottail shiner
X
Notropis procne
Swallowtail shiner
X
Phoxinus oreas
Mountain redbelly dace
X
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chub
X
Catostomidae
Carpiodes cyprinus
Quillback
X
X
Catostomus commersoni
White sucker
X
X
X
Hypentelium nigricans
Northern hogsucker
X
X
X
Hypentelium roanokense
Roanoke hogsucker
X
X
Moxostoma collapsum
Nolchlip redhorse
X
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden redhorse
X
X
X
Moxostoma pappillosum
V -lip redhorse
X
X
X
Scartomyzonariommus
Bigeyejumprock
X
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus brunneus
Snail bullhead
X
X
Ameiurus catus
White catfish
X
Ameiurus natalis
Yellow bullhead
X
X
Ameiurus nebulosus
Brown bullhead
X
X
Ameiurus melas
Black bullhead
X
Ameiurus platycephalus
Flat bullhead
X
X
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish
X
X
Noturus insignis
Margined madtom
X
X
X
Poeciliidae
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern mosquitofish
X
Centrarchidae
Lepomis auritus
Redbreast sunfish
X
X
X
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish
X
X
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed
X
X
Lepomis gulosus
Warmouth
X
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
X
X
X
Micropterus dolomieu
Smallmouth bass
X
X
X
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth bass
X
X
Pomoxis annularis
While crappie
X
Percidae
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
X
X
X
Etheostoma nigrum
Johnny darter
X
X
Etheostoma podostemone
Riverweed darter
X
X
X
Etheostoma vitreum
Glassy darter
X
X
Percina nevisense
Chainback darter
X
X
Percina roanoka
Roanoke darter
X
X
X
Total species
43
34
24
Total families
6
6
5
11

Table 4. Scientific and common names, tolerance rating, trophic status, and percent
composition of fish collected at three sampling locations during February 2009
on the Dan River near a proposed BCSS water withdrawal structure.
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12
Tolerance
Trophic guild
Location
Scientific name
Common name
rating
of adults
Upstream
Intake
Downstream
Cyprinidae
Cyprinella analostana
Satinfin shiner
Tolerant
Insectivore
17.1%
8.4%
6.0%
Luxilus albeolus
White shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
31.7%
2.2%
15.2%
Luxilus cerasinus
Crescent shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
1.2%
1.3%
Lythrurus ardens
Rosefin shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
11.0%
25.3%
15.2%
Nocomis raneyi
Bull chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
4.9%
1.7%
4.6%
Notropis amoenus
Comely shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
43.3%
3.3%
Notropis hudsonius
Spottail shiner
Intermediate
Omnivore
2.4%
3.9%
1.3%
Total
68.3%
84.8%
47.0%
Catostomidae
Carpiodes cyprinus
Quillback
Intermediate
Omnivore
2.2%
Catostomus commersoni
White sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
1.2%
2.2%
0.7%
Hypentelium nigricans
Northern hog sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
14.6%
4.5%
30.5%
Hypentelium roanokense
Roanoke hog sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
1.3%
Moxostomaerythrurum
Golden redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
2.4%
1.1%
2.6%
Moxostoma pappillosum
V -lip redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
3.7%
0.6%
1.3%
Total
22.0%
10.7%
36.4%
Ictaluridae
Ameiurusbrunneus
Snail bullhead
Intermediate
Insectivore
0.6%
1.3%
Noturusinsignis
Margined madtom
Intermediate
Insectivore
1.1%
1.3%
Total
0.0%
1.7%
2.6%
Centrarchidae
Lepomis auritus
Redbreast sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
2.4%
1.7%
3.3%
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
0.6%
Micropterus dolomieu
Smallmouth bass
Intolerant
Piscivore
2.6%
Total
2.4%
2.2%
6.0%
Percidae
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
1.3%
Etheostoma nigrum
Johnny darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
0.6%
Etheostoma podostemone
Riverweed darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
0.7%
Etheostoma vitreum
Glassy darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
1.2%
2.0%
Percina nevisense
Chainback darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1.2%
1.3%
Percina roanoka
Roanoke darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
4.9%
2.6%
Total
7.3%
0.6%
7.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12

Table 5. Summary of pollution tolerance rating and trophic guild of adult fish collected at
fish sampling locations during February 2009 on the Dan River near a proposed
BCSS water withdrawal structure.
Locations
Pollution tolerance
Upstream
Intake
Downstream
Tolerant
20.73%
12.36%
9.93%
Intermediate
73.17%
87.64%
82.78%
Intolerant
6.10%
0.00%
7.29%
Trophic status of adults
Upstream
Intake
Downstream
Herbivore
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Omnivore
8.54%
10.11%
6.62%
Insectivore
91.46%
89.89%
90.73%
Piscivore
0.00%
0.00%
2.65%
13

TOPO! map printed on 03/06/09 from "North Carotina.tpo" and "Untitled.tpg"
VV UU'UL.000 VVOj
n
VVl.Ji34 8U -U1.000 VV
m`I
Downstream
r
t
�f �_t� �• �� r1I_
Proposed
Permanent
Intake Site
i
ED
Id
Upstream
1 r
W 80.02.000' W WGS84 80601.000'W
z
0
0
N
ID
M
z
z
\14'�TV °--s
St.o p- I=FEE[
]L+p crag. Aith 10?0! V 2'091 Naticnat Geographi: (nictr,catieaalgeographi..com [opo)
Figure 1. Map of the Dan River, Rockingham and Stokes counties, NC, depicting three
fish sampling locations and the site of a proposed permanent water intake
structure for BCSS.
14

Figure 2. Photographs of three fish sampling locations on the Dan River, Rockingham and
Stokes counties, NC. Upstream location near the Pine Hall Road Bridge (A &
B), Intake location near the current temporary intake pumping site (C & D), and
Downstream location in the vicinity of a large gravel bar (E & F).
15
.. tee, +vt' ,`.1_ (L �`.r:,�� ;•Yl,\.0
`. '� i„ '"�'�'s,�"
_
,�`
^t
-
�--•-,,�,�`
. 'wiles.
u PIPy
�
,SL� eb� � 4 rt'. ;'•i FaIJ� ° z���e °
• I
�
� I ... _;.,�•,--r a -� ..'o'�'
- _ ((\\ �� ) sem' ,:-.:.,ti
%wa
-
....Wka,
` o-. Mr.. i .'aF,'. x�, t'tl'.°�'X•3's. � , vd..�' 1`^4g4ruA
Figure 2. Photographs of three fish sampling locations on the Dan River, Rockingham and
Stokes counties, NC. Upstream location near the Pine Hall Road Bridge (A &
B), Intake location near the current temporary intake pumping site (C & D), and
Downstream location in the vicinity of a large gravel bar (E & F).
15

A
B
C
Figure 3. Photographs of six Dan River catostomids: quillback Cyprinus carpio (A), white
sucker Catostomus commersoni (B), northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans
(C) -
Frei

D
4 5
lull
E
�I�jllli lil(}Illl fl�iliul-i�Erj���k ii��li�il ►1(Il�iii rl�l�t�l ����t,;' iiil(illl lkiijllfi IIII{{ill�llli�ll[(f�(ljlili�llj�l�i i�uj�iii'�III�«ii II�I���t� tiii�i�ll+t�i�'�}��'
2 3 4 .5 6 7 8. 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
1�1(�1LI111�11'�,!l111 1�llll�lll(!� i i �-lll!�{kklkkkli,�T�l�l�lii�lii� ikl�i_�1�� .��
�,,41��,.;�a
-
F
lflill�lll"111!11111IJ1Ili�liiiillil�lll111I11�1in�������ilslliil�'lih�.il
k (ll (,1 I{�111�1i1i�11Ci�(�i�1�1 ,�i t�I t��T�t�m�m���.
3. 4 5 6 a .7:'. 8.. 9: 20 3. 4 5 6 7
till 1 �l ll�11111�11i�lkl [k1� 14 11�1(�1� �
iiis Em ate_
Figure 3. (Continued): Roanoke hog sucker Hypentelium roanokense (D), golden redhorse
Moxostoma erythrurum (E), and V -lip redhorse Moxostoma pappillosum (F).
17

SECTION 3.3 - MUSSEL SURVEY
SUMMARY
The project area was surveyed for the presence of mussels. The following report details the findings
from the mussel survey.

The Mussel Community in the Dan River,
Rockingham and Stokes Counties, NC,
Near a Proposed Permanent
Water Withdrawal Structure
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
CHARLOTTE, NC
iM
John M. Alderman
and
Joseph D. Alderman
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
Pittsboro, NC
26 July 2009

Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................... 3
Objective.........................................................................................4
Methods............................................................................................4
Results and Discussion....................................................................5
References........................................................................................6
Figures..............................................................................................7
Appendix - station -by -station survey results ............................... 13
P1

Introduction
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) is a 2240 megawatt Duke Energy baseload
generation facility located in Stokes County, NC. The station uses water from Belews
Lake for both once -through cooling and service water (Coughlan and Baker 2009).
Belews Lake receives minimal inflow and the water budget for the reservoir is limited,
especially in drought and low rainfall years. Two new flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
units (aka scrubbers) were installed at BCSS in 2008. These two FGD units placed an
additional consumptive demand on Belews Lake of —8.4 cubic feet per second (cfs)
which equates to 5.4 million gallons per day. During the timeframes of 1998-2002 and
2007-2008, regional drought conditions required the installation of a temporary pumping
system to pull water from the Dan River to Belews Lake in 2003, 2008, and 2009.
Because of the demand of the FGD units coupled with the periodic lack of rainfall over
the past decade, Duke Energy is investigating the installation of a permanent intake and
associated pumping system in the general area of where Belews Creek confluences with
the Dan River.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified a portion of the Dan
River, including sections of Stokes County, as an area that supports listed and otherwise
rare and sensitive aquatic species. Within the Dan River Subbasin, 12 mussel species
remain extant: eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), variable spike (Elliptio icterina),
Atlantic spike (Elliptio producta), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), notched rainbow
(Villosa constricta), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), creeper (Strophitus undulatus), eastern floater (Pyganodon

cataracta), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa),
and paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis). The James spinymussel is state and
federally listed endangered. The Atlantic pigtoe, green floater, and brook floater are state
listed endangered and are federal species of concern. Both the creeper and triangle
floater are state listed threatened species. The notched rainbow is state listed special
concern. Therefore, 7 of 12 Dan River Subbasin mussel species are state or federally
listed species. Within the main channel Dan River in Stokes and Rockingham counties, 5
mussel species remain extant: James spinymussel, eastern elliptio, Atlantic spike, green
floater, and notched rainbow.
Obiective
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. was hired by Duke Energy Corporation to
complete a mussel survey of the Dan River in Stokes and Rockingham counties, North
Carolina, in the vicinity of the proposed permanent BCSS water withdrawal structure.
Methods
Five sites or reaches were surveyed for freshwater mussels within the Dan River and in
Belews Creek, all in the general vicinity of the proposed water withdrawal structures
(Figure 1). Visual and tactile survey techniques were employed, including use of
batiscopes, snorkeling gear, and SCUBA gear. On 6 July 2009, biologists canoed and
kayaked downriver within the Dan River from SR -1908. While traveling downriver,
habitat was evaluated for potential James spinymussel and other listed species. One site
with a riffle/run flow and substrate containing silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, and
boulder substrate near the confluence with Eurins Creek was chosen as a survey site (site

number 90706.1). Scuba and batiscopes were used at site number 90706.2 (just upriver
and adjacent to the proposed water intake site), since deepwater habitat existed there.
On 7 July 2009, visual and tactile techniques were employed within Belews Creek from
its confluence with the Dan River up to a rocky outcropping area of the creek (reach
90707.1). Also on this date, a more intensive survey of the water intake reach was
completed (within 100 in upriver from site to within 400 in downriver from site) using
batiscopes and snorkeling gear. This was reach number 90707.2. Finally, 1 additional
site with diverse habitats was surveyed downriver from the proposed water intake (site
90707.3).
Results and Discussion
Four freshwater mussel species were documented as extant within the areas surveyed for
this project: common elliptio (71 specimens collected), Atlantic spike (1 specimen
collected), green floater (13 live specimens and 1 shell collected), and notched rainbow
(1 specimen collected). Figures 1 — 5 and the Appendix provide summary or site specific
data for the surveys.
Two listed species, the green floater (state listed endangered and federal species of
concern) and the notched rainbow (state listed special concern species), were documented
within the Dan River in the general area of the water withdrawal structure. Although
good habitat existed within the Dan River surveyed reaches, no James spinymussel live
individuals or shells were found. Documented James spinymussel habitat exists 16 miles

upriver from the proposed project area within the Dan River and 11.4 miles downriver
from the Dan River surveyed reach within the Mayo River, a downriver tributary (Figure
6).
Given that no mussel individuals were found at the proposed water intake sites (bedrock
outcropping site in the Dan River and within the lower reaches of Belews Creek), the
construction of the 2 velocity caps should have no impact on the mussel fauna within the
Dan River. This assumes that great care is exercised to control erosion and sedimentation
associated with construction activities. Determining the operational effects of water
withdrawals on the Dan River mussel fauna is not a part of this mussel survey.
References
Coughlan, D.J. and B.K. Baker. 2009. The fish community in the Dan River,
Rockingham and Stokes counties, NC, near a proposed permanent water withdrawal
structure. Duke Energy Corporation.

Figure 1. Freshwater mussel survey reaches or sites within the Dan River and Belews Creek.

0
STOKES CO.
Eurins Cr.
22 E. oomplanata
observed between pan R
SR -1908 and
survey site 90706.1FV-
a
I ROCKINGHAM CO. H
Be m Cr.
Belews Lake
�O Io
E. complanata CPUE
0.1-2
•
2.1-4
® 4ti 1 -6
•
6.1-8
•
8.1-10
•
10.1-12
Roads
Streams
2 Miles Counties
Figure 2. Elliptio complanata within the surveyed reaches of the Dan River.
8

Eurins Cr.
STOKES CO. [ / I I ROCIdNGRAM CO.
M
Belews Lake
Belews Cr.
Roads
E. producta
N Streams
W+E 0 Counties
S
0 2 Mmes
MEMMEMM 0
Figure 3. Elliptio producta (1 live specimen) within the surveyed reaches of the Dan
River.
C

r
STOKES CO. ROCKNGHAM CO.
Eudns Cr.
Dan R.
Belem Cr.
SR -1908 Belews Lake
0 2 Mmes
Roads
V. constricts
Strearns
Counties
0
Figure 4. Villosa constricta (1 live specimen) within the surveyed reaches of the Dan
River.
10'

Figure 5. Lasmigona subviridis within the surveyed reaches of the Dan River.
11

Figure 6. Rare freshwater mussel species within the Dan River Subbasin, Stokes and
Rockingham counties, North Carolina.
12
..��`�
Proposed
e ites
STOKES ROCKINGHAM
producta Sites
Lasn-dgona subviridis•'
constrictaRange
,,VV111osa
leuroberna collina Range
N 7 Strearns
��� Counties0
10 Mies
Figure 6. Rare freshwater mussel species within the Dan River Subbasin, Stokes and
Rockingham counties, North Carolina.
12

APPENDIX — Survey station results from the Dan River,
Stokes and Rockingham counties, NC
PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey for Duke Energy Corporation
TARGET SPECIES: Federally and state listed endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), state listed endangered and federal species of concern green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
Gene Vaughan
Mark Auten
STATION 090706.1
LOCATION: Dan River, Rockingham County, North Carolina; 36.33084'N
80.033228° W; at island near confluence with Eurins Creek
SURVEY DATE: July 6, 2009
SITE COMMENTS:
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS
River
Run, riffle, slack, pool
Very shallow to shallow
15
Silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder
Normal and unconsolidated
Rare
13

HABITAT (continued):
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH:
BANK HEIGHT:
BANK STABILITY:
BUFFER WIDTH:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
LAND USE:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
GIS
3-4+m
Very stable, some undercutting and erosion
Varies
Wooded, shrub -brush
Rural
4
Varies
At least one
Slightly turbid
Normal
Cloudy to sun -cloud, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual; tactile; use of batiscopes
SURVEY TIME: —3 person -hours
14

TAXA:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Lasmigona subviridis — 1 shell: 34 mm
Villosa constricta — 1 live: 52 mm
15

Elliptio producta —1 live: 73 mm
'.m
z
Elliptio complanata — 27 live
OTHER TAXA:
Asian clam - Corbicula fluminea
Crested mudalia -Leptoxis carinata
16

PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey for Duke Energy Corporation
TARGET SPECIES: Federally and state listed endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), state listed endangered and federal species of concern green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
STATION 090706.2
LOCATION: Dan River, Rockingham County, North Carolina; 36.33345'N
80.02987° W; from 100 in up Dan River from confluence with Belews Creek and —50m
up Belews Creek.
SURVEY DATE: July 6, 2009
SITE COMMENTS: No mussels found in Belews Creek.
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE: River
FLOW:
Run, riffle
RELATIVE DEPTH:
Shallow to moderate
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
25
SUBSTRATE:
Silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder, bedrock
COMPACTNESS:
Normal and unconsolidated
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
None
WOODY DEBRIS:
Average
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
WINDTHROW:
Low
TEMPORARY POOLS:
None
CHANNEL WIDTH:
GIS
BANK HEIGHT:
>3m
BANK STABILITY:
Very stable, some undercutting and erosion
BUFFER WIDTH:
Varies
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded, shrub -brush
LAND USE:
Rural
PERCENT COVER:
4
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive to not extensive
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Normal
WEATHER:
Cloudy to sun -cloud, warm
17

TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual; tactile; use of batiscopes
SURVEY TIME: 1.08 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea
Leptoxis carinata
18

PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey for Duke Energy Corporation
TARGET SPECIES: Federally and state listed endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), state listed endangered and federal species of concern green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
STATION 090707.1
LOCATION: Belews Creek, Rockingham County, North Carolina; 36.33206'N
80.02871' W from confluence with Dan River and up —250 m
SURVEY DATE: July 7, 2009
SITE COMMENTS: Poor quality mussel habitat with very little flow
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE: Stream
FLOW:
Slack
RELATIVE DEPTH:
Very shallow to shallow
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
50
SUBSTRATE:
Silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder, bedrock
COMPACTNESS:
Normal and unconsolidated
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
None
WOODY DEBRIS:
Average
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
WINDTHROW:
Low
TEMPORARY POOLS:
None
CHANNEL WIDTH:
25+m
BANK HEIGHT:
3+m
BANK STABILITY:
Very stable, some undercutting and erosion
BUFFER WIDTH:
Narrow to wide
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded, shrub -brush
LAND USE:
Rural
PERCENT COVER:
40
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Varies
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Turbid to slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sunny, warm
19

TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual; tactile; use of batiscopes
SURVEY TIME: 0.5 person -hours
TAXA:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
None observed
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea
20

PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey for Duke Energy Corporation
TARGET SPECIES: Federally and state listed endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), state listed endangered and federal species of concern green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
Gene Vaughan
Mark Auten
STATION 090707.2
LOCATION: Dan River, Rockingham County, North Carolina; 36.33278'N
80.03010° W to 36.33695° N 80.02910° W; Approximately 100 meters up from
confluence with Belews Creek to approximately 400 meters down from confluence with
Belews Creek
SURVEY DATE: July 7, 2009
SITE COMMENTS: Lasmigona subviridis found in the last 100 meters downriver and
on left 115 of river.
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
River
FLOW:
Run, slack
RELATIVE DEPTH:
Shallow
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
50
21

HABITAT (continued):
COMPACTNESS:
Normal and unconsolidated
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
None
WOODY DEBRIS:
Average
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
WINDTHROW:
Low
TEMPORARY POOLS:
None
CHANNEL WIDTH:
GIS
BANK HEIGHT:
3.5+m
BANK STABILITY:
Very stable
BUFFER WIDTH:
Varies
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded, shrub -brush, farm fields
LAND USE:
Natural, active crop, timber, rural
PERCENT COVER:
5
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Varies
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Clear
WATER LEVEL:
Normal
WEATHER:
Sunny and warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual; tactile; use of batiscopes
SURVEY TIME: —4 person -hours
TAXA:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Lasmigona subviridis — 2 live, 43.4, 42.9 mm
22

Elliptio complanata — 19 live
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea
Leptoxis carinata
23

PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey for Duke Energy Corporation
TARGET SPECIES: Federally and state listed endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina), state listed endangered and federal species of concern green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta)
BIOLOGISTS:
John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
Gene Vaughan
Mark Auten
STATION 090707.3
LOCATION: Dan River, Rockingham County, North Carolina; 36.33861'N
80.03004° W; above, within, and below riffle area
SURVEY DATE: July 7, 2009
SITE COMMENTS: Clean substrate
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH:
BANK HEIGHT:
BANK STABILITY:
BUFFER WIDTH:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
LAND USE:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Very shallow to shallow
50
Silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder, bedrock,
vegetation
Normal
None
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
None
GIS
3.75+m
Very stable
Varies
Wooded, shrub -brush
Natural, active crop, timber, rural
5
Varies
At least one
24

HABITAT (continued):
VISIBILITY: Clear
WATER LEVEL: Normal
WEATHER: Sunny and warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
U EMIT
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Visual; tactile; use of batiscopes
2 person -hours
Lasmigona subviridis — 11 live: 51.3, 48.6, 38.1, 40.7, 40.0, 42.0, 38.8, 41.3, 39.9, 39.7,
41.3 mm
25

Elliptio complanata — 24 live
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea
Leptoxis carinata
26

SECTION 3.4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
SUMMARY
No land species of special concern were identified. Native vegetation common to this area and reach of
river will be the focus of design selection for re-establishing vegetation in areas of disturbance. River
banks disturbed during construction will be sloped back as depicted in Sheet No. 2 (Drg. No. 50017459)
Appendix 7 of the Project Summary Memorandum. Reinforced erosion matting and heavy staples are
proposed along the disturbed river bank in lieu of rip -rap.

SECTION 3.5 --- CULTURAL RESOURCES (Summary)
PURPOSE
Section F. of the PCN request supplemental information regarding Historic or Prehistoric Cultural
Resources. Review of the NC State Historic Preservation website revealed this project has the potential
to impact historic or archeological resources. In response to this concern, Duke Energy obtained the
services of Browning and Associates LTD, to conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey.
PROTOCOL
The Phase I Survey included herein was conducted in order to locate cultural resources under the
provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Methods used to carry out this work
was selected in order to identify cultural resources, distribution in two dimensions, type, frequency,
topographic situation and other relevant factors. Natural resource indicators considered included
artifact scatter, historic landform features, landform anomalies, anomalous soil types, lithic resources,
landscape flora, raw material outcrops and subsurface features. Survey methodology for archaeology
was a combination of shovel tests, visual inspection of punctuated cleared strips, augering, and
machine testing for deeply buried deposits. Survey methodology for architecture was visual inspection
and reconnaissance level documentation.
FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
1 new archeological site (31RK203), 4 revisited archaeological sites (31RK24, 31RK25, 31RK42, 31RK60)
and no building sets were identified within the project vicinity. Two existing sites 31RK25 and 31RK60,
are within the construction limits of the proposed pump station. These sites however are described as
small and having isolated finds, and since the 1969 survey that reveled these areas they have been
converted to a plowed agricultural field and are believed to have no remaining significant archeological
value. The new site (31RK203) is also within the near vicinity of the pump station force main and was
found only to have a slight artifact scatter which has also has been affected by agricultural plowing. The
interpretation from the available artifacts in the immediate vicinity of the pump station and/or force
main is suggestive of hunting and/or fishing camps rather than more intensive occupied camps.
AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION
The finding of 5 sherds of plain pottery at site 31RK203 and given the larger size and possible
significance of this site warrants avoidance against intense construction activities. As a result of this find
it is recommended that the pump station force main be re -aligned to stay clear of this site. So long that
the limits of construction do not change, and the avoidance action regarding the force main alignment is
implemented, no further cultural resources investigatory survey work or avoidance/mitigation measures
are recommended for this project.

BELEWS CREEK PIPELINE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC
PHASE I
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
surveyed for:
DUKE ENERGY
MS. JOETTE COVINGTON
PROJECT ENGINEERING
DUKE ENERGY
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
PINE HALL, NC
[phone]
surveyed by:
LYLE E. BROWNING, RPA
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
BROWNING & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2240 CHARTSTONE DRIVE
MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113
[phone]
2009

Management Summary
Phase I Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the proposed water pipeline project for Duke Energy was
performed in order to locate cultural resources potentially affected by the project. Survey methodology
for archaeology was a combination of shovel tests, visual inspection of punctuated cleared strips,
augering, and machine testing for deeply buried deposits. Survey methodology for architecture was
visual inspection and reconnaissance level documentation.
The terrain was a river floodplain to an upland ridge with erosion tongues oriented perpendicular to
stream cuts. Total area of the surveyed area was about 10 acres.
1 new archaeological site (31RK203), 4 revisited archaeological sites (31RK24, 31RK25, 31RK42, 31RK60)
and no building sets were identified within the project vicinity.
Phase II is recommended for the off -project 31RK42 if it is affected by future construction. Avoidance is
recommended for 32RK203. The project is recommended to proceed to construction.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ManagementSummary...........................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................
.
FIGURELIST.............................................................................................................................................iv
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1
PhysicalEnvironment..............................................................................................................................9
HISTORICCONTEXT.............................................................................................................................10
PrehistoricBackground......................................................................................................................10
Paleo-Indian Period............................................................................................................................10
ArchaicPeriod.....................................................................................................................................11
WoodlandPeriod................................................................................................................................12
Proto-Historic and Contact Period...................................................................................................14
HistoricBackground................................................................................................................................16
Initial European Settlement to Society Period - A.D. 1607 -1750 ................................................16
Colony to Nation Period - A.D. 1750 - 1789....................................................................................18
Early National Period - A.D. 1789 —1830.........................................................................................22
Ante-bellum Period - A.D. 1830- 1861..............................................................................................23
Civil War Period - A.D. 1861 - 1865..................................................................................................25
Reconstruction and Growth Period - A.D. 1865 - Present.............................................................25
PreviousResearch....................................................................................................................................26
Archival& Map Research.......................................................................................................................28
Terrain Description And Survey Conditions.......................................................................................34
ResearchDesign........................................................................................................................................34
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................34
Definitions............................................................................................................................................35
Prehistoric Periods Research Design................................................................................................37
Historic Periods Research Design.....................................................................................................39
SurveyMethodology...............................................................................................................................41
SURVEYRESULTS...................................................................................................................................50
ArchaeologicalSites............................................................................................................................50
The Built Environment Within And Adjacent To The Project......................................................55
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................56
ReferencesCited.......................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A — Selected Test Profiles......................................................................................................62
AppendixB — Survey Forms...................................................................................................................63
Appendix C — Project Photographs.......................................................................................................64
AppendixD — Finds List..........................................................................................................................65
iii

FIGURE LIST
Figure 1. Project General Location..........................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Project Locale, 500K USGS Quad............................................................................................
2
Figure 3. Project Location, USGS 100k Quad........................................................................................
3
Figure 4. Project Location, Belews Lake USGS 7.5 Quad....................................................................
4
Figure 5. Project Area Contour Map.......................................................................................................
5
Figure 6. Project Contour Map & Testing Regimen.............................................................................
6
Figure 7. Project Area Aerial View.........................................................................................................
7
Figure 8. Project Conceptual Layout Aerial View................................................................................
8
Figure 9.1753 Frye -Jefferson Map With Project Locale.......................................................................
29
Figure 10. 1770 John Collet Map of North Carolina With Project Locale ..........................................
30
Figure 11. 1795 Carey Map of North Carolina With Project Locale ...................................................
31
Figure 12.1814 Carey Map of North Carolina With Project Locale ...................................................
32
Figure 13. 1833 Mac Rae Map of North Carolina With Project Locale ..............................................
33
Figure 14. Belews Lake 24K USGS Quad With Cultural Resource Locations ..................................
42
Figure 15. Cultural Resources On Project Contour Map.....................................................................
43
Figure 16. Prehistoric Cultural Resources On Project Contour Map .................................................
44
Figure 17. Site 31RK203 Testing Regimen.............................................................................................
45
Figure 18. Historic Cultural Resources On Project Contour Map......................................................46
Figure 19. 1901 Moore's Mill Plat............................................................................................................
47
Figure 20. Project Contour Map With Floodplain Pipe Realignment & RK203 ...............................
48
Figure21. RK203 Artifacts........................................................................................................................
49
iv

Introduction
Duke Energy seeks to construct a water pipeline set from the junction of the Dan River and
Belews Creek in western Rockingham County to Belews Lake. This Phase I Intensive Cultural Resources
Survey was performed on the project construction area. A pump station with two intake pipes, a set of
pipes, an electrical sub -station with an access road and a power transmission line comprise the suite of
entities to be constructed. A temporary pump station, substation and pipeline set are in place.
The project lies on the western border of Rockingham County near the community of Pine Hall in
the Piedmont Physiographic Province from the 560 - 750 foot± contours above Mean Average Sea Level
(MASL) The project lies on the Belews Lake 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle sheet. The project is located on
upland interior topography in the Dan River and Belews Creek watersheds. The specific project area is
bounded by the Dan River on the north and crosses SR 1138 to terminate just above the Belews Lake
Dam. The project is entirely within the Dan River watershed.
Rockingham County
Figure 1. Project General Location.
Dewberry provided the project mapping. The contour map was overlaid with pertinent
information for this survey and report. Lyle E. Browning, RPA was Principal Investigator for the project
and authored the report. The author and James H. Brothers IV, RPA performed the fieldwork for the
project. Field Survey was conducted from January 28 to January 31, 2009.

I Map crcatcd with TOPO!C C 2003 National Geographic (N"i-nationalgcoaral)hic_conL4opo)
Figure 2. USGS 500k Quad & Project Locale.

I Map crcatcd with TOPOI0 02003 National Gcogmphic(www.nationalgcographic.com/topo)
Figure 3. Project Location, USGS 100K Quad.

ZZ, TN u ! Mat.
8'/•° 0 1000 FEET 0 594 t030 h4ETERS
Map created with TOPO!@ Cr''2003 National Geographic(,."vw.nationalgcocraphic_conu'topo)
Figure 4. Project Location, Belews Lake 24K USGS Quad.
t4 ' � 1
vin
_
�t
Power LineRyll
I
Substation
20 �r \ 4fi°
i �, ltdS ✓
Substation
<=D Pump Station'!
�� • l� �i� r��� 599 It F i�, r' r� � } r l., / `'
��-- tt� 11�^ 'x is � �t� 'b .;'+ /�� •
w1 �•' fr"v"'' ,r''`,J � \,./,�`4=./y.\� 7 �, � �4� \ �4� jib/'��}� 1 `}-)'S�/^'` �
. � ^^`�/'^.!.'y..�✓' 1,`.-1` ,l"��j.._ /�� �/ + j(� ,- f y/ 11�V �>f! I
Road - t
l ! I r � �.✓
c^'.:,ol.�' f//!.� , ♦�:....
� � , t� '^f� J S•��'�"�',(�J
" V'L.: r�� �'_ �...�''I
i��
� � %% �j�
1 ��. �t'
"i� � ` `I,� r � 1 4
�4 �
Lrt_( __ c`n Cfif'16
ut
i r-
'�
-�_: ,%fir ��rtrr'.r. �
i.�• sR> .
f-Jf SPtpe Ahgn)men , r } _ >- /J „ J ~1J 1, , f{� / r t+y
� �/./" ,�� . � . v" . �' �- � I e �,C � j F,`''. ' F � (y `�--�»_(.(,�r
L'
Z � �-, -_ `� � `
4 ` ifs✓'
( 4- �..� fall),✓ �j��
>,-- N
�• l I �1 1` l
v r
f(Jyf� 1
f "�Tt�%11$3� / , ;. "r,' �j 4�-•: 61 14 `�"L. �. l�l�'�r-.. ��.
� ��, a-�,• ��\,4��-!'P . .� ����� 1.'-�, , �,,,y�*{'`any}(E1.
4�.2K
~'�t
��� � I
��jf; r 1 � �,+� �1..�- r��l
�`
"t��.�y -�
'��.�j^ +;1%t;�-err-,:�, 5, i .� '�7�� w � �'t �..�a�', f �- ,'�_/' �
�h,:r�T��� /•--� �,��"}
/ 54 r 4.,�•� � n 'k r'
�
�i`
�:':•
�JJl4�/�/�/ f +� $ �', "V``' '� ?�
7� I` f7� �� 1 L:{�Il !.
%�� �� �iif �!�-`,� i4 {�'/ /r � � L.'.'1 �:+ fes, . r � ; ��
r� 'Zz
';
���"`•q, C;
t'�'�^•�� L i r' -y^--
Fr/
L-r..flr'y �iY .5. "t_'/I~ ".v✓./'^✓,. ''•1 �_:f`F. .�/tr},,�'`'i:
N' ...,.i✓r,..�..���',. ;� ^^=:_�.•
ii,,( 7G✓'A �t.rr7d�e
ti
J I
ZZ, TN u ! Mat.
8'/•° 0 1000 FEET 0 594 t030 h4ETERS
Map created with TOPO!@ Cr''2003 National Geographic(,."vw.nationalgcocraphic_conu'topo)
Figure 4. Project Location, Belews Lake 24K USGS Quad.

titw�

Deep Tests, all Neg. I
Strip, Cleared +0 -[1
Shovel Test +0 -0
13 a
13 0
Proposed Alignment x
Figure 6. Project Contour Map & Testing Regimen.
1�

0
Figure 7. Google Satellite View of Project Area.

C•v
r LAKE .
ri y
'I x
a r i
SUB STATIO`!
a r s
NEW POV/ER SUPPLY
Ys art. _ TO MCC BUILDING'
m � it s ♦ < y _ �. � t a ` j' � b �-z .e w - s` x �, '�` . L .„� y .r'F,
e y �
Existing SubstMCCatio BUILI
f'
VELOCITY CAP
C` + 's, 3,280t(LF) HDPE
t ^ a * PUMP STATION c ,Y WATERLINE ROUTING .
(6) ;ts DlA .
#h' VELOCITY CAP �1 e w r�
} �y
REV J DATE J JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTfl CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIO'L
� � 1
OUTFALL
Duke sn rte: w n P: rw DUKE POKER BELEYIS CREEK NC
iffEner9�./0 aro m:saxr.y+ w� oa cn - CON.PREHENSIVE SITE LAYOUT
J i rur: airec», »n ea,u.: na caus¢ :araaw. •mac: no. n�susw
I J vatrac xcr.ra..a . '.wcra .rrx ast •:0 50017459 1
Figure 8. Project Conceptual Layout Aerial View.

Figure 1 shows the project general location, Figure 2 shows the project locale on the 500k USGS
Quad, Figure 3 shows the project location on the 100k USGS Quad sheet. Figure 4 shows the project
location on the Belews Lake 7.5' USGS Quad. Figure 5 shows the project contour map provided by
Dewberry. Figure 6 shows the testing regimen on the contour map. Figure 7 is a satellite view of the
project area. Figure 8 has the conceptual layout shown on an aerial view.
The surveyed area was the entirety of the project plus additional areas to provide context.
Physical Environment
The project lies east of Pine Hall and north of Belews Lake, North Carolina in Rockingham
County in the Piedmont Physiographic Province on the 560 - 750 foot contours above Mean Average Sea
Level (MASE). Rockingham County is bounded by the Virginia border on the north, Stokes County on
the west, Guilford Count on the south and by Caswell and Alamance Counties on the east. Rockingham
County is drained by the Dan River and two of its tributaries, the Mayo and Smith Rivers Topography on
the project area ranged from relatively level floodplains to a steep slope up to a ridge. The project
terminates at a dam built across Belews Creek nearly at the height of the ridges abutting it. The uplands
are relatively dissected with drainage going into Belews Creek. Terrain was steep on the uplands in the
project alignment while the stream valleys had extensive floodplain. The project contour map shows the
terrain variations beyond the capability of the USGS quads. About 3300 linear feet of pipeline on a 50 foot
easement with a pump station of about 250 feet square and a electrical substation, transmission line and
access road for a combined total of 8.8 acres was surveyed.
County soils encountered on the project were obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of
Rockingham County . Table 1 shows the soils in the project corridor. Those listed as Prime Agricultural
Lands by the Soil Conservation Service are indicated. The project area soils are in the Pacolet-Madison-
Cecil Association as defined by Sherrill (1992)
Topsoil depth on hilltops was about 2" due to soil erosion. Topsoil in the floodplains varied from
8-14" depending upon location. This variation is consistent with an erosion scenario typical of the
Southside tobacco farming system (Trimble 1974). Deep testing to determine the presence of buried
deposits showed that the subsoil was not derived from alluvial deposits as indicated by Sherrill and the
NRCS Soil Survey data but rather appears to be a product of bedrock decay. The soil at the top of the
column had in places some sand from alluvium. The soil column below topsoil was a B horizon of dense
clay with a C horizon of very dense uniform clay in all cases with no banding typical of the alluvial
deposition scenario.
Table 1, Project Area Soils
Symbol
Name Prime Farmland?
Ck
Chewacla loam
Co
Congaree loam Y
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
PcD2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
RnE
Rion Sandy Loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Ud
Udorthents
WaD
Wateree fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Whb
Wickham sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes
The geological substrate for the majority of Rockingham County and the project area is the
metamorphic Biotite Gneiss and Schist. Diabase dikes and Granitic intrusions are within the project area.
At the Dan River, the geological strata are Pine Hall Formation sandstone, mudstone and conglomerates.
With it at the river is the Cow Branch Formation of mudstone with minor sandstone. It is part of the Inner
Piedmont Belt of metamorphic geisses and schists with granite intrusions (NCGS 1991). The commercial
mineral makeup of the area is that it is within the Dan River Triassic Basin. The basin has a variety of
consolidated and unconsolidated materials with iron ores, coal and mica as the commercially viable
products.

HISTORIC CONTEXT
Prehistoric Background
This section provides summary knowledge concerning potential prehistoric cultural resources
within the project area. Each segment of the section starts with the larger context and works down to the
project specific area. Expected site types, site function and known distribution patterns are also discussed
with specific reference to the project area in the section concerning expected cultural materials.
In general terms, any work done in the county will add to the database. Significant county
contextual information can only come from survey in the county and from the archaeological
investigation of sites that are capable of providing information beyond that recoverable from surface
collection. For that reason, the presence of cultural deposits will warrant further investigation if there is
vertical integrity. The major destructive force is simply the past agricultural practices related to tobacco
crop monoculture which has systematically deflated topsoils in search of soil that contained nutrients.
Unplowed sites and sites in sealed environments which retain their stratigraphic integrity will have more
potential to provide significant information. These sites should have more work performed to
characterize them. Those sites without integrity are deemed far less valuable after appropriate artifact
collection has been completed.
Paleo-Indian Period
The Paleo-Indian period extends from man's arrival in the Americas and continued until circa
8000 BC. Currently accepted evidence suggests that humans arrived in North America sometime up to
40,000 years ago (Fiedel 1987; Jennings 1989). The oldest dates in the region, however, come from two
Virginia sites: Saltville has produced a date of 14,000 BP (McDonald 1996) and Cactus Hill in Sussex
County has produced a date of 16,670 ± 730 BP (McAvoy 1997). These peoples have been identified as
free -wandering hunters and foragers. Their way of life was a classic hunter -gatherer existence based on
the large herd animals of the late Pleistocene. The majority of open sites are animal kills. Some cave sites
have exhibited evidence of long term occupation, i.e., Meadowcroft. The tool assemblage is exemplified
by the large fluted lanceolate points of the Folsom and Clovis complexes, and their associated knives and
scrapers (Willey 1960; Coe et al 1986). Recent studies synthesizing the information collected within the
last 15 years is interpreted to show an emphasis on high quality lithic resources and an interpreted and
attendant focusing on foraging as opposed to collecting subsistence strategies. Custer and Wallace (1982)
and Turner (1989) refer to the strategy as "tethered nomadism". However, nomadism is a relatively recent
derivative term from ethnographic studies and can only be inferred for the New World populations. An
enormous amount of further work will be required before a more definitive picture emerges (Turner
1989).
Current thinks suggests human origins in the New World between about 15,000 BC to perhaps
40,000 BC. Irving Rouse (1976) has suggested splitting Paleo-Indian into three lithic traditions: Lower,
Middle, and Upper Lithic (Rouse 1976), a typology which is adopted in Coe's book (Coe et al 1986). Early
sites are still very scarce and the dating is far from universally accepted. The Saltville Mammoth Site in
Virginia produced material which resulted in a radiocarbon date of 14,000 B.P. on a mammoth kill and
cook site. The site, excavated by Jerry N. McDonald (1996), provides confirmation of an "early" site.
Another early site is Meadowcroft Rock Shelter southwest of Pittsburgh, PA. Meadowcroft has produced
numerous stone artifacts including knives, blades, unifaces, bifaces, gravers, etc. associated with charcoal
dated to 8,900-12,275 BC (Coe et al 1986). A lower level with no lithics has produced dates from 16,200-
19,000 B.P. (Wolkomir 1991). Similar ages have been proposed for pre -Clovis at the Topper and Allendale
sites in South Carolina (Goodyear et ux 1998, Goodyear 2000).
Time depth and low density of sites combined with the low survival rate of intact sites as well as
the lack of thorough investigation have hampered adequate synthesis of the Paleo. Sites in South America
argue for a far greater time depth than previously accepted. Arguably the most interesting site is
Monteverde, Chile which has produced a wealth of mostly non-lithic remains including but sites. Dates
10

have now been achieved at a nearby related site of 33,000 B.P. Faunal and floral remains indicate that the
Monteverdans had a lifeway more Archaic than Paleo-Indian, depending on fishing, small game, and
extensive plant material. Boqueirao of Pedra Furada has produced stone choppers, saw toothed tools, and
petroglyphs dated to pre -8000 B.P. More recently stone flakes have been found with charcoal samples
that have produced dates of 32,000 B.P. (Wolkomir 1991).
Most recently, reports of excavations on two sites in Peru (Keefer et ux 1998; Sandweiss et ux
1998) which were located as a result of landform analysis to avoid the problems with Continental Shelf
issues of submerged sites. The surveyors reasoned that sites could be located where the shore effectively
went precipitously down into the ocean rather than shelving. They then located two sites which had the
ocean on the west and a desert on the east. The subsistence patterns on the site indicated a reliance upon
fish, crustaceans, shellfish and seabirds. The sites imply boating activities.
Studies combining a number of approaches to ancient migrations have shown that the "Clovis -
first" hypothesis may be incorrect. Studies using molecular biology, linguistics, geology and approaches
have opened research avenues which point to far earlier migration series (Pettit 1998).
Excavations in Virginia at the Flint Run sites in Warren County and the Shawnee Minisink site in
eastern Pennsylvania are interpreted to show that eastern Paleo-Indians began the use of many of plant
foods species which appear later in time, and may have begun to utilize fish as a resource (Gardner 1974;
Dent & Kauffman 1985).
Eustatic sea level rise since the end of the Pleistocene has resulted in the apparent drowning of
what are interpreted as shoreline base sites (Oakes and Coch 1963). The remnant sites should then be
seasonal round inland sites. No Paleo-Indian sites or spot finds have been discovered in the immediate
vicinity of the project. Visually distinct crypto -crystalline outcrops (Cattail Creek Chalcedony, Bolster's
Store Chert, and Mitchell Chert) are located along the Fall Line east and north of the project area in
Virginia. Sites and Quarries include the Williamson Site & Quarry located in Dinwiddie County south of
Richmond; and the Bolster's Store Quarry in Dinwiddie County, the Mitchell outcrop in Sussex County
and the Brunswick County Quarry in eastern Brunswick County. There are no suitable lithic outcrops
known in the project area. Topography along the project area river course is suitable for prehistoric
occupation. The lack of outcrops of high quality lithics argues against a substantial presence in the Paleo.
Spot finds may be present in the form of the characteristic high quality lithic debitage and / or Clovis
points. Cattail Creek Chalcedony, unfortunately, was used later in the Archaic, such that without
associated diagnostic materials from a single component site, it is not possible to ascribe an exclusively
Paleo date to debitage on its own (McAvoy 1992).
Gardner (1979, 1983) has postulated site types in the Shenandoah Valley for the Paleo which
Custer has expanded to include the Middle Atlantic. Gardner has indicated the existence of six types:
quarry sites, quarry reduction stations, quarry related base camps, base camp maintenance stations,
outlying hunting stations and isolated point finds. The basis for the settlement system were high quality
lithics (Custer 1984, Gardner 1979, Stewart 1983).
In the Southeast, the Paleo has been divided into three subperiods (Anderson et al 1996) of early
(11.5ka-11ka BP±), middle (11ka-10.5ka BP±) and late (10.5ka-10ka BP±). The typical Clovis point is the
typical projectile point of the first two periods and the Hardaway and Dalton complexes is found across
North Carolina in the latest period. All are based upon high quality lithic raw materials but which have
moved from the cryptocrystalline of the earlier sources to rhyolite, quartzite and greenstone with fewer
from the cryptocrystalline sources. In Rockingham County, Perkinson's (1973) North Carolina Fluted
Projectile Point Survey had two examples from Witty's Crossroads located in the south central part of the
county.
Archaic Period
The Archaic period which followed extended from about 10,000 BP until 1000 BC. It has been
subdivided into three subperiods of early (10ka-8ka BP), middle (8ka-5ka BP) and late (5ka-3kaPB±)
(Ward & Davis 1999). It too is a hunter -gatherer complex, but was based on smaller fauna rather than the
11

Ice Age "Megafauna". The stabilization of the climate seems to have tended to stabilize ranges as well.
Climatic stabilization also allowed the development of increased marsh and inland swamp terrain in the
Coastal Plain that in turn increased fish and waterfowl abundance. That increase is interpreted as
allowing an increase in the Archaic harvest range and an increase in the Archaic population due to the
bountiful locally available natural resources which were then exploitable. The Archaic peoples came to
follow more established seasonal routes in a restricted geographic range. Forest cover was in transition
from a boreal type to the current hickory -oak -pine forest providing an increased resource availability.
The shift to this way of life was probably gradual, occurred as the climate changed, as a result of the
extinction of the Ice Age Fauna, and was not complete until perhaps 6000 BP. This shift to a more
localized economy and more limited range results in repeated seasonal occupation of the same sites and
accumulations of midden. By the close of the period there is evidence that Indians were altering their
environment with the limited introduction of cultivation and by burning forest to encourage deer
foraging.
Exploitation of tool assemblages also changed with the simple and highly portable assemblages
of the Paleo-Indian period giving way to much more complex tool kits (Willey 1960; Coe et a11986). Snow
and others make the claim that the Atlatl was a significant addition during the Archaic (Coe et al 1986).
Mortar and pestles are a relatively common tool assemblage from sites indicating an increased usage of
seasonally available products. In general, the stemmed and side notched projectile points gradually and
discontinuously replaced the earlier fluted forms.
It is during the Archaic that the relative movement of populations through space and time can be
used with some degree of confidence. Oliver (1981) provides evidence to suggest a diffusion of the
Savannah River projectile point over time from the southwest to the northeast along the eastern United
States. Coe (1964) refers to the Halifax projectile point as a possible indicator of intrusive movement.
Phelps (1983) refers to the Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases as "Western Intrusive horizon".
The climatic history of the period has drawn considerable interest. Ward (1983) provides a
summary for the Carolina Piedmont. The interplay between the Environmental Determinist School most
characteristic of Bill Gardner at Catholic University and the more traditional cultural sequencing of Joffre
Coe at UNC Chapel Hill and others has enabled a much broader appreciation of the forces involved. It is
necessary to note that for the purposes of survey, the Coe cultural sequencing based upon artifact
typologies is of much more immediate use than the essentially interpretative use of the environmental
delineation proponents.
Coe's 1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont set the stage for subsequent discussion
of prehistoric culture in North Carolina and Virginia. It is still the yardstick by which cultural change is
measured. His excavation of stratified sites placed artifact typologies on a firm stratigraphic footing. He
utilized seriation to show cultural shifts. Prior to Coe, the prehistory of North Carolina and Virginia were
largely a matter of guesswork. His work enabled an extraordinary extension of time back from the
roughly 3000 BC guesswork beginning of occupation to the 15,000+ BC period in current general
acceptance. Coe's basic framework has been amplified since the publication of Formative Cultures.
The Middle Archaic is the beginning of a significant expansion and concomitant change in
toolkits reflecting adaptation to smaller game, and increased use of vegetable materials. Occupation of
floodplains and of areas between rivers expands dramatically in this period. The expansion would be
indicative of increased numbers of people and at some point a trend away from some form of nomadism
toward some form of settlement which in turn trended toward longer more intensively occupied base
camps. Through the periods, a slow shift from a hunting based subsistence system to a hunter/ gatherer
to an incipient horticultural system has been interpreted. In archaeological terms, Paleo sites are
extremely difficult to find, whereas at the end of the Archaic, sites of that period are difficult not to find
scattered throughout the predictable landscapes.
Woodland Period
The Woodland Period followed. It is also divided into early (3000-1800 BP), middle (1800-1200
BP), and late (1200-400 BP). Pottery is the major artifactual difference. Although there is evidence of
12

pottery during the late Archaic it was not pervasive. It is also likely that the bow and arrow were
introduced about 400 AD. The major cultural difference was the widespread use of cultivation. Slash -and -
burn or swidden agriculture was the norm in an upland, rather than alluvial plain context. The primary
crops were maize, beans, and squash. Hunting was still important, especially deer, to supplement crops.
The increased dependence on cultivated crops resulted in longer term occupation of sites and the
formation of identifiable villages (Willey 1960; Coe 1986). The transition from the Archaic was
undoubtedly gradual and evolutionary. With the exception of postulated movement of projectile point
types from south to north (Oliver 1981) and the apparent movement of the Halifax point into northern
North Carolina (Coe 1964) from Virginia which was interpreted as intrusive, the evidence seems to
suggest a gradual evolution. Food production capacity would have increased with the use of the
floodplains for growing crops rather than harvesting wild species. The exploitation of shellfish and
aquatic species is increased if the evidence from middens is any indication. Woodland sites tend to be
located along major watercourses on alluvial floodplains suitable for horticultural activities. Interior
upland seasonal procurement or hunting station sites are also known in the Piedmont. Village and hamlet
sites are rare away from major watercourses. The topographic constraints of the rivers limits the available
area for habitation along the watercourses. Within the project, broad alluvial floodplains are not available
as the drainage pattern shows a moderately steep sided valley with a narrow floodplain. However, a site
in the Ridge and Valley Province in Franklin County, VA dating to the Late Woodland occupies atypical
ridge tip terrain (Egloff, Moldenhauer & Rotenizer 1987) that may reflect a defensive posture outside of
the typical palisade. An atypically placed site is the Hunting Creek site in Davie County located on a
hilltop about 1500 feet from the nearest water (Ward & Davis 1999:101).
Sassaman (1993) postulates that pottery spread inland from the coast. Coe (1964) defined the
central Piedmont ceramics as the sand -tempered Badin and the sand/ crushed quartz tempered Yadkin.
Based on temper, Badin may be related to the coastal Thom's Creek ware and as well as the north Georgia
Kellogg series. The Yadkin may be related to Coastal Plain Virginia ceramics and the Georgia and South
Carolina Deptford wares. Virginia Coastal Plain ceramics lack the punctate, check -stamped and simple -
stamped surface treatments, however. Both share similarities with the Virginia Stony Creek and
Accokeek wares (Ward & Davis 1999).
The introduction of the bow and arrow was a paradigm shift. Combining the food procurement
capabilities with the defensive possibilities offered by the bow and arrow with the corn, beans and
squash horticultural revolution, populations dramatically increased. Semi -sedentary villages on arable
floodplains were the new norm and are reflected in archaeological site locations. With increasing
population, societal differentiation also occurred. Recognized in the archaeological record as the
Uwharrie Phase (1200-800 BP±) in the Piedmont of NC, these were clusters of semi-permanent structures
with stone -lined hearths. Storage pits were also a feature of this phase. Burials were within pits in the
structural clusters, but also some seem to have been consciously placed outside the domestic areas.
Uwharrie ceramics were crushed -quartz tempered with interior scraped surfaces. Cord -marked exterior
surface treatment continued with net impressed treatments being introduced as well as exterior scraping.
Incised lines were also introduced as a surface treatment limited to below the rim parallel lines.
Social differentiation continued as a result of continued population increase and fissioning of
larger groups resulting in archaeologically distinct assemblages beginning about the 111h century AD.
The Haw River Phase from 1000-1400AD is a north central Piedmont manifestation. It is marked by a
transformation of small scattered hamlets into palisaded villages. Ceramics continue Uwharrie traditions
but sand temper is added as a temper. Vessel shape changes occur to conical profiles with slightly
constricted to straight necks. There was a separation of domestic areas from the cemeteries and large
storage pits were dug and backfilled after use with trash.
Haw River Phase traditions are somewhat based upon excavations of the Hogue Sites that had a
dispersed settlement pattern. In the domestic areas, unknown function basin shaped pits and trash filled
cylindrical storage pits were found. The human burials were clustered on the east side of the Hogue site
without grave goods but with rocks sometimes having been placed at the feet of the burials.
The Dan River Phase was a north Piedmont manifestation, also dated from 1000-1400AD.
Populations were higher in the Dan River valley than in the Haw and Eno drainages. By the 14`h century,
larger villages were formed. Housing patterns were linear dispersed communities although with lower
13

artifact densities than later sites. Large cylindrical pits were used for storage initially and backfilled with
trash . Botanical recovery of beans, sunflower seeds and corn showed a developing horticultural base.
From the limited excavations, burials appear to be individuals within the village area rather than the
group types excavated at the Hogue site. Dan River Ceramics were crushed quartz tempered with heavily
scraped interiors. Exterior surface treatments were in the majority net impressed, but with cord -marked,
smoothed, corncob impressed and brushed also within the assemblages as minorities. Lip notching,
incisions or brushed lines along with minority fingernail pinched and punctate designs were in the neck.
Later Dan River Phase settlement size and density were significantly higher as compared with
earlier Dan River Phase sites. The later settlements were palisaded villages of 10-20 structures located
inside and adjacent to the palisades with an open central plaza. House patterns were circular with
hearths, storage/trash pits and burials within the palisade. The transformation from dispersed linear
hamlet groupings to dispersed villages to palisaded villages is noted in this period of the Woodland.
External threats from northern Iriquois have been postulated as a primary cause of nucleation and
palisading. However,
The view taken here is that the palisaded village is the first form of forced urbanization. Whereas
before the nucleated, palisaded village form occurs in response to external threats, the norm is a more
dispersed settlement. That the palisaded village cannot be likened to a central fortified area to which one
retreats in time of danger is evidenced by the house patterns, and the burial/storage pits which show a
relative longevity of habitation. The retreat and defend scenario requires dispersal when the perceived
danger has passed. Therefore, once the change occurs, the entire lifestyle is modified to accommodate the
lack of space caused by the perceived and apparently constant danger that led to the palisading.
The nature of the constant danger requires some discussion. Three scenarios present themselves:
First is that distant threat sources such as raiding parties from out of the region utilize the existing trail
networks to range through and attack as opportunities present themselves. Second is that among the local
tribes there existed a nearly constant state of low-energy warfare. Tribes in New Guinea exhibit such
behaviors wherein neighboring tribes are in a constant but low-level state of war over competing
resources and women. Raids to take easily transported food stocks and women are a constant. The
women provide a refreshment of the gene pool as did sub -adult and malleable males. Retaliatory raids
produce an endless cycle of violence at the technological levels of each group or tribe. In the eastern
Woodland, pottery designs, specifically the "z or s" twist has been postulated as a trait that indicates the
movement of potters who were female into neighboring groups.
The villages in the Dan River Phase increased in size and decreased in number. Now separately
identified as the Early Sauratown Phase (1450-1600AD), it was a corn based horticultural society with
increased animal species harvesting. Circular structures with storage pits continue to be the housing
norm. Ceramics were of the Old Town Series of fine sand -temper with smoothed interiors and with
burnished or net -impressed exteriors. Applied clay fillets, lip -burnishing, and rim castellations appear in
this phase (Ward & Davis 1999:117-119).
Information suggests no lack of sites of the Woodland period, ranging in type from apparent
nutting stations to areas where small triangular points and pottery have been found. While at least some
Late Woodland groups elsewhere seem to have been congregated into larger palisaded settlements after
about 1300 AD, the interior topography is not suitable for aggregation settlement except on the somewhat
narrow river floodplains. The project area previously recorded sites are on topography that may well
represent hamlet and individual structures.
Proto-Historic and Contact Period
The Contact Period dates possibly from the late 16th century for initial contact to the first decade
of the 17th century for significant European interaction in the Tidewater and in the second half of the 17`x'
century for English contacts into the Piedmont. The Native American Contact Period inhabitants are
characterized by a lifeway identical in most respects to the Woodland except that European goods appear
on the sites. The interpretation is based upon excavation of a limited number of sites. In eastern North
America generally, contact with Europeans is made at least three ways: 1. via direct incidental meetings
14

with Europeans beginning possibly as early as the 14th century through possible fishing expeditions to
the Grand Banks, 15th century Basque whalers and other European contacts which have not been
recorded. Verrazano landed near Cape Fear in 1521 during his exploratory voyage. Cartographic
evidence suggests middle 16th century contact as European maps show the Chesapeake, indicating some
knowledge of the area (Hranicky 1985); and recently published work indicates that iron objects were in
circulation in North America prior to initial European contact (Wayman, King & Craddock 1992); or 2.
through indirect trade contacts through third party Native American sources after European contact; or 3.
via Spanish explorations in the southeastern US after 1538. In summation, the presence of European
goods on Native American sites does not necessarily indicate a post -1607 date attribution and may be as
early as the mid -1300's. However, the majority of European materials in a Native American context
should be English and date after 1585.
The 1987 Volume 19 edition of the Notebook of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology (DePratter 1987) examines in detail the currently known and translated materials for the
1540 De Soto and 1567-68 Pardo expeditions. They extrapolate the northern extent of the De Soto
expedition as Piedmont North Carolina, along the Catawba River. The second Pardo expedition of 1567 -
1568 is extrapolated to the Yadkin River. Both are within the range of 10 miles from the project area. They
make the point that their possible overlap area is at least 100 miles wide due to the document distance a
Native American chief traveled to meet the Spanish. The practical aspect of this exposition is that Spanish
distributed trade goods and gift items for important Native Americans may be present in the project area.
Materials may also have moved inland from the Albemarle Sound drainage of the Nottoway and
Meherrin Rivers.
Where materials from either expedition eventually were deposited is still the subject of
discussion. The headwaters of the westward flowing New River allowed contacts with French explorers
in the Mississippi River basin and consequent trade good movement up the New River into Northwest
North Carolina cannot be discounted. Likewise, movement up the Tennessee River and crossing into
North Carolina cannot be discounted. The distance between the headwaters of the Yadkin and the Dan
River is less than 20 miles and with extensive trade networks in operation in the late Prehistoric and early
Contact Periods at Occanneechee Island, there is every reason to suspect wide ranging movements of
trade materials up and down the Dan.
The earliest documented European contact with the Virginia and North Carolina Tidewater and
Piedmont regions began early in the first half of the 16th century with European exploratory efforts.
Spain and France sponsored the majority of the effort. Verarazzano sailed for France along the North
American Coast in 1524. Surviving cartographic evidence shows that a well developed knowledge of the
eastern coast of North America was in place by the end of the third decade of the sixteenth century
(Quinn 1977:158). Juan de Pardo established a series of settlements in the interior of North Carolina,
including Fort San Juan at Joara in Burke County in 1567-68 that lasted 18`h months before being wiped
out by the Native Americans along with the six other interior settlements (Moore 2007). English efforts
were at Roanoke Island in North Carolina in 1585 and more successfully at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.
The Trigg Site (44My3), a Late Woodland/ Contact period site near Radford, VA contained a
brass disk similar to one described as a gift item in the De Soto inventory as well as glass and brass
goods. Two radiocarbon dates from the site were 1575 ±60 and 1715 ±80 (Buchanan 1986). The earlier is
well within the appropriate time frame for either explorer. While the De Soto and Pardo expeditions were
south of the project area, the movement of gift and trade materials away from the explorer paths cannot
be calculated.
Native American life in the North Carolina Piedmont began to reflect increasing contact with
Europeans and their materials. Exchange mechanisms were applied for the fur trade to obtain desirable
items. Copper pieces, glass beads and other essentially intrinsically worthless prestige items quickly were
supplanted by more utilitarian items in the 17'' century. In Rockingham County, the final two sub -phases
of the Sauratown Phase were marked by the appearance of European goods.
The Middle Sauratown Phase (1600-1670AD) is marked by the appearance of European trade
goods. They continued the palisaded village lifestyle with single -post construction. Circular storage pits
and smudge pits are prevalent. The ceramics have less variety and check stamping appears for the first
15

time in the north Piedmont. One excavated burial may suggest a Dan River influence on burials as they
used the shaft and chamber grave type.
The Late Sauratown Phase (1670-1710AD) is identified by large numbers of European goods that
made an entry through the fur trade in which the Saura were involved. Ceramics have net -impressed and
cob -impressed surfaces with simple, complicated and check stamping. Palisaded villages continue in this
phase with circular houses. European diseases appear to have made their disastrous impact in this phase.
Burials on one site are in a cemetery area. By the end of the phase, palisaded villages have given way to
dispersed households. Storage pits are circular and deep.
At the time of substantial European contact in the early 17th century, the major known Native
American presence in the area was the Occanneechee at the confluence of the Staunton/Roanoke and
Dan Rivers about 85 miles from the project area. These people were the focal point for a trade network
which reached into several states to the south. The Occanneechee were, due to their trade network,
extremely important for early European trade efforts. The end of the seventeenth century saw the virtual
elimination of the remnant Native American population in Virginia through disease, attrition, or
resettlement efforts by the Virginia government. A substantive Native American presence in Piedmont
North Carolina remained until the 19`h century and survived after that as a minority. Contact period sites
exhibit a continuation of Woodland site settlement patterns until remnant Native American acculturation
using the European style structural template became the norm. Sites of this time period are quite rare and
would be of major significance.
Historic Background
This section provides summary knowledge concerning potential historic cultural resources
within the project area. This section starts with the larger context and works down to the project specific
area. Expected site types, site function and known distribution patterns are discussed with specific
reference to the project area in the section concerning expected cultural materials.
Initial European Settlement to Society Period - A.D. 1607 -1750
The first English settlement of North America began in 1584 with the settlement attempt at
Roanoke Island in North Carolina. Ralph Lane on his 1585 second voyage first recorded the Roanoke
River which was described as a river of great volume. The Dan River joins the Roanoke/Staunton River
and continues to Albemarle sound as the Roanoke River. Mapping of the interior of North Carolina in the
middle seventeenth century shows detailed knowledge of the topography and some settlements already
in existence (Cumming 1966). The English Settlement begun in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia was the first
permanent English settlement in the New World, with the bounds of the Virginia Colony extending 200
miles north and south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to the Pacific, including North Carolina.
Virginia had the Chesapeake Bay as an entrance to the interior and had several large and navigable rivers
extending well into the interior for ocean-going vessels. These same rivers extended still farther into the
state as navigable waterways, thus spreading settlement and two-way commerce. North Carolina had
rivers that extended far into the interior, but access to them from the ocean was problematic. The Outer
Banks were a major barrier to inland settlement. However, the lure of uninhabited lands proved that the
Outer Banks were not an insurmountable barrier. It simply meant that other avenues of ingress needed to
be located and used.
Virginia Colony settlement quickly spread from Jamestown upstream to the Fall Line. The Fall
Line was a natural barrier. As the head of navigation, it was a natural break point for transcontinental
travel and for river based travel into the interior. Towns began at the Fall Line. Richmond on the James
River was the most important Virginia town. Petersburg on the Appomattox was the most important
town for the Native American trade as it was a transportation node through which the majority of
seventeenth century trade went. The English trader generated movement of materials down from
Petersburg, Virginia as well as up from coastal North Carolina must be taken into consideration. The
Petersburg, Virginia area was an important center for the Native American Trade with the primary center
being the Occanneechee Town located about 80 miles southwest of Petersburg in Mecklenburg County,
16

VA. Miller's (1962) work on the Smithsonian River Basin Surveys put Occanneechee Town east of the
John H. Kerr reservoir citing documentary and cartographic analysis of historic documents. His
contention was that the Town was about 30 miles farther east of the confluence of the Dan and Staunton
Rivers. The lack of trade goods on the excavated portion of the Clarksville Site (44Mc14) supported a date
prior to European contact. Trade routes either followed existing trade networks or forged new pathways
from Petersburg to the Occanneechee Town.
In addition to being a center for the Native American Trade, Fort Henry (Petersburg) became the
jumping off point for a series of explorations of Virginia and the Carolinas. The purpose of these missions
was to establish a route to California, the Pacific Ocean, and China which were thought to be just over the
Appalachians. Beginning in 1650, with the Wood/Bland expedition described by Bland in The Discovery
of New Britain, a series of expeditions left Fort Henry to explore to the south and west. Bland and Wood
traveled only 60 miles to the south, but it was the first documented instance of white men overcoming the
fear engendered by the 1622 and 1644 massacres and venturing into the interior. The expedition resulted
in the establishment of trade with the Indians of North Carolina. John Lederer made three trips between
March and August 1670. He got, perhaps, a little below Raleigh and saw the Appalachians. Thomas Batts,
Robert Fallam, and Thomas Wood crossed the Appalachians in 1671. During 1673-74 James Needham
and Gabriel Arthur reached Georgia, Florida, and Mobile Bay. None of these expeditions was within the
project locale nearer than Clarksville to the east.
Following in the footsteps of the explorers were the traders. Most were employees of people like
William Byrd, but others were independent. The trade was a gamble and profits were often marginal, but
they were enough to keep it going. In April 1691 the Virginia General Assembly passed an act which
granted "a free and open trade for all persons, at all times, and at all places with all Indians whatsoever."
By 1701 pack trains of 1-6 Englishmen, Indian Guides, and 30 to 100 packhorses were regularly leaving
what had become known as Peter's Point or Petersburg to go down the Occanneechee Trail. The route
generally follows what became the Boydton Plank Road, and is now the US 1/185 corridor. There were
additional routes that branched off of the main trail. The trade consisted of guns, gunlocks, flints,
powder, shot, axes, knives, awls, blankets, needles, hoes, scissors, shirts, belts, hats, salt, paint (ochre),
kettles, and shell money. In return the traders got furs (Briceland 1987).
Four accounts survive of early exploratory expeditions into the interior in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Attempts to identify their travel routes have occupied scholars for decades. Recent accounts
utilizing information unavailable to earlier researchers and using approaches unknown to earlier
researchers has enabled Briceland (1987) to hypothesize a travel route for each group which most closely
takes into account all of the available factors. Whereas several earlier authors have at least some of their
routes just west of Danville, Briceland makes a convincing case that none of the explorers got nearer the
project area than the Clarksville area.
The earliest written accounts of prehistoric populations in the project locale are those of Edward
Bland in 1650 who appears to have reached the falls at Roanoke Rapids (Briceland 1987, Wilson 1984).
Bland wrote about the Occanneechee upstream at present day Clarksville. It would appear that the
project area was inhabited by Siouan language group speakers. It would appear that the inhabitants to
the east at the Roanoke Rapids area were Iroquoian language based Tuscaroras (Phelps 1983:37). What, if
any, effect the language groups had upon the movement of trade items is not clear.
And following the traders were settlers. Filtering in from Virginia via the Great Wagon Road
through Stokes and Forsythe Counties and on south were Scots -Irish. English settlers moved in from the
coast along with minority elements of Swiss and Germans. Charles II of England returned to the British
throne in 1660, finishing the Cromwellian Commonwealth. Charles II's backers were rewarded. Eight of
those men were granted a tract of land between Albemarle Sound on the north and the Georgia -Florida
boundary on the south. The Lords Proprietors were in effect the rulers of the territory that was then open
for settlement. Additional grants in 1665 to the north conflicted with the established Virginia Colony
whose leaders refused to accept the boundary. In 1700, the Lords Proprietors appointed John Lawson to
explore the interior of Carolina. His report encouraged others groups to settle in the region. New Bern
was settled in 1710 by Swiss and Palatine refugees, brought in by Christopher DeGraffenreid and Hohn
Lawson (Byrd 1929). Displacement of the Tuscaroras by the settlers and the machinations of Thomas Cary
resulted in the Tuscarora War. Settlement in the Lower Cape Fear occurred by 1705 and steadily
17

increased the pressure on the inhabitants. DeGraffenreid and Lawson were both captured on a survey. A
coordinated attack on 9/22/1711 left 140± KIA or WIA with many others MIA and funneled into the
Tuscarora slavery system. In 1713 Col James Moore of SC attacked the main Tuscarora fort and
overwhelmed it. The remaining Tuscarora were forced west to the headwaters of the Roanoke River
(Ready 2005:32-37
The boundary issue simmered until the early 18`h century when George II started negotiations to
return the Proprietary colonies to Crown control. This was accomplished by 1729 apart from one
recalcitrant Lord Proprietor, Lord Granville, who controlled a strip 60 miles wide from the VA/NC
border south to 56.25' of north latitude. This strip included all of present day Rockingham County.
It was not until 1727 that a solution to the problem was to be forced by the Crown. William Byrd
II of VA surveyed the boundary line starting from the Atlantic and proceeding westward. Both
Virginians and North Carolinians were represented on the survey. The North Carolina surveyors left
about halfway across the state, leaving Byrd to complete the survey. His diary reveals that the northern
Piedmont was not only partially settled but had a number of copper mines along and north of the border
in the Virgilina District (Laney 1917). Byrd's famous phrase about "Mine Mad" folks referred to attempts
to mine copper there (Byrd 1928). In what is now Charlotte County, VA, a second half 19`h century copper
mine broke through into old workings with old style tools. It would appear that extensive mines were
dug. Whether copper was smelted at the mine is not known, but as the trip overland to the deepwater
port of Petersburg was an 80 mile trip, it is assumed that smelting followed by packtrain transport of
ingots would have been the most logical means of export.
Although mainly in VA, the Virgilina District extended into Granville and Person Counties.
Native copper is mentioned at Virgilina on the VA/NC border and "farther south" placing it at the
Granville/Person County interface. It appears to be in association with greenstone, which obviously has
Native American lithic implications.
Testing of Native American site specimens in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
collections to establish provenance has shown that none of the tested specimens can be attributed to local
sources (Stephenson 2008). Byrd was a trader with the Native Americans, as was the Swiss trader
Tscharner DeGraffenreid (grandson of Christopher DeGraffenreid, founder of New Bern) who was one of
the copper prospectors Byrd (1929) mentions in his Dividing Line Survey. Thus rather than utilizing the
copper for European commerce as required by the Crown, it is quite possible that Native Copper was first
obtained by the Native Americans, and, mined, smelted and turned into trade items by the Europeans
and has thus disappeared into the trade networks south and west of the Virgilina District.
Byrd was so taken with the area of the Dan River valley that he acquired a 20,000 acre parcel and
another 6,000 acres by 1742. He referred to the Dan River valley as the Land of Eden and established
settlements there.
Rockingham County was first settled the second quarter of the 18`h century through the
westward expansion of settlers searching for suitable lands upon which to grow tobacco. Rockingham
County was originally contained Anson County which fissioned in the following series to produce
Rockingham in 1785: Anson - Rowan - Guilford — Rockingham. Part of Orange County also was taken to
form Rockingham (Corbitt 1950). Wentworth is the county seat with the first court held in 1799.
Colony to Nation Period - A.D. 1750 -1789
This section discusses the development of settlement in Rockingham County, the influences and
the support structure. This is a growth period for the area, with population rising steadily as new
immigrants come to the area and seat their patents. Sufficient population growth started the
transportation network infrastructure consisting of road and water transportation. The administrative
processes followed precedent in the placement of the county seat and the county administrative
functions.
18

The second half of the 18th century saw increased European populations settling in Piedmont
North Carolina. Although the land in the fertile river floodplains was generally patented to wealthy
landowners, the uplands were patented in smaller sizes of 200-400 acres. The Frye -Jefferson Map of 1753
shows numerous European place names in the NC Piedmont. Belews Creek appears to be shown,
although it is not named.
The 1756-1763 French and Indian War produced little conflict within the state. Fort Dobbs was
built in that conflict. It was in what is now Statesville in Iredell County. Moravians built a small fort at
Bethabara. Another fort was built to protect the Catawba Indians on the South Fork of the Catawba River
west of Charlotte and was matched by Fort Dobbs in Carteret County where Fort Macon was later built.
The Revolutionary War was the signal event in this period. Transforming 13 colonies into the
nascent United States of America was accomplished by separate but united efforts among the colonies.
North Carolina played a major role in that conflict, if not the leading role. Before the 7/4/1776 kick-off of
events, Cape Fear Patriots in 1766 had the first armed clash with the British Crown. The well known
Regulator movement fought Crown troops in Alamance County in 1771. The Citizens of Charlotte
formulated a variation of the declaration of independence in 1775. A year later, the Halifax Resolves
provided instruction to the NC delegates to the Continental Congress to vote for independence.
The Moore's Creek Bridge Campaign in 1776 was a victory for the Patriots that, with Sullivan's
Island, halted British hopes of controlling the southern colonies. The 1780-1781 British Southern
Campaign waged by Cornwallis in pursuit of Gen. Nathaniel Greene. Greene managed to lose nearly
every battle he fought, but won the campaign by attenuating Cornwallis much superior force to the point
it had to retreat to Yorktown, VA, to be bottled up in the Chesapeake by De Grass flotilla, and then to
capitulate to effectively end the war. Kings Mountain in NC and Cowpens were major British losses. The
Battle of Guilford Courthouse in 1781 resulted in Cornwallis' retreat to Yorktown. Although Guildford
Courthouse was technically a British victory, it was pyrrhic due to the losses that Cornwallis had suffered
and due to the fact that Cornwallis had burned his own supplies at the beginning in order to pursue his
nimble foe. The skillful Green waged an insurgency war against the set -piece British type of warfare and
maneuvered the British into a campaign cut off from their logistical support.
After the end of the Revolutionary War, the normal discourse of settlement and commerce was
again dominant. Industry in the county was largely confined to gristmills. However, with the 1785 Acts of
the NC General Assembly regarding the navigation of the rivers of the state, the Dan and Roanoke Rivers
benefited. Butler's (Trout 2003) information regarding the upper Dan is quoted and inset below:
"A CAPSULE HISTORY OF
NAVIGATION ON THE DAN
For many years the upper Dan River valley farmers and merchants, who could reach
their James River markets in Virginia only by long overland wagon routes, had dreamed of a
batteau navigation system which would make their river an easy commercial route to the outside
world.
In 1792 a double -ended, flat-bottomed boat called a batteau traveled up the Dan River
Into Stokes and Rockingham counties in North Carolina. Batteaux were used for hauling bulk
cargoes such as tobacco to trade centers, and this early voyage proved that commercial ventures
were possible on the upper river. A major problem for river transportation, however, involved the
numerous rapids and falls blocking the river. If these obstacles could be overcome, an open line of
travel between the Dan River basin and the Virginia tobacco markets would be opened.
The Roanoke Navigation Company, chartered by the North Carolina and Virginia
legislatures in 1812, began the first major river improvements in the Roanoke River basin. This
was an example of early efforts supported by both states to provide internal improvements. Many
North Carolinians were eager to end the state's reputation as the "Rip Van Winkle State" - a
sleepy, backward place with no major forms of transportation or industry.
19

In 1823 the Roanoke River rapids near Weldon, in Halifax County, North Carolina, were
bypassed by a nine -mile canal. This opened the upper Roanoke and its two tributaries, the Dan
and Staunton rivers, to batteau navigation. In 1824 a second canal was opened around the falls in
Danville. Wing dams and sluices (channels) and a lock at Eagle Falls tamed the rest of the Dan.
By 1828 the river was fully opened for 112 miles from its mouth up to the town of Madison.
These river improvements enabled batteaux to carry supplies and crops destined for
Virginia. The growth of the railroad industry eventually led to the decline of the river as a major
source of transportation. The last navigation improvements were made by the Corps of Engineers
in the 1880's, for batteaux and small steamboats carrying goods down to the nearest railway
crossing.
By 1892 three different railroads had tapped the valley trade. For a few years batteau
crews found occasional employment with group outings and river picnic trips, but it was no
longer possible for them to make a living on the river. The batteaux and batteaumen vanished and
soon became vague memories to the valley people. But the canals, sluices and wing dams - most of
them still navigable today - survived to be rediscovered as reminders of a colorful era on the Dan
River."
Butler is again quoted for additional history of the navigation on the Dan River:
"Tied to Virginia's James River markets by long overland wagon routes, the farmers and
merchants of the upper Dan River valley had long dreamed of a navigation system that would
make their river an easy commerce route to the outside world. The Dan and the Staunton,
tributaries of the Roanoke River, were part of an immense river valley system containing rich al-
luvial soils that supported large plantations. It was potentially one of the most prosperous regions
in the mid-Atlantic states. The rivers straddle the border of Virginia and North Carolina, at first a
political hindrance to development. Eventually this was overcome and an interstate navigation
project emerged.
The North Carolina General Assembly evinced an early interest in inland navigation
improvement. In the November 1785 legislative session, a joint committee examined a model of a
boat designed for shallow rivers by Dr. William McClure, a Revolutionary War surgeon.
Tentative steps were taken for improvement in the Roanoke valley as early as 1790 with the char-
ter of the Dismal Swamp Company, which proposed a canal from the Albemarle Sound region to
the Norfolk area. James Gallaway, a merchant of Rockingham County who served in the North
Carolina State Senate, guided the legislation for the canal company through the Senate. In 1784 he
had been named a trustee for improvement of navigation on the Dan and Roanoke rivers, and two
years later he was appointed to an interstate commission for planning the canal. This canal was
not completed until 1814, although portions of it were in use by 1796.
Contemporary evidence for navigation attempts on the unimproved river began in 1791
when William Harrison of Pittsylvania County reported on a voyage up the Roanoke and Dan
rivers as far as eastern Caswell county made by his brother Thomas. Although the Moravians in
Salem had long been interested in navigation on the Dan River, it was not until 1792 that they
recorded an attempt to navigate a loaded craft in the upper section of the river valley above
Rockingham County.
With the aid of high water the trip was completed, proving that the river had potential for
commercial transportation. There is no other record of navigation on the upper Dan River at this
early date, and it would be two decades before an effort was made to improve the river. These
successful voyages, however, stimulated the imaginations of river valley entrepreneurs who
shortly commenced the development of river towns.
Citizens of Rockingham County petitioned the General Assembly in December 1793,
stating that they had endeavored to clear the River Dan, so that the produce of the Country may be
carried to market by water and asked that the legislature authorize a commodity and tobacco
20

inspection site at the confluence of the Dan and Smith rivers. Tile assembly acted to establish a
tobacco inspection point at the warehouse of John Leak who soon had the town of Leaksville
surveyed on a bluff overlooking the Dan. In addition to Leaksville, in 1793 Danville was founded
at Wynne's Falls and in 1796 Milton was established in Caswell County.
The city of Danville was destined to become the largest urban center in the valley. While
North Carolina lagged behind with internal improvements, the early citizens of Danville were
anxious to see navigation on the river. There were two points in the Roanoke and Dan rivers
where navigation was impeded by extensive falls and rapids: Weldon on the Roanoke and Danville
on the Dan. No improvements were made on the rivers in the early nineteenth century, but an
1801 petition to the Virginia General Assembly for flour inspection at Danville noted that the
local flour "...is generally shipped down Dan River."
The obstacles to navigation in the Roanoke River system would not be overcome until
North Carolina and Virginia combined resources in the Roanoke Navigation Company. Although
abortive efforts to improve the Roanoke were made by Virginia in 1804 and North Carolina in
1812, it was not until 1815 that both state legislatures rechartered the Roanoke Navigation
Company and construction began on navigation improvements on the Roanoke, Staunton, and
Dan. The North Carolina General Assembly had been stimulated to support river navigation by
the visionary state Senator Archibald D. Murphey of Hillsborough, chairman of the Senate
committee on internal improvements. In Virginia interest was stirred by the 1816 voyage of
Colonel William Lewis, who constructed a boat and piloted it some 340 miles down the Staunton
and the Roanoke to Norfolk, proving that navigation was possible.
The chartering of the Roanoke Navigation Company triggered an inflationary boom in
the river valley. Land prices skyrocketed at Milton, Danville, and Leaksville, and branches of the
state bank were opened in both Milton and Leaksville. Just above the junction of the Mayo and
Dan rivers the town of Madison, which had been chartered in 1815, was surveyed and lots were
sold in 1818. A new town, Jackson, was proposed in 1819 at Eagle Falls, presumed to be the head
of navigation. Illustrative of the expansive atmosphere was a river song, set to the tune of "Yankee
Doodle";
Danville's drunk, Leaksville's sunk.
Hogtown's all on fire;
Boats go up to Eagle Falls,
But can't go any higher.
So clear the way for Jackson Town,
No others need aspire.
She's got the coon and pretty soon
She'll set the world on fire.
Overzealous promotion of the river towns collapsed with the onset of the Panic of 1819.
At Jackson, where little more than a lot auction had occurred, the whole scheme failed and the
town was never built. "The navigation company, however, was undaunted and proceeded with
removal of snags and construction of sluices and wing dams."
Trout (2003) places the effective head of navigation at Madison, downriver from the project. He
states that it continued to be the head of navigation after the US Army Corps of Engineers rebuilt the
navigation system for steamboats carrying freight to Danville for access to the railroads. With the advent
of railroads in Rockingham, the river based system was soon out of business.
However, navigation improvements were enacted as far upstream as Hairston's Falls, with
additional improvements to the system placed above that. Upper Saura Town Plantation was the head of
batteau navigation. At the project area, Buzzard Island shoal and channel are shown upstream several
hundred feet from the project area is the nearest possible navigation feature.
21

The iron industry was of major importance to the colonial economy. The 1585 Roanoke Colony
located iron ores. The first recorded shipments of ore from NC were in 1729. Bloomery forges produced
iron by the direct process. These operations were small-scale and generally limited to wintertime
production in the offseason by knowledgeable farmers. There were craft type bloomeries that produced
for local markets. Industrial iron production required the indirect process using a blast furnace that
produced pig iron that forges then transformed the cast pigs into wrought bar iron for use by blacksmiths
that produced end-user products. Foundries melted pig into end-user products such as cauldrons,
skillets, firebacks, andirons, cannons, shot etc. Some blast furnaces cast directly from the smelting
operation. The ubiquitous village blacksmith was the consumer of bar and rod iron produced by forges.
These were fashioned into wrought items individually. A good blacksmith could produce about 1200
nails per day. Thus the relative value of nails was quite high in the craft era of ironworking.
Vinson (2007) provides a dataset concerning iron manufacture in NC which is inset below:
Another early furnace (1777) was located on Tick Creek in Chatham County for the
Revolutionary government of North Carolina. James Miles managed the Chatham furnace.
In the late 1770s, the Wilcox Iron Furnace and Forge was opened near present day Siler
City. It produced cannon and shot for the North Carolina Council of Safety. The furnace and forge
were abandoned by 1780. In 1786, General Joseph Graham built the Vesuvius Iron Furnace near
present-day Lowesville along Anderson's Creek.
In 1788, the North Carolina legislature passed the "Act to Encourage the Building of
Iron Works in This State" which titled 3,000 acres to anyone establishing a furnace operation —
"every set of iron works, as a bounty from the state to any person or persons who will build and
carry on the same."
That same year, Peter Forney discovered the Big Ore Bank near Lincolnton. On May
18, 1789, North Carolina awarded 300 acres along Leeper's (or Leaper's or Leiper's) Creek to
Abraham Reinhart, Abraham Forney, Turner Abernathy, and Peter Forney.
Iron furnaces were located within Rockingham County, to the east and south of the project and
also in Stokes County to the west. The geological maps show ore beds but not near the project. Gristmills
were a major industrial component of the county during this period.
Early National Period - A.D. 1789 –1830
Development of farming communities and individual holdings based upon agriculture appears
to have accelerated in this period. Hampering the development of the area was the lack of major
transportation networks. Unless major transportation networks were developed, the implications were
that the area would continue at a subsistence level. However, the population throughput plus the
increasing local population seems to have made the local area virtually self sustaining.
Rockingham County's livelihood came from tobacco and cereal crop agriculture and it is still
primarily dependent upon it along with forestry. In addition, swine, chickens and beef cattle are
produced. The area had industry in the form of gristmills and blast furnaces with other mineral
exploitation as well..
It is important to note that without transportation corridors for export and import of raw
materials and finished goods, the population would in general be largely at the subsistence level, as
Kulikoff (1986:150) indicates was the case for Southside Virginia. State level efforts to construct road
networks and to construct and improve the canal systems was also a feature of this time period.
In this period, internal improvements were a significant capital outlay for the state. A canal to
connect the Roanoke River with the Meherrin River at Murfreesborough, NC with eventual outlets to the
Nansemond River in Suffolk, VA was proposed about 1812. The Roanoke River to James River Canal was
proposed and surveyed in 1827 (Salmon 1978: 692). The Roanoke Navigation began initial operations in
1827 with the major impediment of the falls at Roanoke Rapids bypassed.
22

Railroads were first proposed and promoted over canals and turnpikes by Joseph Caldwell of
what is now UNC in 1827.
Iron was an important part of the NC economy in this era. Vison (2007) has a dataset inset below:
In 1804, Philip Sitton built iron works on what is now Forge Mountain in Henderson
County, NC. By 1810, there were 11 forges in the Blue Ridge Mountains — five in Surry County
and six in Buncombe County.
John Fulenwider also had built a forge in 1804 on Maiden Creek, near present-day
Maiden, NC. He also was the founder of the High Shoals Iron Works, which cast cannon balls
during the War of 1812 and operated until 1872.
The Madison furnace was built in 1806 near Lincolnton. Madison Cold -blast Charcoal
Furnace, owned by James F. & R. D. Johnson, was built in 1809 on Leiper's Creek, three miles
above Rehoboth Furnace — constructed in 1814 by Alexander Brevard near Leeper's Creek
outside Lincolnton.
By 1815, North Carolina had 23 iron works, mostly in the Piedmont area. By 1823,
Lincoln County had ten operating forges and four furnaces, producing 900 tons of bar iron and
200 tons of cast hollow ware items.
The War of 1812 had little effect upon NC, apart from producing what Ready (2005:160) pithily
referred to as: "a yeoman's paradise without progress." Admiral Cockburn's flotilla landed on Ocracoke
Island and occupied Portsmouth. They departed 4 days later. North Carolina ship captains were quite
successful in attacking British warships and commerce. Captain Johnston Blakeley commanded the
Enterprise and then the Wasp that defeated larger and more heavily armed British ships.
Ante-bellum Period - A.D. 1830-1861
Immediately following the War of 1812, the US began a campaign of coastal defense construction.
Realizing the exposure to ship -borne attacks, the coastal states and the government were in rare unity.
The Third System Fort Macon on Bogue Banks in Carteret County was built between 1826-1834, replacing
earlier editions.
Surveys for the Roanoke Navigation to improve the Roanoke River to improve steamboat
navigation was performed in 1837. This is a clear indication that previous obstruction clearance efforts
mandated by the General Assembly had progressed.
The Richmond and Danville Railroad was chartered in 1847 and reached Danville in 1856 and
provided a terminus for riverine traffic on the upper Dan River.
Vinson (2007) provides a dataset concerning railroads in NC which is inset below:
At this stage in business development, individuals wanting to set up corporations had to
win legislative approval for their company. While the state legislature would authorize the
creation of many railroads, most would never raise the capital or ever begin operations. There were
two experimental railroads with cars drawn by horses.
The first railroad company to operate in North Carolina was the Petersburg (Va.)
Railroad, which by 1833 had completed its line, which included nine miles of North Carolina track
near Halifax. By December 1837, the bridges over the Roanoke River had been completed.
The first North Carolina railroad was Wilmington & Raleigh Railroad (renamed the
Wilmington & Weldon Railroad in 1854). Chartered in 1834 to build a railroad from Wilmington
to Raleigh, the company won financial backing from Wilmington residents, but not from Raleigh
business interests. So the Wilmington stockholders petitioned the legislature in 1836 to change the
route to run from Wilmington to Weldon in Halifax County — at 161 miles it would become the
world's longest railroad when opened. It would connect with the Richmond and Petersburg
Railroad which had pushed its line nine miles into North Carolina. The change was approved.
Construction began on October 25, 1836.
23

At the same time, Raleigh businessmen won approval to create the Raleigh & Gaston
Railroad on December 21, 1835. This 86 -mile railroad also would connect near Weldon with the
Richmond and Petersburg Railroad. Construction began in 1836.
The Wilmington & Raleigh Railroad completed its full route on March 9, 1840. The
Raleigh & Gaston Railroad opened its full route in April 1840.
Both railroads had to receive state financial support in the early 1840s to supplement
their private funding. The Wilmington & Raleigh Railroad would reach profitable operations in
1850, while the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad would be foreclosed in 1845 by the state, which
continued to operate the line. The Wilmington & Raleigh railroad was reorganized in late 1851
with state and private ownership, and from 1854 it began paying dividends and was renamed the
Wilmington & Weldon.
The state legislature in 1849 approved the creation of the North Carolina Railroad
when Senate Speaker Calvin Graves ended his future political career by breaking a tie -vote for
passage. The new railroad company would be headed by former Governor John M. Morehead
while being constructed. The line would run from Goldsboro through Raleigh and Salisbury to
Charlotte. It would connect with the South Carolina rail system at Charlotte, opening
transportation to the port of Charleston. The North Carolina Railroad also would connect with the
Wilmington & Raleigh line and thus, to the Virginia railroads. This 223 -mile route was opened on
January 29, 1856.
Also in the 1850s, the following railroads began operation:
Western Railroad Company — chartered in (1852) for the purpose of connecting
Fayetteville with the coal regions of Chatham (now Moore) County, North Carolina. C. B. Mallett
was the second president (1855 - 1868). This line consolidated with the Mt. Airy Railroad
Company in 1879 to form the Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley Railway Company.
Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad — chartered in 1854; opened June 17, 1858; 95
miles from Goldsboro to New Bern.
Western North Carolina Railroad — opened fall 1858 with 84 -mile line from Salisbury to
within four miles of Morganton.
Wilmington, Charlotte & Rutherfordton Railroad — 110 miles from Wilmington to
Rockingham, and then from Charlotte to the Wateree (Catawba) River.
Wilmington & Manchester Railroad — 161.5 miles from Wilmington to Manchester
(SC).
The railroads quickly supplanted plank roads. Fayetteville had championed plank roads
with its three major turnpikes built after 1848.
Experimental Railroads
There were two experimental railroads built using horse-drawn carts over rails. These
were constructed at Fayetteville (2 miles) and at Raleigh (1.25 miles), which was used to carry
quarried stone to the new state capital being built.
The intense competition between roads, canals and railroads was not a "done deal' in the early
19" century. Competition see -sawed back and forth as economies expanded and shrank. Roads required
constant maintenance and a large outlay. Apart from government mandated roads earlier in the colonial
era, private entrepreneurs started economic ventures in a "pay as you go" format called turnpikes for
their access and fee control structures consisting of a pike mounted on a turnstile that blocked the road
until the fee was paid. Canals were expensive to build, were very maintenance intensive, and required
constant upkeep. Their drawbacks were that they were slow and that they were limited in where they
could go to navigable waterways and had frequent problems with floods and high water. They could
carry enormous amounts of cargo cheaply which was their strong point. Railroads were enormously
capital intensive to start. Their maintenance costs were less than canals and their advantage was that they
were not limited to watercourses. They opened up the interior of their service areas and truly
democratized transport which had earlier been limited by the riverine land ownership of the plantation
aristocracy.
Ironically, the improvement of transportation networks, notably rail and steamboats, brought
about the demise of the home-grown iron industry. The discovery of anthracite coal beds near iron ore
deposits in Pennsylvania meant that the costs of iron production could be brought far lower than those of
24

the NC charcoal iron industry. The charcoal iron industry continued to produce into the early 20`h century
but was mainly for local use.
Coal deposits were mined in this era in the Dan River valley in the Deep River Coal Field
deposits from the VA border to Germantown on the border of Stokes and Forsythe Counties west of the
project. The 1852 chartered Western Railroad was begun in to bring the coal to the port market at
Fayetteville. Local use of coal predated industrial mining and was first noted probably prior to 1775, and
noted in the scientific literature by Prof. Denison Omstead of UNC in 1820.
Gold was also a major economic event in this period. North Carolina had America's first gold
rush. Gold was discovered in Cabarrus County in 1799. Gold was mined in Burke, Rutherford,
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Davidson, and Cabarrus Counties. More gold was mined in the 1820s and 1830s
such that NC was the leading producer of gold in the U.S. until the 1849 California gold strike.
Civil War Period - A.D. 1861-1865
Rockingham County escaped direct effects of the Civil War. The indirect effects were upon
industrial centers and transportation facilities but not within the county. The USA actions were raids for
specific mission purposes and targets of opportunity along the way. Disruption of supplies via railroad
and canals were the net effects.
The Civil War Sites Advisory Committee has compiled a ranking system for the 10,500± armed
events that occurred in the conflict. Class A and B battlefields represent the principal strategic operations
of the war. Class C and D battlefields usually represent operations with limited tactical objectives of
enforcement and occupation. Within that system, a total of 387 are on the four classes. For NC, their
system lists two battles in their classification system as Class A Decisive. Those are Fort Fisher in 1864
and Bentonville in 1865. The 1862 Roanoke Island Battle is listed as a Class B Major battle and 15 others in
the eastern third of the state in their Class C/D Other Principal category.
General Stoneman's Raids as part of USA Gen. George Thomas' Army of the Cumberland in
March and April, 1865 traversed north -south roads west of Pine Hall in Stokes County.
The Piedmont Railroad was chartered to the CSA government in 1862 to build a line between
Danville and Greensboro, NC that was completed in 1864 (Wright 1930:77).
After the fall of Richmond, Lee's Army was attempting to follow the CSA government, which
had fled to Danville, VA and which then passed through NC. He was trying to take the army to the
railroad via Appomattox when cut off by Grant, so although the Confederate Government made it
through Danville, and traversed NC, other than a passage, the event was of no greater significance.
Reconstruction and Growth Period - A.D. 1865 - Present
The period after the Civil War saw a return to the agricultural past that had been the main means
of support for the county citizenry. The main difference was the change from a slave based workforce to
an implied labor contract based system. Rockingham County appear to have gone through the same
general process as the remainder of North Carolina as the system sought to accommodate change.
Individual farms either failed or prospered according to individual circumstances. In general,
diversification was into forest products which remains a large part of the county agricultural system.
Tobacco farming remained a part of the county economy although cereal grain production was more
prevalent. So little work on the Reconstruction Period has been done statewide which can be applied to
the county that further discussion is fruitless. In general, a system of tenant farming or share -cropping
was the norm for the previously slave based economy (Orser 1988).
Railroad transportation has also played an important part in the development of the county. The
narrow-gauge Danville, Mocksville, and Southwestern Railroad reached Leaksville in December 1883
25

following the Dan River valley. Madison was reached by a branch line of the Cape Fear and Yadkin
Valley Railroad in 1889. The Roanoke and Southern Railroad was a north -south railroad from Roanoke to
Winston-Salem that came down the Mayo River valley through Madison in 1891.
The advent of railroads effectively killed the canals as they could no longer compete. The canal
infrastructure and the boats were abandoned after nearly a hundred years as a commercially viable
transport system.
North Carolina was the beginning of aviation with the first successful flight of a heaver than air
craft at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903 by Orville & Wilbur Wright. These former bicycle mechanics started
the aviation age. Piedmont Airlines was also born in NC.
While the backbone of the County' commerce has been agriculture, the development of railroad
networks in the 19th century, and road transportation network improvements have significantly aided
county infrastructure and commerce.
Power production by Duke Energy at Belews Creek began in 1974 to continue a tradition begun
on their property a century earlier.
Currently, the County is still primarily agricultural in orientation. Wentworth is the center of
government the County. The majority of the industry in the County apart from agriculture is light
manufacturing.
Previous Research
Professional work includes the Miller (1962) River Basin Survey downstream from the project
area for the Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. The Gaston site in North Carolina was excavated and reported by
Coe (1964). The final product was the first stratigraphically established ceramic sequence for the northern
North Carolina Piedmont. The site produced evidence of a stratigraphic sequence from the Middle
Archaic Guilford phase to the Halifax to the Savannah River zones. Coe also demonstrated the
transformation from the use of the atlatl to the possible use of the bow and arrow. This phase, called the
Vincent, lasted from about A.D. 500 through about A.D. 1200 when ceramic style change and clay
smoking pipe increases coupled with the elimination of the atlatl in favor of the bow and arrow were
deemed sufficient to delineate a Phase change, called the Clements. The Clements lasted at the Gaston
site from about 1200 to about A.D. 1600.
The Clements was replaced without a transition by the Gaston phase. The Vincent and Clements
settlements were characterized by nucleated hamlets or villages while the Gaston were characterized by
nucleated and fortified villages. Changes in the ceramic style, and a greater abundance of bone tools and
pipes were noted. The phase appears to be after A.D. 1700 which would put it at the end of Native
American occupation of the local area. Coe postulates a Piedmont origin for this phase (Coe 1964). Coe's
work is directly relevant to the southern Piedmont and the project area. It appears from archaeological
information and from ethnohistorical sources that the two areas are part of the same Native American
cultural continuum for a significant period of time.
Archaeological sites in Rockingham County are moderately represented in site survey data at the
NC SHPO inventory. The SHPO had 202 listed for the county despite the presence of the Haw, Mayo and
Dan Rivers with numbers of sites known and extrapolated along their banks. A quick review of the
survey forms of Rockingham County shows a range of sites and find spots ranging from Paleo through
Late Woodland with the typical site topographic placement for each period. Archaic sites are more often
found on upland interior topography near stream heads and are generally characterized as low density
lithic scatters interpreted as hunting stations. Woodland period sites are recorded in the Dan River
drainage on the floodplain terraces.
Major related sites include the VA edition of the site of Occaneechee Town, at the confluence of
the Dan and Roanoke Rivers in Mecklenburg County, VA, perhaps the most important trade node
26

between European traders and Native Americans in south central Virginia. The NC version of the town
was excavated near Hillsborough on the Eno River (Davis, et ux 2003). This town was occupied after the
destruction of the VA edition in the late 171h century.
Rockingham County has received no systematic county -wide survey of cultural resources.
Several major watercourses flow through the county. The Dan River meanders through the top of the
county. The Mayo River is the major NC tributary of the Dan. The Haw River flows through the southern
portion of the county. All these watercourses have numerous feeder streams forming excellent water
transportation, power supply and prehistoric resource bases. No structures visible from the project area
are listed on the SHPO inventory.
Recent surveys in the vicinity include survey for the replacement bridge over Belews Creek on
Rt. 1138 (Mohler 2001).
The expected general universe of historic period sites would include initial patent phase sites
from the second quarter of the 18th century through 19th century farm structures, all based upon
agriculture. Given the agricultural base, the presence of grist and saw mills would be expected on Belews
Creek. The Dan River has Navigation Company associations providing commercial and private
transportation of goods to and from market centers. The focus of transportation is toward the nearest
available market, rather than the nearest available transportation. In the case of Rockingham, Danville
continued to be the focal point for trade from the 18th century until the 20th due to market factors,
interior inaccessibility to deepwater ports and markets in North Carolina and the development of rail
transportation in the third decade of the 19th century.
The expected universe of prehistoric period sites would include, based solely upon the known
universe of sites, Paleo sites, either spot finds or with individual site associations. For the Archaic, a series
of small perhaps microband seasonally occupied hunting camps would be expected along stream
margins, on saddles between drainages and on some interior uplands adjacent spring heads. For the
Woodland, if one examines the topography, soils and lithic resources available in the area, one would not
expect significant prehistoric occupation on the project, including Late Woodland semi -sedentary village
sites.
Water powered industrial sites such as grist and saw mills are expected on Belews Creek.
However, the relative accessibility of steam engine power in the late 1830's cannot rule out a steam
sawmill. These portable units were ubiquitous by the Civil War as interior sources away from river, rail
and road transportation could be exploited for lumber more economically.
The terrain of the project is entirely suitable for minor prehistoric occupation such as semi-
permanent sites, intermittent or short-term camp sites, hunting sites, nutting stations and the like on the
floodplain at the confluence of Belews Creek with the Dan River, at the heads of springs and on upland
erosion tongues and on saddles between drainages. It does have springhead access which may provide
for limited occupation in the form of intermittently occupied hunting camps. For the historic period, the
area was part of a major plantation complex and is suitable for smallholdings based upon the prevalent
tobacco economy. However, as discussed above, the area may have support structures for major
plantation holdings or may contain a lower economic status structure based upon subsistence agriculture.
Most likely are small 19`h century farms based on a mix of tobacco and animal husbandry.
Rockingham County was predominantly rural and has an architectural range from small
holdings to major plantation building complexes. There is significant riparian land on the project and the
watercourses in the vicinity of the project are sufficient to support industrial applications. The project is
adjacent a major riverine arterial connector and may have transportation business sites elsewhere on it.
The road networks are local. Consequently, the expectations would lie in the direction of domestic
structures oriented toward agriculture dating from the initial patents through the middle 19th century.
The county exhibits a typical cross-section of recorded standing structures dating from the 18th
and 19th century structures but with a significant number of houses constructed by 18th and 19th century
plantation owners. There are no sites or structures either on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) that will be affected by the project, nor are there sites or structures which are unevaluated in the
27

files of the SHPO. No structures or sites either on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP are recorded on
the Belews Lake quad sheet.
Four previously recorded archaeological sites were within or near the project limits. Sites RK24,
and RK25 were recorded in 1969 and coded in 1979. RK60 was also coded in 1979 but the date of initial
recording was not on the form. All three were prehistoric sites. RK42 was recorded in 1969 and coded in
1979. It was listed as "possibly the remains of old still or furnace of some sort".
Archival & Map Research
The earliest map upon which the project locale can be isolated was the 1733 Edward Moseley
map of the North Carolina. The map shows nothing directly in the project area although names for
tributary streams are shown as high as the headwaters of the Dan which at that time was known as the
Fitzwilliam River.
The 1753 Frye -Jefferson Map (Figure 9) shows the project locale. Belews Creek is not shown. The
general location of the project area can be determined by the presence of the Mayo/Dan confluence. It
does show Upper and Lower Sawra Towns on the Dan with the project nearer Upper Sawra Town. The
Dividing Line beween VA and NC is shown as is a north -south road traversing both VA and NC roughly
corresponding to the current Rt. 220 alignment.
The 1770 John Collet Map of North Carolina (Figure 10) clearly shows the project area. Belews
Creek is depicted. It does show Upper and Lower Sawra Towns on the Dan with the project nearer Upper
Sawra Town. North -south roads are shown east and west of the project area.
The 1795 Carey Map of North Carolina (Figure 11) clearly shows the project area. Belews Creek
is depicted. It does show Upper and Lower Sawra Towns on the Dan with the project nearer Upper
Sawra Town. North -south roads are shown east and west of the project area.
The 1814 Carey Map of North Carolina (Figure 12) clearly shows the project area. Belews Creek
is depicted. It does show Upper and Lower Sawra Towns on the Dan with the project nearer Upper
Sawra Town. Roads are shown east, south and west of the project area.
The earliest map upon which the project area can be isolated was the 1833 John Mac Rae map of
the State of North Carolina (Figure 13). It shows Belews Creek and the road networks in the county. The
Sawra Towns are not shown on this map.
The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (OMACW) maps show neither Belews Lake nor the
project area in detail. Rockingham County and the immediate vicinity did not see action during the Civil
War. Troop movements occurred west of the project in Stokes County.
Local sources referred to a settlement along the ridge top that the project traverses to the south of
the project. Pine Hall Road (SR 1908) transects the remnant community southwest of the project. It was
described as an extensive settlement with a church and cemetery in addition to houses. This settlement
will not be affected by the project. A road to Moore's Mill along the crest of the ridge
28

Apprc
�- i 1J
IN
3
Ajt r'r.'2t�rt�'r ,
AD�
x. Proj.�Loc
r
r -
Figure 9. 1753 Frye -Jefferson Map With Project Locale.
29
cy
.4v
IN
3
Ajt r'r.'2t�rt�'r ,
AD�
x. Proj.�Loc
r
r -
Figure 9. 1753 Frye -Jefferson Map With Project Locale.
29

Figure 10. 1770 John Collet Map of North Carolina With Project Locale.
30

Project
41011f
ry
Ek�
P
U'!
, r
C7
Figure 11. 1795 Carey Map of North Carolina With Project Locale.
31

Figure 12. 1814 Carey Map of North Carolina With Project Locale.
32

} : v.we e.r a.+sl .w ..w? +tea.. .- .••! � r.`-iF� �=..isi-n.� � ..<<� � .w.r .. ss e� .w,ge,.w +.r'a...
IY
r. !
J,
r� r ,-a t
�Pr et Locale
Figure 13. 1833 Mac Rae Map of North Carolina With Project Locale.
33

Terrain Description And Survey Conditions
The terrain on the project started at the floodplain confluence of Belews Creek with the Dan
River. The pipeline ran across the floodplain to a very steep slope. The pipeline ran up a ravine to the
ridge top and crossed it to turn parallel with the ridge but over the edge on a side slope. It pursued the
slope upward to the ridge summit on side slopes entirely to the previously affected Belews Creek Dam
area where the pipeline terminated. Power will be supplied by an electrical sub -station situated east of
the project across Belews Creek and located upslope along Rt. 1138. An access road will lead to the sub-
station and a transmission line will be built from the sub -station across Belews Creek to the proposed
pump station.
The floodplain was a cornfield that had been harvested and had no surface visibility. The
remainder of the project was in second growth forest.
The project had already had a line of pipes laid in with a temporary pump station consisting of a
set of electric powered water pumps mounted on a trailer. These pumps were laid directly on the surface
of the ground without surface disturbance. The 12 pipes were 16" OD plastic pipes. The pipes fed directly
into the Dan River. A substation to provide electric power had been constructed adjacent to the pumps
and will be replaced by the proposed construction. A set of di -pole power lines were the extent of
subsurface disturbance from the construction on the floodplain. At the ridge and floodplain edge, the
pipes continued upslope to the ridge top where they turned and were already placed where the proposed
lines will be buried. This area was on a very steep side slope.
The area where the sub -station, access road and transmission line will be laid are all on slopes
greater than 15% and have been damaged by logging and erosion.
The project area had no surface visibility. Subsurface testing was thus performed to access the
potential for cultural resources.
Research Design
Introduction
This Phase I survey was conducted in order to locate cultural resources under the provisions of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Information concerning cultural resources will
include their location, distribution in two dimensions, type, frequency, topographic situation and other
relevant factors. Natural and cultural indicators include but are not limited to artifact scatters, historic
landform features, landform anomalies, anomalous soil types, lithic resources, landscape flora, raw
material outcrops and subsurface features.
In order to perform the survey, a basis for the undertaking is implicit. A survey is a sampling
process designed to provide information concerning the presence or absence within accepted statistical
limits of cultural resources in the project area. In order to perform any survey, an explicit or implicit
model of the total universe of sites, site types and topographic situations in which sites have been
previously located, or which might yield sites if tested is normally used to guide survey efforts. Asimov
(1988) provides an excellent working definition for a model: "...If you want to understand some aspect of
the Universe, it helps if you simplify it as much as possible and include only those properties and
characteristics that are essential to understanding. If you want to determine how an object drops, you
don't concern yourself with whether it is new or old, is red or green, or has an odor or not. You eliminate
those things and thus do not needlessly complicate matters. The simplification you can call a model or a
simulation..."
34

In archaeological survey, models are used predictively to identify site types, site locations and
other variables commonly associated with sites of particular time periods. All models are subject to
alteration to fit the latest interpretation of the best fit of evidence. For instance, Hunter & Higgins (1985)
applied a non -stratified systematic sampling regimen to a linear corridor. They employed a set interval
sampling scheme with more intense subset intervals on higher probability locations. Their work showed
quite unexpected results for Middle Woodland site placement resulting in a total rethinking of site
settlement patterns for the period. Subsequent work in other drainage bottoms has both confirmed and
amplified those results. Site settlement and site placement models are discussed at length in the
COVA/ASV Symposia series for prehistoric through 18th century periods (Wittkofski & Reinhart 1989,
1996, Reinhart & Hodges 1990, Reinhart & Hodges 1991, Reinhart & Hodges 1992, Reinhart & Pogue
1993). The survey expectation section below provides a model of what is to be expected from the
topography of this project area. The project area is not expected to show sites or site types significantly
different from that previously located on other Piedmont upland interior topography in North Carolina.
Definitions
Phase I surveys are designed to locate cultural resources within a discrete survey area. Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that cultural resources on or eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places be taken "into consideration" during the planning process for
disturbances caused by Federally funded or permitted construction. Late discovery provisions are
explicitly stated within 36CFR800. SHPO Guidelines call for a good faith effort to locate cultural
resources. Surveys are traditionally a compromise among three elements: 1. Standard archaeological
practice which covers a wide range of ground covers, topographic situations and knowledge of the
survey area; 2. A statistically valid sampling strategy; and 3. The total universe of sites expected to be
present from the analysis of previously recorded sites and knowledge of the surveyors. Surveys are
traditionally performed within generally accepted upward limits for test unit spacing. Recent efforts
toward empirically verifiable results have oriented researchers toward a statistically valid sampling
strategy within generally accepted upward limits at 50 to 65 feet. It is implicit in the acceptance of a
systematic sampling strategy at a set interval that sites below a diameter and artifact density threshold
are far less likely to be detected than those above it.
The professional norm is about 15.25 meters (50') for the testing interval. The lower limit is not
established but varies according to survey conditions and the expectation of site types in the area and
local topography. An absolutist viewpoint of cultural resources would designate as sites all
manifestations of human activity. To guarantee the location of every site, virtually every square foot of
the ground would have to be examined. Kintigh (1988:689) states: "Clearly, any archaeological recovery
program encompassing less than complete excavation is likely to miss sites of some size." Survey is
emphatically a sampling process.
Recent analysis of the problems associated with the statistical probabilities of site location have
shed considerable scientifically reproducible light on the subject (cf. Kintigh 1988, Lightfoot 1986 and
Nance & Ball 1986). Kintigh (1988:686) applies a simulation approach to the efficacy of subsurface testing
with interesting results. He first considered the optimum testing pattern in relation to site diameters of
varying size. Kintigh (1988:688) states: "the spacing of the test units is optimal only in the sense that it
minimizes, for a fixed number of rows, the size of the largest circular site with its center in the survey
area that can go unintersected by a test unit (except, possibly, along the short edges of the survey area).....
it is much more difficult to identify a testing strategy that is optimal from the standpoint of identifying
sites with a range of sizes and densities."
Surface inspection by visual means augments the shovel test regimen. Shovel testing and visual
examination in concert provide a more comprehensive survey capability. Obviously, the greater the
surface area examined, the greater the likelihood of locating cultural materials.
Kintigh also points out that the issue of artifact density as it relates to site identification is a
severe problem. Any testing program which tests less than 100% of the area is a sample dependent upon
site diameter and site artifact density. That sampling strategies have varying degrees of success locating
small, low density scatters of artifacts depending upon variations in artifact density and site size is
9�7

somewhat of a truism. Kintigh has turned the issue around and using standard statistical processes,
worked out the probabilities of discovering artifacts in tests based upon varying artifact densities and
sizes. In essence, a systematic shovel test regimen at interval x dug into a site of artifact density y will
have a low statistical likelihood of finding sites below a certain site size and artifact density threshold.
This survey used two working definitions for cultural resources. Both are based upon empirically
verifiable and statistically viable premises. Both are also subjective in the sense that they require field
judgment by the surveyor which is a product of training and experience. Using this combination of
reproducible strategy and archaeological judgment, the working definitions are felt to be workable within
the scope of Federal regulation and the non -regulatory Secretary's Standards and Guidelines and the NC
SHPO Guidelines.
An archaeological site is here defined as a spatially discrete area of demonstrable human activity
in primary or secondary deposition situations resulting in an artifact density above 1/10 mz 'but not
caused by single -episode loss or discard of cultural materials. A site is further defined as having sufficient
evidence to reasonably indicate that further work would result in information that could be usefully
interpreted. Examples meeting the low end of the recordation threshold would include but are not
limited to scatters of prehistoric lithic materials, whether including diagnostic materials or not;
subsurface features or in some circumstances buried soil horizons; brick scatters; earthenware; low
density scatters indicative of 17th century occupation, vegetation patterns resulting from human
alteration; and/or landscape features resulting from human alteration. Paleo-Indian materials would be
included in this definition due to their nature as having significance in single occurrence situations.
Examples of artifact spreads not meeting the site criteria are roadside scatter of first half 20th century
automobile generated debris.
A location or an Isolated Artifact Find (IAF) is indicated by surface artifact densities of less than
1/10 mz, and / or no structural information, either in artifact form or from spatial distribution. Locations
are those areas with clearly redeposited tertiary or greater deposition sequence artifacts, and/or by the
recovery of artifacts that are clearly redeposited, or are caused by single -episode casual loss or discard of
cultural materials. A location is further defined as having insufficient evidence to reasonably indicate that
further work would result in information which could be usefully interpreted. Examples of locations
would be isolated artifact finds, scatters of non-structural historic artifacts with a density less than 1 / 10
mZ, materials of questionable cultural origin. In addition, areas containing archaeological materials less
than fifty years old were not recorded as either sites or locations unless they were felt to be of significance
per Section 106. The exception to this general outline would be Paleo-Indian materials which due to their
nature have significance in single occurrence situations.
Both the definition of a site and a location are subjective in that they mandate a degree of
interpretation in the field and the evaluation and application of the various variables by qualified
personnel. Other factors need to be taken into the overall equation in the field, such as the degree of prior
disturbance and whether secondary or tertiary deposition is indicated. Samples must be evaluated for
their representativeness of the site which involves consideration of the surface visibility, shovel test
interval, nature and type of artifacts located, topography, and cultural affiliation as well as other factors.
The representativeness of the sample, usually in terms of the intensity of the survey as measured by such
factors as the degree of surface exposure and shovel test interval, must also be considered when
determining the nature of an archaeological resource.
To form the stratified sampling model, we considered a variety of factors. Site location is
dependent upon a knowledge of the relationship between the environment in which the inhabitants lived
and the sophistication of the culture which inhabited the landform. It is generally accepted practice over
the last 100 years to attempt to formalize the relationship of known sites to landform and from those
relationships to deduce general applicability statements. By comparing the range of topographic situation
with the range of occupation dates a good idea of where site types of the various periods will be located
can be formulated. While there is clearly overlap and while certain topographic situations will attract
inhabitants of all of the periods of the past, certain generalizations can be made. It is generally true that
Late Woodland sites will be located on broad fertile floodplains near water, preferably at the confluence
of two streams. Archaic sites tend to be located on higher elevations and not so directly tied to floodplain
locations. In point of fact, it does not matter what date of occupation occupied what landform. What
36

matters is whether that landform is present in the survey area and how the landform will be surveyed to
reasonably determine whether cultural materials are present. While somewhat mechanistic, it has been
shown to work and is clearly a reasonable and often used basis for decisions as to testing strategies.
Within or near the project, all of the landform types discussed above are present.
All terrain is subject to erosion and soil depletion. Floodplains are usually in a depositional
setting, receiving soil from the adjacent uplands and from flood deposits although floodplain soil
depletion occurs.
Prehistoric Periods Research Design
The primary objective of the survey was to determine whether cultural materials were within or
adjacent to the proposed project area which might be affected by construction of the project.
Specific research questions and survey goals for the project survey are as follows:
1. What range and variation of cultural resources were within or directly adjacent to the project.
2. Determine the horizontal limits of each site located.
3. Attempt to determine any vertical extent to the sites.
4. Relate the sites to their topographic situation.
5. Determine whether any of the cultural resources were outside predictable topography.
6. Determine whether any of the cultural resources contained atypical materials.
7. Determine the range and variation of artifact types, raw materials, etc. for each site.
8. Provide an estimate of the ability of each site to provide further information.
9. Determine the distribution of sites in relation to each other or in relation to natural resources.
10. Determine whether other useful information could be obtained from other sources which
might help explain site locations.
Background information on sites previously located and recorded in the SHPO system prior to
survey was performed. Due to the low number of recorded sites in the project vicinity, the selection
criteria were expanded to include previously recorded sites on similar landforms in the county and in
two neighboring counties. Information was noted for location, date, topographic situation and other
variables. These site locations and direct experience in survey were used to formulate the model
described below. In the immediate project vicinity, a very small number of sites related to late 19th and
20th century domestic sites had been recorded. These were visually distinctive and were of limited use in
modeling site locations.
The basis for terrain selection is as follows for sites in the study window where information was
obtained:
1. Water: Examination of site locations in the SHPO system for proximity to water showed an
implied hierarchy related to topographic situation and distance to water. A definite fall-off with distance
from water is noted.
2. Stream Confluence: Level topography near the confluence of two streams has an increased
incidence of sites.
37

3. Floodplain: This topographic situation has proved to be the best single indicator for Archaic
through Woodland prehistoric sites as well as initial patentee historic sites. The major provisos are that
the floodplain must be elevated at least 10 feet off the normal water level to attract significant settlement
ad must be of sufficient width to accommodate at least band level settlement and wide enough to
preclude catastrophic flooding except in 100 year or greater events.
4. First or Second Terrace: Archaic sites tend to be clustered on first terraces overlooking streams
above 5 Cubic Feet Per Second (CFS) flow. Sites may also be located along elevated terraces, where
topography allows a crossover between watersheds.
5. Spring: Sites from the Paleo through the Woodland in the prehistoric and for the early patent
sites through 19th century concentrate on springs for their year-round supplies of potable water.
6. Bench: Small level areas on otherwise sloping terrain have produced sites, most of which
overlook streams.
7. Spur: These topographically limited linear landforms are usually located at right angles to
streams. Depending upon size and location, sites from Early Archaic through Historic period are located
on them provided that they have sufficient flat area near the tip to be desirable for use. The slope of spurs
is not a negative factor, provided a level area is present at the end of the spur.
8. Knoll: These topographically limited circular elevations offer observation advantages for
prehistoric occupations. For historic populations, they tend to contain ancillary buildings such as barns.
9. Saddle: These areas between two directly adjacent higher elevations offer level terrain suitable
for short term hunting camps and for traverse points along game trails.
10. Ridge Top: These upland areas offer lateral transportation corridors and access to lithic
resources. Habitation sites are not expected. Camp or kill sites may be found.
11. High Terrace: These landforms are located in high elevation situations with intermittent to no
current streams at the leading edge of the terrace overlooking a valley.
Custer (1980, 1986) discusses upland terrain area surveys which are directly applicable to this
survey. While the first and second terrace model is generally sound on both empirical and a priori
grounds, sites have been recorded which do not faithfully follow the model. There are certainly Late
Woodland and Contact Period sites which are located on landforms more typical of Middle and Late
Archaic hunting camps, i.e., upland interior spurs situated between the confluence of two streams
wherein the landform is less than 200 feet in diameter (cf. Egloff, Moldenhauer, & Rotenizer 1987).
Certainly, more must also exist. The value of these sites for their archaeological potential is obvious. They
probably will not have been robbed by looters and thus represent a particularly tantalizing site type for
further study.
In general terms, we expected the frequency of sites per square mile to be low, and that they
would show clustering on the limited suitable landforms. The energy expenditure necessary to utilize the
upland environment would require sufficient reward to warrant repeated occupation as opposed to
transient use. Therefore, intermittent hunting camps and lithic procurement sites would be expected in
the upland elevations, but not more intensively occupied sites because of the elevation, small level areas
and lack of water. Most of the upland sites were expected to be located on terrain which offered access
across landform tops or on terrain which overlooked larger vistas suitable for hunting.
Previous survey in Rockingham County and elsewhere in the Piedmont showed that site
densities were highest along the watercourses, but on the interior topography, sites were also clustered
along smaller streams and were located between streams on higher elevations. Previous survey showed
that water was an extremely strong attractant; and that there would be less clustering of sites on the
interior as compared with a higher site density along the streams. Therefore, the implication seemed to be
that the inland terrain required less energy expenditure to use more of it while the riparian floodplain
was probably the base for the majority of the inland sites. Longer occupation was shown on the riparian
38

floodplain sites while the intermittently occupied sites were located on interior elevations. An important
variant was the practice of continuity of practice from one period to another. Thus, where an Archaic site
was located on a landform typical of the period, later materials such as pottery from the Woodland might
also be located on it.
For the prehistoric, based upon the known universe of sites previously located in the general area
and comparison of available landforms, biotic resources and settlement models shown to be generally
applicable to Piedmont topographic situations which can be extrapolated to landforms of the project area,
the project area is not expected to contain sites of the Paleo period, although a find would certainly be of
significance. For the Archaic, site types have been identified on similar landforms. Similar sites might be
expected on this survey. Site types would be small camp sites possibly used for hunting, nutting, or lithic
procurement characterized by lithic scatters situated on small knolls, level areas and adjacent stream
courses or stream heads. However, Woodland sites may be present as nutting stations, and small hunting
or lithic procurement camps situated on knolls or small level areas. These sites would be characterized by
lithic scatters and pottery fragment scatters. As with any settlement models, these approximations of
reality are based upon the state of knowledge at the time and are subject to change with developing
information. While certain landforms may generally be more attractive, the reality is not all apparently
equally attractive landforms have predicted habitation on them. Larger hamlets or nucleated and
palisaded village sites are not expected due to the landform, the soil types, and the relative inaccessibility
of water.
Historic Periods Research Design
European incursions into the Southeast Atlantic Piedmont began in the second half of the 16`h
century with various Spanish expeditions. See the Contact Period discussion below in the Historic
Context section for more information. Those expeditions and those of the English explorers and traders of
the second half of the 17th century would be expected to leave very small traces along major
transportation corridors such as the Occanneechee Trail.
The following narrative is a generalized account. Settlement in the historic period was initiated in
the first half of the 181h century. Properties were seated generally after 1730 by individuals who had
patented lands in the interior. A county surveyor laid out the limits on the terrain and entered it into the
Patent Books in sequential order. It was required by law that the lands be seated with a livable building
within 3 years of the date of issuance. While abuses did occur where the structures occupants were
literally porcine, in general the patent properties were placed within the bounds of the patent and
occupied by individuals and their families.
The most desirable lands were the riparian floodplains with deep alluvial soils that were fertile.
These lands were patented quickly along the Dan, Banister and Staunton Rivers. Upland interior lands
were next patented.
Low lying riverine terrain was thought at the time to be the cause of disease and contagion and
was avoided by the European settlers. Consequently, a floodplain would not be expected to contain
patent period sites, nor in fact any sort of habitation. The advent of African slavery brought people
thought to be resistant to malaria, but not immune. Therefore, slave quarters were not located on
floodplain either.
Owners of large tracts of land placed their houses on locations that were felt to be a reflection of
their status. Riparian owners tended to place structures on high, well -drained elevations overlooking the
watercourses. On the project property, the houses are located on an upland ridge watershed between the
Sandy and Dan Rivers that what is now Rt. 58 follows.
Owners of smaller tracts tended to follow the lead of the social elites. One would expect that
historic period sites would be located on the highest local elevation available to the shape of the property.
Owners of the smallest tracts tended to have highly dissected upland terrain. As arable fields
were at a premium, the house was placed at the edge of the level terrain. The focus in these was not
39

status, but subsistence, hence the fields were of primary importance to the owners rather than the
building. Given limited financial means, the structures were also of modest construction.
While much has been written about the plantation elites, and about the substantial plantation
owners, little serious study has been given to the smaller owners. It is probably safe to say that slave
quarters have received more study than have these humble buildings. Publications dealing with the
origins of log cabins and the various notching styles of construction have provided background
information and ethnic origins of corner notching styles, chimney styles and internal layout (Glassie
1968). What has not been done is to correlate the date of construction of the buildings with the properties.
Surviving log structures with stone chimneys use a minimum of nails thus dating to within a
hundred years is often as close as is possible on stylistic grounds.
Ancillary domestic buildings on large plantations or farms were typically of three types:
overseer/farm manager dwellings, slave quarters, and tenant farmer houses. Again, following the
hierarchical social system, the main house occupied the dominant landscape position, the overseer house
the middle and the slave quarters the least desirable of the group.
Ancillary farm buildings would include barns, tobacco barns, gristmills, and storage buildings.
The primary cash crop in the VA Piedmont was tobacco. A structure set for the culture of tobacco
had several components. On a small farm, the typical scenario has the dwelling at one end of the fields
overlooking a ravine wherein water might be had, with a string of tobacco barns riding up the ridge, and
a barn for the animals and produce from secondary use of the land as a subsistence base. Subsistence
farming was not uniformly about growing tobacco. All of the farms, large and small, largely grew their
own food, primarily for consumption with any excess for sale. Garden plots were ubiquitous at all levels
of society. Farm animals were raised for market and personal consumption. They required shelter and
winter food. Consequently, barns were built to house the draft animals, to shelter the milk cows and beef
cattle and to shelter what might be termed horse furniture, including tack, wagons, buggies and the like.
The economics of scale and optimal foraging theory adapted to the historic periods are revealed
in the placement of buildings on large plantations. Clustering around the main house are ancillary
buildings. It was remarked that the European great house had rooms devoted to particular tasks while
the Southern plantation had individual buildings devoted to those tasks. Space tended not to be at a
premium, the dangers of fire demanded space where possible and the separation of the elites from their
workers or slaves also brought about the proliferation of outbuildings. If the farm was large enough, a
second set of buildings might be built. Household workers and servants were set around or near to the
main house. Field workers were placed near to their work where "commutes" were kept to a minimum.
Farm barns were scattered across the landscape as needed.
On small farms, the landforms accentuated the linear aspect of building placement. Concentrated
next to the fields, tobacco based agriculture developed into the typical signature string of buildings
culminating in the dwelling.
In the historic period, transportation improvements fell into three categories. First were the
roads. These were placed on elevated terrain following ridge lines and tended either to follow rivers or to
follow a superimposed plan based upon organic growth of towns first in the Tidewater and later in the
Piedmont. The so-called river roads followed the rivers on terrain set back from the river and tended to
be quite serpentine in the Piedmont. Roads superimposed tended to be either major transportation routes
established by Native Americans, such as the Occanneechee Trail, or if organically grown, were built to
connect administrative centers within each county.
Second were the canal systems. In the Southside, private individuals and later Navigation
companies first improved rivers by removing obstructions and by building small rock diversion dams to
facilitate batteau traffic. The Dan and Roanoke Rivers empty into Albemarle Sound. While relatively easy
to use in the up -country, the falls at Roanoke Rapids were a major obstacle that required large capital
infusions to solve.
40

Third were the railroads. First chartered in the Tidewater and Falls Zone in the late 1820's to
1830's, railroads had made their way to Danville by 1856 eight years after the 1847 charter of the
Richmond and Danville Railroad. This railroad followed the southwest/ northeast trend from the Capital
at Richmond to the destination. A north -south line from Lynchburg to Danville was built in 1866 and the
east -west Atlantic & Danville began in the 1880's.
The objectives of this survey were to identify any and all cultural resources that might be affected
by the proposed project in accordance with Section 106 procedures. At its most basic, Section 106 calls for
all archaeological sites and standing structures either on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places to be located prior to construction such that the effect of the project can be evaluated
and taken into consideration. The objectives were to identify the limits of archaeological sites on the
ground, to record their characteristics in two dimensions, to ascertain possible function and to provide
recommendations for further work on any sites located.
In general terms, we expected the frequency of sites per square mile to be low, and that they
would show clustering on the limited suitable landforms.
For the historic, the project area is not expected to contain initial patent period structures dating
to the first half of the 18th century due to the dissected uplands nature of the project area being less
attractive than floodplain areas. According to available information, initial patent sites were primarily
taken up along the fertile floodplains of the Staunton and Dan Rivers. The stony uplands soils in the
project area argue against, but of course cannot rule out, such early patenting. Patentee sites dating to the
second half of the 18th century may be present as infilling of the landform after primary selection of the
more valuable and arable floodplain lands were taken. The normal infilling sequence from floodplain to
uplands soils for patents of later dates would be expected. However, while the county has had a
completed and published patentee map, it is only now being put into a computerized system such that
patterns may be discerned without investments of time beyond the scope of this project, thus, the
sequence is unverified and speculative.
Industrial sites using water power are not expected due to lack of suitable water sources locally
available. Mineral resources are not locally available for exploitation, thus further limiting the availability
of the landform for industrial applications.
Survey Methodology
Survey was conducted via a systematic shovel test regimen at a 50 foot distance with the contents
passed through 0.25" mesh screens to ensure artifact recovery. Augering using a hand-held soil auger
was also performed on 50' centers. Interviews with local sources knowledgeable about prehistoric and
historic resources were conducted. Based upon the identification of a prehistoric site in the floodplain,
shovel tests were excavated off the project alignment. In addition, visual examination of cleared strips
was used for the field. A mini -excavator blade was used to clear cornstalks and emergent vegetation for
areas about 9 feet long by 6 feet wide every 50 feet on 50 foot rows was cleared for further visual
examination of the proposed site landform. Soil augering was used in the alignment and on the
archaeological site to determine the soil profile, to assess the soil profile to indicate whether features
might be present and to provide a soil profile baseline. The last step was the excavation of a series of
trackhoe trenches of 2' x 9' dug from the surface to as deep as 12 feet in order to assess the potential for
deeply buried sites as floodplains are typically incrementally built up via alluvial deposits. A 1 cubic foot
sample of topsoil from each was screened, as were all sub-plowzone non -natural soil lenses.
The survey methodology incorporated for the identification of historic properties is drawn
directly from § 800.4 as contained in 36 CFR Part 800. The site archives and USGS maps on file at the
North Carolina SHPO office were consulted to determine if any previously surveyed or identified
properties were located within the project area. A windshield survey of the project area will be conducted
to determine if any buildings within the project area or adjacent to it are fifty years old or older. For those
buildings that are determined to be fifty years old or older a Reconnaissance level survey form will be
completed. The Reconnaissance level survey will include representative photographs of the primary
resources and any associated secondary buildings and structures as well as written descriptions of the
exterior of the resources and their settings recorded on the NC structure survey form.
41

ht, 1
i y ) . � "'-"•.",. ,t rr 'y {_". ter r �t (' t' ,'� �, � d C�, � -
E1 ? a
j r J 1
u }tllIt
1 1 ti> " Power LineVA
n
�
Substation��,( L'L� G, �� ��n!
r`✓r wa sem- YF Substation Roa
Ina Pump �P rf L �9 r'tt l FI < S(1'
((� "%''
01
4t raRK41
�' •�^`r� f'Belews 1: ', r • f.�, �
31RK203� j ;lr , .?WRK60� 5V,
14t t
%-,Pipe Alig_nrmen RIC24�
RK42 r� e fr
IN
1 ar�,�55.` f y��*'�--� � � � �, � r✓//!/^'f,; � (t 1Pfr�vr�,.��-t''-,f �%� �� �-�,;..�'o? ` `-�'�Vy i� ',"`i
E�NS��t€�1T
t Xi
_
WN IN
AM
�I e.�fr( G�� �.!' f-" .�~ ,..✓+.� :^==i`z� >� �.�1 s. �"'� ,t�` �L / ... _^v� . � V ir`r -•" �'.,i �JCr
/ �
f
VIT' TN U S 1 SMILE.
0,�,, 1000 FEET 0 °AO 10x0 NODS
Map created with TOPQ!C C'�2003 National Geographic(�vww-nationalgeograpbic.com`topo)
Figure 14. Belews Lake 24K USGS Quad With Cultural Resource Locations.
42

V
17, il
"'Al
...0-1

t
RK 25
0
Figure 16. Prehistoric Cultural Resources On Project Contour Map.
MI

Scraped Area, Negative 2 Scraped Area, Positive
Shovel Test, Negative ❑ Shovel Test, Positive
Figure 17. Site 31RK203 Testing Regimen.
45

Old Road Alignmen
�/ SR 1308 � �� �11 � X ...-„�._.:.
Zi fl i �1a
\? \�
r \L l • Moore's Mill
Complex
}
}}i 1 ,
t �i ,
�tu! i 1
� � I ,RK42 Reset Boundaries
It
k
Probable Valley Home
Location
i
Concrete
i ,r (°
Bridgejjlf ill
t.Abutments l \'
'Moore's Mill Location
i
t t i• a \ � � t� , � \/
,
l:rr=r�ttifuJ!
( s ( l
1r f 1 t�� �p,�j:� � 't !��~ '\i\ „_\ \ ; • ”' `;���... l �� �� �._.. ' �,,....--"sem
r, .t
..--
�I�
Figure 18. Historic Cultural Resources On Project Contour Map.
46

O
V f
0
0,
Ap
pGol o
Stable
I's .10
Valley HomeA.,
Aux O�T-y
is c L. �;- 1A
Mill
to
Figure 19. 1901 Moore's Mill Plat.

Figure 20. Project Contour Map With Floodplain Pipe Realignment & RK203.
U-1

1 CM GRID
Figure 21. RK203 Artifact.

SURVEY RESULTS
Archaeological Sites
One previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological site was identified during survey of the
project. Three previously recorded prehistoric sites were revisited. One historic period archaeological site
was also revisited and the boundaries were expanded. Each of these sites is discussed below.
Site #
Site Type
Cultural Affiliation
Recommendation
31RK24
Lithic Scatter
Woodland
No further work
31RK25
Lithic Scatter
Woodland
No further work
31RK42
Mill Complex
Historic, C18 -C20
Phase II
31RK60
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric, Unknown
No further work
31RK203
Artifact Scatter
Late Woodland
Phase II
Site 31RK24 (Figures 14, 15, 16) was recorded in 1969 by Ned Woodall of Wake Forest University
and was coded into the NC system in 1979. It was described as a Woodland site near the confluence of
Bellews Creek and the Dan River. The site is in a bend in the creek beneath regional power transmission
lines. It was further described as being deflated to an unknown extent. The main soil composition was
sand and it was then being plowed. The site produced 5 plain sherds, 3 decorated sherds, 4 charcoal 5
flakes and 2 tools. No further description of the finds was in the report.
This site has been plowed in the recent past as an agricultural field. The site is adjacent to and
under a recently built road to the electrical sub -station for the temporary pump set for the temporary
water pipes which this project will replace with permanent subsurface pipes. It has also had about 2 feet
of crusher run material placed upon and adjacent to it. The effects to the site have already been done by
placing the road fill over it. The effects are felt to be minimal and will aid in the preservation of the site.
Further work is not recommended.
Site 31RK25 (Figures 14, 15, 16) was recorded in 1969 by Ned Woodall of Wake Forest University
and was coded into the NC system in 1979. It was described as a Woodland site at the confluence of
Bellews Creek and the Dan River. The site is located on a tip of land directly at the confluence in one of
those places where the most basic predictive models would opt for certainty to find a site. It was further
described as being deflated to an unknown extent. The main soil composition was sand and it was then
being plowed. The site produced "1 core, 1 stone tool, 1 stone (not deciphered), 7 flakes, 9 plain
potsherds, and 2 decorated potsherds". No further description of the finds was in the report.
This site has been plowed in the recent past as an agricultural field. The site is adjacent to and
possibly under a recently built electrical sub -station for the temporary pump set for the temporary water
pipes which this project will replace with permanent subsurface pipes. It has also had about 2 feet of
crusher run material placed upon and adjacent to it. The ground surface adjacent to the parking lot was
over 50% clear affording a good look at the surface. No trace of the site was evident. Three tests were
placed in the general vicinity and through the site based upon the location on the USGS Quad and no
traces were noted. The site does not appear to intrude into subsoil and appears by location to be a spring
fish run camp as the most likely function. The relatively small size argues against extensive occupation.
The topsoil is not noticeably different in color from the surrounding soil, indicating a short-term
occupation that did not produce copious amounts of organic debris and charcoal that would contribute
the materials that typically discolor soil.
Further work is not recommended.
Site 31RK42 (Figures 14, 15, 18, 19) is previously recorded historic archaeological site located on a
terrace overlooking Belews Creek. The site consists of an earlier version of SR 1138 that followed the land
contours to a gristmill, sawmill, furniture manufactory, ironworks and electrical power generation plant
50

and crossed Belews Creek on a concrete abutted bridge and then continued west to the current road
alignment.
The initial survey described the site as the "possible remains of an old still or furnace of some
sort" due to slag and copper being found, evidently. Subsequent survey for the replacement bridge for SR
1138 over Belews Creek could not find evidence of the site and recommended it not eligible for the NRHP
(Mohler, O'Connell & Overton 2001). We do not find failure to spot obvious surface manifestations of a
site a reasonable argument for non -eligibility and will make an argument to revisit that issue.
In order to gain some context for the survey and to respond to Duke Energy's information that
the site was definitely the first in the region and possibly the first in the state to generate rural electricity,
we did a visual reconnaissance of the site. A well defined road that was the earlier version of SR1138 that
followed land contours was evident coming off SR 1138. We followed that road to where the terrain
leveled off and noted a former built environment. Non-native shrub species, daffodils, and roses were
present indicating a former domestic site. We had been told that a part of a millstone was incorporated
into what were called house foundations on the site which was what we found (Figure 18).
We also noted the remnants of a cut stone foundation of a former milling complex at the edge of
Belews Creek. We also noted a French buhr millstone sitting on the mill foundations as well as parts of
two water turbines. Duke Energy's office facility at their steam plant had an article written prior to 1974
that described the mill and the area. Randy Price (2009) of Duke Energy also supplied a plat surveyed in
1901 (Figure 19) that shows the project property in relation to the area. The article is printed below as it
has a contextual history of the site.
By Henry Anderson
Branch Manager
Eden, N. C.
In 1974 when electricity flows from Duke Power's Belews Creek Steam Station, history will
be made. History will also be repeated, for this occasion will not be the first time electricity has
been generated on Belews Creek.
The story of earlier electric generation at this remote Rockingham County site is as
fascinating as it is historic, for the current from --the magical machines" flowed there long before
such cities as Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Charlotte had electricity.
It happened this way:
In 1794 a man named Enoch Moore was born in Rockingham County. In later years he was
to have a son named James Wright Moore, who would build and operate Moore Mills at the family
homesite, which was some 900 acres of land bordering on Belews Creek, just at the intersection
with the Dan River.
James Wright Moore was a man "who walked with the Gods of Mechanics." His mills
turned out fine furniture, iron work, and wooden construction beams. In 1885 R. J. Reynolds
came to Moore Mills to place orders for "boxes" in which to pack his new product - - tobacco - -for
shipping. John Motley Morehead, a former State Governor, turned to Moore Mills for millwright
work when he began construction on his textile mill at Leaksville-Spray. The craftsmanship and
skill of the Moore Mills personnel became widely known.
In June, 1868 James Wright Moore had a son, and it was this son, Enoch, named for his
grandfather and nicknamed "Enie" Moore, who brought electricity to Belews Creek at a time
when electricity, even to the well informed, was only a vague idea a man named Edison was
experimenting with in New Jersey.
Enoch, "Enie" Moore, like his father and grandfather pursued scientific knowledge
relentlessly. While a student at Trinity College he distinguished himself in his physics class as the
51

student who could explain this new thing called electricity, and the difference between an arc and
an incandescent lamp. Finally, the time came when "'Enie" Moore stumped his Professors with
questions about the workings of a dynamo, or electrical generator.
During the summer vacation from school he resolved to build for himself this machine that
would make electricity. Disregarding his father's admonitions not to overstrain himself, and
working with an engine lathe and drill press he made by hand, he set to work to build something
he had never seen and which had never been adequately explained to him. Because of a disastrous
fire at the family mill in 1873. materials were unavailable. He took old tiles from the mill to make
castings. He talked himself into possession of some bevelled gears. And be pressed others to help
work on his machine.
By the end of the summer he had harnessed the small stream with a water wheel and he had
a crude but finished generator. To the amazement of everyone except "Enie" Moore, the machine
worked! A lever was moved and suddenly the mill and the shops and the family home were flooded
with light! And less than 20 miles away, Greensboro and Winston-Salem lay in darkness except
for candles and other primitive lights.
The word spread quickly throughout the State and eventually throughout the whole South.
From miles around people came to marvel at the illuminated mill, shops and house. They watched
in awe as "Enie" Moore, still a teenager, did "incredible tricks" with an electromagnet. They
paused at length to bear a strange noise emanating from a large horn, the first phonograph they
had ever seen. And it was not long before "'Enie" Moore had amazed them again by stringing
wire from Moore's Mill to Ladford now known as Pinchall, a distance of some two miles, and then
talking into something called a "telephone" and being heard at the other end!
After college, "Enie" Moore continued his probe into this new discovery called electricity
moving from one position to another up the ladder of industrial success. One of his first jobs was
to install an electric system in a plant at Reidsville. Employment with the Southern Electric Light
and Construction Company took him on similar missions throughout the South and North
building electric lighting plants.
Later he established the Moore-Edenfield Manufacturing Company to make motors and
generators for industrial plants. At the turn of the century he was Vice President and General
Manager of the West Penn Traction and Water Power Company, and finally he founded Mooreco
Enterprises and did pioneer work in the development of electric furnaces.
When "Enie" Moore died in the early 1950's, in Pittsburg, Pa., he had more than 100
patents to his credit.
Many of "Enie" Moore's descendants still live in the area near where the Duke Power
Belews Creek Steam Station will operate, turning out over 2.2 million kilowatts of electric power,
or enough current to light over 22 million 100 -watt bulbs at the same time.
While this modern, mammoth plant towers in scope over the crude plant built by "Enie"
Moore at Belews Creek, it s still part of the same dream -- power for the benefit of man.
Enoch Moore's primitive operation was a large contribution in making the dream approach
reality. It is typical of the spirit that made the Piedmont Great -then and now.
The article establishes that the mill was in operation in the 191h century. The mill expanded into a
sawmill and woodworking facility of some renown. It also appears to have some form of iron production
facility. A blast furnace is least likely. The distance from iron ores and the lack of transport for bringing in
ores and for taking out finished products except by water also argues against a blast furnace. It is possible
that a foundry that produced cast iron products was built at the mill. It is also equally possible that a
forge that made end-user products by transforming pig iron into wrought objects was at the mill. The
least common denominator was a blacksmithy, which would have been a near necessity at the complex
due to the number of operations carried on at the site.
52

The two photographs in the Duke Energy article show an apparently square mill building of at
least 2 stories abutting a dam of about 10 feet in height. The southern portion of the buildig appears to be
an extension west which we would interpret as a turbine forebay with workspace overhead. The
replacement of wheels by the more efficient turbines was a 19 century commonplace. The more
powerful turbines also could work in the dead of winter whereas an exposed water wheel had problems
with water freezing on it. This would be a definite factor in the upper Piedmont.
Attached to the mill on the north is an elongated and elevated structure with a shed off to the
east. The style is suitable for a saw and furniture mill. The article mentioned beam manufacture which
would require a long structure for handling the logs to be sawn into suitable lengths and shapes.
The dynamo mentioned in the article was powered by a water wheel after the "disastrous" 1873.
The replacement of the wheel by turbines appears to have been after that date.
The 1901 plat shows the mill at the edge of Belews Creek with the Valley Home of the Moore
family upstream and on the north side of the old road. That location is consistent with the description
that Van Noppen (1950's) has of the Moore family. That information is inset below and quoted:
VALLEY HOME
In a valley on Belews Creek, near its intersection with the Dan, is found Valley Home, built
in 1795 by William Dearing. He was a native of Orange County, Virginia, having been born in 1763.
He came to Rockingham County to build and operate a corn and flour mill at a place first known as
Dearing's Water Mill and Farm.
William Dearing married Mary Hunter, daughter of Colonel James Hunter, Revolutionary
patriot and leader of the Regulators. A son of this marriage was Alexander Dearing, who married
Ruth Rogers, granddaughter of Colonel James Martin of Snow Creek in Stokes County. One
daughter, Rosamond, married an Oderneal; another daughter married Randall Duke Scales and
became mistress of the Boxwoods in Madison.
The Dearings built their home on a hill, overlooking creek and river. The house of two and
one half stories was put together with wooden pegs and has two coats of plaster on the walls, perhaps
the earliest insulation. William Dearing died in 1824 and his wife died in Madison in 1833. As their
children had moved away the house and mill were for sale.
Enoch Moore and wife of Haw River, forty miles away, bought the house and 900 acres of
land. Enoch's wife, Aday Hopkins Moore, did not like the situation of the house on the hill with the
sharp winds blowing around it, so her husband mounted the house on rollers and moved it into the
valley, where it became known as the Valley Home.
In this family were found united deep piety and great industry with mechanical genius
among the men; educational talent among the women. "All his life Enoch Moore walked with the god
of mechanics." (From Harold Coy's book The Prices and the Moores). He perfected a new mill and
turned out fine lumber. His own wood work included walnut cabinets, leaf tables, chests and coffins.
Many of the finest chests, tables, cupboards and secretaries in this region were made by him. He
established a wagon business, building huge schooners as well as carriages. He built threshing
machines and hardware in his iron foundry, which had a machine shop and blast furnace.
Enoch's son, Wright Moore, continued the manufacture of wagons, bureaus, sideboards,
beds, chairs and tobacco boxes in great quantity. Wright married Marinda Branson from Randolph
County. In 1854, Ada Moore, Wright's sister has established a girls' boarding seminary in Danbury,
N.C. Her mother went with her to take care of the boarding facilities and the school was in operation
for several years.
Marinda Branson Moore was not to be outdone by her sister-in-law, so at Valley Home she
established Margarita Seminary, named for a friend, Margarita Nixon, a missionary to China.
Wright Moore built large class rooms for the students. The birth of three daughters did not long .
53

interrupt her teaching. In addition to her numerous duties, Marinda wrote and had her brother
publish a set of Dixie Readers. Some of these, after one hundred years, remain in the hands of her
descendants, Bernic and Emily Payne and Mrs. Mary Wall. There are also copies of these books in the
libraries of the University of North Carolina. The children of Wright and Marinda were Mary, who
married James Wall and moved to Idaho, Grace, who married Dr. Payne, and Ada, who died of
tuberculosis at the age of eighteen. After Marinda's death, Wright married Emily Branson, sister of
Marinda. Their children were Enoch, who became a millionaire, Thomas who also died of tuberculosis,
and Martha Frances (Pattie).
The mechanical genius of the Moores was inherited in fullest degree by Enoch Moore II,
now a resident of Pittsburgh, Pa. In the early years he flooded the old mill with electric lights and
installed a telephone. He was a pioneer in the construction of electric furnaces and has 130 patents to
his credit.
His nephew Tom Moore Price, is Vice -President in charge of the Iron and Steel division of
the Kaiser Company.
Pattie (Martha Frances) who married J. V. Price and her daughters were successful
teachers. Because of her beauty and personality, Pattie has been the inspiration of more than one
poet's theme. In her girlhood, an admirer wrote a poem to a "Girl in a Gray Bateau. "
"With the dary-eyed girl, we'd ever glide O'er the azure breast of the waveless tide." A
friend in Greensboro, Mrs. Arnett, wife of a professor at Woman's College, wrote a poem after Mrs.
Price's death, --
To Pattie Price The essence of which is found in the last lines "They say you are in Paradise
To me you're in each flower that blows."
All of Jim and Pattie Price's nine children are unusually intelligent and well-educated.
Mary Price was a candidate for governor on the Progressive ticket in 1948.
After the death of Mr. Wright Moore, Dr. Payne and his wife Grace Moore Payne, bought
and lived in Valley Home for many years. One daughter Elsie, married Matt Daniel and is now a
music teacher in Madison. Bernice and Emily Payne are secretaries in Winston. Preston Payne is an
electrical engineer and inventor in Denver, Colorado. Harvey Payne, a retired electrical engineer, has
bought the old home, built a white brick house on the hill, and plans to build a lake and restore the
150 year old Valley Home.
Van Noppen establishes a late 18`h century construction date (circa 1795) for the mill by William
Dearing and for the original house. The property was purchased by Enoch Moore some time after 1833.
The house was originally built upon a promontory overlooking the Dan River but Moore's wife Aday did
not like the persistent winds. Enoch had the house moved to the site where it became known as the
Valley Home and was so labeled on the 1901 plat. The other house labeled Golloy (sp?) farther away from
the Valley Home may have been the Seminary structure. Van Noppen mentions machinery manufacture
which would require a small foundry. There may be some terminological confusion as the
unknowledgeable will use blast furnace, foundry and forge interchangeably. We did not note one piece of
glassy slag at the creek edge. Glassy slag is the one industrial byproduct of a blast furnace that is
produced in copious quantities. We suspect that the foundry was probably a small facility in keeping
with the farm equipment production mentioned. As we dug no holes, we were not able to determine the
type of slag, nor did we notice any on the surface.
Ironworking was an integral part of the Moore family repertoire and with their interest in
electricity the outgrowth would have been their work in electric furnaces. These are typically well beyond
the means of a small farm equipment manufacturing concern such as Moore had in the second half of the
191h century at Belews Creek.
This site has been abandoned in the recent past. Stone foundations of former buildings are
extant. Further work is not recommended for this project as the site will not be affected. However, given
54

the industrial history of electricity generation, the cutting edge multiple function mill, and the school
established at the site, the site should be further investigated to determine NRHP eligibility if it is to be
affected by other construction activities. Duke Energy has been generating electricity since 1974 on
property that was definitely the first to generate electrical power in the region and possibly the first in the
entire state.
Site 31RK60 (Figures 14, 15, 16) was recorded at an unknown date after 1969 and was coded into
the NC system in 1979. It was described as a prehistoric site at the confluence of Bellews Creek and the
Dan River. The site is located along Bellews Creek midway between RK 24 and RK25. The site produced 1
projectile point as an isolated find. No further description of the finds was in the report.
This site, if it is a site as it was described as an isolated find, has been plowed in the recent past as
an agricultural field. The site is adjacent to and possibly under a recently built road to an electrical sub-
station for the temporary pump set for the temporary water pipes which this project will replace with
permanent subsurface pipes. It has also had about 2 feet of crusher run material placed upon the site to
make the road. The ground surface had no visibility, thus no evidence for the site could be observed. As
the site has already had all of the damage from road placement that it will have and as it was otherwise
out of the project construction zone and impact area, further work is not recommended.
Site 31RK203 (Figures 14, 15, 16, 17, 21) is an artifact scatter located on a very slight rise in a field
beside a small streamlet emptying into the Dan River. The rise is slight but visible. The landform was
pointed out by Jerry Tuttle (2009) who had in the past collected materials from it. It is defined by an old
flood chute on the south side, by the streamlet on the west and by a slight swale to the north and east.
Surface testing was performed by visual examination of cleared 10' swaths on roughly 50 foot spacings.
Cornstalks and emergent vegetation totally obscured the surface of the site. In addition, augering was
done at 50 foot intervals and a series of 14 screened shovel tests were also excavated across the landform
(Figure 17). Site soils appear to be slightly darker than surrounding areas, perhaps due to organic debris
from occupation. The site produced 5 sherds of plain pottery, tempered with fine micaceous sand with
the occasional sand grain of 2mm present. The paste is thin and well made. The sherds are quite small,
but appear to be Saura (Figure 21).
This site has been used for agricultural crops in the recent past. Erosion caused by agricultural
practices has deflated some of the topsoil and plowing has compromised the horizontal and vertical
integrity of the site. However, the site is large enough and placed such that it would appear to be more
than an intermittently occupied spring fish run site. Although no subsurface features. were identified, the
testing regimen was insufficient to adequately test for them. We did encounter darker soil bands on the
eastern margin of the site but they appear to be deposition caused by infilling of low areas. It has been
shown that archaeological sites with low surface artifact densities are far from bereft of features when the
plowzone component has been stripped from the site. This site will not be affected by construction as the
pipeline has been moved to avoid it. Figure 20 shows the slight realignment of the floodplain portion of
the pipeline to the east to avoid the site.
We recommend Phase II Significance Assessment Survey if the site is to be affected by any other
activity. The research design should be oriented toward determining whether subsurface features such as
pits, hearths and house patterns are extant in the subsoil.
The Built Environment Within And Adjacent To The Project
The project is located at the western edge of Rockingham County. No structures on or potentially
eligible for inclusion on the NRHP will be visible from the project. There will be no effects under Section
106 on standing structures.

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
Five archaeological sites were identified within the Duke Energy Belews Creek property. Of
these, four are prehistoric. Of these, three have been affected by the placement of a road upon the
plowzone in which artifacts were recovered. Part of the impetus for the archaeological survey was to
revisit three of the sites to determine if more current information than the 1969-1979 recordation efforts.
No indications were noted of any artifacts in tests or by visual examination of very limited surface areas
totaling less than 1% of the combined surface area of the three recorded sites. Two of the sites had pottery
and one was apparently an isolated find location. 31RK203 was identified during the survey. The pipeline
alignment has been shifted east of the site to avoid any effects to the site.
The fourth prehistoric site was indicated by landform analysis and by a Duke Energy employee
who had collected materials from the site before that matched what we were able to locate in our effort.
The pipeline as laid out was near the eastern edge of the site and was therefore moved farther east to
avoid the site altogether. This site will not be affected by this project.
The sites were not unique in terms of placement in the landform. All had access to water on the
Dan River floodplain and from Belews Creek, and they were in general located on soils that were
moderately well drained for the area. Evidence of semi -sedentary occupation in the Late Woodland to
Cointact period was noted from three of the four sites, although only RK203 was of sufficient size to have
had "permanent" structural elements. The drainage of Belews Creek had arable floodplain and the
surround terrain was steep with considerable local relief. The upland terrain more suited for hunting
intermittently than for settlement. Lithics were not recovered. The interpretation from the available
artifacts is suggestive of hunting camps rather than more intensively occupied base camps. Sites along the
Dan River supporting large semi -sedentary Middle and Late Woodland populations have been recorded.
This topography exists within the Belews Creek project area.
Site soils were far more clayey than might be expected from presumed alluvial deposits and deep
testing showed that there was no alluvial banding and that the soils appeared to be derived from bedrock
decay. Thus the clay nature of the soils was directly explained.
The historic site had been previously recorded and was incorrectly described as to function,
although our survey did not do subsurface testing to determine the type of slag recovered earlier. We did
not recover any evidence of a blast furnace. The site is well removed from ore sources and there was no
evidence of the glassy slag that is the signature of a blast furnace. Historical accounts relate that this
property contained a moved late 18ffi century house and a gristmill complex that was also the seat of the
first electricity generated in the area. This site will not be affected by construction. Phase 1I is
recommended if the site is affected by construction related activities. The electrical generation would
have a direct tie-in with the Duke Energy power production plant farther up Belews Creek.
The Belews Creek project is recommended to proceed to construction after the pipeline is
realigned in the floodplain to avoid RK203 (Figure 20).
56

References Cited
Anderson, D. G., L. D. O'Steen, and K. E. Sassaman
1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Asimov, Isaac
1988 Prelude To Foundation. Doubleday. New York, New York.
Briceland, Alan Vance
1987 Westward from Virginia. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Buchanan, William T.
1986 The Trigg Site, City of Radford, Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
#14.
Butler, Lindley S.
1993 The Forgotten Boatmen: Navigation on the Dan River, 1792-1892. In Tributaries, North
Carolina Maritime History Council, Beaufort, NC.
Byrd, William
1928 A journey to the land of Eden, and other papers. Macy-Masius, NY.
1929 Histories of the Dividing Line Betwixt North Carolina and Virginia. North Carolina Historical
Commission
Coe, Joffre Lanning
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. In Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. N.S. 54 (5), Philadelphia.
Coe, Michael; Dean Snow; and Elizabeth Benson
1986 Atlas of Ancient America, Facts on File, NY.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943, NC Division of Archives and History.
Cumming, William Patterson
1962 The Southeast In Early Maps, With An Annotated Check List Of Printed And Manuscript Regional
And Local Maps Of Southeastern North America During The Colonial Period. Chapel Hill, UNC
Press
Custer, Jay F.
1984 Human Response to Holocene Climatic Episodes in the Northern Middle Atlantic. Paper
presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,
Appomattox, D.C.
Custer, Jay F. & Edith B. Wallace
1982 Patterns of Resource Distribution and Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the Piedmont
Uplands of the Middle Atlantic Region. North American Archaeologist 3(2):139-172.
Daniels, R. B., H. J. Kleiss, S. W. Buol, H. J. Byrd, and J. A. Phillips
1984 Soils in North Carolina. Bulletin 467. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, NCSU,
Raleigh, NC.
Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., Patrick Lingood, H. Trawick Ward and Vincas Steponatis.
57

2003 Excavating Occaneechi Town: Archaeology of an Eighteenth -Century Indian Village in North
Carolina. UNCA Rsearch Laboraties, UNC, Chapel Hill.
Dent, Richard J., and Barbara E. Kauffman
1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Site Ecology as Interpreted from Microfloral and Faunal
Remains. In Shawnee Minisink, edited by Charles W. McNett, Jr. Academic Press.
DePratter, Chester B.
1987 Sixteenth Century European Trade in the Southeastern United States: Evidence from the
Juan Pardo Expeciditons (1566 -1568). Notebook of the South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C. Volume 19,
January December, 1-4.
Egloff, Keith T., Joey T. Moldenhauer, David E. Rotenizer
1987 The Otter Creek Site (44FR31): A Late Woodland Hamlet Along the Blue Ridge Escarpment.
Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Volume 42.1, March.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
1987 Prehistory of the Americas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleoindian to Early Archaic. In The
Flint Run Paleo-indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional
Publication No. 1 Archeology Laboratory, The Catholic University of America, Washington.
1979 Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. In
Anthropological Careers: Essays Presented to the Anthropological Society of Washington During its
Centennial Year 1979. Edited by Ruth H. Landman. Anthropological Society of Washington.
1983 Get Me to the Quarry on Time: The Flint Run Paleolndian Model Revisited (Again). Paper
presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Glassie, Henry M.
1968 The Types Of The Southern Mountain Cabin. In The Study of American Folklore, An
Introduction. By Jan Harold Brunvand, Norton, NY.
Goodyear, A. C. III
2000 Recent Investigations at the Topper Site, Allendale County, South Carolina. SEAC paper,
Macon, GA.
Goodyear, A. C. III, J. E. Foss, J. Wah, and G. E. Wagner
1998 Evidence of Pre -Clovis Lithic Remains in Allendale, South Carolina. SEAC paper,
Greenville, SC.
Hranicky, Wm. Jack
1985 Virginia's First European Visitors. Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin, 40,4:167.
Hunter, Robert R., Thomas F. Higgins, III
1985 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Rt. 199 Project, James City
and York Counties, VA. VDOT project 0199-965-101, PE101. On file at VDOT & Colonial
Williamsburg Office of Archaeology.
Jennings, J.D.
1989 Prehistory of North America (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
if l

Keefer, David K., S.D. deFrance, M.E. Moseley, J.B. Richardson III, D.R. Slatterlee, A. Day -Lewis
1998 Early Maritime Economy and El Nino Events at Quebrada Tacahuay, Peru. Science Vol. 281,
18 September 1998:1833.
Kintigh, Keith W.
1988 The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity.
V53.4:686-707.
Kulikoff, Allan
1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800.
University of North Carolina Press.
Laney, Francis Baker
1917 Geology And Ore Deposits Of Virgilina District Of Virginia & North Carolina. VA Geological
Survey Bulletin 14.
McAvoy, Joseph
1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part I. Clovis Settlement Patterns. ASV Special Publication # 28.
McDonald, Jerry N.
1996 Quoted in Scott County News & Messenger.
Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia - North Carolina.
River Basin Surveys Papers #25. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 182.
Mohler, Paul J., Megan O'Connell and Brian P. Overton
2001 Archaeological Survey Report Replacement of Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 over Belew's Lake
Spillway, Rockingham County, North Carolina. Report on file at SHPO.
Moore, David
2007 Berry Site Excavations. Talk given at the ASV Annual Meeting, Williamsburg, VA.
Nance, Jack D. and Bruce F. Ball
1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity.
V51.3:457-483.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1991 Geological Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.
Oliver, Billy L.
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Projectile Point Type. Master's
Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Orser, Charles E., Jr.
1988 Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation. U. GA Press.
Perkinson, P.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points — Survey Report No. 2. Southern Indian Studies Vol.
25.
Petit, Charles W.
1998 Rediscovering America, The New World May Be 20,000 Years Older Than Experts Thought.
U. S. News & World Report 10 / 12 / 98
59

Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology Of The North Carolina Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina. edited by Mark Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Price, Randy
2009 Personal Comment.
Quinn, David B.
1977 North America From Earliest Discovery To First Settlements : The Norse Voyages To 1612.
New York: Harper & Row
Reinhart, Theodore R., editor
1996 The Archaeology of 18th Century Virginia. Special Publication #35, Archeological Society of
Virginia.
Reinhart, Theodore R. & Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors
1990 Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia - A Synthesis. Special Publication #22,
Archeological Society of Virginia.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia - A Synthesis. Special Publication #23,
Archeological Society of Virginia.
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia - A Synthesis. Special Publication #29,
Archeological Society of Virginia.
Reinhart, Theodore R. & Dennis Pogue, editors
1993 17th Century Research in Virginia - A Synthesis. Special Publication #29, Archeological Society
of Virginia.
Reinhart, Theodore R., & John Sprinkle, editors
1998 The Archaeology of 19th Century Virginia. Special Publication #35, Archeological Society of
Virginia.
Rouse, Irving
1976 Peopling of the Americas. Quaternary Research (6), pp. 597-612.
Sassaman, K. E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast; Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sandweiss, Daniel H., H. McInnis, R.L. Burger, A. Cano, B. Ojeda, R. Paredes, M. del C. Sandweiss, M.D.
Glascock
1998 Quebrada Jaguay: Early South American Maritime Adaptations. Science Vol. 281, 18
September.
Sherrill, Michael L.
1992 Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation Service.
Stephenson, Christopher
2008 Personal Comment. Chemical fingerprinting at the DHR conservation lab was performed.
Stewart, R. Michael
1983 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns In The Blue Ridge Province of Maryland. In Uplands
Archeology In The East: A Symposium. U.S. Forest Service Cultural Resources Report No. 2.

Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man -Induced Soil Erosion On The Southern Piedmont 1700-1970. Soil Conservation Society of.
America.
Trout, William E. III
2003 The Dan River Atlas. Virginia Canals and Navigations Society.
Turner, E. Randolph, Jr.
1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp.
71-94. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virgini
Tuttle, Jerry
2009 Personal Comment.
Van Noppen, Anne Pearl Pratt
1950's Old Homes In Rockingham Along The Dan. Published in the Messenger (Madison, NC).
Vinson,
2007 www.historync.org.
Ward, Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina. edited by Mark Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, Trawick & R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History, The Prehistory of North Carolina. UNC Press.
Wayman, J.L., J.C.H. King and P. T. Craddock
1992 Aspects of Early North American Metallurgy. British Museum Occasional Paper 79. British
Museum Press.
Willey, Gordon R
1960 Historical Patterns and Evolution in Native American Cultures, Evolution after Darwin, Vol.
II: The Evolution of Man, Chicago Univ. Press.
Wilson, Jack Hubert, Jr.
1984 A Study of the Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic Indians of the Carolina and Virginia
Piedmont: Structure, Process, and Ecology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. University Microfilms, Ann. Arbor.
Wittkofski, J. Mark & Theodore R. Reinhart, editors
1989 Paleo-Indian Research In Virginia - A Synthesis. Special Publication #19, Archeological Society
of Virginia.
Wolkomir, Richard
1991 New finds could rewrite the start of American History. Smithsonian, (21) 12:130-44.
61

Appendix A - Deep Test Profiles
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
Crusher Run Gravel M
Topsoil
Subsoil
Dense Clay
F"
Water
Gray Organic
go

Appendix B - Survey Forms

Nc Divi�lion 'ITIA 11,
Cnic-
ilitiUlEOLOCY BRANCH COH-FUTEft RECOP-7)
t� loft
2. U'liX S11B 9 'r, Ilk Z,
3. SITE 3/ 7_
sS 26
4. INST1=1E ON ASSIGNING
27 23
5. PROJECT SITE
29 36
6. DATE ITLECORDED 'INN FIELD MON.—M
Dt
37 38 39 40
7. CODING DATE MUS.V. E A R,
41 44 45 461 47
8. ADDITIONAL-71STITS
9. OuGil-ZAL -P�Eco?,DER (ire 'gield) il"/-) -E)
10. 'FOrdl RECORDER,
11. SITE lUuME
12. O±' ER SITE TWE -S
13. COUNTY
Y)
14. QUAD USED p,
53
15. ME -DATA .012
54, 55
ZASTING -t
63
16� OTdzwr-.
1R.T,N'C 1:AL
PRO---

taiga tsatVatl 2
I z T
71 avaN A0 33!:% 1 ISIC
---I- auls 0-1 B-Vjli Walral&aa IS -
Ell
TKIMAI-MI-2a 10 UZA-1 'I[
------------ aaH:,.o
ZOT 86
IMS
----------
TICS aP, RGILIMS213 '9Z
96
94911 110 cz
- WN saras
V ?'J
Su
,LT
� e , f I In
� 1 j!uava
10 JSS'j�: 7[4', JD�T, ! l0-NNj:L S%
_70 l4i-i`11-7 ZM.I. .1W *-11"LIG U111j, dt
IYK R
*1z

ILI
fD-
Se'A3va TV I-NoilMIN-W Ms 'TS
.3 MI(MM Ott
rms ails
an, -0 110=5-ULS, 4s",

Ir
64--- A
63S�:SSURFACF TIESTS t - METHODS O�,:PD
192
I V3
65. afSCRIPTION OF SUBSIMPACE TEST RESM
�T-S-
66.
-DESCRT PTION PF ARTIFACTS COLLECTED
67.
GHT PPEED STON
68, 'CERAMCSDY4D
69, GRO S T 0
195
196
-7
70.
bAUR 711.
B-1 STORI C W,,T -,v,,
IALIz
198
72.
INISTIMION AT ;rRICH SM,
RE600S A ND AaTIVACTS
A -RE STOMD
2; M-
OTHER'
i3.
A C C E S S I GIN NUIiMER
202,
77.
rROTOGRAPHS T-�m-- i
228,-
78. PH13TOGR22H ACCESSION KMIV
Ms -t
229
TO
241
$5 EXPLAIN

s
y ra g^�t \4 w—t a < �g i\ ' ' "za''4 n, �y5- a. �»,
g�ty:x. .i��;'€:a�- _.s �, m��+��,."n"'. ^3 �,`t'itm'i 9» ��a ��L��LA .�c<;d .m.4ta��T�a1:�mT
i
»
i
:K, A. - � �M®BR�s,`�M�<fa++v..W�'-9+:d:rKrC."1Fes�+r�.t-:aStA-lN.Y*rnw"S.i..'ese:�d'-.w"^'' �¢sMm.:`ga✓Y. ..a �.eo-a, c+.ez�,ra�. ._.. � .+a �+3: .. - - e a

8s -ADIDITT-011RAIL VISMS
9. OR!-G1-1,-A.L RECORDER flin' field)
io. FORM RE-CIGPIDEP,
U. SME MiME
12. 611HRER SITRE TW -TES
13. COLM-1:17 Q
EE
49 50
14 QUPD !V-,? 'USEED
51 53
-75. U-111. AT111, z 0 m
54 55
63
6.11C SITE A
m
OTHER SITE
26
4.
!NSTITUITION ASSIGHING I
27 23
5.
PROJET2 SITE
29
36
6.
DATS nzcoRDED IN FiELD V -0111 -in T.
Deed YEAR
37 38
39 40 4 1 4
_2
7.
GOD111M, DAYE M- NTH
DAY
5 —7 YEAR
43 4-4
45 46 47 43
8s -ADIDITT-011RAIL VISMS
9. OR!-G1-1,-A.L RECORDER flin' field)
io. FORM RE-CIGPIDEP,
U. SME MiME
12. 611HRER SITRE TW -TES
13. COLM-1:17 Q
EE
49 50
14 QUPD !V-,? 'USEED
51 53
-75. U-111. AT111, z 0 m
54 55
63

c' 1, -D:-.REC'rjrj.,4S FOIR ST -E7
21. DRAW
A S!;',ZTal W-,P-'-tF THE
SITZ U M;TH�
al*v-l;, or -11ils
Stu
UZ
1.14
RUDING-, WJIS MAKEN IN
Rl-:LATT,).-; TO
THE PaST OF
-n
THE
F,17t�.
22. TOPOG�AIPHIC Sil"LlUXTION.,
23. DESCRIPTION OF TWO f, M
ENk"MOMSNUAL SZTT Llr,Ski
7), ocl
Mi y
25.
SOIL TYPE ABB.MVLATIONN 'SEPJES
9 2 95
A s
26.
D:,-:SCPVlL0!:Z O'F S61L W-111POSIT!
Szlffi
or -
103
95 102
31u
TypEz MATER. -
0 7"l R
113
33'.
DISd"5;3.1 UP OF NEAREST nz,�� T
ip
TV
,
121
muvj,�-llot; 0 F gan-gzsTz vauew,64T MATER

. "��� '•tYy t p J '.1
t
41, CUM'ZIPS � ILIr"":"i t iii {Iti rJ:�itA?R OF 1,1—
,SIT-Y)
45. ESTMAIM).v OF SITE SIZE: LORE tR& < 4 ,Y/ S MAT °:1 :LITRILlL D p __
-
167
46. DESCRIPTION OF SITE SIZE, SFAPE, M. C't'I4:d
47. AMIDDEN CHi--Pjil: RA 169 a d�9 8 PRESERVATION POS 'Nis
_70
53. DESCRIPTION OF ASSOCIATED FF,.,AT-U-RES
52. SITE CO Q T�TIO-Nl -. E_NVIRONIENTA.L. FACTbR5 1Y
?2 3.73
OTHER
53. DESCP.IPTION OF�a fIR3%riLfit i_� FACTORS
Sit. SITE CO!'01 ION. VRTIFICIA.L FINCTORS f% .i :Etd a
X1.94 3.75
55. DESCRIPTIO' d OF .RTIFICIgL
5 .
-'i },..<EIL.d I'^j}:? S9. CO's T,EC;
?:
1 ":!a :10:1' ` F

SUZ-­Q7P"----%C2 Tz.31S
6 4
192
ESCRIPTIO.N OF SUBSURFACE !EST RESULTS
ihr
DESCRIPTION or jR7,IKACTS
COT L -C,: ED
67.
Mippy_D STONE -1
CERAMICS
--------
s
69. GROU-0 STa� F
196
70.
71.
HISTORuc -r-tATERI LS
72.
T-Na�TT—
jj-jo_j A1.9iHjCiH,-S3TF-
RECOF-Dll.,,MTD ARTIFACTS
ARE STOWED
200 201
OMER'
73.
LE-CESSIom jRM-,p
202
213
77.
PMrjOGtt,*,-pHs TLM,,l
J_L
228
793.
AccESSIGN MPMEMS
229
TO
241
79. REISEAR-CH
EVILUATioN
35. EXPL�ILN
fj

irka
cn
ped
to
Im
En
irka

co
CO
4r, 4r,
• _
i - -n^f
3 rte-
� �
�Ja
rr4
bYYwyy
E-4
inp
17,
tn
�
co
CO
4r, 4r,
[;,n
!met.
In
�Ja
rr4
E-4
[;,n
!met.
In
17,
r4

(1,1,; Z':
....... „ .� .
4
-,. -._,.
n...+
102 Si. Ld,�+C`t�
.a �.,.v....s.....«-.........._..._.....-,...>`.. -..... _ _...,F....-.. >...,., _. .. . _
tp
SERIES I S :UE
pa'#�a'..M
Sia N. at.F.&GN C .3oL 1, ..;TdJ MON
..i...:....rg.......g�*.l .......+....-,...,....�,•-,.�... �_ ._.
liA- AND/0yyL lS1M1 oS: :h FOOD `p.rstl, F
109
H. JIM21VE t�sl.
EYA
MON OF SIVE FT. M/OR
13 115 116
120
"'?E OF S1-17Ft PERCES' A:`�'i),�.a__.t §3�t.x:5
fiRf1i3
125 122 123 124
DETZKMINEW
125
126 121
PE Of NEARFST PERMANIENT WATER _L:6_, GTIIER
130
; .fit.` F F NF -A ;5 ' E—RAMN � s '�'A ER To SS`s
YARDS
131
1,
, . EAiZ #�OF ":AMST P dVAUNENWATER,
. R,
'FT. ANSD/£R
136 140
SITE i'7C5CR-1-P ION
Di_idN I 3 : i-�.a
40, «-..iM.Ay1Lz t T■ FOR
a"`'a''S a� r w�� #�5.. \.q�=�,�.. ..... _.,.-. �x .• < G
14
xw.-w.-ar•.�..�w.....w.s.a-...m..-•.•o..+..,.rcx�..�'�w.u1,�...�.s,®.w.s.�..6wce�w�.s.�ti++..+...a.+,..a .... r+.v.�....n.,--s-.••..
:.e.,...-...« .w..�,.......«�.. _..t...«.. ..->..._ ,«-..�- .. .. .» .......
147
11
14,4 S
AT

A 'M'E 311 CO,-�E AN�'i MAXE-lltl
faESCRIPIFTON' 0Y SM". SIZE, Slll&EE, AND
MATION
-klik; STRUCTURE 'FOLN OT
1-67
DES'=PTION -t 'Y
OTHE
I ENr RX.P i -4 1 NY
ATION 0? M—k 1 X S TRMTUR E/ Ff--Xf U RE
OF 3�LAIN% STRUCTURF /FEATURE
.L-.4 L,.- J
it
STRUCTURE I
STRUCTURF 2
F-PuDs MA61N
(FEET)
1722 175
376 179
ISO
0 R I ENT AT I Qi
SI 194 1"45
197
192 193
it

-;t' PVO'; OF El' ?IRQND�NTAL FAiCTORS
SILTT
57. 13N, ARTIFICIAL -iA%A�-iltS
222 2-13
58. DESCUPTIaN OF ARTIFICIAL FACTORS �-`CA
Ia CU'l-ri-I-VATED, EST!W-MTED MR-WER OF YEARS
724 226
60. ESTL4ATP-31 ORMIND, VISIBILI-Ly
27-7 229
X51.. SKMIU: ter
SITE 1MITiT177ICATION
C- SMITFOY
AD -F? J__L, 63. COLLE
230 .231
covEnm vi Call"I"ROLLED CI)LLECTION
?12ti
OF SITE ZOVE-RED IN 0"1
(jF col-Lizaaj... .6
F A TEETS
2 49
2, 1,
I ON To RUCT 77n
-;E
--
','4D -7i
-;t' PVO'; OF El' ?IRQND�NTAL FAiCTORS
SILTT
57. 13N, ARTIFICIAL -iA%A�-iltS
222 2-13
58. DESCUPTIaN OF ARTIFICIAL FACTORS �-`CA
Ia CU'l-ri-I-VATED, EST!W-MTED MR-WER OF YEARS
724 226
60. ESTL4ATP-31 ORMIND, VISIBILI-Ly
27-7 229
X51.. SKMIU: ter
SITE 1MITiT177ICATION
C- SMITFOY
AD -F? J__L, 63. COLLE
230 .231
covEnm vi Call"I"ROLLED CI)LLECTION
?12ti
OF SITE ZOVE-RED IN 0"1
(jF col-Lizaaj... .6
F A TEETS
2 49

�1 ,7 Y
"'To �,�`v .:6 U 1 d I.t'�i. +; o aa�� e � ��•se y `4 _^z
' 7 I;3 <,c'I:•L2fV = -lbS NO Sa.'74c:�'�s
bklIAKI IS NO S JV,4Css 1 'IV 1111NJ,$;j f:
';()c i 966
- a a
9 8 z i.BZ
€13Z
Z a • 89Z
u3 i•mg NolssaDov moth.- SOD Si:f?.kATU _
.--. .. ._ ��S. F1Y i3.l'.�%:, pi�3�.w.Jit.". p•�i,r
- K n:..i.:,:•. F.:� ��`�°� ra .;,fir c�n'g

VI
u vsrnca
Osm aldilir%
LIE
113PUS if!
TVP I I A IC � 1^1
iA
ZCC,
MOW
GEVXf AMAYM
Au K()1xv.xDioN
d.
!3r -z
3 fi.w
UE
xtTius siu xns
air, rf
-1401-M RM. x ca eacunah :,:ma
xmxo SHIST-1-87M N-0jjf;M, jZ.MKS
ZZE
9161-M z4o
N! V71 X3
X7
YZI

VC,"ATIACT AIM .-IDDRE-S 5
U- IOTJS COLLECTION W, EXCNVA,11-01; RE,FEPEM" FS
�IOGW, iIIC 1. ST
-362
3 71
3
394
3"19
400 405
421430 .3
425
7
4
472
4 7
S
v.
VC,"ATIACT AIM .-IDDRE-S 5
U- IOTJS COLLECTION W, EXCNVA,11-01; RE,FEPEM" FS
�IOGW, iIIC 1. ST
-362
3 71
3
394
3"19
400 405
421430 .3
425
7
4
472
4 7

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Vt
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History •ISM7.0kyj
Deleted: IV
1. STATE SITE NUMBER: 31RIC42
2. SITE NAME(S): Dearings/Moore's Mill
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING:
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 4 - Historic, w/ Abovc-Ground Remains
7. QUAD MAP: Belews Lake MAP CODE: B18
8. UTMs: ZONE: 17 NORTHING: 4020613 EASTING: 587289
9. COUNTY: RK 10. DATE RECORDED: 1/29/09
RECORDED BY: Lyle E. Browning
PROJECT NAME: Belews Lake Water Pipeline
11. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 2 - No
12. ER/CH/GRANT#:
13. CODING DATE: 2/10/09 CODED BY: Lyle E. Browning
DIRECTIONS TO SITE:
ppp ATTACH USES OR OTHER DETAILED SITE MAP ppp
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: The site is a collection of structures including a domestic component
around a gristmill that also functioned as one of the first NC electrical
power production plants due to owner Moore's initiatives.
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL: 8 - Vandalized Relic hunters have affected site
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL: 3 - Moderate Site is prone to flood damage at creek edge
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site fronts onto Belews Creek and is eroding slightly at the bank. On the
higher parts, the site is also subject to erosion.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS: 7 - Nominate to National Register
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: This site was where electrical power was first generated in the NC
Piedmont. The information is documented. Photographs exist of the mill
from which the generators functioned. This site is one of the few for
which a "first" can be demonstrated.
25. DATE ON REGISTER: 26. EXCAVATION DATE:
27. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:
14-18. OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
14. Register Status:
14A. Register Criterion
1 DETERMINED ELIGIBLE
5 REMOVED FROM NRHP
A SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION A
2 PLACED ON STUDY
6 NOT ELIGIBLE
B SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION B
3 APPROVED FOR
7 UNASSESSED
C SIGNIFICANT-CRITERIONC
4 LISTED IN NRHP
8 NC ARCH REC. PROG
D SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION D
15. Type of Form:
16. Recorder Status
11 SITE FORM VI
1 NCAC MEMBER
4 OTHER
2 AMATEUR
5 STUDENT
3 UNKNOWN
17. Form Reliability:
18. Locational Reliability:
I CODING COMPLETE
1 ACCURATE
4 UNKNOWN LOC.
2 CODING INCOMPLETE
2 WITHIN 100M RADIUS
5 W/in 500M RADIUS
3 CODING UNRELIABLE
3 UNRELIABLE
6 W/in 1 KM RADIUS
DIRECTIONS TO SITE:
ppp ATTACH USES OR OTHER DETAILED SITE MAP ppp
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: The site is a collection of structures including a domestic component
around a gristmill that also functioned as one of the first NC electrical
power production plants due to owner Moore's initiatives.
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL: 8 - Vandalized Relic hunters have affected site
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL: 3 - Moderate Site is prone to flood damage at creek edge
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site fronts onto Belews Creek and is eroding slightly at the bank. On the
higher parts, the site is also subject to erosion.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS: 7 - Nominate to National Register
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: This site was where electrical power was first generated in the NC
Piedmont. The information is documented. Photographs exist of the mill
from which the generators functioned. This site is one of the few for
which a "first" can be demonstrated.
25. DATE ON REGISTER: 26. EXCAVATION DATE:
27. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:

Site #: 31
28. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
29. PERCENT DESTROYED: 30. DATE DESTROYED:
31. CAUSES OF DESTRUCTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
32. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 6 - 1st Terrace
33. ELEVATION: 590 FT. AMSL
34. SLOPE PERCENT: 2 % 35. SLOPE FACE DIRECTION:
36. SOIL COMPOSITION:
37. SCS SOIL TYPE CODE: WhB SERIES NAME: Wickham Sandy Loam
ASSOCIATION:
38. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
39. DISTANCE TO WATER: (Meters) 40. 0-50 (Yards)
41. TYPE OF NEAREST PERMANENT WATER: 2 - River, Creek, Stream NAME: Belews Creek
42. STREAM RANK: I [Strahler System - 1-6]
43. DRAINAGE BASIN: 12 - Roanoke
SITE EVALUATION AND CONDITION
44. SITE CONDITION NATURAL: 4 - Wooded Mixture of old and new growth
45. SITE CONDITION ARTIFICIAL: 99 - Other Forested & overgrown
46. GROUND VISIBILITY: 0%
47. COLLECTION MADE: 2 -No
48. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
49. AREA COVERED SQ. METERS:
50. SUBSURFACE TESTING: 2 - No
51. TESTING METHODS:
52. SUBSURFACE TEST RESULTS:
53. SITE SIZE: 7 - 10,001-25,000 sq. meters
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PREHISTORIC COMPONENTS:
55. PREHISTORIC SITE FUNCTION(S):
56. MIDDEN: 57. FAUNAL/ETHNOBOTANICAL REMAINS:
58. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
59. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
59A. TOOL TYPES AND FREQUENCIES #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 99 Other
❑ 1 -Clovis ❑ 26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
❑ 2 -Hardaway Blade ❑ 27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
NC Arch. Site Form IV- Page 2
OSA 3/26/91 8:45 AM

3 - Hardaway -Dalton
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
5 - Palmer Comer Notched
6 - Kirk Comer -Notched
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
10 - Kirk Serrated
11 - Kirk Stemmed
12 - Stanly Stemmed
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
15 - Guilford Lanceolate
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
23 - Roanoke Large Triangular
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
25 - Caraway Triangular
60. PREHISTORIC - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS/SAMPLES:
❑ 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)
61. CERAMIC TEMPER 1:
62. SURFACE TREATMENT 1:
63. CERAMIC TEMPER 2:
64. SURFACE TREATMENT 2:
65. CERAMIC TEMPER 3:
66. SURFACE TREATMENT 3:
Site #. 31
28 - Randolph Stemmed
29 PPt. (Notched)
30 - PPt. (Stemmed)
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
32 - PPt. Frag.(Notched/Stemmed)
33 - PPt. Frag. (Triangular)
34 - PPt. Frag. Indeterminate)
35 - End Scraper (Type I)
36 - End Scraper (Type II)
37 - End Scraper (Type III)
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
41 - Pointed Scraper
42 - Oval Scraper
43 - Pisgah Triangular
44 - Haywood Triangular
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
46 - Copena Triangular
47 - Connestee Triangular
48 - Madison
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
50 - Transylvania Triangular
99 - Other
❑ 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
HISTORIC SITF.ANFORMATIO ;'e •_.
67. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN: 3 - 18th Century
68. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END: 5 - 20th Century
69. REFINED DATE FROM: 1795 70. REFINED DATE TO:
71. HISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS: 4 - English
OSA 3/26/97 8i52,AM
D.
72. HISTORIC SITE DEFINITION: 11 - Industrial The site is a combined gristmill, machine shop,
blacksmithy, possible foundry, electricity generation plant and domestic
structure complex.
73. HISTORIC REMAINS DESCRIPTION: The site consists of what appears to be building remnants on the upslope side,
with an earlier version of SR1108 coming through the site to a pair of concrete
NC Arch. Site Forst 1V — Page 3

74. MAIN STRUCTURE FUNCTION:
75. NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS:
76. OUTBUILDING DISTANCE(S):
77. OUTBUILDING FUNCTIONS:
78. OUTBUILDING DESCRIPTION:
79. KITCHEN GROUP:
80. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
81. ARMS GROUP:
Site #: 31
bridge abutments downstream from the mill. The domestic component is
indicated by vegetation, including daffodils. Parts of millstones were
incorporated into the apparent foundation extension for the structural
remnant. A plat shows a blacksmithy, mill and stable in the area. The mill site
is a set of stone block foundations and penstock remnants for turbines, of
which two partial sets are laid on top of the bank at the stream edge. The mill
would have converted from a waterwheel powered off the low (6't) dam to
turbines. Electrical generation began while Enoch Moore (b. 1868) was a
student at Trinity College (Duke U.) when he provided electric lights to the
mill using a waterwheel powered generator.
"All his life Enoch Moore walked with the god of mechanics." (From Harold
Coy's book The Prices and the Moores). He perfected a new mill and turned
out fine lumber. His own wood work included walnut cabinets, leaf tables,
chests and coffins. Many of the finest chests, tables, cupboards and secretaries
in this region were made by him. He established a wagon business, building
huge schooners as well as carriages. He built threshing machines and
hardware in his iron foundry, which had a machine shop and blast furnace."
The mill began in 1795 by William Dearing and was bought with 900 acres of
land by Enoch Moore (grandither of the clecricity generator Moore). The mill
operated until 1873 when it burned. It was rebuilt to serve the next two
generations of Moore's milling and electricity generation needs.
The foundry is possible, given the need to cast metal items. but, it appears that
the blast furnace would almost certainly refer to a forge operation rather than
an actual blast furnace that smelted iron ore. Leslie's work shows no iron ore
sources near the site lessening the likelihood of a blast furnace. Also, had a
blast furnace operated there, copious amounts of glassy slag would have been
generated. We noted none in the January 2009 survey.
99 - Other Gristmill & electrical power plant
51 - House/Residence
30 - Stable
99 - Other Gristmill & electricity generation plant
99 - Other Blacksmithy
The locations are shown on a plat, but otherwise are not currently known. The
mill has a photo taken apparently in the early 20oi century showing a souther
2.5 story structure for the gristmill abutting the low dam. Extending
downstream is an addition for the sawmill and woodworking shop .
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
NCArch. Site Form IV— Page 4
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds

ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
89. ARTIFACT INVENTORY: 2 -No
90. CURATION FACILITY:
91. ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
92. ACCESSION DATE(S):
93. OTHER CURATION FACILITY:
94. OTHER ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
95. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Duke Energy
96. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
97. COMMENTS/NOTES: The site was previously recorded as RK42 with an undifferentiated slag component
NC Arch. Site Foran IV --Page 5
Site #: 31
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
82. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
83. 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
84. PERSONAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
85. TOBACCO PIPE GROUP:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
86. ACTIVITIES GROUP:
❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
87. HISTORIC MISC:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
88. DATEABLE CERAMICS:
ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
89. ARTIFACT INVENTORY: 2 -No
90. CURATION FACILITY:
91. ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
92. ACCESSION DATE(S):
93. OTHER CURATION FACILITY:
94. OTHER ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
95. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Duke Energy
96. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
97. COMMENTS/NOTES: The site was previously recorded as RK42 with an undifferentiated slag component
NC Arch. Site Foran IV --Page 5

C 1 7 T
ra r,
:hivcs and
ARCREOLOGY BRA:IC.;i CO,vUTER PECo,,?-D
2- UNNC SITE 10
13
3. MHER SITE
26
4. INSTT-LUTIO N ASSIGNItr, # Ll_a-,_t
,27 23
5.. PROJECT SITE # # a t ,
29 36
6. DATE RECORDED IN Fl. M�, MOT-JTH t -DATE MIR
37 33 39
40 41 42-
7. CODING DATE
I-ONT."P, DAY YEAR
'
43 44 45 46 47— Z87
S. ADDITIONAL VISITS
9- ORIGEMLL RECORDER (Iii field)
10. PORM PECOPM-R 1 J
!I. SITE 'VLNM
12. OVRER SITE HAIMES,
:13. COUTNTY
-4 -9-5
4UAD HAP USED. A . ) t
5-1 53
15. ur'.1 DAT.111 zmlr , t —1- 1
54 55
16. 43TdF—� C ORDINATISS,
Q,YJAD
NORTHING
56
53

21. DRAUT, A SvETCH ,I,,p 017 111E SITE ON TMZ 13-�CK% O'F -rIIS
UTM READING TAKEN IN --ti—ELMON To TUE RES1, OF 11K. SiTE.
zz Nzv I R o z M, N'T A' L SETTIN.G
22, TOPOGWIHIC SMIUATION 0 Tl H EER
94 85
?3. DESCRIP-LIGN OF -,yjP0C-PAPHY I-
!5 SOIL TYPE ABBREVIATION SERIES K.,12E-
92 95
;6., DESCIRIEFTIC, ,Z OF SOIL C01-LPOST.TiON
-*zvkT110li -OF SiTE -f t..
I t
99 1 102 103
il. YYY?E -nF INTEAREST j?ERMUT--�NT W.,ITrt
p. L
113
,
ST CE OF 4
121 '125
Fee
�44. :7,eV'7Tol
_4 OF N-aJU-ST PERMANEM W-I-tTM� 1 26 130
SIT;�' DC9CRT*PTAl")"'
--UP
rF

40. EXPL70"ATION FOP,, c
41, CULTUTUL AYFILIATION (11-41 ORDER OF lirlEaSill-1,
160 161 162 i}- 3
EXPLANATION
45 o ESTIMM1,10 07F SITE SIZE: CORE ARE i MM"UN MATERLU, DT-45PER-Slo,4
167
46. DESCRIPTION OF SITE sm, SH VE, I= m,7cTtw,4(LJ
'
47. IKIDDEN Ciq�LRAGTER' 49. MSERVATT011 POTE.NM AUL
169 170
51. DESCRIPTION OF A.SSOCLUM FEATURES
52. SITE G01MITI011: viviplolamrit.j. FACTORS/7Z 2i3
OTHER
53. DESCRIMON 07, E!,WIRO*r-!MlAL
RL
54 SITE CONDITION. MTIFICIAT, FACTUS
174 175
OTH—ER
55. DESCRIFT145,111 OF ARTIVIC110, FACTORS—",

v5 DvSCRIPITIO 3 Lig SC'SSU izACE TEST �+., SUL S
6. DESC.UPTICiS OF ARTIFACTS COLLECTED
67. CiliPP-ED _ S I �?t E, ,. I , 68. CEIu' Cs- 69.
195 196 ', 7
70. 71. HISTORIC ;UM -RIALS
198 199
72. i STITUTIv I As WM..SCH SME; 2vCt7i.IXS AND ARTIFACTS ARE STDOM
211) 201
N Y.LER
73. ACCFSSI1?� MRSE2 z_�.. 7 Ar
202 913
77. P1-1010CILN:Fi S TEAM,
228
72. ?23TOGRA H_=BSSION r? ME?
229
79. RESEARCH POT TLL
155 256
243. 2 `
EVALUATION

03-
92. TUAI,'f OY MIL. "-rD
93- LOC,U, CON74ACT AIM ADDR27SS
94. PPEVI-OUSS COLLECTION OR EXCt)'VAMON
95. BIBLIOGRAPHIC PEFER-wNCES LIST
283,
96. FR1,,-E FIELD C012421*71
'284

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM V
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History •
Deleted: IV
1. STATE SITE NUMBER: 31RK203
2. SITE NAME(S): Belews 1
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING:
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 1 - Prehistoric (only)
7. QUAD MAP: Belews Lake MAP CODE: B18
S. UTMs: ZONE: 17 NORTHING: 4020805 EASTING: 586996
9. COUNTY: RK 10. DATE RECORDED: 1/29/09
RECORDED BY: Lyle E. Browning
PROJECT NAME: Belews Lake Water Pipeline
11. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
12. ER/CH/GRANT#:
13. CODING DATE: 2/10/09 CODED BY: Lyle E. Browning
DIRECTIONS TO SITE:
000 ATTACH USGS OR OTHER DETAILED SITE MAP 000
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: Apparently limited as site appears to be a low density artifact scatter in
plowzone only. Plowing has reduced the pottery to 2cm max size. No
debitage was noted and one broken biface was recovered in addition to 6
pottery shards. However, without topsoil stripping the existence and/or
extent of occupation cannot be reliably estimated as other sites with
relatively low surface artifact densities have proved to have extensive
ocupation intruding into subsoil in the form of house patterns and pit
features.
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL: 8 - Vandalized Plowing will continue to affect site
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL: 8 - Vandalized Site was pointed out by collector
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site is in an agricultural field, is known to local relic collectors.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS: 6 - Preservation by Avoidance
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The direct potential impact by Duke Energy will be avoided by shifting
the pipeline alignment east. Continued agricultural activities will result
in low levels of damage to plowzone artifacts. Deep plowing is not
14-18. OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
14. Register Status:
14A. Register Criterion
1 DETERMINED ELIGIBLE
5 REMOVED FROM NRHP
A SIGNIFICANT- CRITERION A
2 PLACED ON STUDY
6 NOT ELIGIBLE
B SIGNIFICANT -CRITERION B
3 APPROVED FOR
7 UNASSESSED
C SIGNIFICANT -CRITERION C
4 LISTED IN NRHP
8 NC ARCH REC. PROG
D SIGNIFICANT -CRITERION D
15. Type of Form:
16. Recorder Status
11 SITE FORM VI
1 NCAC MEMBER
4 OTHER
2 AMATEUR
5 STUDENT
3 UNKNOWN
17. Form Reliability:
18. Locational Reliability:
1 CODING COMPLETE
1 ACCURATE
4 UNKNOWN LOC.
2 CODING INCOMPLETE
2 WITHIN 100M RADIUS
5 W/in 500M RADIUS
3 CODING UNRELIABLE
3 UNRELIABLE
6 W/in IKM RADIUS
DIRECTIONS TO SITE:
000 ATTACH USGS OR OTHER DETAILED SITE MAP 000
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: Apparently limited as site appears to be a low density artifact scatter in
plowzone only. Plowing has reduced the pottery to 2cm max size. No
debitage was noted and one broken biface was recovered in addition to 6
pottery shards. However, without topsoil stripping the existence and/or
extent of occupation cannot be reliably estimated as other sites with
relatively low surface artifact densities have proved to have extensive
ocupation intruding into subsoil in the form of house patterns and pit
features.
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL: 8 - Vandalized Plowing will continue to affect site
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL: 8 - Vandalized Site was pointed out by collector
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: The site is in an agricultural field, is known to local relic collectors.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS: 6 - Preservation by Avoidance
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The direct potential impact by Duke Energy will be avoided by shifting
the pipeline alignment east. Continued agricultural activities will result
in low levels of damage to plowzone artifacts. Deep plowing is not

Site #: 31
forecast.
25. DATE ON REGISTER: 26. EXCAVATION DATE:
27. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:
28. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
29. PERCENT DESTROYED: 30. DATE DESTROYED:
31. CAUSES OF DESTRUCTION: Deleted:
_ SITE EVALUATION AND CONDITION
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
32. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION:
3 - Low Rise on Floodplain
33. ELEVATION: 580 FT. AMSL
46. GROUND VISIBILITY:
34. SLOPE PERCENT: -2 %
35. SLOPE FACE DIRECTION:
36. SOIL COMPOSITION:
10 - Silty Clay Loam
37. SCS SOIL TYPE CODE:
Co SERIES NAME: Congaree Loam
ASSOCIATION:
50. SUBSURFACE TESTING:
38. MODERN VEGETATION:
1 - Cultivated
39. DISTANCE TO WATER:
10 (Meters) 40. (Yards)
41. TYPE OF NEAREST PERMANENT WATER: 2- River, Creek, Stream NAME: Un -named
42. STREAM RANK:
1 [Strahler System - 1-6]
43. DRAINAGE BASIN:
12 - Roanoke
_ SITE EVALUATION AND CONDITION
44. SITE CONDITION NATURAL:
2 - Light Erosion
45. SITE CONDITION ARTIFICIAL:
2 - Cultivated
46. GROUND VISIBILITY:
0%
47. COLLECTION MADE:
1 - Yes
48. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
9 - Other Punctuated strip clearance of vegetation, visual exam of surface
49. AREA COVERED SQ. METERS:
4780
50. SUBSURFACE TESTING:
1 -Yes
51. TESTING METHODS:
3 - Shovel Test Screened 50' interval STP's
52. SUBSURFACE TEST RESULTS:
14 STP's, 4 positive, no subsurface features noted
53. SITE SIZE: 5 - 601-5000 sq. meters
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION,.
54. PREHISTORIC COMPONENTS:
H - Late Woodland
55. PREHISTORIC SITE FUNCTION(S):
5 - Short -Term Habitation The site appears to be a low density plowzone
artifact scatter. No debitage, 1 tool and 6 small pottery shards were
recovered.
56. MIDDEN: 2 - Absent
57. FAUNAL/ETHNOBOTANICAL REMAINS: 2 - Absent
58. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
None
59. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts. ❑ 6 Primary Debitage
® 2 Bifaces
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
NCArch. Site Foran 1V - Page 2

❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
59A. TOOL TYPES AND FREQUENCIES
❑ 1 - Clovis
❑ 2 - Hardaway Blade
❑ 3 - Hardaway -Dalton
❑ 4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
❑ 5 - Palmer Corner Notched
❑ 6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
❑ 7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑ 8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
❑ 9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑ 10 - Kirk Serrated
❑ 11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑ 12 - Stanly Stemmed
❑ 13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
❑ 14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
❑ 15 - Guilford Lanceolate
❑ 16 - Halifax Side -Notched
❑ 17 - Savannah River Stemmed
❑ 18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑ 19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑ 20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑ 21 - Badin Crude Triangular
❑ 22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
❑ 23 - Roanoke Large Triangular
❑ 24 - Uwharrie Triangular
❑ 25 - Caraway Triangular
60. PREHISTORIC - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS/SAMPLES:
❑ 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)
61. CERAMIC TEMPER 1:
62. SURFACE TREATMENT 1:
63. CERAMIC TEMPER 2:
64. SURFACE TREATMENT 2:
65. CERAMIC TEMPER 3:
66. SURFACE TREATMENT 3:
99 - Other (describe)
A -Plain
Site #. 31
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 99 Other
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
28 - Randolph Stemmed
29 - PPt. (Notched)
30 - PPt. (Stemmed)
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
32 - PPt. Frag.(Notched/Stemmed)
33 - PPt. Frag. (Triangular)
34 - PPG Frag. Indeterminate)
35 - End Scraper (Type I)
36 - End Scraper (Type II)
37 - End Scraper (Type III)
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
41 - Pointed Scraper
42 - Oval Scraper
43 - Pisgah Triangular
44 - Haywood Triangular
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
46 - Copena Triangular
47 - Connestee Triangular
48 - Madison
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
50 - Transylvania Triangular
99 - Other
❑ 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
,---Very fine sand, notable mica flecks anda
few grains of 2 mm angular sand •
Deleted:
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
67. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
68. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
NC Arch. Site Form IV— Page 3

69. REFINED DATE FROM:
71. HISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS:
72. HISTORIC SITE DEFINITION:
73. HISTORIC REMAINS DESCRIPTION:
74. MAIN STRUCTURE FUNCTION:
75, NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS:
76. OUTBUILDING DISTANCE(S):
77. OUTBUILDING FUNCTIONS:
70. REFINED DATE TO:
Site #: 31
78. OUTBUILDING DESCRIPTION:
79. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
80. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
81. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
82. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
83. 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
84. PERSONAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
85. TOBACCO PIPE GROUP:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
86. ACTIVITIES GROUP:
❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
87. HISTORIC MISC:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
88. DATEABLE CERAMICS:
NC Arch. Site Fora 1V — Page 4

Site #. 31
ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
89. ARTIFACT INVENTORY: 1 - Yes (attach to form)
90. CURATION FACILITY: Browning & Associates, Ltd.
91. ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
92. ACCESSION DATE(S):
93. OTHER CURATION FACILITY:
94. OTHER ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
95. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Duke Energy
96. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
97. COMMENTS/NOTES: The site was described as to location and content (pottery and points) by a well known pothunter
working for Duke Energy. He said nothing of note had come from it. He did describe other sites
nearby that had produced notable items, typically. The soil on which the site is located is derived
from bedrock decay and is not alluvial apart from the plowzone which contains some sand.
Below plowzone, there is undifferentiated clay for about a foot that then turns to very dense
undifferentiated clay down to 8 feet or more. No alluvium was noted below the plowzone in the
extensive testing done for the Duke Power Water Pipeline project (Browning & Associates, Ltd.
2009).
NC Arch. Site Fonn 1V —Page 5

Appendix C - Project Photographs
64

Existing Pump Station
Pipeline Alignment
•
Proposed Pump Station Location
Existing Pipeline

7
Existing Pipeline
VV,
T1
T1 T1.2
:•
�a�,: �. may. ryg� y i`al
�, . f
� «
S
T1 T1.2

til
l Tl

T5
T5.1
T6 T7

T8
T9
T10 T11

9ll

T16
T17
T18 T19

N
co

T25
T26
T27 RK42, Valley House

RK42, Valley House
RK42, Moores Mill
RK42, Moores Mill millstone RK42, Moores Mill turbines

IMG_2720.JPG RK42, Moores Mill, axle seat

BELEWS FINDS
SITE :SQ#
-----------------------------------
jST#
I
-----------
;MATERIAL
-----------------------------------
:Function::SERIES:COLOR,
--------------------------
EXT
-------------------- ---------------------------------
;COLOR, INT
----------------------------
;TEMPER
.............. -----------------
!SURFACE,
------------- ------------------------
EXT ;SURFACE,
----------------------------------
INT
V
--------------------------------
31RK203
31RK203
----------
4!Quartz,
-----------
6:Clay
milkBiface
I ------- -------------- --------------- ------------------------- -----------
Vessel
---- ­­ --------------------------------
:Saura !Tan
------------------
::Tan
----------
---------------------------------•-
`Sand, fine :'Smooth
-------------- ------------------------
:Smooth
--------------- --------------
::None
31RK203
8:Clay
:Vessel
:Saura ;Tan
:Tan
:Sand, fine
::Smooth
:Smooth
:None
31RK203
9
;Clay
:Vessel
::Saura !Tan
Black
:Sand, fine::Smooth
:Smooth
::None
31RK203
9:Clay
;Vessel
::Saura :Tan
::Dark
gray
:Sand, fine
:Smooth
:Smooth
::None
31RK203:i
12
Clay
:Vessel
!Saura :Tan
::Tan
:Sand, fine
:Smooth
;Smooth
::None
31RK203 :CS30
- ----------------------
------------ --------
---------------------------
---------------
------------- ------------
---------------------------
-----------------
:Clay lay
--------------------------------------
------------- -1 ...... -----------
------------ -------------------------
Nessel
--------------------------
--------------------------
- ------------------
:�Saura ::Tan
--------------------- --------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
-------------------- ---------------------------------
::Tan
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
:Sand, fine
---------------------------------
-----------------------
:Smooth
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
I :Smooth
------------------- --------------------
I ----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
:None
---------------- ---------------
--------------------------------
--------- ----------------------
-----------------------------
SITE-----------
SQ# :
- ST#
':Thickness-----------------------------------------
: BODY -----------------------
1COMMENTS ------------------------ --------------------------
--------------------------------
- -------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------
---- --------------------------------
(mm)
31RK203
4::
6:: 1
:Occasional
larger
sand
grain
present
-
31RK203
6:
5.4:: 1
::Occasional
larger
sand
grain
present
—
---------
31RK203
-----------------------------------
31RK203 ! ...............
..................
31RK203:
-----------------------
31RK203
-----------
............ : -------------
8:
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
9 :
--------------------------------------
9
-------------------------------------------------------------------:Occasional---larger---sand
12::
7.2: 1
6.8: 1
I ------------- --------------
7.3:: 1
--------------------------
7.3: 1
::Occasional
-------- --------------------------------------------------------
::Occasional
; ------------------------------------------
::Occasional
: ----------------------------- -
::Occasional
larger
larger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
larger
------------------- -------------------------------------
larger
sand
sand
sand
sand
grain
-----------------
grain
grain
grain
present
----------------------------
present
present
-------------------------------
present
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
-----------
31RK203::CS3
---------------
0
.......... .... -------------
----------------------------
- --------- --------------------------
------------- -----------------------------------------
4 ......... -----------------------------------------------------------
— - --- ------ ---
.........................
------------------------------------------------------
----------- --------------------
------- -------
-
- -----------
----------
----------- --------
------------------------
....... -------
...............
----
----------
I -----------------------------------
---------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------------
---------------------------------------------
-------------------- ---------------------------------
----------
---------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
- ------------------------- ------
.............. --------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
I -------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
------------------------
---------------
--------------------------------
--------------- ---------------------------
All pieces <3x2cm
-------------- ------ ---------------------------------
--------------------------------
- - — -------- ------
--------------------------------
------------ -------------------------
-------------------------------------------
-----------------
Page 1 of 1

SECTION 3.6 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PURPOSE
The project site is characterized by highly erodible alluvial soils overlaying weathered bedrock and
represents a significant quantity of highly productive agricultural land. Excavations in the project site
will have the potential to negatively impact the waters of North Carolina, particularly the Dan River and
Belews Creek. Adequate Erosion and Sediment control measures must be developed to minimize the
potential for any related significant impacts.
PROTOCOL
An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (E&S Plan) shall be submitted to the Regional NCDENR Office
following the preparation of site development design drawings for this project. The NC Division of Land
Quality has the responsibility to review the plan and issue a Plan Approval Letter. The approved E&S
Plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout the project.
AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION
Excavation, final grading and site restoration will all be addressed in a detailed E&S Plan. This will also
include measures to minimize the release of sediment during installation of the proposed intake velocity
caps. Intakes are positioned out of the main channel and close to the bank to increase the opportunities
for effective, local E&S protective measures. Sheet No. 2 in Appendix 8 illustrates conceptual lay -back of
disturbed river bank to a slope of 2.5:1. These disturbed slopes will be re -vegetated with approved
indigenous plants. Areas surrounding the pump station and cleared right-of-ways will be vegetated with
grass mixtures. Excavation and backfilling operations will be phased to minimize potential for E&S
impacts. Furthermore, the sequence of construction and schedule will be designed to avoid seasons
with climate conditions that are likely to negatively impact E&S protective measures

�1
i � 1
SECTION 3.7 - FLOOD PLAIN MITIGATION MEASURES
PI IRpnrp
Section F. of the PCN requests supplemental information regarding Flood Zone Designation. Review of
the FIRM Maps # 3710698400K and 371069200K dated July 3, 2007 revealed this project has the
potential to impact the 100 year floodplain. In response to this concern, the proposed final conditions
of the project site are designed to result in no net fill in the floodway.
PROTOCOL
The flood plain elevation is typically between 18 and 24 feet above the river bottom along this stretch of
river. At the time of the river survey when flows were at or near low design level, the water surface
elevation was about 561 feet msl and the top of bank was 580 feet msl. The 100 year flood elevation in
the pump station site area is 588 feet msl. The pump station will be designed such that motors and
electronics will be installed above the 588 elevation. In order to account for the flood storage volume
occupied by the presence of the pump station and the fill that is to be placed to elevate the motor
control center (MCC), soil will be removed from the river bank in areas that will be disturbed during
construction. The proposed lay back of the bank slope will facilitate vegetative stabilization of the river
bank near the intake locations post -construction.
AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION
Sheet No. 2 in Appendix 8 of the Project Summary Memorandum (November 2008) illustrates
conceptual lay -back of disturbed river bank to a slope of 2.5:1. Cut volumes will be used to super -
elevate the MCC above the 100 year flood elevation. Finished grades and structures will result in no net
fill in the floodway.