9_Appendix VIII - Arcaeological Survey

Appendix VIII — Archaeological Survey

- a
k.
Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
PRFPARED FOR-.
The Quartz Corp USA
797 Altapass • •
Spruce
•
134 Suber • . •
Columbia,
November

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The Quartz Corp USA
797 Altapass Road
Mitchell County, North Carolina 28777
`! Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 21-2110
�k
Kimberly Nagle, M-S., RPA
Principal Investigator
Authors:Clayton Moss, B.A., and Ms. Nagle
November 2022

Archaeological Survey 0�
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina I ��
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Management Summary
On behalf of The Quartz Corp USA (Quartz Corp), S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed an archaeological survey for
the proposed freshwater reservoir and emergency basin located roughly 0.7-mile south of Spruce Pine, Mitchell
County, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 12)_The project area is made up of two noncontiguous areas, one is
roughly 58.3 acres and location northeast of NC Highway 226 and south of a portion of the North Toe River and
the other is approximately 0.71-acre and is located north of the North Toe River and southwest of Altapass
Highway along a railroad corridor.
In a letter dated September 9, 2022, in response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME, the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested that a comprehensive archaeological surrey be conducted in high
probability areas that contain slope less than or equal to 25 percent as well as a pedestrian reconnaissance in
steeper area to record potential rock shelters or historic quarry sites (Appendix A). The SHPO letter also stated
that the project will have no effect on historic structures and an architectural survey was not needed for this
project. In email correspondence between Kimberly Nagle with S&ME and Dylan Clark with the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA), dated August 23, 2022, Ms. Nagle provided a map showing the high probability areas that
were to be systematically shovel tested due to the high probability for containing archaeological sites. Mr. Clark
agreed with the areas to be investigated on the map and the following field methods were agreed upon:
Shovel testing at 30-m intervals with transects spaced 30-m apart; 20-m intervals should be used if
time allowed.
If sites are identified, radial shovel tests will be excavated at 15-m intervals; 5-m intervals should be
used if time allowed.
Judgmental shovel tests would be placed in areas to verify the disturbed or poorly drained nature of
the soils;disturbances would be photographed.
The remaining portions of the project area would be pedestrian surveyed looking for rockshelters,
quarry sites, or artifacts on the ground surface.
The following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and the presented field methods and was
carried out in general accordance with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in S&ME
Proposal No. 213314 PCR002, dated October 6, 2022. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects for the
proposed undertaking is the footprint of the project area; indirect effects were not assessed as SHPO determined
that the project would have no effect on historic structures_
Based on the accepted approach to fieldwork outlined above, approximately 33.48 acres was shovel tested at 20-
m intervals; approximately 11.21 acres was pedestrian surveyed along with judgmental shovel testing due to its
low probability for containing archaeological sites;approximately 14.32 acres was not surveyed due to standing
water, excessive slope, or excessive disturbance (Figure 4.1). Fieldwork for the project was conducted from
October 26 through 28, 2022; specifically, three people worked for three days on the project.
As a result of the investigations, one new archaeological site (31 ML107) was identified and recorded. Site
31 ML107 is a nineteenth through twentieth century house site and is recommended not eligible for inclusion in
�r the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). It is the opinion of S&ME that no additional
archaeological work is necessary for the project area. If the project area changes additional cultural resource work
may be necessary.
November 2022

•� ��•.r) 7i' C� �5.��•. �' � S• � .•L�� 'r�� �PiyntJ;9! 1L1 �/ Hll�(. '- --— � .' r-i �^I
-- } �• + •r `', ,[yam ,. ``�
SpTLiGe
o ••• /• 1 ` _ -,1B1SF3• ' _. ":cnr( �l •%FhstIN
14,
A.
rn �1
- I}ratm '40P
v
z IF
�—
fin
.• ',/� '1' 1 '` �'i � + [� r awl..
ip -_� - •�-' _ � .i_ l��y• it �U
s11 Creek
40
4.1
n -- 1\. '•,� F� l \• �-�� ltalR _ - '=•;A:' `i C:crn
2 REFERENCE:SPRUCE PINE 7.S'TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE f ,� �;•
c APPROXIMATED.THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION,UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. ' �` r
r
16
g Project Area
Miles Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
y o
FIGURE N0.
Topographic Map
s DATE:
FRESHWATER RESERVOIR AND EMERGENCY BASIN 11-10-2022 1.1
QUARTZ CORP PROJECT NUMBER
KAITrl• rlI rniiNiTv NlnaTI-I rARnl IKIA 21:�R1d

r _N
A
n
v
E
C
W
Q
N
LL�
01 .
14
N r
K
7�
F '
7
U
V
b
d
' l
7 a
i�
b
L
ti
O
z
v - -
c
a
a
2 is
E �1
4
Or
L REFERENCE:ESR1 AERIAL IMAGERY
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE
APPROXIMATED.THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION,UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
e
w '
d 0.25 1:1 Project Area
a
Miles Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
A
FIGURE NO.
Aerial Map
S 13 DATE:
(I� S FRESHWATER RESERVOIR AND EMERGENCY BASIN 11-10-2022 1.2
QUARTZ CORP PROJECT NUMBER
KAITrWPI I rnI IMTv NInDTw r4RnI Info 71R'�1A

Archaeological Survey �r
i
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 111 E
SHPO ER No.22-2110
Table of Contents
ManagementSummary.............................................................................................................. i
Tableof Contents...................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................2
2.1 Location...........................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Geology and Topography.............................................................................................................2
2.3 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................................2
2.4 Climate and Vegetation.................................................................................................................2
2.5 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................2
3.0 Cultural Context..............................................................................................................10
``. 3.1 Prehistoric Context.......................................................................................................................10
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period(ca. 13,000-10,000 B.P.)...................................................................................10
3.1.2 Archaic Period(ca. 10,000-3000 B.P.)............................................................................................11
3.1.3 Woodland Period(ca.3000 950 B.P.).............................................................................................12
3.1.4 Mississippian Period (ca. 950-300 B.P.).........................................................................................13
3.1.5 Protohistoric Period(ca. 400-200 B.P.)...........................................................................................14
3.2 Historic Context............................................................................................................................15
3.2.1 Early Settlement..............................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Antebellum Period and Civil War...................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Mitchell County and Spruce Pine...................................................................................................17
3.3 Previously Recorded Sites in the Vicinity of Project Area......................................................18
4.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................30
4.1 Archaeological Field Methods....................................................................................................30
4.2 Laboratory Methods.....................................................................................................................30
4.3 National Register Eligibility Assessment..................................................................................32
5.0 Results...............................................................................................................................33
5.1.I Site 31ML107..................................................................................................................................33
November 2022 iv

Archaeological Survey a
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin `
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110 _
6.0 Summary and Recommendations................................................................................53
7.0 References Cited..............................................................................................................54
8.0 Appendix A - SHPO Correspondence........................................................................60
9.0 Appendix B - .Artifact Catalog. ....................................................................................61
List of Figures
Figure I.I.Topographic map showing project area and archaeological site identified during survey. ......ii
Figure 1.2.Aerial ma showing project area and archaeological site identified during survey "'
� p g P 1 g� g Y................. in
Figure 2.1.Typical area of wooded area within the project area, facing west.................................................3
Figure 2.2.Secondary growth within the project area, facing south.................................................................4
Figure 2.3.Dirt road within the project area,facing east. ..........................................................................
Figure 2.4.Typical drainage area within the project area, facing southeast.....................................................5
Figure 2.5.Dam forming pond within the project area, facing east...................................................................5
Figure 2.6. Slope and rock outcrop within the project area, facing north.........................................................6
Figure 2.7. Graded area within the project area,facing south............................................................................6
Figure 2.8. Pipes along Grassy Creek within the project area, facing south.....................................................7
Figure 2.9.Modern trash within the project area,facing south..........................................................................7
Figure 2.10. rush piles within the project area, facing north..............................................................................8
Figure 2.11. Aerial map showing soil types within the project area..................................................................9
Figure 3.1.Topographic map showing archaeological sites within one mile of the project area................19
Figure 3.2.Price-Strother Map(1808) of North Carolina, showing vicinity of the project area...................20
Figure 3.3. Section from MacRae-Brazier Map of 1833, showing approximate location of project area. ...21
Figure 3.4. Portion of Kerr-Cain Map, 1882, showing the approximate location of the project area..........22
Figure 3.5. Portion of the railroad map(Brown 1900), showing approximate location of project area......23
Figure 3.6. USGS Spruce Pine topographic map(1934), showing the location of the project area...............24
Figure 3.7.NCDOT highway map of Mitchell County (1938),showing approximate project area............25
Figure 3.8. NCDOT highway map of Mitchell County (1953), showing approximate project area............26
Figure 3.9.USGS Spruce Pine topographic map (1960), showing the location of the project area...............27
Figure 3.10. NCDOT highway map of Mitchell County(1968), showing approximate project area..........28
Figure 3.11. USGS Spruce Pine topographic map (1990),showing the location of the project area.............29
November 2022 v

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �
Mitchell County, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 213314 -
SH PO ER No.22-2110 _
Figure4.1.Field methods map..............................................................................................................................31
Figure 5.1.Typical area of mixed hard wood forest within the project area, facing southeast...................34
Figure 5.2.Secondary growth within the project area, facing south...............................................................34
Figure 5.3.Dirt road within the project area,facing west.................................................................................35
Figure 5.4.Pond within the project area, facing southeast. ..............................................................................35
Figure 5.5.Typical push pile within the project area, facing southeast..........................................................36
Figure 5.6.Graded area within the project area, facing north..........................................................................36
Figure 5.7.Slope within the project area, facing east.........................................................................................37
Figure 5.8.Portion of Grassy Creek within the project area, facing southwest.............................................37
Figure 5.9.Typical rock outcrop in the project area,facing north. ..................................................................38
Figure 5.10. Push piles within the project area, facing southeast.....................................................................38
Figure 5.11. Aerial imagery from the 1950s showing the smaller portion of the project area......................39
Figure 5.12. Aerial imagery from the 1960s showing the smaller portion of the project area......................40
Figure 5.13. Aerial imagery from the 1970s showing the smaller portion of the project area......................41
Figure 5.14. Aerial imagery from the 1980s showing the smaller portion of the project area......................42
Figure 5.15. Aerial imagery from the 1990s showing the smaller portion of the project area......................43
Figure 5.16.The first typical soil profile that transitioned from plow zone to subsoil.................................44
Figure 5.17.The second typical soil profile that transitioned from plow zone to subsoil............................44
Figure 5.18.Typical soil profile where wet soils were encountered................................................................45
Figure 5.19.Typical soil profile where degrading rock was encountered......................................................45
Figure 5.20. First typical soil profile where a rock impasse was encountered...............................................46
Figure 5.21. Second typical soil profile where a rock impasse was encountered. .........................................46
Figure 5.22. Site map for site 31ML107........................................................................................ ...............47
Figure 5.23. Overview of site 31ML107, facing east...........................................................................................48
Figure 5.24.Typical shovel test profile at site 31ML107....................................................................................49
Figure 5.25.Flagstone and crick chimney remains at site 31ML107, facing south. .......................................49
Figure 5.26.Portion of a fieldstone wall at stie 31ML107, facing northwest..................................................50
Figure 5.27.Washing machine and glass jar scatter identified within site 31ML107, facing west..............50
Figure 5.28.Google Earth imagery from 1994 showing a structure at the location of site 31ML107..........51
Figure 5.29. Google Earth imagery from 1998 showing a structure at the location of site 31ML107..........52
Novernber 2022 vi

Archaeological Survey it
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 213314 111
E
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
List of Tables
Table 2.1.Specific soil types found within the project area................................................................................3
November 2022 vii

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 l
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
1.0 Introduction
On behalf of Quartz Corp, S&ME has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed freshwater reservoir
and emergency basin located roughly 0.7-mile south of Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, North Carolina (Figures 1.1
and 1.2). It is anticipated that a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be needed
and subsequent Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources for this
project.
Kimberly Nagle, M.S., RPA, served as Principal Investigator for the project. Field investigations were conducted by
Field Director Paul Connell, B.A. and Crew Chief Clayton Moss under the supervision of Ms. Nagle_ Graphics were
created by Mr. Moss and Ms. Nagle; artifacts were analyzed by Mr. Moss; the report was senior reviewed by Ms.
Nagle. This report has been prepared in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979; procedures for the Protection of Historic
Properties (36 CFR Part 800); and 36 CFR Parts 60 through 79, as appropriate. Field investigations and the
technical report meet the qualifications specified in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register [FR] 48:447 1 6-44742), and the Guidelines for Preparation
of Archaeological Survey Reports in North Carolina (North Carolina Office of State Archaeology 2018). Supervisory
personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 61.
.� This report includes chapters on the environmental setting of the project area, the previous investigations and
culture history relating to the project area, the methodology and results of the survey, and a summary and
recommendation based on the findings of the survey. The appendices include SHPO correspondence and the
artifact catalog.
November 2022 1

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �.
�. Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
2.0 Environmental Setting
2.1 Location
The project area is made up of two noncontiguous areas, one is roughly 58.3 acres and location northeast of NC
Highway 226 and south of a portion of the North Toe River and the other is approximately 0.71-acre and is
located north of the North Toe River and southwest of Altapass Highway along a railroad corridor. Located
roughly 0.7-mile south of Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, the project area is bound predominately by wooded areas,
with some rural residential areas to the west and light industrial areas to the east (Figure 1.2).
2.2 GeoIogy and Topography
The project area is located in an area referred to as the Blue Ridge physiographic province_The Blue Ridge is an
area composed of a mixture of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks that date to approximately one to
one-and-a-half billion years old and have been squeezed, fractured, faulted, and twisted into folds (North Carolina
Geological Survey [NCGS] 2004).The province is known for deposits of feldspar, mica, and quartz-based material.
Within the project area, elevations range from approximately 2,560 ft above mean sea level (AMSQ, along Grassy
Creek in the southeastern portion of the project area, to 2,760 ft AMSL, in the northwestern corner of the project
area (Figure 1.1).
2.3 Hydrology
The project area is contained within the French Broad drainage basin, which runs north-south, bisecting North
Carolina's western edge. Grassy Creek is located within the project area along the eastern border and flows into
the North Toe River approximately 500 feet north of the project area.The North Toe River flows northwest and
merges with the Cane River to form the Nolichucky River about 16.8 miles northwest of the project area. The
Nolichucky River continues westward where it flows into the French Broad River.
2.4 CIimate and Vegetation
The climate of Mitchell County varies greatly from the high mountains to the low rolling hills to the flood plains of
the river valleys. The winter low temperature is usually 22°F and the average summer high temperature is about
81T.Total mean annual precipitation is 66 inches with the average seasonal snowfall is 13 inches.Vegetation in
the project area consists of wooded areas and secondary growth; disturbances in the project area include dirt
roads, a dam, graded areas, and push piles; areas of standing water, steep slope over 25 percent, and large rock
outcrops were also within the project area (Figures 2.1 through 2.10).
2.5 Soils
There are six specific soil types found within the project area, as well as areas designated as water; their
descriptions can be found in Table 2.1 and their locations within the project area can be seen in Figure 2.11
(United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Web Soil Survey, Accessed October 25, 2022).
November 2022 2

Archaeological
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, NorthCarolina
S&ME Project •
SH PO ER . 213314
Table Specific types found within • project
Soil Name Type Drainage Location 51ope °�ofi Project
Area
Bandana
• •.m Somewhat poorly drained Flood • . 1
Evard-Cowee Complex Well drained Ridges 15-30% 0.3%
Saunook Silt loamdrained
slopesSaunook-Thunder Complex Well drained Coves on mountain 15-30% 15.3%
•• •. •rained 2-50% 20.1%
WataugaWater 24%
Sandy loamdrained Ridges 8-50%
rrllF ii'��•� ��-,ti�s' r
Figure 2.1. Typical area of
#, Imo.+. _f.•` ��� ••• h«'�!� '!• i�a. 7�_ 4,
i " Y: /i.' •i ' s'' 3. � ,ram/'11.'.N
wooded area within the project
November 2022

Archaeological
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project1
'O 1
y < -�`': ��-'err. •.,• 'i
+� .!�~- '.��� try--. .� - •.,•„- '.���"� .�*. i
Figure1 d. 1
Figure 2.3. Dirt roadproject
November 20224

Archaeological Surrey S
Q
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolira
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
r r
ti
i
1x• L
1
Figure 2.4.Typical drainage area within the project area, facing southeast.
S�
yes
-
*Awe Figure 2.5. Dam forming pond within the project area, facing east.
November 2022 5

Archaeological Survey S 13
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina I ��
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
N.
iy1 A a�'e
-rk: • 'ram'; -.'�.. � ' r _ -,�vM: y. Y,-� . '
Figure 2.6. Slope and rock outcrop within the project area,Facing north.
dO
r
1 ,
s
L
Figure 2.7. Graded area within the project area, facing south.
November 2022 6

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
i
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
k k7
A.
J�rrx •�•� �'`�"• '}fir a-SLY
�r —
r
Figure 2.8. Pipes along Grassy Creek within the project area, facing south.
Fr
!1Y... •
a
t '
��• t
Figure 2.9. Modern trash within the project area, facing south.
November 2022 7

Archaeological Survey �nrr
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 111 E
i
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
.l
• �,�s ,�! �'•, `'�`�-=� .fit �` ' k��J-
dr
WA
Rt
. ,5' r+1♦ ,J1';-�l�t�{`,.�l.��.r�4y�r�y;",� rp $�r�;a��
_ J •�~ ;�;,-.' ,r, ICI• t � •'[�` -y �v4, f�
+' •\•�.. V-ems; i vim- '�-' \y .�f,r �}►tf �y �.Y- ~S' 4 � '{,,' f,�":
\may. �.�. �' � �4-•_�w �' f14� t•'�• � '�}
Figure 2.10. Push piles within the project area,facing north.
November 2022 8

Z
Y
T
a
v
0
a
LL r.
u -
} �►
NIN
� w
73
AV"
V • 5�•
U
r�
lot
s
r 'S�
° it r•Y) _
Pl .y
O
Zr~'
m
c
a 4 r
u
2
a
v r'
�n
e t
LL Project Area
0
n Soil Types
a Bandana sandy loam, 0-3%
Evard-Cowee complex, 15-30%
5aunook silt loam, 8-15% °
3 Saunook-Thunder complex, 15-30%
REFERENCE ESRI AREIAL IMAGERY Udorthents,2-50%
LAYER INFORMATION GATHERED FROM USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY.THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
m
PURPOSES ONLY, FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED.THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL Water
SURVEY INFORMATION,UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Watauga sandy loam, 8-15%
0 0.125 0.25 Watauga sandy loam, 15-30%
a
3 Mlles Watauga sandy loam, 30-50%
FIGURE NO.
..! Soil Map
II a FRESHWATER RESERVOIR AND EMERGENCY BASIN 11-10-2022 2.11
QUARTZ CORP PROJECT NUMBER
KAIT(-I-IPI I rn1INITV NInRTW rAar11INIA 71:zR1A 14

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �rrrr
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
3.0 Cultural Context
S&ME conducted cultural background research in order to assess the potential for significant cultural resources
and to formulate our expectations regarding the nature and types of cultural resources we were likely to
encounter. While this text only provides a general prehistory and history of the region,we refer the reader to the
original sources for additional information.
3.1 Prehistoric Context
Over the last two decades, there has been much debate over when humans first arrived in the New World.The
traditional interpretation is that humans first arrived in North America via the Bering land bridge that connected
Alaska to Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 13,500 years ago. From Alaska and northern Canada,
these migrants may have moved southward through an ice-free corridor separating the Cordilleran and Laurentide
ice sheets to eventually settle in North and South America.
Recently, this interpretation has been called into question, with several sites providing possible evidence for earlier
(Pre-Clovis) occupations. These sites include Monte Verde in southern Chile (Dillehay 1989; Meltzer et al. 1997),
Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1990), the Cactus Hill (McAvoy and
McAvoy 1997) and Saltville (McDonald 2000) sites in Virginia, and the Topper site in Allendale County, South
,%Ewe Carolina (Goodyear 2005)_ Despite the growing number of sites attributed to pre-Clovis occupations, there are still
significant problems surrounding each site that preclude their widespread acceptance.
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000-10,000 B.P.)
The most readily recognizable artifact from the early Paleoindian Period is the Clovis point, which is a fluted,
lanceolate-shaped spear point. Clovis points, first identified from a site in New Mexico, have been found across
the nation (Anderson and Sassaman 1996:222). The Hardaway site on the Yadkin River in Stanly County is the
most important North Carolina site with a Paleoindian component (Coe 1964; Ward and Davis 1999).The earliest
occupation of the site, the Hardaway Phase, dates to at least 10,000 B.P.(Coe 1964). Unfortunately, much of the
data about Paleoindian life in North Carolina and the rest of the Southeast comes from surface finds of projectile
points rather than from controlled excavations.
Projectile point types associated with the Pa[eoindian Period in North Carolina include Clovis, Simpson,
Cumberland, Suwannee, Quad, Beaver Lake, and Dalton (Anderson 1992). Hardaway Complex points are very
similar to Paleoindian types; however, there is debate as to whether Hardaway points reflect a temporal difference,
are stages of Paleoindian tool modification, or are a regional variant (Coe 1964:64; Daniel 1998:52; Goodyear
1974:19-33). In a reexamination of the Hardaway site lithic assemblage, Daniel (1998) has also identified the Small
Dalton type, a transitional Paleoindian to Early Archaic projectile point type sharing characteristics of Hardaway
Side Notched and Palmer Side Notched projectile points.
Paleoindians lived a semi-nomadic life that included a subsistence based on the gathering of wild foods and the
hunting of now extinct megafauna. In North Carolina, settlements include small, temporary, task-specific sites near
minor stream tributaries, with common base camps clustered along major streams (Phelps 1983.21).
November 2022 10

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
,%woe Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000-3000 B.P.)
Major environmental transformations at the end of the Pleistocene led to changes in human settlement patterns,
subsistence strategies, and technology. As the climate warmed and the megafauna became extinct, population
size increased; there was a simultaneous decrease in territory size and settlement range.
The Archaic Period is conventionally divided into three subperiods: Early Archaic (10,000-8000 B-P.), Middle
Archaic (8000-5000 B.P.), and Late Archaic (5000-3000 B.P.). Each of these subperiods is lengthy, and the
inhabitants were successful in adapting contemporary technology to prevailing climatic and environmental
conditions of the time. Settlement patterns reflected a fairly high degree of mobility, and the ability to make use
of seasonally available resources in the changing environment across different areas of the Southeast. People
relied on large animals and wild plant resources for food. Group size gradually increased during this period,
culminating in a fairly complex and populous society by the Late Archaic.The chronology for the Archaic period in
the Carolinas is still derived primarily from Coe's (1964) important work in the Piedmont of North Carolina.
Seasonal base camps and small foraging camps were numerous in North Carolina during this time and most
ubiquitous in the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983).
Early Archaic (ca. 10,000-8000 B.P.1
The Early Archaic reflects a continuation of the semi-nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle of the Paleoindian
groups. However, there was a focus on modern game species rather than the megafauna,which had become
extinct by this time. Changes during this subperiod include a population increase (Goodyear et al. 1989), with
groups concentrated in temporary encampments along river floodplains. In North Carolina, the majority of Early
Archaic archaeological sites have been found at or near the Fall Line (Pickett 2001). Diagnostic markers of the Early
Archaic subperiod include a variety of side and corner notched projectile point types, including Hardaway, Kirk,
Palmer, Taylor, and Big Sandy, and later bifurcate base projectile point types such as Lecroy, McCorkle, and St.
Albans. Additional tools of the Early Archaic subperiod include end scrapers, side scrapers, gravers, microliths, and
adzes (Sassaman et al. 2002), and likely perishable items such as traps, snares, nets, and basketry. Direct evidence
of Early Archaic basketry and woven fiber bags was found at the Icehouse Bottom site in the mountains of eastern
Tennessee (Chapman and Adovasio 1977).
Middle Archaic (ca. 8000-5000 B.n
The beginning of the Middle Archaic subperiod coincides with the start of the Altithermal (a.k.a. Hypsithermal), a
significant warming trend where pine forests replaced the oak-hickory dominated forests that had previously been
common. Humans altered their behavior in response to changing environmental conditions (Sassaman and
Anderson 1995:10), It is assumed that population density increased during the Middle Archaic, but small hunting
and gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic units. Larger and more intensively
occupied sites tended to occur near rivers and numerous small, upland lithic scatters dot the interriverine
landscape. Subsistence was presumably based on a variety of resources such as white-tail deer, nuts, fish, and
migratory birds; however, shellfish do not seem to have been an important resource at this time.
During the Middle Archaic, ground stone tools such as axes, atlatl weights, and grinding stones become more
common, while flaked stone tool styles became less diverse and tended to be made of locally available raw
materials. The most common point type of the Middle Archaic subperiod in North Carolina is the Morrow
Mountain point, however, additional diagnostic point types include Stanly, Guilford, and Halifax (Blanton and
November 2022 11

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
S%ftwl Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Sassaman 1989; Coe 1964).The Middle Archaic Stanly phase appears to have developed out of the preceding
phases and is the earliest clearly documented occupation at the stratified Doerschuk site (31 MG22) in
Montgomery County (Coe 1964; Phelps 1983).The major difference in the artifact assemblage seems to be the
addition of stone atlatl weights. The Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases also appear during this subperiod;
Coe (1964) considers these phases to be without local precedent,viewing them as western intrusions.
Late Archaic(ca. 5000-3000 B.P.)
The Late Archaic subperiod is marked by a number of key developments. There was an increased focus on riverine
locations and resources (e.g., shellfish), an adoption of small-scale horticulture, and the introduction of ceramic
and soapstone vessel technology.These changes developed because humans were living close to important
resources for longer periods of time.The Savannah River phase, which appears during this subperiod, is marked
by the presence of larger sites containing steatite bowls, human burials, and prepared hearths (Ward 1983). The
most common diagnostic biface of this subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed projectile point (Coe 1964).
Other artifacts include soapstone cooking discs and netsinkers, shell tools, grooved axes,worked bone, and most
importantly fiber-tempered Stallings Island and sand-tempered Thom's Creek pottery.The type site for Thom's
Creek pottery is located just south of Columbia, South Carolina along the Congaree River (Griffin 1945).
Both Stallings Island and Thom's Creek pottery date to ca.4500-3000 B.P. and have a wide variety of exterior
surface treatments, including plain, punctated, and incised designs (Sassaman et al. 1990).Similar fiber-tempered
wares soon spread to North Carolina; however, these early fiber-tempered wares do not appear to be present in
the Appalachian Summit region. For several decades it was believed that fiber-tempered Stallings Island pottery
was the oldest pottery in the region (perhaps in the New World) and that sand-tempered Thom's Creek wares
appeared a few centuries later (Sassaman 1993). Recent work at several shell ring sites on the coast, however, has
demonstrated that the two types are contemporaneous,with Thom's Creek possibly predating Stallings Island
along the coast (Saunders and Russo 2002; Heide and Russo 2003; Russo and Heide 2003).
3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000-950 B.P.)
Like the preceding Archaic Period, the Woodland is conventionally divided into three subperiods—Early, Middle,
and Late—based on technological and social complexity and population increase. Among the changes that
occurred during this period was a widespread adoption of ceramic technology concomitant with an increased
reliance on native plant horticulture, as a result of a more sedentary lifestyle. Ceramics became more refined and
regionally differentiated, particularly with regard to temper.There was also an increase in sociopolitical and
religious interactions, as evidenced by an increased use of burial mounds, ceremonialism, and expanded trade
networks (Anderson and Mainfort 2002).
Early Woodland ca. 3000-1700 s.P.
The Early Woodland subperiod in the Appalachian Summit region is generally represented by the Swannanoa
phase. Swannanoa ceramics, which are akin to the Badin and Yadkin types of the Piedmont, were generally very
thick, had coarse crushed quartz or sand temper, and were predominantly cordmarked or fabric-impressed.
Stylistically, Swannanoa series ceramics are similar to Kellog ceramics from northern Georgia and Watts Bar
ceramics from eastern Tennessee. Representative projectile points include the small Swannanoa Stemmed and
Plott Stemmed types, which are also stratigraphically associated with the Transylvania Triangular point type (Keel
1976).
November 2022 12

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina �.
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Middle Woodland (ca. 1700-1200 s.P.�
In the Appalachian Summit region, the Middle Woodland subperiod is characterized by the Pigeon (1750-1650
B.P.) and the Connestee phases (1750-1350 B.P.;Ward and Davis 1999). Pigeon phase ceramics were tempered with
crushed quartz, or, sometimes, crushed feldspar. They were predominantly check stamped, although plain,
brushed, and simple stamped surface decoration have been identified and sometimes had small, tetrapodal base
supports (Ward and Davis 1999:146-147). Diagnostic lithic artifacts of the Pigeon phase include the Camp Creek
and Copena Triangular points, Garden Creek point, and the Pigeon Side-Notched point (Keel 1976: 127-131,
Purrington 1983: 135). Other than this information, little is known about this phase, as it has not yet been
encountered in a stratified context (Ward and Davis 1999:146).
Ceramics of the subsequent Connestee phase were similar in design to those of the preceding Pigeon phase;
however, Connestee phase ceramics were sand-tempered (Ward and Davis 1999:151). Exterior surface decorations
include brushed, cordmarked, simple stamped, check stamped, fabric impressed, and plain (Keel 1976)_ Medium-
sized, isosceles triangular projectile points are diagnostic of the Connestee phase_ Hopewell cultural material (e_g_,
prismatic chert blades, rocker-stamped and incised ceramics, clay figurines, etc.) from the Ohio Valley does appear
in mortuary contexts in the Appalachian Summit region during the Connestee phase.
Late Woodland (ca. 1200.950 B.P.)
The Late Woodland subperiod in the Appalachian Summit region is poorly understood. Limited data from
excavations at the Cane Creek site indicate a regional self-sufficiency during a time of transition from the
Woodland Connestee phase to the abrupt appearance of the Southern Appalachian Mississippian tradition (Ward
and Davis 1999:158).
3.1.4 Mississippian Period (ca. 950 300 iu.)
The Southern Appalachian Mississippian Tradition is represented by two subperiods;the Pisgah Phase and the
Qualla Phase (Dickens 1976: 10). Fortified, permanent villages were built on floodplains of major streams during
this period. Mississippian villages were agricultural-based economies, with related secondary satellite sites
associated with hunting and other tasks located in upland and nonriverine settings. Platform mounds are a distinct
architectural feature of this time period, and burials are most often associated with dwellings (Ward and Davis
1999: 166).
Pisgah Phase ca. 950-500 s.n.
The Pisgah Phase consists of two discrete pottery characteristics that are distinctive from early and subsequent
pottery from the Appalachian Summit Region: rectilinear complicated-stamped exterior surface designs and
collared rims (Ward and Davis 1999: 166). Pisgah ceramics had a micaceous paste and were often tempered with
sand.They could also be tempered with crushed quartz, soapstone, or amphibolite. Other attributes of Pisgah
ceramics could include loop handles, notched rim strips, lugs, and castellations (Purrington 1983: 143)_
Lithic artifacts consist of isosceles Pisgah triangular points, microtools, gravers, perforators, drills, ground stone
,-Mop, celts, discoidals, and small discs. Shell artifacts associated with the Pisgah Phase include gorgets, ear pins, beads,
and dippers. Other stone and ceramic artifacts associated with this phase include pipes, discs, beads, animal-head
effigies, and miniature ceramic vessels (Purrington 1983: 142-144).
November 2022 13

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �
,%me Mitchell County, North Carolina �P
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110 r�
Pisgah villages were composed of square or rectangular dwellings surrounded by stockade wails. Ceremonial
structures, such as earth lodges and fiat-topped ceremonial mounds, appear to be restricted to the southwestern
portion of the Appalachian Summit. Burials, usually flexed, are often found in mounds and house floors
(Purrington 1983: 144).
Qualla Phase (ca. 500-300 B.P.)
The Qualla Phase is thought to be a manifestation of the widespread Lamar culture of northern Georgia.The
Qualla phase appeared during the Late Mississippian subperiod and continued until the removal of the Cherokee
in 1838 and 1839 (Dickens 1976: 14-15; Purrington 1983: 148).The Qualla Phase has been further divided down
into the Early Qualla (500-300 B.P.) and the Late Qualla (300-112 B.P-) (Purrington 1983: 148).
There is continuity that can be easily identified between the architectural styles, artifact types, and habits of daily
life of the Pisgah and Qualla phases. However, diagnostic artifacts, community, and regional settlements vary from
the Pisgah to the subsequent Qualla (Purrington 1983: 149). Early Qualla settlements, the densest in western North
Carolina, were located close to each other and, unlike in Pisgah Villages, palisades surrounding Qualla settlements
have not been identified. The Qualla Phase in the Appalachian Summit region also marked a major occupational
shift from the eastern and central Appalachian Mountains to the western and southern mountains (Ward and
Davis 1999,179-180).
Early Qualla ceramics maintain the older Pisgah decorative traditions while also adopting the Lamar style found to
the south. Representative exterior surface designs include complex incised designs and complicated stamped
motifs. Other diagnostic artifacts associated with the Early Qualla include small triangular shaped projectile points
and small, thick serrated points. Other stone tools include scrapers, drills, and gunflints. Ground stone artifacts
include Celts, pipes, chunky stones, and pins with expanded heads (Dickens 1976: 14; Purrington 1983: 148).
3.1.5 Protohistoric Period (ca. 400-200 B.P.)
The Protohistoric Period refers to the first contact between Native Americans and Europeans. In the Appalachian
Summit region, contact occurred between A.D. 1700 and 1838. The De Soto expedition, which embarked from
Florida in 1539, arrived near present-day Hickory in Catawba County in the spring of 1540. The subsequent De
Pardo expedition traversed South Carolina, western North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee from 1566 to 1568.The
exact routes of these expeditions are still under debate. By the time of European exploration, the current project
area falls within land occupied by the Cherokee Indians.
The Protohistoric Period is represented in the Appalachian Summit region by the Late Qualla (ca.250-112 B.P.).
Late Qualla pottery exhibits curvilinear and rectilinear designs; although bolder in form, designs were cruder in
comparison to exterior surface finishes on earlier Qualla wares. Stylistic features of vessels included globularjars
with broad shoulders and out-flaring rims, often folded, creating the appearance of a rolled lip (Ward and Davis
1999:268).
It is during this period that European manufactured items begin to appear in the archaeological record alongside
indigenous artifacts. European artifacts included copper kettles, iron tools and utensils, glass trade beads, glass
bottles, and guns. Architecture during this period also began to change, as habitations transitioned from
aboriginal style dwellings to European-style cabins. Ceremonial and civic structures, however, remained
November 2022 14

Archaeological Survey �■
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
unchanged through the end of this period. Settlement patterns also changed during the eighteenth century;
where there were once nucleated towns, settlements began to shift towards loosely grouped houses, and
eventually moved to individual homesteads.
The Cherokee people, from 1650 on, depended increasingly on trade with the new European settlers and were
involved with European-American politics and wars.The changes seen in Late Qualla artifact assemblages and
living arrangements came as the result of acculturation of the Cherokee to Euro-American customs. This ultimately
ended with the erosion of religious, social, and political systems of the Cherokee (Dickens 1976: 15).
3.2 Historic Context
The project area is located in southeast Mitchell County, roughly 0.7-mile south of Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
3.2.1 Early Settlement
During the earliest period of European settlement in the Carolina colony, which originally included both North and
South Carolina, King Charles II granted large landholdings to the supporters who had helped return him to his
throne, including the eight original Lords Proprietors of the Carolina colony. From 1663 to 1729, the Carolina
colonies remained under the control of the proprietors and settlements were primarily along the coast. Following
disputes with neighboring colonies, the Tuscarora, and pirates, in addition to the establishment of South Carolina
as a separate, royal colony in 1719, the heirs of seven of the eight proprietors sold their property shares back to
the British crown in 1729. Following the American Revolution, under the Act of Confiscation, the property of the
Granville tract, the lands of the single remaining proprietor, was annexed to the United States (Powell 1989; Bishir
et al. 1999).
During the early eighteenth century, the interior of North Carolina was sparsely populated, as much of the
territory was still claimed by Native Americans (Alexander 1956:19). The valuable animal pelts that were available
in the wilderness areas, however, attracted hunters and fur traders to the remote regions, making them some of
the earliest white residents in the backcountry. Increased immigration to the colony and dwindling amount of
coastal land, combined with the desire of some settlers to reside far away from government controls, led to
increased population in the western part of North Carolina, near the Blue Ridge Mountains. By the 1750s, colonists
had begun encroaching on Cherokee Territory in the western part of both North and South Carolina, with many
settlers of English, German, and Scottish descent laying down roots in the area_ Feeling threatened by the
westward settlement, Native American groups began attacking colonial settlers on the western frontier, leading to
increased tensions in the area (Helsley and Jones 2007; Powell 1989).
Families settled in the land that would become Western North Carolina as early as the 1740s and the territorial
expansion only increased over the next four decades; many settlers came from the South Carolina Piedmont
following the French and Indian War, while others traveled south from Pennsylvania after the Whiskey Rebellion. A
large number of these 1760s and 1770s settlements violated the Proclamation of 1763, which established the
official western boundary for settlement at the Appalachian Mountains, reserving the territory to the west for
Native Americans. In response, Governor William Tryon commissioned a survey in 1767, aiming to establish a new
boundary line,which placed territory to the west of present-day Polk County, including the project area, in
lk" 1 Cherokee possession (Arthur 1914:61, 67, 248; Helsley and Jones 2007).
November 2022 15

Archaeological Survey �
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina I ��
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
During the 1770s, there was growing unrest along the coast against British rule, but many residents of the
backcountry remained generally supportive of the British, resulting in divided individual loyalties in western North
Carolina (Arthur 1914). In 1775, the state of North Carolina organized a Committee of Safety to report disloyal acts
to the government; many Loyalists moved westward to avoid prosecution and escape Regulators, increasing the
population along the western frontier(Helsiey and Jones 2007).When the colonies declared their independence
from England, there was little immediate effect in the western region of the state (Arthur 1914: 97, 101; Bishir et al.
1999).
The Cherokee had remained loyal to the British, with the hope that defeat of the colonies would serve to slow the
increasing westward expansion of the settlers into lands held by the Native Americans.A number of backcountry
forts were established in the early to mid-1770s to provide protection for the settlers near the frontier, including
Potts Fort, located near Lake Lure, southeast of present-day Asheville. Skirmishes with the Cherokee and British
were common in western North Carolina, including the June 1776 Patriot rout of celebrating Cherokee forces at
Round Mountain (also known as Howard's Gap), located northwest of Tryon. Additionally, a number of western
North Carolina residents joined the Mountain Volunteers, who participated in the battle of Kings Mountain, one of
the important American victories in the Southern campaign during 1780, and Patriot forces led three major
expeditions against the Cherokee during the war, effectively increasing the safety of the area (Arthur 1914;
Dykeman 1965).
�.,. The 1785 Hopewell Treaty was the first treaty signed by the Cherokee with the federal government, and it
surrendered Cherokee land east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Settlers of Scots Irish, English, German, Welsh, and
French descent began moving to the area, with settlement focusing on the rivers and creeks that dotted the
landscape, as they were important resources for transportation and food. The earliest land grants were given
during the 1770s, but the grants began in earnest in the 1780s,with many former Revolutionary War soldiers from
both armies, including Abraham Kuykendall,William Davis, John Jones,John Peter Corn, and Elizah Williamson,
claiming territory in the area, as well as hundreds of thousands of acres being purchased by land speculations
(Corbitt 1950:38; Helsley and Jones 2007:20).
3.2.2 Antebellum Period and Civil War
The turn of the nineteenth century saw huge growth and overpopulation in the coastal region, but the
mountainous region of the project area, due to the rough terrain, was fairly isolated for decades.Trade was sparse
and religion and government was nominal; families in the region provided enough food to subsist and owning
slaves was financially unfeasible for most. With no proper political representation due to legislative apathy for a
region so remote and far removed, protests ensued and movements called the Regulation were formed. People,
sick of corrupt and apathetic local government, took the law into their own hands in the form a vigilantism; this
became known as mountain justice.
The growth of western North Carolina was spurred by the completion of the Buncombe Turnpike in 1827. The
120-mile road started in Greenville, South Carolina and ended in Greenville, Tennessee. It simplified the difficult
trip through the mountains, provided new connections between regional markets, and boosted both the area's
population and economy. Asheville, the halfway point, grew to be an important stop; stagecoaches, merchants,
farmers, and cattle drivers all used the road to travel and conduct business. Overland travel, while easier than
before the turnpike was completed,was still difficult in the early 1800s, so export of agricultural products was
limited (Arthur 1914:182). Cattle production was a major economic force in the region.
November 2022 16

Archaeological Survey
arm
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
,-mop" Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 E
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
After South Carolina declared its intention to secede from the Union, in December 1860, North Carolina was
forced to make a decision. Although the counties of rural western North Carolina were generally against North
Carolina's secession, both politicians and citizens supported the state after it declared war and joined the
Confederacy.
Although there was no official war activity in the mountains of North Carolina until 1865, this area was often used
as a safe stronghold for Confederate deserters and Union sympathizers.With the fall of eastern Tennessee to the
Union, North Carolina increased its protection forces in the western mountain regions. Beginning in March 1865,
the Union forces sought to finally subdue the Confederacy and Major General George Stoneman began his march
to Lynchburg, Virginia through western North Carolina (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:8-10).After
destroying the railroad link between Virginia and Tennessee, General Stoneman's men returned to North Carolina,
eventually arriving in the area in April 1865. On April 6, Colonel George Wesley Clayton's Confederate defenders
withheld five hours of barrage by Union troops to retain Asheville, although the victory was short lived. On April
22, a brigade under General Alvan Gillem rode through Columbus on its way to Asheville, during his capture of
Asheville, General Stoneman stationed troops in Hendersonville, south of Asheville. In the months that followed
this occupation, regular Union forces, as well as bands of criminals and Confederate deserters, raided and
terrorized residents in the surrounding counties (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:11-12; Fain 1980.59).
3.2.3 Mitchell County and Spruce Pine
Mitchell County was formed in 1861 from portions of Yancey,Watauga, Caldwell, Burke, and McDowell counties. It
was named in honor of Professor Elisha Mitchell of the University of North Carolina who died while exploring a
peak in the Black Mountains, which is now named Mt. Mitchell in his honor. Bakersville is the county seat and was
incorporated in 1870 (Corbitt 1950). Characterized by"a prolonged pioneering period, isolation due to
inaccessibility," and a primarily agricultural society, the county's main resource was mining and mineral processing
(Sharpe 1954).Over 50 varieties of gems and other raw minerals have been found and mined in the region.
In association with mining and mineral processing, the Penland School of Crafts was founded in the 1920s.
Originally a school to train women in the arts, the school grew in popularity and for over 30 years craftsmen from
around the world would come to learn the art of silversmithing, pottery, metal working, woodworking,
glassblowing, and other crafts. In addition to its academic importance, the school attracts tourist that view the
school's gallery and purchase the art produced by Penland students. Another tourist attraction in Mitchell County
is the Pisgah National Forest. With hundreds of acres within Mitchell County alone, hikers, campers, and other
outdoorsmen and women travel to experience the beautiful mountains.
Spruce Pine was given its name in 1859 and incorporated in 1907. The community started with The English Inn, a
tavern and in that was built at the crossroads for Marion to Bakersfield and Burnsville to Cranberry Roads.The
exact date of its construction is unknown, but the inn was purchased by Isaac English in the mid-1800s.The small
hamlet surrounding the inn began to grow and the need for a post office arose; Mrs.Alice English named the new
post office Spruce Pine after the trees she admired.The inn was the center of the community for over 200 years
and has hidden escaped Union soldiers, been witness to the founding of the English Mica Company and the
different mining endeavors throughout the region, and was the first school location in Spruce Pine that housed
the students during the week.
November 2022 17

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin s
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
The incorporation of Spruce Pine occurred when the Clinchfield Railroad made its way up the Toe River Valley
from Erwin, Tennessee.The railroad and the rapidly expanding mining business made Spruce Pine a hub of
commerce and culture for the area. The town was home to The Feldspar Company and Spruce Pine Mica. With the
decline in use of railroad to transport goods and the increasing automation of the mining industry, Spruce Pine
has felt an economic blow and it working to reinvent itself as a tourist area. With its proximity to the Blue Ridge
Parkway and it location near the edge of the Blue Ridge Escarpment, Spruce Pine is becoming a travel destination.
3.3 Previously Recorded Sites in the Vicinity of Project Area
A background literature review and record search was conducted in October 2022.The records examined at the
OSA included GIS files and site forms for archaeological sites within a one-mile search radius of the project area,
as well as copies of the reports that cover portions of the current project corridor.There are no previously
recorded aboveground resources within or adjacent to the project area therefore the HPOWEB data is not
included on the map and is not discussed below.
A review of the information from the OSA indicated there is one archaeological site and five previously conducted
surveys within a one-mile radius of the project area (Figure 3.1). The archaeological site, 31 ML102, is a prehistoric
lithic scatter that was considered not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; the site is not within or adjacent to the
current project area. One of the surreys corresponds to the current survey area and none of the other previously
completed survey areas cover a portion of the current project area.
As part of the background research, the Price-Strother (1808) map; the McRae-Brazier (1833) map; the Kerr-Cain
(1882) map; a 1900 railway map; North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) maps from 1938, 1953,
and 1968; and United States Geological Survey(USGS) topographic maps from 1934, 1960, and 1990 were
examined. The Price-Strother map shows the project area within Buncombe County and an unnamed roadway
nearby;the area is depicted as uninhabited (figure 3.2). The McRae-Brazier map shows the project area within
Burke County,with an unnamed road in the vicinity of the project area, and the area is depicted as uninhabited
with a few post offices in the distance to the west and south (Figure 3.3). The Kerr-Cain map shows that Mitchell
County had been established and the project area is east of roadway junction; and the community of Flat Rock is
to the northwest of the project area (Figure 3.4).
The 1900 railroad map shows one established rail line in the northeast portion of Mitchell County; a proposed rail
line is depicted in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 3.5). The USGS topographic map from 1934 shows Spruce
Pine to the north of the project area, one structure and a few unimproved roadways within the project area; two
structures are depicted along the project boundary or adjacent to the project boundary (Figure 3.6). The 1938 and
1953 NCDOT maps show little detail in the vicinity of the project area, but do show Spruce Pine and the increased
infrastructure and population surrounding the project area and town (Figures 3.7 and 3.8). The USGS topographic
map from 1960 show two structures in the southern portion of the project area, a dirt road in the eastern portion,
a jeep road in the central portion, and a pond in the southeast section; the northern parcel remains uninhabited
and at the end of the roadway near the railroad (Figure 3.9). The 1968 NCDOT map shows very little detail in and
around the project area (Figure 3.10).The USGS topographic map from 1990 shows that only one structure
remains in the southernmost corner of the project area (Figure 3.11).
`ter
November 2022 18

I
,�✓t l !_ ti I r f� •I �• / Imo/? � •ti"1 r � _~
41
ce
••• r �; n. (� �' 1 - f8 .3, � r• � J,.j lr.F'Itz Ft,yv
! •r�•.! '�J`P �r: �1 ,-sue}Tj � , �, `�.[( � a��1-- .`�� 1r r i,
10
46
31
cc
• rr ' , r�
a ' •� f f C1.7
Our•.E •mot fRl 1 '�,�
° ,f • rI y 1 • �•
d 1 c
a fV� 31 ML102
EL
f
� � � _'��� ,�_. _ l` / '�`- •. , � s 'a � ram..
N � ��' �J� �iJ � •F .�• �� I �j
i •
� REFERENCE'SPRUCE PINE 7.5'TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
a LAYERS OBTAINED FROM OSA iN RALEIGH.THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY,
FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED.THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY
Fn
INFORMATION,UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. Previously Recorded Archaeological Site
E3Project Area
a 0 1 One-mile Search Radius
.# M i I e s r" i 1 ®Previously Surveyed Area
o
FIGURE NO
Background Research Map
DATE:
III E FRESHWATER RESERVOIR AND EMERGENCY BASIN 11-10-2022 3.1
QUARTZ CORP PROJECT NUMBER
KAIT(WWI I (-nI INITV NInRTu rADnl wA 21 R31a f

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Ip
Figure 3.2. Price-Strother Map (1808) of North Carolina, showing vicinity of the project area.
November 2022 20

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
,*Mop, Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
k
VOM
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
\tit
J ! r� � F'
r1l, A
f
Figure 3.3. Section from MacRae-Brazier Map of 1833, showing the approximate location of the
project area.
November 2022 21

Archaeological Survey -
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin .._
Mitchell County, North Carolina r
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
T.554
ode
1,f;� Ia
eir
`t /
BALO
12
IA THU
A-
TAB L�4�
_..�� Oise tows �_ �, i
\ RID a
PI
Figure 3.4. Portion of Kerr-Cain Map, 1882, showing the approximate location of the project area.
November 2022 22

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SH PO ER No. 22-2110
-Z 1 1 .111,k , Wtk
ry
0 .$
Tinville
G V
I J
4)
7 n re ek,0 4 Ix Od
Rru
a
� � ��' � �3�1r�,ter�Vil�l. Q y -
"I.....................
Y4 0 urn V I e
a7d Creek
U4
t
Figure 3.5. Portion of the railroad map (Brown 1900),showing the approximate location of the
project area.
November 2022 23

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
r
' � h
N
O J� 4 �13
s_
• y
• P
F'•� ti� �7 18
� B{�¢�+�•� �S' w �
ri
A~'► � s � c � k
A� • h PC 1�M � Q1� I$� p
6 s ' 1+ • 2760 ►t
Figure 3.6. USGS Spruce Pine topographic map (1934),showing the location of the project area.
November 2022 24

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
�. Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
4
• a ■ ii
{ I • • +
AP
SPRUCE Y� .d
PE PINE
i �y ■
i- • • ICE a r4
ppp _
a ti t? i 546 ,
. . -• 20 • 1 • i• 1�
• cl-12d1 ""`i • �• q9
a �� • • ZLTAPA
d w • ' i *�j
lie r
. r
Figure 3.7. NCDOT highway snap of Mitchell County (1.938), showing the approximate location of
the project area.
November 2022 25

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin i
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
ter,
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
'A.
dP
5PgVCE f'tNE `#
i
c
t
iI
i ry�t
� �f
.f
a
-- - - - ►I U
Figure 3.8. NCDOT highway map of Mitchell County (1953),showing the approximate location of
the project area.
November 2022 26

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&M E Project No. 213314 I
SWPO ER No-22-2110
d•• Y .�, �
It
a �
ff • ! I P.rryl hspel '�• � a.. .•7 �` `' - l •'
aver!' � . " + � � .,�k �• s�.�'! • -G - ==ice=__
. • - `'—-_
f4} J7
00 + f l-ti •
4 • I — 1 � i
` CreE
Figure 3.9. USGS Spnice Pine topographic map (1960),showing the location of the project area.
November 2022 27

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin :
Mitchell County, North Carolina I ��
S&ME Project No. 213314 F '
s
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
3542
i► 21--2
Ilk
SPUR _
' liZO
fi
tir
Figure 3.10. NCDOT highway map of Mitchell County (1968),showing the approximate location of
the project area.
November 2022 28

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina -
S&ME Project No. 213314
e=�
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Ir
-�" }tfit +.' •G `� ' r+{j �� �`�`�:�:}��
Cam- `�rl ..�♦♦'• �� Cam! : ° • � 1 ��S'` f ♦r
_-�/ �*ram � I ,• • ` ,' f r ' � •'1,'�I 'y `� 1� 1 :.
`l 1
/f ♦ r�• f/ I r 1 1 •
•
4t �` lbc \ , errs l ha
E� + ; •� • fit^'. `?•
• • f ��^� �`f �n �.
4.
-�-� 1 � `,� • •1 ( , zeal 1 •L ` .-........
- _.r�Y �� . A tip. �_ •
Figure 3.11. USGS Spruce Pine topographic map (1990), showing the location of the project area.
November 2022 29

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin r.r�
.✓ Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No.22-2110
4.0 Methods
4.1 Archaeological Field Methods
Fieldwork for the project was conducted from October 26 through 28, 2022, specifically, three people worked for
three days on the project. This work included an archaeological survey of the two noncontiguous areas totaling
59.01 acres.Approximately 33.48 acres was shovel tested at 20-m intervals; approximately 11.21 acres was
pedestrian survey along with judgmental shovel testing due to its low probability for containing archaeological
sites; approximately 14.32 acres was not surveyed due to standing water, excessive slope, or excessive disturbance
(Figure 4.1).
Shovel tests were at least 30 cm in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or at least 80 cm below surface
(cmbs),whichever was encountered first.Soil from shovel tests was screened though 1/4-inch wire mesh and soil
colors were determined through comparison with Munsell Soil Color Charts. Sites were located using a GPS unit
and plotted on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps. Artifacts recovered during the survey were organized and
bagged by site and relative provenience within each site.
Site boundaries were determined by excavating shovel tests at 5-m intervals from positive shovel tests or surface
finds at the perimeter of each site_ Sites were recorded in the field using field journals and standard S&ME site
forms and documented using digital photography and detailed site maps. State site forms were completed for
new archaeological sites and submitted to OSA once fieldwork was complete.
4.2 Laboratory Methods
With fieldwork complete, recovered artifacts were cleaned, sorted, analyzed, and labeled, at the S&ME laboratory
in Columbia, South Carolina.Artifacts were analyzed by provenience unit and classified into raw material,
technological, and functional categories based on accepted southeastern typologies and artifact classifications
used in the project vicinity.
Lithic artifacts were initially identified as either debitage (flakes and shatter) or tools. Debitage was sorted by raw
material type and size graded using the mass analysis method advocated by Ahler(1989). When present, formal
tools were classified by type, and metric attributes (e.g., length,width, and thickness) were recorded for each
unbroken tool. Projectile point typology generally follows that outlined by Coe (1964) and Justice (1987).
Historic artifacts were separated by material type and then further sorted into functional groups. For example,
historic ceramics were sorted into coarse earthenware, refined earthenware, stoneware, porcelain, colonoware, or
pipe. Glaze, slip, maker's marks, and/or decorations were noted to ascertain chronological attributes using
established references for historic materials, including Noel Hume (1969), South (1976), and Miller(1991).The
artifacts, field notes, maps, photographs, and other technical materials generated as a result of this project will be
temporarily curated at the S&ME office in Columbia, South Carolina and either returned to the landowners or
permanently curated at the OSA Research Center in Raleigh, North Carolina.
November 2022 30

NO
r
w
m Y•
o
b -
E r;
i
23 S,
rn
� ♦ii♦
♦ii♦ ♦i
� ♦♦i♦♦i♦++i♦+iiiiiiiii♦+♦ii♦♦iii� te•t.
.•��i♦+♦iii♦ii+♦+iiii♦++�+♦i♦iiii� iti�
tii♦i♦♦iiiiitiiiii♦♦tiitiiiii♦+♦i� ♦t�'
� BOO+i++++i++++i+++i+t+i+++++++++++iii+++i+++++i+t+i+i+i+i+++♦+++�' o a+++e+f"
►OiO�O�O�i���O�O�O�i�O�O���O�O�e�i�i�OiO+O�O�O�Oi��i�O�OiO�+�Oiii� o�e�•Ot,+.
►♦iiii♦+iiiii♦♦iiiiiiiiii♦♦ii♦♦its ♦+te
u • ►+i+i+i+iii+iiO+i+i+i+♦+i0i+i+i+i+iii+iiO+iii+�ii0i+i+iiiiiti+i++t ����ip�,� ,
•� ,ii+.+O++iiOiiiiiiiiiii*Oiii#i0iiiiiiii00+iiiiiiiO+i+iiiii00iiiii+ Ys`.>•i".�
N s .'.�i`O`0±+.+�iPO.i.0.0`+.O+i:+.+:0.+.0.0.0.0:0.♦++si�0`O�i�O�i�00 f�_ ._ it:t,:�
►OiiiOti+000+00.0000tiO.tOi�i�O�i�O�i�i�t�♦��
q ♦iiit,��+� . _ .o. GOOSE ,
►i�i♦
m +ii0+0, {. �JR�.jR ..;�A✓�•y�+i�•f J i. r S'�• a K,
_ ��iii�ie•'
N �ii i� 'w r<•.r c ,,,��; ��.h i�i�i�tat���� -
E
o
Z
d
c
'a
2 :Y
EL
u REFERENCE ESRI AERIAL IMAGERY
n THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE [Z)Project Area
APPROXIMATED.THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION,UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. • Positive Shovel Test
• Negative Shovel Test
0 0.125 0.25 Area Pedestrian Surveyed
Miles ®Area Not Surveyed
3
FIGURE NO.
Field Methods Map
DATE:t FRESHWATER RESERVOIR AND EMERGENCY BASIN 11-14-2022 4.1
QUARTZ CORP PROJECT NUMBER
AAIT(-"rl I r )l INITV AIr1RTl-I rAkrtl IK16 21:tR14 •

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina I ^o
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
4.3 National Register Eligibility Assessment
For a property to be considered eligible for the NRHP it must retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association (National Register Bulletin 15:2). In addition, properties must meet one or
more of the criteria below:
are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.
The most frequently used criterion for assessing the significance of an archaeological site is Criterion D, although
other criteria were considered where appropriate. For an archaeological site to be considered significant, it must
have potential to add to the understanding of the area's history or prehistory.A commonly used standard to
determine a site's research potential is based on a number of physical characteristics including variety, quantity,
integrity, clarity, and environmental context (Glassow 1977).All of these factors were considered in assessing a
�.r site's potential for inclusion in the NRHP.
November 2022 32

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
5.0 Results
An archaeological survey was conducted on the approximately 59.01-acre proposed project area, which is made
up of two noncontiguous areas. The larger area is roughly 58.3 acres and located northeast of NC Highway 226
and south of a portion of the North Toe River and the smaller is approximately 0.71-acre and is located north of
the North Toe River and southwest of Altapass Highway along a railroad corridor(Figures 1.1 and 1.2).Vegetation
in the larger project area consists of wooded areas and secondary growth; disturbances in the project area include
dirt roads, a dam, graded areas, and push piles; areas of standing water, steep slope over 25 percent, and large
rock outcrops were also within the project area (Figures 2.1-2.10 and 5.1 through 5.10). Based on aerial imagery,
the smaller portion of the project area was mainly wooded in the 1950s, by the 1960s portions of the project area
had been cleared and by the 1980s and 1990s, the entirety of the project area had been cleared and disturbed by
ongoing activities associated with the industry adjacent to the area (Figure 5.11-5.15). During the archaeological
survey, a total of 301 shovel tests were excavated, ranging from 10-80 cm deep.
Approximately 33.48 acres was shovel tested at 20-m intervals; approximately 11.21 acres was pedestrian survey
along with judgmental shovel testing due to its low probability for containing archaeological sites; approximately
14.32 acres was not surveyed due to standing water, excessive slope, or excessive disturbance (Figure 4.1).
There were six typical soil profiles encountered during the survey: Two transitioned from plow zone to subsoil and
consisted of either approximately 35 cm of very pale brown (10YR 8/4) sandy loam followed by 10+ cm (35-45
cmbs) of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 5.16) or approximately 15 cm of light reddish
brown (2.5YR 6/4) silty loam terminating with 10+ cm (25-35 cmbs) of light red (2.5YR 6/8) silty clay subsoil
(Figure 5.17); one was identified in wet areas and consisted of approximately 20 cm of very pale brown (10YR 8/3)
sand followed by 10+ cm (20-30+ cmbs) of mottled white (10YR 8/1) and very pale brown (10YR 7/4)wet sand
(Figure 5.18); one ended at degrading rock and consisted of about 10 cm of brown (10YR 5/3) sand followed by
15+ cm (10-25+ cmbs) of mottled white (10YR 8/1) and very pale brown (10YR 7/4) degrading rock (Figure 5.19);
two terminated at various impasses and consisted of rock at the surface (Figure 5.20) or approximately 35+ cm of
very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sandy loam terminating at a rock impasse (Figure 5.21).
During the investigation one newly recorded archaeological sites (31 ML107)was identified and recorded, the site
is discussed in greater detail below.
5.1.1 Site 31ML107
Site Number: 31 ML107 NRHP Recommendation:Not Eligible
Site Type: House Site Elevation:2,560 ft AMSr
Components: 191"-20th century Landform: Hillslope
UTM Coordinates: E403595, N3973238 (17N, NAD 83) Soil Type:Saunook-Th under complex
Site Dimensions:45 m E/W x 20 m N/S Vegetation:Mixed pine and hardwood
Artifact Depth:0-2S cmbs No.of STPs/Positive STPs:26/3
Site 31 ML107 is a ninetieth to twentieth century house site located on a hillslope in the southern portion of the
project area (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The site is located in a wooded area and measures approximately 45 m
east/west by 20 m north/south (Figures 5.22 and 5.23).
November 2022 33

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
a.✓ Mitchell County, North Carolina ter.
S&ME Project No. 213314
s
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
r �
i
f. J •I t
1•
Figure 5.1.Typical area of mixed hard wood forest within the project area, facing southeast.
� :� � - *?��'"'� i :S � "i✓-. � =.,rt-"It • �
Figure 5.2. Secondary growth within the project area, facing south.
November 2022 34

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 I
SHPO ER No.22-2110 ~
r•�a
Jill
r3
Figure 5.3. Dirt road within the project area,facing west.
titer.
Figure 5.4. Pond within the project area, facing southeast.
November 2022 35

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
W "
I IF i..,
:a
i
Figure 5.5. Typical push pile within the project area, facing southeast.
i5
e
r
,�F•'i��1� ;1(
A ��Z
r� ram= i •-: t .r= n ` , i`.-. _ �b-'-` , 3�,
'ter'
Figure 5.6. Graded area within the project area, facing north.
November 2022 36

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin it
..� Mitchell County, North Carolina '
S&ME Project No, 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
15
I .
s
Figure 5.7. Slope within the project area,facing east.
Ar
1-4
7 "�th+R YCy �v.. � L.2 •.
rF
- ter' r� • ..if .":1
h'
Figure 5.8. Portion of Grassy Creek within the project area,facing southwest.
November 2022 37

Archaeological
CarolinaFreshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin AM
Mitchell County, North
Project •
. 213314
'• ER No. 1
y"''=�''a► �'�' fir.' - '•Y�,
Figure 5.9.
s
r
Typical1 outcrop in the project area, facing north.
:a .:tic? � �` •J+ ' it
Figure
-
y���+u
1 piles within the project 1
November 2022

•a . I
Or
��fLl
er
fir
4.
_.r 'yam►' � .t r ^� •�.-' �:`' _. r -�.+v...r�-,r� --g .ref+.
tr 5�

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �r
`Now Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 M I
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
r w
f
� r r _ f•
do
1 1
'y. a
Figure 5.12. Aerial imagery from the 1960s showing the smaller portion of the project area.
w.r
November 2022 40

Archaeological survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 111 E
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
44
1,•!�`' . "�._ � �'i^ �-\1 ��1
r
Figure 5.13. Aerial imagery from the 1970s showing the smaller portion of the project area.
November 2022 41

Archaeological Survey ONOW
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
, l
won
``'yam�y'�'}�'' �• ' '/.- =�_' �Ir.:
Y:
"wow
Figure 5.14. Aerial imagery from the 1980s showing the smaller portion of the project area.
November 2022 42

Archaeological
EmergencyFreshwater Reservoir and Mitchell • . Carolina
ProjectSH•• ER No. 1
Figure 5.15. Aerial
• r.
r a
imagery from the 1990s showing the smaller portion of the project area.
November 2022

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin s
Mitchell County, North Carolina I s
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
xt
Figure 5.16.The first typical soil profile that transitioned from plow zone to subsoil.
SUM-
U421
r� 1 w ♦ - J
eta -aI� . �-:'• ; - •[� � `�--�.y
40
Figure 5.17. The second typical soil profile that transitioned from plow zone to subsoil.
November 2022 44

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin r.rrr
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
_ �Y t
a. .k' :.• . 14
ze
Figure 5.18. Typical soil profile where wet soils were encountered.
r..
_�� ..1. .��} rye+,�f►',\ -1' �.{� ` ` i\
Figure 5.19, Typical soil profile where degrading rock was encountered.
November 2022 45

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
,%..e Mitchell County, North Carolina .U: .
S&ME Project No. 213314
NW_ .
5HPO ER No. 22-2110
0�-� ,fir x- '< �r '7l-�!r S �a.-� �•',cJ .��. ^�
Figure 5.20. First typical soil profile where a rock impasse was encountered.
JaiL
W17 AIR
.Y \
Figure 5.21. Second typical soil profile where a rock impasse was encountered.
November 2022 46

r'
1
N
O O �' O
O O O
sip ST?4-z SIP
O i
j 1 O ;� O
01 0 ® o SF7 1-1 Sot O o 01 S yo 0 0
❑ Stone wall
O O Stone Pillar 0
LEGEND 1 1
• Positive STP -- f
a*Surface Scatter 0
Negative STP
Collapsed Stone and Brick Chimney
Site Datum
121 Site Boundary Stream n INO.
Contours(approximate) --
Mcferp
Site Ma 31ML107 SCALE: FIGURE P " As Shown
DATE:
Archaeological Survey 11/04/2022Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin PROJECT NUMBER > .
Mitchell County, North Carolina 213314

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin .�
Mitchell County, North Carolina �r
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
yy t .•f.r t
I
Y
Figure 5.23. Overview of site 31ML107,facing east.
A total of 26 shovel tests were excavated at the site.A typical soil profile consisted of approximately 45 cm of
brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam followed by 10+ cm (45-55+ cmbs) of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil
(Figure 5.24). A total of 11 historic artifacts were recovered from 0-25 cmbs in three shovel tests. The artifacts
recovered from the site included of two pieces of clear glass, one piece of plain whiteware, three pieces of metal
wire, three pieces of metal chain, and two pieces of unidentifiable iron (Appendix B).The plain whiteware dates
from 1815 to the present and the metal wire dates from 1831 to the present.
In addition to the artifacts, a partially collapsed brick and fieldstone chimney along with the remains of a field
stone wall within eastern portion of the site were noted (Figures 5.25 and 5.26). Glass jars and an old washing
machine were noted within the boundaries of the site as well (Figure 5.27). A structure is depicted at this location
on the topographic maps from 1934 through 1990 (Figures 3.6, 3.9, and 3.11) and appears on Google Earth
imagery in 1994 and is no longer extent by the time the 1998 image is taken (Figures 5.28 and 5.29).
Site 31ML107 is a nineteenth to twentieth century house site with little remaining integrity.The structure has been
demolished and very little of the material culture remains to provide insight into the occupants' lifeways. Based on
the information presented, it is S&ME's opinion that the site is not associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of significant
persons in the past (Criterion B); does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or methods of
construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C);and is unlikely to yield
significant information on the history of the area (Criterion D). As such, site 31ML107 is recommended ineligible
for inclusion in the NRHP.
November 2022 48

Archaeological Survey S
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin 13
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
_ r
Al AV,
_r�'# �..,, - ,��� rye. '•I�,
Figure 5.24. Typical shovel test profile at site 31ML107.
a
41"
Figure 5.25.Flagstone and crick chimney remains at site 31ML107,facing south.
November 2022 49

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
• 1
elf
r=.
Figure 5.26. Portion of a fieldstone wall at stie 31ML107,facing northwest.
AL
t $ L:'..
� •��' ' ` ,�_ �.i1p, Yew.
Figure 5.27. Washing machine and glass jar scatter identified within site 31ML107, facing west.
November 2022 50

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin �r
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Ok
vw
46
fop
S r�
. s
r. -AL
R
Figure 5.28. Google Earth imagery from 1994 showing a structure at the location of site 31ML107.
November 2022 51

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
!� c
ra
r Y • � YI � r.��
i
i
.�4•,
Figure 5.29. Google Earth imagery from 1998 showing a structure at the location of site 31ML107.
November 2022 S2

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
�,.. Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No.22-2110
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
On behalf of Quartz Corp, S&ME has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed freshwater reservoir
and emergency basin located roughly 0.7-mile south of Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, !North Carolina (Figures 1.1
and 1.2).The project area is made up of two noncontiguous areas, one is roughly 58.3 acres and location
northeast of NC Highway 226 and south of a portion of the North Toe River and the other is approximately 0.71-
acre and is located north of the North Toe River and southwest of Altapass Highway along a railroad corridor.
In a letter dated September 9, 2022, in response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME, the SHPO requested that
a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted in high probability areas that contain slope less than or
equal to 25 percent as well as a pedestrian reconnaissance in steeper area to record potential rock shelters or
historic quarry sites (Appendix A).The SHPO letter also stated that the project will have no effect on historic
structures and an architectural survey was not needed for this project. In email correspondence between Kimberly
Nagle with S&ME and Dylan Clark with the OSA, dated August 23, 2022, Ms. Nagle provided a map showing the
high probability areas that were to be systematically shovel tested due to the high probability for containing
archaeological sites. Mr. Clark agreed with the areas to be investigated on the map and the following field
methods were agreed upon:
Shovel testing at 30-m intervals with transects spaced 30-m apart; 20-m intervals should be used if
`r✓ time allowed.
If sites are identified, radial shovel tests will be excavated at 15-m intervals; 5-m intervals should be
used if time allowed.
Judgmental shovel tests would be placed in areas to verify the disturbed or poorly drained nature of
the soils;disturbances would be photographed.
The remaining portions of the project area would be pedestrian surveyed looking for rockshelters,
quarry sites, or artifacts on the ground surface.
The following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and the presented field methods and was
carried out in general accordance with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in S&ME
Proposal No. 213314 PCR002, dated October 6, 2022. The APE for direct effects for the proposed undertaking is
the footprint of the project area; indirect effects were not assessed as SHPO determined that the project would
have no effect on historic structures.
Based on the accepted approach to fieldwork outlined above, approximately 33.48 acres was shovel tested at 20-
m intervals; approximately 11.21 acres was pedestrian surveyed along with judgmental shovel testing due to its
low probability for containing archaeological sites; approximately 14.32 acres was not surveyed due to standing
water, excessive slope, or excessive disturbance (Figure 4.1). Fieldwork for the project was conducted from
October 26 through 28, 2022; specifically, three people worked for three days on the project.
As a result of the investigations, one new archaeological site (31 ML107) was identified and recorded. Site
31ML107 is a nineteenth through twentieth century house site and is recommended not eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). It is the opinion ofS&ME that no additional archaeological work is necessary for
the project area. If the project area changes additional cultural resource work may be necessary.
November 2022 53

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No.22-2110
7.0 References Cited
Adovasio, J.M., and D.R. Pedler
1996 Monte Verde and the Antiquity of Humankind in the America.Antiquity 71:573-580.
Adovasio, James M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology, 1975-1990.American Antiquity 55(2):348-354.
Adovasio, James M., J.D. Gunn,J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guilday, and K. Lord
1979 Meadowcroft Rockshelter—Retrospective 1977: Part I. North American Archaeologist 1:3-44.
1980a Meadowcroft Rockshelter—Retrospective 1977: Part 2. North American Archaeologist 1(2):99-137.
Adovasio, James M., J.D. Gunn,J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guilday, and K.Volman
1980b Yes Virginia, It Really is that Old: A Reply to Haynes and Mead.American Antiquity 45:588-595.
Ager,John, Douglas Swaim, and Talmage Powell
1981 Cabins and Castles. the History and Architecture of Buncombe County, North Carolina. Division of Archives
and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
`�-- Ahler, Stanley A.
1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to
LithicAnolysis, edited by D.O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp.85-118. Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association No. 1.
Alexander, Nancy
1956 Here Will I Dwell: the Story of Caldwell County. Rowel Press Company, Sailsbury.
Anderson, David G.
1992 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In
Poleoindion and Early Archaic Research in the Lower Southeast:A South Carolina Perspective, edited by D. G.
Anderson, K. E.Sassaman, and C.Judge, pp. 28-47. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists,
Columbia.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States:A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley.
American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Anderson, David G., and J. W.Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah Rivera Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource
Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. 2 vols. Gilbert/Commonwealth Associates, Inc.,
Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to Interagency Archeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta.
`"WWI
November 2022 54

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
�,. Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
vwaa
SHPO ER No.22-2110
Anderson, David G., Lisa O'Steen, and Kenneth E.Sassaman
1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Edited by
D.G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher Judge (editors)
1992 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast:A South Carolina Perspective. Council
of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.
Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort,Jr.
2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David
G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort,Jr., pp. 1-19. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the South Carolina Area. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp.222-237. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Arthur, John Preston
1914 Western North Carolina:A History(From 7730— 7973). The Edward Buncombe Chapter of the Daughters
of the American Revolution, Ashville. Edwards and Broughton Printing Company, Raleigh.
Bishir, Catherine W., Michael T_ Southern, and Jennifer F. Martin
1999 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina_ The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson. Anthropological Studies 9. Occasional Papers of the
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, pp. 53-72.
Brown, Henry C.
1900 Railroad Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Corporation Commission. Rand McNally and Company,
Engravers, Chicago. Available at: <http://hdl.loc_gov/loc.gmd/g3901 p.rr002740>
Chapman, Jefferson, and James M.Adovasio
1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee.American Antiquity 42:620-625.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5).
Philadelphia.
November 2022 55

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 7663-7943. North Carolina State Department of Archives
and History, Raleigh.
Daniel, I. Randolph.Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited. Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States.American
Antiquity 66:237-265.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of
Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant Jr. and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1-37_American
Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Dickens, Roy S.,Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory- The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Dillehay, T. C.
1989 Monte Verde.A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.
Dykeman, Wilma
1965 The French Broad.Wakestone Books, Newport, Tennessee.
Glassow, M. A.
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources.American Antiquity4l(3):413-420.
Goodyear, Albert C., III
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functionai Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas.Arkansas Archeological
Survey Research Series, No. 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
2005 Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Poleaamerican Origins:Beyond Clovis, edited by
Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley Lepper, Dennis Standford, and Michael Waters. Center for the Study of the First
Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A/M University.
Goodyear, Albert C., III., James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Robert L.
Stephenson, pp. 19-52, Anthropological Studies 9. Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Griffin, James B.
w.rr
1945 Ceramic Collections from Two South Carolina Sites. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters 30:465-476.
November 2022 56

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 213314 I
vrrra�
SHPO ER No.22-2110
Heide, Gregory, and Michael Russo
2003 Investigation of the Coosaw Island Shell Ring Complex(38BU7866). Report prepared for the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources Heritage Trust Program, by the Southeast Archaeological Center, National
Park Service, Tallahassee.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinentol and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology:A Study of the Appalachian Summit.The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Kerr, Washington Caruthers and William Cain
1882 North Carolina. American Geographical Society Digital Map Collection. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Library.Available at: <http://collections,lib.uwm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/agdm/id/346>
McAvoy,Joseph M., and Lynn McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research Report Series
No. 8.Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
McRae, John and Robert H. B. Brazier
1833 A New Mop of the State of North Carolina, Constructed from Actual Surveys. North Carolina Maps.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Available at:
<http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/l 81/rec/7>.
McDonald,Jerry N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a bone Tool
Dated 14,510 yr B.P.leffersoniono 9:1-59.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C.Vance Haynes, Franciso
Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile.American Antiquity 62(4):659-663.
Miller, George L.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to
1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1-25.
Munsell
1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
November 2022 57

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 213314 N
SHPO ER No.22-2110
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
1938 Mitchell County and Yancey County, North Carolina. State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives,
Raleigh.Available at: <https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/550/rec/37>
1953 Mitchell County. State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Available at:
<https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/8066/rec/42>
1968 Mitchell County.State Highway Map. North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Available at:
<https-.//dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/4160/rec/52>
North Carolina Geological Survey
2004 North Carolina Geology[Online WWW].Available URL:
<http://www.geofogy.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm.>
1985 "Geologic Map of North Carolina_" North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain:Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina, An Archaeological Symposium edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-51. Division
of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
Price, Jonathan and John Strother
`—' 1808 The First Actual Survey of the State of North Carolina. North Carolina Maps. University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. Available at: < http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/520>
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western Mountain
Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina:An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
2003 Mapping the Sewee Shell Ring. Report prepared for the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, by the
Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, Kenneth E_, and David G. Anderson
1995 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for Research and Resource
Management.Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 6, 2nd edition. South Carolina Institute of
�` Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
November 2022 58

Archaeological Survey A"w
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
r.r Mitchell County, North Carolina o
S&ME Project No. 213314 I
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
Sassaman, Kenneth E., I Randolph Daniel Jr., and Christopher R. Moore
2002 G.S. Lewis-East: Early and Late Archaic Occupation along the Savannah River,Aiken County, South Carolina.
Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 12, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G.Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley.-A Synthesis of Archaeological
Investigations on the Savannah River Site,Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River
Archaeological Research Papers 1, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Saunders, Rebecca, and Michael Russo
2002 The Fig Island Ring Complex(38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late
Archaic. Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.
Sharpe, Bill
1954 A New Geography of North Carolina. Sharpe Publishing Company, Raleigh.
Sondley, Foster Alexander and Theodore F. Davidson
1922 Asheville and Buncombe County.The Citizen Company, Asheville.
South, Stanley
1976 An Archeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. In The Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology Notebook, edited by Robert L. Stephenson, pp.1-55. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
United States Geological Survey(USGS)
1934 Spruce Pine. 15-minute topographic quadrangle.
1960 Spruce Pine. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1990 Spruce Pine. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War_Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone,
Ward, Trawick H.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina:An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp.
53-80. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H.Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis,Jr.
1999 Time Before History. The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Webb, Paul A., and David S. Leigh
1995 Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the Yadkin River Floodplain.
Southern Indian Studies 44:1-36.
November 2022 59

Archaeological Survey
+ter
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
�r Mitchell County, North Carolina r
S&ME Project No. 213314 111 E
SHPO ER No.22-2110
8.0 Appendix A - SHPO Correspondence
November 2022 60

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Banos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin].Waters,Ph.D.
September 9,2022
Rebeckah Sims [e-mail]
S&ME
2016 Ayrsley Town Boulevard, Suite 2-A
Charlotte,NC 28273
Re: Construct Freshwater Reservoir, Emergency Basin and Lay Down Area, Mitchell County,
ER 22-2110
Dear Ms. Sims:
Thank you for your letter of August 23, 2022, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submission and offer the following comments:
The area of potential effects (APE) for the proposed undertaking between the North Toe River and Grassy
Creek is in an area with a high potential for cultural resources that has not been systematically surveyed
before. We recommend a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted prior to the initiation of any
ground disturbing activities in portions of the APE with 25% or less slope. Pedestrian reconnaissance
should also be conducted in steeper areas to record any potential rock shelters or historic quarry sites.
The purpose of the survey is to identify any archaeological sites and to make recommendations regarding
their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The survey should be
conducted by an experienced archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional
Qualifications. A list of archaeological consultants, who have conducted or expressed an interest in
contract work in North Carolina is available at h!tps:Harchaeolog .ny cdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list.
The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contracted to conduct the
recommended survey. Our office requests that your consultant meet with the Office of State
Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the field
investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy(PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA)through this office for review and comment, as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background
Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at:
hitps://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/osa-guidelines.
Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6898

ER 22-2110,September 09,Page 2 of 2
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 [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(L.-, V1,6LO�
Jam.Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(> State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Lori Beckwith,USACE Loretta.A.BeckwithO)usace.army.mil
Location:109 East ones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6898

Archaeological Survey
Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin
Mitchell County, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 213314
a
SHPO ER No. 22-2110
9.0 Appendix B - Artifact Catalog
November 2022 61

Appendix B-Freshwater Reservoir and Emergency Basin Artifact Catalog
Depth Weight Lithic Size
Site# Cat.# Provenience (cmbs) Count (g) Class Category Sub-Category Type/Description Material Portion Temper Grade Notes
31ML107 1.01 STP 5-1+10N 0-10 1 7.2 Metal Other Wire 1831-Present
31ML107 1.02 STP 5-1+10N 0-10 3 94.4 Metal Other Chain
31ML107 1.03 STP 5-1+10N 0-10 2 25.3 Metal Other Unid.Iron
31ML107 2.01 STP 5-1+10E 0-25 1 2.5 H.Ceramic Ref.Earthenware Whiteware Plain Body 1815-Present
31ML107 I 2.02 STP 5-1+10E 0-25 1 21 0.2 Glass IMachine Molded Unld.Vessel I Clear
31ML107 1 3.01 ISTP 5-1+5S 0-20 1 21 9.6 Metal I Other Wi I I1831-Present
Artifact measurements in mm Page I of I