20180890 Ver 2_401 Application_20180618

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 6/27/2018 3:54:57 PM (Message Start Event)
Accept by Montalvo, Sheri A 6/28/2018 12:18:52 PM (NON -DOT Project)
The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A. The due date is: July 2, 2018 5:00 PM
6/27/2018 3:55 PM

Staff Review
ID#*
20180890
Version* 2
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
Select Reviewing Office:* Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Submittal Type:*
401 Application
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r•
Yes
r
No
How much is r $240.00
owed?* r $570.00

Project Submittal Dated 6/27/2018
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type:* r New Project
r Pre -Application Submittal
r More Information Response
r Other Agency Comments
r For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project - Please check the new project type if you are trying to submit a new project that needs an official approval
decision.
Pre -Application Submittal - Please check the pre -application submittal if you just want feedback on your submittal and
do not have the expectation that your submittal will be considered a complete application requiring a formal decision.
More Information Response - Please check this type if you are responding to a request for information from staff and
you have and ID# and version for this response.
Other Agency Comments - Please check this if you are submitting comments on an existing project.
Project Contact Information
Name: Brandon Fulton
Who is subrritting the information?
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Project Name:* John Price Road - Industrial Park
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?*
r Yes' No r Unknown
County (ies)*
Mecklenburg
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
John Price Industrial Park DWR PCN Request.rs.pdf 8.62MB
Only pdf or lmv files are accepted.
Describe the attachments:
John Price Road - Industrial Park - Water Quality Certification
* V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that
o I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
o I agree that submission of this form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the
"Uniform Electronic Transactions Act")
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes
(the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');

I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written
signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form."
Signature:
Submittal Date:

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
1. Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental• • Facilities NC Regrsterep Engmeenng Firm F-4]78
NC Registered Geologrsts Firm C-406
SC Regrsterzd Engineering Flrm K39
June 27, 2018
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Reference: North Carolina Division of Water Resources:
401 Water Quality Certification
Pre -Construction Notification Application
Request for Nationwide Permit 39 (Commercial and Institutional Developments)
John Price Road Industrial Park (SAW -2017-02628)
9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 49: 5455-C
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find a copy of the 401 Water Quality Certification regarding the Request for Pre -
Construction Notification for the approximate 50 acre site located at 9934 John Price Road in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The purpose of the project is to construct an
Industrial Park.
According to the Mecklenburg County Online GIS Database website, the Parcel Identification
Number (PIN) is 20117105 (- 50 acres). The site consists of wooded land and fields.
Surrounding properties consist of wooded land, fields, single-family residences, and
commercial/ industrial properties. Based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Topographic Map, surface waters are depicted on site.
Background
ECS conducted a site visit with Mr. David Shaeffer, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), on March 2, 2018. Mr. Shaeffer concurred with the approximate boundaries of the
waters are shown on the enclosed delineation maps in the appendices. At the time of this
permit application, ECS has not received a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) letter from the
USACE.
Project Description
The purpose of the project is to construct an Industrial Park including three large industrial
buildings (204,500 sq. ft., 192,500 sq. ft. and 128,100 sq. ft.), truck courts, and associated
infrastructure. Proximity to interstates, larger thoroughfares, and other similar industries make
the site very conducive to industrial operations.
The proposed development has been designed to minimize the footprint needed for the large
industrial buildings, while also appropriately designing the parking areas to fulfill stormwater
ECS Capitol Services. PLLC • ECS Florida. LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic. LLC - ECS Midwest, L LC • ECS Southeast, LLP - ECS Texas, LLP
www. ecsi im ited .coni

loading concerns and traffic flow through the site. The only access to the site is bisected by a
stream and adjacent linear wetland; therefore, a road crossing of the stream is proposed.
The John Price Road 50 acre Industrial Park project will maintain independent utility, and will be
permitted through the City of Charlotte Engineering Department separate from the smaller
adjacent John Price Flex Industrial project, also currently owned by the Youngblood Family.
Impacts & Mitigation
The roadway crossing for a two lane paved road to access the site, includes the proposed
installation of two 60 inch diameter by 90 foot long RCP culverts.
The project as proposed will permanently impact 149 linear feet of stream, and temporarily
impact 30 linear feet of stream. ECS performed the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NCSAM) on the stream proposed for impact, which resulted in a rating of Low. Stream banks
have been highly disturbed from cattle. The client is proposing a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1;
however, the Extended Service Area maintained by DMS will have to be utilized since no credits
are available within the projects watershed, which typically double mitigation requirements.
Based on the NCDMS Credit Reservation letter, wetland credits are reserved in HUC code
03050103 and DMS will utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation
requirement. Therefore, total proposed mitigation will be 3:1. Due to the minimal size of the
wetland impact (0.0024 ac), no mitigation is proposed. Please see attached NCSAM Form and
Rating Sheet, and credit reservation letter from NC DMS.
2

Closing
ECS respectfully requests the use of NWP 39 to authorize the permanent impacts of 149 linear
feet of jurisdictional stream, 30 linear feet of temporary stream impact, and 0.0024 acre of
wetland impact. The attached permit application, project information, and associated
attachments provide details pertaining to the proposed project impacts.
ECS looks forward to your attention to this request. Please contact us at [phone] or
[e-mail] or [phone] or [e-mail] with questions or if
additional information is required.
Sincerely,
W "� S;_" ,
Paul M. Stephens IV, E.I.
Environmental Project Manager
[e-mail]
843.284.7823
� J . �'O"Ljcl
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS
Environmental Principal
bfulton0ecslimited.com
704.409.7744
Attachments: Preliminary ORM Form
Pre -Construction Notification Application
Appendices
Signed Owner(s) and Commissioner Agent Authorization
Verified Waters Map
Impact Exhibits
NCWAM Form
NCDMS Mitigation ILF Approval Letter
SHPO Response
Archaeological Assessment
USFWS Response Letter
NHP Response Letter
Mecklenburg County Parcel Info
3

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID 9: SAW- 2017-02628 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: John Price Road Flex Industrial Site
2. Work Type: ❑Private ❑Institutional ❑Government ❑✓ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
See attached appendices.
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Youngblood Family/Black Creek Group,see Appdx
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Mr. Brandon Fulton, ECS Southeast, LLP
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: SAW -2017-02628
7. Project Location —Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
John Price Road, Charlotte, North Carolina
Latitude: 35.127598, Longitude: -80.95005
8. Project Location —Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: 20117105 (50 acres)
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Steele Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03050103
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑✓
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit 9 39
Regional General Permit 9
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Q�QF wArEyoG
� Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes Q No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
John Price Road - Industrial Park
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Youngblood Family (Fred, Roy, and Mary Jane)
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Commissioner of Family Trust - R. Michael Allen
3d.
Street address:
7257 Pineville -Matthews Road, Suite 2100
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28225
3f.
Telephone no.:
704-442-1010
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Developer
4b.
Name:
Mr. Eric Helstrom
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Black Creek Group
4d.
Street address:
301 Route 17, North, Suite 206
4e.
City, state, zip:
Rutherford, New Jersey 07070
4f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
W. Brandon Fulton
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
ECS Southeast, LLP
5c.
Street address:
1812 Center Park Drive, Suite D
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28217
5e.
Telephone no.:
704-525-5152
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
20117105
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.127598 Longitude: -80.95005
1c.
Property size:
50 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Steele Creek. NC SID: 11-137-10
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Catawba
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:
The project area is located north of John Price Road just outside 1-485 and west of 1-77 in southwest Charlotte. The project area currently contains
active cattle farm complex and grazing fields. The surrounding area contains a mix of industrial, residential and agricultural uses.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.32
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 3,425
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
See appendices.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See appendices.
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 priorphases) in thepast?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: SAW -2017-02628
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Ken Vilagos
Agency/Consultant Company: ECS Southeast, LLP
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Site verification visit conducted by David Shaffer and Ken Vilagos on March 2, 2018, (SAW -2017-02627) verified waters map attached.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
E] Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands Q 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0024
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.0024
2h. Comments:
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 T
Dewatering
SA
PER
Corps
23
15
S2 P
Rip -Rap
SA
PER
Corps
26
30
S3 P
Culvert
SA
PER
Corps
50
89
S4 P
Rip -Rap
SA
PER
Corps
47
30
S5 T
Dewatering
SA
PER
Corps
41
15
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
179
3i. Comments:
149 Permanent Impact
30 feet Temporary
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes/No
B2
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See appendices.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See appendices.
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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
Q Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
Q Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
149 linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
warm
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: See appendices and attached reservation letter from the NC DMS.
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
54%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
The additional impervious area created by this project will be treated for water quality and water quantity by Stormwater Control Measures designed to
Charlotte/Mecklenburg and NCDEQ standards. SCM's will consist of 1 above ground detention pond which
have been designed to reduce post
development flows to predevelopment flow rates.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
❑x Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes 0 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 0 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
[]Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 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 0 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.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
Wastewater
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
from the be treated by the City Charlotte's
generated site will of municipal wastewater system.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes Q No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See attached Natural Heritage Program (NHP) report received November 9, 2017. Also, see attached USFWS letter from the Asheville Field Office
received December 5, 2017; letter indicates that section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been met.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes Q No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See appendices.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes Q No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM Map Service Center GIS viewer, included in maps.
Brandon Fulton
6-27-2018
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

me ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP `Setting the Standard for Service"
1. Geotechnical • Construction Materials - Environmental • Facilities NC [Registered Engineering Pm F-1078
NC Registered Geologists. Rrm C-400
SG Registered Eng:neerimg -VTI 3235
Appendices:
A. Owner Information
3a -d
The John Price Road 50 Acre Industrial Park Property is currently owned by the Youngblood
Family (Fred, Roy, and Mary Jane). The Youngblood Family has been court ordered to sell the
property, and Mr. R. Michael Allen (Commissioner of Family Trust) has been charged with
facilitating the purchase process on behalf of the family. Agent Authorizations for each family
member, along with Mr. Allen are included with this application package.
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
3d. Explain the purpose of the project:
The purpose of the project is to construct an Industrial Park including three large industrial
buildings (204,500 sq. ft., 192,500 sq. ft. and 128,100 sq. ft.), truck courts, and associated
infrastructure. Proximity to interstates, larger thoroughfares, and other similar industries make
the site very viable.
The proposed development has been designed to minimize the footprint needed for the large
industrial buildings, while also appropriately designing the parking areas to fulfill stormwater
loading concerns and traffic flow through the site. The only access to the site is bisected by a
stream and adjacent linear wetland; therefore, a road crossing of the stream is proposed.
The John Price 50 acre Industrial Park project will maintain independent utility, and will be
permitted through the City of Charlotte Engineering Department separate from the smaller John
Price Flex Industrial project, also currently owned by the Youngblood Family.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed development consists of three large industrial buildings with associated parking
and stormwater management facilities. Standard construction equipment such as cranes,
excavators, dump trucks, and similar vehicles would be used for the project. Proper erosion and
sedimentation control measures would be employed throughout the project.
The proposed road crossing consists of installing two 60" by 90' Class III CMP buried at a
minimum of 1' with an aluminum inlet and outlet headwalls (8.125' with one 2.125' wing and one
6.5' (16.75' total)). Class 1 Rip Rap would be placed upstream and downstream of the structure
inlet and outlet for structure protection. Standard road construction and pipe placement
equipment such as cranes, excavators, dump trucks, and similar vehicles would be used for the
project. Proper erosion and sedimentation control measures would be employed throughout the
project.
ECS Capital Services, PLLC • ECS Rarida. LLC - ECS Mid -Atlantic. LLC - ECS Midwest, LLC - ECS Southeast. LLP - ECS Texas, LLP
WWW.ecslirnited.com

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in
designing prosect:
The proposed development has been designed to minimize the footprint needed for the large
industrial buildings, while also appropriately designing the parking areas to fulfill stormwater
loading concerns and traffic flow through the site. The only access to the site is bisected by a
stream and adjacent linear wetland; therefore, a road crossing of the stream is proposed.
No other impacts to waters of the U.S. are proposed for the remainder of the John Price
Industrial Park site.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through
construction techniques:
Disturbance of the stream and wetlands shall be minimized to the extent practicable in order for
the proper installation of the facility. The construction techniques shall be conducted in
accordance with NCDENR standards. Temporary and additional erosion control measures shall
be maintained throughout the construction process. Silt fencing will be placed at the bottom of
the slopes to deter sediment and erosion control during roadway development activities.
Temporary erosion, sedimentation, and pollution controls will be installed prior to and
maintained during the entire construction duration and until final stabilization is established. No
other impacts to waters are proposed other than those required to access the site.
4h. Comments (Mitigation
The project as proposed will permanently impact 149 linear feet of stream, and temporarily
impact 30 linear feet of stream. ECS performed the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NCSAM) on the stream proposed for impact, which resulted in a rating of Low. Stream banks
have been highly disturbed from cattle, and major stabilization and sedimentation issues are
occurring. The client is proposing a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1; however, the Extended Service
Area maintained by DMS will have to be utilized since no credits are available within the
projects watershed, which typically double mitigation requirements. Based on the NCDMS
Credit Reservation letter, wetland credits are reserved in HUC code 03050103 and DMS will
utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement. Therefore,
total proposed mitigation will be 3:1. Due to the minimal size of the wetland impact (0.0024 ac),
no mitigation is proposed. Please see attached NCSAM Form and Rating Sheet, and credit
reservation letter from NC DMS.
F. Supplementary Information
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or
archeological resources?
ECS reviewed the NCSHPO web mapper, and performed a site reconnaissance of the site on
August 28, 2017. ECS did not observe historical or cultural sites within the site boundary;
subsequently, ECS' findings were forwarded to NCSHPO. ECS received a response letter from
NCSHPO dated December 18, 2017, which indicated the potential likelihood of sites present
within the two Tracts of property owned by the Youngblood family. More specifically, NCSHPO
was concerned about the larger -50 acre John Price Road Industrial Park site (Youngblood
Tract). As part of thorough due diligence, an archaeological survey was conducted on both
Tracts by Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. in March 2018. The field survey and
2

summary report found no evidence of archaeological sites on the subject property (summary
report attached), and the report was submitted to NCSHPO for concurrence. ECS has not
received concurrence from SHPO at the issuance of this permit application; however, a
response is expected soon. ECS will forward correspondence received from the NCSHPO
immediately upon receipt.
3

ECS SOUTHEAST, L L. P :Sa"ti.og ie fol Service`
a . f�tr�+caf - Lorttrucicvn��atriGyla; • Ertvfr,nrx�errtal • Fac+fit+ea
Agent Authorization
Property/Site:
John Price Road -Phase I
Address of Sita:
9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
Parcel Identification
Number (PIN)m 20117105
Owner Information:
Name:
Youngblood, Fred, Roy & Mary ]ane
Address-
9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 2.8273
Telephone Number
✓ ' - rlo I - 1
Fax Number:
✓
E-mail Address.
,l�
Property Owner Certification:
i, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {USACE}
and/ or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to enter upon the property
herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal/State jurisdiction Lander
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. 1 also authorize ECS to act in my behalf in the processing of this request and to furnish
supplemental information in support of this request, including stream/wetland matters in
coordination with the USACE and the NCDWR field verification and permit application:
Property Owner Signature: K' W k L,!U,b f (X+J
Date: ,/

�r - I
—J
LS ECS SOUTHEAST, L, L P Settlog Pte Scandard for Service
Geotechnical ?nEtru-,lion Matetials + Enviroomentaf - Facslifses
Agent Authorization
Property/Site: john Price Road - Phase I
Address of Site: 9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 201 17105
Owner Information:
Name- Youngblood, Fred, Roy
Address. 9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
C' - Ln -
Cho �- 1 kis�� N�
Telephone Number:.,,Fax Number: ,/
E-mail Address: ,-1
1c
Property Owner Certification:
I, the undersigned, a du'y authorized owner of record of the propertyrproperties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S- Army Corps of Engineers tUSACE7
and/ or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDVVR) to enter upon the property
herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with: Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal/State jurisdiction under
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. 1 also authorize ECS to act in my behalf in the processing of this request and to furnish
supplemental information in support of this request, including stream/wetland matters In
coordination with the USACE and the NCDWR field verification and permit applirkatiom A
Property Owner Signature: ,/ 1
Date: ,�

1 J; g; C S SOUTHEAST. L P SPtivtg Me Standard fur Service
s 3a01 i,,ca I • ,v.•=t-i_,t, UCtWj:, Mal(- �*j1s ° Eilairoll fYs0iii3l acilities
Property/Site:
Address of Site:
Agent Authorization
John Price Road - Phase I
9934 john Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 20117105
Owner Information:
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Youngblood, Fred, Roy & Mary Jane
9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
Property Owner Certification:
1, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and/ or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (N0DWR) to enter upon the property
herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S- subject to Federal/State jurisdiction under
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899- 1 also authorize ECS to act in my behalf in the processing of this request and to furnish
supplemental information in support of this request, including stream/wetland matters in
coordination with the USACE and the NCDWR field verification an# permit application:
Property Owner Signature- _ 7�� Z L�60 p � �
Date:
i? - Gi=vrY rfn i 5 ;�t_t i , ■ E>variuu:A, i X • ;--Ca tA(d•A1W1'01 GL.L. • �s�;
www.'acslirrfitod rr,rr

ECS SOUTHEAST. LLP "Setting the Standard for Service r
1 Geotechnical o Construction Materials e Environmental ° Facilities NC Repi5lereaEnoneeringFimtF-7478
NC Regmtered Geologisls Firm C -70a
$G Registered Engmeerng Firm 3235
Property/Site:
Address of Site:
Agent Authorization
Jahn Price Road - Phase I
9934 John Price Road
Charlotte, NC 28273
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 20117105
Owner Information:
Name: Youngblood, Fred, Roy & Mary ]ane : R, Michael Allen
Address: 7257 Pineville -Matthews Road, Suite 2100
Charlotte, NC 28226
Telephone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Property Owner Certification:
E, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the propertyfproperties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S- Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and/ or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to enter upon the property
herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal/State jurisdiction under
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, 1 also authorize ECS to act in my behalf in the processing of this request and to furnish
supplemental information in support of this request, including stream/wetland matters in
coordination with the USACE and the NCDWR field verification and permit application:
provided, ilowever, V121 SuCh enlry and invesligalion s shall heal the sole ask cif the entering and investl9aling persons, such perscns hereby rorease and inde mMy the undersigned and the owners from
any and all liabilhy associated iherewiih and the entry and �rw n5 shall 4e performed wi� t fee, cost or th9 urLdersigrled &ndlor me owners of the property.
r Signature: 111} IAL^, �[G� LI Gan+-■S°a1 sl.+�
�A Mo. l'3} ap.a-
Date, l ��., 7.1D 1
ECS Capitol 5elvices, PLLC - ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic. LLC • ECS Midwest, LRC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Texas, LLE
4vwwecslimited.cont

WETLANDS
/ , /I� 1��1 1 � � 1 \ \ ♦ ` .�`\�T I � ,�, {•ice ' V i
WETLANDS 1 I/ jZz
`
i �� �: -. - - Lnn�r ��trr `♦`� aL` \`\\\\`�`\' \ Y- ,I0
NN N
YtV----N
t \ \ \ -f-`� al_ ' --f ... _:�. 1h
i \ \ \\ \` \ \ 11\1 \ , , • • / p ` \ \ \\1� l 1 c ® 1 \ •, — `1 0
_ / `_� t / / 1 1\I\ 1 1 \` ` I \ Jo,
r I
�- . \ \ 1 \ 1 ./ \ \ \ 1 t`----------''�' \ , II \ 1 1 1 - � , � � \\♦/-�.`-_ ` 1 111 „ ,II 1 • � I �
_ '"}/"�� \ j / / �•i. -: ' 1 11111 j` ;1111 \, 11 I \ • 1 1 L1 �\ ` \
—ice �\ , I 1 n �•+� --`• a t \• 1 I, 1 1 1111 111 1 `/ • 1 \ 1 1
�.--- . ♦ \ . . I III 11 I , I 11 .i it \ l \ STREAM 3 I
` ♦ I 1„1 V, 1 \` •`
-�1-e` , 1 \ / -\ , �r ♦ \ \ ♦ 7�c � , , 1 1 1 1 I I I I I; I I„1 h � r \\ 1
-, ; / \` ,\^�1 : ,.. �_-�� ♦ \- \% `.? �L / % % r 11 r I I, I 111 I I 1 ('� O \ I
-A SEE ` SEE SHEET 3 FOR MORE DET I'�
\�' 1 , . \ ,_ .♦ ate` .. ; r 1 1' 1 I I 111 I 1 ` 1 1
11,1 IN
1= � / / / / / 1 : __ I 1 I I 1 I � , • \ • -'' �-ii. / / r J 1 r 1I 11 1 1 I f • --�. / \
\ 1 / / / r \ \ , 1 1 / '� . ♦-` )� , / 11 r I 1 I ( / VVV"'AAA
/
l i%% � l 1 1 ` - / I I 1 1 1 I \ �. +----- _ /// r 1 1 1 1/
1 , 1.' 1`~�a� ---- 1 1 1► 1 111 1/ fc ! \
�4. 1 r' // / t \. J I 1 I 1 , 1 1 j •` �� : 1 1 1 1 1 111 I I/ 1 �..-.
I, r/. / ' / 1 ` �-- '� ' ' 1 1 1 I I .�Z % � 111 Ir11 Ir 1 t• . \ 1
/ 1 1 1� I / 1 1 ♦__ _
------------
I I l• • \•�' \ \ \ `------,-----''---�___```' \\t. • i =•t �1"y'- // ; y �-,7^ • \ l
-------------- / 1 \ ♦\ \ \ , � \ \ \ `\ _ SOV It~< -.t -4 : if -!\ t
-` i
1 CIS ♦ \ \ 7 r• \ \ \ \ t ,. _ `1 - -
.. T.a• _ �• _� ..---\ \ ♦ 1.
` ` .• ._` ."'- --Z=---% ^ \ \ \ /13
t . \t`a--= �c •�:�� -='L� ' \` I I/1 , 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 �• 1 i , I —
i .�; f -� •� � . / \�\ \ \I 1 I 1 \ � 1 I ► 1 / I 1 1 1 i*
J / 1 1 ' • /
♦`♦`c__`.�.r� _�`-- i. -,.,\ \ ,, 1 l \ 1 •�,� /i / j f / 1 1 I i
4!'%\I \, \ 1 I , 1 1
,♦ y1���� _ -_ �.--1% \ \ 1 \ \ 1 .♦tea `.- / r I 1 \ , 1 ,/I / c
, 1 STREAM 1
__ ♦ ` - \\\\\\ \r� \ ` •.. `-1 I I l ♦ `.-_ / ,1c 1 \ \ 1 I \ 1 1 r1 ,% / / rr- / .
+i� n\ ,-"� � --..` - ' •.=� i ; � i � � � i i+ Ire-� i ` ;�i ,•( •
I,,i\
ODQ) IFh �
]ZHIGIINIE]EIRIING NQ:, IFILILC
NCBELS P-1132
1927 S. TRYON STREET, SUITE 310 CHARLOTTE NO 28203
PHONE: (980) 2h 3400 PAX. [phone]
THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE
COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER
ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING., 2017
\ \ 111 /'.(..•E'\� _ 1 -!.� / l j' l p N: T � / � / 1 1 �, \
\ \\ '\\\' �'� fT�-� , x,11 /� / f•' ♦ /�` , / 1 •
J.
_-
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP - EXISTING
OVERALL CONDITIONS SHEET 1 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
LI)
LEGEND
W� We EXISTING WETLANDS
—, — ,– EXISTING STREAM
CENTERLINE
]EXISTING FEATURES
EXISTING STREAMS
STREAM 1
1,850 LF
STREAM 2
1,605 LF
STREAM 3
140 LF
TOTAL
3,595 LF
EXISTING WETLANDS
WETLANDS 1
0.0024 AC
WETLANDS 2
0.11 AC
TOTAL
0.1124 AC
SITE DATA
9934 JOHN PRICE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
PARCEL I D #20117105
TOTAL SITE AREA: t 50 ACRES
6/25/2018 1 NCC172105
—• 00 100 50 0 200
to�
00

LEGEND
WA W EXISTING WETLANDS
—, —,,,,, EXISTING STREAM
CENTERLINE
(UNDISTURBED)
U We WETLANDS DISTURBANCE
STREAM DISTURBANCE
g 00 ���� WETLANDS IMPACT MAP - PROPOSED i� 6/25/2018 1 NCC172105
1Zr4Gl141EIEI&II13Qa k3Q:, IFILILC
NCBELS P-1132
1927 S. TRYON STREET, SUITE 310 CHARLOTTE NO 28203
PHONE: [phone] PAX. [phone]
THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE
COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER
ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING., 2017
OVERALL CONDITIONS SHEET 2 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
a-- fol,�
200
100
50
0
200
1 "= 200'

1
8/m '; JP Ro* LLC
I DB .2351 PG's 376
I PID #201-1711-06
37"494E 1551.9'
(PROPENn' LINE( PER DB 5102 376)
11 '1 �
\� �_ S,T03"27'E 1$x19.36' DOTAL
\ \ , 1
��519.62' 1, 1
1
FENCE-KlqR--
--'--- - X�-- X It X
1 / �
1 / 1
�I
1 ( %% k0005 j(TBR)
\\ ♦ aj 1 / /
♦♦ ♦ \ ♦ �'m �? \
♦ %
AT I
`♦ ♦`♦ ♦`♦ ♦\ \ ♦`\ `, X12,1 03 S0. 'I 11
♦`� ♦♦� ♦♦� �`♦ 541154 AMS TQTAL
AT 3, 75, . AJ6 O.FT; 4�9
OR .93�3 11
%%ACyES 1 1 11 Al A lli( Rov RVTJQF-�AY. 1789911SQ.f
\ QR 61 181V AG�'ES I
1 1 1 1 I ,
%, B. ,yo G82 00 pnd 1 ife, it
\ \ \ �P,-&GY p Y�UNG�L00
♦♦♦ 1 i 9%78 ;°G4
Ao1 -3,171 05 1, 1 i
ODD) JFR HR.
NCBELS P-1132
1927 S. TRYON STREET, SUITE 310 CHARLOTTE NO 28203
PHONE: [phone] PAX. [phone]
THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE
COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER
ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING., 2017
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP - EXISTING
CONDITIONS SHEET 3 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
40 20 0 0 40
i

'It i
1 11
BIM L JP I?oAp LLC V'
D8 Y,2351 PO1 376 RIP -RAP APRON -\%
/ I PID #201-1711-06
1
1
5374947,T E 1551. I
LINE( PER DB 5102-376)
(PROPEY�n' l
- - S3713'27'E 1, 49.36' toTAL
t�19.62' \ I ;�kOD LO[
\\ \ �L pLOD 603
50,1154 AC&FS TqTAL
F(7-) o 00 � ���
NCBELS P-1132
1927 S. T-
ON STREET. SUITE 310 CHARLOTTE NC 28203
PHONE (980) 272,3400 FAX .[phone]
THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE
COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WIITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROTd BOHLER
ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING, 2017
--r--------
'A'/i l 'TRIBUTARY STREAId �-
S1 - DEWATERING
(TEMPORARY)
S2 - RIP RAP
(PERMANENT)
- ~ S3 - 89' CULVERT
o (PERMANENT)
0
60" TWIN RCP-,
CULVERTS-
1%
ULVERTS-1% SLOPE _
90' LENGTH
EMBEDDED 1'
,I\
/
/
I
%!j
i
S5 - DEWATERING
(TEMPORARY)
i 1 i
l
IMPACT TABLE
LEGEND
S1
we EXISTING WETLANDS
337 SF
TEMPORARY
S2
30 LF
768 SF
EXISTING STREAM
M,
CENTERLINE
4483 SF
(UNDISTURBED)
S4
30 LF
/
WETLANDS DISTURBANCE
/
i
STREAM DISTURBANCE
628 SF
NOTE: ALL DEQ EROSION STANDARDS
TOTAL IMPACT
WILL BE FOLLOWED
60" TWIN RCP-,
CULVERTS-
1%
ULVERTS-1% SLOPE _
90' LENGTH
EMBEDDED 1'
,I\
/
/
I
%!j
i
S5 - DEWATERING
(TEMPORARY)
i 1 i
l
IMPACT TABLE
STREAM IMPACT
S1
15 LF
337 SF
TEMPORARY
S2
30 LF
768 SF
PERMANENT
S3
89 LF
4483 SF
PERMANENT
S4
30 LF
1409 SF
PERMANENT
S5
15 LF
628 SF
TEMPORARY
TOTAL IMPACT
149 LF PERMANENT (0.153 AC)
179 LF (0.175 AC)
TOTAL
WETLAND IMPACT
W1
0.0024 AC
PERMANENT
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP - PROPOSED
CONDITIONS SHEET 4 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
VICINITY MAP
•
ti
40 20 10 0 40
i

7
it `11 `71
1,11
1,1
17,1
1,11
h1,
I,^
PROP. ROAD GRADE
O TM 000 � ���
NCBELS P-1132
1927 S. TRYON STREET. SUITE 310 CHARLOTTE NO 28203
PHONE .(980) 272,3400 FAX.[phone]
THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE
COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WIITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROTd BOHLER
ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING, 2017
O,l
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP -
ROAD CROSSING SHEET 5 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
6/25/2018 1 NCC172105
40 20 10 0 40
1"=40'
PROP. ROAD GRADE
610
F—
'' --4�
ROP. 60"
TWIN CULVERT
INVERT
IN = 597.25
600
PROP. RIP -RAP APRON
NVERT OUT
= 596.25
PROP. RIP-
AP APRON
INVERT IN = 596.25
INVERT OUT = 595.25
X. GRADE
590
DATUM ELEV
585.00
CO o) LTJ C�4 CO
h� �OR �� ujC'� �� �C� h�
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP -
ROAD CROSSING SHEET 5 OF 5
JOHN PRICE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
6/25/2018 1 NCC172105
40 20 10 0 40
1"=40'

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
I USACE AID #: NCDWR #: I
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): John Price Industrial Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/08/2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Bohler Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: ECS Southeast, LLP
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba River on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Steele Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.127915, -80.950519
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream SA 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200 LF
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 Ft ❑Unable to assess channel dep
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3-5 Ft 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
El
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mit) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
®B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
®F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather—watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
®A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.
Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, Q)
❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E
❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation YC
❑I Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) v
❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2
❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING
QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and
Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.
❑Yes
®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b.
Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A
Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B
Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
❑C
Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c.
In riffle
sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C A P
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.
®Yes
❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name John Price Industrial Site Date of Assessment
11/08/2017
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization
ECS Southeast, LLP
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Mltfgot#c M $ea'vfCW
i'!1 V I R614"111TAL WA L I TV
June 26, 2018
Eric Helstrom
Black Creek Group
301 Route 17 North, Suite 206
Rutherford, NJ 07070
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrelary
Expiration of Acceptance: 12/251201 8
Project: John Price Road Industrial Park County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit1401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. once DMS receives a copy
of the permit{s} an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table_ The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin Impact location Impact Tye Impact Quantity
s -al k Hue
Catawba 03050103 Warm Stream 149
*DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 0213.0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Brandon Fulton, agent
Sincerely,
Ja es. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
State ofNorlh Carolina I Ea ironmcabl Quality J Mitigation Services
1452 Mali Service Ccuter I Raleigh, W 27699-1652 1 217 W. JOWS S"M 510i1C 30DO
919 707 8576 T

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Iamilton
December 18, 2017
Kenneth Vilagos
ESC Southeast, LLP
4811 Koger Boulevard
Greensboro, NC 27407
kvilagos e,ecslimited.com
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop Industrial Site, John Price Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 17-2873
Dear Mr. Vilago:
Thank you for your submission of November 15, 2017, concerning the above referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
There is one previously recorded archaeological site within the proposed project area. Site 31MK165 was
recorded by the University of North Carolina -Charlotte in 1975 and was recommended for systematic survey.
The site has not been assessed for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area, we recommend that a
comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this
survey will be to locate archaeological sites, including previously recorded site 31MK165, and make
recommendations regarding the eligibility status of each site in terms of the NRHP. Please note that our office
now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate
field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one paper
copy and one digital copy (MS Word) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be
forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as
they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consuhants.httn. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos

Archaeological Survey of the
John Price Tract,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
ER 17-2873
Prepared for
Black Creek Group
Denver, Colorado
Prepared by
Luan Cao
Archaeologist
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
March 2018

Management Summary
In March 2018, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of the John Price Tract located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on behalf of
Black Creek Croup. This investigation was requested by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SBPO)_ The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within
the project tract, assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP),
and advance management recommendations, as appropriate.
The John Price Tract includes two parcels, 9934 John Price Road (Northern Parcel), measuring
46.740 acres, (Parcel I) 20117105) and [No Address] John Price Road (Southern Parcel), measuring 6.491
acres (Parcel ID 20118105) for a total of 53.231 acres located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The northern
parcel includes an active cattle farm complex and grazing fields. The southern parcel is a fallow agricultural
field with woods in the southwestern corner.
Background research conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh,
North Carolina included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resources reports, and historic maps
of the project area. One previously recorded site, 31MKI65, was identified within the project tract. A
review of the Office of Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB) was also conducted to determine the
presence of any recorded architectural resources within the project tract. No previously recorded
architectural resources are present within the project tract.
Prior to beginning field work factors such as soil drainage and topography were used to define
portions of the project tract that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. These high
potential areas totaled approximately 30.2 acres and were surveyed with shovel tests excavated at 30 -meter
intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart. The portions of the tract defined as having low
potential for the presence of archaeological deposits include drainages, wetlands, and areas of steep slope.
These portions of the tract were examined through pedestrian walkover with judgmentally placed shovel
tests.
Four new archaeological sites were identified as a result of the field investigation. These sites
include three prehistoric sites and one site with both prehistoric and historic components. The prehistoric
occupations were indeterminate in time period due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts. The historic occupation
includes an early twentieth century abandoned house site and associated artifact scatter. All of these
resources have been severely disturbed and are unlikely to yield significant data pertaining to prehistory or
history to the area. All of the new archaeological sites are recommended not eligible for listing on the
NRNP.
Site 31MK165 was recorded in 1975 by Fred W. Fischer. The site's location was identified with
an informal surface collection and was never formally delineated or assessed for its eligibility for listing on
the NRNP. The site was recorded as a prehistoric short-term habitation site occupied from the Early Archaic
to Early Woodland periods. Its location was hand -plotted on a Charlotte West 1;24,000 topographic
quadrangle. A 15 -meter interval grid was established across this plotted site area. Shovel tests were
excavated at 30 -meter intervals along 15 -meter interval transects in an offset "checkboard" pattern in
attempt to identify the site. No evidence of this site was identified. It was likely misplotted and its true
location remains unknown.
John Price Tract
AC,C Inc.Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Table of Contents
Page
ManagementSummary.. .............................................................................................. .............................. i
Listof Figures..........................................................................................................................................
iii
Listof Tables..............................................................................................................................................iv
Chapter1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
ProjectTract..............................................................................................................................................1
Methodsof Investigation...........................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview..................................................................................8
Envirormiaental Overview..........................................................................................................................8
Drainages...............................................................................................................................................
8
Climate..................................................................................................................................................9
Geology............................... ..................................................................................................................
9
Soils.....................................................................................................................................................10
CulturalOverview...................................................................................................................................10
PrehistoricOverview.........................................,.................................................................................10
HistoricPeriod....................................................................................................................................15
Chapter3. Results of the Investigation.................................................................................................18
BackgroundResearch..............................................................................................................................18
Archaeological Survey Results...............................................................................................................18
9934 John Price Road (Parcel ID 20117105) Farm Complex.............................................................20
Site 31MK165 (Not Located)..............................................................................................................20
Site31 MK1135...................................................................................................................................28
Site31MK1136/1136** ......................................................................................................................30
Site31MK1137......................................._...........................................................................................34
Site31MK1138................................................................................,.,................................................36
Summary and Recommendations............................................................................................................38
ReferencesCited........................................................................................................................................39
Appendix A. Resume of Principal investigator
Appendix B. Artifact Catalog
Bohn Price Tract
ACC, Ir,e. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1.
Map showing location of project area...................................................................................1
Figure 1.2.
Topographic map showing project area (1993 Charlotte West and Fort Mill, NC USGS 7.5
minute topographic quadrangle)............................................................................................2
Figure 1.3.
Aerial view of project area....................................................................................................3
Figure 1.4.
General view of northern parcel, facing northeast................................................................4
Figure I.S.
General view of southern parcel, facing southwest...............................................................4
Figure 1.6.
Aerial map showing portions of the project area defined as high potential ..........................7
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic provinces of North Carolina...... I ....... I ........... . ..............................................
8
Figure 2.2.
Map of Catawba River Basin showing approximate location of the project area.................9
Figure 2.3.
Soil types present in project area... ......................................................................................
11
Figure 3.1.
Previously recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity (1993 Charlotte West and
Fort Mill, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).................................................19
Figure 3.2.
Archaeological resources identified in the project area......................................................21
Figure 3.3.
9934 John Price Road, House.............................................................................................22
Figure3.4.
9934 John Price Road, Barn 1.............................................................................................22
Figure 3.5.
9934 John Price Road, Barn 2....................................•...................................................23
Figure 3.6.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 1--.— ...................................................................................
23
Figure 3.7.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 2.............................................................................................24
Figure 3.8.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 3.............................................................................................24
Figure 3.9.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 4. .. .. . ......................................... .....................................
25
Figure 3.14.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 5............................................................................................25
Figure 3.11.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 6 ..................... ....26
...................................................................
Figure3.12.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 7............................................................................................26
Figure 3.13.
9934 John Price Road, Shed 9............................................................................................27
Figure 3.14.
1978 aerial of the site 31 MK165 plotted location..............................................................27
Figure 3.15.
General view of site 31MK1135, facing north...................................................................28
Figure 3.16.
Plan map of site 31MK1135...............................................................................................
29
Figure 3.17.
Site 31MK1135 soil profile..... ..... -- ...... — .... ....... --- ....... ................. ......................
29
Figure 3.18.
General view of site 31 MK 1136/1136**, facing south......................................................31
Figure 3.19.
Plan map of site 31MK113611136**..................................................................................
31
Figure 3.20.
Site 31MK1136/1136** soil profile...................................................................................32
Figure 3.21.
Site 31MK1136/1136** house, facing northwest..............................................................32
Figure 3.22.
Site 31MK1136/1136** on 1910 soil map......................................................33
Figure 3.23.
General view of site 31MK1137, facing west. ......... ...............................................34
Figure 3.24.
Plan map of site 31MK1137...............................................................................................35
Figure 3.25.
Soil profile of site 31MK1137............................................................................................
35
Figure 3.26.
General view of site 31MK1138, facing north...................................................................36
Figure 3.27.
Plan map of site 31MK1138...............................................................................................37
Figure 3.28.
Soil profile of site 31MK1138............................................................................................37
John Price Tract
ACC, Inc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2018). . ..........................................10
Table 3.1. Summary of Previously Recoded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity...... ............ 18
Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 1136/1136** ....................................33
Jahn Price Tract iv
AGC, Ir,c. MecMenburg County, North Carolina

Chapter 1. Introduction
Between February 27 and March 2, 2018, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC),
conducted an archaeological survey of the proposed John Price Tract (ER 17-2873) located in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. Ms. Dawn Reid served as the Principal Investigator. The field investigation was
directed by Mr. Luan Cao with the assistance of Ms. Brooke Brilliant. This investigation was undertaken
on behalf of the Black Cypress Group, at the request of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The S14PO noted the presence of previously recorded site, 31MK165, within the project
tract and the likelihood of additional sites present in the proposed development tract (SHPO correspondence
dated 18 December 2017). The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources
located within the project tract, assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic
Places (NRNP), and advance management recommendations, as appropriate.
Project Tract
The John Price Tract includes two parcels, 9934 John Price Road (Northem Parcel), measuring
46.740 acres, (Parcel ID 20117 105) and [No Address] John Price Road (Southern Parcel), measuring 6.491
acres (Parcel ID 20118105) for a total of 53.231 acres located in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1.1 and
Figure 1.2). Land cover in the project area includes fallows, cattle grazing fields, and wooded sections
(Figure 1.3) The northern parcel includes an active cattle farm complex and grazing fields and is bounded
to the north and east by property lines, to the south by John Price Road, and to the west by Steele Creek
(Figure 1.4). The southern parcel is a fallow agricultural field with the southwestern corner wooded. It is
bounded to the west, south, and east by property lines and to the north by John Price Road (Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.1. Map showing location of project area.
John Price Tract
ACC,. Inc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Municipality
Charlotte
Kannapolis
Concord
Marvin
Cornelius
Matthews
Davidson
_ ? Midland
Fairview
Mint Hill
Harrisburg
Pineville
- Huntersville
® Stallings
Indian Trail
VVeddington
0 4 a 12 1$
Miles
1 inch - 9 miles

Figure 1.2. Topographic snap showing project area {1993 Charlotte West and Fort Mill, NC USGS
7.5 minviv topographic quadrangle).
John Price Tract
-AEC,Inc.. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

x I"`
4
1
-4*4
"Ole
Rio
' %

r
Figure 1.4. General view of northern parcel, facing northeast.
Figure 1.5. General view of southern parcel, facing southwest,
John Price Tract 4
ACC' kir. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Methods of Investigation
This investigation consisted of four separate tasks. Background Research, Field Investigations,
Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.
Background Research. Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms,
maps, and reports on file at the Office of State Archaeology (DSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, as well as
the Office of Survey, and Planning's website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously
recorded resources in the project tract and its vicinity, in addition to providing data on the prehistoric and
historical context of the project tract. Background research also included a review of available historic
aerial photographs and maps.
Field Investigations. Close -interval contour topographic maps, Light Detecting and Ranging
(LiDAR) images, and soil survey data of the survey area were consulted prior to initiation of fieldwork.
These data were used to identify portions of the tract with high potential for the presence of archaeological
remains prior to commencement of fieldwork. Approximately 30.2 acres within the project tract were
defined as having high potential. These areas were comprised of uplands and ridge toes adjacent to
drainages and wetlands. Figure 1.6 presents a map showing the defined high potential areas.
The field survey consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 30 -meter intervals along transects
spaced 30 meters apart in areas determined to have high potential for archaeological deposits. Low potential
areas were subjected to pedestrian walkover with judgmentally placed shovel tests. In addition to shovel
testing, all areas of exposed ground surface were inspected for archaeological remains. For the relocation
effort of previously recorded archaeological site 31MK165, excavation of shovel tests at 30 -meter intervals
along transects spaced 15 meters apart in a "checkboard" pattern.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to
bedrock, the water table, or to 10 centimeters into subsoil. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25 inch
wire mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts
were collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e.,
shovel test/transect or northeast coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator. To delineate
archaeological resources, a combination of surface inspection and short interval shovel testing was used.
A site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30 -meter or less diameter of
surface exposure or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features less
than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or management reason. Site
settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field showing the
locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways,
and its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; Cj embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
John Price Tract 5
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

r
I Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, all archaeological
sites can be considered under all four criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made
by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRNP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
r the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
II is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively dcterminc that a
site meets NRNP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the
NPJIP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options
(e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis. Laboratory work began with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience
number, based on the context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), was assigned to each positive
shovel test location or surface collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact
class was then assigned a number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics
such as material in the case of prehistoric lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric
ceramics. Had they been recovered, historic artifacts would have been identified by color, material of
manufacture (e.g.,ceramics), type (e.g., slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g.,
molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts
with established manufacture date ranges would have been categorized using Aultman et al. (2016), Brown
(1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel
Hume (1969), and South (1977; 2004). Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded. All
diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were labcicd with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free
permanent ink.
At the conclusion of this project, a Deed of Gift will be sought to transfer ownership of any artifacts
recovered on private property to the State of North Carolina. Once a Deed of Gift is obtained, all project
related material, including field notes, artifacts, and project maps, will be prepared for curation based on
standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological
Collections: Final Rule) and in the OSA Curation guidelines. These standards and guidelines require that
all project -related material be placed in archivally stable storage bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of the
final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be submitted to OSA for permanent curation.
Recovered archaeological remains for which a Deed of Gift cannot be obtained will be returned to the
property owner.
Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This document presents the results of the archival research, the field investigation, and
laboratory analysis. The following chapters provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project
area. A discussion of field investigation results follows. Finally, a project summary is presented with
management recommendations, as appropriate.
John Price Tract 6
ACC, �'�� Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
Mecklenburg County is located in southern -central North Carolina and encompasses 546 square
miles. The county shares a border with South Carolina and is bounded by Iredell, Lincoln, and Gaston
counties. The entirety of Mecklenburg County falls within the Piedmont physiographic province (Figure
2.1) characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream areas and steeper slopes along drainageways
(McCachren 1980). Elevation in the project area ranged between 590 and 630 feet above mean sea level.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
a 25 so 75 100
Miles
Figure 2.1. Physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Drainages
The project area is located in the Catawba River Basin (Figure 2.2). The Catawba River begins in
the Blue Ridge Mountains in McDowell County and flows east then south into Lake Wylie on the North
Carolina -South Carolina border. The Catawba River basin spans 3.3 square miles with over 9,000 miles of
streams and rivers across 11 counties. The project area drains into Steele Creek to the west, a tributary to
Sugar Creek.
John Price Tract
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Figure 2.2. Map of Catawba River Basin showing approximately location of the project area.
Climate
Like most of central North Carolina, the climate of Mecklenburg County is hot and generally humid
during the summer with moderately cold winters. Average temperatures range from 43 degrees Fahrenheit
in the winter to 77 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. Normal annual precipitation averages 56 centimeters
(22 in) during the growing season from April to September and winter snow is common, averaging 15
centimeters (6 in) during the winter season (McLachren 1980).
Geology
The base geology of [he Piedmont province is about one billion years old. Continental movements
and a collision of land masses comprising the Piedmont with that of the Blue Ridge about 470 million years
ago formed the Blue Ridge Mountains (Kovacik and Winberry 1987). Continued continental shifts resulted
in the formation of numerous fault zones. The underlying geology of Mecklenburg County is the intrusive
rock of the Charlotte Belt, associated with the Carolina Slate Belt, dating from the Late Proterozoic to the
Late Paleozoic. This rock is predominantly granitic.
Throughout the past 200 years, gold has been mined in both the Piedmont and Mountain regions of
North Carolina. North Carolina was the nation's sole producer of gold between 1803 and 1828, and
continued to be a leading producer up until the California Gold Rush (Department of Envirozvnent and
John Price Tract 9
ACC, [rte. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Natural Resources [DENR] 2000). The Reed Gold mine in adjacent Cabarrus County is one of the most
well-known gold mines in the nation. In 1799, it was the site of the first documented gold find in the country.
This mine was in operation from 1803 until 1912 and it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(nomination form on file). Other Piedmont gold mining districts included the Gold Hill and Cid and mines
such as the Gold Hill Mine (Rowan County), and the Silver Hill Mine (Davidson County; DENR 2000).
Other economically viable metals, including copper and lead, are also present in the region.
Soils
There are six soil types present in the project tract (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.3). Mecklenburg Fine
Sandy Loam and Iredell Fine Sandy Loam were the predominant soil types in the tract encompassing 80.25
percent of the total area. These soils are moderately well drained to well drained and range from 0 to 15
percent slope. Monacan soils make up the remaining 19.75 percent of the total area and represented the
flood plains of the project area along Steele Creek and an unnamed tributary to Steele Creek.
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2018)
Soil Type
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric Era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era
refers to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions
are defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America's
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.
Prehistoric Overview
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BQ. The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades
has begun to cast doubt on this theory.
John Price Tract 10
ACC, I "`' Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Description
% Area
Iredell Fine Sandy Loam (IrB)
Moderately Well Drained. 1 To 8 Percent Slope. Forms
22.53
on Interfluves and Uplands.
Iredell-Urban Land Complex (IuB)
Moderately Well Drained. 0 To 8 Percent Slope. Forms
0.02
on Interfluves. Urban Land. And Uplands.
Mecklenburg Fine Sandy Loam (MeB)
Well Drained. 2 To 8 Percent Slope. Forms on Interfluves
r38.02
and Uplands.
Mecklenburg Fine Sandy Loam (MeD)
Well Drained. 8 To 15 Percent Slope. Forms on
19.62
Interfluves and Uplands.
Monacan Loam (MC)
Somewhat Poorly Drained. 0 To 2 Percent Slope. Forms
19.75
on Flood Plain and Valleys.
Wilkes Loam (WkB)
Well Drained. 4 To 8 Percent Slope. Forms on Hillslopes
0.06
on Ridges and Uplands.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric Era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era
refers to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions
are defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America's
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.
Prehistoric Overview
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BQ. The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades
has begun to cast doubt on this theory.
John Price Tract 10
ACC, I "`' Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

r
Figure 2.3. Sail types present in project area.
John Price Tract
ACC, Inc. = Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
11

Investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating 12,000 years. The
Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). I n
North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500 BC. Current
research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 to 19,000 (or more)
years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates.
One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized as
the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and
blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald 2000).
The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although
some sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize
other avenues of New World migration (Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories
contend that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,400 years ago
and that multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the
one presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic
Ocean and the Pacific rim (Stanford et al. 2006). Coastal migration theories envision sea faring people using
boats to make the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983).
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period
and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well -scheduled and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.
Archaic Period (8,000 -1,000 BQ. The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.
John Price Tract 12
ACC. lnc._,.: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Coe's { 1964) excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont provided a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. Coes (1954) sequence for the Archaic period
has been divided into three subperiods: Early (8,000-6,000 BC), Middle (6,000-3,500 BC), and Late (3,500-
1,000 BC). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer
and Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner
notched points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g.,
LeCroy points), but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been
identified as being representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The
Early Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material,
although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982), using a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980),
described late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Task groups were sent out to
collect and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task groups, in this definition, are
seen as specialized and focused on a particular resource or set of resources.
Claggett and Cable (1982) have presented a model that describes an increase in residential mobility
beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic. According to this model, during
the Early Archaic, and probably extending into the Middle Archaic, human groups moved away from a
logistical organization toward a "foraging" organization. Foraging involved more generalized procurement
of resources (e.g., animal and plant foods, lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base camp. Sassaman
(1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle Archaic although it
occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased population in
the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase in population led to
increased social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate
exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient which is
reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources (especially lithic material).
The transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod is defined by the appearance/introduction of Stanly
points, a broad -bladed stemmed form. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites
throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow
Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Coe dates Halifax Side Notched points to between 4,000 and
3,000 B.C. In 1964, Coe saw Halifax points as occurring only in the northern North Carolina Piedmont and
indicating relationships of this area to the Mid -Atlantic and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have
a wider distribution in the Southeast and are thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late
Archaic subperiods.
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964).
This large, broad -bladed and stemmed point is found widely over the eastern United States. It is associated
with Late Archaic occupations in the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period.
Also, the earliest ceramics produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and
date to around 2,000 BC. These ceramics are Stallings Island fiber tempered and are primarily a coastal
phenomenon, stretching from northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are generally in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to indicate greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands
of the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
John Price Tract 13
ACC.. it"' Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Woodland Period (1,000 BC — 1000 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures
and the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types continue and are
represented by the Gypsy triangular point in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC -300 AD). Other
cultural expressions of the Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture.
These points are generally crude triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated.
Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962) saw little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland
transition other than the addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between
Archaic and Woodland occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than
ceramics.
Ceramic technology appears to have evolved from the Badin styles to those characteristic of the
Yadkin Phase during the Middle Woodland subperiod (300-1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed
quartz temper and are either cord marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog
temper, suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their
ceramics (Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect
significantly better workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow
technology. The introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies,
allowing for more independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated
with spear hunting.
Mississippian Period (1000-1500 AD). In much of the southeast, the Late Woodland period follows
the Middle Woodland and precedes the Mississippian Period. However, in the southern Piedmont region,
located between the Uwharrie Mountains south to the North Carolina state line, the South Appalachian
Mississippian influenced Pee Dee Culture (1000-1400 AD) follows the Middle Woodland. The Pee Dee
culture, as well as other Southern Appalachian Mississippian cultures, are identified by elaborate
ceremonialism, mound construction, and large territories (Ward and Davis 1999). Oliver (1992) has divided
the Pee Dee culture into three phases: Teal, Town Creek, and Leak Phases.
The Teal Phase (1000-1200 AD) coincides with the beginning of the Pee Dee culture. Diagnostic
ceramics of the time period include sand tempered Pee Dee complicated stamped wares and fine cord
marked and simple stamped sherds known as Savannah Creek. Subsistence relied on hunting, fishing, and
farming. Not much is known about domestic architecture, although ceremonial structures were rectangular.
Mortuary practices included the use of burial urns (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Town Creek Phase (1200-1400 AD) was the apex of the Pee Dee culture. The Town Creek
site, a mound site located in Montgomery County, North Carolina, was the ritual ceremonial center that
includes the project area. Filfot cross and textile wrapped ceramics were the most popular. During this
phase, maize was a major staple of the diet. Urns were used as burial containers during the Town Creek
Phase, although excavated pits were also used (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Leak Phase (1400-1500 AD) marks the decline of the Pee Dee culture. Ceramic:, from this
period show an increase in complicated stamped, plain, and textile wrapped surface treatments. Cazuela
bowls also began to appear. Agriculture, including corn and beans, remained important as did hunting,
fishing, and gathering of wild plant foods (Ward and Davis 1999).
Protohistoric Period (1500-1700 AD). The Protohistoric Period is the time when Europeans were
first arriving in the New World and making contact with Native Americans. In the Southern Piedmont, the
Caraway Phase bridges the gap between the prehistoric (pre -European) and historic (European settlement)
periods. The diagnostic point type of this phase is the small triangular Caraway point. No formal
descriptions of the ceramics associated with this phase have been published, although Ward and Davis
(1999:137) describe them as the "culmination of the Badin, Yadkin, Uwharrie, and Dan River ceramics"
John Price Tract 14
ACC,. Inc. - Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

and are a version of Lamar ceramics. The predominate surface treatment is smoothed or burnished followed
by complicated stamped and simple stamped. Brushed, corncob impressed, and net impressed sherds have
also been observed.
Historic Period
Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States as a way to secure their claims to
American lands west of the 1493 Treaty of Tordesillas meridian (46136'W). This treaty, ratified by the Pope
Alexander 1V, divided colonial prerogatives to newly discovered lands between the Catholic Kingdoms of
Spain and Portugal. Two Spaniards, Hernando de Soto (1539-1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led armed
expeditions through the western Piedmont of North Carolina during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson
1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton,
Hickory, and Maiden. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not he sustained despite their best efforts
attempts to establish interior outposts and coastal settlements, and they withdrew to St. Augustine in 1597
(South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought disastrous effects on contemporary Native
American peoples. Entire populations collapsed and communities disappeared before 1700 (Fossett 1976).
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded English-speaking explorer to visit the North
Carolina Piedmont, In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward
route to the Pacific Ocean (Cumming 1958), Lederer traveled from Virginia south through the area that
would become Mecklenburg County to present day Camden, South Carolina. During this trip, he visited
with several Native American Tribes, including the Catawba and the Waxhaw.
Conflict and, to a greater extent, disease took a heavy toll on Piedmont Native American
populations. Years of turbulence brought about by an unstable system of government set the stage for
conflict between the native groups and the neighboring colonists in the early 1700s. The death of North
Carolina's Surveyor General, John Lawson, at the hands of the Tuscarora sparked a war between the
colonists and the Tuscarora Indians in 1711 (Powell 1989). When the war eventually came to an end the
following year, the Carolina colonies were left in dire financial straits. The war saw to the destruction of
Tuscarora villages and forced resettlement or enslavement of their people. Several groups migrated into
the interior southeast, while others congregated on the banks of the Catawba River.
European settlement of the project area began around 1750 when people began to move from
Pennsylvania, Germany, England, Wales, and Scotland. Many of these settlers came down the Great
Wagon Road that stretched from Pennsylvania to Georgia, having chosen the Piedmont region for
settlement due to its fertile soil (Dodenhoff 1992; Powell 1989). The Catawba Indians were still living in
the area when the settlers began moving in. These early settlers were harassed by the Catawba and
Cherokee Indians, until the British army defeated the Cherokees in 1761, driving them further west into the
Blue Ridge Mountains. The Catawbas finally made peace with the British in 1763 (Moore 2003).
Mecklenburg County was formed in 1762 from a portion of Anson County. It was named for
Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, then Queen of England (Corbitt 2000). The county seat of
Charlotte, likewise named for the Queen, was established in 1766. From its creation, numerous boundary
disputes have taken place between Mecklenburg and Anson counties through the mid -nineteenth century.
Cabarrus County was formed in 1792 from a portion of Mecklenburg County, and additional lands were
annexed from Mecklenburg County in 1794 and 1804. Union was formed in 1842 from land ceded from
Anson and Mecklenburg counties.
The colonial government was not an ever present fixture in the Piedmont prior to the Revolutionary
War. Those living in the Carolina backcountry were reminded of the excesses of the government taxes by
the sheriff who was given the task of collecting taxes. Citizens in this region became involved with the
John Price Tract 15
ACC..I r,r.. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Regulator movement to curb governmental abuses (Dodenhoff 1992). The Regulators resented the high
taxes levied by the representatives of the Royal Governor, and hostilities between them and those who
represented the English crown became common.
In 1771, a group of nine young men from Rocky River Section of Mecklenburg County blew up
three wagonloads of gunpowder and supplies to be used by the governor's men against the Regulators.
They earned the name, "The Cabarrus Black Boys" because they had blackened their faces during the
exploit to avoid detection. When Governor Tryon refused to pardon the group, the Cabarrus Black Boys
were forced to go into hiding. So adamantly against English rule were the backcountry settlers, they had
three representatives draft a document stating that they would no longer serve under royal rule. This 1775
document became known as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (Williams 2008).
The Revolutionary War sparked a fire in the residents of Mecklenburg County due to the fledgling
backcountry nexus of Charlotte. in 1780, Lord Cornwallis captured Charlotte, believing it to have an
abundance of resources necessary for re -suppling his troops in addition to its strategic position between
Salisbury and Camden (Horton Jr. 2016). However, General Davidson and his 400 men launched a
successful campaign of harassment against the British, driving back their forces and earning Charlotte the
nickname "the Hornet's Nest."
At the end of eighteenth century, the children of John Reed found gold in a stream bed in
neighboring Cabarrus County, A few years later Reed found more gold, and as word spread about gold
being found in Anson, Mecklenburg, and Montgomery counties, a gold rush began. Throughout the North
Carolina gold rush in the nineteenth century, gold was mined at more than 100 southern Piedmont Carolina
mines. The gold mining industry eventually led to the opening of a branch mint in Charlotte that was
operated until it was taken over by the Confederate government during the Civil War. The branch remained
open for assaying until 1913 (Powell 1989).
The Civil War began in 1861 after southern slave states seceded from the United States. The
Southern Loyalist, or Unionist, cause was strong in North Carolina. It was the last state to secede from the
Union and twenty-five thousand of her sons fought in the Union Army (Current 1992). Nevertheless,
residents of Mecklenburg County furnished a fair number of volunteers to join the Confederate Army,
particularly in the early part of the war. No major battles were fought in the county, although the Charlotte
Mint produced Confederate currency during the early part of the war until its conversion into a hospital in
October 1861. As the war progressed, eastern North Carolina became a refuge for draft evaders.
Confederate troops were occasionally sent into the Uwharrie Mountains to flush out descrtcrs (Powell
1989).
After the Civil War, the size of individual land holdings decreased, as the plantation system gave
way to tenancy. Farms also shifted their focus on self-sufficiency to producing cash crops such as corn,
wheat, oats, and hay (Dodenhoff 1992). The economy of the Piedmont was depressed during
Reconstruction but began to strengthen in the region by 1880 (Powell 1989). New textile mills, furniture
factories, and tobacco farms began appearing as the roads and rail lines improved in the late 1800s to early
1900s (Powell 1989).
Gold mining continued to be a major contribution to the economy. In addition to gold, many of the
old mines in the project vicinity produced copper, lead, and zinc. Since that time, interest in gold (and other
mineral) mining has waxed and waned in accordance with the price of the resource (DENR 2000). Mining
continues in the project vicinity today, but it is primarily confined to extraction of the grayish pink granite
and gravel for road -related construction projects.
John Price Tract 16
ACC,. �r��. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

During the twentieth century, industry in the region diversified. This was due in large part to the
addition of railroads, such as the Yadkin Railroad, the Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad, and the
Norfolk -Southern Railroad (Dodenhoff 1992). Cotton became king, as several entrepreneurs built textile
mills closer to the cotton fields. Also, manufacturing towns like Albemarle began taking labor away from
the farms (Dodenhoff 1992). After 1930, falling cotton prices not only affected local farmers, but also
textile mills. After World War II, the textile industry continued to decline at the same time as the new
furniture and food processing plants were opening (Powell 1989).
Today, Mecklenburg County is home to several universities, professional sporting franchises, and
cultural entertainment centers. It has greatly benefitted from the county of seat of Charlotte, with its
international airport (Powell 1977). Charlotte serves as a major financial and cultural hub, second only to
New York City in U.S.-based financial banking capital (Martin 2011). Other economic endeavors ill the
county include manufacturing and distribution, biotechnology, and alternative energy sources.
John Price 'Fact 17
ACC I."C Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation
Background Research
Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh as well as a review of historic resources
mapped on the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) Survey and Planning Division's
mapping application website (HPOWEB). One previously recorded archaeological resource, 31MK165,
was recorded within the project area and one previously recorded archaeological resource, 31MK166, was
recorded within a one -mile radius of the project tract (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1). No previously recorded
architectural resources were identified with the project area or within a one -mile radius.
Site 31MK165 was identified by Fred W. Fischer in 1975 with an informal surface collection and
was never formally delineated or assessed for its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRNP). The site was recorded as a prehistoric short-term habitation site occupied from the Early
Archaic to Early Woodland period. Its location was generally hand -plotted on the Charlotte West 1:24,000
topographic quadrangle map. Diagnostic artifacts recovered include Kirk, Palmer, Guilford, Morrow
Mountain, Savannah River, and Yadkin projectile points. Information regarding the site was identified in
Documentary Research of the Sugar Creek Basan (McLean and Sellon 1978) and an official site number
was assigned to the University of North Carolina Charlotte in 1982 from this data. Site 31 MK 165 was also
identified by Fred W. Fischer in 1975 with an informal surface collection and was never formally delineated
or assessed for its eligibility for listing on the NRI -IP. The site was recorded as a prehistoric short-term
habitation occupied during the Late Archaic period based on the recovery of Savannah River projectile
points.
Table 3.1. Summary of Previously Recoded Archaeological Sites in the Proiect Vicinity.
Archaeological Site
Description
Original NRNP Eligibility
31MK165
Early Archaic to Early
Woodland Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31MK166
Late Archaic Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
A series of historic maps and aerial photographs were examined to identity the location of houses
that may have been present in the project tract in the past. These maps included the 1914 Mecklenburg
County soil map, the 1938 Mecklenburg County highway map, and USGS topographic maps and aerials
dating between 1905 to present. One potential house site was identified in the northern parcel on the 1905
Charlotte N. C., 1: 48, 000 USGS topographic quadrangle as well as on the 1910 Mecklenburg County soil
map. The structure was no longer extant/occupied by 1949 based on the 1949 Charlotte West, N. C. 1:24,004
USGS topographic quadrangle. This house site was identified during this archaeological survey and is
recorded as site 31MK113611136**.
Archaeological Survey Results
As noted, the John Price Tract consists of two parcels, 9934 John Price Road (Northern Parcel),
measuring 46.740 acres, (Parcel ID 20117105) and [No Address] John Price Road (Southern Parcel),
measuring 6.491 acres (Parcel ID 20118105) for a total of 53.231 acres located in Charlotte, North Carolina_
The northern parcel includes an active cattle farm complex and grazing fields and is bounded to the north
and east by property lines, to the south by John Price Road, and to the west by Steele Creek (see figure
1.4). The southern parcel is a fallow agricultural field with the southwestern corner wooded and is bounded
to the west, south, and east by property lines and to the north by John Price Road (see Figure 1.5).
John Price Tract 1$
ACC, loo. Meeklen4urg County, North Carolina

� � -� . , F�. -. - *+ • is i •�S'�. �l �V
■
+ s e +■ �% \ . �c �.• mfrs �. A . ^
■ yI■'- ■ tet• ••• f f �� i
w as
600
el a
00
21,
•
-�, +, ■ ■
r
1�1� � r_ .�f ��I• M1
-S Atht t�
-Field
i 1► i ■
tral
31MK166 4Y
31 MK166
DY 1344
Y 344
W r` 8R 59�■ • L� to -1 � s�
ij
A
'� :v/„ire - •-�� �.
John Price Tract
Project Area
Previously Recorded Archaeological Site
0 125 250 375 500 _ ��+�•-
Meters
1 inch = 400 meters
Figure 3.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites is the project vicinity { 1993 Cha 1-latte West and
Fort Mi11, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
John Price Tract
-ACC,.Ine. Mecklenbsirg County, North Carolina
19

The John Price Tract was divided into areas determined to have high and low potential for
archaeological remains based on soil drainage, slope percentage, and other environmental factors. In high
potential areas, shovel tests were excavated at 30 -meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters
apart. Low potential areas were walked over with transects spaced 30 meters apart with judgmentally
placed shovel tests. In all areas, exposed ground surface was inspected for cultural remains. In total, 328
survey and delineation shovel tests were excavated in the project tract (Figure 3.2). Shovel test soil profiles
generally consisted of 5 to 10 centimeters of reddish brown (5YR 411) loam overlying yellowish red (5YR
4f6) clay subsoil in both tracts. Four archaeological sites were identified during this investigation. These
resources include three prehistoric sites and one site with both prehistoric and historic components. Site
31MK165 was not relocated during this survey. All four new archaeological sites are recommended not
eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 31MK165 remains unassessed, although its true location is unknown.
Each site is discussed individually below. In addition, a historic era farm complex is present in the project
tract. As no archaeological remains were recovered from this area, it was not recorded as an archaeological
site but is described below.
9934 John Price Road (Parcel ID 20117105) Farm Complex
9934 John Price Road is presently a faun complex comprised of a house, two barns, and eight
outbuildings (Mecklenburg County Real Estate Lookup System 2018; Figure 3.3 — Figure 3.13). With
exception to the farm house itself that was constructed in 1930 the precise date of each outbuilding is
unknown; however, the earliest available historic aerial shows all outbuildings extant as early as 1960
(Historic Aerials 2018). A total of 17 shovel survey shovel tests were excavated around the farm complex.
No archaeological deposits were identified during this investigation and it was not recorded as an
archaeological resource.
Site 31MK165 (Not Located)
Site 31MK165 was identified by Fred W. Fischer in 1975 with an informal surface collection and
was never formally delineated or assessed for its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Its general location
was hand -plotted on topographic maps of the area. The site was recorded as a prehistoric short-term
habitation with occupation from the Early Archaic to Early Woodland. Diagnostic artifacts recovered
include Kirk, Palmer, Guilford, Morrow Mountain, Savannah River, and Yadkin projectile points.
A 15 -meter interval grid was established across this plotted site area. Shovel tests were excavated
at 30 -meter intervals along 15 -meter interval transects in an offset `°checkboard" pattern. A total of 108
shovel tests were excavated across the plotted site location. Although two isolated finds were identified
along the extreme western edge of the plotted site location, these resources (documented as sites 31MK1137
and 31MK1138) were not considered to be site 31MK165 due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts and the
apparent misplotting of the original site location.
Regarding site 31MK165's plotted location, its 1982 site form notes that "...construction of
Westinghouse Blvd may have destroyed part of n[orth] area of site" and that it consists of "3 cultivated
fields." The present plotted location of site 31MK165 does not presently overlap with Westinghouse Blvd
with its nearest edge over 250 -meters away. On a 1968 aerial, three agricultural fields are visible but the
1978 aerial shows the northern agricultural field partially destroyed by the construction of Westinghouse
Blvd (Historic Aerial 2018; Figure 3.14). This suggests that the site was likely located on the adjacent
property to the northeast (2601 Westinghouse Blvd [Parcel ID 20117113]) rather than in the project area.
John Price Tract 20
ACC, loc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Figure 3.2. Archaeological resources identified in the project area.
John Price Tract 21.{ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Figure 3.3. 9934 John Price Road, House.
Figure 3.4. 9934 John Price Road, Barn 1.
John Price Tract 22
ACQ Inc. = Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

rr- - .- � '��1 - �_'y�. � r.. .1 �� � �4' � C1� � r• _�f..,' ' y • .moi
-1-
Wiv
Alt
-NOW
■ar
_fir wi.

'a go I
As AT
8
m lip
Am
4V u
Oi
®r
v 71-
ir C.

q iIL
f; #
WA
I�.�. � tis`:. !. - � i i' ,�`�� ;,' '� ••, � + ; u
- .. '•'+a'�:s�':�'�,'' �}. �:. y ..__ter: ::.f �I.• 1\:���=LF�.�• � �7 � , ..

S"m I-
04
IL

7

Site 31MK1135
Site Type: Lithic Scatter 1]TM (NAD 83): E 504413 N 3$$7013
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Landform: Floodplain
NRNP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Monacan Loam
Site 31MK1135 is a prehistoric lithic scatter recovered in the southwestern portion of the northern
parcel. The site is situated on the floodplain of an unnamed tributary to Steele Creek. The site area is open
for cattle grazing (Figure 3.15). There was no surface visibility in the site area.
Nine shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter intervals at this site. One shovel test was positive
and formed site boundaries of 15 by 15 meters (Figure 3.15). Shovel test profiles consisted of 30
centimeters of reddish brown (5YR 414) loam overlying yellowish red (5YR 416) clay subsoil (Figure 3.16).
The artifact assemblage consists of three quartz flakWflake fragments. None of the artifacts were
diagnostic to a particular cultural phase or period. Artifact deposits were encountered between 0 to 30
centimeters below ground surface.
Site 31MK1135 is a low density scatter of lithic debitage. The site did not yield any diagnostic
artifacts. The site deposits have been disturbed by land clearing, plowing, and erosion. This site is not
likely to add significantly to our understanding of prehistoric lifeways. Site 31MK1135 is recommended
not eligible for the NRNP.
Figure 3.15. General view of site 31 MK 1135, facing north.
John Price Tract 28
ACL IF)c_ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

31MK1135
Site Plan
a..
o Negative Shovel Test
• Positive Shovel Test
Tree Line
n 15 30
meters
"Pasture
14
L
0
------ o Hardwoods
�ardwoods `
Figure 3.16. Plan view of site 31MK1135.
■
5ite,Boundary
O
Figure 3.17. Site 31MK1135 soil profile.
— 5ni
-W
511
John Price Tract 29
ACC' I Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Site 31MK113611136**
Site Type. Lithic Scatter and House Site UTM (NAD 83): E 504408 N 3887133
Component: Unknown Prehistoric and Circa Early Landform: Ridge Toe
Twentieth Century House
NRHP Fliobiliq Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Monacan Loam
Site 31MK1136/1136** is a prehistoric lithic scatter and historic house site located in the central
western portion of the northern parcel. The site is situated on a ridge toe. The site area is wooded with
mixed hardwoods and surrounded by open grazing cattle grazing fields (Figure 3.18). There was no surface
visibility in the site area.
Shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter intervals in the site vicinity. Of the 68 excavated shovel
tests, 17 yielded artifacts. Site boundaries of 120 by 100 meters were established based on the positive-
shovel
ositiveshovel tests and structural remains (Figure 3.19). Shovel test profiles consisted of a range of 10 to 30
centimeters of reddish brown (5YR 414) loam overlying yellowish red (5YR 416) clay subsoil (Figure 3.20).
The artifact assemblage of the prehistoric component includes two metavolcanics flakes/flake
fragments, seven quartz flakes/fragments, four pieces of quartz shatter, and one quartzite flake/fragment.
None of the artifacts were diagnostic to a particular cultural phase or period. Artifact deposits were
encountered between 0 and 30 centimeters below ground surface around the house site in the open grazing
fields.
The historic component of this site consists of a dilapidated frame house oriented generally
northeast/southwest (061°1242°) and measuring 44 by 22 -feet ()Figure 3.21). The house is a three -bay frame
structure situated on field stone and brick piers with clapboard siding and a tin roof. A brick chimney is
present on the southern face of the house. Subsurface testing around the building indicates that the land
was graded prior to its construction. Surface collection and subsurface shovel testing yielded 37 historic
artifacts generally dating to the first quarter of the twentieth century (Table 3.2). The presence of wire nails
and machine -cut nails in the structure as well as circular -saw markings on the clapboarding and studs are
consistent with the date range of the recovered artifacts. The house is seen earliest on the 1910 Mecklenburg
County soil map (Figure 3.22). The structure was no longer extant/occupied by 1949 based on the 1949
Charlotte West, N. C. 1:24,000 USGS topographic quadrangle.
Site 3l MK 1136/1136** contains the remains of a twentieth century house and unknown prehistoric
period lithic scatter. The single framed house is in state of severe disrepair. Historic artifacts were domestic
and architectural and recovered in heavily disturbed fields and on the surface around the house. The site is
not likely to yield new or significant data regarding twentieth century households beyond that obtained
during this survey or to prehistory to the area. Site 31MK1136J]. 136** is recommended not eligible for
listing on the NRHP.
John Price Tract 30
ACC. Inc, • Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Figure 3,1$. Gencral view of site 31MK1136/1136**, facing south.
House Detail Pasture
j Y
Chimney
House Outline lierdNroodB I
Site Boundary
yl
8,1 y
ti
❑ '� ❑ O ■ O O rn
r-'
.
�
�.
� ..�..
0.1
r -i l rr
31MKI136/1136*
Site Plan `i s .aa FbM Bed
o Negative 50vel Test
a Positive Shovel Test
X 5urface Find (sl y
Tree Line Y
LDatum:N500E50U s Y
.... = i " ► , ,0 Gc�ai Surtace [nncr.,ion
w rs I —4—
Figure 3.19. Plan map of site 31MK1136/1136**
John Price Tract 31
-AGC,nc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

W96.1
ItAii

Table 3.2. Summary. of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 1 13611 136"
Artifact
Comment
Count
Glass:
1
Aqua, Bottle Glass
Threaded screw cap
Clear, Bottle Class
24 Body Fragments, 2 emboss patterns', 4 jar finish, 4 machine
29
made', 1 Log Cabin Syrup'
Ceramies:
I
Stoneware, Bristol CrlaxedlSlipped
Hand Painted Blue Stripe
UID Earthenware
Burned
1
Architeeturai:
2
Nail, Wire
Mortar
1
Brick, Fragments
2
Total
1 37 J
1, Lindsey 2018, 2. N ilter ct al. 2000
Figure 3.22. Site 31MK1 136/1136* on 1910 soil map
John Price Tract 33
ACC, Inc.=. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

ISite 31MK1137
Site Type: Isolated Lithic Artifact UTM (NAD 83): E 504453 N 3887286
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Landform: Ridgetop
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Monacan Loam
Site 31MK1137 is an isolated prehistoric lithic artifact located in the northwestern portion of the
northern parcel. The site is situated on a ridge top. The site area is open cattle grazing pasture bordered by
a tree line (Figure 3.23). There was no surface visibility in the site area.
Nine shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter intervals at this site. One shovel test was positive
and formed site boundaries of 15 by 15 meters (Figure 3.24). Shovel test profiles consisted of 30
centimeters of reddish brown (SYR 414) loam overlying yellowish red (5YR 416) clay subsoil (Figure 3.25).
The artifact assemblage consists of one quartz flakes/flake fragment. This artifact is not diagnostic
of a particular cultural phase or period. The artifact deposit was encountered between 0 to 10 centimeters
below ground surface.
Site 31MK1137 is a very low density incident of lithic debitage. It did not yield any diagnostic
artifacts and the site deposits have been disturbed by land clearing, plowing, and erosion. This site is not
likely to add significantly to our understanding of prehistoric lifeways. Site 31MKI I37 is recommended
not eligible for the NRHP.
Figure 3.23. General view of site 31MK1137, facing west.
John Price Tract 34
ACC, I"_' Mecklenburg County, North. Carolina

ACC, I oc
Y 9no
Hardwoods
o
Site r"
Pasture Boundary
o . a tip,
� I I;
1 1
D . 0 D qzn
Pasture
O
31 MKI 137
Site Plan a7S
o Negative Shovel rest 2
• Positive Shovel Test y Rfi0
Tree Line
ob.
L5 30
m�4cix
a3Q
•i b[F 5 5 59d S Q. S 650 d65 Q b 710 T25
Figure 3.24. Plan map of site 31MK1137.
Figure 3.25. Soil profile of site 31MK1137.
John Price Tract
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
35

Site 31MK1138
Site Type: Isolated Lithic Artifact UTM (NAD 83). E 504416 N 3887374
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Landform: Ridge Slope
NRNP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Monacan Loam
Site 31MK1138 is an isolated prehistoric lithic artifact located in the northwestern portion of the
northern parcel. The site is situated on a ridge top. The site area is open pasture bordered by a treeline
(Figure 3.26). There was no surface visibility in the site area.
Nine shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter intervals at this site. One shovel test was positive
and formed site boundaries of 15 by 15 meters (Figure 3.27). Shovel test profiles consisted of 30
centimeters of reddish brown (5YR 414) loam overlying yellowish red (SYR 416) clay subsoil (Figure 3.28).
The artifact assemblage consists of one piece of quartz shatter. This artifact is not diagnostic of a
particular cultural phase or period. The artifact deposit was encountered between 0 to 20 centimeters below
ground surface.
As with site 31NMI 137, this isolated piece of lithic debitage is non-diagnostic. The site area has
been disturbed by land clearing, plowing, and erosion. This site is not likely to add significantly to our
understanding of prehistoric lifeways. Site 31MKI 138 is recommended not eligible for the NRNP.
Figure 3.25. General view of site 31MK1138, facing north.
John Price Tract 36
ACC.�lnc,=; ` Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

■. j► AL
y
7
-r
I
'`Hardwoods
b 49�t b O — aia
i i
�f
q -a 5
Site Boundary
o eoo
31 MI[1138 r
Site Plan 'pasture '�
o Negative Shovel Test � � � ID r 770
■ Positive Shovel Test
Tree Line r
v 15 30
�— ass
rrlcrs
} ib
San !A5 nm 8 s s5o se+ nao rras ria 'M ren ass
Figure 3.27. Plan map of site 31MK113K
Figure 3.28. Sail profile of site 31MK1138.
John Price Tract
ACC, Inc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
37

Summary and Recommendations
This archaeological survey of the proposed John Price Tract has resulted in the identification of
four archaeological resources. These resources include three prehistoric sites and one site with both
prehistoric and historic components. Previously recorded site 31MKI65 was not relocated during this
effort. Based on site location descriptions provided on the site form and a review of aerial maps, it is
believed that this site location was misplotted and that it was actually located outside of the John Price tract.
Although the potential NRNP eligibility of site 31 MKl 65 remains unassessed, its true location is unknown.
All of the identified resources have been disturbed by a history of agricultural practices and erosion. These
sites have poor contextual integrity and lack unique characteristics to be able to provide significant data in
the project region. All of the new archaeological resources are reconunended not eligible for listing on the
NRNP,
John Price Tract 38
ACC, Inc John
County, North Carolina

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M. and Jake Page
2042 The First Americans: In Pursuit ofArchaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist
19:317-41.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Anderson, David G. and J.W. Joseph
19$8 Prehistory and History along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Atlanta Interagency
Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2014 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual -
Ceramics. Electronic document. http:J/www.daaes.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf.
Ayers, Harvard G., David Foard Hood, John Callahan and Larry Kimball
1993 An Archaeological Survey of the East Mecklenburg Quarry, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. Appalachian Archaeological Services, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(l):4-20.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper (editors)
2406 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for -identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series
15,
Broyles, Bettye J,
1981 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Report of Archaeological Investigations 3.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1L.
John Price Tract 39
Ar -C' loc_ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R.S. Dickens and H. Trawick
Ward, pp. 137-153. University of ,Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, MS.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, IL.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native Americana Legacy. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Corbitt, David Leroy
2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Current, Richard Nelson
1992 Lincoln's Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy, Northeastern University Press,
Boston, MA.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
2000 Gold in North Carolina. Electronic Document,
http:llwww .geology.enr.state.ne.us/Gold%20brochure/Gold%2OBrochure%2012222000.htm.
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Dodenhoff, Donna
1992 The Architectural Legacy of'a Rural North Carolina County. Albemarle-Stanly County
Historic Preservation Commission.
Driver, J.C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Manuscript on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Bohn Price Tract 40
ACC Inc. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

r
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document.
http://www.flnuih.ufl.edu/Wstarchlgallery types/.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.
{ - Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons. Catholic
University of America, Department of Anthropology, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional
Publication 1, Washington, D.C.
19$9 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittko£ski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Gatza, Mary Beth
1987-1.988 Comprehensive Architecural Survey of Rural Mecklenburg County. North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh, NC.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3):382-395,
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins,
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael
R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Archaeology of the Eastern United Stater. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by J.B. Griffin. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
1979 Lithic Use -Wear Analysis. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA,
2006 Magnum Terrace. Electronic document. http://nepedia.org/mangum-terrace.
Helms, Douglas, and Joan E. Freeman
2006 Soil Conservation. Electronic document. http:l/nepedia.org/soil-conservation.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Horton, Clarence E.
2016 A Historical Perspective of Cabanas County. Electronic Document.
https://www.cabarruscounty.us/government/Pag&Historical-Perspective.aspx.
John Price Tract 41
ACC, Inc.. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Hudson, Charles M.
1994 The Juana Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1565.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In, The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the Americana South, 1521-1704, edited by Charles M. Hudson and Carmen Chaves
Tesser, pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology
125:73-94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia
Chapters—RSV's 1993 and 1995 Excavations, In Archaeological Investigations of'Site 44SX202,
Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, Appendix G.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 9, Richmond.
Kovacik Charles F. and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Lewis, Thomas M.N. and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Martin, Jonathan
2011 Mecklenburg County (1762). Electronic document. http://northearolinahistory.orgj
enc yclopedialrnecklenburg-county-176 21.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol_ 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.
McAvoy, J. M. And L. D. McAvoy, editors
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex Conanf)� Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
McCachren, Clifford M.
1980 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV -2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special
Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the
Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2(1):1-52.
John Price Tract 42
ACC' I'"' Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

r
r -
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincause, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez,
and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Montc Vcrdc, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(l):172-179.
Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archaeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River, Virginia-Narth
Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 182, Washington.
Moore, David G.
2003 Catawba Malley Mississippian: Ceramics, Chronology, and Catawba Indians. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy Dickens and Trawick Ward,
pp 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph,D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Pateoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp 92-
106. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh,
1977 North Carolina: A History. W. W. Noron & Company, New York.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Research Manuscript Series 165. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, and D. Gentry Steele
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Palcoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dcnnis Stanford, and
Michael R. Waters, pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
John Price Tract
ACC -,Inc, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
43

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2018 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document. www.websoilsurvey..nres;.u&da.gov/appfWebSoil
Survey.aspx.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1993 Charlotte West, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
1993 Fort Mill, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
Ward, Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis and J.J.
Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, Trawick and Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Williams, John H.
2008 The Mecklenburg Declaration. Electronic Document. http*llwww.meekdee-org/
declaration.
John Price Tract 44
ACC, Inc.: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator

10FRIMIONR 011
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Office [phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of Califomia, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Cgnsultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina
North Carolina Archaeological Society
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC
President
Heritage Partners, LLC., Clayton, NC
Society for American Archaeology
Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists
North Carolina Council of Professional Archaeologists
Vice President
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator
Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA
2008 - Present
2007 - Present
2003 -2008
1993- 2003
Cultural Resource Surreys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase I1)
Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort Huger)
Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G (Columbia),
Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and others
Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department of
Transporlation (Columbda)
Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies including
the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase 111) -- Representative Examples
• Civil War encampment (441W0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA
Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 181h early 19" century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A. Management,
Charlotte, NC

18" century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC
Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club, Myrtle
Beach, SC
Experience at Military Facilities
• Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg,
Fayetteville, North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South
Carolina; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Related Investigations
Georgia Power Company. Flint River Hydroelectric Project
• Duke Energy. Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED*
Reid, Dawn and Katherine Carter
2015 Archaeological Investigations at the Proposed GreenshorolLiberty Megasite Project Area, Randolph County,
North Carolina, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn, James Stewart, and April Montgomery
2014 Cultural Resources Study of the Canadys-St. George 130 kv Tie Line, Colleton and Dorchester Counties, South
Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Hillsborough .Tail Tract, Orange County, North
Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
O'Neal, Michael K., Rachel Tibbetts, and Dawn Reid
2011 Archaeological Survey of the Watson Hill 11 Analysis Area, Long Cane Ranger District, Sumter National Forest.
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn
2010 Salem Church Cemetery Grave Delineation and Evaluation, Apex, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants
of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn and Kim Villemez
2009 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appomattox Heritage and Recreational Trail, Appomattox County,
Virginia. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc_, Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn
2006 Beyond Subsistence: Prehistoric Lifeways on the South Carolina Coast as Reflected by Zooarchaeological
Analysis, South Carolina Antiquities 38(1&2):1-19.
O'Neal Michael K. and Dawn Reid
2006 The History offort Huger. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
*A full listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request

Appendix B. Artifact Catalog

Artifact Catalog
John Price
Site Number 31MK1135
5.0
Sita 215, N650 E590, surface
Catalog
Provenience Number:
1.1
Site 1, N560 E620,0-30 cm
Number
Catalog Specimen
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
l
m5
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
L ml
3
1.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Site Number 31MK1136/1136**
Number
Quantity
Provenience Number:
1.0
Site 215, general surface collection around house
1
Catalog Specimen
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Site 215, NMS E575,0-15 cm
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 mi
1
294
Clear Bottle Glass
machine made battle with narrow
4
52.5 Clear Bottle Glass
external threaded screw cap closure
(post late 1920s, Lindsey 2018), base
embossed with "481image of a log
cabinlLOG CABIN/syrup"
Provenience Number:
2.1
Site215, N635
E575, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m2
1
14.3
Aqua Bottle Glass
jar finish fragment, wide mouth
external threaded screw cap, Gprnrnoa
after 1915 (Lindsey_ 2018)
Provenience Number:
3.1
Site2/5, N635
E605, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
p3
1
14
Bristol Glamd/Slipped Stoneware Ceramic
with hand painted blue strip on exterior
Provenience Number:
4.1
Site 215, N650 E575, 0-15 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 p4
l
2.4
Unidentified Decoration Unidentified Ceramic
burned refined earthenware, likely
ironstone or whiteware
Proveniemx Number;
5.0
Sita 215, N650 E590, surface
Catalog
Spedmen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
l
m5
2
0 Brick
Provenience
Number:
5.1
Site 215, N650 E590, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
m6
1
0 Mortar
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Site 215, NMS E575,0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight(g) Description
1
m7
4
52.5 Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience Number: 7.1 Site 215, N665 E590, 0-30 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
l mg 24 1251 Clear Bottle Glass
2 m9 1 1.7 Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Page 1 of 3
Comments
2 brick bats, not collected
Comments
not collected
COmmcnfs
4 jar finish fragrnents, 2 different
vessels (2 and 2 mend), 4 machine
machine made (4 post 1900, Lindsey
2018)
Comments
24 body fragments, I embossed with "-
OMPA--", 1 embossed with "-AL
LAW FORB-1-USE OF 'PHIS-" (1933-
1964,
19331964, Miller et al. 2000)

Artifact Catalog
m17
1
3 bl0
2
2.2
Bone UID Mammal
12.1
Provenience Number:
8-1
Site 215, N665 E650, 0-20cm
Number Number
Catalog Specimen
Weight(g)
Number
Number
Quantity
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml l
1
0.3
Quartzite FlakelFlake Fragment
13.1
Provenience Number:
9.1
Site 215, N680
E605, 0-20 cm
1
Catalog specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 in 12
1
14.1
Nail Wire (Past 1890)
11.6
Provenience Number:
10.1
Site 215, N680
F.6.50, 0-30 cm
Site 215, N695
Catalog specimen
Catalog
Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml3
1
Q6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
tuff -like
2 m14
7
3.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Site 215, N714D E650, 0.20 an
3 m15
7
23.4
Quartz Shatter
Provenience Number:
11.1
Site 215, N680
E665, 0-10 can
Description
Catalog Specimen
m22
3
40.2
Quartz FlakelFlake Fiagment
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 M16
3
11.9
Quartz FlakelFlake Fragment
1 relatively large wi th possible use
wear on l edge
2
m17
1
2.8
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number;
12.1
Site 215, N695 E620, 0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight(g)
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
1
m l S
1
1.1
Quurta Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenlence
Number:
13.1
Site 215, N695 E665, D-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
I m25
1
0.9
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
1
m19
2
9.5
Quartz FlakelFlake Fragment
2
m2l)
1
11.6
Quart7. Shatter
Provenience
Number:
14.1
Site 215, N695
F690, 0-25 can
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
1
m21
1
0.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
15.1
Site 215, N714D E650, 0.20 an
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
1
m22
3
40.2
Quartz FlakelFlake Fiagment
2 m23
1
0.5
Quartz Shatter
Provenience Number:
16.1
Site 215. N725 E650, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight(g)
Description
1 m24
1
t}.2
Quartz FlakelFlake Fragment
Provenience Number:
17.1
Site 215, N740 P620,0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
I m25
1
0.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Vorphyritic Rhvolite
Site Number 31MK1137
Provenience Number: 1.1 Site 3, N920 F.6S0, 0.10 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
Page 2 of 3
Comments
Comments
1 with possible use wear
Comments
Comments
1 ]grge with possible use wear and
Flake scars on dorsal surface
Comments
Comments
banded Rhyolite, bifaeial thinning flake
Comments

Artifact Catalog
1 ml I 0.1 Quartz Flako"ake Fragment
Site Number 31MKI I38
Provenience Number: 1.1 Site 4, NVO E580, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Numbcr Number Quantity Weight (9) Description
I m 1 1 9.2 Quartz Shatter
Page 3 of 3
C4mm"h
multiple flake scars on dorsal surface

Clear Log Cabin
Mapie Syrup Bottle,
1.6:1
Blue Handpainted
Bristol
G lazed/$ hppcd
Stoneware, 3.1 !1 ;
Wire Nail,
9,1,t
Aqua Glass Jar
_ Finish Fragment,
2.1:1
Figure B.1. A selection of historic artifacts from site 31 MIC 1136/1136**
Figure R.2. A selection of prehistoric atlifacts from site
31 MK113611136**.
Page 1 of 1

QP���ENT OF T,y�i
N O
4RCH 3, 1$
United States Department of the Interior
Mr. Kenneth Vilagos
Mr. W. Brandon Fulton
ECS Southeast, LLP
9001 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27617
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 5, 2017
Dear Mr. Vilagos and Mr. Fulton:
U.S.
FISH &WH,DLIFE
SERVICE
Subject: Site Assessment for a 50 Acres Parcel on John Price Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina (ECS Project No. 49:5455B)
We received your letter of November 15, 2017 (received via email on November 16, 2017),
requesting our comments on the subject project. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§4321 et
seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
Impervious Surfaces/Low Impact Development (LID) - Studies' have shown that areas of 10- to
20 -percent impervious surface (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots) double the amount of
storm -water runoff compared to natural cover and decrease deep infiltration (groundwater
recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50 -percent impervious surface, runoff triples, and deep
infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above 75 -percent impervious surface, runoff is 5.5 times
higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration is decreased by 80 percent. Additionally, the
adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is essential for the protection of water
quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. Impervious surfaces collect pathogens,
metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them (via storm -water runoff) to
receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source
pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the United States, posing one of the
greatest threats to aquatic life, and is also linked to chronic and acute illnesses in human
populations from exposure through drinking water and contact recreation. Increased storm -water
' Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
October 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs
No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN -0-934213-59-3.

runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat, causing stream -bank and stream -
channel scouring. In addition, impervious surfaces reduce groundwater recharge, resulting in
even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can induce potentially
catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. Accordingly, we recommend that all
developments, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area they will create,
implement storm -water -retention and -treatment measures designed to replicate and maintain the
hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in order to avoid any additional impacts to habitat
quality within the watershed.
We recommend the use of low -impact -development techniques,2 such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm -water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm -water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm -water -control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no storm -water -
control measures or best management practices should be installed within any stream (perennial
or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
Stream and Wetland Buffers — As noted in your letter, there is a perennial stream along the
western border of the project area and an intermittent stream along the southern border — a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be necessary to impact either of these
features. Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants
from reaching streams;
2. enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
2 We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site (http://www.epa.govlowowlnpsl7idl)for
additional information and fact sheets regarding the implementation of low -impact -development techniques.
2

3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes,
roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and other infrastructures that require
maintained, cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the functions and values of the forested
buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species - Because the entire project is more than
60 miles from nearest known northern long-eared bat maternity site or hibernacula and there is
suitable habitat in the surrounding area, the low probability/amount of "take" occurring as a
result of this project is discountable and we believe this project is "not likely to adversely
affect" this species. Though the project will result in the removal/loss of very little suitable
northern long-eared bat habitat, and the probability of bats using the project area is very low,
we recommend all tree felling occur before May 15 (or after August 15) to further lessen the
likelihood of the proposed project adversely affecting this species. Our concurrence with a
"not likely to adversely affect" determination is not dependent on this action - the cutting
moratorium is a measure that can be implemented to further reduce the probability of "take" of
this species. Obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered
if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that you continue to
keep us informed as to the progress of this proposed project. If we can be of assistance or if
you have any questions, please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext.
229. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-18-051.
cc:
Olivia Munzer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, olivia.munzergncwildlife.org

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Governor Ray Cooper
November 9, 2017
Kenneth Vilagos
ECS Carolinas LLC
4811 Koger Blvd.
Greensboro, NC 27407
RE: John Price Site; 49:5455
Dear Kenneth Vilagos:
Secretary Suss H_ Hamilton
NCNHDE-4671
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural
heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have
been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler(a-)ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Telechone: (919', 7D7-8107 LOCA.TICN
16`1 MaiI Service Center wYo%v.ncnhv.org 121 West Jones S-reet
Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 Raleigh, NC 27603

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
John Price Site
Project No. 49:5455
November 9, 2017
NCNHDE-4671
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific NameCommon Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater Fish 29434 Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter 2016-06-08 E 3 -Medium Species of Special G3 S3
Concern Concern
Natural 18119 Dry Basic Oak --Hickory --- 2004 C 2 -High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Forest
Natural 18063 Mixed Moisture Hardpan --- 2010 B 3 -Medium --- --- G2? S2
Community Forest
Natural 19382 Upland Depression --- 2004 C 3 -Medium --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Natural 22982 Upland Depression --- 2004-06-29 CD 2 -High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Vascular Plant 4103 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil 1994-05-31 A? 3 -Medium --- Special G5T3 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? 5 -Very --- Endangered G3 S2
Low
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name epresentational Rating Collective Rating
Neely Road Swamps R5 (General) C4 (Moderate)
Whitehall Nature Preserve R1 (Exceptional) C4 (Moderate)
Good Shepherd Upland Depression Swamp R5 (General) C5 (General)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name 11 Owner Type
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Catawba Lands Conservancy Preserve Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on November 9, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q3 July 2017. Please resubmit your
Page 2 of 4

information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

-o
N
w
November 9, 2017
❑
Project Boundary
[]
Buffered Project Boundary
E2
NHP Natural Area {N H NA)
[]
Managed Area �MARFA)
NCNHDE-4671: John Price Site
Fn01
. 7
xrz
7
k
Page 4 of 4
1:23,714
0 02 0.4 0-8 Mi
0 0-325 0X5 1.3 km
S— E.i, HERE. D.L.—, Intermap, increment F Corp., GEBCO, USGS:
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, CwBaao, IGH, KadastwNL Ordna� w
Suay. EarlFapan,
METI �;sri China {Hung r @OVQpo . M?pn)ylrl&q. Z QpenS"eMsp
�tritwWs and the GIS User Community

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed: 06/27/2018
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
20117105 120117105
Zoning
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map.
Water Quality Buffer
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer Yes
FEMA and Community Floodplain
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
46.74 AC
Fire District
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Special District
159.14
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
CHARLOTTE
Property Use
USE VALUE HOMESITE
Zoning
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map.
Water Quality Buffer
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer Yes
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Panel#
3710451000J
FEMA Panel Date
03/02/2009
FEMA Flood Zone
INVIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO VERIFY
Community Flood
Zone
INVIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
FRED B YOUNGBLOOD
10000
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
ROY A YOUNGBLOOD
10000
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
MARY JANE YOUNGBLOOD
10000
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
I Sale Date
I Sale Price
09978-784
10/16/1998
1$0.00
Site Location
ETJ Area
Charlotte
Charlotte Historic District
No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area
No
Census Tract #
159.14
Post Construction District
Jurisdiction Charlotte
District Central Catawba
Stream Watershed Districts
Stream Watershed Name STEELE
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel Built -Upon Area Restriction
9934 JOHN PRICE RD CHARLOTTE [Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1
G
r � l
br
i
11/01/2013 from Mecklenburg Count
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1