19940646 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19940714

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TOWN CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY, 1994
REVISED APRIL, 1994

REPORT TO
MONICA SWIHART
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
IMPLEMENTATION AND PLANNING GROUP
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
' DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET
P. O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
[phone]

w
PEIRSON & WHITMAN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, P.A.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
TEL: [phone]
' FAX: [phone]
P&W PROJECT NO. 0207
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
244 W. MILLBROOK ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27609
' TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
' RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone]
owl
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
June 9,
Mr. Michael Acquesta, P.E.
Peirson & Whitman
P.O. Box 30398
Raleigh, NC 27622-0398
Dear Mr. Acquesta:
A'kf'.R;WA?EHNR
1994
I am enclosing a memorandum received from the Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the Town Creek Interceptor Sewer and Influent Pump Station.
The revised EA adequately addresses the previous concerns raised
by the Wildlife Resources Commission during the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources review of the EA. In
addition, the revisions incorporate the mitigation measures
recommended by our Water Quality Section regarding placement of
anti-seep collars and the planting of annuals for soil and
erosion control.
The document is, therefore, ready to be forwarded to the
State Clearinghouse for review. This letter and attached
memorandum will need to be included in an appendix of the
document we forward to the State Clearinghouse. For your
information the next Clearinghouse submittal deadlines are on
June 17 and July 1. Please submit ten copies of the EA to my
attention and I will prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) to attach to the documents we send to the State
Clearinghouse for review.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding
this letter.
Sincerely,
CIX ?L' 64?-
Monica Swihart
Water Quality Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
617er.ltr
cc: David Treme, City of Salisbury
Brenda Smith/Rex Gleason
Coleen Sullins
John Dorney
Melba McGee (re: Project #617)
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
+M %.
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS
LAKE TEL:[phone] Jun 08'94 14:42 No.005 P.02
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Corr unission P5
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management, DEHNR
FROM: OWQn F. Andersen, Piedmont Ragional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Appended Environmental Assessment for the Town Creek
Interceptor Sewer, City of Salisbury, Project No 617
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission (NCWRC) has
completed ita review of the subject project. our comments are
provided in accordanve with certain provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (4s Stat_ 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d), Section 201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 et seq. as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The appended environmental assessment has adequately
addressed the concerns which we had raised in our review of the
revised environmental assessment (April 1994). NCWRC has no
objections to the project as stands under the appended document,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
planning stages of this project. If I can be of further
assistance, please contact me at [phone],
ces Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 17, 1994
HEMRANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett,SState Clearinghouse
FROM: Monica Swihart`; Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment - Town Creek Interceptor Sewer
Influent Pump Station, City of Salisbury, Rowan County
Enclosed are nine copies of the subject EA/FONSI for State
Clearinghouse review. The document has been reviewed by the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
and has been approved for release to the State Clearinghouse.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Enclosures
Salisbda.mem
cc: David Treme, City of Salisbury
Michael S. Acquesta, Peirson & Whitman
Brenda Smith/Rex Gleason"
Coleen Sullins/Carolyn McCaskill/Dave Goodrich
John Dorn y/Eric Galamb
Melba McGe (Ref:project #617)
i
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Town Creek Interceptor Sewer and Influent Pump Station
City of Salisbury
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant
to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act,
for the replacement the City of Salisbury's existing Town Fork
Creek interceptor sewer with a new 42" concrete interceptor sewer.
The new interceptor would parallel the existing 24" sewer line for
most of its length. The existing sewer line has deteriorated over
time and the proposed replacement would serve to alleviate problems
associated with wastewater exfiltration and groundwater
infiltration. In addition, the project would increase the capacity
of the existing sewer to accommodate projected growth to the year
2013. A new influent pump station would be built at the Town Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate the influent wastewater
from the new interceptor sewer.
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are
prerequisites for the issuance of a nondischarge permit and NPDES
discharge permit by the Division of Environmental Management for
the construction of this project.
It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to the environment provided that it is carried
out in accordance with the impact avoidance/mitigation measures
contained in the EA. Pending approval by the State Clearinghouse,
the environmental review for this project will be concluded. An
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this
project.
North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
June 17, 1994

' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
IN COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISION OF
OF
' NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 113A
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

1.0 APPLICANT:
City of Salisbury
Margaret Kluttz, Mayor
Post Office Box 479
' Salisbury, North Carolina 28145
[phone]
' 2.0 PROJECT TITLE:
City of Salisbury
' Town Creek 42" Interceptor Sewer
Town Creek WWTP Influent Pump Station
Rowan County, North Carolina

A. BACKGROUND
' 1. GENERAL:
Section B and Appendices A through E were prepared by
Soil and Environmental Consultants of Raleigh. The archaeological
' study was performed by Archaeological Research Consultants. The
rest of this assessment was prepared by Peirson & Whitman
Architects and Engineers, P.A.
' 2. PROPOSAL:
To replace the present 24" RCP interceptor sewer from
East Innis Street to the Town Creek WWTP with a 42" concrete
interceptor sewer. The new interceptor will parallel the existing
line most of its length. A new influent pump station will be
t built at the Town Creek WWTP to lift the influent wastewater from
the new interceptor sewer into the existing bar screens and grit
chamber structures.
' 3. REASON FOR REPLACEMENT:
' The existing 24" pipe with mortar joints was originally
installed in 1968. The mortar has deteriorated and now allows
wastewater exfiltration and groundwater infiltration. The pipe
has also deteriorated and has become cracked in many places. The
interceptor is in very poor condition. When a broken section of
pipe is replaced, several sections of adjoining pipe must also be
replaced due to the fact that when a section of cracked pipe is
' exposed the pipe collapses. During rainfall events and times of
wet weather as much as 3.0 MGD of wastewater, above the usual
flow, enters the Town Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. This
increase is due to excessive infiltration and inflow from storm
' drains, roof drains, etc. Also, during intense or long duration
rainfall events the interceptor becomes surcharged which results
in popped manhole lids and in flooding of private property along
the right-of-way. This causes a nuisance, a public health hazard
and stream pollution.
' The existing Town Creek Interceptor serves approximately
one-half of the City of Salisbury, the Town of Granite Quarry, and
in the very near future, the Towns of Rockwell and Faith. The
population presently being served is approximately 17,000. The
' projected year 2013 population is approximately 19,250, assuming
the populations of Salisbury, Granite Quarry, Rockwell and Faith
grow at the same rate as Rowan County, as projected by State
' Planning. The existing interceptor ties directly into the Town
Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility as will the new interceptor.
The new interceptor will be the only line that carries wastewater
' directly into the wastewater treatment facility. The Town Creek
Wastewater Treatment Facility was built in 1968 with a 5.0 MGD
capacity. The Town Creek plant is an extended aeration type
facility with effluent limits as stated below:
' - 1 -

oo4'1 pJQ

r

I I

1

L

1

The effluent limits in the pending NPDES Permit renewal
for November 1 - March 31 are:
Flow
BOD5
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen min.
Fecal Coliform Geometric
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Cadmium
Cyanide
= 5.0 MGD
= 20.0 mg/1
= 30.0 mg/1
= 6.0 mg/1
= 5.0 mg/l
= 200.0/100 ml.
= 59.0 µg/
= 104.0 gg/l
= 30.0 gg/l
= 2.4 µg/l
= 5.9 µg/1
The only change for April 1 - October 31 is:
BOD5
NH3
= 10.0 mg/l
3.0 mg/l
The existing interceptor will be abandoned after
installation of the new interceptor. It would not be feasible to
simply parallel the existing line with a smaller line and keep the
existing line in service since the poor condition of the existing
line would still allow infiltration and exfiltration, and since
the pipes slope limits the size of line that can be installed.
Because the new 42" interceptor sewer is to be designed
deeper in the ground than the existing interceptor sewer, it will
reach the Town Creek WWTP with an invert approximately 7 feet
below the invert of the existing plant influent structure. This
being the case, a new influent pump station, with an average
capacity of 7.5 MGD and peak capacity of 15.0 MGD must be built
in order to lift the influent wastewater up to the existing plant
primary treatment structure. This pump station will be built
within the boundaries of the existing plant in an area of
previously disturbed ground. The pump station is not located in
any areas of wetlands. The following flora and fauna discussions
pertain to the proposed interceptor sewer route. The pump station
site is presently grassed.
4. BENEFITS OF REPLACEMENT:
When the new interceptor is constructed storm drains and
roof drains will not be connected to it so inflow will be cut to
a minimum thus reducing wastewater treatment costs. Also, more
importantly, the pollution of the surrounding area due to sewage
exfiltration will be stopped. Infiltration will be minimized with
the new interceptor thereby also reducing wastewater treatment
costs.
- 2 -

' B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:
' The proposed Town Creek interceptor and branches are located
in Rowan County in the vicinity of Salisbury and East Spencer.
The pump station will be constructed on the existing plant site
adjacent to the present influent structures. The approximate
' boundaries of the property examined along the interceptor route
are shown on the ecological communities map (Map #1) and the soils
map (Fig. #1).

The site is located in the physiographic region known as the
Piedmont and lies primarily within an area referred to
geologically as the Carolina Slate Belt. The subject property is
in the Yadkin River basin, which in turn is a part of the Pee Dee
River system. The main sewer line is bounded on the southern side
by I-85, and runs parallel to Town Creek. The interceptor sewer
project site is primarily wooded along its eastern portion, with
a few agricultural areas. The western portion of the project also
contains wooded areas, but is primarily commercial and
residential. The pump station site is cleared land, previously
disturbed, within the boundaries of the Town Creek WWTP.
a. NATURAL RESOURCES
(i) NATURAL COMMUNITIES
The project area consists mainly of bottomland
areas adjacent to Town Creek or its tributaries. Some areas, such
as a few bottomland hardwoods, are relatively undisturbed, while
other areas have been heavily impacted from activities such as
farming and logging, the construction and maintenance of power
line rights-of-way, or development. 'Weedy' tree species such as
sweet gum, red maple, and tulip poplar are common on wooded areas
of the tract.
Locations of the specific communities described
below area shown on the ecological communities map (Map #1).
Wetlands (aside from bottomland hardwoods) are discussed in
section e. For a list of plant species observed along the right-
of-way, including scientific names, see Appendix A.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
Schafale and Weakley (1990) described this forest type as a
mixture of bottomland and mesophytic trees, growing along small
floodplains. The canopy trees include bottomland and mesophytic
trees such as box elder, sugarberry, and river birch. Shrubs and
subcanopy trees include black willow, elderberry, and red maple.
Wetland plants are common in the wettest areas, including spotted
touch-me-not, false nettle, sedges, cattails, rushes, and arrow
arum. This community type is the most prevalent natural community
along the project area.
- 3 -

' Upland Forest:
This community type varies widely in the few areas where the
' project covers wooded upland areas, but it would best be
classified as mesic mixed forest. As described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990), it is usually found on lower slopes, steep north-
facing slopes, ravines, and infrequently on small, well-drained
' stream bottoms, on acidic soils. The canopy layer is
predominantly sweet gum and shortleaf pine, with a few elms, oaks
and hickories. The understory contains mainly Christmas fern and
' vines such as Japanese honeysuckle, and trumpet creeper.
Agricultural Areas:
' In one area the proposed right-of-way runs along a field, which
contained soybeans. In another area, the sewerline crosses an
abandoned field. Vegetation there consisted mainly of lespedeza,
raspberry and multiflora rose thickets, goldenrod, lady thumb,
' curly dock, and poison ivy, with scattered shrubs of Chinese
privet, sumac and mulberry.
' Powerline Right-of-Way Community:
The areas under powerlines contain mostly herbaceous plants, with
a few small, scattered saplings. If maintenance was stopped on
' these areas, they would eventually revert back to forests such as
mixed mesic forest. The predominant vegetation is broomsedge,
dogfennel, lespedeza, milkweed, pokeberry, and raspberry, with a
few sassafras, sweet gum, and Chickasaw plum saplings. In wetter
' areas, the vegetation is made up of rushes and lobelia, with
samplings of black willow, sweet gum, and sycamore, and elderberry
and buttonbush shrubs.
(ii) FORESTS
As mentioned above, the predominant natural
community along the project area is alluvial forest. The forests
' are, for the most part, immature and of little value as timber.
(iii) AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The only areas able to support aquatic life along
' the project area are Town Creek and a few of its larger
tributaries. Most tributaries were dry when viewed in September,
1993. Town Creek appeared to support little aquatic life; the
' only growth evident was green algae. No fish or mollusks were
observed, however, a few crayfish tunnels were evident in muddy
areas. Town Creek appears to have been heavily impacted by human
' activities: rip-rap was extensive near road crossings and in urban
areas, and a parking lot was constructed over the creek in
Salisbury adjacent to East Innes Street (S.R. 1004).
' (iv) WILDLIFE
A variety of wildlife was observed along the
project area. In Salisbury, the wildlife was typically urban:
' pigeons, gray squirrels, starlings, mourning doves, house
sparrows, robins, mockingbirds, and bluejays. In less developed
areas, bird life also included cardinals, rufous-sided towhees,

- 4 -

1?
17

tufted titmice, Carolina chickadees, ruby-crowned kinglets, crows,
bobwhite quail, red-tailed hawks, and a broad-winged hawk. The
only reptile observed was a black rat snake; no amphibians were
observed. Raccoon tracks were abundant, and a few deer tracks
were also seen. For lists of wildlife likely to occur in the
project area, as well as scientific names of species mentioned
above, see Appendix B.
b. PHYSICAL RESOURCES:
(i) GEOGRAPHIC QUALITIES:
The project area is located in the region known as
the Carolina Slate Belt. The geography is primarily metavolcanic
rock with some intrusions of granite.
(ii) GEOLOGIC RESOURCES:
Minimal rock blasting and rock removal is
anticipated for the interceptor sewer. The pump station is deep
and therefore some rock excavation may be expected. There are no
known mining sites along the proposed sewer line route.
(iii) SOIL:
According to the Rowan County Soil Survey, the
project area consists mainly of the soil series Chewacla, a deep
loamy soil which is somewhat poorly drained. S&EC staff soil
scientists also observed extensive areas of Congaree and Wehadkee
soils in floodplain areas. Other soil series occurring along
upland areas of the project site, to a lesser extent, are:
Mecklenburg clay loam, Sedgefield fine sandy loam, Cecil, and
Udorthents. Remaining areas have been developed or paved over.
See soils map (Fig. #1).
c. WATER RESOURCES:
Town Creek has the lowest rating of the N. C. Division
of Environmental Management stream classification system, a C, for
which suggested uses are "aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture."
d. CLIMATE:
Climatic data for the City of Salisbury has been
gathered since 1887 and published by the U.S. Department of
Commerce. Salisbury is the county seat and principal city of
Rowan County, in the western portion of the Piedmont section of
North Carolina. The city is built on gently rolling hills,
typical of the topography of most of the County. Elevations above
sea level throughout Rowan County range mostly between 600 and 800
feet, and within the City of Salisbury mostly between 700 and 800
feet. About 35 miles to the northwest of Salisbury, the Brushy
Mountains form a northeast-southwest barrier with peaks rising to
2500 feet; another 20 miles beyond, the Blue Ridge is similarly
aligned, and a thousand to fifteen hundred feet higher.
- 5 -

fl

These two mountain barriers, separated by the Yadkin
River valley, tend to hold back the flow of cold air from winter
outbreaks which move southward over the Plains States from central
Canada. The weaker outbreaks are thus often prevented from
reaching the Salisbury area, and the stronger are modified in
passing over the mountains. While the temperature drops below
freezing on more than half the days in winter, a temperature as
low as zero happens less than once in ten years on an average, and
there are only one or two days in a typical winter when the
mercury fails to rise above freezing in the afternoon.
The average length of freeze-free growing season at
Salisbury is 207 days. The average date of last occurrence in
spring of a temperature as low as 32 degrees is April 7; of 28
degrees, March 27; of 20 degrees, February 26. The average date
of the first occurrence in autumn of 32 degrees is October 30; of
28 degrees, November 8; of 20 degrees, November 30.
Summer days are warm in Salisbury, but nights cool
rapidly, so that early morning temperatures average below 68
degrees at the hottest time of the year. Daytime heat is less
persistent than in lower lying areas of the southern and eastern
states; 90 degree weather occurs only about three fourths as often
as in eastern North Carolina. While 100 degree temperatures have
been recorded in five different months of the year, such
temperatures are rare; several years may pass without the
occurrence of any 100 degree weather.
Precipitation is usually plentiful and well distributed
throughout the year at Salisbury. The heaviest occurs, on the
average, during the months of July and August, at the time of year
when plant growth requires the most moisture, and when man, animal
and industry consume the most water. The driest months are
' October and November, the time when fair weather favors the
harvesting of farm crops.
' The average annual snowfall at Salisbury is less than
six inches, only a little more than that of most areas of eastern
North Carolina; individual snows are generally small, and the
' greatest fall of record is only a little over half that some
stations in the northeastern section of the State. No single
month averages as much as three inches of snow and sleet.

Most winter precipitation comes as a result of moving
low pressure storms, while summer rainfall is mainly the result of
thundershowers. Occasionally thunderstorms may produce strong
winds and hail, but neither is likely to affect more than a few
square miles, and the likelihood of a given point in Rowan County
being struck by hail is very small. Autumn rainfall is in some
years increased by the movement of a tropical disturbance through
the eastern part of North Carolina or the offshore waters, but the
passage of such a storm near enough to Salisbury blows out of the
north or northeast in the fall, and from the southwest at other
- 6 -

P

seasons. The average surface wind speed is about 8 miles per
hour. Northwesterly winds bringing cold air in winter are
diminished by the two mountain ranges lying to the northwest of
Salisbury.
The sun shines about sixty percent of the daylight hours
in the Rowan County area, ranging from about half of the time in
December and January to more than two-thirds of the time in May
and June. The early autumn months are also most often quite
sunny. Relative humidity averages about 70 percent around the
year, with the highest humidities occurring in the late summer and
the lowest in the spring.
Salisbury weather records are among the oldest and most
complete in North Carolina, being almost unbroken in both
precipitation and temperature since 1887.
e. WETLANDS:
(i) FUNCTION AND VALUE
N.C. Division of Environmental Management wetlan
rating forms were filled out for the major wetland areas along th
project area. The highest functional value (5 out of 5) for Town
Creek was bank/shoreline stabilization. It rated highly in this
category because: 1) it has the ability to depress erosional
forces due to its vegetated and forested banks, which anchor the
shoreline, and 2) it has the opportunity to intercept highly
erosional forces, since the surrounding watershed is urbanized,
and therefore has a large percentage of impermeable surface. The
high rating for bank/shoreline stabilization automatically gave
Town Creek a high rating in the category of sensitive watershed.
The next highest value rating was for pollutant removal (three out
of five) , since the creek has the opportunity to remove pollutants
from urban and agricultural areas in a large portion of its
watershed. The rating form for Town Creek was taken at survey
point 168+00 as noted on the Peirson & Whitman construction
drawings.
A rating form was also completed for a wetland
' pocket located at the western end of the project's eastern-most
half (survey point 117+75). This wetland rated high for water
storage and sensitive watershed (four out of five each), and
highest for aquatic life value (five out of five), since it would
' provide good conditions for amphibian breeding in the spring, and
provide nutrients for other aquatic organisms.
' Each of the wetlands rated had a total score of
around 50 (the highest score was 59.5), classifying them as
moderately valuable wetlands. See Appendix C for copies of the
' rating forms.

1

The highest rated wetlands would be small,
permanently flooded tributaries to Town Creek, or pockets of
wetland adjacent to them. These areas would rate similarly to
those above, except for higher ratings for aquatic life, travel
corridors, and wildlife habitat.
(ii) WETLAND QUALITY AND QUANTITY
A variety of wetlands exist in the vicinity of the
proposed sewerline, including Town Creek, intermittently and
permanently flooded tributaries, and seasonally flooded alluvial
forests. The locations of the wetlands along the sewerline are
indicated on the Peirson & Whitman blueprints dated November,
1991, sheets 2 of 23 through 13 of 23. These drawings are
available for review at the office of Peirson & Whitman. Most
wetlands along the project right-of-way are not extensive.
However, one large contiguous wetland area (from survey stake
93+78.58 to `190+00) is present within the project area. Most
wetlands encountered are seasonally dry channels surrounded by
nonwetland areas. Channel-only jurisdictional areas are indicated
on the blueprints by Peirson and Whitman. S&EC has added the
jurisdictional widths of these areas to the plans. Vegetated
wetlands flagged in the project area were located by S&EC staff
utilizing GPS (Global Positioning System technology) and are also
shown on the Peirson and Whitman blueprints. These blueprints
have been provided to the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Planning Section as supplemental
information relative to this Environmental Assessment.
Wetland quality is not very high. As mentioned
' above, Town Creek, the largest wetland in the project area, had
the lowest DEM stream classification rating, and only a moderate
overall wetland value rating. In addition, it did not seem to
support much aquatic life. S&EC met Steve Chapin of the US Army
' Corps of Engineers Asheville Area Office on October 28, 1993, to
review wetland delineations for the project. Mr. Chapin agreed
with our work and will sign a delineation map as soon as he is
' provided one. Wetland permits required for this project will be
subject to the conditions listed in Appendix D.
' f. FARMLANDS
The vast majority of the sewerline right-of-way consists
of soil series similar to Chewacla, which is not suited to
' intensive row crop production without drainage. Small areas
contained other soil series, as mentioned above. Mecklenburg
soils with 2-8% slopes are rated as prime farmland, while areas
' with 8-15% slopes are given the rating of statewide importance.
Sedgefield with 1-6% slopes is rated as prime farmland. The area
of Cecil is actually a Cecil-urban complex, which would be
' difficult to farm in its current state. A small area, the site of
a trailer park, is mapped as Udorthents, which is a disturbed soil
area not suitable for farming. Remaining areas are urban. For
approximate locations of these soils, see the soils map (Fig. #1).
- 8 -

F

I

(i) PROTECTED SPECIES
Only one federally endangered species is listed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in Rowan County
(See Appendix E): Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). A survey was conducted on the proposed Town Creek
Interceptor line to determine if the species was present on
September 29th and 30th, 1993. The survey was timed to coincide
with the blooming period of the species: consultation with the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program and the N.C. Botanical Garden (which
has a small population of Schweinitz' sunflower) indicated that
late September was the most likely time to see the plant blooming.
The plant was not observed along the proposed sewerline right-of-
way.
Schweinitz' sunflower prefers upland woods, wood
margins, and clearings. It is usually found in open areas not
typical of the Carolina piedmont, which require disturbance to
remain open. Soils are moist to rather dry clays, clay-loams and
sandy clay-loams. Iredell is a common soil series where the
sunflower is found. Soils may be either shallow and gravelly or
have a massive clayey subsoil high in montmorillonite or other
expansive clays. Soils are usually derived from highly
weatherable rock types; the plant is known to occur on soils
derived from mafic rock, which includes gabbro and metagabbro, as
well as intermediate and felsic rock. In Rowan County, the
species has been known to grow on the Misenheimer soil series (N.
C. Natural Heritage Program files).
There are few areas along the proposed sewerline
that are able to provide suitable habitat for Schweinitz'
sunflower. In one area, the sewerline runs through an abandoned
agricultural field; the habitat is open, with only a few shrubs,
but the soil is Chewacla, not a type preferred by the plant along
the sewerline. Even so, the right-of-way was examined in its
entirety for the sunflower, and none were observed.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
records indicate that no rare or endangered species occur on the
proposed right-of-way.
g. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES:
An archaeological study of the
' performed by Thomas Hargrove in the fall
of this study is contained in Appendix F
from this report is provided here below.

- 9 -
proposed sewer route was
of 1993. The full report
The management summary

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The archaeological survey of the proposed Town Creek
' interceptor covered about 14,000 feet of corridor (about 9.4
acres) in or near East Spencer and Salisbury in Rowan County,
North Carolina. The purpose of the survey was to examine the
' project area for prehistoric or historical archaeological sites
with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places.
' Since most of the non-urban parts of the project area are in
forest, the survey relied heavily on screened shovel tests at
intervals of 30 m (100 feet) along the centerline of the proposed
' corridor. In areas with exposed ground surfaces (plowed fields,
farm roads, tree falls, etc.), the surveyors closely examined the
area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. The western section
' of the survey area is in a heavily urbanized part of Salisbury.
Most of the new pipeline will closely parallel the existing
pipeline.
' The survey recorded one prehistoric lithic site, 31RW*,
represented by three thinning flakes. It does not appear to be
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
We do not recommend additional archaeological study of the
' proposed interceptor line, as it is now designed.
* The permanent site number has been requested from the Office
' of State Archaeology.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES:
' Assuming all of the right-of-way is used, around 30 acres of
land will be disturbed by the sewerline. Approximately one-half
acre of land will be redisturbed by the pump station. The areas
' already cleared for agricultural use will have roughly 2.3 acres
disturbed by the proposed right-of-way. Commercial and
residential areas will undergo a combined impact of 10.6 acres.
Areas within powerline rights-of-way will have 1.1 acres of
impacts. The forested areas will undergo the greatest changes
from the sewerline installation, and are discussed below. The
sewerline will result in the clearing of approximately 15.5 acres
' of bottomland forest and 1.6 acres of upland forest. Locations of
these areas are indicated on the ecological community map.
' Approximately 4.79 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the
project. Locations are shown on the Peirson and Whitman
construction drawings.
1
?
10

I

The areas cleared for the sewerline right-of-way will open up
the forested areas, allowing more sunlight in and thereby drying
out the nearby environment somewhat, which may decrease habitat
available for some amphibians. Although the right-of-way clearing
will increase habitat diversity, it will also increase patchiness
of the forests to some degree, increasing its attractiveness to
animals that prefer forest edges, such as raccoons and cowbirds,
which are detrimental to some forest dwellers, especially
songbirds. The right-of-way is probably too narrow to greatly
restrict the movement of animals through the area.
1. ALTERNATIVES
Although low-lying areas of land must be utilized in
order for a gravity line to function, wetlands have been avoided
as much as possible by routing the line along toe slopes. See the
Peirson and Whitman construction drawings for approximate location
and extent of wetland impacts. The major wetland crossing; is
unavoidable, since the sewerline must tie to an existing line and
there is no alternative route. Replacement of the line should
result in some improvement in the water quality of Town Creek.
Most of the proposed right-of-way is through low-value
habitat - either along the old sewerline right-of-way, where there
are few mature forests, across maintained powerline rights-of-way,
or along open areas of residential neighborhoods and edges of
commercial areas, some of which are abandoned.
The proposed influent pump station has been located to
completely avoid wetlands and has been situated on previously
disturbed land within the existing boundaries of the Town Creek
WWTP.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION:
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. ATMOSPHERE:
PRIMARY IMPACTS
A short term increase in air, noise and odor pollution
may result due to construction of the Town Creek interceptor and
pump station. The adverse impacts to the Planning Area will be
minimal and temporary.
2. TOPOGRAPHY:
Little adverse impact on the topography of the Town
Creek basin is expected. All areas disturbed by construction of
the interceptor sewer will be returned to their original
topographical condition and reseeded with fast growing grasses.
- 11 -

' Manholes will be constructed above the flood prone elevations in
order to prevent inflow. The pump station entrance will be built
above flood elevations to prevent inflow.
' 3. SOILS:
' Soils subject to disturbance by construction will be
altered. Soil structure and profile will be altered where
trenches are dug to lay pipe. In some cases, the topsoil may be
removed or covered. Erosion will be a major consideration once
' the protective vegetative cover has been removed and the soil
disturbed. Although an approved soil erosion and sedimentation
plan is required by State law, some soil erosion can be expected
during construction of the proposed facilities. Every effort will
be made to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
' No prime agricultural land will be impacted by
construction of the Town Creek interceptor. The major land use
along Town Creek is urban. Nonetheless, the construction of the
Town Creek interceptor will disturb soil profile and structure and
' thus adversely impact the soil along Town Creek (approximately 30
acres).

0

4. GEOLOGY:
The adverse impacts to the
construction will be minimal as no major
is anticipated along the interceptor
blasting and removal may be expected at
of its depth. There are no known mining
interceptor route.
5. PLANT COMMUNITIES:
geology of areas under
blasting or rock removal
route. Some minor rock
the pump station because
sites along the proposed
The proposed plan of action will disturb approximately
30 acres of land along the existing easement in the Town Creek
basin and approximately one-half acre at the pump station site.
Interceptor construction will require the removal of vegetative
communities and in most cases re-establishment of major woody
vegetation cannot be allowed. Fast growing grasses will be seeded
along the interceptor route after construction and maintained on
a regular basis. The pump station construction will require
removal of lawn type grass which will be replaced upon completion
of construction.
A review of the U.S.G.S. topographic maps maintained by
the N. C. Natural Heritage Program did not indicate any rare or
endangered plant species or plant communities of special interest.
A vegetative survey was made of the areas to be impacted
by construction. A brief description of vegetative communities
and species to be impacted follows:
- 12 -

' The
wastewater to
approximately
' for a listing
proposed sewer
interceptor proposed to transport Salisbury's
the existing Town Creek sewer will disturb
30 acres of existing sewer easement. See Appendix A
of the major vegetative species found along the
line route.
6. WILDLIFE:
The removal of vegetative cover due to construction of
' the proposed Town Creek interceptor will adversely affect those
wildlife species whose preferred habitat type is the already
disturbed easement. The removal of some mast producing trees such
as oaks and hickories in order for the construction equipment to
' gain access to the existing easement will, in a minor way, reduce
the amount of available food for wildlife. Some large den trees
which provide nesting sites may also be destroyed by construction
of facilities. The removal of understory vegetation will reduce
cover and food sources. Generally, a reduction in forest habitat
will also reduce wildlife populations to some extent.
' A representative list of vertebrate species to be
affected by disturbance of the existing easements is presented
below. See Appendix A for a complete listing of the animal
' species likely to occur in the project area.
MAMMALS: Eastern mole, short-tailed shrew, gray
squirrel, white-footed mouse, pine vole, gray fox, raccoon,
' opossum, least shrew, little brown myotis, and silver-haired bat.
1 BIRDS: Redbellied woodpecker, down woodpecker,
bobwhite, tufted titmouse, Carolina chickadee, cardinal, rufous-
sided towhee, starling, robin, yellow-shafted flicker and Carolina
wren.
'
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS: Eastern worm snake, Eastern
garter snake, brown snake, northern red-bellied snake, black rat
snake, copperhead, spotted turtle, eastern box turtle, red-spotted
' newt, northern dusky salamander, northern cricket frog, American
toad, northern spring peeper, southern leopard frog and eastern
' gray treefrog.
No rare or endangered species were noted during the
biological survey of the Town Creek interceptor route. Although
the overall impact on wildlife will be adverse, the creation of
' "edge" along the interceptor route will benefit some wildlife
species which require some open space adjacent to woodlands.

- 13 -

' 7. WATER AND WATER-LAND INTERFACE:
The major impact from the proposed Town Creek
interceptor and influent pump station will be the general
upgrading of the surface waters of Town Creek. Proposed
construction will almost eliminate exfiltration into the Creek.
' Thus, the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the
surface waters of Town Creek will be enhanced.
Some temporary adverse impacts may result from
' construction due to erosion and sedimentation. However, every
effort will be made to minimize sedimentation. A minimum ten-foot
vegetative buffer between stream banks and construction rights-of-
' way should be maintained and an approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan will be used as required by law to limit
sedimentation into streams and creeks.
' PRIMARY IMPACTS
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
1. LAND USE:

7

r

0
The major impact on land use will be the re-disturbance
of approximately 30acres of existing easement. This land,
previously disturbed, will be periodically mowed, thus preventing
the growth of major woody vegetation.
2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL:
No impact on historical or cultural resources is
anticipated since the sewer will be installed within the existing
easement.
Although recreational areas will not be directly
affected by the proposed construction, the facilities proposed
will upgrade water resource quality. Thus, the recreational value
of water resources will be improved.
3. TRANSPORTATION:
Traffic flow will increase in some areas due to
construction related traffic; however, no significant adverse
impacts are expected.
Some inconveniences may occur when interceptor
construction crosses highways.
- 14 -

4. RESOURCE:
A significant amount of resource materials and energy
' will be required for construction of the Town Creek interceptor
and influent pump station. However, the materials and energy are
not expected to significantly deplete existing resources.
' S. RELOCATION:
' The proposed plan of action is not expected to cause the
relocation of any homes or business.
n

F

i

r
0
n

6. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES:
The proposed plan of action is not expected to cause an
immediate increase in the need for services and/or facilities
(schools, hospitals, libraries, police protection, fire
protection, etc.)
7. TAXES AND CAPITAL BUDGETING:
The proposed plan of action is not expected to have an
impact on taxes or budgeting due to a need for more services or
facilities.
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT:
SECONDARY IMPACTS
1. DEMOGRAPHY AND ECONOMICS:
The proposed plan of action will allow for the orderly
development of areas in or surrounding Town Creek as well as the
communities of Granite Quarry, Rockwell and Faith. The Town Creek
interceptor is not expected to alter population centers of the
area or promote growth in areas where growth has not been planned.
By allowing for planned growth and development in the
area, economic characteristics will be improved. Industrial,
commercial and residential growth will be a stimulus to the local
economy of the area by providing more jobs and higher wages.
2. LAND USE:
Town Creek interceptor will generally follow the
projected land use and development projected for the area.
Development is not expected to be stimulated in areas where growth
has not been planned.
- 15 -
P

' Future growth and development in the area will
continually reduce the amount of land available for resource
production (agriculture, forestry, etc.); however, the facilities
proposed are not expected to create uncontrolled growth and
development in the area.
County and municipal planning should play a major part
' in developing future development guidelines so as to create
compatible land uses.
' 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL:
Future growth and development in the area will
' continually place pressures on these resources. Industrial,
commercial and residential development will continually pressure
known archaeological, historical and cultural sites. Public
recreational areas will be forced to accommodate an expanding
' population. Identification of these resources and land use
controls for protection will minimize the impacts from growth and
' development.
4. TRANSPORTATION:
Although transportation facilities seem adequate
presently, future growth and development may require expansion or
improvement of the County road system. The Town Creek interceptor
' and influent pump station are not expected to create an immediate
increase in the requirements for transportation growth.

5. RESOURCE USE:
Future growth and development in the area will require
greater amounts of resource energy and materials. Since these
resources, especially energy, are becoming less abundant and more
expensive, conservation of materials and energy will become
increasingly important.
The Town Creek interceptor will allow for the normal
growth and development of the area and should not cause an
immediate increase in resource use.
6. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES:
Future growth and development will necessitate an
increase in facilities (fire stations, schools, libraries,
hospitals, etc.) and services (policemen, teachers, librarians,
etc.) during the planning period. This growth and development are
expected to be at a normal rate for the area and is not expected
to be significantly affected by the Town Creek sewer and pump
station.
- 16 -

' 7. TAXES AND CAPITAL BUDGETING:
Since the number of services and facilities required by
' a community directly affects the taxing and budgeting procedures,
the proposed plan should help to minimize the rise in taxes and
service charges. However, as the area grows and develops, the
City will be faced with the problem of providing the necessary
' services and facilities. As the services and facilities increase
so will the taxes and user charges for the services.
' NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. ATMOSPHERE:

The implementation of the proposed plan will allow for
the natural growth and development of the Town Creek basin.
Future growth and development will have some adverse impacts on
' air quality, noises and odors due to an increase in automotive,
industrial and human air pollution. These impacts on air quality
' can be expected with an increase in development. The Town Creek
interceptor is not expected to increase the normal rate of growth
in the area and should not have a significant effect on air
quality.

2. LAND.
.
' Secondary impacts on the physical, chemical and
biological characteristics of the land will also depend on growth
and development as land presently used for resource production is
converted to urban uses. The results will be a general decrease
' in forest and farmland and increase in erosion and sedimentation.
The Town Creek interceptor is not expected to increase
' the normal rate of growth and development and may have the effect
of creating more densely developed residential areas due to sewer
availability.
' 3. WATER AND WATER-LAND INTERFACE:
Increased growth and development will place more
' pressure on existing water resources. Residential, commercial and
industrial consumers will require greater quantities of water.
Generally, future demands will reduce existing quantities of water
' resources in the Planning Area. However, the Town Creek
interceptor and influent pump station are not expected to cause an
increase in the amount of or rate of development.
' Water quality may also be affected by future growth and
development. Impervious surfaces such as roof tops and paved
parking lots will increase surface water runoff, thus carrying
' pollutants to nearby streams. Local groundwater quality and
quantity may also be affected by runoff from impervious surfaces.
Development near streams and creeks will increase the possibility
' - 17 -
I I

r

of erosion and sedimentation, thus degrading water quality.
Generally, growth and development will adversely affect water
resources unless stringent land use controls are developed and
enforced.
The Town Creek interceptor and influent pump station
will enable future development to utilize existing wastewater
treatment facilities and eliminate the need for septic tank
systems or package treatment plants in the watershed. This will
have the effect of maintaining or improving water quality in Town
Creek.
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES:
The proposed project will involve the commitment of a
significant amount of materials and energy during actual
construction. In addition, approximately 30 acres of existing
easement will be disturbed due to interceptor construction and
one-half acre due to construction of the influent pump station.
These resources will be irretrievable once committed to the
project. However, the commitment of these resources will help to
protect the quality of an extremely important resource of the area
water. The existing and future water quality of life in the area
and the region is closely linked to its water supply and the
quality of that water. Thus, the expenditure of materials and
energy will be justifiable.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY:
Although the proposed project will have some adverse impacts
on the natural and man-made environment, the uses of the
environment will generally be short-term productivity and will
' more than offset the short-term use and impact on the environment.
The proposed project will maintain, if not enhance, the quality of
life in the area by protecting the quality of ground and surface
' waters in the area and by providing public sewage facilities in
areas presently lacking such facilities.
' C. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO ADVERSE IMPACTS:
1. PRIMARY IMPACTS:
' a. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
The proposed project will cause some soil erosion
' during the construction phase, but a maximum effort will be made
to minimize this problem. The contractor will be required to
employ an approved Soil & Erosion Control Plan during this phase.
t Below are the portions of the specifications for the control of
erosion and sedimentation.
- 18 -

' (1) SILTATION AND BANK EROSION:
The Bidder shall include in his Base Bid for
' the project necessary costs of controlling siltation of the
receiving stream due to his construction operations. These
control measures shall include the construction of temporary
catchments, seeding, terracing, and scheduling construction
operations to minimize the washing of soil and debris into the
stream. The Contractor shall plan his work in such manner that
' waste areas and stockpiles of earth and/or other debris is not
subject to washing into the receiving stream by either normal
surface drainage or flooding of the receiving stream.
' In areas where the Contractor's construction
operations require that he divert the stream channel, change the
stream bank configuration, remove natural channel bank protection
' such as rocks, boulders, trees, etc., the Contractor shall provide
adequate protection against bank erosion due to his construction
operations and shall return the stream channel immediately upon
' completion of this construction operations. The cost of this work
shall be included in the Base Bid for the Division of the work
affected.
' The Contractor shall note that this project is
subject to the requirements of the Rules and Regulations for
Erosion and Sediment Control, promulgated pursuant to the
' provisions of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statues Chapter 113A, Article 4). The
Contractor is required, under the above regulations, to file for
approval of an effective erosion and sedimentation control plan
' with the local government having jurisdiction or the North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission if no local government
has jurisdiction, 30 days prior to beginning any land-disturbing
' activity.
The Contractor is further required to provide
' a copy of
the Owner
approval.
project a
including
the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan to
and Engineers within 14 days of receipt of formal plan
The Bidder shall include in his Base Bid for the
11 costs associated with the requirements of the above,
plan preparation and compliance therewith.
(2) RESTORATION OF DISTURBED AREAS:
CVO
' In addition to the landscaping requirements ` s C
required herein and the grading and seeding limits shown on the
Contract Drawings, the Contractor shall be required to prepare,
' fertilize, seed, protect and otherwise establish a protective
growth of ground protecting grass on all areas disturbed durinc
his construction operations. These disturbed areas shall includ(
' all waste areas, borrow areas, temporary roads, etc., beyond the
Owner's property. The cost of this work shall be included in thi
Base Bid for the Division of the work affected.

- 19 -

L

Trees unavoidably falling outside the
specified limits must be cut up, removed and disposed of in a
satisfactory manner. Usually, trees are cut firewood length for
property owner use. In order to minimize damage to trees that are
to be left standing, trees shall be felled toward the center of
the area being cleared. The Contractor shall preserve and protect
from injury all trees not required to be removed.
(3) SUGGESTED MITIGATIVE MEASURES:
Other measures could be implemented by the
municipalities or public service groups to mitigate impacts to the
natural environment. The following is a partial list of suggested
measures.
(a) Plant wildlife seed mixtures along
interceptor rights-of-way to enhance wildlife and habitat.
(b) Place squirrel boxes and blue bird boxes
along interceptor rights-of-way to enhance wildlife and habitat.
(c) Use interceptor rights-of-way as a park
or greenway system to be used as an educational tool for school
groups.
(d) Avoid cutting large den trees where
alternatives are available.
' (b) MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT:
' (1) Perform archaeological surveys where deemed
necessary by the Archaeological Section of the Department of
Archives and History. Avoid disturbance of archaeological or
historical sites where feasible.
' (2) Utilize land use regulations and zoning
ordinances to prevent incompatible development.

2. SECONDARY IMPACTS:
a. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT:
The various municipal and County governmental
bodies and planners will have the prime responsibility of
minimizing secondary impacts to the man-made environment. By
utilizing local development controls such as zoning, subdivision
regulations, sewer tap permits, building permits and land use
regulations, local officials can help to steer growth and
development in the direction best suited for particular
municipality. Development controls can also minimize the amount
of services and facilities required to serve the population, thus
minimizing taxing and budgeting problems.
- 20 -
2 ?P c?s
Cc'"L ?' 1i?%? c

J
b. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
Here again local officials and planners can
' minimize the impacts due to growth and development. Land use
controls can be used to prevent development in sensitive areas
such as flood plains. Erosion and sedimentation ordinances can be
' used.

E

r

C

C

- 21 -

a
REFERENCES
' N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
1993. Third Draft, Indicators of Freshwater Wetland Function
and Value for Protection and Management. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section.
Radford, A. E., G,E, Ahles and C, R, Bell, 1968. The Manual of
' Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
' Schafale, M. P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
Natural Communities of North Carolina. N. C. Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
' Soil Conservation Service. In preparation. Soil Survey of Rowan
County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
r

L

I
Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Important Farmland, Wake
County, North Carolina. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture SCS in
cooperation with N. C. Agricultural Research Service, Wake
Soil and Water Conservation Service, and Wake County Planning
Dept.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern U.S., Region 4. (The Red Book.)
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
- 23 -
fl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEHO WITH CORRELATION NOTES
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1993
Field (O(d
Symbol Symbols) Map Unit Name
368 Appling sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
81 Armenia Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
1388 (358, 1408) Ashlar-Rock outcrop complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
1580 (350, 1400) Ashlar-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
138E Ashlar-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
468 (4682) Badin ?,hamery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
460 (4602) 8adin -hamery silt Loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
46E (48E, 68E) 8adin -.':amery si It loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
688 Badin•Golnston co vLex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
680 Badin ?oi?-tcri complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
318 Cecii ,3r G/ loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
310 CeciL sancy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
3192 Cecil sandy clay Loam, 2 ,a 8 ;,?rcent slopes, eroac^_
3102 Cecil saucy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, erode
38 (25, 30, 2D) CeciL-Urban Land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
4 Chewacla Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently floodea
168 Cid-Lignin complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
17A (15A) Oogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
178 (158) Dogue fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, rarely flooded
508 Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
500 Enon fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
750 Enon very cobbly loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes, very stony
75E Enon very cobbly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony
58 (78, 7D) Enon-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
518 Helena sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
23E HiWassce loan, 15 to 25 percent slopes
t
Rowan Co. Identification Legend (cont'd)
Field (Old
symbol Symbols)
2362
2302
568
108
41A
548
540
5582
5502
14
8
32B
320
32E
32F
3292
32D2
C
6,38
630
63E
63 F
379
370
1378
(38F)
(61E)
Map Unit Name
Hiwassee clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Hiwassee clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Iredelt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Ligrxm silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Mecklenburg loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Mecklenburg clay loam, 8 :o 15 percent slopes, eroded
MiseM eimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently floodea
Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Pacolet sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Pits, quarries
Poindexter-Mocksville complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Poindexter-Mocksville complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Poindexter-Mocksville complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Poindexter-Mocksville complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Rion-Wedowee complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Rion-Wedowee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Rion-Wedowee-Ashlar complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Rowan Co. Identification Legend (cont'd)
Field (Old
Symbol Symbols) Map Unit Mame
137D Rion-Wedowee-Ashlar complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
1 Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
388 Saw-PacoLet complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
380 (3802) Saw-Pacolet complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
3882 Saw-Pacolet complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, erodes
528 Sedgefield fine sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
488 Tatun-Badin complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
48O (4802) Tatum-Sadin complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
4802 Tatun-Banin ccrolex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, erc;eo
UL (Ud) Udorthents, loamy
6 Urban land
730 Uwharrie loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes, very stony
73F Uwharrie loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes, very stony
G7B (428)
Uwharrie silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
4n2 (4282) Uwharrie silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
4702 (420, 421)2) Uwharrie silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
5713 Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
570 (510) Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
5782 Vance sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
57D2 Vance sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
58 Wahee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
408 (458) Wicicham fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
618 Zion-Eason complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
610 Zion-Enon complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes

Vegetation Observed Along
Sewerline Right-of-Way
' canopy
beech, Fagus grandifolia
tulip tree, Liriodendron tulinfera
' loblolly pine, Pinus taeda
shortleaf pine, Pinus echinata
sweet gum, Liquidambar styraciflua
' pignut hickory, Car a glabra
mockernut hickory, Car a tomentosa
red oak, Quercus rubra
willow oak, Quercus phellos
white oak, Quercus alba
box-elder, Acer negundo
silver maple, Acer saccharinum
' ash, Fraxinus sp.
slippery elm, Ulmus rubra
American elm, Ulmus americana
winged elm, Ulmus alata
sugarberry, Celtis laevigata
river birch, Betula nigra
' sycamore, Platanus occidentalis
' Sub-canopy and Shrubs
eastern red cedar, Juniperus virainiana
ironwood, Carpinus caroliniana
red mulberry, Morus rubra
' white mulberry, Morus alba
smooth alder, Alnus serrulata
Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense
flowering dogwood, Cornus florida
silky dogwood, Cornus amomum
tulip tree, Liriodendron tuli fera
' red maple, Acer rubrum
elderberry, Sambucus canadensis
river birch, Betula nigra
blueberry, Vaccinium sp.
sassafras, Sassafras albidum
buttonbush, Cephalanthus occidentalis
sycamore, Platanus occidentalis
Chickasaw plum, Prunus angustifolia
winged sumac, Rhus copallinum
sweet gum, Liquidambar styraciflua
' wild raisin, Viburnum nudum
mimosa, Albizia julibrissin
persimmon, Diospyros virginiana

D
' honey-locust, Gleditsia triacanthos
cherry, Prunus serotina
paulownia, Paulownia tomentosa
Herbs
' microstegium, Eulalia viminea
running cedar, Lycopodium sp.
Christmas fern, Polystichum acrostichoides
' rushes, Juncus sp.
sedges, Carex sp.
cattail, Typha latifolia
arrow arum, Peltandra virginica
' Asiatic dayflower, Commelina communis
lobelia, Lobelia sp.
ebony spleenwort, Asplenium platyneuron
' blackberry, Rubus cuneifolius
lespedeza, Lespedeza sp.
broom sedge, Andropogon virginicus
' milkweed, Asclepias sp.
fleabane, Erigeron sp.
dog fennel, Eupatorium capillifolium
goldenrod, Solidago sp.
' curly dock, Rumex crispus
pokeberry, Phytolacca americana
lespedeza, Lespedeza sp.
' spotted touch-me-not, Impatiens capensis
false nettle, Boehmaria cylandrica
netted chain fern, Woodwardia aerolata
' southern lady fern, Athy_rium filex-femina
pipsissewa, Chimaphila maculata
beggar-ticks, Bidens sp.
cocklebur, Xanthium sp.
ironweed, Vernonia sp.
Jersusalem artichoke, Helianthus tuberosus
Vines
Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica
' poison ivy, Toxicodendron radicans
green briar, Smilax rotundifolia
muscadine grape, Vitis rotundifolia
' trumpet creeper, Campsis radicans
crossvine, Bignonia capreolata
morning glory, Ipomoea sp.

7

0

n

Table 1. Reptiles likely to occur in the
project area.
Eastern box turtle
Eastern musk turtle
six-lined racerunner
Eastern fence lizard
Ground skink
Broad-headed skink
Five-lined skink
Southeastern five-lined
Slender glass lizard
Queen snake
Brown snake
Red-bellied snake
Eastern garter snake
Eastern ribbon snake
Smooth earth snake
Rough earth snake
Eastern hognose snake
Ringneck snake
Worm snake
Black racer
Rough green snake
Corn snake
Rat snake
Eastern kingsnake
Scarlet kingsnake
Scarlet snake
Mole kingsnake
Southeastern crowned sna
Copperhead
Timber rattlesnake
Terrapene carolina
Sternotherus odoratus
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Sceloporus undulatus
Scincella lateralis
Eumeces laticeps
Eumeces fasciatus
skink E. inexpectatus
Ophisaurus attenuatus
Regina septemvittata
Storeria dekayi
Storeria occipitomaculata
Thamnophis sirtails
Thamnophis sauritus
Virginia valeriae
Virginia striatula
Heterodon platyrhinos
Diadophis punctatus
Carphophis amoenus
Coluber constrictor
Opheodrys aestivus
Elaphe guttata
Elaphe obsoleta
Lampropeltis getulus
Lampropeltis elapsoides
Cemophora coccinea
Lampropeltis calligaster
ke Tantilla coronata
Agkistrondon contortix
Crotalus horridus
F,

0

C

Table 2. Amphibians likely to occur in the
project area.
Marbled salamander
Mud salamander
Northern dusky salamander
Slimy salamander
Red salamander
Two-lined salamander
Three-lined salamander
American toad
Fowler's toad
Northern cricket frog
spring peeper
Gray tree frog
Upland chorus frog
Green frog
Southern leopard frog
Pickerel frog
Bullfrog
Ambystoma opacum
Pseudotriton montanus
Desmognathus fuscus
Plethodon glutinosus
Pseudotriton ruber
Eurycea bislineata
Eurycea guttolineata
Bufo americanus
Bufo woodhousei
Acris crepitans
Hyla crucifer
Hyla chrysoscelis
Pseudacris triseriata
Rana clamitans
Rana sphenocephala
Rana Qalustris
Rana catesbeiana
H

Table 3. Birds likely to occur in the
project area.
' Turkey vulture
Sharp-shinned hawk
Broad-winged hawk
Red-tailed hawk
' Red-shouldered hawk
American kestrel
Turkey
Green heron
Great blue heron
' American Woodcock
common snipe
Yellow billed cuckoo
C

J

Screech owl
Great horned owl
Barred owl
Barn owl
Horned lark
Whip-poor-will
Common nighthawk
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Common flicker
Red-bellied woodpecker
Red-headed woodpecker
Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Great crested flycatcher
Eastern kingbird
Eastern phoebe
Acadian flycatcher
Eastern wood pewee
Blue jay
Common crow
Rough-winged swallow
Barn swallow
Purple martin
Mockingbird*
Gray catbird
Eastern bluebird
Yellow-throated vireo
Common yellowthroat
Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Cathartes aura
Accipiter striatus
Buteo platypterus
Buteo -iamaicensis
Buteo loneatus
Falco sparverius
Meleagris gullopavo
Butorides virescens
Ardea herodias
Philohela minor
Gallinago gallinago
Coccvzus americanus
Otus asio
Bubo virginianus
Stryx varia
Tyto alba
Eremophila alpestris
Caprimulgus vociferus
Chordeiles minor
Chaetura pelagica
Archilochus colubris
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes auratus
Centurus carolinus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Sphrypicus varius
Dendrocopus villosus
Dendrocopos pubescebs
Myrachus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Sayornis phoebe
Empidonax virescens
Contopus virens
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Hirundo rustica
Progne subis
Mimus polyglottos
Dumetella carolinensis
Sialia sialis
Vireo flavifrons
Geothylpis thichas
Sturnella magna
Agelaius phoeniceus

Blue grosbeak
Indigo bunting
Red crossbill
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
White-breasted nuthatch
Brown-headed nuthatch
Winter wren
Carolina wren
Brown creeper
Brown thrasher
Robin
Wood thrush
Hermit thrush
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Golden-crowned kinglet
Ruby-crowned kinglet
cedar waxwing
Loggerhead shrike
Starling
White-eyed vireo
Red-eyed vireo
Black and white warbler
Parula warbler
Yellow warbler
Pine warbler
Myrtle warbler
Yellow-throated warbler
blackpoll warbler
Kentucky warbler
Ovenbird
Northern waterthrush
Yellow-breasted chat
Hooded warbler
American redstart
orchard oriole
Common grackle
Brown-headed cowbird
Scarlet tanager
Summer tanager
Cardinal
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Purple finch
Pine siskin
American goldfinch
Rufous-sided towhee
Dark-eyed junco
Chipping sparrow
Guiraca caerulea
Passerina cyanea
Loxia curvirostra
Parus carolinensis
Parus bicolor
Sitta carolinenis
Sitta pusilla
Troglodytes troglodytes
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Certhia familiaris
Toxostoma rufum
Turdus migratorius
Hvclocichla mustelina
Hvclocichla guttata
Polioptila caerulea
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Bombycilla cedrorum
Lanius ludovicianus
Sturnus Vulgaris
vireo griseus
vireo olivaceus
Mniotilta varia
Parula americana
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica ip nus
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica dominica
Dendroica striata
Oporornis formosus
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus motacilla
Icteria virens
Wilsonia citrina
Setophaga ruticilla
Icterus spurius
Ouiscalus guiscula
Molothrus ater
Piranga olivacea
Piranga rubra
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pheucticos ludovicianus
Carpodacus purpureus
Spinus pinus
Spinus tristes
Pipilo erthrophthalmus
Junco hyemalis
Spizella passerina

i
?_

LI

11

1
H

Field sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
White-throated sparrow
Fox sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Song sparrow
Grasshopper sparrow
House sparrow
Spizella pusilla
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia albicolis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza georgiana
Melospiza melodia
Ammodramus savannarum
Passer domesticus
LI

1

Table 4. Mammals likely to occur in the
project area.
Opossum
Southeastern shrew
Least shrew
Northern short-tailed
' Southern short-tailed
Eastern mole
' Little brown myotis
Silver-haired bat
Eastern pipistrelle
Red bat
' Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Evening bat
Long-tailed weasel
' Mink
Striped Skunk
Red fox
' Gray fox
Bobcat

I
Didelphis marsupialis
Sorex lonairostris
Cryptosis ap rva
shrew Blarina brevicauda
shrew Blarina carolinensis
Scalopus aquaticus
Myotis lucifugus
Lasiony_cteris noctivigans
Pipistrellus subflavus
Lasiurus borealis
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cinereus
Nycticeius humeralis
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
mephitis mephitis
Vulpes fulva
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Lynx rufus
Raccoon
Eastern chipmunk
Eastern gray squirrel
Southern flying squirrel
White-footed mouse
Golden mouse
Woodland vole
Muskrat
Beaver
Meadow jumping mouse
Woodchuck
Eastern harvest mouse
Hispid cotton rat
Black rat
Norway rat
Procyon lotor
Tamias striatus
Sciurus carolinensis
Glaucomys volans
Peromyscus leucopus
Peromyscus nutalli
Microtus pinetorium
Ondatra zibethicus
Castor canadensis
Zapus hudsonius
Marmota monax
Reinthrodontomys humulis
Sigmodon hispidus
Rattus rattus
Rattus norvegicus
House mouse Mus musculus
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginicus

L
7

Table 5. Fish likely to occur in the
project area.
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Redfin pickerel Esox americanus
chain pickerel Esox niger
Carp Cyprinus carpio
Satinfin shiner Notropis analostanus
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
V-lip redhorse Moxostoma papillosum
Smallfin redhorse Moxostoma robustum
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus
White catfish Ictalurus catus
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Pirate perch Aphredodorus sayanus
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Yellow perch Perca flavescens

i?
18+c
r

Hydrologically connected ? Hydrologically isolated
...............................
Dominant Vegetation
rganic
orpeat
(2) J
(3?
Y: Sa
Fioodirig andwetness
semipemianently to:permanently
flooded or.inundated
regularly flQOded or conveys stormwater
during or after. stones

wet
and to
stre seasonally flooded
. ? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water'
!. no evidence of flooding or surface water

Wetland type (select one) ZY. Other clQ-c-?
Swamp forest Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest J Brackish marsh
? Carolina bay J Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin J Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah J Ephemeral wetland
Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
sum
Water storage •
Bank/Shoreline stabilization t fl x 4.00 -
- ?-?
Pollutant removal S •
Sensitive watershed
Travel corridor n x 1.50 - ?1
- Weiland score.

Special ecological attributes ?() 5 •
Wildlife habitat x 1.50 = l
Aquatic life value G •
Recreation/Education I

Economic value x0.25-
- ?.S
•

.
.
#A'a; * - Z 141 -law i V1tL T 61;iN,Is
t
15
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project name < < Nearest road -
CountyWetland a rea-acres Wetland width feet
AdIacertt land use
other natural vegeton %
>wl gncultt .e
x ,.burbanrorban;`,..%?+t.
:# xdc '.c yxx 3C <l w iii ,?t`t,
?xd ent eaal xtattxrai areas
1
dy-At
........ :::.
:::::..
.....:::.........

...: .. .;
4 Hydrologically connected ? Hydrologically Isolated

17omnianf Vegetafion

Flooding and wetness
semi
pemianently to permanently
flooded or.inundated
regularly flooded or conveys stoml water
during or after storms

we' lan seasonally flooded
'L
intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface. water
no evidence of flooding or surface water;

Wetland type (select one) ? Other
• ? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
• ,.. Bottomland hardwood forest _
J Brackish marsh
• ? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh
• ? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah .? Ephemeral wetland ;
• ? Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
su,n •
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization -J- x 4.00 - Z.°f •
Pollutant removal
.. •
............ .
Sensitive watershed L
x 1.50 = •
Wetland srorc.
Travel corridor ,? •

Special ecological attributes s?.

Wildlife habitat
x 1.50 =
L •
•
-- - Aquatic life value •
Recreation/Education 3 •
Economic value = x 0'25 = 1,25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • •

'? So
?k

? Hydrologically Isolated
.....................
iominant VeQetaE nn
•

Fi'oodin and wefness
?. semipermanebtiy to permanently
flooded or:.inundated
?.1 regvIarIy flooded or. conveys stormlvnt er
during:pr after. storiis
seasonally flooded ! -
intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface..water
no evidence of flooding orsurface water;
1 . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .•. . • •` • • • . • • •
Wetland type (select one) ? other '
Swamp forest J Shoreline •
Bottomland hardwood forest - y oQ
? C J Brackish marsh '
arolina bay ..1 Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin J Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah J Ephemeral wetland ;
? Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be ap plied to salt marshes. '
Water storage- sriun •
Bank/Shoreline stabilization t x 4.00 =
Pollutant removal
Sensitive watershed

Travel corridor 2- x 1.50 - •
Rlctland srorc •
Special ecological attributes O s? s ( •
Wildlife habitat z-
-2 x 1.50 = (p
L I •
-
Aquatic life value ,
Recreation/Education
Economic value x 0'25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 0 • • • • • 00#6:
J4 Hydrologically connected
fl
u

F

u

1
Project/Site:
Date:
Applicant/owner:
State: NJ C
Investigator: Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road, Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Do normal conditions exist on site? 1 S Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? - Plot ID: WL_ .Q_ # 003
VEGETATION
_Dominant Plant- snpcies Stratum % Indicator
1. Sa?a x n? ?1Y-.L ?v. o s% r 3 L
2. P?aG ,n JS?OCC,_-ij r.,otX,?
3. PAC.

5• CO?'n?S Aw or??

6
S??u no
?

I FAL
. J.r r-• p ?? e n ? ;.1 ?; , ,,_ , ; 1? e r ?o s D /` Fa ? 1?
7. ?211e,..dre._ I0 /.
o ?At
8.
9. FAc -J
10.
11.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: IL°%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: -7
Z
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 Z'
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Z( Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
11 Soil & Environmental Consultants. Ir
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Remarks:

0

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Wc.
Drainage Class: col
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
I u < +; c I
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes/No C
PROFILE Mottle Texture,
Depth /Horizon /Matrix Color/Mottle Color/ Abundance/ Structure
. 1CI 1 10 YR (,/Z,
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfide Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? (]KR/No
Hydric Soils Present? Ye /No
' Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es/No
Remarks:

L

n

I

NATIONWIDE PERMIT 0 12: UTILITY LINE BACKFILL AND BEDDING. AUTHORIZES
DISCHARGES OF MATERIAL FOR BACKFILL OR BEDDING FOR UTILITY LINES, INCLUDING
OUTFALL AND INTAKE STRUCTURES, PROVIDED THERE IS NO CHANGE IN PRECONSTRUCTION
CONTOURS. UTILITY LINE IS ANY PIPE OR PIPELINE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY
GASEOUS, LIQUID, LIQUEFIABLE, OR SLURRY SUBSTANCE, FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND ANY
CABLE, LINE, OR WIRE FOR THE TRANSMISSION FOR ANY PURPOSE OF ELECTRICAL
ENERGY, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH MESSAGES, AND RADIO AND TELEVISION
COMMUNICATION. DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ACTIVITIES WHICH DRAIN A WATER OF' THE U.S.,
SUCH AS DRAINAGE TILE. SECTION 404 ONLY.
STATUS IN NORTH CAROLINA: ISSUED.
INFORMATION:
1. ALL UTILITY LINES MUST BE COMPLETELY BURIED. THIS NATIONWIDE PERMIT
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE UTILITY LINES THAT ARE NOT COMPLETELY BURIED.
2. THIS NATIONWIDE PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE USE OF FILL MATERIAL FOR
PERMANENT ACCESS CORRIDORS.
NATIONWIDE CONDITIONS: STANDARD GENERAL CONDITIONS AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS:
1. MATERIAL RESULTING FROM TRENCH EXCAVATION AND MAY BE TEMPORARILY
SIDECAST INTO WATERS OF THE U.S. PROVIDED THAT THE MATERIAL IS NOT PLACED
IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT IS DISPERSED BY CURRENTS OR OTHER FORCES AND MUST
BE REMOVED WITHIN THREE MONTHS.
2. THE AREA OF WATERS OF THE U.S. THAT IS DISTURBED MUST BE LIMITED TO
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE UTILITY LINE.
3. IN WETLANDS, THE TOP 6" TO 12" OF THE TRENCH SHOULD GENERALLY BE
BACKFILLED WITH TOPSOIL FROM THE TRENCH.
4. EXCESS MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED TO UPLAND AREAS IMMEDIATELY UPON
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.
5. ANY EXPOSED SLOPES AND STREAMBANKS MUST BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY UPON
COMPLETION OF THE UTILITY LINE.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS:
1. APPLICANTS MUST NOTIFY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER AND RECEIVE FROM THE
DISTRICT ENGINEER WRITTEN APPROVAL PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.
2. THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL IN WATERS OR
WETLANDS WILL BE FOR THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM PERIOD OF TIME NECESSARY TO
ACCOMPLISH THE WORK.
3.' STABILIZATION IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL
CROSSING.
4. WORK PLANS MUST BE PROVIDED AND MUST BE SIZED TO 8 1/2 BY 11 INCHES.
5. RESTORATION PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
DESIGNATING A TIME TABLE FOR RESTORATION. .
401 CERTIFICATION DETERMINATION: GENERAL CERTIFICATION ISSUED, BUT
CONDITIONED AS FOLLOWS:
1. WRITTEN CONCURRENCE IS REQUIRED FROM NCDEM.
2. THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR IS LIMITED TO 40 FEET IN WIDTH AND MUST BE
MINIMIZED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE.
3. PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED ACCESS CORRIDORS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE
MINIMUM WIDTH PRACTICABLE AND MAY NOT EXCEED 10 FEET IN WIDTH EXCEPT IN
LOCATIONS SPECIFIED ON MAPS FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS PURPOSES OR AT MANHOLE
LOCATIONS.
4.• ESTABLISHED SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES ARE UTILIZED TO
PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE TURBIDITY WATER QUALITY STANDARD (50
NTUS IN STREAMS AND RIVERS NOT DESIGNATED AS TROUT BY NCDEM; 25 NTUS IN
ALL SALTWATER CLASSES AND ALL LAKES AND RESERVOIRS; AND 10 NTUS IN TROUT
WATERS).
5. WORK PLANS MUST BE LEGIBLE AND SIZED TO 8 1/2 BY 11 INCHES.
6. MEASURES SHALL ItE TAKEN TO PREVENT LIVE OR FRESH CONCRETE 7-,CM COMING
TTTTn rnM'rMf T WTTW WMTrVC n TWr CTnTF TTNTTT. THE CONCRETE HAS HARnF'NFn _
7. ADDITIONAL SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS MAY BE ADDED TO PROPOSED PROJECTS
IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY AND
' EFFLUENT STANDARDS.
S. CONCURRENCE FROM NCDEM APPLIES TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AND SHALL
EXPIRE THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE COVER LETTER FROM NCDEM.
' CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: CONSISTENT IN COASTAL AREA SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. IF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS WITHIN THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREA,
' THE APPLICANT MUST RECEIVE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE FROM THE NCDCM THAT THE
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
2. SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BE LOCATED WITHIN AN
' AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) AS DESIGNATED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION, A COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT (CAMA) PERMIT
IS REQUIRED FROM THE NCDCM UNLESS THE APPLICANT IS A FEDERAL AGENCY. IF
' THE APPLICANT IS A FEDERAL AGENCY AND ALL OR PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AEC, A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO
15 CFR 930 MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE NCDCM AT LEAST 90 DAYS BEFORE THE ONSET
' OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY.

C
REVISED JANUARY 1, 1992
Rowan County
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
' until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
' under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) - C2
' Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

1

t An Archaeological Survey
of the
' Proposed Town Creek Interceptor,
Salisbury and East Spencer,
Rowan County, North Carolina.

Thomas Hargrove
December 1993
' A Report Submitted to
Peirson & Whitman, Engineers,
by
' Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

it

I

Contents
Management Summary ............................... ............................................... 1
Introduction ............................................. .............................................. 2
Physical Environment ................................ ............................................... 2
Prehistoric Background .............................. ............................................... 3
Ethnohistoric Background .......................................................................... 3
Archaeological Research in the Project Vicinity ................................................... 5
Historical Background ............................... ................................................ 5
Field Methods .......................................... .............................................. 6
Results of the Survey ................................ ................................................ 7
Standards of Significance ........................... ................................................ 8
Recommendations .................................... ................................................ 8
References Cited ...................................... ............................................... 9
Appendix: The Survey Proposal .................. ................................................. 11
i

' List of Figures
Follows
' Page
' Figure 1: North Carolina and the project area ..................................................... 2
Figure 2: Rowan County and the project area ..................................................... 2
' Figure 3: The Salisbury/East Spencer vicinity and the project area ..............................2
Figure 4: Looking eastward (downstream) along Town Creek in Salisbury .................. 2
' Figure 5: Looking westward (upstream) along Town Creek from the Innes Street bridge ... 2
' Figure 6: Looking northward along the route of the interceptor line in Salisbury ............. 2
Figure 7: Looking eastward toward 31RW126 ....................................................7

0
1
11

n
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1 The archaeological survey of the proposed Town Creek interceptor covered about 14,000
feet of corridor (about 9.4 acres) in or near East Spencer and Salisbury in Rowan County, North
Carolina. The purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for prehistoric or historical
archaeological sites with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
Since most of the non-urban parts of the project area are in forest, the survey relied heavily
on screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet) along the centerline of the proposed
corridor. In areas with exposed ground surfaces (plowed fields, farmroads, treefalls, etc.), the
surveyors closely examined the area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. The western section of
the survey area is in a heavily urbanized part of Salisbury. Most of the new pipeline will closely
parallel the existing pipeline.
The survey recorded one prehistoric lithic site, 31RW126, represented by three thinning
flakes. It does not appear to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
' We do not recommend additional archaeological study of the proposed interceptor line, as it
is now designed.

1

n

0
INTRODUCTION
PgpjecLtitlti: An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Town Creek Interceptor,
Salisbury and East Spencer, Rowan County, North Carolina.
l ocation of the project: The project's eastern end is at the municipal water treatment plant site near
East Spencer. The proposed new interceptor line parallels the present line as it runs along the
floodplain of Town Creek, westward (upstream) toward Salisbury. In Salisbury, the line turns to
the north, paralleling Innes Street (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Contracting organization: Peirson & Whitman, Engineers, Raleigh, North Carolina.
principal Investigator and Field Director: Thomas H. Hargrove.
Field rew: Marilyn Barrier, Patrick Robertson, Randy Williams.
Date of survey: November 1993.
Scow of archaeological work: See Appendix.
The following sections follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaological Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archa'ology Branch, Division of Archives and
History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. The sections include a description of
the project's physical environment and its probable influences on past settlement choices and site
preservation; an outline of the area's prehistoric and historic background; a description of field
techniques; an inventory of sites recorded during the survey; a discussion of the archaeological
significance of the sites recorded; recommendations for archwological management; and a list of
sources consulted for the background research, survey, and evaluation.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project area is in the western Piedmont's "Felsic Crystalline System," which
features widely variable topography: narrow, steep-sided ridges, broad hilltops with gentle
side slopes, and a dendritic drainage pattern (Daniels et al. 1984:35). Most of the terrain in
the project area is lowland floodplain or terrace along Town Creek. Elevations range from
about 650 feet AMSL near the treatment plant on Town Creek, up to about 750 feet in
Salisbury. From a geological perspective, the area is in a belt of metavolcanic rock (North
Carolina Geological Survey 1985), where stone suitable for producing tools in prehistoric
times would have been abundant. Although a detailed soil map of Rowan County has not yet been
published, the soils along most of the outfall corridor appear to be heavy, clayey Chewacla soil, a
relatively poorly drained floodplain soil. Town Creek flows into Crane Creek, which is part of the
Yadkin River basin.
About two-thirds of the corridor runs through rural forest or farmland. The remainder is in
urban or suburban portions of Salisbury, where earlier pipeline construction and other major
disturbances have made preservation of archaeological remains highly unlikely (see Figures 4, 5,
and 6).

i

,{ 7 1 ? ? r r I t 1: t `??
r ? a E , ? j 1 =
•
i s l I t ??; ''\ t'
° I
.z
J
lr
0

a ?
s
v
3
k
cd
cd
U
U
•O
1r
a
b
cd
V
z
3
x
.c?
w
0
a
O
r
U
a
M

Ksb
Of edland OGum ree.-_..__. f
01 Harni,y'
O Sheffield Cana j Mid oSmi h Gve
y
A V Bncby oArcadiaAdvance Reedy Creek Cornatzer O urg , f Fork ?-Welcome m 0
S \ ocks Church ArnoldO rinil
or!5 I [ Yom' p O J °
J adkin College o
N I
coo+SDrinBsp ? Davie gRN
/ Crossroads Reedso /O U? an A a
laf O Crossroads
E L L
Coolee a L@xin ?0 Holly Grove i f
o J Needmore 0 Jun p Cooleemee -? D °C, ` , ? Q 0.0
?' a 0. v
Sta
@Sm u a / Woo leafCr Chui?hland o
/ J/-?a
G /rdontow"n I
Cry ??? 'Y y/ akeview \1 Fi
e p ` 1Li wood °°°W)))/?
ium S Cleveland arb9f 0Franklin c ?/ 1
Springs / e0J yam,
Y
outmans O I s Trading F v Id I
Amity Hill Bear / r o
Poplar
o Wiow U; pence ?,\F4ezor 3?J /GH ROCK V) I
t ?rtt Ull Mil Bridge Row li lisbury? ? ntAKE
Mete pa R O W nI -v ,3. f° I
11
gerds " ' `? Craven 1? A. /
1 `p Granit o 3° „t 1 Dento
t / Quarry
lie U ?u / Sealing %
Faith o o ' ( Liberty O Handy - o
vil ' Cl?iin, Gro a rescentI ova o Pooletown M Roc p\
C .?
OJackson i
Mt Darl a t Postiav0 Rock*ell Hill N.e
La d' eight i "
eal ?o Newsom
??. Gold Hill
DavlI
S - --r- - - - ` - - - --r- -?/ - - -i- - -
Cornelius K napoli Blaine
s ? ? s a o
,T o isInhel r 1 n
o IIdoradq
Caldwell ?A N }' j 1 Rich Id Isenhour t ?\ 13 ,
J \Cr l adin
?._ New iondQno y y Lake
H ntersville 1 ?? \r o c ?.`'
18141 cord
too `? r <
J L
` QQ C? nou ? U ?,y,, ? le 1 e o
1 Mt Pleasam O ?o ZF(O Ba n
R lJ I I oMilling' rt
Me Nn r PI I O r'
Roberta 2 Barriers Mill w y er
Cro?, e arle?
15051
0 a is urgo ; j Y M
vita o Store s Georeevilie N v,
f
- O 7 `lie
BU w Rocky,Rive?
1 ?f A ) ?1
Newell i I -.+ n \ O f rog florid I. / alra Tillar
Figure 2: Rowan County and the project area (arrow).
Base map: U.S.G.S. SJ'ateofN=h CJrolma.
Scale: one inch = eight miles
1
o?
I
.
• I 0 c
da
I?
11

y

\ I
\
,A.

' C

•
?
=' •
?
UU QI
r

? ..os

i
i
-14
a
o ?

U

a
,

b

a
?

a

$L

i
? I t Iy V
I? I LL ?
? Lr

TI
? 1?

I

p
M

$ I c'
?

N
I '
^
v
?

1 ^
'
W

88

II
I S?
o ll

ILL
? w

Figure 4: Looking eastward (downstream) along Town Creek in Salisbury.
Town Creek runs under the lighter-colored concrete slab.

II

Figure 5: Looking westward (upstream) along Town reek
from the Innes Street bridge.
l;I I 1 ? i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 6: Looking northward along the route of the interceptor line in Salisbury.

u

3
PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
The earliest recorded human settlements in the North Carolina Piedmont are Clovis period
campsites that date from the close of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. Fluted Clovis
points are occasionally found in surface collections in the region, but intact Clovis sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont are practically unknown. Clovis points have been found in Rowan
County and at Cooieemee in Davie County (Perkinson 1971 and 1973), so it seems likely that the
Salisbury vicinity was occupied or at least visited by bands of Late Ice Age hunters 10,000 to
12,000 years ago. The oldest excavated site in the North Carolina Piedmont dates from the
Hardaway period, about 10,000 B.C. to 8,000 B.C. (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976). We know
almost nothing about these earliest North Carolinians. They were probably nomadic hunters and
gatherers, but we do not know whether these eastern Paleo-Indians resembled their Paleo-Indian
contemporaries west of the Mississippi River, who were hunters of now-extinct big game animals
such as mammoth and bison.
The following Archaic period is somewhat better known, but still the subject of a great deal
of speculation because we lack information about major aspects of subsistence and social
organization. Overviews of the Archaic period have suggested that the Archaic cultures of eastern
North America show an evolutionary sequence in which nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-
gatherers, fishers, and shellfish collectors developed regional adaptations to the warmer climates,
expanding deciduous forests, and smaller game animals of the Holocene (Willey 1966:60;
Caldwell 1958). The Early Archaic period in North Carolina is sub-divided into a Palmer period
' (ca. 8,000 B.C.) and a Kirk period (7,000-6,000 B.C.), both characterized by corner-notched
points (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976:11-12).

The Middle Archaic period is represented by the Stanly period (6,000-5,000 B.C.), the
Morrow Mountain period (5,000-4,500 B.C.), the Guilford period (4,500-4,000 B.C.), and the
Halifax period (3,500 B.C.) (Ward and Coe 1976:11-12). The Late Archaic, or Savannah
River period (4,000-500 B.C.) is characterized by large, triangular points with broad stems and by
large bowls carved from soapstone (Coe 1964:119; Ward and Coe 1976:1976).
In the North Carolina Piedmont, the first recognized Woodland period is the Badin (500
B.C. - A.D. 600), marked by sand-tempered, fabric- or cord-marked ceramics and large, often
crude triangular points. Its successor was the Yadkin period (A.D. 600-1,200), whose ceramics
resembled its predecessor's, with occasional linear or check stamping added to the decorative
motifs (Coe 1964:55). Another difference between the Badin pottery and the later Yadkin pottery
is the latter's use of crushed quartz temper (Coe 1964:30). After A.D. 1200, regional differences
appeared in the form of Caraway, Uwharrie, Dan River, and Hillsborough cultures. An intrusive,
complex culture from the south, the Pee Dee, appeared in the southern Piedmont about A.D. 1500.
After about a century of occupation, the bearers of the Pee Dee culture retreated to the south, and
their territory was reoccupied by the indigenous Uwharrie groups (Ward and Coe 1976:13). The
Pee Dee culture, with its temple mounds and stratified society, could have had a significant affect
on the Native Americans of the Salisbury vicinity,
ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND
Although most histories of North Carolina tend to date the first significant Indian and
European contacts to the English coastal explorations and Roanoke settlements of the 1580s, the
Spanish conquistadores had explored western North Carolina and had made an unsuccessful
attempt to garrison the Piedmont over 20 years before. During the 1560s, the Spanish contingent
at Santa Elena (now Parris Island Marine Base in South Carolina) sent an expedition under Juan

' 4
' Pardo into the western Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina. According to one
interpretation of the Spanish records of these expeditions, the Spanish soldiers visited Indian
villages in the Piedmont in the vicinity of the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory,
and Maiden and built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury. These garrisons were
short-lived because of hostilities between the Indians and the Spanish, who burned several Indian
towns, and because of the fragile supply lines between the western Piedmont and Santa Elena on
the lower South Carolina coast (Hudson 1976:116-118; Hudson et al. 1981).
The earliest recorded visitor to this section of the Piedmont was the explorer John Lederer,
a German doctor commissioned by the Governor of Virginia to look for a westward route to the
' Pacific Ocean in 1669 and 1670. His account of his visit to the Piedmont in 1670 during a journey
along the Trading Path to the Catawba was and still is controversial (Adams 1980). By some
interpretations, Lederer travelled south from Virginia until he reached the Catawba Indians in the
vicinity of modern-day Fort Mill or Camden, South Carolina (Brown 1966:80). If Lederer did in
fact travel that far along the Trading Path, he probably passed within one or two miles of the
survey area. While in the vicinity of present-day Salisbury, Lederer visited the Sara Indian village
on the Yadkin River (Rights 1931:423-424).
' In 1676, a few years after Lederer's visit, a number of refugee Indian groups in the north
sought sanctuary near the Occaneechi settlement on the Roanoke River on the present boundary
' between Virginia and North Carolina. These groups included the Saponi, displaced from their
homes on the Rivanna and Otter Rivers to the north, the Tutelo from the upper Roanoke River, and
the Conestoga. Warfare erupted between the Occaneechi and the Conestoga, and the latter were
' driven out. Later in the same year, the Saponi, Occaneechi and others were in turn driven out of
the Roanoke River valley by a force of Virginians under Nathaniel Bacon. The Saponi moved to
the Yadkin River valley in the vicinity of present-day Salisbury (probably on or near the former
Sara village), the Occaneechi resettled on the Eno River in the upper Neuse River basin in the
' vicinity of Hillsborough, and the Tutelo moved to the upper Yadkin River (Swanton
1946:164,178,200).
' After Lederer, the next Piedmont explorer of major significance for local ethnohistory was
John Lawson, who crossed the North Carolina Piedmont and coastal plain in the winter of 1700-
1701. Somewhere in the Charlotte vicinity, Lawson's path took him through the territories of the
' Esaw, Sugaree, and Catawba Indians. Not far from the project area, Lawson stopped for four
days to visit the Saponi town, probably near the present site of Salisbury or Spencer. Lawson said
that the Saponi lived in a palisaded town "in a clear Field, about a Mile square."
L_

From Lawson's description of these Piedmont Indians, we obtain a picture of small,
scattered groups of Indians, often living in palisaded villages of 17 houses or less (Lefler
1967:50,55,56). Although these villages were often associated with large fields of maize, the
Piedmont Indians apparently also relied heavily on wild plants (especially the acorn) and on game
for much of their food. They followed a seasonal round, divided roughly into a winter phase and a
spring and summer phase. In the winter, adult men and women left the main villages to the elderly
and the children and formed satellite camps in the Hunting Quarters. From these camps, they
hunted and foraged until spring, when the members of a village returned to it to plant maize,
squash, and other crops. To judge from the comments of Lawson and other travellers, the
Piedmont abounded in game: white-tailed deer, turkey, bear, beaver, raccoon, opossum, rabbit,
squirrel, bison, and passenger pigeon. The larger Piedmont rivers and streams provided many
species of fish, including the spring runs of anadramous fish, which the Indians caught with weirs
(Lefler 1967:216-218,182).
The departure of the nearby Saponi from their settlement on the Yadkin River can be partly
deduced from occasional references in colonial records. In 1714, Alexander Spotswood, the

' 5
Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, ordered the construction of Fort Christanna on the Meherrin
River in southeastern Virginia. The fort, intended to guard the Virginia frontier from hostile
Indians, was built in association with an early Indian reservation designed to house Indians who
could be used as a buffer against other Indians. Among the Indians who settled temporarily at the
fort were Piedmont groups such as the Saponi, the Tutelo, and the "Stenkenocks." In 1716, the
Irish traveller John Fontaine visited Fort Christanna and the nearby "Saponey" village, whose
' architecture and inhabitants he described in his journal. Virginia politics led to the closing of the
fort within a few years, but many of the Indians stayed on for a few more years, surviving an
Iroquois attack in 1719. Around 1728, William Byrd recorded that the "Sappony Nation" was
' "made up of the Remnant of Several other Nations, of which the most considerable are the
Sapponys, the Occaneches, and Stenkenocks, who not finding themselves Separately Numerous,
enough for their Defense, have agreed to unite into one Body, and all of them now go under the
Name of Sapponys" (Miller 1957:128). By 1730, some of the Fort Christanna Indians had moved
to Catawba territory in South Carolina, and some of them under the name of Saponi requested
permission to settle with the Tuscarora on their Roanoke River reservation in eastern North
Carolina in 1733. In 1743, a trader visiting the Catawba nation in South Carolina found an
' amalgamation of many Indian refugee groups, speaking as many as 20 different languages.
Among these refugees were such Piedmont groups as the Saura (or Sara) and the Eno, who lived
in a section of the Saura town. By the 1740s and 1750s, some of the Saponi and Tutelo had
moved to Pennsylvania and New York (Beaudry 1979:4-7; Alexander 1972:96-97; Swanton 1946:
200-201, 178-179; White 1982:62-65). Some of the Saponi apparently remained in North
Carolina. In the 1750s a report to North Carolina's Governor Dobbs stated that a number of
Saponis were living on the plantation of William Eaton of Granville County (now Vance and
Warren counties). In 1762 the Saponi, including about 20 warriors, still lived in North Carolina
near the Roanoke River and survived mainly through hunting. Some of the Saponi apparently
' adopted English names, and by the 1780s they had moved to southeastern North Carolina to settle
in the Robeson County vicinity (White 1982:67-68, 80,82-83).
' ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
A review of the site files in the Office of State Archaeology showed that no prehistoric sites
have been recorded in the project area. Several archaeological surveys have taken place in Rowan
County, which was also the home of an active archaeological program under the late Peter Cooper
' at Catawba College in Salisbury. During his tenure at Catawba College, Peter Cooper and his
students recorded a number of prehistoric sites in and near Salisbury, but apparently none in the
project area.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
' Background research on the project area included a review of maps and secondary
historical sources in the North Carolina State Archives and in the North Carolina Collection at
UNC Chapel Hill. The history of Rowan County has been extensively described in James
Brawley's Rowan County: a brief history and Old Rowan: views and sketches (Brawley 1959
and 1970) and in Robert W. Ramsey's Carolina cradle (1964), and the county's architectural
history has been thoroughly detailed in The architecture of Rowan County, North Carolina (Hood
1983). This section will draw upon these sources to discuss the area's history in broad outline.

I Eighteenth Century
6
Although the Spanish attempted to conquer this area in the late 1500s, and English-
speaking explorers and traders visited this region as early as the late 1600s, permanent European
colonization of this section of North Carolina began in the mid eighteenth century. A huge influx
' of Scotch-Irish and German settlers from the overcrowded colonies of Pennsylvania and Maryland
travelled south into the colony by way of the "Trading Path to the Catawba" (now Salisbury's
Main Street) and by the Great Wagon Road, which probably passed not far from the project area.
During the mid eighteenth century, most of the land along this section of Town Creek was acquired
by men such as John Long and James Allison. Long. John Long was a planter-merchant who
moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina in the 1750s. In 1758, he also bought lot #3 in the
south square and lot #9 in Salisbury. James Allison, also of Pennsylvania, acquired a land grant
' on Town Creek as early as 1749, and others in 1751 (also on Town Creek, and "including the
Inden Camps" or "the Tradeing Camps") (Ramsey 1964:52, 106, 108-109,111, 167; Hofmann
1986:3). By 1753, the frontier population had grown to the pointwhere a new local government
' was needed, and Rowan County was created from Anson County. In 1755, the town of
Salisbury was created on the Trading Path to serve as the new county seat (Brawley 1977:2-4).
Nineteenth Century
For many generations after the earliest European settlements, Rowan County was largely a society
of yeoman farm families. Until after the Civil War, agriculture was mostly a matter of subsistence
' farming with corn or wheat. The farm economy in the ante-bellum period was heavily dependent
on slave labor, and by 1850 one-third of Rowan's population was in slavery (Brawley 1977:88).
Like many regions in North Carolina, Rowan County attempted to promote prosperity through
' "internal improvements" projects designed to improve transportation, open new markets, and
encourage trade and commerce. These canals and plank roads had some improving effect on areas
such as Rowan County, but the major change came in 1855, when the railroad came to Salisbury
' and succeeded in opening a new economic era, which ended only a few years later with the
outbreak of the Civil War. Salisbury was the site of a Confederate prisoner-of-war camp, which
made it a target for a raid by U.S. cavalry under General Stoneman in April 1865. The site of the
prison camp and the graves of the thousands of Union soldiers who died there are only a few
blocks west of the project area (see Figure 3). Following the end of the War and Reconstruction,
Rowan County recovered with the creation of new industries in tobacco and textiles during the
1870s and 1880s, and Salisbury regained its status as one of the state's 10 most populous towns, a
' position it held until the 1920s. The town's geographic growth was relatively slow, however, and
the 635 acre tract which contained the town in 1755 was not enlarged until 1877 (Hood 1983:295).
FIELD METHODS
' Since most of the less disturbed portions of the project area are forested, the survey relied
heavily on screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet) along the approximate center line of
the proposed corridor. The shovel tests measured about 35 to 45 cm (14 to 18 inches) across and
were excavated into the underlying clay subsoil. The soil from the shovel tests was screened
' through 1/4 inch hardware cloth. In areas with exposed ground surfaces (plowed fields,
farmroads, logging roads, treefalls, etc.), the surveyors closely examined the area for prehistoric
and historic artifacts.
We defined a prehistoric site as an area where we found at least one artifact dating to the
prehistoric period (for example, a flake from manufacturing or repairing stone tools, a stone
' projectile point, or a potsherd). We defined an historic site as an area containing patterned
1

7
' evidence of settlement (house foundations or concentrations of building debris and domestic
artifacts, for example) or industry (a mill or still site, for example) dating between colonial
settlement in the mid-eighteenth century and 1943 (the minimum age for National Register of
' Historic Places eligibility is 50 years). Practically applied, we would classify, for instance, the
remains of a house, a mill, a bridge, or a foundry dating before 1944 as an archaeological site. An
isolated fragment of whiteware or bottle glass would not be recorded as a site.
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
C

J

This section presents the inventory of archaeological sites recorded during our survey of the
project area. We include information on the site's period of occupation (if known), the artifacts
collected, the techniques used to locate and define the site, some of the relevant environmental
details, indications of preservation or disturbance, potential for future research, and speculations
on the effects of project construction on the sites. The site form submitted to the Office of State
Archaeology lists additional environmental information (elevation, distance from water, etc.). Later
sections address the question of site significance and recommendations.
The survey recorded one prehistoric lithic. Figure 3 shows the location of the site. The
site number is assigned by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) under the national system of site
identification, in which "31" stands for North Carolina, "RW" stands for Rowan County, and the
last number represents the order in which the site was entered into the OSA site files for that
county. The accession number is also assigned by the OSA.
Munsell color readings of soil samples are made on dry samples.
31RW 126 (Town Creek Interceptor #1) (Accession #93-595)
Type of site: This prehistoric lithic site is represented by three tertiary flakes of felsic stone, from
an area measuring about 20 meters in diameter. The lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible
to assign a date to the site.
How recorded: During a surface inspection of a plowed field on the east side of Andrews
Road, the surveyors found the three flakes exposed on the surface. Surface visibility was very
good -- about 80%.
Environment: The site (Figure 7) is in a soybean field at the interface of a floodplain terrace and
the foot of a gradual upland slope. The present sewer line is about 5 meters north of the site. Soil
profiles in the site revealed a 15 cm deep plowzone of light yellowish brown (10YR 6.4) clayey
loam over yellow (1 OYR 7.8) loamy clay (15 - 30 cm).
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Plowing, pipeline construction, and soil erosion are the
major sources of disturbance.
Research potential: The low density of artifacts and the high degree of disturbance diminish the
potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The site is south of the impact area.

Figure 7: Looking eastward toward 31 RW 126 from Andrews Road.
The site is in the far corner of the field.
' 8
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our evaluations of archwological significance come from the published criteria of the
National Register of Historic Places for establishing historic significance for structures, sites, or
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, craft, feeling, and association
' and that:
A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
' C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinctions; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
(National Park Service 1986:1)
Some types of properties are usually not eligible for National Register status: properties less than
50 years in age; churches; cemeteries; commemorative items, such as public monuments; and
structures moved from their original locations or substantially altered. If these types of properties
' are an integral part of a larger National Register district, they might qualify for National Register
status (National Park Service 1986:1).
For prehistoric sites, the most relevant criterion is "D." Do these prehistoric sites have the
' potential to produce significant information and new insights on the region's prehistoric past? The
site at 31RW126 is a small, low-density lithic scatter (three flakes collected under good field
conditions). Its potential to yield significant information through excavations or controlled surface
collections appears to be very low. It does not appear to be eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
RECOMMENDATIONS
' The proposed interceptor line does not appear to have the potential to disturb
significant archwological resources. We do not recommend additional archaeological study of
the proposed interceptor line, as it is now designed.
J

REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Percy G.
' 1980 Travelers and travel liars, 1660-1800. Dover Publications, New York.
Alexander, Edward Porter (editor)
1972 The journal of John Fontaine; an Irish Huguenot son in Spain and Virginia,
1710-1719. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Beaudry, Mary C.
1979 Excavations at Fort Christanna, Brunswick County, Virginia: 1979 season.
Brunswick County Historical Society and the Department of Anthropology,
College of William and Mary.
' Brawley, James S.
1959 Old Rowan: views and sketches. Rowan Print, Salisbury, North Carolina.
' 1970 Rowan County: a brief history. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States. American
Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 54(5):1-130.
Hofmann, Margaret M.
1986 The Granville District of North Carolina, 1748 - 1763: abstracts of land grants,
volume 1. Roanoke News, Weldon, North Carolina.
Hood, Davyd Foard
1983 The architecture of Rowan County, North Carolina. Rowan County Manager,
Salisbury.
' Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Hudson, Charles, Chester DePratter, and Marvin Smith
' 1981 The route of Juan Pardo's exploration in the interior southeast, 1566-1568.
Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.

1
Lederer, John
1672 The discoveries of John Lederer, in three several marches from Virginia,
to the west of Carolina, and other parts of the continent: begun in March
1669, and ended in September 1670. Reprinted by Readex Microprint, 1966.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
9

E

1967 A new voyage to Carolina (by John Lawson). University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Miller, Carl F.
1957 Revaluation of the eastern Siouan problem with particular emphasis on the
Virginia branches - the Occaneechi, the Saponi, and the Tutelo. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 164.
National Park Service
1986 Guidelines for completing National Register forms. National Register
Bulletin 16.
North Carolina Geological Survey
1985 Geologic map of North Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina fluted projectile points - survey report number one.
Southern Indian Studies 23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina fluted projectile points - survey report number two.
Southern Indian Studies 25:3-60.
Ramsey, Robert W.
1964 Carolina cradle : settlement of the northwest Carolina frontier, 1747-1762.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
10
Rights, Douglas Letelier
1931 The Trading Path to the Indians. North Carolina Historical Review 8:403-426.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137.
Ward, Trawick, and Joffre L. Coe
1976 Final report: an archaeological evaluation of the Falls of the Neuse
reservoir. Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology,
' University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
White, Wesley D., Jr.
' 1982 Saponi: written as part of the "Historical Overview" section of
a petition for recognition in behalf of the Saponi descendants along
Drowning Creek, Robeson County, North Carolina. The Papers of
' Wesley D. White, Jr., the South Carolina Historical Society,
Charleston, South Carolina.
' Willey, Gordon
1966 An introduction to North American arch4xology: volume 1, North and
Middle America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

Appendix
' The Survey Proposal

11
it
1
An Archaeological Survey of the
1 Proposed Town Creek Interceptor,
Rowan County, North Carolina.
12
' Introduction
' This proposal has been written by Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. in response to a request from Peirson
& Whitman, Architects and Engineers, P.A., for a proposal to perform an archaeological survey of the route of the
proposed Town Creek interceptor, located near Salisbury and East Spencer in Rowan County, North Carolina. The
' purpose of the survey is to conduct an archaeological investigation to locate potentially significant prehistoric or
historical archaeological sites in compliance with federal and state regulations and guidelines.
' Background Research
The survey of the tract will begin with an archaeological and historical overview of the project area and its region.
' (This phase is called "Archival Research" in the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines.) The "overview" is defined by
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer's description of archaeological survey types:
' The purpose of an overview is basically to consolidate all of the available information about the
nature, distribution, and significance of the known archaeological resources and past archaeological
record in the region... The overview should result in a document which can be used by both
archaeologists and non-archaeologists in developing preservation plans, land use plans, and plans for
future archaeological research.
In ArQia o%glarl_,QjrF s.- Praca'rr/Aolrii,eArCra&Frojeas, by Mark Marhis and Dolores
' Hall, North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
This phase of the work will require archival research in the North Carolina State Archives, in the North Carolina
' Collection at U.N.C - Chapel Hill, and in local historical sources in Rowan County. We will also interview
landowners, cemetery recorders, local historians, and avocational archaeologists for the locations of known or
suspected sites in the area. The historical overview will also include a review of previous archaeological reports and
' site forms (on file with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History) from this section of the state in order
to locate known sites in the vicinity and to help put the project area and its sites into a regional context, which is
necessary for an evaluation of the significance of sites recorded during the survey.
' Field Survey
In areas with exposed ground surfaces, the surveyors will cross the exposed ground with systematic, closely spaced
transecxs to check for prehistoric and historic artifacts on the surface. Since the ground surface visibility in most of
the survey area is likely to be relatively low, the chances are small that archaeologists will find artifacts from every
site exposed on the surface. In areas without ground surface visibility, the survey will have to use systematic shovel
tests at intervals of 30 meters or 100 feet along the centerline of the proposed interceptor corridor. The soil from
each shovel test will be screened through 114 inch mesh, which improves artifact recovery and cuts down on
' individual surveyor error. Shovel tests will not be excavated where standing water is present or where the slopes are
too steep for habitation. Slopes will of course be checked for quarry sites or rockshelters. Each shovel test will
measure approximately 30 centimeters on a side. Each shovel test will be backfilled after its excavation.

13
If a surveyor finds a site within the project area, the field crew would then define the boundaries of the site by
examining exposed ground surfaces or by digging and screening additional shovel tests at right angles to the transect.
In addition to these transects, we will attempt to locate and record any previously recorded sites in the project's
immediate vicinity, as well as sites mentioned in the historical records or shown on historical maps.
In areas with surface exposure (e.g. dirt roads, plowed fields), the survey strategy will include intensive
examination of the exposed areas and controlled surface collections to obtain a representative sample of artifacts (if
present). The surveyors will make these controlled surface collections within two meter or four meter circles placed
at regular intervals across the sites to sample the range of artifact variability and density. The use of a standard
collection unit size will allow later for more meaningful comparisons of sites recorded through surface collections.
On historic sites encountered in the sample areas, the methods described above will be used, but the surveyors will
also make an effort to map and photograph visible surface remains (for example, foundations, wells, chimneys,
milldams). In abandoned cemeteries with visible markers, sinks, or other surface indications (e.g. ground-covering
periwinkle), we will record inscriptions (if present) and attempt to estimate the number of graves present, as well as
the size of the cemetery. The Office of State Archaeology states that an abandoned cemetery is one which has not
been used for interment within the last 15 years.
For the purposes of this survey, we will define a prehistoric site as one that contains one or more artifacts dating
to the prehistoric period (unless the artifact was placed in its find spot through modern disturbances, such as the
placement of fill dirt). An historic site will be defined as the remains of an occupation (a house, for instance) or an
activity showing patterned, purposeful behavior before 1943 (the cut- off date for National Register eligibility is 50
years).
Severely disturbed areas (e.g., existing road shoulders or embankments, borrow areas, etc.) and wetlands will be
eliminated from the survey. These unsurveyed areas (if they cover significantly large areas) will be indicated on
maps in the final report.
Some evidence of intact archaeological deposits can occasionally be found in shovel tests, but the most reliable
evaluations of a site's importance, if significant deposits are suspected from survey data, usually must come from
excavations of larger areas during a test phase. Before conducting the survey, it is usually impossible to predict
whether significant sites requiring test excavations exist in the project area. Tests would only come later (if at all),
in a second phase of work following the survey's identification of a site with evidence of intact archaeological
remains. Examples of sites that might be recommended for tests would be a prehistoric village or campsite with
evidence of intact cultural features, or a historic house or industrial site with artifacts and structural remains that
might give us significant information about life in the region during the centuries between colonization and 1943.
Analysis
Prehistoric ceramics will be measured and classified according to attributes such as inclusions ("temper type"),
surface treatments, rim forms, and thickness. Lithic and ceramic analysis will use the projectile point and ceramic
types described by Coe (1964) and standard classifications of other lithic artifact types. In addition to the
chronological placement of artifacts from each site, we will attempt to place each site in its environmental setting
in order to develop models or describe patterns of prehistoric settlement systems and land-use. We will attempt to
use the survey data and the synthesis of previous work in the area to advance our understanding of Paleo-Indian,
Archaic, and Woodland cultures and their use of the region.
Historic artifacts will be analyzed according to classificatory systems such as those described by South (1977),
Noel Hume (1976), and Munsey (1970). As far as possible, the analysis of historic artifacts and their sites will
attempt to relate the remains to the documentary record and to historical questions about the area's settlement by
various European and African ethnic groups and the evolution of small farms, plantations, and industries in the
region.
I1
14
Curation
' Each artifact will be washed and then numbered in ink with accession numbers obtained from the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History. ARC has facilities for short-term curation of these artifacts, but arrangements for
their permanent curation as a study collection will be made with a local institution following the conclusion of the
pmiecL
Evaluations of Significance
' Our evaluations of archaeological significance rely on the published criteria of the National Register of Historic
Places for establishing historic significance for structures, sites, or objects that possess integrity of location, design,
' setting, materials, waft, feeling, and association and that:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
' the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
' C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinctions; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
' or history.
(National Park Service 1986)
' Normally exempted from National Register eligibility are items less than 50 years in age, churches, cemeteries, and
structures that have been moved from their original locations or substantially altered. Cemeteries are extended
protection through state laws on human burials and skeletal remains, however.
Project Impacts
Each site will be analyzed with respect to the proposed project's impact on site preservation.
' Report
Immediately after the conclusion of the fieldwork, we will submit a management summary, listing the recorded
' sites and the project's impact on each. The draft and final versions of the report of archaeological investigations
will follow the format required by the Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of Archaeological Surveys and
Evaluations, issued by the Office of State Archaeology of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
The final, illustrated report will have a full description of our background research and its results, our survey methods
' and any sites recorded, methods of artifact analysis and site interpretation, standards of site significance with
documented evaluations of site potential, and statements about the relative sensitivity of various areas from an
archaeological viewpoint. Any recommendations for or against further archaeological wont (such as additional data
' recovery) or for preservation of sites will be supported with evidence from the survey and with reference to specific,
recognized areas of prehistoric and historic knowledge that would benefit from further attention to the site. Any
recommendations made against further work or for specific, additional work on the sites will be subject to review by
' the State Historic Preservation Officer in the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. We will also

I 15
Personnel
' The Principal Investigator will be Thomas H. Hargrove, who has a Master's degree in Anthropology from George
Washington University and a Bachelor's degree in the same field from the University of New Mexico. He has been
' employed by ARC as an archaeologist for twelve years and was previously employed as an archaeologist by the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History for over three years. His archaeological experience in the Rowan
County vicinity includes the following projects:
' 1985 Archaeological investigations at selected prehistoric sites along the
proposed Landis interceptor corridor, Rowan County, North Carolina.
Report submitted to Peirson & Whitman Engineers, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
1988 An archaeological survey of the Grants Creek outfall lines, Salisbury,
' Rowan County, North Carolina. Report submitted to Peirson & Whitman,
Engineers, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' 1988 An archaeological survey of a proposed Rowan County landfill site,
Salisbury vicinity, Rowan County, North Carolina. Report submitted
by Robert J. Goldstein and Associates. Inc. to Rowan County, North
Carolina.
' 1991 An archaeological survey of proposed pump stations and outfall lines
for the Rockwell 201 facilities, Granite Quarry vicinity, Rowan County,
' North Carolina. Report submitted to Peirson & Whitman, Engineers,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Schedule
We estimate that the time required for the completion of background research, fieldwork, analysis, and a
preliminary report is two weeks. The time needed for the completion of a draft final report and the required site
forms is an additional two weeks.
References Cited
Coe, Joffre L.
' 1964 The formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Tl"saQi2aFofthe
Ame?r'ru Pl:ilasaplric?tl Sorry 54 (5):1-130.
Munsey, Cecil
1970 TbeiUusd-ated wdetocn!!ezxiV bMVes Hawthorn Books, New York.
National Park Service
' 1986 Guidelines for completing National Register of Historic Places forms.
A&, o=1 Reyistef Bud&& 16.
' Noel Hume, Ivor

1976 Agwiletotheart:OasofaoIoaim/Aawicv Knopf, New York.
South, Stanley A.
1977 AAtsrb =dthezryiuhizarW,%rchrea1ggv. Academic Press, New York.

I?
7

C

16

?I

C

APPENDIX G
PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

C
7
' PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WITH COMMENT AND RESPONSES
1. COMMENT: Identify the acreage of wetland impacts by wetland
type.
' RESPONSE: 0.48 acres of Creek Wetlands
4.31 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetlands
' 2. COMMENT: Submit the wetland blue print drawings dated
November, 1991 or more recent. This information
will be used to determine if wetland impacts have
' been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
' RESPONSE: Two copies of the Contract Drawings showing the
wetlands have been submitted to Monica Swihart with
DEM's Environmental Planning Section.
' 3. COMMENT: The applicant may wish to re-seed wetland areas
with a native, annual plant to give the native
wetland vegetation a competitive advantage.
RESPONSE: The Contractor will be allowed to reseed wetland
areas with native, annual plants.

4. COMMENT: Discuss what will happen to the abandoned
interceptor. Since the existing interceptor has an
inflow and infiltration problem, the interceptor
may need to be removed or plugged near wetland
locations to prevent draining the wetlands.
RESPONSE: The existing interceptor will be abandoned and the
existing outfall connections will be tied into the
new 42" diameter and the existing interceptor
plugged. See Contract Drawings for locations.
5. COMMENT: A 401 Water Quality Certification will be needed
for this project.
RESPONSE: The 401 Water Quality Certification will be applied
for immediately after the Environmental Assessment
has been approved.
P&W Project No. 0207.

` N ^ h \ ^1? ' h ' C71
b to N
hA o .... ......
' }`" C 3
143
CID
\ ` o n
3 444 ?? m 3 ;
n
co Iz
m N cl . i
v I
Clh
ca 1
? ?.' ^•' •? r ,M ,r '. y?? i , `..ib? -"? t' tai, !.: i ? ?,
al;D
tn CO
In t Z)
z L9
!'` r?' . .1 _Y, ' rJ
v ,x y \ 1
ti - ,r; ?. M, ,• ?i'` '' S; .1° I ,"{ Mme :' ?` :,:?
...-., -/ ?' `? fr..-;rte. .-. .:.. .e...n. 'y/,fir •?YT. ???, ?1 ?l i' ? {?I' _,
.J ?:?'??t,. ,'Sr •,yri,'ddt•?L'ri?:?•? 1,n - ; "fir .+:?• +c ?? y ? .Y
i ? 1 K !. ? ? ) !t 'l a N .'ry
.t `•, 'J•'1, . .r f{7 ?.? - T^1,e', ,'s °. '.i : l(?i. § w z o
?-•? ''
J, w? 7
o
a•\\ t ' C ,, ..j Al ?, Z
't Lu
/,r RS :1 Y i U o
, •;??,,?! r' i i.! ?:. '?? fir. , , i,y ? ?. .,.• ? O z
9, C\j
t2' ? 't t
i ?` •?;rjrry `? ? •'>k'%k-,tom~??a `?'?.i `tr' - •+ ? f, r..?
r, Lu
?` try': fE ?7L???i , ? ? .'??F..•, ?/ '?? i?? ?,tN' , ? i ? ,? f,
?• r 3? i c'1 ? rl ???'i1 '? . ?/7% ? ?1? ,4 r?'• ?'l •???.? •}'t/?L?'?1 `.? ..lJ •• S ?. _?. ?1 - ? •„? ?•++
7 /? Sf "/ .((^ 'rc? 1
.t'•' _ µri., ? \ :?,t «.` ?sf(??i Jl• ??' '?th?;r. .:i?? ? ' t• > >_
• \ ? ' . ? lay, .. ; ,? , -1?''• 4 - ` C '
.0 lot,
Vti f ,?',\!rC!??* ?•4\'\'? tt% /?:j'< <'?/ •; ?, f'?• r. '?,.b .` ,„ •r{4??.?;h'r..14.` •'(`',•'; ?, : \ ` M J
J "`• "?'1,? • ,< it •? ? • . ,?' ,]. !`.?i •C7(?J4+'"! `/a ?? !. •i :! ,?'
Vie. ? .?? 'F'?` ,/ , -? f ••?'?'? ? ]fj `• .,,S? in w1..?/ Lr' R. /' _. ? .
t '? t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A14; tr-ewnj
C) FE F=1
September 1, 1994
Rowan County
DEM Project # 94646
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. David Treme, City Manager
City of Salisbury
132 N. Main St.
FILE COPY
P.O. Box 479
Salisbury, N.C. 28145
Dear Mr. Treme:
You have our approval to place fill material in 4.79 acres of wetlands or waters for the
purpose of sewer line installation at Town Creek sewer interceptor relocation, as you described in
your application dated 25 August 1994. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this
fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2664. This certification allows you to
use Nationwide Permit Number 12 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application.
If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification. An additional condition is that antiseep collars shall be installed at 150 foot intervals
from stations 84 through 105. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Si c ely,
P ston Howard, Jr. P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Mark Mulder; Pierson and Whitman
94646.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
':1Tr
PEIRSON
WHITMAN
ARCHITECTS
AND
ENGINEERS,
PA.
ESTABLISHED 1938
5510
MUNFORD ROAD
P.O. BOX
30398
PHONE
919/782-8300
FAX
919/783-7642
RALEIGH
N.C.
27622-0398

401 ISSUED
August 25, 1994
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 278626-0535
Attn: Eric Galamb
Re: Request for 402 Water Quality Certification
Town Creek Interceptor Relocation
City of Salisbury
P&W Project No. 0207
Dear Mr. Galamb:
Enclosed are seven (7) copies of the Joint
Application Form for 401 Water Quality Certification
for the Town Creek Interceptor Relocation. Please
issue the 401 Certification.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PEIRSON & WHITMAN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, P.A.
Mark A. Mulder, P.E.
MAM/ks
cc: Project file
Enclosures
U.S.A.
V %W
Q'I
DEM ID: c
401 ISSUBIDI D :
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT E`iGI?lEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE ?ERIMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
C001- PS OF ENGINE..=S
DEF,AIRTME`IT OF T-7 A:;%14
P.O. :OX 1390
W11_%JIKTON, NC 28402-1890
CT_Sa.W-CO-E
Te' =?hor.e (919) 251--'7 i 1
'MATER QUALIT'! PLANNING
DIVISION 0: 7'lI1ji0ONMFNT L Xr`.`
ENVIRO'iME:(? l•1 M
NC DEPARTu=NT OF
AND NA:?J?.^.L RESOUaCE . V r r
b,1
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27025-053; G
ATTN : MR. JOP-1 DOME"
(919) 733 { I 3_, ALTYSECTTeieuhone WATER WETLANDS GROUP
T, ^??LICATION SHOULD EE SENT TO _-S COR?S Or,
copy OF IS COMPLETED ?;
ONE (1) CO SE,irli-(7) COPIES S'r.OULD BE SENT TO TH- N.C. DIVIS:0;.
-`iG'iES?ITrr u, iAGE`!ENT. PLEA.SE PRINT
Ci-,i of Salisbury
1. OWNERS Nr.;!E
132 North main Street, P.O. Eox 479
2. G'n1lERS ADD?,ASS :
Salisbury, NC 28143
HOt ) ----- (-CORK) . (704) 63S-3270
3, G`niiE?S P::G?lE NL';??ER ( .
ONSIBLE CG OR 'L
nat-. NTtdA\ OR RES? AT . OFc C: .. 5?,
"GE ,S ??
IF APPLiC:
P::M NUM£: R: David Treme, city manager
zy o-- Salisbury
?.0. Box 479
Salisbury, Nc 26145 (70-^_1 -_,%70
;CC`TIO`I 0: ?r ^?i?i?D WORi: (.TT.-.C MA?) .
COUNTY
\r. ?Q7 T TOE,?I O.°, CITY Ci-v o? Sa1i sburv
S'ECIFTC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, L:.\;Dv-. {S
Town Creek
o. NAME OF CLOSz-ST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASI?I: Yadkin River Basin is part of t1he PeeDee River Basin
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS T=OUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS Ii? YES ( ] NO C{]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES ( ]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 0
DRAINED:
FLOODED: 0
EXCAVATED: 4.79
TOTAL IMPACTED: 4.79
12. DESCRIPTION OF
of 42" diameter
outfall, 1,940 f
of 8 sewer line.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To replace the existing interceptor and
outfalls due to their poor condition.
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY :BUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. There is no alternate route for the sewer lines, since the existing
sewers follow the low lying drainage areas leadi - to the Town Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
i5. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE A7=7CTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (XI NO ( j
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
No responses have been received.
10. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHTCH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (XI NO ( j
RESPONSE QOM THE SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
No responses have been received.
17. ADDITTO`iAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM: ^
WET- LAND DE TNL EAT1ON MAP SHOWING ALL W:.T...`N! DS, STF.E^.ND LAKES OIL
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED ?Y
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY. N/A
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residesidential/Commercial
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): The installation of 16,900 fee*_
sewer interceptor, 880 feet of outfall, 005 feet of 18"
Pet of 15" outfall, 1,270 feet of 12" outfall and 1,120 fees

Till= aW-I IDR M aN1!1 Al' IW IIIkm!ll=
O
`
:> V%, N, - -? ' ` .-V Nearest road
Project name-.-_:4,
ame_ _ ,
I /
County n C?.. Wetland area acres Wetland width C feet
::eon!!?:'!..'w'.?Sn?y'H::.•,';?nR. ..zr!N..y;r...rsrr.;r.•l..H..?.H??.......;.;, y,.;....?;,...:,::::::? ?.
O"
A?d? acent land AU

•
•
Hydrologically connected Hydrologically isolated

Domi zx eaetanon
.

ll r
Mu"Lan
iood?n?2ndweiness
n. 5e*nlperFizanently to pe.-j-nallzn.tly
uli
:.
tia.oaea 0'r*'-': I
re Iarl V"Iooden orconvEys tarn,?a:er.
.
>: L1L'IIn Or cfter si0ii '?
3 ?aasonally flocaed -
in?errlttntly llocae?- d? `empora.v.
Swr:-cCe .Wate2
_:. :.
..
.
9 a sar.,ace wa r
.l nb:etilaem c6-.of fiooa ,
.
Wetland type (select one) :1 Other
'
Swamp forest J Shoreline
cottomland hardwood forest
?.
Brackish marsh
•
Carolina bay
? J ma.srl
- Fresh 'later
_ Boc/Fen
LI Pcc :sin ! Epherr,eral „ tla?d
-
?
?
Fine savannah
11
tt
A
?i Y et flat
i he rating syC,;:1.7. cannct be Goplled lg ._It Marshes.
.....................

S .........•....•.....;
.
..um
Water storage
Bank/Shcreline stabiiization '
4.00
- Pollutant removal -
Sensitive watershed 1.50 = '' `''" ld?cr%una crc. c
Travel corridor '
S(
ib
t
i
l
es
u
ca
attr
Special ecolog
'
Wildlife habitat

= 1? .
x 1.50
-- Aquatic life value
Rec. eation/Education 3
x0.25=
Economic value
. .........................
.... .
..........................
MEN"
aS1? M w-.???, .e Nearest road -' S
Project name r-`• feet
County Wetland area.-aces Wetland width -
, ........
Project a ? Nearest road 5 Z 114 4
County Wetland area ?- --aces Wetland width `e°'
tc?.
r?
O
So
:1-
IV-
t?
Hydrologically isolated
........... ....................
Uomirani ?legeEatio..
' t, j? ? ? ?.i,.'?'.:' l?•t'-?. rte:..::. .. ? >.,
n t

"Finoa?.?g a..dweEr?ess
'f x
str^,?Loe7mdne*?:I? to r2nentl
! coaea or lnuITq.a E
L.:1 ra4?IarI floacta orconvCys ??ot-???ara-
.
Ctl, 1? Or u tc' $iC.i ??

- c. Il 'fIood
t- onG
rt L.l;;i itz-,? tEar;Ely: ?ocaea.o, tC1)o,a;v
.: .; ..
?F ?to: e? aence of r?ooaz? cr rs, face that---:

Wetland type (select one) Other
swamp forest Shoreline '
Bottomland hardwood forest - .low Brackish mars:.
h•
t ! F
? Carolina bay :vater marsh
res
Poccsin EoalFen '
Pinesavannah
:era! .,?:!a-•c

Wet flat •
,
The rating system cannot be applied to sat-arshes.
? • • • . • • • • • ? • • ? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w
SU171

Water storace
_ ,
.
Bank/ ?
Shoreline stabilization ? i< ` _ x 4.00
Pollutant removal ;
Sensitive watershed x I, zo . td?
r
:i
c

Travel corridor n
c
:
score.

Special ecolocical attributes S I •
Wildlife habitat Z x 1.50 = (O
Acuatic life value
Recreation/Education '
Economic value ?-
x0.25-
S
..... ................... .................................
•
Q? Hydrologically connected
DATA FORM
ROUTIrCE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation :Manual)
Project/Site: <'I;•
Date: County : ow c1v` _ Star-e:
Applicant/Owner:"4
?3Z ?I ? Urrn ??
Investigator: Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road, Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Do normal conditions exist on site? eS Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed? Transect ID:
Is the area a Dotential problem area? - Plot ID: I,,X- -'J" cod.
VEGETATION
Do-mi rant P! ar- Snpc4 es Stratum indicatcr
4. L: r
5. uJ(?JS
6
t\
Z < s r ?'r fC.-'J
7. f
8. CZ?
10.
11.
Percent Of Dcmi nant Snecles that are OBL, cACW, or -:_C: 'C /Remarks :
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Strew-:, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photecranhs
Other J
No Recorded Data Available
yield Observations
Depth of Sur=ace Water: -
DeDth to ?ree Water in Pit: > z'
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 z
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
X Sediment Demosits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Man Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Wc.? 1
Drainage Class: ?-cl
Taxonomy ( Subgroup ) F I „.? • • 11 .n l C- ^ r
Confirm Manned Type? Yes/No > I>
PROFILE Mottle Tex `•__ = ,
Den t^/Forizon/Matrix Color/Mottle Color/Abundance/Structure
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hvdr?c
High organic Content in Surface Laver
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hvdric Soils List
Listn^ on Nationalrvdric Soils List
Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Eninedon
Sulfide Odor
Actuic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleved or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
A, `-. -
_ Other ( ExD_ lain in Rearks )
Remarks:
in Sandy Soils
WETLAND DETE.Q-?INATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es/No
Wetland Hydrology Present? e=/No
Hydric Soils Present? e?/No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes;/No
Remarks:
4011SSUED
OEM ID: ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO T'E DISTRICT E`iGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PE?,'!ITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICAATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF E`iGI?1E?S
DEPARTMENT OF
P.O. -OX 1890
„ILV!T:iGTON, NC 28 02- ia9o
a?hOP.e (919) 251-"511
WATER QUALIT'! ;TANNING
DIVISION 0: E`i1JiRONMENTAL
NC DEPARTu=NT OF ENVIRO"iME:i D V '
AND NATUR^.L RESOURCE . -?
?.0. BOX 2953 AUG 2 5
raLCIGH, ,iC 27525-053;
ATTN. ;tR. JOF?i DORi`ic'L -"
Te;ephone (919) 733 73G ' W'?0ijilllp' H'i `,i
OF T ,.! S COMPLETED A?•°L ICATION SHOULD ~E SENT TO .'r.E CO.l.. yS Or
ONE ('l) COPY
pIES S•F.GULD BE SENT TO T... N.C. DIVIS:C', GF
cNGI'iEE::S. SE 1i,.+ (7) CO
;:ME'lTAL "RAC. ?RIVT
Ci-V of Sal15 L'rV
S ADDRESS 132 North Main Street, P.O. Bzo x 479
Salisbury, NC 28145
3S P::Gt1E ;dL; ER (HOt ) ----- (WORK) . [phone]
r.ME OR RC S? ONS! BL:. COR: -OR AT: 0: C_:'.` , ADDRESS
;.VT S id"
?? PLIC.-.3L?: AG
`` . Ic AP--V. Davie Treme, Ci?r manager
?v o? Sa.isbL_
P.O. Box 479 _ _
ca1;SOLrv, NC 26145 (i0-^_1 -^270
-CCr. G`; O: ED WORK M'?)-
i
5. 1
CC;?i' S TOW?.(7pt0 CITY Sali sburv
CiFIC LOC'TION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, L:-..`:D",?{cI -TC )
c?E
Town Creek
5. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN Yadkin River Basin is part of the PeeDee Rive- Basin
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS 1, OR WS I!? Y S (] NG C{ ]
9• HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [? ]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
-2-
NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 0
DRAINED:
FLOODED: 0
EXCAVATED: 4.79
TOTAL IMPACTED: 4.79
12. DESCRIPTION 0: PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): The installation of 1:6,900 feet
of 42" diameter sewer interceptor, 880 feet of outfall, 605 feet of 18"
outfall, 1,940 feet of 15" outfall, 1,270 feet of 12" outfall and 1,..L20 feet
of 8" sewer line.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To replace the existing interceptor and
outfalls due to their poor condition.
i4. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTI?II__ _.UST BE
CARRIED OUT IN 'WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKE`1 TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. There is no alternate route for the sewer lines since the existing
sewers follow the low lvina draina e areas leading to the Town Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (?,NFS) REGARDING PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTI14G ENDANGERED OR
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (XI. NO [ j
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD SE ATTACHED.
No responses have been received.
10. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHaO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES !Ill THE ?E"SIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (Xi NO ( j
RESPONSE FROM T'E SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
No responses have been received.
17. ADDIT1011i'L INcORMAT'ON REQUIRED BY DEM: _ {ES ON
T _VEATION M,'-.P S'.OWI;IG ALL WE-`-ANDS, ST?. .'"c
A. We T AND DEI M, I a, .
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO SE IMPACTED ?Y
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY. N/A
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residesidential/Commercial
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?

T01=aIF LIll'19aw1. ®IIt 'ANIMIA'Alw
T O
?Iz 'LttY
Project name ?? -I - '' Nearest road
/
I
acres Wetland width C fpet
County Wetland are a
•
••
•
H
i.,i»
t
::mom. !ascr; :t-.rrt. ..rn?cv;.jrr:}r;»
Zi:
,y y Z ri ^r t / l
jacenland.use'w r4 /rr/ `

.PIT
IR*a

/ r
` > Ot?tel ItHlvzarLve?PtalaOn ?/ ?/Q
r }

tr
U a
i> 16:; z s,ct / /
II?Yagncultur?ly,/ r
earr
s
t..L.xrTr.?`b4? h.`Ilfi /l l6 }N 9 IW? ? "rl Y . / l
::•?.tt?,.t., 'suburban/urbanl??l'3/il%a^ylll
.
t
+t?}: r..aH//r Mw?•rR }` !iY>/v4 /?fn ;fb.u /r n iY
}7Eenrs ecialnatu al
are?sr `?
?
?
l
?
?
{
....v, .....
b`K?},hH % ' /r,. l < l xA4. F} .J y-Y l ..

•
• Hydrologically connected Hydrologically isolated

17omiiiarieoetation

/
;..
/
abitinant
(2)..
}
Ft t
??esodinQ ar.dwetness
3 semiperindne*itIy to ,ue -rane_n
} fioodea.orinund
1
2 1 reW, arI ', pqq.! orCciivENs ?tnrn, ce-
-
1 uLrin or after
i~J ?2 zonally fleca ::
.. r
?l t-itzTmittantly foca or hmoora.v
sarfacp water :
.. ?l no.evlaence ot.iocc , sa,°iace 'Na = .

• Wetland type (se!ect one) .1 other
• Swamo forest _I Shore!!ne

land hardwood forest
0 Bottom'
-.? Brackish, mars`
i
C .1 Freshwater i:a-sn
arol
na bay
• 0 F
i Bog/Fen
n
ocos
•
? Pine savannah

Echemers! ; `::a7.g
_?
• `1 `Jet flat
t pplied to salt mars es.
be
The rating system canno a
A
SU
later storage
Bank/Shore!ine stabilization
4.00
Poilutant removal s
Sensitive watershed x 1.;0 tt?ccland crorC.
Travel corridor

Special ecological attributes - I
t _
50 = ` <
I
Wildlife habitat .
`cuatic life value
Recre ation/Education ! S .
x 0.2? _
Economic value
................................
..
... ................. . .
.
I Y) ° '
1? .. Nearest road '
Project name a r^ -` , ,-.
`? t < acres Wedand width
?•,-~?-`'., ---- J---
County Wedandarea_ -
........nv«wiit4rn,•.•.../J.ys:ti ..:.%AY.CM.t!9^'t!S!^.:$K:.yyyryn[r..,.,.•.?yir.:Y.::::'/.....i:.. •: n}....... .. ..

•
.
Hydrologically isolated
..........................
iiarf ?7egetatian ? ?,
..:tom ^c'vC :? t ? r?.:.r„? -`--•?..? .

F?ood?ng andwe}}ness
f1 se?riiverr?lan>?ntly to ?e*mGrizrntly
::: fo.odea orznurtd.tca `
! re IarI rloodEn or ronvcystarm : a.-
L1L'Ililg Or cfC2T SiOiT'? :;:
L3 eason?ll flood
Cf :T;riEtritly k?ocaec terrcora. y.
sa.*?ce water ? .
J no evicIence of Cb*0d ,C or sLliface .r CY:.
:.:
Wetland type (select one) Other
Swamp forest ! Shoreline
J Brackish marsh
Eottomland harcivicod forest
?' _! Freshwater mars..
Carolina bay V, Boa/Fen
Poccsin
Eonemera; ,,,.'.land
?
?
1, - savannah
,
1
?..! Y1e: IIGI
i he rating system canna
lied to ail r iar neC
be app
...
................... . ...
.
:
...... ... ..
.Sum........•....
Water storage

anklSincre6ne stabilization t
Oil'
.00

=
4
1 x 2°l.
- Pollutant removal -
Sensitive watershed 1.:; 0 = '1 ld'crfund sr.?: c .
Travel corridor
5? `c!
? _.
Special ecolocical attributes ...: ,. .
50
x 1
Wildlife habitat .
-- aquatic life value _-----
3
Recreation/Education
x 0.25
Economic value .
.................. ...
.......................
............
I Hydrologically connected
ti
r?
O
?LO
r1
01 Y'-
Project a Nearest road 5 Z f 1 '?
County `'J a^-- Wetland area-Z---aces Wetland width S-D `e°'
r+!Y^!r!y:'.r:'MS!. pnwww>Y,? '!.:Y.!: %iC'/.C! !!<:w ...lyr!
,O)CyC.. ;);1:y,.•:ii:',-<,w•:..?!: /.!" .y%!.: JO^.!<! r, {!Y. ::.J,. U /
f' /R 'f / rH,,..k>ti .?4.••.? n 'jt{?:Ir. ::Y:. J:4i{w ..,/.'.:.rJj. .i<9/.H.;. , F•r / S /
;;?{• .. ..... .. rY/.... /. K ;.? h?R "!:r - i c?c!.rlrir{ .? ::if•:.' ,?:., yy/ Lit ri H. )
?etlarcd?ocafion„x,.;/ f J F .? .::w. ,:) :?.?f.?!.t >A.d)acen and?use?` M
/ S{vJK.tAOi. N
r?Jr .Y/ 'w Kr i:•i,••v/i•::w{•^y lY ?Jy; Nn
/,y/..nr y F....: ....,.n..pv :L.. n r / "f ' ? ; Y.. +rt 4/ i.)/J rr awl •
y H /// H.y :.....y /!.Fx? w..HKn/)yCH.K{!•xry'•i:S::>i+ >' '? a;%:?""?f''p?, > L.1 r /
. .. .::::.:/:.... fi- ....r.....i t Y/ r /
?^.,.,., w H: {.
5! .SQ.u?Ei.:flr•e$?..L?.1,?y :!!;:,;;.^5?:;..).:ft :o.?"c. ?.?9.c.`i?)?'''v..• g...,.J
•: r: ':5,/i/•'' {'S•,•••^5.. ., :;fi:r: ii%>'i, ..?:• v.}::. ?:y+j{!y;.:{!<b{ti>;i=:j?h4? .Ji. `:%•.. fr:?tir'
i/ y! w ??/? /hU?ffr.- Kf w ,...,.r/.??yy:Hr:trfHr.\n ?,, / c ! .r.>f%y ?;, {• .
??}??•}}•+•}? /?}? 4' i { f .::..Y!{;;<>:fif?:%•:, '?:.:.?. ',.wr w::. ther namraLv.e(L?et?.hon.?,.,?1Q ,
iS:?i%!£:ii ?f ? f{Jiiv:j.?(,V.?\d•'V?r?[?G.w .. ) v'n R? .:i%riii.•/. it{yr :T:?:!n//•;ty, vn g'rri ./.1%%:••:: 5:!iY:.,, ....
ry .:.; ^?:'j:i?!{2n ry Yi!O'Y.:".}!,v,.ti"F.•>:v,..:?>)x?^::}•:f , .v..:•v!>nf!'b.("^:T ::>YJ2C:v res..^4:!rj ^..%? ,
..i....::.,: , r. r..H.r ...a ..H:rS"Ntt... .:t.rr. :.?, t ).Z}.;?:: :•.o .av^:'?'ih/".c•:o ? 'iio-; ,; •.:.,YY:,:. ,;/b.r.
.:>.::: vr: rr//.::. /N!;A• .. ;..1T.: i/A:!Y::v. ?. HR!%::ix£^^{y vi ti•::...,.,Yfr?...:M. yr,]4
ry.'{>.....'<.!Y„M', ,!G .:^fv)i•• •): Nr ^•:SY•i?ii' ..rr Hr %)r.?i wy J.. %.,
L] aK:
'
l l"llrez'
Vi.
,.... ,,. •r.?.. _.,..)k:...r::::$??cu ^.,;<.!z:>?;:,>.?Yr:::;:,:.
y,?I.. f'•.?'?.; .Y ..;.. .. n. N/ % ........4•?: •y;{nw.• .. .
rr MS ... .,.J',.S.vMr/f?/?KiI.. /}YFiY..AhY %+M.:.v):r..::: rr};W!:if.^..Y.!.vNrff?w<.rf.!?•:• :bwlyC :`Hi":•;::: r 't• .y .. H.^...1.•:'rrr •^• : yy;/'
. rr:r!{. y •.b Jn.;..:: fi')•.•: ^?s :.....H.r...!t{Ha:»>rx•>x?•)•?r•::r.%i.nra: Hr .•wY? .I•Y:.; a, Ct.:,v,v?;t ;;,: };i:... ;:.?r.6.;.. >"FYN<;::E i;,::<::):..
:;,).)}; yr, 4• r 3.,. ryw., ,y ^. arJ^s?tburbau .urban K ; .
...:;;NTrrr:!H "^'s ?<: $'•'iii:?:f%a6ad::?::.: b ?Y rK
:.:.:..:,... F?.o??ntemaittantst?am?..;)?<,?..:{w?.%,::.,y.'?.??•. r:?.w?,.Y:,:,•,.,f: t?:!?;,!?^.^. <,? N
. w?r.Y/•::q.'f%o.?H/ .,H.aonrrr.•a'l'°'"../,161'.6ii'%!«;r%IrH;!{y,:;a','; ,vtis,.• J a.::??^tai?;s, i"'K'vv:.'r !sriy.: !.,%Jrr{::. ':?.r r r /r. ^r
..,y.: :^!6. ??SS.LL:... :.•'!y) •?ylrr.{.:... ;..:.,•..::• .:;%yK; :: r.' •.y/r„xi:;Y:,t?G:M...,,::Ft/:::•::ru...ri'%;c;:;?.::F..::h/.; ,i!r/Nu%yi ?!%'%: ?ifv.4 ...i..,.
. ?.W,Ia ?'/N %?°rrl.4 :IYi.: ...../ •f{x!J. rI : ....4Y4^?Y!%::?qh.^Y:.JthS.'?.;Yj?p?
n.•,w:: r::.::• fJ '? 'H ,?5: { ?•• ?iV'?' •?ri0'. tN/,.Uv :+, AS r%4/e / ¢/,
:::..?. ,t€??u? e?fias?ntteadwaters i .?. •!.<f?•.. 1' - ,
vKY ??$.?„>!.h., ,. <) 4 i ?>?}?{L?E?Itf; ?.eaaliiaturai.azeas.
' %h:' :hl. h" T'!j ^f:,H.`•'^)iyN •. •'::f'!i'??'ii:•?w •k'!v :•^Yl;p :iS.y ^+•••v ?:. y+): • r r - t :
..... .dr_r. /..(f?.? : - _ 1.?/.S4%/Y/1SiY. i!".w/•:'rry/... ML:?:itrW; IY.: ).. e. r.I:'?L??ltS::tv^JS4.i:.v ........,....- .: t''{. -- r..... ..... ve.::2?!.. ,... :.!r,..nrF/.v'J.iJ.rdl e:!:., :r...,... ??il ..

•
..
..
)
:
hy_ Q?f I
IvZ
'
/.
...
. / /
.f.!•::v.}
?
?'
1? ??' 1 nt

Hydrologically connected r1 Hydrologically isolated ;

oinu= zleoetation
U
.

[,'!. '? /1
Y
• rr_
T }
`Fidoair.? a,.divetr?ess
.•
ta r2?une_ntly ? :;
s?^z?cernlane?cly

ams .
f coaen or lnunna`<a
r
L1 rev-, ail floaae arcon.vE?ys <<Qr-? Vale.
:.:
.
.
:
tlili 19- Or zu..U SiCi? 5

' f r-ontal L90od=a
:..::.
at
:.

c c cn t
V .:,n e.,: - . , ? 1 i i ittanl.`!: OCQ OT:SET l0OLa,v
...:.:... .
:?::•.
:;.
! s? ?c wa e
ev;ae-T!ce.of F,aoa rZ er csrtace water

Wetland type (select one) Other :
Sw2mp forest Shoreline '
6ottomland hardwood forest Srac,"is h mars; ,
O Carolina bay J Freshwater marsn

t7
Pocosin Eog/Fen '
•
Q Pine savannah -? E^hemera! ••?:!a?,c ,
We 1,
i!at
,
The rating system ca sno t be appiied to sail :,arches. ,
swn

Water storage ,
Bank/Shorekne stabilization 3
A
4. 00
t:
x
Pollutant removal .
.
'
.................. .
Sensitive watershed x 1.50
Travel corridor

Special ecolocical attributes o S9 ?

S ! :

Wildlife habitat Z
x 1.?0 ,
Acuatic life value
Recreation/Education '
Economic value 0.2 S '
0 0 . . 0 • 0 • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Hanual)
Project/Site: C?"L- f L=2=
Date: County: Star-e: ,l.f L
Anmli cant/Owner • ?,? ?? f ;• ?_r ^ 'I =
3 2- ~l a U ?„ „ a
Investigator: Soil and Environmental Consultants, inc.
3818 Bland Road, Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Do normal conditions exist on site? eS Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? - Plot ID: 14- L.1,? ? cam
VEGETATION
Dominant of am Snpc; es Stratum ? indicator
FA(_
5. ?+ ?S A M 0 f.w •M 1. .
6
7. Ci \? nt f oS
8. ?.?„r•o, , c._ r,?, CAL
10.
11.
Percent of Dcminant Species that are OBL, FACW, or -,,C:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photcaranhs
Other J
No Recorded Data Available
field Observaticns
Depth of Sur=ace Water:
Death to :ree Water in Pit: >-z
'
Depth to Saturated Soil-: 7
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
X Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : \AL ?
Drainage Class: -cam
Taxonomy (Subgroup) ??,,,?.--'r 4?.^?? -?r
Confirm Manued Type? Yes/No 1
PROF! :bottle Text,-, a,
Dept^ /'C+orizcn/Matrix Color/Mottle Colofr/Abundance/Stri czure
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hvdric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Ebipedon
_ Sulfide Odor
Aauic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleved or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions

Remarks:
WETL 2TD DETETL=ATION
Hydrephytic Vegetation Present? es/No
Wetland Hydrology Present? e=/No
Hydric Soils Present? (yea-/No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? -es;/No
Remarks:
High Organic Content in Surface Laver in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandv Soils
Listed on Local Hvdric Soils List
Listed on Nationalrydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)