U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Aberdeen, Carolina & Western Railway

Congestion Mitigation Project

Environmental Assessment - Appendices

July 2022
Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix A – Project Mapping

Appendix B – USDA NRCS Coordination 

Appendix C – Wetland and Watercourse Documentation

Appendix D – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination 

Appendix E – Section 106 Consultation and Supporting Documentation 

Appendix F – Hazardous Waste Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

Appendix G – Public and Agency Coordination 
Appendix A

Project Mapping

















Appendix B

USDA NRCS Coordination
 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service

is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s

Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC).

An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer, and Lender

December 13, 2021

Jon Schmidt

Environmental Science and Engineering Division, V-326 

US. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway, Cambridge MA 02142 | Kendall Square

jonathan.schmidt@dot.gov 

Dear Mr. Schmidt, 

The following information is in response to your request soliciting comments regarding the

ACWR Storage and Switching Yard Project in Montgomery County, NC. 

Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements if they may 

irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed 

by a Federal agency or with assistance from a Federal agency.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of 

statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to 

be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, 

but not water or urban built-up land. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as 

defined in section 1540(c)(1) of the Act or farmland that is determined by the appropriate 

state or unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary to 

be farmland of statewide of local importance.

“Farmland'' does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water 

storage. Farmland ``already in'' urban development or water storage includes all such 

land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland already in urban 

development also includes lands identified as ``urbanized area'' (UA) on the Census 

Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a ``tint overprint'' on the USGS topographical 

maps, or as ``urban-built-up'' on the USDA Important Farmland Maps. See over for more 

information.

The area in question does include land classified as Prime Farmland. In accordance with the 

Code of Federal Regulations 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection Policy Act, the AD-1006 was 

initiated. NRCS has completed Parts II, IV, V of the form, and returned for completion by the 

requesting agency. The requesting federal agency will determine next steps when funding is 

initiated. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (919) 873-2158. 

Sincerely, 

Laurie F. Muzzy 

Laurie F. Muzzy 

Resource Soil Scientist

cc: 

Mike Jones, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

Shauntae Britt, District Conservationist, NRCS, Monroe, NC

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

North Carolina

State Office

4407 Bland Rd.

Suite 117

Raleigh, NC 27609 

Voice (919) 873-2158 

Fax (844) 325-6833

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM 

Step I - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 

to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place 

of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/. 

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)ofproject site(s), to the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the 

U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip public/USA map. or the offices can usually be 

found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State 

Office in each State.) 

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime, 

unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days. 

Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form. 

Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records. 

Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing 

NRCS office. 

Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent 

with the FPPA. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM 

(For Federal Agency) 

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land 

use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated. 

Part Ill: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following: 

1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the 

conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture. 

2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways, 

utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion. 

Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS 

assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). 

1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in§ 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type 

project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero, 

however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points. 

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the 

FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other 

weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites 

where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse 

impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation). 

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total 

maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160. 

Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points: 

Total points assigned Site A 

Maximum points possible }i~ X 160 = 144 points for Site A 

For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center. 

NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form. 
Appendix C

Wetland and Watercourse Documentation
Wetland Delineation Report

Candor Site

N.C. Highway 211

Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina

July 25, 2019

Terracon Project No. 7019432

Prepared for:

Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway

Candor, North Carolina

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Raleigh, NC

terracon . com lrerracan 

Environmental • Facilities • Geotechnical • Materials 
July 25, 2019 

Ms. Jennifer White 

Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway 

967 NC Highway 211 

Candor, North Carolina 27229 

Attn: Ms. Jennifer White 

Re: Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site 

967 NC Highway 211 

Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina 

Terracon Project No. 70197 432 

Dear Ms. White, 

lrerracon 

Terracon is pleased to submit the wetland delineation report for the above referenced site. Based 

on the results of the assessment, Terracon observed evidence of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), 

including wetlands within the site boundary. This report summarizes our findings and 

recommendations for the site. 

Terracon appreciates the opportunity to have worked for you on this project. If you have any 

questions regarding the content of this report, please contact me at (984) 202-4065 or via email 

at cory.darnell@terracon.com. 

Sincerely, 

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 

r 

ory arnell, 

Department Manager, Natural Resources 

Assistant Scientist, Natural Resources 

Terracon Consultants Inc. 2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107. Raleigh, NC 28208-3608 

P: 919-873-2211 F: 919-873-9555 terracon.com 

Environmental Facilities Geotechnical Materials 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site ■ Candor, North Carolina 

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

lrerracon 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................ 2 

3.0 PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS ................................................ 3 

3.1 USGS Topographic Map .............................................................................................. 3 

3.2 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map ..................................................................................... 3 

3.3 National Wetlands Inventory Map ................................................................................. 3 

3.4 FEMA-FIRM Floodplain Map ........................................................................................ 4 

4.0 FIELD TECHNIQUES ................................................................................................... 4 

4.1 Wetland Observations .................................................................................................. 4 

4.2 Plant Community Assessment ...................................................................................... 4 

4.3 Hydric Soils Assessment .............................................................................................. 5 

4.4 Wetland Hydrology Assessment ................................................................................... 5 

4.5 Classification of Wetlands ............................................................................................ 6 

4.6 Other Waters Observations .......................................................................................... 6 

5.0 FIELD OBSERVATION RESULTS .............................................................................. 7 

5.1 Plant Communities Found at Project Site ..................................................................... 7 

5.2 Waters of the U.S. Description, Watershed Classification, and Bufers ......................... 7 

6.0 USACE/NCDNR VERIFICATION REVIEW .................................................................. 8 

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 8 

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 

9.0 GENERAL COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 8 

APPENDIX A -EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1 - Site Location Map 

Exhibit 2 - USGS Topographic Map 

Exhibit 3 - NRCS Soil Survey Map 

Exhibit 4 - USFWS NWI Map 

Exhibit 5 - FEMA FIRM Floodplain Map 

Exhibit 6 - Wetland Delineation Map 

APPENDIX B -WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS 

APPENDIX C -PHOTOGRAPHS 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 2

INTRODUCTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was retained by the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway

to perform a wetland delineation to determine if Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), including wetlands

under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are present within 

the approximately 78.67-acre site. According to the Montgomery County Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) website, the Parcel Identification Number (PIN) is 758600657848. Based on 

current aerial imagery, the site consists of a commercial building, railyard, and undeveloped 

wooded land. The project site is located along NC Highway 211 in Candor, Montgomery County, 

North Carolina. The project site location is depicted on Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. 

The purpose of performing this wetland delineation was to characterize the existing site 

conditions, observe the project site for suspected aquatic resources including but not limited to 

wetlands, streams, and ponds that could be considered jurisdictional by the USACE and the North 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources Department of Water Resources (NCDWR).

It is important to note that the findings presented in this report represent Terracon’s professional 

opinion, based upon field observations made during the site visit and our experience with current 

regulatory guidance under the Clean Water Act. In order to verify the delineation boundaries and 

jurisdictional classifications presented in this report, the USACE and NCDWR must review this 

report and make a jurisdictional determination.

SCOPE OF SERVICES 

Terracon performed the following scope of work:

■ Reviewed the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Topographical Maps, the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil

Survey for Montgomery County, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood

Insurance Risk Maps (FIRM), and aerial photographs to assist with identifying suspected

jurisdictional WOTUS within the site boundary.

■ Mobilized to the project site to conduct a wetland/stream delineation.

■ Prepared a map showing approximate locations of WOTUS.

■ Completed a wetland delineation report that included site characterization information, a

discussion of applicable data, and recommendations for the project site.

lrerracan 

1.0 

2.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 3

PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS

Prior to performing the delineation, several maps and aerial photograph resources were reviewed 

to assist in identifying potential wetland areas at the project site. Each source of data is described 

in detail below.

3.1 USGS Topographic Map

The USGS 7.5-minute topographic map of the project site was accessed through the USGS Web 

Map Service and reviewed to identify potential drainages, wetlands, streams, and ponds within 

the site boundary. The USGS topographic map does not depict surface waters on site. However, 

three drainage swales are depicted along the eastern and central portions of the site. Elevation

ranges from approximately 700-730 feet throughout the site. The USGS Topographic Map is 

included in Appendix A, Exhibit 2.

3.2 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map

Data from the 2019 USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey was reviewed to identify soil types, including 

hydric soils. The 1930 USDA-NRCS survey was unavailable for download. Hydric soils 

information was gathered from the ‘National Hydric Soils List’ maintained by the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service. The soil survey map is included in Appendix A, Exhibit 3.

The following soil types were identified within the project site on the soil survey map: 

■ Ailey loamy sand (AaB) is generally found in the middle and upper coastal plain including the 

sandhills. It can be found in marine terraces and low hills and is well drained with slopes 

ranging from 2 to 8 percent.

■ Augusta fine sandy loam (AuA) is generally found in the coastal plain. It can be found in low 

hills and is well drained with slopes ranging from 0 to 3 percent.

■ Candor Sand (CdB) is generally found in the upper coastal plain including the sandhills. It can 

be found in low hills and flood plains and is undrained with slopes ranging from 0 to 8 percent.

According to the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Montgomery County, Candor Sand (CdB) is 

identified as hydric. Reference section 5.2 for a more detailed description of soils found on site.

3.3 National Wetlands Inventory Map

The NWI Map of the project site was reviewed to identify potential wetland areas. The map was 

published by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s USFWS and depicts probable wetland areas 

based on stereoscopic analysis of high-altitude aerial photographs and analysis of infrared bands 

from remotely-sensed imagery. A freshwater forested/shrub wetlands (PFO1A) are depicted 

within the site boundaries. The majority of the identified features in the vicinity of the site appear 

lrerracan 

3.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 4

to correspond with surface water bodies observed during the site reconnaissance. The NWI map

for the project site is included in Appendix A, Exhibit 4.

3.4 FEMA-FIRM Floodplain Map

The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Risk Map (FIRM) of the site 

boundary was reviewed to identify potential floodplain hazards on site. Based on data obtained 

from panel 3710758600K (dated January 1, 2008), the site is located in zone X, which are areas 

considered outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The floodplain map is included in 

Appendix A, Exhibit 5.

FIELD TECHNIQUES

Terracon personnel conducted a site reconnaissance on July 17, 2019 to characterize the existing 

site conditions and evaluate the site for the presence of wetlands and potential jurisdictional 

WOTUS. Characteristics of jurisdictional waters and wetland areas were assessed utilizing the 

criteria detailed in sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this report. The evaluation methods generally followed 

the routine on-site determination method referenced in the 1987 USACE Manual and the Eastern 

Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement, Version 2.0.

4.1 Wetland Observations

Wetlands have three essential characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland 

hydrology. Based on NWI data, aerial imagery, and topographical data, on-site areas were 

investigated for potential WOTUS. Additional areas were investigated, based on field 

observations made during the site reconnaissance. Data regarding the three essential 

characteristics were gathered within suspected wetland, stream, and pond areas to further 

delineate wetland boundaries. 

4.2 Plant Community Assessment 

Suspect areas were visually observed to determine the species, when possible, and absolute 

percentage of ground cover for four stratum of plant community types. The four stratum, trees, 

shrubs/saplings, herbs, and vines were all observed within a thirty-foot radius of the observation 

location.

For each species of vegetation observed, their wetland indicator status was evaluated. Indicator 

status was determined using the NRCS Plants Database. Indicator categories for vegetation are 

presented below:

■ Obligate Wetland (OBL) - occur almost always (estimated probability greater than 99%) 

under natural conditions in wetlands.

lrerracan 

4.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 5

■ Facultative Wetland (FACW) - usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67% -

99%) but occasionally found in non-wetlands.

■ Facultative (FAC) - equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated 

probability 34% - 66%).

■ Facultative Upland (FACU) - usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% 

- 99%) but occasionally found in wetlands.

■ Upland (UPL) – rarely occur in wetlands but occur almost always (estimated probability 

greater than 99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands.

The percent cover of each stratum was determined and dominance was evaluated. Dominant 

species were the most abundant species that accounted for more than 20 percent of the absolute 

percent coverage of the stratum. The number of dominant species with an indicator status of OBL, 

FACW, and/or FAC was compared to the total number of dominant species across strata. 

Typically, when more than 50 percent of the dominant species had an indicator status of OBL, 

FACW, and/or FAC, hydrophytic vegetation was present.

If the percentage of dominant species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC was 

less than 50 percent, prevalence index and morphological adaptations may have been evaluated 

to confirm if hydrophytic vegetation was present or absent.

4.3 Hydric Soils Assessment 

After Terracon evaluated wetland vegetation, subsurface soil samples were collected using a soil 

probe or similar method. The samples were collected to a depth of approximately 20 inches below 

ground surface and were visually compared to Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell, 2009), which 

aided in the evaluation of hydric soil characteristics. The soil samples were further examined for 

hydric soil indicators including, but not limited to, histosol, thick dark surface, sandy gleyed matrix, 

sandy redox, loamy gleyed matrix, redox dark surface, and/or redox depressions. If these or other 

hydric soil indicators were observed in the subsurface soil sample, the observation location was 

considered to have hydric soil.

4.4 Wetland Hydrology Assessment 

Visual indicators of wetland hydrology were evaluated. Examples of primary wetland hydrology 

indicators include, but are not limited to, surface water, high water table, soil saturation, water 

marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, iron deposits, inundation visible on aerial imagery, 

sparsely vegetated concave surface, and water-stained leaves. If at least one primary or two 

secondary indicators were observed, the observation location was considered to have wetland 

hydrology. 

lrerracan 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 6

4.5 Classification of Wetlands

Upon completion of the review of the three wetland criteria at each area, a wetland determination 

was made. Under normal circumstances, if one or more of the wetland criteria were not identified, 

the area was not considered to be a wetland. If the three wetland indicators were identified, the

area was classified as a wetland. Additional observations were made throughout the wetland area 

to define the wetland/non-wetland boundaries. Vegetation, soil, and hydrology assessment data 

from at least one location within the wetland and one upland location outside of the wetland were 

recorded on a USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (Data Sheet). 

4.6 Other Waters Observations 

Terracon also made observations of site features that may be considered a jurisdictional 

waterbody. If a potential jurisdictional waterbody was identified, observations regarding its 

characteristics were recorded. Potential jurisdictional waterbodies were evaluated based on the 

observation of the following characteristics:

■ Flow Characteristics:

o Perennial: contains water year-round except during extreme drought.

o Intermittent: carries water a considerable portion of the time, but ceases to flow 

occasionally or seasonally.

o Ephemeral: carries water during and immediately after periods of rainfall or snowmelt.

■ Ordinary High Water Mark:

o The limit line on the shore established by the fluctuation of the water surface. It is 

shown by such things as a clear line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil 

character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris or other 

features influenced by the surrounding area.

■ Bank Shape Descriptions:

o Undercut: banks that overhang the stream channel

o Steep: bank slope of approximately greater than 30 degrees

o Gradual: bank slope of approximately 30 degrees or less

■ Aquatic Habitat Descriptions:

o Pool: deeper portion of a stream where water flows slower than in neighboring, 

shallower portions, smooth surface, and finer substrate.

o Riffle: shallow area in a stream where water flows swiftly over gravel and rock or other 

coarse substrate resulting in a rough flow and a turbulent surface.

o Run: section of a stream with a low or high velocity and with little or no turbulence on 

the surface of the water.

lrerracan 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 7

FIELD OBSERVATION RESULTS

Field observations were collected on July 17, 2019 by Mr. Cory Darnell and Ms. Emma Craig with 

Terracon. The project site consists of a commercial building, railyard, undeveloped, wooded land, 

and cleared land. Wetland determination data forms included in Appendix B and Photographs

included in Appendix C, provide an indication of the physical characteristics observed during the 

site visit. Descriptions of the observed areas are listed in the following sections.

5.1 Plant Communities Found at Project Site

Terracon evaluated multiple plant and soil types on site. To further help delineate wetlands from 

uplands, several wetland determination data forms were completed. The attached wetland 

determination data forms (DP-1 through DP-4) describes in further detail the vegetation, 

hydrology, and soils encountered on site. These data forms distinguish the boundaries between 

upland areas and wetlands.

5.2 Waters of the U.S. Description, Watershed Classification, and Buffers

Wetlands exhibiting hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils were identified on site. 

Terracon identified two wetlands (W1:1-23 and W2:1-4) and one marginal wetland (MW0-7)

(Reference Exhibit 6 in Appendix A). Wetland determination data forms (DP1- DP4) are attached 

in Appendix B. The data obtained during the site reconnaissance should be used for preliminary 

planning purposes.

The site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Surface waters within the Cape Fear River Basin 

are not subject to mandatory state riparian buffer requirements. According the NC Surface Water 

Classification Online GIS website, surface waters that drain to Mill Creek are classified as WS-III.

WS-III waters are used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing 

purposes where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not feasible. These waters are also 

protected for Class C uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed 

watersheds. Class C waters are waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, 

wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of 

biological integrity, and agriculture. Stormwater buffer requirements may apply. According to 

NCDEQ freshwater surface quality standards for Class III waters, 24 percent or less built-upon 

area requires a 30-foot vegetative buffer along perennial waters as indicated on the most recent 

USGS topographic map or a local government survey. If new development density exceeds 24 

percent, a minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer is required along perennial waters. Terracon 

recommends consultation with a civil engineer to confirm stormwater setbacks on site.

Additionally, on July 18, 2019, Terracon contacted the Montgomery County Planning Department 

to confirm local buffer requirements. According to the planning department, Montgomery County 

does not have buffer requirements.

lrerracan 

5.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 8

USACE/NCDNR VERIFICATION REVIEW

Terracon is currently working with USACE and NCDWR to confirm our findings on site. Once the 

site has been verified, Terracon will provide an updated WOTUS map if our delineation lines are 

changed.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A wetland delineation was conducted at the approximate 78.67-acre Aberdeen Carolina Western 

Railway site located in Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina on July 17, 2019. A review

of the project site was conducted utilizing readily available information including, but not limited 

to, topographical, aerial, soils, floodplain, and wetland data. In addition, a preliminary site visit

was performed to characterize the existing site conditions and observe the project site for 

suspected waterbodies and wetlands. According to our preliminary site investigation, WOTUS 

were observed on site. A summary of the field observations and delineation of aquatic features 

are depicted on Exhibit 6 in Appendix A and listed below:

• Wetland (W1) – 0.38 Acres

• Wetland (W2) – 0.06 Acres

RECOMMENDATIONS

If impacts to jurisdictional waters are expected, Terracon recommends consultation with the 

USACE and NCDWR prior to site development activities. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters

are regulated by the USACE and NCDWR and may require a Clean Water Act Section 404/401 

permit from both agencies. 404/401 permitting and additional meetings are not presently 

considered within the scope of this project. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

The wetland delineation was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this 

profession undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. A 

wetland delineation, such as the one performed at this site, is of limited scope, is noninvasive, 

and cannot eliminate the potential that wetlands or waterbodies are present at the site beyond 

what is identified by the limited scope of this preliminary assessment. In conducting the limited 

scope of services described herein, certain sources of information and public records were not 

reviewed. No biological assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for 

concerns in connection with a project. The limitations of this preliminary assessment should be 

recognized.

lrerracan 

6.0 

7.0 

8.0 

9.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Aberdeen Carolina Western Railroad ■ Candor, North Carolina

July 25, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 70197432

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 9

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted scientific and engineering 

evaluation practices. This report is for the exclusive use of the client for the project being 

discussed. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made.

lrerracan 
APPENDIX A

 EXHIBITS

2 
B 

€aB 

0 

5i 

0 

@aB 

Legend 

c:]Site Boundary 

Soil Type 

D AaB - Ailey loamy sand 

D AeC -Ailey loamy sand 

D AeD -Ailey loamy sand 

D AuA -Autryville sand 

D CaB - Candor sand 

D CaC - Candor Sand 

D CdB - Candor Sand 

D CdC - Candor Sand 

D JoA - Johnston muck 

D M-W - Miscellanous Water 

O W-Water 

~ l-aaaa==-,,...._...,. _____________ ..,L ______ ___::_.,.,,.....,....,..,.,.---"""'T------'--------r---.L...l:..:.::...::. ______ -"-------------,,---4 

·~ N 0 300 600 1,200 Project N;~197432 USDA NRCS Soil Survey Map EXHIBIT NO. 

9' Feet 1r. z A Drawn By MRW 1erracon ACWR - 80 Acre Site 

Checked By NC Highway 211 

Source: USDA Web Soil Survey Spatial Version CBD Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina 

(December 16, 2013) Date: 2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604 

July 2019 Phone: 919-873-2211 Fax: 919-873-9555 

3 
N 

A 

0 300 600 1,200 

Feet 

Source: National Wetland Inventory GIS Database 

Drawn By: 

MRW 

Checked By: 

CBD 

Date: 

July 2019 

lrerracon 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 1 07 Raleigh, NC 27604 

Phone: 919-873-2211 Fax: 919-873-9555 

Legend 

c:Jsite Boundary 

Wetland Type 

D Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 

D Freshwater Pond 

National Wetland Inventory Map 

ACWR - 80 Acre Site 

NC Highway 211 

Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina 

EXHIBIT NO. 

4 
N 

A 

0 300 600 1,200 

Feet 

Source: FEMA FIRM Panel 3710758600K (eff.01/01/2008) 

Drawn By: 

MRW 

Checked By: 

CBD 

Date: 

July 2019 

lrerracon 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 1 07 Ral eigh, NC 27604 

Phone: 919-873-2211 Fax: 919-8 73-9555 

FEMA FIRM Floodplain Map 

ACWR - 80 Acre Site 

NC Highway 211 

Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina 

EXHIBIT NO. 

5 
The Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) were delineated and GPS'd by 

Terracon wetland professionals on 06/17/19. Terracon's findings and 

delineation have not been verified by the USACE or NCDWR. This is 

not a licensed survey. The delineated features were GPS'd using a 

Trimble Geo 7x unit which has sub-foot accuracy. Prior to development 

activities, Terracon recommends our findings be verified by the USACE 

and NCDWR. Terracon also recommends consultation with a civil 

engineer to determine stormwater setbacks, if required, prior to site 

development. Local buffers may be applicable. 

WOTUS Areas: 

JD Wetland 1 - 0.379 acres 

JD Wetland 2 - 0.060 acres 

Non-JD Stormwater Pond - 0.225 acres 

WOTUS Lengths: 

Non-JD Ephemeral Channel 1 - 306.5 feet 

Non-JD Ephemeral Channel 2 - 108.2 feet 

Non-JD Ephemeral Channel 3 - 205.2 feet 

WOTUS Locations: 

JD Wetland 1 - 35.303072,-79.715301 

JD Wetland 2 - 35.303387, -79.717771 

Non-JD Stormwater Pond - 35.301483, -79.716578 

"ll Non-JD Eph. Channel 1 - 35.304812, -79.713423 

Non-JD Eph. Channel 2 - 35.304549, -79.712698 

Non-JD Eph. Channel 3 - 35.303031 , -79.716453 

Surface Water Classication: 

en Nearest Tributary: Mill Creek 

River Basin: Cape Fear 

Classification: WS-111 

(!) State Buffers: None 

Stormwater Requirements: 

en 

0 

Q) 

_<:; 

<ii 

0 

"O 

C 

cu 

I 

Low Density: ~24% impervious coverage: 30 foot buffer 

High Density: >24% impervious coverage: 100 foot buffer 

ui .,_ _________ _ 

Legend 

D Site Boundary i ~ Wetland 

D Stormwater Pond (J) 

o • • • Ephemeral Channel 5i • Data Points 0 

etland 2 W2:1-4 

DP-2 

\;j1---------- ft-........ N--r--""'---o-"'---25_0 ___ 50_0 ___ ___.....,__1_,_oo-F~-e-t---,P~r"'.'"' oj"'.'"' ect"'.'"'N:'":";'.""0-19_7_4_3_2"""T....::.,-=-r:.:;._; _ _;_..:..:.._.:......_..:....;;. __________ W_O_T_UL.S-D_e_li_n_e_a_t_io_n_M_a_p..1......::....._...:....:.._..,..E_XH-I-BI_T_N~O. ; A Drawn By MRW 1erracon ACWR - 80 Acre Site 

0.. Checked By NC Highway 211 6 j Source: Terracon GPS Data CBD Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina =i Date : 2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh , NC 27604 

,3 .._ ___ .__ _______________________ ...,__ __ J_u-'-ly_2_0_19_..LP;..;;h.:.; on;;;.; • :....;;9.;.;19....;; -8.;.; 73;..: -2.:.; 21.;_1 ___ .;..;F•.:.;x:....;;9;..;;19;_;-8;;.;73;_;-9;;.;55;.;;.5L------------------------...l...------l 
" >< 

E 

N 

A 

0 300 600 1,200 

Feet 

Source: USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Map Service 

Project No: 

P70197403 

Drawn By: 

MRW 

Checked By: 

CBD 

Date: 

July 2019 

lrerracan 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 1 07 Raleigh, NC 27604 

Phone: 919-873-2211 Fax: 919-873-9555 

Digital Elevation Model Map 

ACWR - 80 Acre Site 

NC Highway 211 

-- BaseContour2feet 

3DEPElevation 

Value · High : 255 

EXHIBIT NO. 

Candor, Montgomery County, North Carolina 7 
APPENDIX B 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS












APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS
Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site Candor, NC 

Photos Taken: 7/17/19 Terracon Project No. 70197432 

lrerr can 

Photo #1: Typical site conditions in central portion of the 

site, facing west. 

Photo #2: View of Ephemeral Channel 1 & 2 located along 

the eastern portion of the site, facing east. 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site Candor, NC 

Photos Taken: 7/17/19 Terracon Project No. 70197432 

lrerr can 

Photo #3: View of Ephemeral Channel 3 located in northern 

portion of the site. 

Photo #4: View of Wetland 1 located in central portion of 

the site. 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site Candor, NC 

Photos Taken: 7/17/19 Terracon Project No. 70197432 

lrerr can 

Photo #5: View of Wetland 2 located in the northwestern 

portion of the site. 

Photo #6: View of stormwater pond located in the 

southwestern portion of the site. 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Candor Site Candor, NC 

Photos Taken: 7/17/19 Terracon Project No. 70197432 

lrerr can 

Photo #7: View of typical hydric soils encountered at the 

site. 

Photo #8: View of typical upland soils encountered at the 

site. 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site 

11730 Allen Station Drive 

Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 

Terracon Project No. 71197757 

Prepared for: 

Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway 

Candor, North Carolina 

Prepared by: 

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

terracon . com lrerracan 

Environmental • Facilities • Geotechnical • Materials 
November 22, 2019 

Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway 

976 NC Highway 211 E 

Candor, North Carolina 27229 

Attn: Mr. Paul Hoben 

P: (910) 974-4219 

E: phoben@acwr.com 

Re: Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site 

Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carlina 

Terracon Project No. 71197757 

Dear Mr. Hoben, 

llerracan 

Terracon is pleased to submit the wetland delineation report for the above referenced site. Based 

on the results of the assessment, Terracon observed wetlands, potentially jurisdictional nonwetland waters, and non-jurisdictional non-wetlands waters on the project site. 

A copy of this report and a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package will be submitted, 

pending your approval, to the USAGE by Terracon Consultants, Inc. The USAGE can be reached 

at the following address: 

David Shaefer 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 

Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 

General Number: (828) 271-7980 

Terracon appreciates the opportunity to have worked for you on this project. If you have any 

questions regarding the content of this report, please contact me at (704) 509-1777 or via email 

at jc.weaver@terracon.com 

Sincerely, 

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 

JC Weaver 

Project Scientist 

Patrick R. Korn, PWS 

NCR Group Manager 

Environmental Department Manager 

Terracon Consultants Inc. 2701 Westport Rd Charlotte, NC 28208-3608 

P 704-509-1777 F 704-509-1888 terracon.com 

Environmental ■ Facilities ■ Geotechnical ■ Materials
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1

SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................1

PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS ................................................2

3.1 Topographic Map .........................................................................................................2

3.2 Infrared Aerial Photographs..........................................................................................2

3.3 National Wetlands Inventory Map.................................................................................2

3.4 Soil Survey ...................................................................................................................2

FIELD TECHNIQUES...................................................................................................3

4.1 Wetland Observations ..................................................................................................3

4.2 Hydric Soils Assessment ..............................................................................................5

4.3 Wetland Hydrology Assessment...................................................................................5

4.4 Classification of Wetlands ............................................................................................5

4.5 Other Waters Observations ..........................................................................................5

FIELD OBSERVATIONS RESULTS ............................................................................6

5.1 Plant Communities Found at Project Site .....................................................................6

5.2 Wetland Area Description.............................................................................................7

5.3 Tributary Area Description............................................................................................8

5.4 Other Waters................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS.................................9

6.1 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................10

6.2 Tributaries ....................................................................................................................10

6.3 Other Waters................................................................................................................10

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................11

GENERAL COMMENTS ..............................................................................................11

APPENDIX A – EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 – Depiction of Aquatic Resources

Exhibit 2 – USGS Topographic Map

Exhibit 3 – 1998 Infrared Aerial Imagery 

Exhibit 4 – USFWS NWI Map

Exhibit 5 – NRCS Web Soil Survey with Hydric Ratings

APPENDIX B – GROUND PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C – DATA SHEETS & PROPERTY DATA

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

6.0 

7.0 

8.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was retained by Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway

to perform a wetland delineation to determine if wetlands or other waters under the jurisdiction of 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are present at the approximately 65.7-acre 

project site. The project site is located at 11730 Allen Station Drive in Mint Hill, North Carolina. 

The parcel number associated with this site is 13715210.

The purpose of performing this wetland delineation of the project site was to characterize the 

existing site conditions, observe the project site for suspect waterbodies and wetlands and provide 

a recommendation regarding whether suspect waterbodies would be considered jurisdictional by 

the USACE. Delineated waterbodies and wetlands are depicted on Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. 

It is important to note that the findings presented in this report represent Terracon’s professional 

opinion, based upon field observations made during the site visit and our experience with current 

regulatory guidance under the Clean Water Act. In order to verify the delineation boundaries and 

jurisdictional classifications presented in this report, the USACE must review this report and make 

a jurisdictional determination. 

SCOPE OF SERVICES 

Terracon performed the following scope of work:

■ Reviewed United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographical maps, National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) maps, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) soil maps and 

surveys, and aerial photographs to assist with identifying suspect jurisdictional waterbodies

and wetland areas at the project site;

■ Mobilized to the project site to conduct the preliminary site visit;

■ Delineated the wetlands, streams, and tributary using colored flagging;

■ Prepared a map showing approximate locations of suspect waterbodies or wetland areas

observed during the site visit;

■ Completed a wetland delineation report that included site characterization information, a 

discussion of applicable data, and recommendations for the project site; and

■ Completed a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination report to be submitted to the USACE.

lrerracan 

1.0 

2.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 2

PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS

Prior to performing the delineation, several maps and aerial photograph resources were reviewed 

to assist with identifying potential wetland areas at the project site. Each source of data is 

described in detail below.

3.1 Topographic Map

The USGS Topographic Map of the project site was accessed through the USGS Web Map 

Service and reviewed to identify drainages or potential wetlands within the project site. The USGS 

map depicts the project site as ranging from approximately 710 to 780 feet in elevation. The 

topographic map shows a ridge in the central portion of the site and decreasing in elevation to the 

west and east. One unnamed intermittent stream feature is depicted on the western portion of the 

site, originating in the north of the project area and flowing south and eventually off site. A pond 

is depicted in the northwestern portion of the site and intersecting the unnamed intermittent 

stream. The USGS Topographic Map can be seen as Exhibit 2 in Appendix A.

3.2 Infrared Aerial Photographs

Infrared aerial imagery from 2016 was reviewed to determine land use and evaluate vegetative 

cover. The aerial photograph shows the majority of the project site to be wooded. A non-vegetated

strip, indicating a roadway, is depicted in the south central to the northeastern portion of the site. 

A non-vegetated patch is visible in the northwestern and eastern portions of the site indicating 

cleared vegetation. A stormwater retention basin is visible in the central eastern portion of the 

site. North of the project area and railroad tracks, a pond is visible at the start of RPW-1. The 

infrared aerial photograph has been included as Exhibit 3 in Appendix A.

3.3 National Wetlands Inventory Map

The NWI Map of the project site was reviewed to identify potential wetland areas. The map for 

the project site was published by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) and depicts probable wetland areas based on stereoscopic analysis of high-altitude

aerial photographs and analysis of infrared bands from remotely-sensed imagery. The NWI map 

depicts a PUBHh (palustrine unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded diked/impounded)

wetland, a R5UBH (riverine unknown perennial unconsolidated bottom) stream, and a R4SBC 

(riverine intermittent streambed seasonally flooded) stream. The NWI map for the project site can 

be seen as Exhibit 4 in Appendix A.

3.4 Soil Survey 

Data from the soil survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina was reviewed to identify soil 

types, including hydric soils. Data for the soil survey was compiled by the USDA NRCS in 1982. 

Hydric soils information was gathered from the ‘National Hydric Soils List’ (USDA Natural 

lrerracan 

3.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 3

Resource Conservation Service1). A soil survey and hydric soils map is included as Exhibit 5 in 

Appendix A. 

The following soil types were identified within the project site on the soil survey map: 

■ Cecil (CeB2): This soil type is found in hillslopes and ridge areas with slopes between 2-8%, 

it has a sandy clay loam texture, and is a well-drained soil. Its parent material consists of 

saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist. CeB2 has a hydric rating of 0%;

■ Cecil (CeD2): This soil type is found in hillslopes and ridge areas with slopes between 8-15%, 

it has a sandy clay loam texture, and is a well-drained soil. Its parent material consists of 

saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist. CeD2has a hydric rating of 0%;

■ Enon (EnB): This soil type is found on interfluves and summits with slopes between 2-8%, it 

has a sandy loam texture, and is well drained. Its parent material consists of saprolite derived 

from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss EnB has a hydric rating of 0%;

■ Enon (EnD): This soil type is found on interfluves and summits with slopes between 8-15%, it 

has a sandy loam texture, and is well drained. Its parent material consists of saprolite derived 

from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss EnD has a hydric rating of 0%;

■ Helena (HeB): This soil type is found in summits and ridges with a slope between 2-8%, it has 

a sandy loam texture, and is a moderately well drained soil. Its parent material consists of 

saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist. HeB has a hydric rating of 1%; and

■ Wilkes (WkD): This soil type is found in hillslopes and ridge areas with slopes between 8-15%, 

it has a loamy fine sand texture, and is a well-drained soil. Its parent material consists 

residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss. WkD has a 

hydric rating of 0%.

FIELD TECHNIQUES

Terracon scientists conducted a reconnaissance of the project site on November 11, 14, and 15

to characterize the existing site conditions and observe for the presence of wetlands and potential 

jurisdictional waters. Characteristics of jurisdictional waters and wetland areas were assessed 

utilizing the criteria detailed in sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this report. The evaluation methods 

generally followed the routine on-site determination method referenced in the 1987 USACE 

Manual and The Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement. 

4.1 Wetland Observations

Wetlands have three essential characteristics: hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation, hydric soils, and 

wetland hydrology. Based on NWI data, aerial imagery and topographical data, on-site areas were 

investigated for potential wetland properties. Additional areas were investigated, based on 

observations made during the site reconnaissance. Data regarding the three essential 

 1 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/

lrerracon 

4.0 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 4

characteristics was gathered within observed suspect wetland areas to further delineate 

boundaries. 

Plant Community Assessment 

Suspect areas were visually observed to determine the species, when possible, and absolute 

percentage of ground cover for four stratum of plant community types. The four stratum, trees, 

shrubs/saplings, herbs, and vines were all observed within a thirty-foot radius of the observation 

location.

For each species of vegetation observed, their wetland indicator status was evaluated. Indicator 

status was determined using the NRCS Plants Database. Indicator categories for vegetation are 

presented below:

■ Obligate Wetland (OBL) - occur almost always (estimated probability greater than 99%) 

under natural conditions in wetlands;

■ Facultative Wetland (FACW) - usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67% -

99%) but occasionally found in non-wetlands;

■ Facultative (FAC) - equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated 

probability 34% - 66%);

■ Facultative Upland (FACU) - usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% 

- 99%) but occasionally found in wetlands; and

■ Obligate Upland (UPL) – rarely occur in wetlands but occur almost always (estimated 

probability greater than 99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands.

The percent cover of each stratum was determined, and dominance was evaluated. Dominant 

species were the most abundant species that accounted for more than 20 percent of the absolute 

percent coverage of the stratum. The number of dominant species with an indicator status of OBL, 

FACW, and/or FAC was compared to the total number of dominant species across all strata. 

Typically, when more than 50 percent of the dominant species had an indicator status of OBL, 

FACW, and/or FAC, hydrophytic vegetation was present.

If the percentage of dominant species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC was 

less than 50 percent, prevalence index and morphological adaptations were evaluated to confirm 

if hydrophytic vegetation was present or absent.

lrerracon 

4.1.1 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 5

4.2 Hydric Soils Assessment 

After Terracon evaluated wetland vegetation, subsurface soil samples were collected using a soil 

probe or similar method. The samples were collected to a depth of approximately 20 inches below 

ground surface and were visually compared to Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell, 2009), which 

aided in the evaluation of hydric soil characteristics. The soil samples were further examined for 

hydric soil indicators including, but not limited to muck, thick dark surface, depleted matrix, sandy 

gleyed matrix, umbric surface, loamy gleyed matrix, redox dark surface, and/or Piedmont 

floodplain soils. If these or other hydric soil indicators were observed in the subsurface soil 

sample, the observation location was considered to have hydric soil. 

4.3 Wetland Hydrology Assessment 

Visual indicators of wetland hydrology were evaluated. Examples of primary wetland hydrology 

indicators include, but are not limited to, surface water, high water table, soil saturation, water 

marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, iron deposits, inundation visible on aerial imagery, 

sparsely vegetated concave surface, and water-stained leaves. If at least one primary or two 

secondary indicators were observed, the observation location was considered to have wetland 

hydrology. 

4.4 Classification of Wetlands 

Upon completion of the review of the three wetland criteria at each area, a wetland determination 

was made. Under normal circumstances, if one or more of the wetland criteria were not identified, 

the area was not considered to be a wetland. If all three wetland indicators were identified, the 

area was classified as wetland. Additional observations were made throughout the wetland area 

to define the wetland/non-wetland boundary. Vegetation, soil and hydrology assessment data 

from at least one location within the wetland and one upland location outside of the wetland were 

recorded on a USACE Wetland Determination Form (Data Sheet). 

4.5 Other Waters Observations 

Terracon also made observations of site features that may be considered a jurisdictional 

waterbody. If a potential jurisdictional waterbody was identified, observations regarding its 

characteristics were recorded. Potential jurisdictional waterbodies were evaluated based on the 

observation of the following characteristics: 

■ Flow Characteristics: 

o Perennial: contains water at all times except during extreme drought; 

o Intermittent: carries water a considerable portion of the time but ceases to flow 

occasionally or seasonally; and 

o Ephemeral: carries water only during and immediately after periods of rainfall or 

snowmelt. 

■ Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): 

o The limit line on the shore established by the fluctuation of the water surface. It is 

shown by such things as a clear line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil 

lrerracon 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 6

character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris or other 

features influenced by the surrounding area;

■ Bank Shape Descriptions:

o Undercut: banks that overhang the stream channel;

o Steep: bank slope of approximately greater than 30 degrees; and

o Gradual: bank slope of approximately 30 degrees or less. 

■ Aquatic Habitat Descriptions:

o Pool: deeper portion of a stream where water flows slower than in neighboring, 

shallower portions, smooth surface, and finer substrate; 

o Riffle: shallow area in a stream where water flows swiftly over gravel and rock or other 

coarse substrate resulting in a rough flow and a turbulent surface; and

o Run: section of a stream with a low or high velocity and with little or no turbulence on 

the surface of the water.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS RESULTS

On November 11, 14, and 15, 2019 Terracon performed field observations at the project site. The 

project site consists of parcel number 13715210, in Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

Totaling approximately 65.7-acres of wooded land of varying maturity and woody species along 

the eastern and western portions of the site and a mixed habitat of grassland, shrub thickets, and 

old field successional woody species within the central portion of the site. Ground photographs, 

included in Appendix B, provide an indication of the physical characteristics observed during the 

site visit. Descriptions of the observed areas are listed in the following sections.

5.1 Plant Communities Found at Project Site

The following four vegetative strata were used in determining hydrophytic vegetation on the 

project site:

■ Tree: Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches (7.6 centimeters) or more in diameter at 

breast height (DBH), regardless of height; 

■ Sapling/Shrub: Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 inches (7.6 cm) in DBH and 

greater than 3.28 feet (1 meter) tall; 

■ Herb: All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and all other plants less than 

3.28 feet tall; and

■ Woody Vine: All woody vines greater than 3.28 feet in height.

Forested and Mixed Habitat Uplands

Based on plant communities, the majority of the site consists of upland areas as identified during 

Terracon’s site reconnaissance on November 11, 14, and 15, 2019. The upland areas are referred 

to as Upland Data Points #s 1-5 in Exhibit 1 and U 1-5 on the Wetland Determination Data Forms. 

lrerracon 

5.0 

5.1.1 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 7

The majority upland dominant tree species observed within the forested areas were white oak 

(Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip (or yellow) popular (Liriodendron 

tulipifera), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and red maple 

(Acer rubrum). The dominant shrub and herb observed was southern blackberry (Rubus 

pensilvanicus), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), 

goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Saplings were also 

observed but were not considered to be a dominant species. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

japonica) was the dominant woody vine observed in the upland area. 

The majority upland dominant plant species observed in the mixed habitat areas were persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sericea 

lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneate), field goldenrod (Solidago canadensis (altissima)), grass species 

(Poa and Festuca spp.), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). 

5.2 Wetland Area Description 

Terracon identified a total of 0.36-acres of forested palustrine wetlands (PUBh, R5UBH, and 

R4SBC) in the western and southeastern forested portions of the site, they are referred to as 

“Wetland #” in “Depiction of Aquatic Resources”, Exhibit 1 and W1- W5 on the Wetland 

Determination Data Forms (Appendix C). Wetland 1 (Wetland 1, see Exhibit 1) at 0.017-acres in 

the southeastern portion of the site and near to the southern property boundary, Wetland 2 

(Wetland 2, see Exhibit 1) at 0.010-acres in the northwestern portion of the site, Wetland 3 

(Wetland 3, see Exhibit 1) at 0.10-acres in the northwestern portion of the site and near to the 

northern property boundary, Wetland 4 (Wetland 4, see Exhibit 1) at 0.21-acres in the 

southeastern portion of the site and near to the southern property boundary, Wetland 5 (Wetland 

5, see Exhibit 1) at 0.023-acres in the northern portion of the site and near to the northern property 

boundary. 

The majority dominant tree species identified within the potential wetlands were American elm 

(Ulmus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), 

ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and red maple (Acer rubrum). The dominant sapling/shrub 

species observed include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus 

umbellata). The dominant herb species observed was Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium 

vimineum). The Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was the dominant woody vine 

observed within the wetland areas. The wetlands observed on site appears to be fed by runoff 

from ground seeps, precipitation events, and adjacent RPWs; these wetlands are located in 

topographically low areas, have landforms that pond water, or experience a sufficiently high-water 

table to support the three criteria necessary to define a wetland. These wetlands have a 

significant nexus to Clear Creek, and it is Terracon’s opinion that the wetlands will be considered 

to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

lrerracon 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 8

 

Delineated Wetlands

Name 

Area 

(acres) Type 

W1 0.017 PFO 

W2 0.01 PFO 

W3 0.1 PFO 

W4 0.21 PFO 

W5 0.023 PFO 

Total 0.36 PFO 

PFO – Palustrine Forested Wetland 

5.3 Stream and Tributary Area Description 

Terracon observed multiple streams and tributaries totaling 2,992 linear feet, in the eastern and 

western portions of the site. They are referred to as are “RPW #” in “Depiction of Aquatic 

Resources”, Exhibit 1 and as represented as “Stream #” on the North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11) (Appendix C). These tributaries follow the 

downward sloping gradient generally to the southwest where they flow off site. The stream and 

tributaries appear to originate from the adjacent properties and demonstrated a base flow. 

Terracon gauged the stream and tributaries using the Methodology for Identification on 

Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins prepared by the North Carolina Division of 

Water Quality to characterize the streams and tributaries. Based on geomorphology, hydrology, 

and biology, it is Terracon’s opinion that these streams and tributaries are at least intermittent and 

would be considered under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

Delineated Non-Wetland Waters 

Name 

Length 

(Linear 

Feet 

(LF)) 

Flow

Approximate 

Average 

Stream 

Width at Top 

of Bank 

(feet) 

S 2,992 Perennial/ 

Intermittent 3-5 

E 295 Ephemeral 1-3 

Pond 0.099-

acres 

Stormwater 

Retention 

Basin 

-- 

lrerracon 

I 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 9

Total 3,287

LF

5.4 Other Waters

A stormwater retention basin was observed in the southeastern portion of the site and is shown 

in Exhibit 1 as Pond 1. This basin was constructed adjacent to RPW 1 sometime in 2006-2007 in 

response to nearby grading activities to serve as a water quality improvement structure and 

measuring approximately 0.099-acres in size.

Terracon observed multiple ephemeral features totaling 295 linear feet, in the eastern and 

western portions of the site. They are referred to as “Ephemeral #” in “Depiction of Aquatic 

Resources”, Exhibit 1 and represented as “Ephemeral #” on the North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11) (Appendix C). These tributaries follow the 

downward sloping gradient generally to the southwest where they flow off site or connect to 

identified RPWs or Wetlands. The ephemeral features appear to originate as upland drainage 

features or as an overflow conveyance between RPWs. By definition ephemeral features do not

meet the criteria necessary for classification as an RPW due to the lack of features such as an 

OHWM or presence of perennial or intermittent base flow. Ephemeral features could be 

considered jurisdictional by the ACOE if they deem the feature serve as a hydrological connection 

between a wetland and a RPW or between two RPW’s.

Multiple ditches were observed in the upland areas throughout the site and flowing towards the 

southeast and southwest. As these ditches did not exhibit an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OWHM)

or biological, chemical, or physical connectivity to RPW’s, it is Terracon’s opinion that these

ditches would not be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE because it does not 

meet the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According 

to guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Memorandum Clean Water Act 

Jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell 

v. United States (Rapanos), the USACE will generally not take jurisdiction over ditches (including 

roadside ditches) excavated entirely within and draining only uplands. Therefore, it is the opinion 

of Terracon that these ditches would likely not considered WOTUS subject to Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS

A wetland delineation was conducted on November 11, 14, and 15, 2019 at an approximately 

65.7-acre site located in Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A review of the project 

site was conducted utilizing readily available information including, but not limited to, 

topographical, aerial, soils, floodplain, and wetland data. In addition, a preliminary site visit was 

performed to characterize the existing site conditions and observe the project site for suspect 

waterbodies and wetlands. A summary of field observations and conclusions concerning 

jurisdictional status is outlined in the following sections.

lrerracon 

6.0 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 10

6.1 Wetlands 

Terracon identified a total of 0.36-acres of forested palustrine wetlands; Wetland 1 (Wetland 1, 

see Exhibit 1) at 0.017-acres in the southeastern portion of the site and near to the southern 

property boundary, Wetland 2 (Wetland 2, see Exhibit 1) at 0.010-acres in the northwestern 

portion of the site, Wetland 3 (Wetland 3, see Exhibit 1) at 0.10-acres in the northwestern portion 

of the site and near to the northern property boundary, Wetland 4 (Wetland 4, see Exhibit 1) at 

0.21-acres in the southeastern portion of the site and near to the southern property boundary, 

Wetland 5 (Wetland 5, see Exhibit 1) at 0.023-acres in the northern portion of the site and near to 

the northern property boundary. These wetlands have a significant nexus to Clear Creek, which 

meets the jurisdictional definition of “Traditional Navigable Waterway (TNW)”, pursuant to Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. Due to this significant nexus, it is Terracon’s opinion that the wetland 

will be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

6.2 Streams and Tributaries 

Streams and tributaries totaling 2,992 linear feet were observed within the project boundaries 

during the site reconnaissance. Based on geomorphology, hydrology, and biology, it is Terracon’s 

opinion that these streams and tributaries are at least intermittent and would be considered to be 

under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

6.3 Other Waters 

A pond was observed in the southeastern portion of the site and is shown in Exhibit 1 as Pond 1. 

This basin was constructed adjacent to RPW 1 sometime in 2006-2007 in response to nearby site 

grading activities to serve as a water quality improvement structure and measuring approximately 

0.099-acres in size. It is Terracon’s opinion that this basin would not be considered to be under 

the jurisdiction of the USACE because it does not meet the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to guidance from the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Memorandum Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (Rapanos), the USACE will 

generally not take jurisdiction over ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated entirely within 

and draining only uplands. Therefore, it is the opinion of Terracon that the ditch would likely not 

considered WOTUS subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Terracon observed multiple ephemeral features totaling 295 linear feet, in the eastern and 

western portions of the site. They are referred to as “Ephemeral #” in “Depiction of Aquatic 

Resources”, Exhibit 1 and represented as “Ephemeral #” on the North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11) (Appendix C). These tributaries follow the 

downward sloping gradient generally to the southeast and southwest where they flow off site or 

connect to identified RPWs or Wetlands. The ephemeral features appear to originate as upland 

drainage features or as an overflow conveyance between RPWs. By definition ephemeral features 

do not meet the criteria necessary for classification as an RPW due to the lack of features such 

as an OHWM or presence of perennial or intermittent base flow. However, ephemeral features 

lrerracon 
Wetland Delineation Report

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 11

could be considered jurisdictional by the USACE if they deem these features serve as a 

hydrological connection between wetlands and RPWs or between two RPW’s. 

Multiple ditches were observed in the upland areas throughout the site and flowing towards the 

southeast and southwest. As these ditches did not exhibit an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OWHM) 

or biological, chemical, or physical connectivity to RPW’s, it is Terracon’s opinion that these 

ditches would not be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE because it does not 

meet the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According 

to guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Memorandum Clean Water Act 

Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell 

v. United States (Rapanos), the USACE will generally not take jurisdiction over ditches (including 

roadside ditches) excavated entirely within and draining only uplands. Therefore, it is the opinion 

of Terracon that the ditch would likely not considered WOTUS subject to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act.

RECOMMENDATIONS

According to our preliminary site investigation, wetlands, streams and tributaries, one pond, and

ephemeral features are present on the project site. Terracon considers the wetlands, streams and

tributaries, to be jurisdictional based on their significant nexus to Clear Creek. On site ephemeral

features could be considered jurisdictional by the USACE if they deem these features serve as a 

hydrological connection between wetlands and RPWs or between two RPW’s. Terracon does 

not consider the pond and ditches to be jurisdictional as they do not meet the definition of “Waters 

of the U.S.” under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, for all on-site areas, only the 

USACE can make the final determination on the jurisdictional status of waterbodies, and on the 

need for permit processing and compensatory mitigation.

A copy of this report and a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package will be submitted, 

pending your approval, to the USACE by Terracon Consultants, Inc. The USACE can be reached 

at the following address:

David Shaeffer 

US Army Corps of Engineers

151 Patton Avenue, Room 208

Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

General Number: (828) 271-7980

GENERAL COMMENTS 

The wetland delineation was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this 

profession undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. A 

lrerracan 

7.0 

8.0 
Wetland Delineation Report 

Mint Hill Industrial Site ■ Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

November 22, 2019 ■ Terracon Project: 71197757 

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 12

wetland delineation, such as the one performed at this site, is of limited scope, is noninvasive, 

and cannot eliminate the potential that wetlands or waterbodies are present at the site beyond 

what is identified by the limited scope of this preliminary assessment. In conducting the limited 

scope of services described herein, certain sources of information and public records were not 

reviewed. No biological assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for 

concerns in connection with a project. The limitations of this preliminary assessment should be 

recognized. 

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted scientific and engineering 

evaluation practices. This report is for the exclusive use of the client for the project being 

discussed. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. 

lrerracon 
APPENDIX A

Exhibits

■ Depiction of Aquatic Resources

■ USGS Topographic Map

■ 1998 Infrared Aerial Imagery

■ USFWS NWI Map

■ NRCS Web Soil Survey Map

■ Photo Log Legend

■ NRCS Hydric Soils Map








APPENDIX B

Ground Photographs
Photograph 2: View of RPW 1, western portion of the property, flowing to the south.

Photograph : View of Pond 1, southwestern portion of the property, draining into RPW 1, looking

southeast.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757 lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sc.katbtJ 
Photograph : View of Wetland 3, western portion of the property, facing southwest.

Photograph : View of RPW 4, eastern portion of the property, facing southeast.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757 lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sdutbts 
Photograph : View of Wetland 3, western portion of the property, facing southwest.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757

Photograph : View of RPW 5, eastern portion of the property, facing northwest.

lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sdutbts 
Photograph 8: View of Wetland 5, southern portion of the site, facing west.

Photograph 7: View of Wetland 4, northwestern portion of the property, facing southwest.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757 lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sdutbts 
Photograph 10: View of upland drainage feature in northeastern portion of the site, facing northeast.

Photograph 9: View of typical ephemeral feature, eastern portion of the property, facing north.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757 lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sdutbts 
Photograph 12: View of typical wooded upland in the western portion of the site, facing southeast.

Photograph 11: View of typical wooded upland in the eastern portion of the site, facing north.

Mint Hill Industrial Site

Project No. 71197757 lrerracan 

CoHullla& Eaclnttn & Sc.katbtJ 
APPENDIX C

Data Sheets & Property Data














































December 12, 2021 

Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway 

976 NC Highway 211 E 

Candor, North Carolina 27229 

Attn: Mr. Anthony Menzies 

P: (910) 974-4219 

E: amenzies@acwr.com 

Re: Wetlands and Waters Delineation 

Midland Siding 

Cabarrus County, North Carolina 

Terracon Project No. 71217506 

Dear Mr. Menzies : 

lrerracan 

Terracon Consultants Inc. (Terracon) has conducted a wetlands and waters review for the 

Proposed Midland Siding project located in Cabarrus County, NC (Exhibit 1 ). Staff was tasked 

with evaluating features that may be considered subject to jurisdiction and permitting 

requirements under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and under the State's 

Isolated and Other Non-404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters. 

Background Research 

Prior to the initiation of field efforts, several available resources were reviewed, including the U.S. 

Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle of Midland (2011), the NRCS published 

Soil Survey of Cabarrus County, NC, aerial photography, National Wetlands Inventory, and other 

publicly available mapping resources. Field work was conducted by technical staff in November 

2021. 

Topography 

Topography in the study area consists of a series of topographic highs with steep slopes and 

drainages to the south. Elevations range from a high of approximately 700 feet above mean sea 

level (MSL) down to approximately 600 feet above MSL (Exhibit 1) based on a review of USGS 

mapping and other online resources. Far Branch is depicted as an intermittent stream within the 

central portion of the site. 

Soils 

Exhibit 2 depicts four (4) soil mapping units potentially occurring in the study area. The Badin 

channery silt loam, 15-41 % slopes (BaF), Chewacla sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded 

(ChA), Tarrus silt loam 2-8% slopes (TaB), and Tarrus silt loam, 8-15% slopes(TaD) soil mapping 

units are believed to occur on the property. Chewacla sandy loam is considered to have 

components that are hydric soils (wetland soils) by NRCS. The published Cabarrus County soil 

survey identified Far Branch within the proposed project location. 
Wetland and Waters Review 

Midland Siding Cabarrus County, NC lrerracon 

December 12, Terracon Project No. 71217506 

Wetlands and Waters 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into waters of the 

U.S. (WOTUS). Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has major 

responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. Water 

bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the 

Section 404 program. However, by regulation, certain wetlands are also considered WOTUS. 

Currently WOTUS are assessed by the CWA's pre-2015 definition of WOTUS. This definition of 

WOTUS includes the implementation of rulemaking as decided in the Supreme Court's decision 

of the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabe/1 v. United States. 

Specifically, the following waters will be under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the CWA: 

• Traditional navigable waters (TNWs) 

• Wetlands adjacent to TNWs 

• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent 

where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally 

(3 months) 

• Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries 

• Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water "forming 

geographic features" that are described in ordinary parlance as "streams, oceans, rivers, 

and lakes". These are Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs). 

The following waters will be considered jurisdictional if a significant nexus (contributes to the 

physical, chemical, or biological integrity of downstream TNWs) exists between these features 

and traditional navigable waters: 

• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent 

• Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent 

• Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable 

tributary 

The following waters will be considered non jurisdictional under the CWA: 

• Swales or Erosional features (gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, 

infrequent or short duration flows) 

• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and 

that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. 

However, wetlands and other waterbodies that do not fall under federal regulation per the CWA 

may be subject to jurisdiction by the N. C Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) under the state's 

Isolated and Other Non-404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters program. Our delineation 

methodology generally follows the guidance outlined in the Regional Supplement to the USACE 

Wetland Delineation Manual for the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region. Areas must exhibit 

three distinct characteristics to be considered jurisdictional wetlands: 1) prevalence of hydrophytic 

(water tolerant) plants; 2) presence of hydric soils; and 3) sufficient wetland hydrology indicators 

within 12 inches of the ground surface. 

2 

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 
Wetland and Waters Review 

Midland Siding Cabarrus County, NC lrerracon 

December 12, Terracon Project No. 71217506 

The study area was also reviewed for the presence of tributaries (stream channels) using criteria 

provided by the USACE and the NCDWR. When present, intermittent and perennial tributaries, 

and certain other surface waters, are also considered jurisdictional by the USACE and/or 

NCDWR. 

Preliminary Delineation Results 

Terracon's review of the Midland Siding study area identified four (4) potential tributaries within 

the proposed limits of disturbance and within the central portion of the property. The approximate 

location and extent of this feature is provided in Exhibit 3. Terracon also identified three (3) 

potential wetlands outside of the proposed limits of disturbance, not discussed within this report. 

Exhibit 3 is not a replacement for a traditional survey and is suitable for preliminary planning 

purposes only and for use by a surveyor to aid in locating flags. On-site photos are also attached 

to document site conditions at the time of the field review. 

Table 1 provides data associated with the tributaries that were delineated onsite. Final discretion 

regarding each tributaries flow regime and buffer status lies with USACE and NCDWR. 

Table 2. Potential Tributaries on the Midland Siding Study area. 

Potential Flow Approximate Flag Tributary Regime Amount in Study Sequence ID Area (Acres/Lf) 

S1 (a and b) Perennial 0.013 AC/ 67 Lf S(1-24) 

S2 Intermittent 0.002 AC/ 34 Lf SC (1-10) 

S3 Intermittent 0.007 AC/ 107 Lf SE (1-15) 

S4 Intermittent 0.003 AC/46 Lf SF (1-8) 

Clean Water Act Permitting 

Most impacts to wetlands and WOTUS, which are deemed under the jurisdiction of either the 

federal or state regulatory authority (USACE or NCDWR, respectively) must first be permitted 

pursuant to Section 404 and Section 401 of the CWA and/or the State's Isolated and Other Non404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters program. Activities so authorized are subject to 

additional requirements to comply with water quality and storm water management. The 

Nationwide Permit program (NWP) administered by USACE provides permitting of impacts which 

do not exceed pre-determined thresholds (typically 0.5 acre of WOTUS, including wetlands). 

Impacts .:::0.10 acre of wetland and/or .:::0.003 acre of stream will likely require compensatory 

mitigation. Impacts exceeding 0.5 acre can be authorized by a Section 404 Individual Permit. 

More guidance can be provided once site development designs have been prepared. 

3 

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 
Wetland and Waters Review 

Midland Siding Cabarrus County, NC lrerracon 

December 12, Terracon Project No. 71217506 

Recommendations 

Three (3) potential wetlands and four (4) potential tributaries that are likely subject to USACE 

and/or NCDWR jurisdiction has been delineated within the Midland Siding study area. If impacts 

to these features are proposed, a PJD request package, suitable for submittal to the USACE, can 

be prepared for this property. Note however, a PJD review is not a prerequisite for Section 

404/401 permitting. Terracon's professional opinion is that the three (3) potential wetlands and 

four (4) potential tributaries will be subject to 404 jurisdiction and 404/401 permitting would be 

needed to impact these features. It is important to note that applying for a Section 404 permit from 

USACE also triggers the need for compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Historic 

Preservation Act; Terracon has provided these reports under separate covers. Terracon is 

experienced with ensuring compliance with the above regulatory requirements as well as offering 

full service permitting assistance. 

Please contact our office if you have questions regardinn this evaluation. 

Sincerely, 

ct Scientist 

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 

4 

~ (7 ~ 

Robert Turnbull 

Department Manager 



Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 1: View of rail lines within study area, southern portion of the site, facing east. 

Photograph 2: View of rail lines within study area, southern portion of the site, facing west. 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 3: View of stream S1 (b) and culverts south of existing rail line in the central portion of 

the site, facing northeast. ,;, 

Photograph 4: View of southern portion of stream S1 (b) at the southern portion of the site, south 

of existin rail line facin north. 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 5: View of stream S1 (a) and culverts north of existing rail line in the central portion of 

the site, facing west. 

\' ,, \1 ·\• ,'J' 

.~tt .. · 

Photograph 6: View of stream S1 (a) in central portion of the site, north of existing rail line, facing 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 7: View of stream S2 within LOO, north of existing rail line, facing southwest. 

Photograph 8: View of aquatic feature S3 within LOO, north of existing rail line, facing northeast. 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 9: View of potential wetland, outside of LOO, adjacent to stream S2 (a), central portion 

of the site north of existing rail line, facing south. 

; . , I 4: ,., , t· ' { .f, ,, . .. -,}-" 

Photograph 10: View of potential wetland, adjacent to stream S1 (b), central portion of the site 

south of the rail line, facing north. 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Project No. 71217506 llerracan 

Consulting Engineers & Sclendsll 

Photograph 11 : View of typical hydric soil ped found in potential wetlands outside of LOO. 

Photograph 12: View of upland deciduous woods, western portion of the site, facing south. 

Midland Siding WOTUS Review, Charlotte, North Carolina 
Appendix D

Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination


United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

In Reply Refer To: 

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street 

Asheville, NC 28801-1082 

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330 

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htrnl 

Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-1269 

Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-02808 

Project Name: Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) ; JN217426 

September 23, 2021 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as 

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your 

proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by 

section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin 

their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) -Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/ 

cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" - species that 

could potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. 

Also available are: 

Design and Construction Recommendations 

https://www.fws.gov/ asheville/htrnls/proj ect review /Recommendations.html 

Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants 

https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html 

Northern long-eared bat Guidance 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/project review/NLEB in WNC.html 

Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/Maxent/Maxent.html 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists. 



09/23/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-02808 

Project Summary 

Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-1269 

Event Code: Some(04EN1000-2021-E-02808) 

Project Name: Mint Hill Siding (MOW694); JN217426 

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION 

Project Description: Storage and passing siding 

Project Location: 

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// 

www.google.com/maps/@35.2149682.-80.65542393464418.14z 

~ \)'i 

_<> ~--~ 

Counties: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

2 









• ••• NC DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

••• 

September 23, 2021 

Katie Talavera 

Terracon Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

RE: Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) ; JN217426 

Dear Katie Talavera: 

Roy Cooper, Governor 

D. Reid Wilson, Secretary 

Walter Clark 

Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship 

NCNHDE-15832 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. 

Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that 

there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or 

conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there 

may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not 

imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query 

should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare 

species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our 

records. 

The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that 

have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these 

records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area 

if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. 

If a Federally-listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of 

the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 

guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: 

https·//www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. 

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation 

planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria 

for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published 

without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information 

source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a 

Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federallylisted species are documented near the project area. 

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, 

please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney butler@ncdcr gov or 919-707-8603. 

Sincerely, 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

@ 1:1 W JON[ S S REE R. LEIGf NC' 27603 • lbSI MAIL SERVICE C'ENTEk R "-LEIGH. I" C 2769 

(9 OFC 919 70"' 120 • FAX 919 7079121 
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area 

Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) 

Project No. JN217426 

September 23, 2021 

NCNHDE-15832 

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area 

Faxonomic EOID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State 

1Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank 

Date Rank - - - Vascular Plant 13923 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1951-08-22 H 3-Medium Threatened G5T3 S3 

trefoil 

Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? 5-Very Threatened G3 S2 

Low 

No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area 

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area 

t:,1 anaged Area Name Owner Owner Type 

City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government 

Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https-//ncnhde natureserve org/help. Data query generated on September 23, 2021; source: NCNHP, 02 July 2021. Please 

resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database. 

Page 2 of 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: ACWR EA – Mint Hill Siding

Date: July 5, 2022 by Skelly and Loy/Terracon

Species /

Resource Name

Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle

Act Determination Notes / Documentation

Northern Long

Eared Bat

Suitable summer habitat May affect

Relying upon the findings of the 1/5/2016 Programmatic

Biological Opinion for Final 4(d) Rule on the Northern LongEared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions to

fulfill our project-specific section 7 responsibilities.

Carolina Heelsplitter No suitable habitat present No effect

Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found no

suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found no

suitable habitat.

Michaux’s Sumac Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did not

observe the species or evidence of the species.

Schweinitz's

Sunflower Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did not

observe the species or evidence of the species.

Smooth Coneflower Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did not

observe the species or evidence of the species.

Critical habitats No critical habitat present No effect No Critical Habitat present.

Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting

bald eagles No effect No Eagle Act permit required.

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to

make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

________________________Department Manager__________ ____7/6/2022_____________________

Signature/Title Date
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Passing and Siding ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists

JC Weaver, Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally

threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During

the field evaluation, plant communities and habitats were evaluated to determine if potentially

suitable habitat for listed species is present within the project site.

Northern long-eared bat – During summer, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roosts singly

or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices in both live and dead trees and/or

snags (typically >3 inches diameter breast height). Males and non-reproductive females may

also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting

roosts, using tree species based on suitability to provide cavities or crevices or presence of

peeling bark. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds when

suitable tree roosts are not available. During the summer, NLEB emerge at dusk to forage in

upland and lowland woodlands and tree-lined corridors.

It is reported that the NLEB hibernation season is October 15 – April 15. The bats spend winter

hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They typically use large caves or mines

with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air

currents. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that

droplets of water are often seen on their fur. Within hibernacula, surveyors find them in small

crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible (USFWS 2014).

Habitat Present: Yes (Summer Habitat)

A review of September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no occurrences of NLEB within

1.0 mile of the study area. No known, occupied hibernacula were identified within 1.0

mile of the project study area based on review of these NCNHP records. Pursuant to

the final 4(d) rules, incidental take from tree removal activities is not prohibited unless it

results from, (1) removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, or (2) from tree

removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1

through July 31, or (3) results from tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a

hibernaculum at any time. The proposed project appears to meet intent of the 4(d) rule

criteria and any incidental take would be exempt if the project continues to remain in

compliance with the 4(d) rules. Consultation with USFWS is not required if these criteria

do not change and no new information regarding NLEB occurrences or hibernaculum

within 0.25 mile arises.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Exempt per the 4(d) Rule

Carolina heelsplitter - The Carolina heelsplitter requires cool, clean, well-oxygenated water.

Stable, silt-free stream bottoms appear to be critical to the species. Typically, stable areas occur

where the stream banks are well-vegetated with trees and shrubs.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in the study area. The

streams that occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and pollution and show

signs of streambank instability. The Charlotte suburban area is experiencing

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Passing and Siding ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

tremendous growth and development stressing the system. These intermittent/perennial

streams are also small, first order streams that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. The Carolina heelsplitter has a fragmented

distribution and historically has been known to exist only in several locations within the

Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and Catawba, Pee Dee and

Savannah River systems in South Carolina. Recent collection efforts indicate that the

Carolina heelsplitter has been extinguished from the majority of its historic range and

only eleven small populations are known to exist. According to the Carolina heelsplitter

5-year Review, published by USFWS, in the Catawba River system, the population has

been identified in Waxhaw Creek, Sixmile Creek, Gills Creek/Cane Creek, Fishing

Creek/South Fork, and Bull Run Creek. This site is located in the Reedy Creek

watershed, a sub watershed of Middle Rocky River. Terracon surveyed the site on

September 29 and October 4, 2021 and did not observe habitat that would be conducive

for this species. The streams appear to be mainly intermittent within the western and

eastern portions of the site. The streams provide inadequate habitat and do not appear

to provide consistent year-round flow as needed by this species. Also present at the

time of the assessment was turbid water, evidence of urban stormwater runoff, and

substate comprised primarily of silt. It is our professional opinion that suitable habitat for

Carolina heelsplitter does not occur on this site. NCNHP data reviewed in September

2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Schweinitz’s sunflower - Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in

areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species

once occurred in natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations

occur along roadsides. Schweinitz’s sunflower is found in the central Piedmont region of North

and South Carolina.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Michaux’s Sumac - Michaux’s sumac is found growing in sandy or rocky open woods, in

association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance

has provided an open area, such as right of ways. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the coastal

plain and piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The

largest population known is located at Fort Pickett in Virginia, but the populations are located in

the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills. Currently, the plant is extant in the following North

Carolina counties: Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash,

Richmond, Robeson, Scotland and Wake.

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Passing and Siding ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Smooth Coneflower - Habitat for smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, glades,

cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line right of ways, and

usually on magnesium and calcium rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase in North

Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition in the

herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, historically influenced the

vegetation in this species' range. Many of the herbs associated with Smooth coneflower are

also sun-loving species that depend on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and

competition of woody plants.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Atlantic pigtoe - The Atlantic Pigtoe requires excellent water quality, clean coarse sand and

gravel substrate in a flowing river ecosystem. This species has several specific habitat

requirements, including clean and perennially flowing, highly oxygenated waters with sufficient

velocity to maintain uncompacted stream bed habitats.

Potential Habitat Present: No

The site is outside the current range of the species but considered as part of the review.

Potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not present in the study area. The streams that

occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and show signs of streambank

instability. These mainly intermittent streams are also small, first order streams, high in

their respective watersheds, with minimal flow that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. Lack of excellent water quality, water quantity,

suitable instream substrate, and development stressors further reduce potential habitat.

NCNHP data reviewed in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species

within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Passing and Siding ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Representative Photos

View of existing rail ROW, western portion of site, facing east.

07/05/2022



December 07, 2021

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office

160 Zillicoa Street

Asheville, NC 28801-1082

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html

In Reply Refer To:

Consultation code: 04EN1000-2021-TA-1262

Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422

Project Name: Mint Hill Siding

Subject: Verification letter for the 'Mint Hill Siding' project under the January 5, 2016, 

Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat 

and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.

Dear Laura Bair:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on December 07, 2021 your effects 

determination for the 'Mint Hill Siding' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. This 

IPaC key assists users in determining whether a Federal action is consistent with the activities 

analyzed in the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO). The PBO 

addresses activities excepted from "take"[1] prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.).

Based upon your IPaC submission, the Action is consistent with activities analyzed in the PBO. 

The Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take that may occur as a result 

of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 

CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that your 

IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the PBO satisfies and 

concludes your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 7(a)(2) with respect to the 

northern long-eared bat.

Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you submitted in 

IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick 

northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation. If the Action is not 

completed within one year of the date of this letter, you must update and resubmit the 

information required in the IPaC key.
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   2

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

This IPaC-assisted determination allows you to rely on the PBO for compliance with ESA 

Section 7(a)(2) only for the northern long-eared bat. It does not apply to the following ESAprotected species that also may occur in the Action area:

Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered

Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate

Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered

Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered

If the Action may affect other federally listed species besides the northern long-eared bat, a 

proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat, additional consultation between you and this 

Service office is required. If the Action may disturb bald or golden eagles, additional 

coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is recommended.

________________________________________________

[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   3

Action Description

You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.

1. Name

Mint Hill Siding

2. Description

The following description was provided for the project 'Mint Hill Siding':

MOW 694 - additional railroad siding within existing right-of-way.

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/

maps/@35.215156300000004,-80.6552492211932,14z

Determination Key Result

This Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat in a manner consistent with the 

description of activities addressed by the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016. Any taking that 

may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 

§17.40(o). Therefore, the PBO satisfies your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 

7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat.

Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule

This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.

This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.

The purpose of the key for Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed 

actions are consistent with those analyzed in the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016.

Federal actions that may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats, affect ESA-listed 

species other than the northern long-eared bat, or affect any designated critical habitat, require 

ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation in addition to the use of this key. Federal actions that may 
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   4

affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed for designation may require a 

conference under ESA Section 7(a)(4).
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Determination Key Result

This project may affect the threatened Northern long-eared bat; therefore, consultation with the 

Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat.884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, based on the information you provided, 

this project may rely on the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on 

Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions 

to fulfill its Section 7(a)(2) consultation obligation.

Qualification Interview

Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?

Yes

Have you determined that the proposed action will have “no effect” on the northern longeared bat? (If you are unsure select "No")

No

Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?

No

[Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome 

Zone?

Automatically answered

No

Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known 

hibernaculum or maternity roost tree? 

Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state 

Natural Heritage Inventory databases – the availability of this data varies state-by-state. 

Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by 

providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources, 

access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage 

Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern longeared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/

mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.

Yes

Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to 

hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or 

other alteration) of a hibernaculum?

No

Will the action involve Tree Removal?

Yes
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   6

8.

9.

10.

Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?

No

Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat 

hibernaculum at any time of year?

No

Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or 

any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through 

July 31?

No
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00422   7

Project Questionnaire

If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 1-3.

1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:

5

2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31

5

3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 4-6.

4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest

0

5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31

0

6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 7-9.

7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire

0

8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31

0

9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity 

below. Otherwise, type ‘0’ in question 10.

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?

0


United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street 

Asheville, NC 28801-1082 

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330 

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htrnl 

In Reply Refer To: September 23, 2021 

Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-1268 

Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-02806 

Project Name: Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) ; 

JN217426 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as 

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your 

proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by 

section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin 

their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7( c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) -Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/ 

cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" - species that 

could potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. 

Also available are: 

Design and Construction Recommendations 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/project review/Recommendations.html 

Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants 

https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html 

Northern long-eared bat Guidance 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/project review/NLEB in WNC.html 

Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/Maxent/Maxent.html 



09/23/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-02806 2 

Project Summary 

Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-1268 

Event Code: Some(04EN1000-2021-E-02806) 

Project Name: Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) ; 

JN217426 

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION 

Project Description: Construction of storage yard and warehouse. 

Project Location: 

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// 

www.google.com/maps/@35.2204329,-80.63845617276087,14z 

;i bffiis 

t-l llilllCare tl,. 1 U.JI 

Counties: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 









• ••• NC DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

• 

Roy Cooper, Governor 

D. Reid Wilson, Secretary 

Walter Clark 

Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship 

NCNHDE-15833 

September 23, 2021 

Katie Talavera 

Terracon Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

RE: Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102); JN217426 

Dear Katie Talavera: 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. 

A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural 

communities, natural areas, and/ or conservation/ managed areas within the proposed project 

boundary. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map. 

The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that 

have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these 

records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area 

if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/ managed areas within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. 

If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: 

https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/List0ffices.cfm?statecode=37. 

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation 

planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria 

for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published 

without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information 

source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. 

Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional 

correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund 

easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area. 

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, 

please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler@ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603. 

Sincerely, 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

DEPA TMENT 01= NATURAL ANO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

(1) 1:..1 W JONES S REET 'LE -.~ NC 27603 • 16SI I' AIL SERVICE CENTEk, R /\LEIGH. NC 2769 

(9 oi:-c , 1~ 10"' J120 • i=Ax 919 107 121 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: ACWR EA – Mint Hill Warehouse

Date: July 5, 2022 by Skelly and Loy/Terracon

Species/Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle

Act Determination Notes / Documentation

Northern Long Eared

Bat Suitable summer habitat May affect

Relying upon the findings of the 1/5/2016

Programmatic Biological Opinion for Final 4(d) Rule

on the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities

Excepted from Take Prohibitions to fulfill our

project-specific section 7 responsibilities.

Carolina Heelsplitter No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found no

suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found no

suitable habitat.

Michaux’s Sumac Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did

not observe the species or evidence of the species.

Schweinitz's Sunflower Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did

not observe the species or evidence of the species.

Smooth Coneflower Suitable habitat present No effect Species-specific survey by Terracon biologists did

not observe the species or evidence of the species.

Critical habitats No critical habitat present No effect No Critical Habitat present.

Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting

bald eagles No effect No Eagle Act permit required.

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to

make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

________________________Department Manager__________ ____7/6/2022_____________________

Signature/Title Date
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists

JC Weaver, Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally

threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During

the field evaluation, plant communities and habitats were evaluated to determine if potentially

suitable habitat for listed species is present within the project site.

Northern long-eared bat – During summer, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roosts singly

or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices in both live and dead trees and/or

snags (typically >3 inches diameter breast height). Males and non-reproductive females may

also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting

roosts, using tree species based on suitability to provide cavities or crevices or presence of

peeling bark. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds when

suitable tree roosts are not available. During the summer, NLEB emerge at dusk to forage in

upland and lowland woodlands and tree-lined corridors.

It is reported that the NLEB hibernation season is October 15 – April 15. The bats spend winter

hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They typically use large caves or mines

with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air

currents. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that

droplets of water are often seen on their fur. Within hibernacula, surveyors find them in small

crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible (USFWS 2014).

Habitat Present: Yes (Summer Habitat)

A review of September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no occurrences of NLEB within

1.0 mile of the study area. No known, occupied hibernacula were identified within 1.0

mile of the project study area based on review of these NCNHP records. Pursuant to

the final 4(d) rules, incidental take from tree removal activities is not prohibited unless it

results from, (1) removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, or (2) from tree

removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1

through July 31, or (3) results from tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a

hibernaculum at any time. The proposed project appears to meet intent of the 4(d) rule

criteria and any incidental take would be exempt if the project continues to remain in

compliance with the 4(d) rules. Consultation with USFWS is not required if these criteria

do not change and no new information regarding NLEB occurrences or hibernaculum

within 0.25 mile arises.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Exempt per the 4(d) Rule

Carolina heelsplitter - The Carolina heelsplitter requires cool, clean, well-oxygenated water.

Stable, silt-free stream bottoms appear to be critical to the species. Typically, stable areas occur

where the stream banks are well-vegetated with trees and shrubs.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in the study area. The

streams that occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and pollution and show

signs of streambank instability. The Charlotte suburban area is experiencing

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

tremendous growth and development stressing the system. These intermittent/perennial

streams are also small, first order streams that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. The Carolina heelsplitter has a fragmented

distribution and historically has been known to exist only in several locations within the

Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and Catawba, Pee Dee and

Savannah River systems in South Carolina. Recent collection efforts indicate that the

Carolina heelsplitter has been extinguished from the majority of its historic range and

only eleven small populations are known to exist. According to the Carolina heelsplitter

5-year Review, published by USFWS, in the Catawba River system, the population has

been identified in Waxhaw Creek, Sixmile Creek, Gills Creek/Cane Creek, Fishing

Creek/South Fork, and Bull Run Creek. This site is located in the Reedy Creek

watershed, a sub watershed of Middle Rocky River. Terracon surveyed the site on

September 29 and October 4, 2021 and did not observe habitat that would be conducive

for this species. The streams appear to be mainly intermittent within the western and

eastern portions of the site. The streams provide inadequate habitat and do not appear

to provide consistent year-round flow as needed by this species. Also present at the

time of the assessment was turbid water, evidence of urban stormwater runoff, and

substate comprised primarily of silt. It is our professional opinion that suitable habitat for

Carolina heelsplitter does not occur on this site. NCNHP data reviewed in September

2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Schweinitz’s sunflower - Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in

areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species

once occurred in natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations

occur along roadsides. Schweinitz’s sunflower is found in the central Piedmont region of North

and South Carolina.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Michaux’s Sumac - Michaux’s sumac is found growing in sandy or rocky open woods, in

association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance

has provided an open area, such as right of ways. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the coastal

plain and piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The

largest population known is located at Fort Pickett in Virginia, but the populations are located in

the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills. Currently, the plant is extant in the following North

Carolina counties: Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash,

Richmond, Robeson, Scotland and Wake.

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Smooth Coneflower - Habitat for smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, glades,

cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line right of ways, and

usually on magnesium and calcium rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase in North

Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition in the

herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, historically influenced the

vegetation in this species' range. Many of the herbs associated with Smooth coneflower are

also sun-loving species that depend on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and

competition of woody plants.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Atlantic pigtoe - The Atlantic Pigtoe requires excellent water quality, clean coarse sand and

gravel substrate in a flowing river ecosystem. This species has several specific habitat

requirements, including clean and perennially flowing, highly oxygenated waters with sufficient

velocity to maintain uncompacted stream bed habitats.

Potential Habitat Present: No

The site is outside the current range of the species but considered as part of the review.

Potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not present in the study area. The streams that

occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and show signs of streambank

instability. These mainly intermittent streams are also small, first order streams, high in

their respective watersheds, with minimal flow that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. Lack of excellent water quality, water quantity,

suitable instream substrate, and development stressors further reduce potential habitat.

NCNHP data reviewed in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species

within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Representative Photos

View of intermittent/perennial stream on the eastern portion of the property, facing southwest.

View of mixed evergreen and deciduous woods, central portion of site, facing south.

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse ■

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

View of riparian woods and wetland, western portion of site, facing north.

View of maintained rail ROW, northern portion of site, facing east.

07/05/2022



December 07, 2021

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office

160 Zillicoa Street

Asheville, NC 28801-1082

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html

In Reply Refer To:

Consultation code: 04EN1000-2021-TA-1261

Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425

Project Name: Mint Hill Warehouse and Storage Yard

Subject: Verification letter for the 'Mint Hill Warehouse and Storage Yard' project under the 

January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the 

Northern Long-eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.

Dear Laura Bair:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on December 07, 2021 your effects 

determination for the 'Mint Hill Warehouse and Storage Yard' (the Action) using the northern 

long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation 

(IPaC) system. This IPaC key assists users in determining whether a Federal action is consistent 

with the activities analyzed in the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion 

(PBO). The PBO addresses activities excepted from "take"[1] prohibitions applicable to the 

northern long-eared bat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Based upon your IPaC submission, the Action is consistent with activities analyzed in the PBO. 

The Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take that may occur as a result 

of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 

CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that your 

IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the PBO satisfies and 

concludes your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 7(a)(2) with respect to the 

northern long-eared bat.

Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you submitted in 

IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick 

northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation. If the Action is not 

completed within one year of the date of this letter, you must update and resubmit the 

information required in the IPaC key.
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   2

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

This IPaC-assisted determination allows you to rely on the PBO for compliance with ESA 

Section 7(a)(2) only for the northern long-eared bat. It does not apply to the following ESAprotected species that also may occur in the Action area:

Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered

Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate

Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered

Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered

If the Action may affect other federally listed species besides the northern long-eared bat, a 

proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat, additional consultation between you and this 

Service office is required. If the Action may disturb bald or golden eagles, additional 

coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is recommended.

________________________________________________

[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   3

Action Description

You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.

1. Name

Mint Hill Warehouse and Storage Yard

2. Description

The following description was provided for the project 'Mint Hill Warehouse and Storage Yard':

MOW 102 and MOW 80 - new storage yard and 200,000-400,000 sf warehouse

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/

maps/@35.220056,-80.63689465693494,14z

Determination Key Result

This Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat in a manner consistent with the 

description of activities addressed by the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016. Any taking that 

may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 

§17.40(o). Therefore, the PBO satisfies your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 

7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat.

Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule

This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.

This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.

The purpose of the key for Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed 

actions are consistent with those analyzed in the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016.

Federal actions that may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats, affect ESA-listed 

species other than the northern long-eared bat, or affect any designated critical habitat, require 

ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation in addition to the use of this key. Federal actions that may 
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   4

affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed for designation may require a 

conference under ESA Section 7(a)(4).
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Determination Key Result

This project may affect the threatened Northern long-eared bat; therefore, consultation with the 

Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat.884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, based on the information you provided, 

this project may rely on the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on 

Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions 

to fulfill its Section 7(a)(2) consultation obligation.

Qualification Interview

Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?

Yes

Have you determined that the proposed action will have “no effect” on the northern longeared bat? (If you are unsure select "No")

No

Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?

No

[Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome 

Zone?

Automatically answered

No

Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known 

hibernaculum or maternity roost tree? 

Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state 

Natural Heritage Inventory databases – the availability of this data varies state-by-state. 

Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by 

providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources, 

access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage 

Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern longeared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/

mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.

Yes

Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to 

hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or 

other alteration) of a hibernaculum?

No

Will the action involve Tree Removal?

Yes
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   6

8.

9.

10.

Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?

No

Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat 

hibernaculum at any time of year?

No

Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or 

any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through 

July 31?

No
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00425   7

Project Questionnaire

If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 1-3.

1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:

30

2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31

30

3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 4-6.

4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest

0

5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31

0

6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 7-9.

7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire

0

8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31

0

9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity 

below. Otherwise, type ‘0’ in question 10.

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?

0


United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street 

Asheville, NC 28801-1082 

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330 

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htrnl 

In Reply Refer To: November 12, 2021 

Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2022-SLI-0104 

Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00276 

Project Name: Midland Siding 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as 

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your 

proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by 

section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin 

their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) -Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/ 

cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" - species that 

could potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. 

Also available are: 

Design and Construction Recommendations 

https://www.fws.gov/ asheville/htrnls/proj ect review /Recommendations.html 

Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants 

https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html 

Northern long-eared bat Guidance 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/project review/NLEB in WNC.html 

Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species 

https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htrnls/Maxent/Maxent.html 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists. 













••• 

• ••• NC DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Roy Cooper, Governor 

D. Reid Wilson, Secretary 

Walter Clark 

Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship 

NCNHDE-15831 

September 23, 2021 

Katie Talavera 

Terracon Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

RE: Midland Siding (MOW692) ; JN217426 

Dear Katie Talavera: 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. 

Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that 

there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/ or 

conservation/ managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there 

may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not 

imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query 

should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare 

species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our 

records. 

The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that 

have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these 

records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area 

if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/ managed areas within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. 

If a Federally-listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of 

the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 

guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: 

https·//www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. 

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation 

planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria 

for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published 

without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information 

source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a 

Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federallylisted species are documented near the project area. 

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, 

please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney butler@ncdcr gov or 919-707-8603. 

Sincerely, 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

@ 1:1W JON[ S S REE R. LEIGf NC' 27603 • lbSI MAIL SERVICE C'ENTEk R "-LEIGH. I" C 2769 

(9 OFC 919 70"' 120 • FAX 919 7079121 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: ACWR EA – Midland Siding

Date: July 5, 2022 by Skelly and Loy/Terracon

Species/Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle

Act Determination Notes / Documentation

Northern Long Eared Bat Suitable summer habitat May affect

Relying upon the findings of the

1/5/2016 Programmatic Biological

Opinion for Final 4(d) Rule on the

Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities

Excepted from Take Prohibitions to fulfill

our project-specific section 7

responsibilities.

Carolina Heelsplitter No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Schweinitz's Sunflower Suitable habitat present No effect

Species-specific survey by Terracon

biologists did not observe the species or

evidence of the species.

Critical habitats No critical habitat present No effect There are no critical habitats.

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to

make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

________________________Department Manager__________ ____7/6/2022_____________________

Signature/Title Date
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Midland Siding ■

Cabarrus County, North Carolina

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists

JC Weaver, Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally

threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During

the field evaluation, plant communities and habitats were evaluated to determine if potentially

suitable habitat for listed species is present within the project site.

Northern long-eared bat – During summer, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roosts singly

or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices in both live and dead trees and/or

snags (typically >3 inches diameter breast height). Males and non-reproductive females may

also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting

roosts, using tree species based on suitability to provide cavities or crevices or presence of

peeling bark. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds when

suitable tree roosts are not available. During the summer, NLEB emerge at dusk to forage in

upland and lowland woodlands and tree-lined corridors.

It is reported that the NLEB hibernation season is October 15 – April 15. The bats spend winter

hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They typically use large caves or mines

with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air

currents. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that

droplets of water are often seen on their fur. Within hibernacula, surveyors find them in small

crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible (USFWS 2014).

Habitat Present: Yes (Summer Habitat)

A review of September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no occurrences of NLEB within

1.0 mile of the study area. No known, occupied hibernacula were identified within 1.0

mile of the project study area based on review of these NCNHP records. Pursuant to

the final 4(d) rules, incidental take from tree removal activities is not prohibited unless it

results from, (1) removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, or (2) from tree

removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1

through July 31, or (3) results from tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a

hibernaculum at any time. The proposed project appears to meet intent of the 4(d) rule

criteria and any incidental take would be exempt if the project continues to remain in

compliance with the 4(d) rules. Consultation with USFWS is not required if these criteria

do not change and no new information regarding NLEB occurrences or hibernaculum

within 0.25 mile arises.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Exempt per the 4(d) Rule

Carolina heelsplitter - The Carolina heelsplitter requires cool, clean, well-oxygenated water.

Stable, silt-free stream bottoms appear to be critical to the species. Typically, stable areas occur

where the stream banks are well-vegetated with trees and shrubs.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in the study area. The

streams that occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and pollution and show

signs of streambank instability. The Charlotte suburban area is experiencing

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Midland Siding ■

Cabarrus County, North Carolina

tremendous growth and development stressing the system. These intermittent/perennial

streams are also small, first order streams that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. The Carolina heelsplitter has a fragmented

distribution and historically has been known to exist only in several locations within the

Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and Catawba, Pee Dee and

Savannah River systems in South Carolina. Recent collection efforts indicate that the

Carolina heelsplitter has been extinguished from the majority of its historic range and

only eleven small populations are known to exist. According to the Carolina heelsplitter

5-year Review, published by USFWS, in the Catawba River system, the population has

been identified in Waxhaw Creek, Sixmile Creek, Gills Creek/Cane Creek, Fishing

Creek/South Fork, and Bull Run Creek. This site is located in the Clear Creek

watershed, a sub watershed of Middle Rocky River. Terracon surveyed the site on

September 29 and October 4, 2021 and did not observe habitat that would be conducive

for this species. The streams appear to be mainly intermittent within the western and

eastern portions of the site. The streams provide inadequate habitat and do not appear

to provide consistent year-round flow as needed by this species. Also present at the

time of the assessment was turbid water, evidence of urban stormwater runoff, and

substate comprised primarily of silt. It is our professional opinion that suitable habitat for

Carolina heelsplitter does not occur on this site. NCNHP data reviewed in September

2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Schweinitz’s sunflower - Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in

areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species

once occurred in natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations

occur along roadsides. Schweinitz’s sunflower is found in the central Piedmont region of North

and South Carolina.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Atlantic pigtoe - The Atlantic Pigtoe requires excellent water quality, clean coarse sand and

gravel substrate in a flowing river ecosystem. This species has several specific habitat

requirements, including clean and perennially flowing, highly oxygenated waters with sufficient

velocity to maintain uncompacted stream bed habitats.

Potential Habitat Present: No

The site is outside the current range of the species but considered as part of the review.

Potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not present in the study area. The streams that

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Midland Siding ■

Cabarrus County, North Carolina

occur onsite were observed to be subject to siltation and show signs of streambank

instability. These mainly intermittent streams are also small, first order streams, high in

their respective watersheds, with minimal flow that do not provide the type of habitat

considered conducive for this species. Lack of excellent water quality, water quantity,

suitable instream substrate, and development stressors further reduce potential habitat.

NCNHP data reviewed in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species

within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

07/05/2022
 

 

 

 

 

Midland Siding ■

Cabarrus County, North Carolina

Representative Photos

View of the southern portion of the stream, south of the existing rail line, facing north.

View of the rail ROW, southern portion of site, facing west.

07/05/2022


December 07, 2021

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office

160 Zillicoa Street

Asheville, NC 28801-1082

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html

In Reply Refer To:

Consultation code: 04EN1000-2022-TA-0157

Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430

Project Name: Midland Siding

Subject: Verification letter for the 'Midland Siding' project under the January 5, 2016, 

Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat 

and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.

Dear Laura Bair:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on December 07, 2021 your effects 

determination for the 'Midland Siding' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. This 

IPaC key assists users in determining whether a Federal action is consistent with the activities 

analyzed in the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO). The PBO 

addresses activities excepted from "take"[1] prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.).

Based upon your IPaC submission, the Action is consistent with activities analyzed in the PBO. 

The Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take that may occur as a result 

of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 

CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that your 

IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the PBO satisfies and 

concludes your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 7(a)(2) with respect to the 

northern long-eared bat.

Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you submitted in 

IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick 

northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation. If the Action is not 

completed within one year of the date of this letter, you must update and resubmit the 

information required in the IPaC key.
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   2

▪

▪

▪

This IPaC-assisted determination allows you to rely on the PBO for compliance with ESA 

Section 7(a)(2) only for the northern long-eared bat. It does not apply to the following ESAprotected species that also may occur in the Action area:

Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate

Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered

If the Action may affect other federally listed species besides the northern long-eared bat, a 

proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat, additional consultation between you and this 

Service office is required. If the Action may disturb bald or golden eagles, additional 

coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is recommended.

________________________________________________

[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   3

Action Description

You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.

1. Name

Midland Siding

2. Description

The following description was provided for the project 'Midland Siding':

(MOW692) Construction of 2900 linear feet of new storage and passing siding

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/

maps/@35.23692665,-80.57587683324262,14z

Determination Key Result

This Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat in a manner consistent with the 

description of activities addressed by the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016. Any taking that 

may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 

§17.40(o). Therefore, the PBO satisfies your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 

7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat.

Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule

This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.

This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.

The purpose of the key for Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed 

actions are consistent with those analyzed in the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016.

Federal actions that may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats, affect ESA-listed 

species other than the northern long-eared bat, or affect any designated critical habitat, require 

ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation in addition to the use of this key. Federal actions that may 
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   4

affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed for designation may require a 

conference under ESA Section 7(a)(4).
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Determination Key Result

This project may affect the threatened Northern long-eared bat; therefore, consultation with the 

Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat.884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, based on the information you provided, 

this project may rely on the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on 

Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions 

to fulfill its Section 7(a)(2) consultation obligation.

Qualification Interview

Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?

Yes

Have you determined that the proposed action will have “no effect” on the northern longeared bat? (If you are unsure select "No")

No

Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?

No

[Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome 

Zone?

Automatically answered

No

Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known 

hibernaculum or maternity roost tree? 

Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state 

Natural Heritage Inventory databases – the availability of this data varies state-by-state. 

Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by 

providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources, 

access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage 

Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern longeared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/

mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.

Yes

Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to 

hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or 

other alteration) of a hibernaculum?

No

Will the action involve Tree Removal?

Yes
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   6

8.

9.

10.

Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?

No

Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat 

hibernaculum at any time of year?

No

Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or 

any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through 

July 31?

No
12/07/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2022-E-00430   7

Project Questionnaire

If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 1-3.

1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:

5

2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31

5

3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 4-6.

4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest

0

5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31

0

6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below. 

Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 7-9.

7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire

0

8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31

0

9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31

0

If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity 

below. Otherwise, type ‘0’ in question 10.

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?

0


United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office 

Post Office Box 33726 

Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 

Phone: (919) 856-4520 Fax: (919) 856-4556 

In Reply Refer To: November 12, 2021 

Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2022-SLI-0240 

Event Code: 04EN2000-2022-E-00530 

Project Name: ACWR HQ 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened, 

endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical 

habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by 

your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) under section 7( c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to 

contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to 

federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical 

habitat. Please note that under SO CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the 

Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be 

completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be 

completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and 

implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested 

through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. 

Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies ( or their designated non-federal 

representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be 

prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the 

Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the 

species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or 






••• 

• ••• NC DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Roy Cooper, Governor 

D. Reid Wilson, Secretary 

Walter Clark 

Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship 

NCNHDE-15830 

September 23, 2021 

Katie Talavera 

Terracon Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

RE: ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82; JN217426 

Dear Katie Talavera: 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. 

Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that 

there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/ or 

conservation/ managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there 

may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not 

imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query 

should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare 

species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our 

records. 

The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that 

have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these 

records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area 

if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/ managed areas within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. 

If a Federally-listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of 

the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 

guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: 

https·//www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. 

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation 

planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria 

for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published 

without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information 

source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a 

Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federallylisted species are documented near the project area. 

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, 

please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney butler@ncdcr gov or 919-707-8603. 

Sincerely, 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

@ 1:1W JON[ S S REE R. LEIGf NC' 27603 • lbSI MAIL SERVICE C'ENTEk R "-LEIGH. I" C 2769 

(9 OFC 919 70"' 120 • FAX 919 7079121 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: ACWR EA – ACWR HQ Storage Yard

Date: June 9, 2022 by Skelly and Loy/Terracon

Species/Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle

Act Determination Notes / Documentation

Red-cockaded Woodpecker No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Cape Fear Shiner No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Michaux’s Sumac Suitable habitat present No effect

Species-specific survey by Terracon

biologists did not observe the species or

evidence of the species.

Schweinitz's Sunflower Suitable habitat present No effect

Species-specific survey by Terracon

biologists did not observe the species or

evidence of the species.

Critical habitats No critical habitat present No effect There are no critical habitats.

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to

make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

_________________________________ Dept. Mgr._______ __6/9/2022_______________________

Signature/Title Date
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard ■

Montgomery and Moore Counties, North Carolina

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists

JC Weaver, Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally

threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During

the field evaluation, plant communities and habitats were evaluated to determine if potentially

suitable habitat for listed species is present within the project site.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker – Prefers mature open pine forests with a population range of

about 60- 100 years old. It makes its nest exclusively in mature pine trees, preferably living long

leaf pine (Pinus palustris) trees that are typically 80 years or older. Cavities are excavated over

a period of one to six years. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) typically develop “clusters” of

cavities trees within a 3 to 60-acre span with a territory that can span from about 125 -200

acres.

Habitat Present: No

Suitable foraging or nesting habitat for RCW is not present in the study area. Based on

a review of historic aerial photography and on-site determinations, pine trees within the

greater study area are not of sufficient age to provide habitat for this species.

Additionally, there are no trees within the Limit of Disturbance (LOD). A review of

September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no occurrences of RCW within 1.0 mile of

the study area. No known, occupied cavity trees were identified within 1.0 mile of the

project study area based on review of these NCNHP records.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Cape Fear Shiner - The Cape Fear Shiner is associated with gravel, cobble and boulder

substrates in clean, well-oxygenated water. Streams with slow pools, riffles, and slow runs,

appear to be critical to the species. Typically, shiners utilize the rocky bottom for spawning beds

and to offer protection for their fry.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner is not present in the study area. No streams

are present within the limits of disturbance for the proposed project. NCNHP data

reviewed in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of

the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Atlantic Pigtoe - Atlantic Pigtoe requires coarse sand and gravel, and occasionally, silty water.

The Atlantic Pigtoe inhabits small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water quality, where

flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not present in the study area. No streams are

present within the limits of disturbance for the proposed project. NCNHP data reviewed

in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study

area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

06/09/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard ■

Montgomery and Moore Counties, North Carolina

Schweinitz’s sunflower - Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in

areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species

once occurred in natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations

occur along roadsides. Schweinitz’s sunflower is found in the central Piedmont region of North

and South Carolina.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Michaux’s Sumac - Michaux’s sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems

from 1 to 3 feet in height. Flowering usually occurs from June to July, the flowers are small,

greenish yellow to white, and grow in erect dense clusters. Fruit is produced from August to

October and is a red drupe. Michaux’s sumac is found growing in sandy or rocky open woods, in

association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance

has provided an open area, such as right of ways. The largest population known is located at

Fort Pickett in Virginia, but populations are located in the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills.

Currently, the plant is extant in the following North Carolina counties: Cumberland, Davie,

Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland and Wake.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitats. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does not document occurrences of this species within one mile of the

study area. The project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

06/09/2022
 

 

 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard ■

Montgomery and Moore Counties, North Carolina

Representative Photos

06/09/2022




United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office 

Post Office Box 33726 

Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 

Phone: (919) 856-4520 Fax: (919) 856-4556 

In Reply Refer To: November 12, 2021 

Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2022-SLI-0239 

Event Code: 04EN2000-2022-E-00528 

Project Name: Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened, 

endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical 

habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by 

your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) under section 7( c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to 

contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to 

federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical 

habitat. Please note that under SO CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the 

Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be 

completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be 

completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and 

implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested 

through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. 

Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies ( or their designated non-federal 

representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be 

prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the 

Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the 

species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or 



11/12/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2022-E-00528 2 

Project Summary 

Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2022-SLI-0239 

Event Code: Some(04EN2000-2022-E-00528) 

Project Name: Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding 

Project Type: LAND - CLEARING 

Project Description: Railroad expansion 

Project Location: 

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// 

www.google.com/maps/@35.29873485,-79.66622863084973,l4z 

Counties: Moore County, North Carolina 


••• 

• ••• NC DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Roy Cooper, Governor 

D. Reid Wilson, Secretary 

Walter Clark 

Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship 

NCNHDE-15834 

September 23, 2021 

Katie Talavera 

Terracon Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

RE: Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92); JN217426 

Dear Katie Talavera: 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. 

Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that 

there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or 

conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there 

may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not 

imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query 

should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare 

species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our 

records. 

The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that 

have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these 

records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area 

if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile 

radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. 

If a Federally-listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of 

the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 

guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: 

https·//www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. 

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation 

planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria 

for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published 

without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information 

source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a 

Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federallylisted species are documented near the project area. 

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, 

please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney butler@ncdcr gov or 919-707-8603. 

Sincerely, 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

@ 1:1W JON[ S S REE R. LEIGf NC' 27603 • lbSI MAIL SERVICE C'ENTEk R "-LEIGH. I" C 2769 

(9 OFC 919 70"' 120 • FAX 919 7079121 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: ACWR EA – Samarcand Siding

Date: June 9, 2022 by Skelly and Loy/Terracon

Species/Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle

Act Determination Notes / Documentation

Red-cockaded Woodpecker No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Cape Fear Shiner No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat present No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon

biologists found no suitable habitat.

Michaux’s Sumac Suitable habitat present No effect

Species-specific survey by Terracon

biologists did not observe the species or

evidence of the species.

Schweinitz's Sunflower Suitable habitat present No effect

Species-specific survey by Terracon

biologists did not observe the species or

evidence of the species.

Critical habitats No critical habitat present No effect There are no critical habitats.

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to

make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

__________________________________ Dept. Mgr._______ ___6/9/2022______________________

Signature/Title Date
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samarcand Passing and Siding ■

Moore County, North Carolina

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists

JC Weaver, Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally

threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During the

field evaluation, plant communities and habitats were evaluated to determine if potentially suitable

habitat for listed species is present within the project site.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker – Prefers mature open pine forests with a population range of about

60- 100 years old. It makes its nest exclusively in mature pine trees, preferably living long leaf

pine (Pinus palustris) trees that are typically 80 years or older. Cavities are excavated over a

period of one to six years. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) typically develop “clusters” of

cavities trees within a 3 to 60-acre span with a territory that can span from about 125 -200 acres.

Habitat Present: No

Suitable foraging or nesting habitat for RCW is not present in the study area. Based on a

review of historic aerial photography and on-site determinations, pine trees within the

greater study area are not of sufficient age to provide habitat for this species. Additionally,

there are no trees within the rail right-of-way/Limit of Disturbance (LOD). A review of

September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no occurrences of RCW within 1.0 mile of the

study area. No known, occupied cavity trees were identified within 1.0 mile of the project

study area based on review of these NCNHP records.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Cape Fear Shiner - The Cape Fear Shiner is associated with gravel, cobble and boulder

substrates in clean, well-oxygenated water. Streams with slow pools, riffles, and slow runs,

appear to be critical to the species. Typically, shiners utilize the rocky bottom for spawning beds

and to offer protection for their fry.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner is not present in the study area. No streams

are present within the limits of disturbance for the proposed project. NCNHP data reviewed

in September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study

area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Atlantic Pigtoe - Atlantic Pigtoe requires coarse sand and gravel, and occasionally, silty water.

The Atlantic Pigtoe inhabits small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water quality, where flows

were sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates.

Potential Habitat Present: No

Potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not present in the study area. No streams are

present within the limits of disturbance for the proposed project. NCNHP data reviewed in

September 2021 indicates no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

06/09/2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samarcand Passing and Siding ■

Moore County, North Carolina

Schweinitz’s sunflower - Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in areas

with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species once

occurred in natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations occur along

roadsides. Schweinitz’s sunflower is found in the central Piedmont region of North and South

Carolina.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitat. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does document occurrences of this species within one mile of the study

area. However, the project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite

surveys revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Michaux’s Sumac - Michaux’s sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems

from 1 to 3 feet in height. Flowering usually occurs from June to July, the flowers are small,

greenish yellow to white, and grow in erect dense clusters. Fruit is produced from August to

October and is a red drupe. Michaux’s sumac is found growing in sandy or rocky open woods, in

association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance

has provided an open area, such as right of ways. The largest population known is located at Fort

Pickett in Virginia, but populations are located in the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills.

Currently, the plant is extant in the following North Carolina counties: Cumberland, Davie,

Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland and Wake.

Habitat Present: Yes

The study area does provide marginal habitat for this species. Therefore, Terracon

biologists conducted pedestrian surveys in September 2021 throughout the areas of

potential habitats. No evidence of this species was observed. NCNHP data from

September 2021 does not document occurrences of this species within one mile of the

study area. The project is expected to have No Effect on the species since onsite surveys

revealed no evidence of this species.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

06/09/2022
 

 

 

 

 

Samarcand Passing and Siding ■

Moore County, North Carolina

Representative Photos

View of existing rail ROW, central portion of site, facing east.

View of existing rail ROW, central portion, looking east.

06/09/2022










Appendix E

Section 106 Consultation and Supporting Documentation
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources

State Historic Preservation Office

Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator

Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History 

Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599

January 10, 2022

Melissa McKay Melissa.McKay@terracon.com 

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 

Re: Reconnaissance survey report of new siding and storage yard construction along the Aberdeen Carolina 

& Western Railway, Mecklenburg and Montgomery Counties, ER 20-1193 

Ms. McKay:

Thank you for your submittal of December 1, 2021, transmitting the revised draft of the above-referenced 

report. We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments. 

Terracon conducted a limited archaeological field reconnaissance of five new areas. As a result of these 

investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172, 31MK1173, 31MG2238, and 

31MG2239). Much of the study area was observed to be disturbed and eroded by past timbering, clearing, and 

development activities and none of the sites are recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). Terracon recommends the proposed project should be allowed to proceed without concern for 

impacts to significant cultural resources. 

We concur with Terracon’s findings and recommendations. We accept the report as final and do not recommend 

additional archaeological investigations at this time.

We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR 

Part 800. 

 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, 

contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 

or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above 

referenced tracking number. 

Sincerely, 

Ramona Bartos, Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer 


U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

November 23, 2021 

Renee Gledhill-Earley

Environmental Review Coordinator 

State Historic Preservation Office

State Historic Preservation Office

109 E. Jones Street 

Raleigh, NC 27601 

RE: Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project 

 Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina 

Initiation of Section 106 Consultation 

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial assistance to Aberdeen, Carolina & 

Western Railway (ACWR) to construct new facilities including passing and storage sidings, storage yards 

and a new warehouse. The purpose of the project is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. 

The project sites are located along their existing line in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore 

Counties, North Carolina (See Figure 1a-b). Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) (Section 106), this letter 

initiates Section 106 consultation for the Project and to request concurrence with FRA’s findings. 

Description of the Undertaking

The proposed Project is the undertaking for the purposes of Section 106 and will occur at five locations as 

listed below.

Mint Hill, North Carolina [Mecklenburg County]

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – Construction of 4,300 linear feet of new storage and passing 

siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and I-495. 

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – Construction of new 

storage track spurs and warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen Station Road in 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Parcel ID# 13715210). Construction activities include 

grading for new roads, parking area, loading docks, 8 new storage track spurs totaling 7,200 linear 

feet, stormwater basins, and an approximate 200,000-400,000 square foot warehouse. 

Midland, North Carolina [Cabarrus County] 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – Construction of 2,900 linear feet of new storage and passing siding 

approximately 2 miles east of Midland, NC.

ACWR Headquarters, Candor, North Carolina [Montgomery County] 

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – Construction of 12 new storage track spurs 

totaling 20,000 linear feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarter building. 
2 

Samarcand and Eagle Springs, North Carolina [Moore County] 

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – Construction of 6,500 linear feet of new 

double ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. 

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

The Area of Potential Effects (APE), as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), is “the geographic area or areas 

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of 

an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” 

The APE consists of the area where the Project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. For 

the purposes of this consultation FRA delineated the APE to reflect the nature, scale, and location of the 

Undertaking as defined above (Attachment A – Area of Potential Effects Map).

The APE is delineated as five dissentious areas described below:

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail 

corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined 

at the Limit of Disturbance (LOD) as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 2. This area is 

within the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW). 

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – the proposed storage 

yard and warehouses are consistent with the existing level and nature of development in the broader 

area and do not have the potential to cause visual or audible effects to historic properties. Because 

the design for the facility is still in the concept stage, and the limits of construction disturbance 

have not been clearly defined, the APE is defined as the entire property as shown on Attachment 

A: Figures 1a and 3. 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail corridor 

and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined at the 

LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 4. This area is within the existing railroad ROW. 

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – the proposed storage and its use is consistent with 

existing rail yard and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is 

defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 5. This area is only a portion of 

the ACRW parcel as demarcated in red LOD.

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with 

existing rail corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE 

is defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 6. This area is within the 

existing railroad ROW. 

Identification of Historic Properties

FRA made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties with the APE. Based on the 

results of those efforts FRA reached a finding of No Historic Properties Affected, in accordance with 36 

CFR 800.4(d)(1). To identify historic properties in the APE, ACWR’s consultants, who meet the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, reviewed available information, including National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings; available historic maps and images; and information derived 

from online research at various agencies, historical societies and other sources for the sites. ACWR’s 

consultants also conducted field reconnaissance at each of the APEs. No historic properties, as defined by 

36 CFR 800.16(l), were identified within the APE. 

Background research and limited field reconnaissance was conducted for each project area by the 

consultant. As a result of the investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172, 
3 

31M1174, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239). Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located within the Mint Hill 

Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and site 31MG2238 and 31MG2239 are located within the 

ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. None of the sites are recommended eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Additional information about the results of the background research 

and field reconnaissance can be found in the attached Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (Attachment 

B – Archaeological Reconnaissance Report). 

Consulting Party Outreach 

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.2(c), FRA identified parties that may be interested in the proposed 

Project and FRA’s determination of effects. FRA initiated consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and requested lead agency status via letter dated November 18, 2021. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic 

Landmarks Commission is copied on this letter to serve as their invitation to participate as a Section 106 

consulting party. Federally-recognized tribes that have expressed interest in this project area, Catawba Indian 

Nation and Cherokee Nation, will be invited to participate in the Section 106 process in a separate letter.

Invited parties may indicate their willingness to participate as a consulting party and provide comments, as 

indicated below within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Should any invited parties’ express concerns about the 

Project’s effects to historic properties, FRA will consult with you and other consulting parties to resolve those 

concerns prior to project implementation.

Request for Comments

FRA seeks your concurrence with the proposed APE(s) and finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

Should you disagree with the information presented herein, please notify us within 30 calendar days. An emailed response is preferred to ensure timely receipt of your communications. FRA welcomes an 

opportunity to discuss the undertaking with you and other consulting parties prior to making determinations 

of effect. Please send your response to Derek Manning, Environmental Protection Specialist, at 

derek.manning@dot.gov or 857-998-1779. Thank you for your cooperation on this project. 

Sincerely,

Amanda Murphy 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Infrastructure Investment 

Enc: Attachment A: APE Maps

Attachment B: Archaeological Reconnaissance Report by Terracon Consultants, Inc.

cc: Derek Manning, USDOT, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Crystal Amschler, USACE, Project Manager

Jack Thompson, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmark Commission, Executive Director 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

 

November 23, 2021 

Elizabeth Toombs 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Cherokee Nation

PO Box 948 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

RE: Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project 

Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

 

Dear Ms. Toombs: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial assistance to Aberdeen, Carolina & 

Western Railway (ACWR) to construct new facilities including passing and storage sidings, storage yards 

and a new warehouse. The purpose of the Project is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. 

The project sites are located along their existing line in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore 

Counties, North Carolina (See Figure 1a-b). The purpose of this letter is to initiate National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 consultation for the Project, to determine if there are historic properties of 

cultural or religious significance to your Tribe that may be affected by the Project, and to notify your 

Tribe of FRA’s finding. 

Description of the Undertaking

The proposed Project is the undertaking for the purposes of Section 106 and will occur at five locations as 

listed below.

Mint Hill, North Carolina [Mecklenburg County]

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – Construction of 4,300 linear feet of new storage and passing 

siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and I-495. 

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – Construction of 

new storage track spurs and warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen Station Road in 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Parcel ID# 13715210). Construction activities include 

grading for new roads, parking area, loading docks, 8 new storage track spurs totaling 7,200 

linear feet, stormwater basins, and an approximate 200,000-400,000 square foot warehouse. 

Midland, North Carolina [Cabarrus County] 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – Construction of 2,900 linear feet of new storage and passing 

siding approximately 2 miles east of Midland, NC.

ACWR Headquarters, Candor, North Carolina [Montgomery County] 

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – Construction of 12 new storage track spurs 

totaling 20,000 linear feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarter building. 

Samarcand and Eagle Springs, North Carolina [Moore County] 

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – Construction of 6,500 linear feet of new 
double ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. 

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

The Area of Potential Effects (APE), as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), is “the geographic area or 

areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and 

nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.”

The APE consists of the area where the Project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 

For the purposes of this consultation FRA delineated the APE to reflect the nature, scale, and location of 

the Undertaking as defined above (Attachment A – Area of Potential Effects Map).

The APE is delineated as five dissentious areas described below: 

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail 

corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined 

at the Limit of Disturbance (LOD) as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 2. This area is 

within the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW).

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – the proposed storage 

yard and warehouses are consistent with the existing level and nature of development in the 

broader area and do not have the potential to cause visual or audible effects to historic properties. 

Because the design for the facility is still in the concept stage, and the limits of construction 

disturbance have not been clearly defined, the APE is defined as the entire property as shown on 

Attachment A: Figures 1a and 3. 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail 

corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined 

at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 4. This area is within the existing 

railroad ROW.

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – the proposed storage and its use is consistent with 

existing rail yard and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is 

defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 5. This area is only a portion of 

the ACRW parcel as demarcated in red LOD.

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent 

with existing rail corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such 

the APE is defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 6. This area is within 

the existing railroad ROW. 

Identification of Historic Properties

FRA made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties with the APE. Based on the 

results of those efforts FRA reached a finding of No Historic Properties Affected, in accordance with 36 

CFR 800.4(d)(1). To identify historic properties in the APE, ACWR’s consultants, who meet the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, reviewed available information, 

including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings; available historic maps and images (e.g., 

Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerials, historic topographic quadrangles, plat maps, etc.), and 

information derived from online research at various agencies, historical societies and other sources for the 

sites. ACWR’s consultants also conducted field reconnaissance at each of the APEs. No historic 

properties, as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l), were identified within the APE. 

Background research and limited field reconnaissance was conducted for each project area by the 
consultant. As a result of the investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172, 

31M1174, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239). Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located within the Mint 

Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and site 31MG2238 and 31MG2239 are located within the 

ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. None of the sites are recommended eligible for the NRHP. 

Additional information about the results of the background research and field reconnaissance can be 

found in the attached Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (Attachment B – Archaeological 

Reconnaissance Report).

Request for Participation and Comments

FRA respectfully requests that 1) you review the enclosed materials and provide any comments or 

information you may have regarding historic properties of religious or cultural significance to your Tribe 

that may be present in the APE, 2) provide any comments on FRA’s finding of No Historic Properties 

Affected, and 3) that you notify FRA within 30 days from the date on this letter whether you accept or 

decline this invitation to be a consulting party. FRA offers Government-to-Government consultation on 

this Project, if that is your Tribe’s preference. Please send your response to Mr. Derek Manning at 

derek.manning@dot.gov or 857-998-1779. Thank you for your cooperation on this Project. 

Sincerely,

Amanda Murphy, MAHP

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Enc: Attachment A: APE Maps

Attachment B: Archaeological Reconnaissance Report by Terracon Consultants, Inc.

cc: Derek Manning, USDOT, Environmental Protection Specialist 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

 

November 23, 2021 

Wenonah G. Haire, DMD

c/o Caitlin Rogers 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Catawba Indian Nation 

1536 Tom Steven Road 

Rock Hill, SC 29730 

RE: Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project 

 Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina 

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

 

Dear Dr. Haire:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial assistance to Aberdeen, Carolina & 

Western Railway (ACWR) to construct new facilities including passing and storage sidings, storage yards 

and a new warehouse. The purpose of the Project is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. 

The project sites are located along their existing line in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore 

Counties, North Carolina (See Figure 1a-b). The purpose of this letter is to initiate National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 consultation for the Project, to determine if there are historic properties of 

cultural or religious significance to your Tribe that may be affected by the Project, and to notify your 

Tribe of FRA’s finding. 

Description of the Undertaking

The proposed Project is the undertaking for the purposes of Section 106 and will occur at five locations as 

listed below.

Mint Hill, North Carolina [Mecklenburg County]

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – Construction of 4,300 linear feet of new storage and passing 

siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and I-495. 

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – Construction of 

new storage track spurs and warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen Station Road in 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Parcel ID# 13715210). Construction activities include 

grading for new roads, parking area, loading docks, 8 new storage track spurs totaling 7,200 

linear feet, stormwater basins, and an approximate 200,000-400,000 square foot warehouse. 

Midland, North Carolina [Cabarrus County] 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – Construction of 2,900 linear feet of new storage and passing 

siding approximately 2 miles east of Midland, NC. 

ACWR Headquarters, Candor, North Carolina [Montgomery County] 

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – Construction of 12 new storage track spurs 

totaling 20,000 linear feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarter building. 
Samarcand and Eagle Springs, North Carolina [Moore County] 

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – Construction of 6,500 linear feet of new 

double ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. 

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

The Area of Potential Effects (APE), as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), is “the geographic area or 

areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and 

nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” 

The APE consists of the area where the Project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 

For the purposes of this consultation FRA delineated the APE to reflect the nature, scale, and location of 

the Undertaking as defined above (Attachment A – Area of Potential Effects Map).

The APE is delineated as five dissentious areas described below: 

1. Mint Hill Siding (MOW694) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail 

corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined 

at the Limit of Disturbance (LOD) as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 2. This area is 

within the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW).

2. Mint Hill Storage Yard (MOW80) and Mint Hill Warehouse (MOW102) – the proposed storage 

yard and warehouses are consistent with the existing level and nature of development in the 

broader area and do not have the potential to cause visual or audible effects to historic properties. 

Because the design for the facility is still in the concept stage, and the limits of construction 

disturbance have not been clearly defined, the APE is defined as the entire property as shown on 

Attachment A: Figures 1a and 3. 

3. Midland Siding (MOW692) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent with existing rail 

corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is defined 

at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1a and 4. This area is within the existing 

railroad ROW.

4. ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (MOW82) – the proposed storage and its use is consistent with 

existing rail yard and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such the APE is 

defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 5. This area is only a portion of 

the ACRW parcel as demarcated in red LOD.

5. Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding (MOW92) – the proposed siding and its use is consistent 

with existing rail corridor and does not have potential to cause visual or audible effects, as such 

the APE is defined at the LOD as shown on Attachment A: Figures 1b and 6. This area is within 

the existing railroad ROW. 

Identification of Historic Properties

FRA made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties with the APE. Based on the 

results of those efforts FRA reached a finding of No Historic Properties Affected, in accordance with 36 

CFR 800.4(d)(1). To identify historic properties in the APE, ACWR’s consultants, who meet the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, reviewed available information, 

including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings; available historic maps and images (e.g., 

Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerials, historic topographic quadrangles, plat maps, etc.), and 

information derived from online research at various agencies, historical societies and other sources for the 
sites. ACWR’s consultants also conducted field reconnaissance at each of the APEs. No historic 

properties, as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l), were identified within the APE. 

Background research and limited field reconnaissance was conducted for each project area by the 

consultant. As a result of the investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172, 

31M1174, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239). Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located within the Mint 

Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and site 31MG2238 and 31MG2239 are located within the 

ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. None of the sites are recommended eligible for the NRHP.

Additional information about the results of the background research and field reconnaissance can be 

found in the attached Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (Attachment B – Archaeological 

Reconnaissance Report).

Request for Participation and Comments

FRA respectfully requests that 1) you review the enclosed materials and provide any comments or 

information you may have regarding historic properties of religious or cultural significance to your Tribe 

that may be present in the APE, 2) provide any comments on FRA’s finding of No Historic Properties 

Affected, and 3) that you notify FRA within 30 days from the date on this letter whether you accept or 

decline this invitation to be a consulting party. FRA offers Government-to-Government consultation on 

this Project, if that is your Tribe’s preference. Please send your response to Mr. Derek Manning at 

derek.manning@dot.gov or 857-998-1779. Thank you for your cooperation on this Project.

Sincerely,

Amanda Murphy, MAHP

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Enc: Attachment A: APE Maps

Attachment B: Archaeological Reconnaissance Report by Terracon Consultants, Inc.

cc: Derek Manning, USDOT, Environmental Protection Specialist 
Archaeological Reconnaissance Report

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program

Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties,

North Carolina

November 2021

Terracon Project No. 7021P151

Prepared for:

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Company

Prepared by:

Melissa McKay, RPA

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Raleigh, North Carolina
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

At the request of Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Company (ACWR; Client), Terracon

Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a cultural resources desktop review and a limited

archaeological field reconnaissance of five areas: Mint Hill Siding (Mecklenburg County), Mint Hill

Storage Yard and Warehouse (Mecklenburg County), Midland Siding (Cabarrus County), ACWR

HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (Montgomery County), and Samarcand Siding (Moore County). The

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial assistance to ACWR to construct new

facilities including passing and storage sidings, storage yards, and a new warehouse in these

areas.

Fieldwork was conducted during October and November 2021 by Melissa McKay, Abigail Bythell,

Becky Sponseller, Connor Seaton, and Kristin Doshier. The goal of this limited field reconnaissance

was to assess current site conditions to ascertain whether the project areas have the potential to

contain intact archaeological resources or contain standing historic-period structures as well as to

provide site-specific information to support Section 106 consultation.

As a result of the investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172,

31MK1173, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239, Table A). Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located

within the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and site 31MG2238 and

31MG2239 are located within the ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. None of the

sites are recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).Much of the

study area appeared to be disturbed and eroded by past timbering, clearing, and development

activities.

Due to prior disturbance and a lack of subsurface integrity for the archaeological sites recorded,

the proposed project should be allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to significant

cultural resources. However, if the project boundaries are modified outside of the current project

area and federal permitting is anticipated, additional coordination with the SHPO would be

necessary to determine if additional cultural resource investigations would be required.

Table A: Summary of Site Data

Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations

31MK1172 Historic: Mid-19th to 20th c. Domestic Not Eligible; NFW*

31MK1173 Historic: Mid- 20th c. Agricultural Not Eligible; NFW*

31MG2238 Prehistoric: Lithic, Unk. Subperiod Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*

31MG2239 Prehistoric: Woodland; Historic:

Mid-19th to 20th c.

Prehistoric: Short-Term

Habitation; Historic:

Domestic

Not Eligible; NFW*

*NFW: No Further Work
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ i

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..........................................................................................2

BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...........................................................................................4

3.1 Mint Hill Siding ..............................................................................................................4

3.2 Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse .........................................................................8

3.3 Midland Siding ............................................................................................................11

3.4 ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard ...............................................................................12

3.5 Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding .....................................................................15

FIELD METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN.....................................................16

Results ...........................................................................................................................17

5.1 Mint Hill Siding ............................................................................................................17

5.2 Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse .......................................................................19

31MK1172 .........................................................................................................................23

31MK1173 .........................................................................................................................27

5.3 Midland Siding ............................................................................................................30

5.4 ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard ...............................................................................33

31MG2238 .........................................................................................................................36

31MG2239 .........................................................................................................................38

5.5 Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding .....................................................................42

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................45

REFERENCES CITED ..............................................................................................................46
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

1

 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial assistance to Aberdeen, Carolina

& Western Railway (ACWR) to construct new facilities including passing and storage sidings,

storage yards and a new warehouse. The purpose of the project is to address congestion issues

on the existing railroad.

The proposed project consists of five areas: Mint Hill Siding (Mecklenburg County), Mint Hill

Storage Yard and Warehouse (Mecklenburg County), Midland Siding (Cabarrus County), ACWR

HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (Montgomery County), and Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding

(Moore County; See Figures 1a-b).

The Mint Hill Siding project would consist of the construction of 4,300 linear feet of new storage

and passing siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and I-495. The

project area for this location is approximately 20.4 acres.

The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project would consist of the construction of new

storage track spurs and warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen Station Road in

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Proposed construction activities include grading for new

roads, parking area, loading docks, 8 new storage track spurs totaling 7,200 linear feet,

stormwater basins, and an approximate 200,000–300,000 square foot warehouse.

The Midland Siding project would consist of the construction of 2,900 linear feet of new storage

and passing siding approximately 2 miles east of Midland, NC. The project area for this location

is approximately 12.8 acres.

The ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard would consist of the construction of 12 new storage track

spurs totaling 20,000 linear feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarter building. The

project area for this location is approximately 11.8 acres.

The Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding would consist of the construction of 6500 linear feet

of new double ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. The project area for

this location is approximately 30.5 acres.

At the request of the Client, Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted an archaeological

reconnaissance of the project areas during October and November 2021. The goal of this limited

field reconnaissance was to assess current site conditions to ascertain whether the project areas

have the potential to contain intact archaeological resources or contain standing historic-period

structures as well as to provide site-specific information to support Section 106 consultation.


Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

2

Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, background research was conducted by North Carolina Office

of State Archaeology (OSA) staff on behalf of Terracon. Field methods employed by Terracon

during the investigation included visual (pedestrian) survey of the five project areas. In addition,

limited shovel testing was conducted at four archaeological sites (site 31MK1172, 31M1174,

31MG2238, and 31MG2239) within two of the project areas (Mint Hill Storage Yard and

Warehouse and ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard), after the initial visual survey identified the

archeological sites. Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were

dug to one meter, the water table, or sterile subsoil. Field investigations occurred during October

and November 2021 and were conducted by Melissa McKay, Abigail Bythell, Becky Sponseller,

Connor Seaton, and Kristin Doshier.

 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding project areas are

located within the Piedmont physiographic province. The landscape of the region is gently sloping

to rolling and contains drainages bordered by moderately steep slopes.

The ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard and Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding project areas

are located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Coastal Plain is a gently sloping

wedge of sediments cut by drainages and characterized by the presence of numerous wetlands.

Most of the Coastal Plain is composed of a series of relic marine terraces that are dominated by

soft, unconsolidated sedimentary rock made up of sand, silt, clay, and some eroded Piedmont

materials. The younger terraces are closest to the ocean and consist of flat, poorly drained areas

and swamp; the inland terraces are older and higher in elevation (NCGS 1985).

The Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding project areas are

located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project

area is situated within the Cape Fear River Basin, and the Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding

is situated along the northern boundary of the Lumber River Basin.

The soil maps for Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, and Moore Counties shows 15 soil units

occurring within the five project areas (NRCS 2020; Table 1).
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

3

Table 1: Project Area Soils

Code Name Slope Drainage Landform

Mint Hill Siding (Mecklenburg County)

CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam,

moderately eroded 2–8% Well Drained Interfluves

CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam,

moderately eroded 8–15% Well Drained Interfluves

PaE Pacolet sandy loam 15–25% Well Drained Interfluves

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse (Mecklenburg County)

CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam,

moderately eroded 2–8% Well Drained Interfluves

CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam,

moderately eroded 8–15% Well Drained Interfluves

EnB Enon sandy loam 2–8% Well Drained Interfluves

EnD Enon sandy loam 8–15% Well Drained Hillslopes on ridges

HeB Helena sandy loam 2–8% Moderately Well Drained Ridges

WkD Wilkes loam 8–15% Well Drained Hillslopes on ridges

Midland Siding (Cabarrus County)

BaF Badin channery silt

loam 15–45% Well Drained Hillslopes on ridges

ChA Chewacla sandy loam,

frequently flooded 0–2% Somewhat PoorlyDrained Floodplains

TaD Tarrus silt loam 8–15% Well Drained Hillslopes on ridges

ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard (Montgomery County)

AaB Ailey loam sand,

moderately wet 2–8% Well Drained Low hills

AuA Autryville sand 0–3% Well Drained Low hills

CdB Candor sand 0–8% Somewhat Excessively

Drained Low hills

Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding (Moore County)

CaB Candor sand 0–4% Somewhat Excessively

Drained Low hills

Ud Udorthents, loamy - Well Drained Interfluves

Current Land Use

The Mint Hill Siding project area consists of the existing railroad, areas of residential development,

and wooded areas. The surrounding area is comprised of undeveloped wooded land and areas

of residential development.

The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area consists primarily of undeveloped land

north of a recently developed commercial area and a high school. The existing railroad runs along

the northern edge of the project area. A powerline corridor crosses through the western half of

the area, and Allen Station Drive is situated within the southern portion of the project area.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

4

The Midland Siding project area includes the existing railroad and is primarily wooded. The

surrounding area is undeveloped, with the exception of a residential area east of the project area.

An agricultural field is situated within a small section north of the railroad in the eastern portion of

the project area.

The ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area consists of recently cleared land located just

north of an ACWR industrial building and existing railroad. The surrounding area is comprised of

undeveloped, wooded land and areas of commercial development.

The Samarcand Storage & Passing Siding project area consists of the existing railroad. The

surrounding area consists of undeveloped, wooded land and areas of residential development.

 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Background research was conducted for each area and included searches of the North Carolina

Office of State Archaeology (OSA) site file database, the North Carolina State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS service database, and review of historical maps and

aerial photographs. The results of the research are provided below.

3.1 Mint Hill Siding

Research conducted by the North Carolina OSA on behalf of Terracon revealed that no previously

recorded archaeological sites appear to be located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Mint Hill Siding

project area.

Three previous archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the project

area, all of which are associated with the East Charlotte Outer Loop. In 1987, Garrow &

Associates, Inc. surveyed 48 miles along three proposed routes for the then-proposed Outer Loop

(O’Steen at al. 1989). A small section of the Mint Hill Siding project area is situated within this

previously surveyed corridor. A total of 59 archaeological sites were recorded during the survey,

13 of which were recommended to be potentially eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen standing structures

were also recorded within the project area, three of which were recommended potentially eligible

for the NRHP.

In 1988, Garrow & Associates surveyed two alternative corridors for the then-proposed East

Charlotte Outer Loop project (Turner 1989). Additional work was recommended at four of the 16

sites recorded during the survey.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

5

In 1999, archaeological testing of Site 31MK438 (initially recorded during the 1999 Charlotte Outer

Loop survey) was conducted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. It was

determined that the site had low research potential and it was recommended not eligible for the

NRHP.

Research conducted by Terracon using the North Carolina HPOWEB GIS service database

revealed that one previously recorded property is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the project

area. The Vaughn House (HPO ID# MK1214), a c. 1910 Craftsman Bungalow, was recorded

during a 1987–1988 survey. The resource was surveyed only and was not assessed for its NRHP

eligibility. Review of aerial imagery indicates that this structure was demolished sometime

between 1998 and 2002.

No structures are visible within the project area in aerial imagery from 1956. Two small

outbuildings and a possible house are visible north of the railroad in imagery from 1960 just west

of Oak Hill Road (Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of these structures). One of the

outbuildings is gone by 1968, and the second appears to be gone by 1978. Review of recent

aerial imagery shows that the house was demolished sometime between 2006 and 2007.

Figure 2: Approximate Structure Locations from 1956 Aerial Imagery

(Source: Google Earth)
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

6

No structures appear to be depicted within the project area on the 1910 Mecklenburg County Soil

Survey map. The 1971 Mint Hill USGS topographic map depicts two structures within the project

area along Oak Hill Road (Figure 3). These structures also appear on the 1993 Mint Hill

topographic map. The southernmost structure is likely the house that is visible in imagery from

1960, which was destroyed between 2006 and 2007. The house to the north is still standing.

Figure 3: 1971 Mint Hill, NC USGS Topographic Map

Review of recent aerial imagery shows that a portion of the railroad within the Mint Hill Siding

project area was realigned sometime between 1998 and 2002, likely in relation to the construction

of I-485 located east of the project area (see Figures 4 and 5).

Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

8

3.2 Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse

Research conducted by the North Carolina OSA on behalf of Terracon revealed that no previously

recorded archaeological sites appear to be located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Mint Hill

Storage Yard and Warehouse project area. Only one previous archaeological survey has been

conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area (a 1987 study for the then-proposed East

Charlotte Outer Loop).

Research conducted by Terracon using the North Carolina HPOWEB GIS service database

revealed that two previously recorded historic properties are located within a 0.25-mile radius of

the project area. The Beaver House (HPO ID# MK1192) was recorded during a 1987–1988

architectural survey but was never assessed for its NRHP eligibility. The house appears to have

been demolished prior to 2002.

The Lee-Flow House (MK1206) was also recorded during the 1987–1988 architectural survey

and is located 0.1 mile north of the project area along the north side of Albemarle Road. Although

the property has not been formally assessed for its NRHP eligibility, the structure is noted on the

HPOWEB as a Local Landmark. It should be noted that the “Flow-Lee House” listed on the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission website is actually located four miles

south of the project area, and not in the location specified on the HPOWEB mapping. No structure

corresponding to the Lee-Flow House (MK1206) location appears on the Landmarks Commission

list; it is possible that HPOWEB incorrectly identified the location of this structure.

In addition to records search for previously recorded cultural resources, Terracon conducted an

examination of readily available and relevant historical aerial photographs and maps in an attempt

to locate possible historical structure locations within the proposed project boundaries. In general,

aerial photographs show that much of the project area was pasture or agricultural land prior to

the late 1970s, when the area began to be converted to forested areas. The 1910 Soil Map for

Mecklenburg County depicts one structure within the project area; however, the scale is such that

the location is approximate and may not be located within the project boundaries (Figure 6).

The 1949 Wilgrove, NC 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle depicts one structure on the east side

of the project area (Figure 7). This structure is not depicted on the 1971 Mint Hill, NC 1:24,000

topographic quadrangle and was presumably demolished prior to that time.

Three structures are shown on aerial photography from 1956 in the eastern portion of the project

area (including the structure noted above). Figure 8 shows the approximate locations of these

former structures. Two of the three appear to have been demolished; however, it is possible that

remnants of the structure to the south are still extant.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

9

Review of aerial imagery also shows significant disturbance to much of the property in 2006

(Figure 9). Information provided by the Client shows that three stormwater basins were excavated

on the property by the previous property owner prior to 2010, suggesting further disturbance of

the area (Figure 10).

Figure 6: 1910 Soil Map

Figure 7: 1949 Wilgrove, NC 1:24,000 Topographic Map

Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

11

Figure 10: Storm Water Basin Locations

(Source: Google Earth)

3.3 Midland Siding

Research conducted by the North Carolina OSA on behalf of Terracon revealed that no previously

recorded archaeological sites appear to be located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Midland Siding

project area. A portion of the project area was located within an archaeological survey conducted

in 2011 by R. W. Webb & Associates for the then-proposed Midland multi-modal industrial park.

As a result of the survey, one archaeological site, 31CA394, was recorded. Because the site may

have extended beyond the project boundary, it was considered to be unassessed for the NRHP.

However, the portion investigated within the project area was considered unlikely to yield

important information and no additional work was recommended.

Research conducted by Terracon using the North Carolina HPOWEB GIS service database

revealed that two previously recorded historic properties are located within a 0.25-mile radius of

the project area. The Gaston Williams Farm (HPO ID# CA0607) was surveyed in 1981 and is

located approximately 0.15 mile north of the project area. It was recorded as a traditional

vernacular house, with notes suggesting that the house may have been demolished. The resource

was surveyed only and was not assessed for its NRHP eligibility.

No structures appear to be depicted within the project area on historical aerial imagery, the 1910

Cabarrus County Soil Survey Map or the 1949 or 1971 Midland USGS topographic maps.

Recent aerial imagery indicates that the western portion of the project area north of the existing

railway was cleared between 2010 and 2013 (Figure 11).
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

12

Figure 11: 2013 Aerial Imagery showing Prior Disturbance within the Project Area

(Source: Google Earth)

3.4 ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard

Research conducted by the North Carolina OSA on behalf of Terracon revealed that one

previously recorded archaeological site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the ACWR HQ

Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. 31MG626 was a prehistoric site recorded in 1982 during an

archaeological survey for the then-proposed wastewater treatment site in Candor (Cooper and

Patterson 1982). The site is unassessed for the NRHP.

Research conducted by Terracon using the North Carolina HPOWEB GIS service database

revealed no historic properties recorded within 0.25 mile of the project area.

One structure is depicted in the northwestern portion of the project area on the c. 1910 to 1919

Montgomery County Rural Delivery Routes map (Figure 12). The 1942 Troy USGS topographic

map depicts a structure in this vicinity as well (Figure 13). However, the scale for both of these

maps is such that the location is approximate and may not be located within the project

boundaries. No structures appear to be depicted within the project area on the 1974 Candor, NC

topographic map.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

13

Figure 12: c. 1910 to 1919 Rural Delivery Routes Map

Figure 13: 1942 Troy, NC USGS Topographic Map

Aerial imagery from 1956 shows that the project area as being comprised of open fields. By 1973,

the entire area is forested. No structures clearly visible within the project area on this aerial
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

14

imagery. In imagery from 1993, a dirt road is visible in the western portion of the project area.

Three possible small outbuildings are located along its eastern side (Figure 14).

Imagery from 2006 shows areas of disturbance and clearing related to the construction of the

ACWR Industrial building south of the project area in 1999 (Figure 15).

Figure 14: Aerial imagery from 1993

(Source: Google Earth)

Figure 15: Aerial Imagery from 2006

(Source: Google Earth)
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

15

3.5 Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding

Research conducted by the North Carolina OSA on behalf of Terracon revealed that no previously

recorded archaeological sites appear to be located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Samarcand

Siding project area. Research conducted by Terracon using the North Carolina HPOWEB GIS

service database revealed no historic properties recorded within 0.25 mile of the project area.

No structures appear to be located within the project area on the 1949 Troy USGS topographic

map, the 1919 Moore County Soil Map, or the 1974 Candor USGS topographic map.

Aerial imagery from 1956 shows the project area and vicinity as undeveloped fields, and no

structures are visible within the project area. A road along the north side of the railroad track is

visible across the entirety of the project area, and follows the same alignment as the current

Clement Road (a private drive) and Eagle Springs Road. Five structures are visible just north of

this road, but they appear to be located outside of the project boundary, and review of recent

aerial imagery shows that they have since been demolished or replaced by more modern

structures.

Imagery from 1983 shows some areas as forested and the area is still largely undeveloped. By

1993, much of the area is wooded, and residential areas are visible in the immediate vicinity

(Figure 16). Imagery from 2013 shows evidence of clear cutting along the southern portion of the

project area (Figure 17).

Figure 16: Aerial Imagery from 1993

(Source: Google Earth)
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

16

Figure 17: Aerial Imagery from 2013

(Source: Google Earth)

 FIELD METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Terracon conducted a brief field visit of the project areas on October 15 and 21, 2021 to evaluate

existing project conditions and identify surface signs of possible cultural resources. Field

methodology included a general pedestrian (visual) examination of portions of the project areas

and focused on exposed surfaces such as unpaved roads, recently plowed agricultural fields,

eroded areas, previously disturbed areas, and other areas exhibiting good surface visibility for

archaeological materials.

During these investigations, above-ground structural remains were observed in two locations

within the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and prehistoric and historic artifacts

were observed on the surface within the ACWR HW Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. Terracon

returned to these two project areas between November 1 to 3, 2021 to conduct additional

fieldwork at the archaeological sites.

Field methodology included shovel testing at 15- and 30- meter intervals. All shovel tests

excavated measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug to sterile subsoil,

one meter in depth, or the water table, whichever was encountered first. All excavated sediments

were screened through 6.35-millimeter (0.25-inch) hardwire mesh. Pertinent field data, including
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

17

locations, soil color and texture, notes on the stratigraphic relationships of artifacts, environmental

setting, topography, etc. were recorded for each shovel test. Each shovel test location was

marked on a field map of the project area. Pedestrian survey was conducted along transects

spaced approximately 10 meters apart in areas exhibiting greater than 50 percent surface visibility

at the archaeological sites located within the ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area.

 RESULTS

5.1 Mint Hill Siding

Based on the background research, it was expected that the southwestern portion of the Mint Hill

Siding project study area would be largely disturbed from the construction of residential homes

and Cedar Grove Road, a gravel driveway which runs along the southern side of the existing

railroad for approximately 0.35 mile. The northeastern portion of the project area was expected

to be disturbed from the realignment of a portion of the railroad between 1998 and 2002 and the

construction of I-485 east of the project area. Review of historical maps and aerial imagery

suggested a low likelihood for historical above ground structural remains to be located within the

project study area.

Pedestrian inspection confirmed disturbance in these areas as well as steep slope within portions

of the project area along the existing railroad (see Figures 18 to 20). No above ground historic

resources were observed during the visual examination of the project area. Prior disturbance and

slope along the existing railroad suggest that there is a low potential for intact archaeological sites

to be present within the project area. No shovel testing was conducted in this area.

Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

19

Figure 20: Slope and Gravel Corridor (Former Railroad Alignment) within Facing East/Northeast

5.2 Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse

Based on review of aerial imagery, it was expected that much of the southern and central-eastern

portions of the project area would be largely disturbed from previous clear cutting, road

construction, and storm water basin excavations. Pedestrian inspection confirmed that the

portions of the project area were disturbed and eroded (see Figures 21 to 24). However, some

sections of the project area, especially in the western portion, were wooded. The size of the trees

suggests clearing of the area within the past 20 years (see Figures 25 and 26).



Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

23

Background research indicated that three structures were once located within the project area,

and that two had likely been demolished. The probable locations of these structures were

inspected for signs of above-ground structural remains. Structural remains were identified in two

locations and were recorded as archaeological sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 (Figures 27 and

Figure 28a-b).

31MK1172

UTM: 17S 533325m E 3897647m N

Site Size: 1,693

Elevation: 755 feet amsl

Environmental Setting: Wooded

Soils: CeB2, Cecil sandy clay loam 2–8% slopes, moderately eroded

Nearest Water: 150 meters south, unnamed tributary of Clear Creek

Surface Visibility: 0–25%

Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=15)

Cultural Affiliation: Historic–Mid-19th to 20th Century

Site Function: Domestic

Site Integrity: Poor

Site Description: Aerial photography from 1956 showed a structure in this location. Visual

inspection of this area revealed structural remains consisting of a concrete pad, stone retaining

walls, and rubble piles of concrete and stone (Figure 28a; Figures 29 to 31). The concrete pad

measured approximately 7-x-2 m (N/S-x-E/W) and was situated approximately 6 meters north of

the remains of stone walls situated within the ground (possible garage or outbuilding). The stone

wall remains measured approximately 14.5 x 8 meters. Cast concrete entry stairs were located

on the western edge of the structural remains (Figure 32).

Evidence of prior disturbance to the area included a ditch within the eastern portion of the site.

An old storm water basin, constructed by the previous landowner, is located south of the site.

Modern trash was noted at the surface near shovel test d8, and plastic shopping bag fragments

were noted in shovel test d14 but were not collected.





Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

26

Fifteen shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the structural remains. Two

shovel tests, d3 and d7, yielded six artifacts and 5.2g of brick (Table 2). In addition, one piece of

whiteware was recovered from the surface northwest of the structural remains (Surface Find [SF]

1).

Table 2: Site 31MK1172 Artifacts

Prov. Strat. Depth

(cm) Component Description n=

SF01 0 surface Historic Ceramic: porcelain, undecorated 1

d03 I 0-25 Historic Brick 5.2g

Glass: aqua, curved 1

Metal: iron, cut nail 1

Metal: iron, wire nail 1

Metal: shotgun shell cap 1

d07 I 0-25 Historic Ceramic: porcelain, undecorated 1

Glass: brown, curved 1

Total 7

The artifacts included two pieces of glass (aqua and brown), two nails (one wire, one cut), a

shotgun shell cap, and two pieces of porcelain. All of the subsurface artifacts were found in the

first stratum.

Soils encountered in the shovel tests were eroded, and generally consisted of 10 to 25

centimeters of strong brown, yellowish red, or reddish brown clay loam or loamy clay over red or

yellowish red clay (see Figure 33 for a representative shovel test profile).

Figure 33: 31MK1172 d4 Profile
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

27

Summary and Recommendations: This site is represented by a low density scatter of historic

artifacts and structural remains. Review of historical aerial photographs indicate that a structure

was located in this vicinity as early as 1956; however, the structure appears to have been

purposefully demolished, as structural debris was largely limited to foundation remnants.

No intact structural remains or cultural features were encountered at the site. This site does not

have the potential to yield significant information pertaining to the historic occupation of the area

and is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A–D.

31MK1173

UTM: 17S 533180m E 3897475m N

Site Size: 1,231

Elevation: 755 feet amsl

Environmental Setting: Wooded

Soils: CeB2, Cecil sandy clay loam 2–8% slopes, moderately eroded

Nearest Water: 100 meters east, unnamed tributary of Clear Creek

Surface Visibility: 0–25%

Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=7)

Cultural Affiliation: Historic–Mid- 20th Century

Site Function: Agricultural

Site Integrity: Poor

Site Description: Aerial photography from 1956 showed a structure in this location. Visual

inspection of this area revealed structural remains consisting of a small collapsed structure (wood

frame with metal roofing) near two fence posts, piles of metal roofing, and a brick pile (Figure

28b; Figures 34 to 36). Seven shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the

structural remains; no artifacts were recovered.

Soils in the shovel tests were eroded and generally consisted of 5 to 10 centimeters of dark brown

or brown sandy clay loam over red clay (see Figure 37 for a representative shovel test profile).

Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

29

Figure 36: Metal Roofing at 31MK1173, facing North/Northwest

Figure 37: 31MK1173 d6 profile

Summary and Recommendations: This site consists of historic period structural remains. Review

of historical aerial photographs indicate that a structure was located in this vicinity as early as
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

30

1956. The size of the debris pile suggests this structure represented a small barn or other

outbuilding and not a domestic dwelling.

No artifacts were recovered from the site, and no intact structural remains or cultural features

were encountered. This site does not have the potential to yield significant information pertaining

to the historic occupation of the area and is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP under Criteria

A–D.

5.3 Midland Siding

Based on the background research, it was expected that much of the Midland Siding project area

would be wooded, with the exception of a cleared area in the western portion of the project area.

The area was expected to be disturbed given its immediate proximity to the existing railroad.

Review of historical maps and aerial imagery suggested a low likelihood for historical above

ground structural remains to be located within the project area.

Pedestrian inspection confirmed disturbance in the western portion of the project area (Figure

38). Aside from this disturbance and the disturbance related to the construction of the railroad,

much of the surrounding wooded areas appeared to be largely undisturbed. While much of the

area was level, several areas of steep slope were observed. See Figures 39 to 42 for general

project area photographs. No shovel testing was conducted in this area.

Figure 38: Cleared Portion of the Midland Siding Project Area, facing East


Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

33

5.4 ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard

Based on review of aerial imagery, it was expected that portions of the project area would be

disturbed from previous clearing related to the construction of the industrial building south of the

project area.

Although recent aerial imagery shows the project area as wooded, the field visit to the property

revealed that the area had recently been clear cut, and push piles of soil and tree debris were

scattered across the area (see Figures 43 to 47 for project area photographs). Vegetation in the

area consisted primarily of dog fennel and various grasses, and surface visibility was generally

high across much of the area. A large eroded channel crosses through the western portion of the

area (Figure 46), and a small section of the area just northwest of where the railroad intersects

NC 211 consisted of a young, managed pine stand (Figure 47).

Figure 43: Project Area Overview, facing North/Northeast
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

34

Figure 44: Project Area Overview, facing Southeast

Figure 45: Burn Pile within Project Area, facing Southwest
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

35

Figure 46: Erosion in the Project Area, facing South

Figure 47: Wooded Portion of Project Area, facing West
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

36

Background research indicated that a structure may have been located within or near the

northwestern portion of the project area, and that three possible outbuildings were situated within

the area in 1993.

Pedestrian inspection did not reveal any above ground structural remains within the project area.

However, several artifacts were observed on the surface in areas of clear visibility. As a result,

two archaeological sites were recorded (31MG2238 and 31MG2239; Figures 48 and 49). Limited

shovel testing was conducted at these sites. The results of the investigations are described below.

31MG2238

UTM: 17S 616495m E 3907325m N

Site Size: 180m2

Elevation: 705 feet amsl

Environmental Setting: Clear Cut

Soils: AuA, Autryville sand, 0–3% slopes

Nearest Water: 200 meters northwest, unnamed tributary of Mill Creek

Surface Visibility: 50–100%

Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=8)

Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric–Lithic (Unknown Subperiod)

Site Function: Limited Activity

Site Integrity: Poor

Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work

Site Description: Visual inspection in the western portion of the project area yielded two

metavolcanic tertiary flakes on the surface (Surface Find [SF]1 and SF2; Figures 49 and 50).

Delineation shovel testing at 15-meter intervals and additional systematic pedestrian survey

recovered no additional artifacts.

Soils encountered in the shovel tests generally consisted of 10 to 25 centimeters of dark gray or

dark grayish brown sand over olive yellow or brownish yellow sand (see Figure 51 for a typical

shovel test profile). The majority of the shovel tests were excavated to 100 cm below surface

(cmbs) because subsoil was not encountered. Highly disturbed soils were encountered in shovel

test d5 (Figure 52), which was located near a linear push pile of soil. This shovel test consisted

of alternating bands of dark grayish brown and light olive brown sand and sandy clay loam to 60

cmbs. Olive brown sand was encountered between 60 and 100 cmbs. A piece of modern brown

bottle glass was noted at 60 cmbs but was not collected.


Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

37

Figure 50: Overview of 31MG2238, facing East

Figure 51: 31MG2238 d1 profile
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

38

Figure 52: 31MG2238 d5 profile

Summary and Recommendations: This site consists of two pieces of nondiagnostic lithic debitage

found on the surface of a cleared area. The overall low artifact density does not suggest a

significant level of prehistoric activity in this area. This site does not have the potential to yield

significant or unique information pertaining to the prehistoric occupation of the area. The site is

recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP; no additional archaeological work is recommended for

this location.

31MG2239

UTM: 17S 616524m E 3907381m N

Site Size: 4,300m2

Elevation: 702 feet amsl

Environmental Setting: Clear Cut

Soils: AuA, Autryville sand, 0–3% slopes; AuB, Ailey loamy sand, moderately wet, 2–8% slopes

Nearest Water: 140 meters northwest, unnamed tributary of Mill Creek

Surface Visibility: 0–85%

Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=20)

Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric–Woodland; Historic–Mid-19th to 20th Century

Site Function: Prehistoric–Short-Term Habitation; Historic–Domestic

Site Integrity: Poor

Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

39

Site Description: Visual inspection in the western portion of the project area yielded three pieces

of metavolcanic debitage, an eroded sand tempered prehistoric ceramic sherd, and a piece of

whiteware from the surface (Surface Find [SF] 1 to 3; Figures 49 and 53).

Figure 53: Overview of 31MG2239, facing Southwest

Shovel testing at 15- and 30- meter intervals and systematic pedestrian survey yielded an

additional 75 artifacts (Table 3). A total of twenty shovel tests were excavated at the site, eight of

which yielded subsurface artifacts. Only a representative sample of surface artifacts was collected

from the site. Additional historic artifacts, including glass, ceramics, and brick, were noted

primarily in the northwestern portion of the site but were not collected. A deep eroded channel

runs along the eastern side of the site.

Of the 80 artifacts collected from the site, 22 were recovered from the surface, and 58 were

recovered from the subsurface. Of those, 54 were recovered from the first stratum, and four were

found in the second stratum.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

40

Table 3: Site 31MG2239 Artifacts

Prov. Strat. Depth

(cm) Component Description n=

SF01 0 surface Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

Ceramic: sand temper, UID 1

SF02 0 surface Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

SF03 0 surface Historic Ceramic: whiteware, undecorated 1

Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

SF04 0 surface Historic Ceramic: whiteware, undecorated 1

SF05 0 surface Historic Glass: light aqua, flat 1

Prehistoric Lithic: quartz PPK tip 1

SF06 0 surface Historic Ceramic: whiteware, undecorated 1

Glass: light amethyst, bottle 1

SF07 0 surface Historic Glass: light aqua, bottle 1

Glass: milk, canning lid seal 1

SF08 0 surface Historic Ceramic: whiteware, undecorated 2

Glass: light aqua, bottle 1

Glass: milk, canning lid seal 1

Glass: amethyst, curved 1

Glass: aqua, curved 2

Ceramic: porcelain, yellow glaze 1

Ceramic: stoneware, salt glaze 1

d03 I 0-30 Historic Glass: light aqua, flat 1

Glass: aqua, curved 1

Metal: iron, UID 1

Organic Bone 7.3g

d05 II 15-30 Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

d07 II 10-40 Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

d10 0 surface Historic Glass: clear, curved 1

II 10-45 Historic Metal: iron, wire 1

Brick 6.5g

Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 1

d11 I 0-25 Historic Glass: aqua, curved 2

Glass: clear, curved 2

d12 I 0-50 Historic Glass: light aqua, flat 2

Glass: clear, curved 1

Glass: clear, jar 1

Ceramic: whiteware, decal 1

Glass: green, curved 1

d15 I 0-20 Historic Glass: clear, curved 1

Metal: iron, wire 2

d17 I 0-65 Historic Ceramic: whiteware, undecorated 4
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

41

Prov. Strat. Depth

(cm) Component Description n=

Glass: light aqua, flat 2

Metal: iron, UID 5

Glass: clear, curved 3

Brick 6.2g

Metal: iron, wire 5

Metal: iron, barbed wire 2

Metal: iron, nail 8

Glass: amber, bottle 1

Glass: clear, flat 3

Glass: light aqua, curved 1

Glass: marble, white and black 1

plastic: button, green 1

Prehistoric Lithic: metavolcanic debitage 2

Total 80

The 80 artifacts included 70 historic and 10 prehistoric artifacts. The historic artifacts included 33

pieces of glass including window glass, bottle glass, jar glass, and milk glass canning lid seal

fragments. Twelve historic ceramic sherds were recovered, including 10 pieces of whiteware, one

piece of stoneware, and one piece of porcelain. Twenty four iron artifacts were collected, including

nails, barbed wire, and unidentified corroded iron fragments. One green plastic button was also

found. A total of 7.3g of bone and 12.7g of brick were also recovered. The prehistoric artifacts

included eight pieces of lithic debitage, one quartz PPK tip, and one eroded sand tempered

prehistoric sherd.

Soils encountered in the shovel tests generally consisted of 10 to 30 centimeters of dark gray or

dark olive brown sand or loamy sand over olive yellow or brownish yellow sand (see Figure 54

for a representative shovel test profile). Yellowish brown or yellow sand was typically encountered

between 40 and 70 cmbs. Occasionally this yellowish brown third stratum contained a higher clay

content and was considered to be sterile subsoil. Some of the shovel tests encountered disturbed

soils. For example, shovel test d6 consisted of banded dark grayish brown, dark olive brown, and

olive yellow sand up to 65 cmbs. Olive yellow sand was encountered beneath this disturbed layer.

Disturbance was also noted in shovel test d11; two thin pieces of Styrofoam were noted in the

first stratum. In d17, historic and prehistoric artifacts were comingled in the first stratum.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

42

Figure 54: 31MG2239 d7 profile

Summary and Recommendations: This site consists of a scatter of prehistoric and historic

artifacts. Previous clearing of the area has caused disturbance to the site. Only three of the shovel

tests yielded subsurface ceramics from the second stratum, and one of these (d10) contained

comingled historic and prehistoric materials.

No intact structural remains or cultural features were encountered at the site. The overall low

artifact density and lack of intact stratigraphy suggests that this site does not have the potential

to yield significant information pertaining to the prehistoric or historic occupation of the area. This

site is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A–D.

5.5 Samarcand Storage and Passing Siding

Based on the background research, it was expected that portions of the Samarcand Storage and

Passing Siding project area would be disturbed from previous road construction, residential

development, and clear cutting. Pedestrian inspection confirmed disturbance in these areas. In

addition, a powerline corridor was observed, which runs parallel to the railroad in the western

portion of the project area (see Figures 55 to 58 for general project area photographs).

Review of historical maps and aerial imagery suggested a low likelihood for historical above

ground structural remains to be located within the project area. No above ground structures or

structural remains were noted. Portions of the area exhibited high surface visibility, but no artifacts

were observed. No shovel testing was conducted in this area due to prior disturbance.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

43

Figure 55: Powerline Corridor within the Project Area, facing East/Southeast

Figure 56: Powerline Corridor within the Project Area, facing Southeast
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

44

Figure 57: Project Area Overview, facing West/Northwest

Figure 58: View along Eagle Springs Road within Project Area, facing West
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

45

 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This archaeological reconnaissance of the five project areas was conducted by Terracon of

Raleigh, North Carolina, at the request of ACWR. The FRA is providing financial assistance to

ACWR to construct new facilities including passing and storage sidings, storage yards, and a new

warehouse.

The goal of this limited field reconnaissance was to assess current site conditions to ascertain

whether the project areas have the potential to contain intact archaeological resources or contain

standing historic-period structures as well as to provide site-specific information to support Section

106 consultation.

Background research was conducted by the OSA on behalf of Terracon. In addition, Terracon

examined readily available and relevant historical aerial photographs and maps in an attempt to

locate possible historical structure or feature locations within the proposed project boundaries.

Field methods employed by Terracon during the investigation included visual (pedestrian) survey.

In addition, limited shovel testing was conducted at four newly recorded archaeological sites.

As a result of the investigations, four new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172,

31M1174, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239). Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located within the

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse project area, and site 31MG2238 and 31MG2239 are

located within the ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard project area. None of the sites are

recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

In general, the project areas appeared to be largely disturbed by previous clear cutting and earth

moving activities, particularly the proposed Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse and the

proposed ACWR HQ Phase 3 Storage Yard. The proposed siding study areas are located

immediately adjacent to existing rail lines and are likely disturbed.

Due to prior disturbance and a lack of subsurface integrity for the archaeological sites recorded,

the proposed project should be allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to significant

cultural resources. However, if the project boundaries are modified outside of the current project

area and federal permitting is anticipated, additional coordination with the SHPO would be

necessary to determine if additional cultural resource investigations would be required.
Proposal for Cultural Resource Services

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Program ■ Multiple Counties, NC

November 4, 2021■ Terracon Project No. 7021P151

46

REFERENCES CITED

Cooper, Peter and Johnnie R. Patterson

1982 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Wastewater Treatments Sites for the

Town of Candor, Montgomery and Moore Counties, North Carolina. Museum of

Anthropology, Catawba College. Salisbury, North Carolina. Ms on file, Office of

State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

2020 Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina Soil

Survey. Tabular Data. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States

Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/,

accessed 1 November 2021.

North Carolina Geologic Survey (NCGS)

1985 Geological Map of North Carolina. Division of Land Resources, North Carolina

Geological Survey, Raleigh.

O’Steen, Lisa D.

1989 The East Charlotte Outer Loop Cultural Resource Study. Volume II: The Cultural

Resource Survey. Garrow and Associates, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia. Ms on file,

Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Turner, William B.

1989 The East Charlotte Outer Loop Cultural Resource Study. Volume III: Additional

Archaeological Survey. Garrow and Associates, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia. Ms on file,

Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.