9809_WilsonCDLF_SiteStudy_20220504

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CAD Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
C
August 2020
(Revised October 2021)
Prepared by:
NCLENO.F-1370 (ENGINEERING)
GAR 0 N E R nt BARTLETT
FNMINEENIMCA 5iIHYEYIM6 , PE
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 1 919.82B.0577
PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER
© 2021 Smith Cerdner, Inc.
This document is intended for the sole use ofthe client for which it was prepared and
for the purpose agreed upon by the client and Smith Cerdner, Inc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill — Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson, North Carolina
S+G Project No. Wilson-20-1
Ecu�dS""ign-e/d by:' rvu(�
E64007440...
W. Michael Brinchek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
DocuSigned by:
B9779EBA711F488...
Joan A. Smyth, P.G.
Vice President, Senior Hydrogeologist
August 2020
(Revised October2021)
I I1111"44
ARO
SEAL 10z9,
028426
1
C A R
4� EN
S—Er�l F
10/ 9/ 021
1369
NCLIC.NO.F-1370 (ENGINEERING)
SMITH GARNER
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 1 919.82B.0577

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Westside CAD Landfill — Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina
Site Study
Table of Contents
Paqe
1.0
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1
Site Development History............................................................................................1
1.2
Previous Site Studies...................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Initial Site Studies...........................................................................................2
2.0
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES.......................................................................................2
2.1
Characterization Study................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Site Information and Haul Routes..................................................................2
2.1.3 Haul Routes.....................................................................................................2
2.1.4 Surrounding Land Use....................................................................................2
2.1.5 Potabl e Wel I s...................................................................................................
3
3.0
SITE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS.....................................................................................3
3.1
Floodplains...................................................................................................................4
3.2
Wetlands (and Streams)..............................................................................................4
3.3
Unstable Areas.............................................................................................................4
3.4
Cultural Resources......................................................................................................4
3.5
State Nature and Historic Preserves.........................................................................4
3.6
Water Supply Watersheds...........................................................................................5
3.7
Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................5
4.0
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.................................................................................5
5.0
FACILITY PLAN...............................................................................................................5
6.0
SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT....................................................................................5
6.1
Local and Regional Geology........................................................................................5
6.2
Site Reconnaissance....................................................................................................6
6.3
Geotechnical Investigation..........................................................................................6
6.3.1 Soil Boring Locations......................................................................................6
6.3.2 Laboratory Analysis........................................................................................7
6.4
Stratigraphic and Hydrogeologic Units......................................................................7
6.5
Water Table Information.............................................................................................7
6.5.1 Short -Term Water Levels...............................................................................7
6.5.2 Long -Term Water Levels................................................................................7
6.5.3 Factors that Influence the Water Table.........................................................8
6.6
Horizontal and Vertical Ground Water Flow Dimensions.........................................8
6.6.1 Aquifer Slug Testing........................................................................................8
6.6.2 Vertical Gradient..............................................................................................9
6.7
Ground Water Contour Mapping.................................................................................9
6.8
Other Geologic/Hydrogeologic Considerations.......................................................10
6.9
Summary....................................................................................................................10
Wilson
County Westside C&D Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August
2020 (Revised
October 2021) Table of Contents Page
i

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
7.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN..........................................................................10
8.0 LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN............................................................................11
FIGURES
Figure 1
Characterization Study
Figure 2
Existing Conditions
Figure 3
Seasonal High Potentiometric Surface Map
Figure 4
June 2020 Potentiometric Surface Map
Figure 5
Cross -Section A -A'
Figure 6
Cross -Section B-B'
Figure 7
Cross -Section C-C'
TABLES
Table 1
Well Construction Information
Table 2
Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis Data Summary
Table 3
Groundwater Elevations Over Time
Table 3A
Annual Precipitation Graph
Table 4
Horizontal Groundwater Velocity
Table 5
Vertical Gradient Evaluation
Table 6
Subgrade Separation Summary
APPENDICES
Appendix A Location Restrictions Documentation
Appendix A.1 Wetlands Mapping
Appendix A.2 Soil Survey Map
Appendix A.3 Archaeological Study and Correspondence
Appendix A.4 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Correspondence
Appendix A.5 Water Supply Watershed Map
Appendix A.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Appendix B Soil Boring/Piezometer Installation Records
Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Data
Appendix D Aquifer Slug Testing Results
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill -Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Table of Contents Page ii

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
1.o INTRODUCTION
This Site Study report is submitted on behalf of Wilson County for the proposed expansion of the
Westside C&D Landfill, located on NC Highway 42 , approximately one (1) mile east of US
Highway 301, near Wilson, NC. This facility is permitted for the disposal of Construction and
Demolition (C&D) waste under Solid Waste Permit No. 98-09. The landfill is permitted to serve
Wilson County.
The Westside C&D landfill facility encompasses approximately 700 acres owned bywilson
County. Currently, the site consists of:
• active C&D landfill (approximately 10.5 acres);
• scales and office/scalehouse;
• convenience center;
• maintenance building;
• inert debris area;
• white goods and scrap metal handling area;
• compost area;
• tear off shingles for recycling area;
• comingled recycling storage/transfer building; and
• wood waste processing area.
This Site Study is prepared for the proposed Area 2 expansion of approximately 17.2 acres.
Included in this report are regional and local characterization studies (Section 2.0), discussion
of site location restrictions (Section 3.0), a site hydrogeologic report (Section 4.0), a proposed
facility plan (Section 5.0), and local government approval documentation (Section 6.0).
1.1 Site Development History
The landfill facilitywas originally developed for an unlined MSW landfill from 1974to
1997 (Permit No. 98-01) which covered 63 acres located east of the surface water
feature Buck Branch. The MSW landfill was closed by December 31, 1997 and covered.
At that time, 7± acres of the closed MSW landfill were permitted for C&D disposal on top
of the cap. In 1997 the facility also contained a rubber -tire monofil I (industrial landfill)
approximately4 acres in size, a 2.5 acre asbestos landfill, and an LCID landfill. A
separate C&D Landfill (the Westside unit located west of Buck Branch) was permitted as
an unlined landfill for disposal of C&D in 2004. The site was expanded in 2010 and in
2015 certain recycling features were added to the facility including the recycling
storage/transfer building.
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
1.2 Previous Site Studies
1.2.1 Initial Site Studies
In 2006, Babb and Associates, Inc. performed the initial investigation of the
proposed Area 2 expansion area. This investigation included the advancement of
fourteen (14) borings (B-5 through B-19) and the installation of four (4)
piezometers (PZ-1 through PZ-4). Borings were generally installed to depths of
approximately 15 to 30 feet below grade, with the exception of B-12 which was
drilled to 40 feet below grade and B-11 which was drilled to 50 feet below grade.
In general, the soils encountered ranged from sands and clayey sands to sandy
cl ays.
2.0 CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES
This section describes the regional and local characterization studies which were completed
following the requirements of 95A NCAC >3B.0536(c)(1).
2.1 Characterization Stu
Figure 1 shows the site vicinity and 2000-foot radius on an aerial photograph at a scale
of 1 inch = 600 feet. Existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. The facility is located on
Hwy 42, approximately one (1) mile east of US Hwy 301, near Wilson, NC.
2.1.2 Site Information and Haul Routes
The landfill serves Wilson County. The scale house is currently located at the
north end of the site and is accessed by NC Hwy 42. General drainage patterns in
the vicinity of the landfil I are to the south toward Toi snot Swamp. There are 100-
year floodplains present along the edges of Toisnot Swamp within the 2,000-foot
radius, but none of these are located in the proposed expansion area.
2.1.3 Haul Routes
Current traffic patterns to the landfill utilize NC Hwy 42, and gravel paved site
roads. Current service areas and public road haul routes wil I not be modified.
2.1.4 Surroundino Land Use
Existing land use in the area of the facility is mixed residential, agricultural,
undeveloped land, and industrial. The facility is bounded to the north by
approximately28 houses along Heather Court and Buck Branch Road, and along
NC Hwy42 by Elton Smith Mini -Storage and Harbor Light Holiness Church. The
remaining area north of the proposed expansion is undeveloped land. To the east
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
of the facility along Tarts Mill Road are homes, and Pridgen Farms, located north
of Landfill Road.
The expansion footprint is bounded to the east and south by Toisnot Swamp, and
to the west by the wood waste/compost area. West of the facility in this area are
houses, aBrian Tarping Systems, and Fulford and Jones Asphalt Plant located
near the 2000 foot radius. Immediately north of NC Hwy42 is Wilson Mold and
Machine, Inc. Potential sources of contamination have been identified on Figure
1. The potential sources of contamination are limited to the Ful ford and Jones
Asphalt Plant and Wilson Mold and Machine, Inc.
2.1.5 Potable Wells
There are no known public water supplywells or surface water intakes within
2000 feet of the landfill. A potable well survey conducted in March 2020 identified
36 potable wells within a 2000 foot radius, Located at a mobile home on Buck
Branch Road, the closest potable well is roughly 1100 feet away from the
proposed footprint. Nowell construction records are available. No significant
ground water users with respect to ground water withdrawal rates were
identified in the area, e.g., schools, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, or large
populations. Municipal water is available in the area along all major streets,
including along Landfill Road. None of the private potable wells identified are
considered down gradient of the existing or proposed landfill between the landfil I
and the groundwater discharge point of Toisnot Swamp. Potable wells, the
proposed landfill footprint, and the discussed 2000 foot radius can be found on
Figure 1.
3.0 SITE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
Site location restrictions as set forth in 15A NCAC 93B.0536(c) (4)-(90)were reviewed relative to
the proposed expansion area. These restrictions include:
• Floodplains - .0536(c) (4)
• Wetlands (and Streams) - .0536(c) (5)
• Unstable Areas - .0536(c)(6)
• Cultural Resources - .0536(c) (7)
• State Nature and Historic Preserve - .0536(c) (8)
• Water Supply Watersheds - .0536(c) (9)
• Endangered and Threatened Species - .0536(c) (10)
Each of these restrictions is discussed below. It appears that none of these restrictions
presents an issue for the expansion area.
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
3.1 Floodplains
The main drainage feature on the site is Toisnot Swamp. As shown on Figure 2, no
floodplains exist within the proposed Area 2 footprint.
3.2 Wetlands (and Streams)
Soil and Environmental Consultants, P.A. (S&EC) performed awetland delineation,
which was confirmed by the USACE on February 28, 2020. None of the wetlands
identified at the facilitywill be impacted bythe proposed expansion. Wetland survey
information is provided in Appendix A.1.
3.3 Unstable Areas
Past site investigations indicates no areas of soft ground, mines, voids, or other unstable
areas within the future expansion area with respect to slope stability and settlement
potential that could potentially damage or disrupt structural components of the
proposed landfill. Also, the soil types (Wagram (WaB), Norfolk (NoB), and Gritney (GtB2))
indicated on USDA-NRCS soil survey information (Appendix A.2) are sandy loams to
loamy sands and are not problematic with respect to the development of the proposed
landfill. Detailed slope stability and settlement analyses have been performed as part of
the permit to construct application, and is included in the Facility and Engineering Plan
(Attachment E).
3.4 Cultural Resources
Areas of archaeological or historical significance were identified adjacent to the
proposed landfill expansion, which will remain undisturbed. Additionally, an area within
the proposed landfill footprint may contain areas of archaeological or historical
significance. These areas will remain undisturbed until further study has been
completed. Documentation of the archaeological study is provided in Appendix A.3.
3.5 State Nature and Historic Preserves
The proposed expansion area wil I not adversely affect any lands included in the State
Nature and Historic Preserve. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program furnished
a letter on February 13, 2020 (Appendix A.4) stating that there are no rare species,
important natural communities, natural areas and or conservation/management areas
within the proposed project boundary.
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
3.6 Water Supply Watersheds
The proposed expansion area is not located in a water supply watershed as classified by
15A NCAC.02B.0200. The landfill is located in the drainage basin of Toisnot Swamp, a
Class Csurface water, in the Neuse River Basin (AppendixA.5).
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
The future expansion area will not adversely affect any known rare and endangered
species habitats. Threatened and endangered species information is provided in
Appendix A.6.
4.0 LOCAL GOVERN MENTAPPROVAL
Local government approval was received during the June 1, 2020 County Commissioners
meeting; supporting documentation including, notification of adjoining landowners, public
notice, and commissioners meeting minutes are provided in Attachment D to the Permit to
Construct Application.
5.o FACILITY PLAN
Afacilityand engineering plan is included in Attachment F to the Permit to Construct
Application.
6.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
This section describes the site hydrogeologic report which was completed following the
requirements of 15A NCAC 13B. 1623(a).
6.1 Local and Regional Gedogy
The Westside C&D Landfill Area 2 expansion sits within the North Carolina Coastal
Plain. The coastal plain is characterized as an eastward thickening wedge of
sedimentary layers that alternate between sandy aquifers and aquitards. Information
taken from The Geologic Map of North Carolina, 1985shows proposed Area 2 footprint is
underlain by the Yorktown Formation, which is described as "fossillifferous clay with
varying amounts of fine-grained sand, silty sand, sandy silt, silty clay, and blueish gray
shell material". Sediments meeting this description, including the bluish shell fragment
material, have been found in borings at the site.
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill -Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
6.2 Site Reconnaissance
Topographic Setting and Drainage
Site mapping (Figure 2) shows the Area 2 expansion area is situated in the uplands
above Toisnot Swamp. Buck Branch, which drains to the Toisnot Swamp, is situated to
the east of the proposed Area 2. Maximum existing ground elevations in the expansion
area are approximately El. 112. The site gently slopes to the south and slopes more
sharply to the east toward Buck Branch. The eastern quarter of the proposed
expansion area drains to the east, while the remaining footprint drains to the south.
Bedrock characteristics
Bedrock was not encountered during this investigation.
Springs, Seeps and Q ound Water Discharge Features
Groundwater at this site discharges to Toisnot Swamp, or to Buck Branch (which drains
to Toisnot Swamp). No springs or seeps have been observed in the proposed expansion
area.
6.3 Geotechnical Investigation
6.3.1 Soil Boring Locations
Figure 2 shows the locations of soil borings performed during this site
evaluation, along with soil boring locations from previous investigations in the
area. A total of 30 test borings were advanced in and around the 17.2-acre Area
2 expansion area. The soil boring locations represent conditions at higher
elevations of the site as well as closer to Toisnot Swamp and Buck Branch.
Groundwater was encountered in most of the soil borings, and six (6) of them
were converted to 2-inch diameter grouted piezometers for long-term ground
water observation. Boring depths varied from 5 to 50 feet. The piezometer
screen intervals were selected to intersect the uppermost aquifer.
Table 1 presents a summary of soil boring data, e.g. termination depths, as well
as piezometer screen intervals. Soil boring logs and piezometer completion
records (including soil boring information from previous studies) are presented
in Appendix B.
The soil borings were drilled with a GeoProbe m drill rig. Soil samples were
collected from continuous core samples. Additionally, several bulk samples
were collected via backhoe for laboratory analysis (see Section 4.3.2).
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
6.3.2 Laboratory Analysis
Table 2 presents a summary of laboratory test data for the recently completed
test borings and for two (2) test pits excavated at the site.
The soils were classified in the laboratory according the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) as well as USDA soil classifications. Soils were
analyzed by sieve analysis with hydrometer, for Atterberg Limits and for natural
moisture. Test pit samples were also analyzed for moisture -density relationship.
Laboratory data is presented in Appendix C.
Soils were generally classified as SP, SM, SC, CH and CL and ranged from sand,
sandy loam, clay loam to clay in the USDA classification. Sand content in the
soils analyzed ranged from approximately 15%to approximately77%.
6.4 Stratigraphic and Hydrogeologic Units
The site geology and hydrogeology is consistent with the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
The site was characterized using information from previous investigations which
included PZ-1 through PZ-4 and B-5 through B-19, and the current investigation which
included MW-1 through MW-6 and MW-6d, and SB-1 through 4.
The hydrogeology encountered in these borings, located inside and outside the proposed
footprint, are very consistent. The surficial (uppermost) aquifer is comprised of sands,
clayey sands and sandy clays. In general, soils alternated between sandy material and
clayey material. This is consistent with the depositional environment of transgressive
and regressive seas, and is also consistent with a fluvial depositional environment which
is likely due to the location of the Westside Area 2 between Buck Branch and Toisnot
Swamp.
Groundwater was typically encountered in the upper 10 feet below grade at the site in
sandy material. Figures 5 through 7 present generalized subsurface profiles prepared
from the soil boring and laboratory data, depicting hydrogeologic units for this site.
6.5 Water Table Information
6.5.1 Short -Term Water Levels
Table 3 presents a summary of ground water measurements over time.
Recently installed borings (MW-1 through MW-61D) currently have data from May
2020 to April 2021.. Springtime typically yields the highest water table elevations
in North Carolina due to rainfall and limited evapotranspiration. Groundwater
elevations in these wells thus far range from 86.13 fmsl to 107.40 fmsl.
6.5.2 Lono-Term Water Levels
VVilson County VVestside CH Landfill -Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Tables 3 also presents a summary of long-term water level observations in
previously installed piezometers (PZ-1 through PZ-4). Water levels for these
piezometers include a year's worth of measurements from April 2016 through
March 2017, as well as May and June 2020. For all four of these piezometers,
the highest water levels were measured in February 2021 with maximum water
levels ranging from 89.42 fmsl to 107.95 fmsl...
A review of annual precipitation data from the area between the years 2000 and
2019 indicates the highest annual rainfall amounts were in 2003, 2015, 2016 and
2018. This data is summarized on the graph presented in Table 3A. Each of these
years had over 60 inches of rainfall. Based on this, we believe the water level
measurements for PZ-1 through PZ-4 represent some of the highest water
elevations at the site.
The highest groundwater levels observed in each well have been contoured on
the seasonal high composite ground water potentiometric map (Figure 3) and
hydrogeologic cross sections (Figures 5-7) to represent the maximum estimated
seasonal high ground water levels. The conceptual Area 2 base grades are
designed based on these estimated seasonal high ground water levels.
Groundwater flow is to the west and south toward the two discharge features of
Buck Branch and Toisnot Swamp (Figures 3 and 4).
6.5.3 Factors that Influence the Water Table
Numerous natural and man-made factors are present which could potentially
influence long-term groundwater levels. Man-made influences include paved
areas and buildings located at the facility. Natural influence include climatic
changes and the proximity to Toisnot Swamp and Buck Branch.
6.6 Horizontal and Vertical Ground Water Flow Dimensions
Figures 5-7 present generalized hydrogeologic cross -sections that show the horizontal
and vertical extent of the upper most aquifer and ground water flow characteristics.
Groundwater movement through the uppermost aquifer occurs in the interstitial spaces
of the unconsolidated soils. Soil types range from sands to clays, however, no areal ly
extensive aquitard was encountered during drilling.
The cross -sections show areas of recharge (downward ground water movement)
occurring over a majority of Area 2. Discharge occurs in the lower elevations near Buck
Branch and Toisnot Swamp.
6.6.1 Aquifer Slug Testing
Table 4 presents a summary of field hydrogeological properties, based on rising
head slug tests. Values of assumed total and effective porosity, aquifer thickness
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill -Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
and descriptions of the various hydrogeological units based on the laboratory
classification data are also presented in Table 3, along with calculated
conductivity values. Static water level measurements were made at the
beginning of each slug test.
The slug tests were conducted by placing a combined data recorder -pressure
transducer (In -Situ Mini TrolITM) at the bottom of the piezometer and removing
the volume of one full bailer from the piezometer. The data logger was used to
measure the rate of influx until water level equilibrium was reestablished. The
slug test data was analyzed using the Waterloo Hydrogeologic AquiferTestTM
program, according to the Bouwer- Rice procedure. The slug test data and
effective porosity evaluations are presented in Appendix D.
Field hydraulic conductivity values measured at the various piezometers vary
from 0.085 ft/day to 3.4 ft/day in the locations tested in uppermost aquifer sand
and silt.
6.6.2 Vertical Gradient
Table 5 presents vertical ground water gradients for MW-6 and MW-6d. The
vertical calculations compare water levels between the deeper and shallower
well screen intervals, which indicate whether a portion of the site is experiencing
recharge or discharge. Table 5 shows a slight downward gradient at MW-6 and
MW-6d. We believe these wells are located near the inflection point where an
upward gradient develops for discharge to Toisnot swamp.
6.7 Ground Water Contour Mapping
Figure 4 shows a synoptic ground water potentiometric surface based on water level
observations made in June 2020. The potentiometric contours reflect a subdued
expression of the surface topography, with discharge to the east and south toward Buck
Branch and Toisnot Swamp.
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 9

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
6.8 Other Geologic/Hydrogeologic Considerations
No unusual geologic features have been determined which would affect the ground
water flow or the ability to effectively monitor the site. Site conditions appear typical of
the North Carolina Coastal Plain region.
6.9 Summer
The Westside C&DLF Area 2 expansion is located in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
Site investigation has determined the soil types beneath the site to consist primarily of
sand, sandy clay, clayey sand and clays, which is typical of the Coastal Plain.
Groundwater flow in the uppermost aquifer was found to occur in the interstitial spaces
of the unconsolidated soils with recharge occurring to the north and east and discharge
of the aquifer flowing into Toisnot Swamp and Buck Branch (south and east of the
proposed Area 2). Groundwater contours confirm site discharge to the surface water
features to the south and east of the Area 2 footprint.
There are no groundwater users located down gradient of the Area 2 footprint between
the proposed landfill and the groundwater discharge point of Toisnot Swamp. Area
domestic wells are considered to be up gradient or cross -gradient of the site. No
unusual geologic features were detected within the site. There are sufficient soil
quantities to build a C&DLF which meets vertical separation requirements for ground
water. All available data suggest that the conditions within the Area 2 footprint are
similar and continuous with conditions encountered in the earlier site permitting studies
for the site. Groundwater flow characteristics are sufficiently well understood that an
effective monitoring program can be developed to ensure early detection of a release to
the uppermost aquifer. As such, the site appears to be suitable for permitting and
constructing a C&D landfill unit under current NC DWM rules.
7.o WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN
The proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the Westside C&D Landfill Area 2 expansion is
provided in Attachment K of the Permit to Construct Application. This plan initially proposed
three (3) wells to be monitored semi-annuallyfor the first phase, with wells added and removed
over the life of the Area 2 area as new phases are constructed. The plan was designed based
upon an understanding of groundwater flows presented in this study to provide water quality
monitoring between the landfill and the groundwater discharge locations of Buck Branch and
Toisnot Swamp.
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
s.o LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN
The proposed Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan for the Westside C&D LandfiI I Area 2 expansion is
provided in Attachment L of the Permit to Construct Application. Due to the eastern and
southern portions of the proposed expansion area being surrounded by Buck Branch and
Toisnot Swamp, and the understanding that surface water is a natural barrier to landfill gas
migration, the plan focuses monitoring to the north and east of the site.
Wilson County Westside CH Landfill- Area 2 Site Study
August 2020 (Revised October 2021) Page 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Figures
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
PREPARED FOR-
11
0
U)
_1 4
E ntiT.�:, ram■■'' _
LEGEND
Q POTABLE WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED C&DLF FOOTPRINT
FACILITY BOUNDARY 2000-FT BUFFER
r-----
LIMITS OF WASTE/CLAY CAP ISEE REFERENCE 41
PARCEL BOUNDARY
CONTOUR 12' INTERVALI
APPROXIMATE EXISTING STREAM
0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
FLOODWAY
TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE
NOTES
1. ADJACENT PARCEL NO.3732-51-3315, OWNED BY PERRY DUBOSE
BULLARD. CONTAINS A CLOSED LCID LANDFILL HD #iNO0801
REFERENCE
I. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FROM THE NC LIDAR PROGRAM, DATED 2014,
2. PARCEL, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AND IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP_
3. FLOOD ZONES FROM THE FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER.
4. STREAMS FROM THE USGS NATIONAL HYDRGGRAPHY DATASET.
5, WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES. INCLUDING CAP LIMITS, FROM DRAWING
"LANDFI LL 51TE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1100, PREPARED
BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E_
6. ROADS FROM NCOOT.
7. ZONING DATA FROM THE CITY OF WILSON AND WILSON COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENTS-
0 600 1,200 1,800
Feet
WILSON COUNTY
' REPARED BY:
SMITH
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
4 ++
10
SEAL
i
g 028426
!`. I Pi,I I DESCRIPTION
Electronic files are instrumen•.s of service provided by
Smith Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended
reclpientlsl. and no warranty Is either expressed or
implied. Any reuse or redistribution of this document In
whole or part without the written authorization of SmHh
Gardner, Inc_, will be at the sole risk of the recipient, If
there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and
the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard copies shall
govern. Use of any electronic files generated or
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes aii
acceptance of these terms and conditions.
PROJECT TITLE:
WESTSIDE EGO LANDFILL
AREA 2 EXPANSION
`:AWING TITLE:
CHARACTERIZATION STUDY:
AERIAL & TOPOGRAPHY
JAS
WILSON 20-1
DRAWN-
SCALE:
JDM
1.7,200
APPROVED:
DALE.
Jul. 2021
FILENAME:
WILSON-COOOB
SHFETfi1l1MBER;
i7rlAWtxsi= ,11' RFr
I~IGIA
J
nr,

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
n1R.7on..RFr Fr'
NENTIAL
1_ICi1 f I '
D UAL
n 000
IIIUIIIi l y0000_
❑L Q� r'lrFitcrA WILSON MOLD AND
Rif fl, MACHINE, INC. 1
LIGHT HIGHWAY
LIGI17'- RURAL 'INDUSTRIAL CnhfMERCIAL _
1l4'U( S77i1.1f. ~:1C.RI(Y11A"URAL
GFNER Ai' V a� -
- -`-----coAl+trGRCL fL
Herring Ave !'oythressRd� J
a •
Nolan �� G7 ❑ `ti \ ��
SPEIGHT ELIZABETH W
FULFORD AND JONES Whitley Rd ❑ r 3732-64-5287.000
- ASPHALT
4CiRlC'Ul.11 R:IL • RC1_I 4L
AGRICULTURAL a
I 1I1 -®a ■ ■
J v
BARBER NANCY
U 8 BIJLLARO
3732.73.3494.000
r - m61eBroaks Rd >� --------- RURAL
Sir AGRICT 11.TURAL
SP
E}11EA
� r
RURAL
AGRICULTURAL
CJPGN
.S'1'4 CR
n
Cl EME
o 0 �o
bo
a o �
� 0
a
L
PRIDGEN FARMS
OF 01
WILSON COUNTY
PREPARED BY:
SMITH{
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
SEAL E
❑28426
LEGEND C•�:::,a¢�••••'''`
r r r
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ADJACENT PARCEL
PARCEL LINE
PROPOSED C&DLF FOOTPRINT
rrrr
1 FACILITY BOUNAARY2000-FT BUFFER
LIMITS OF WASTE/CLAY CAP SEE REFERENCE 41
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
COMMERCIAL
REV. DATE DESCRIPT
- INDUSTRIAL
Q RESIDENTIAL
OTHER
City of Wilson Zoning
as
NC
ti
ICD
' GC
HC
CCMX
NMX
RMX
IMx
LI
HI
RA
SR4
SR6
GR6
UR
MHR
WILson County Zoning Electronic files are instrumen-.s of service provided by
® Smith Gardner, Inc, for the convenience of the intended
recipientlsl, and no warranty is either expressed or
AR implied. Any reuse or redistribution of this document in
61 ^hale or part without the written authorization of Smith
srdner, Inc_, will be at the sole risk of the recipient. If
t31 CD Ilrere is a discrepancy between the electronic files and
82 the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard copies shall
82-CD govern. use of any electronic files generated or
_ M1 provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an
MI -CD
acceptance of these terms and conditions-
�
M2
Oi PROJECTTfTLE.
® 01-CD
R1G-CD
R15MH
R15MH-CD
R155 R20 WESTSIDE COD LANDFILL
R20MH AREA 2 EXPANSION
TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE
NOTES
1. ADJACENT PARCEL NO.3732-51-3315, OWNED BY PERRY OUBOSE
BULLARD. CONTAINS A CLOSE} LCiD LANDFILL 110 #NO0801
REFERENCE
I. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FROM THE NC LIDAR PROGRAM, DATED 2014.
2. PARCELS, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AND IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP.
K FLOOD ZONES FROM THE FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER.
4. STREAMS FROM THE U505 NATIONAL HYOROGRAPHY DATASET.
5, WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS, FROM DRAWING
"LANDFILL SITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8f1100, PREPARED
BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E_
6. ROADS FROM NCDOT.
7. ZONINO DATA FROM THE CITY OF WILSON AND WILSON COUNTY
GIs DEPARTMENTS.
DRA'WikjG TITLE:
CHARACTERIZATION STUDY:
ZONING R STRUCTURES
JAS WILSON 20-1
_;,'yI• KALE
J D M 1.7,200
APPREIVI=Ij ! IL
Jul. 2021
INDUSTRIAL, ��'A, US 264a
st"
LIGHT
HT SUBURBAN
INIJUSTRIAL RESMENT1AL LOWDENSITY
Ni.
rD Smith Gardner, Inc-
0 600 1,200
1,800
ii Feet
WIL50N-00008
T
FIGiB

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
w
;1}
I
N
0
r
u�L
N
O
N
Hcrr irg Ave
rdne , Inc.
lk N
oRFDAREI? Fr,:-
0,
I
WILSON MOLD AND V
MACHINE, INC.
WILSON PARKsID1VISION
O'BRIAN TARPING
SYSTEMS
CLOSED LrCID LANDFILL
(SEEI.NOTE 11
AREA 2 C&D
0®rTP.RINT
♦
r +
♦r OL
t r
r !
l !
r
1
+
+
!
>f
CLOSED MSW LANDFILL
[PERMIT 98-01 ]
!
•r � ♦ I I
♦�
s � _
r♦
♦
rr •-
EXISTING LIMITS OF
WASTE/CLAY CAP
LA
PRIDGEN
0
LEGEND
L ' PROPOSED C&DLF FOOTPRINT
FACILITY BOUNDARY 2000-FT 8UFFER
! ! LIMITS OF WASTEICLAY CAP (SEE REFERENCE 41
PARCEL BOUNDARY
LAND USE/LAND COVER
No Data
- Water
Trees
Grass
Flooded Vegetation
Crops
Scrub/Shmb
- Built Area
Bare Ground
Snow/lce
Clouds
TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE
NOTES
1. ADJACENT PARCEL NO, 3732-51-3315, OWNED BY PERRY DUBOSE
BULLARD, CONTAINS A CLOSET} LCiD LANDFILL 110 #N00801
REFERENCE
1, EXI5TING TOPOGRAPHY FROM THE NC LIDAR PROGRAM, DATED 2014,
2, PARCELS, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AND IMAGERY FROM INC ONEMAP,
3, FLOOD ZONES FROM THE FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER.
4. STREAMS FROM THE USGS NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET.
5, WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES. INCLUDING CAP LIMITS, FROM DRAWING
-'LANAFILLSITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8f1100, PREPARED
BY GARY W. AHLBERG, PE-
G, ROADS FROM NCDOT.
7- ZONING DATA FROM THE CITY OF WILSON AND WILSON COUNTY
GI5 DEPARTMIENTS.
S. LAND USE DATA PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2a2U.
0 600 1,200 1,800
Feet
WILSON COUNTY
PREPARED BY
SMITH{
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
REV. I FIAT'-
J�,�■` .`"T ■f rrtti
4 SEAL
028426
DESCRIPTION
Electronic files are instrumen*.s of service provided by
Smith Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended
reclpientlsj, and no warranty Is either expressed or
implied. Any reuse or redistribution of this document in
-vhote or part without the written authorization of Smith
Gardner, Inc, will be at the sole risk of the recipient. If
there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and
the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard copies shall
govern. Use of any electronic files generated or
L,rovided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an
acceptance of these terms and conditions.
PROJFCT TITI_ F
WESTSIQE CSC LANDFILL
AREA 2 EXPANSION
DRA'WIkii,TIFILE
:
CHARACTERIZATION STUDY:
LAND USEAAND COZIER
JAS WILSON 20-1
HALE
J DN 1-3,200
APPFENI DAI E.
Jul. 2021
-hlnsnr:
WIL50N-00008
i it ET 1.1LIMBFR, NUMP.FIR
FIG1E

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
A�
m
rm
m
m
m -
m
m
m PREPARED FOR:
IV
W
N
W
IV
CA
Csl
IV
CA
W
IN
W
IV
CA
�
IV
CA
�
IVCA
CA
�
N
o I
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
��
/ I► \ \� \
\
LANDFILL ENTRANCE
3
N
\ \ �,
��
W ® E
COMMINGLED' /
RECYCLE TRANSFER'
\ o /
NC HWY 42E
4
FACILITY.
\ /
��►
230o
//
G A
SCALE HOUSE\
/
/' / / / / 1 _ —
\\� // /
I
/
PREPARED BY:
NC LIC. NO. F-1370 IENGINEERINGI
�/
\� ✓
l
SC COA NO. C01488
LP
SMITH+
MAINTENANCE
�l
Il A SHOP
GARDNER
N 722000
I I /
/
,.
RD
ENGINEERS
/i� e ��s
v _ 1
JJ
lJ
LEGEND
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 919.828.0577
\
�/
\�
s5o EX/STING 10' CONTOUR 1526 Richland St., Columbia SC 29201
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
\
EXIS77NG 2 CONTOUR
\
(SEE REFERENCE 2) SEAL •••���unn�U���,
•` CARO
�/�y I ► �
�1/ I
II
APPROX/MATE PROPERTY LINE
SEE REFERENCES 1 O • SS/ •
� tiy< y •;
v
1 /
;• Quo
APPROX/MATE STREAM CENTER LINE SEAL
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
N 21000
/ I / /
!
/
028426
APPROX/MATE LIMITS OF SOLID WASTE '
LANDFILL UNIT (SEE REFERENCE 6) '• � •'•.N
i GINEE G .
�''�.; A
1
E L BRA• o`••
— — — — — — — — — — — — AREA 2 - PROPOSED WASTE LIMITS •••.,,,,��..••• •
/_
SEAL
SOFT WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER
20OFT WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER
\ r
V '
J
\
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE (0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE)
(SEE REFERENCE 3)
50 '
UNDISTURBED WETLAND f
��
0 I IIII > �20
(t I
— -,
-
1
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AE 1 PCT ANNUAL
& STREAM BUFFER'
\\\ / I
\\ a `�
% Ill I I -� 4 L f
I I
,
'�
�'� �� '
CHANCE) (SEE REFERENCE 3)
7 0 0
\�
FLOOD WAY
(SEE REFERENCE 3)
REV. DATE DESCRIPTION
200' UNDISTURBED WETLAND \
\ \ ` \✓
`
\ ► ` ��.-
D
WETLANDS
& STREAM BUFFERI (DWM REQUIRED)
\� �� - _ =
,
/ h _ _ I �� `\
S\\' -moo y���l
(SEE REFERENCE 4) 1 7/2021 RESPONSE TO NCDEQ
_ =
/ f//�
\i I ,
' -fmu E AREA 2 I
`�
AREA OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AREA OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS
(PRESERVED) (SEE REFERENCE 7)
I
IiB-13�\
J
SOV
SIGN/FICANCE TO BE
i
//
�°°
C&D LANDFILL
>>
B-14
I / /
a„•
W /
PRESERVED) (SEE NOTE 1)
P-1 EXIS77NG LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PROBE
/ `
/
%\
\ \ \
9°
I / PZ-1
I I I( �,
I
°�
�"'°' `\
/
1
EX/SUNG C&D LANDFILL AREA 1 GROUNDWA TER
MW-1
EX/STING
BORROW AREA l //
\ I \ /I�i \ �� —
�
B-15
MMS11
I Itlr� \�
/
/
MONITORING WELL
MW-2' l
1 I ^ B
I (
/
P-108 EX/STING PIEZOMETER
7 9
& MW-1A EXISTING MONITORING WELL
._
1
B-10 _
io (—
B-12 MW-4
L
—
EX/S
PZ-3 B-6
PZ-2 i
�—
O B-13 EXISTING BORING
/
ll►II I /
� � EMERGENCY
B-7
\ /, \
:GP-3
II �I f �
YARD WASTE /<
%MW-6D
_'
MW 6
— `�
—�
-- /
I�1 —
fi < ( )1 _ —
I% --�
_
P 108
/ i IIII II .
%/// III l�
I I �
�
STAGING
I(
1—
PZ_
g0
/� f
/ _ ��
r-_1
_ % \\
% �° !\�/
1
/j�jjii �1111111I .)
\
Electronic files are instruments of service provided by Smith
Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended recipient(s), and
N 718
9
L
I / �, /i
/� >� / ti
l
�)\ /
% ///// IIII
I I
/%
� \
no warranty is either expressed or implied. Any reuse or
NOTES
redistribution of this document in whole or part without the
1. AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION SHALL BE PROTECTED BY INSTALLING written authorization of Smith Gardner, Inc., will be at the sole
BARRIER PROTECTION (I.E. CHAIN LINK FENCE WOODEN FENCE ETC.) risk of the recipient. If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard
-4 \
I \ k\
%/
//
\\ \\ 1
//
II
l
/�/
/
\
copies shall govern. Use of any electronic files generated or
\'
/ \
%�
/
�
�/ /I I
'
/ \ \
/ \
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an acceptance of
these terms and conditions.
Q
ems'
%
/
\
(�i GMW--3
/ / /
r / // \ , \
\\\/ /j/ / /
1/� /���) ��//��/ J/
� ��� "� � � / I /
// y�� I I �/ l I J� i i
t� �,/ ( \ \�
CONVENIENCE CENTER
s�fi
Q
I II
��
�
/� /i�///i /
� / j
/I ( l (II �
j J/
/
PROJECT TITLE:
��
OB-18
©/i-�
cMw-2
`\ Q
/ ,
�
P-102 , \—
�' / ( /// /////%�
/
i/
( ) �
r / �� ►1 \ �
%/'/�;' \ \�A
\ �
��j/ (�� _ \�
(1 ,
REFERENCES
CONVENIENCE CENTER
(/�
1 I / l
O B_1 g
,
✓� / / / / /�
,�/,,,/,�,//,�
� /
O� f 1 /
/ �S � = — _ -
/i \
—� /
Ji�/ /� „ {� \ \\\ \\\
-�
( \ 1///
1 ��
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT
ENTRANCE ENGINEERING &SURVEYING, PC. BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED AUGUST 5, 2020.
2. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING &
�✓
` ��-
� � I
\ � /
SURVEYING, PC. BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED AUGUST 5, 2020. SUPPLEMENTAL
(/��
TOPOGRAPHY FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY FLOOD RISK
WESTSIDE C&D LANDFILL
N 717000
,
-- %/
=�� \ �� \ o
//— `
, IIII I ( 1
�� /�/ '
/ �/,
`- �//
INFORMATION SYSTEM (FRIS) LiDAR. FEMA MAP NUMBERS 3720373100J AND
3720373200J DATED 04 16 13.
/ / AREA 2 EXPANSION
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM,
FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
_
�/
/ `
_
P-110 / /�/ �
7l
\ I ,/
/ / /� � �
,,;{% I IN \
�/� .��) )`� II IIIII, �I I I
IIII
v9/
`
\\ \�
llllll %
ASB
4. WETLAND SURVEY AND STREAM DELINEATION DATED MARCH 2020 FROM SOIL &
STOS TRENCH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA.
( V
/rr/
J
/�\� =� /o� �� �i//o�
y / /may /i //
�ii�ii i// �� �'� � // r�
DISPOSAL
AREA 5. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE
1
\� /�///�///,
�
/^�\\-\\\\\` �i/�
j� ice/ / (( I I
�
PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
11
6. LCID AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED WILSON COUNTY DRAWING TITLE:
LANDFILL OVERALL SITE 11 X17 " PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
( )
sy
—. ✓
\\\ \ f���
�/�/j/�///(
�_��;_�_` � ___
�� /ii � / J /
�
7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2020 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF
s
/i� �
= _<�
o
l'
THE 8. WELLCANDLINAS, INC.
BORING LOCATION PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC. EXISTING CONDITIONS
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED MAY 27, 2020.
n
CaL
DESIGNED: PROJECT NO:
/
!�
I ��
I\
S.W.H. WILSON 20-1
DRAWN: SCALE:
\
/ `
CLOSED
DEMOLITION
�
R.V.M. AS SHOWN
PERMIT ISSUE APPROVED: DATE: JULY 2020
I
LANDFILL AREA
' 1
WILSON-D0011
0 400'
800' 1200'
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER:
FIG. 2
© 2021
Smith Gardner, Inc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
j \
\ \\\1 LEGEND
J TOW 112.52 \ \\� LAJ
DTW-5.12\950
\ EXIS77NG 10' CONTOUR
r�5
r '7-)GW-107.4 \ N (SEE REFERENCE 2) Z
_ _ _ _ EXIS11NC 2' CONTOUR Q
��PJ \ Z W ® E (SEE REFERENCE 2)
s _ _ APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE o
(SEE REFERENCES 1)
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY _
(SEE REFERENCE 5) N_ o
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
W.
III_ I ` , -( \ ^ I (I I \ 7// GP-1 EXIS77NG LANDFILL GAS =
\ / \ ��. ✓ III \ \o \ \ / \ \ / MONITORING PROBE N
EXIS77NG C&D LANDFILL AREA 1 =
:GMW-1 0 m
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
- P 108 EXIS77NG PIEZOMETER
_5 / / // ( \ SMW-1A EXIS77NG WELL
MW-6D* EXIS77NG WELL EXCLUDED
\ / FROM CONTOURING
SB-4 - I) J / O B-10 EXIS11NC BORING o Cl)o
FUTURE AREA 2 \ 1 0\\�� / ��' .� / wcn
� Q J
\,B-13 I I J C&D LANDFILL PZ-14.97
�B-1 -� GW-107.95
O, r
�13-
\ rTOC-95.47 ( ` �p / // w
i /) DTW-2.89 \ \ , % �G MW-5-�1�' , ( , �� c� &
I GW-92.58, TOC-113.66 , //\�\ o
J \ DTW-8.48
/ / / \ \ / /\ \ \ \� B-11GW-105.18
n TOC-95.94 \
l l / \ ) ``\� _ �/ ��� ; �GJ_ / /l(/ DTW-5.43 / ` \ \ w cn
SB-
��✓i`9 ` PZ-3 \\ ///� / / \\
TOC-101.98 I - B-6 �TPOC 98.72 \
DTW-5.44 - _ // // r DTW-4.73
/ GW-96.54 - -
\ - 95 i �`' / GW-93.99 REFERENCES a a
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT cn = C
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY.
I \\ ( �� MW-3 I I / 2. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, o Q
1 \� OC-95.84 1 B-� TOC-92.12 \
\�N \ / / \ PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR � � Z �
v ( i s / DTW-3.51 / AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY WILSON GIS. =
DTW-4.92 I GW-88.61 / / o 0 0 cn Z cn cn
GW-90.92 3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, J , -j c� FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J. z o cn
MW-6D J /L j / /= 4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE =o cb
TOC-96.38 ( ' - - • PZ-4, - �ii PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E. v c� , -j o
DTW-7.40 \ J ~-TOC-94.5� _ A �!� 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY o o_ I---
i=
GW-88.98 DTW-5.08 ��i ' LANDFILL OVERALL SITE 11 X17 " PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING cn y z ,z
GW-89.42 PC. y o 0
/`j/ 6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2021 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF a
THE CAROLINAS, INC. o
GMW-4 0 300, 600'
© 2021 Smith Gardner Inc. \ /l / J \ �l(�\IJ ,ij �f
�� 1 1law

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
12. 2
/
W ® E
-
\\\/.
SB-
mil
FUTURE AREA 2
\,B-13 ( \ C&D LANDFILL - r 1 l\'�
J \ \ PZ-1 ( \� C
1 \ TOC-114.97
DTW-10.09
B-14" Q - GW-104.88
\ /�-C_--95. \ \ (li`` MW-5--1�'
UT��-3.77 \ \\ ~� 1 TOC-113.66 ) I \
\ / GW-9T0 \ \ II(tii - DTW-11.65 \ / ! \� B-11GW-102.01 05 \
B-10 SB-1
LEGEND
�'
EXIS77NG 10' CONTOUR
geo
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
Z
EXIS11NC 2' CONTOUR
Q
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
(SEE REFERENCES 1)
m
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY
�' a
(SEE REFERENCE 5)
N o
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
o
GP-1 EXIS77NG LANDFILL GAS
"
MONITORING PROBE
_
GMW-1 EXIS77NG C&D LANDFILL AREA 1
m
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
• P-108 EXIS77NG PIEZOMETER
a
m�
MW-1A EXIS77NG WELL
O B-10 EXIS77NG BORING
IM
MW-4 ` \\
TOC-95.94 ` \
/(/ DTW-7.03 ` \ z
`o \~\�,� �, � ll/ GW-88.91 `\ \ o 0
Q
SB-2 0 \ \ / v<
B /-6 , TOC 98.72
\��TOC-101.98- - % / DTW-5.94
n ( \ DTW-7.44 // h N W GW-92.78 // l
95 OW-94.54 - / REFERENCES ,,a. a
_ l l - _ \ 1 1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT cry
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. Q a
MW-3 -� / ` 2. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, o cn
N \13-7 / I TOC-92.12 PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR J c�
c /\, MW-bD v ( �) f / DTW-4.20 \ AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY WILSON GIS. o o
TOC-96.38 MW-6 ` _ _ GW-87.92 / cn z W
/ - 7 J 3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, Q M
DTW-8.26 TOC-95.84 \\J - v - 1 / FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J. Z o
/ GW-88.12 DTW-7.81 , - _ - - - = o
o ( GW-88.03 �� - _ j - ` 4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE o � ,,z
\ ( PZ_4 i% PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E. c-3 , .. �
_ AREA1 D _'� j�� zoo
J TOC-94.5 / /� 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY o a
Vj
n / 1 DTW-6.92 � / i ' LANDFILL OVERALL SITE (11 X17)" PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, cn i`� N
o rw-Q� RA / y o
0
'c
21 Smith Gardner, I
W
6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2021 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF , u
' / / /�c✓� j THE CAROLINAS, INC. o z
1� G_ MW-4 \ o
CD
m
Z
0
cn
J

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
130.00
120.00
MIA
z
0
�
w
J
90.00
u
V
V
T
a
80.00
>I —20'
i
I
-70
✓/a \\ m �r W
QQ
� S
{.
130.00120.00
Ln cD
110.00 �� z
� a J
z z �
LEGEND
0
950EXISTING 10' CONTOUR w (-n
(SEE REFERENCE 2) (-n
100.00 ^ _ _ _ _ _ EXISTING 2' CONTOUR 0 0
(SEE REFERENCE 2) Z J
z — — APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE o o
C) (SEE REFERENCES 1) o
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY Q
w (SEE REFERENCE 6) N
90.00 0
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE Q
(SEE REFERENCE 2) z >
w
Q H
— • — • — • — POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
70.00 REFERENCES
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING &
SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY.
2. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY
27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY
WILSON GIS.
60.00 3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, FEMA FIRM MAP NO.
3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1,
o ° DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
w SECTIO
'0 200' aoo' 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY LANDFILL OVERALL SITE
> SCALE: AS SHOYYM
2 (11X17)" PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC.
2021 Smith Gardner, Inc. 6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2021 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
©
XISIING GROUND
SbRFACE
(SEE REFERENCE
1)
ILL
ND -----
---�
m
SIL T
K CLAYEY SAND
SILTY CLAY
Y SAND
�8 CL4XQY
SILTY
SAND
i
J
SILTY FINE TO
MED SAND
SILTY
SANDY CLAY
OTENAOMETRIC
SURFACE
SANDY TO SILTY
CLAY
ILTY CLAYEY SA
VD
SILTY CLAYS
SAND
SILTY FINE
SANDY CLAY
Cu
C/7
W
Q
Z
I.—
C/7
W
C�
Q
O
C,
W
C=
J
Cn
C=
Cn
—
o
z
CCL%7
C=
=
M
LA—
c
Z
c
C_7
Q
p
Cb
C-2
LLJ
C-
V
CM
o
J
W
W
=
o
JI
Cn
LJ
c�
C=
�
Q
�

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
z
0
J
W
140.00
130.00
120.00
100.00
4111I1
SILT—
70.00
20'
N
a
N 60.00
.9
AII_
-10
✓/a \\ m J�/�� (� W
act
S
---
\) � j J o m
\ w
(� 1 0 o
z m
lr w o
a J
LEGEND
EXISTING 10' CONTOUR o
0 950 (SEE REFERENCE 2) Ld c=n
j EXISTING 2' CONTOUR a Q
w (SEE REFERENCE 2) Z N 0 0
90.00 _ _ APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE J
(SEE REFERENCES 1) o
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY
(SEE REFERENCE 6) Q
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE No
(SEE REFERENCE 2) 2 N
80.00z. >
— • — • — POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE a
70.00
REFERENCES
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY.
60.00 2. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING,
PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR
AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY OLSON GIS.
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
PROGRAM, FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL
SITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
a SO.00 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY
T o 0 200' 2+00 400 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 18+00 19+00 LANDFILL OVERALL SITE (11X17)" PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & o
SECTION BB SURVEYING, PC. L
SCALE: AS SHOWN 3 6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2021 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
©2021 Smith Gardner, Inc. OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
EXIS17NG GROUND
SURFACE
<r
(SEE RE
RENCE 1)
_
�—
— — — —
----—
SAND
SILTY
AYEID
SAND
CLAYEY
ND
_
POTENTIOM
TRIC
SILTY
SANDY CLAY
SURFACE
LAYEY SAND
SAN
SB 1
SILTY C
AYEY SAND
ILTY SAND
CLAYEY
SAND
SANDY
SHELL FRAGMENTS
LAY WITH
SAND
SANDY
ILTY CLAY
Cu en
W Q Z
I.- W O
C/7
Q C-,
W
0 o C=
cry Z � o
Q V CV
Z ~ p — W
= Cb CM W
c c- o =
C_7 , . , J
o cn CM
J W C=
C
� cn o
a

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
130.00
120.00
1 11
90.00
J
w
- 11
70.00
N
N 60.00
10'
T
0
10
LAJ
130.00
No
9 - sCM—
/ 1
120.00
7.
111
Cn
110.00
o
o 0
z
lr w 0
100.00 acn
LEGEND
EXISTING 10' CONTOUR O
^ 950 (SEE REFERENCE 2) w c=n
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ EXISTING 2' CONTOUR
a Z
z (SEE REFERENCE 2) 6 0
90.00 APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
(SEE REFERENCES 1) o o ?'
Jw �
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY
(SEE REFERENCE 6) a
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE o
80.00 (SEE REFERENCE 2) Q
> a�
— • — • — • — POTENTIOMENIC SURFACE a
70.00
REFERENCES
60.00 1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY.
2. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC;
BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR AREAS OUTSIDE
OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY WILSON GIS.
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM,
FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
50.00 4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE PLAN",
2+00 4+00 6+00 H+OO 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 1H+OO DRAWING N0. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
° 0 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY LANDFILL
> o Zoo' 400' OVERALL SITE (11X17)" PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC.
SECTION 6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2021 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF THE
SCALE: AS SHOWN 4 CAROLINAS, INC.
© 2021 Smith Gardner, Inc.
EXIS77NG
GROUND SURFACE
(SEE
REFERENCE 1)
h
3
I
:z
_
SIL
CLAYEY S
ND
LTY SAND
/
—etAYE
ND '
SANDY CLAY
i SILTY
DY CLAY
/
CLIY
i
ND�
POTEN110METRI
SANDY
ILT
SURFACE
SANDY CLAY
SILTY C
LAYEY
SAND
SANDY CLAY
CLAYEY S
ND
SANDY CLAYEY
SILT
Cu C/7
W Q Z
nW O
C;
NJ Q CZ
W
O J y
W C/7 M
O G p
Cry z = o
Q V M
Z LJ
~ p — W
CO CMW
c c� o =
L7 ,.. J
Z O LLJ
o Cn CM
en W C7
C C�
� a �

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Tables
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
Tedj I •
• : I GxstrLdicn I rfarrEticn
V)6stJcbGKL3-d11 Oi
ID
Install
Date
Total
Depth
TOC
Elevation
Screened
Interval
Geology (Uppermost
aquifer)
MW-1
3/4/2020
20
112.52
10-20
Sandy Silty Clay
MW-2
3/3/2020
20
95.47
10-20
Sandy Silty Clay
MW-3
3/4/2020
20
92.12
10-20
Sandy Silty Clay
MW-4
3/3/2020
20
95.94
10-20
Sandy Silty Clay
MW-5
4/13/2020
20
113.66
10-20
Silty Clayey Sand
MW-6
4/13/2020
20
95.84
10-20
Sand
MW-6D
4/13/2020
40
96.38
30-40
Si I ty Clayey Sand
PZ-1
4/22/2006
20
114.97
10-20
Silty Clayey Fine Sand
PZ-2
4/22/2006
20
98.72
10-20
Clayey Fine Sand
PZ-3
4/22/2006
20
101.98
10-20
Silty Fine Sandy Clay
PZ-4
4/22/20061
20
1 94.5
1 10-20
1 Clayey Fine Sand
By: JAS
Date:6/24/20

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARNER
Table 2
Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis Summary
Wilson County Westside C and D Phase 2 Landfill Expansion
By: JAS
Date:6/24/20
Atterberg Limits
Sieve Analysis w/ Hydrometer
Location
Depth
% Moisture
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
USCS
USDA
MW-5
13'
29.3
47
19
28
0
27.86
28.01
44.13
CL
Clay
MW-5
15'
NP
NP
NP
0
76.87
8.85
14.28
SM
Sandy Loam
MW-6
7'
23.5
NP
NP
NP
0
94.1
1.95
3.95
SP-SM
Sand
MW-6d
35'
28.7
32
15
17
0
74.1
16.44
9.46
SC
Sandy Loam
S13-1
4'
8.4
13.78
13
1
0
73.65
16.3
10.05
SM
Sandy Loam
S13-1
8'
17.89
72
20
52
0
15.7
25.16
59.14
CH
Clay
S13-2
4'
17.5
26
13
13
0
59.55
20.5
19.95
SC
Sandy Loam
S13-3
8'
54.5
37
16
21
0
37.84
34.59
27.58
CL
Clay Loam
S13-4
4'
13.4
30
14
16
0
68.26
13.33
18.41
SC
Sandy Loam
S13-4
8'
27.6
50
18
32
0
56.05
16.06
27.88
SC
Sandy Clay Loam

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH+GARDNER
■-
•- • q • 0: ��•: : •
Location
Apr-2016
Ma -2016
Jun-2016
Well
Northing
Easting
TOC Elev.
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
PZ-1
719305.6970'
2337798.4070'
114.97
11.47
103.5
11.55
103.42
11.61
103.36
PZ- 2
718662.7590'
2338071.2380'
98.72
7.44
91.28
6.27
92.45
6.27
90.35
PZ- 3
718652.0770'
2337401.7630'
101.98
9.07
92.91
7.74
94.24
7.74
92.07
PZ-4
718137.5770'
2337716.1000'
94.5
7.13
87.37
6.25
88.25
6.25
86.90
MW-1
720625.9636'
2337027.2531'
112.52
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-2
719103.2000'
2337061.9800'
95.47
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-3
718422.7150'
2338045.9150'
92.12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-4
718944.1130'
2338347.8202'
95.94
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-5
719163.7050'
2337628.2420'
113.66
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-6
718295.4310'
2336828.2798'
95.84
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-6D
718314.0830'
2336821.4780'
96.38
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
By: SCR
Date:04/10/2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER
•- -t• q • �i �1•i •
By: SCR
Date:04/10/2021
Jul-2016
Aug- 016
Sep-2016
Oct-2016
Nov-2016
Dec-2016
Well
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
PZ-1
14.48
100.49
13.39
101.58
16.01
98.96
14.81
100.16
9.44
105.53
14.23
100.74
PZ- 2
9.55
89.17
9.13
89.59
11.33
87.39
8.82
89.90
7.51
91.21
9.2
89.52
PZ- 3
11.12
90.86
10.76
91.22
12.92
89.06
11.29
90.69
8.83
93.15
11.77
90.21
PZ-4
8.27
86.23
8.09
86.41
9.63
84.87
8.6
85.90
7.49
87.01
8.21
86.29
MW-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MW-6D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER
•- • q • 0: ��•: : •
By: SCR
Date:04/10/2021
Jan-2017
Feb-2017
Mar-2017
Ma -2020
Jun-2020
Jul-2020
Well
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
PZ-1
14.4
100.57
11.98
102.99
13.70
101.27
N/A
N/A
10.09
104.88
11.47
103.50
PZ-2
7.47
91.25
7.59
91.13
8.34
90.38
N/A
N/A
5.94
92.78
9.71
89.01
PZ-3
10.41
91.57
9.68
92.30
10.35
91.63
N/A
N/A
7.44
94.54
10.71
91.27
PZ-4
6.68
87.82
7.26
87.24
7.46
87.04
N/A
N/A
6.92
87.58
9.07
85.43
MW-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.21
107.31
5.12
107.40
7.43
105.09
MW-2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.24
92.23
3.77
91.70
5.94
89.53
MW-3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.87
88.25
4.2
87.92
5.99
86.13
MW-4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.76
89.18
7.03
88.91
8.64
87.30
MW-5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.82
101.84
11.65
102.01
12.42
101.24
MW-6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.89
88.95
7.81
88.03
9.37
86.47
MW-6D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.4
88.98
8.26
88.12
9.4
86.98

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER
•- • q • 0: ��•: : •
By: SCR
Date:04/10/2021
Aug-2020
Sep-2020
Oct-2020
Nov-2020
Dec-2020
Jan-2021
Well
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
PZ-1
9.06
105.91
9.37
105.60
9.70
105.27
9.20
105.77
9.03
105.94
7.34
107.63
PZ- 2
6.46
92.26
6.75
91.97
6.27
92.45
5.00
93.72
4.89
93.83
5.25
93.47
PZ- 3
7.27
94.71
7.50
94.48
7.69
94.29
7.25
94.73
6.66
95.32
5.93
96.05
PZ-4
7.00
87.50
7.53
86.97
7.40
87.10
6.59
87.91
6.25
88.25
5.58
88.92
MW-1
6.95
105.57
6.83
105.69
6.77
105.75
6.89
105.63
6.67
105.85
6.30
106.22
MW-2
3.99
91.48
4.01
91.46
4.23
91.24
4.01
91.46
3.62
91.85
3.14
92.33
MW-3
4.33
87.79
4.57
87.55
4.80
87.32
4.36
87.76
4.03
88.09
3.65
88.47
MW-4
6.88
89.06
7.10
88.84
7.02
88.92
6.43
89.51
6.35
89.59
5.83
90.11
MW-5
10.43
103.23
10.55
103.11
10.73
102.93
10.37
103.29
10.87
102.79
9.32
104.34
MW-6
8.28
87.56
8.22
87.62
7.98
87.86
7.11
88.73
6.46
89.38
5.43
90.41
MW-6D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH+GARONER
•- -t• q • �i �1•i •
Feb-2021
Mar-2021
Apr-2021
Max
Wel I
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
DTW
GWE
Val ues
PZ-1
7.02
107.95
8.53
106.44
10.06
104.91
107.95
PZ- 2
4.73
93.99
6.52
92.20
6.97
91.75
93.99
PZ- 3
5.44
96.54
6.94
95.04
7.69
94.29
96.54
PZ-4
5.08
89.42
6.56
87.94
7.03
87.47
89.42
MW-1
6.17
106.35
6.45
106.07
6.59
105.93
107.40
MW-2
2.89
92.58
3.61
91.86
3.72
91.75
92.58
MW-3
3.51
88.61
4.19
87.93
4.55
87.57
88.61
MW-4
5.43
90.51
6.65
89.29
7.06
88.88
90.51
MW-5
8.48
105.18
10.06
103.60
10.70
102.96
105.18
MW-6
4.92
90.92
6.26
89.58
6.69
89.15
90.92
MW-6D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.46
88.92
88.98
By: SCR
Date:O4/1O/2O21

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH+GARDNER
Table 3A
Annual Precipitation Data
Wilson County Westside C and D Phase 2 Landfili
Annual
Precipitation
37.8
39.2
48.8
61.7
57
42.5
49.2
32.5
35.7
44
44.8
46.1
49.6
54.2
58.6
61.1
60.9
48.7
61.4
51.1
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Wilson County Precipitation by Year
70
60
50
40
30 —
20
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Seriesl
By: JAS
Date: 7-27-20

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER
Table 4
Horizontal Groundwater Velocity
Wilson County Westside C and D Phase 2 Landfill Expansion
Monitoring
Location
Water Table
Elevation (5/1/20)
(ft. amsl)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Estimated
Effecitve
Porosity
Hydraulic
Gradient
(ft./ft.)
Groundwater
Velocity
(ft/day)
MW-1
107.31
1.3E+00
0.18
0.0040
0.028
MW-2
92.23
3.4E+00
0.18
0.0250
0.472
MW-3
88.25
1.5E-01
0.14
0.0240
0.026
MW-4
89.18
1.8E-01
0.14
0.0220
0.028
MW-5
101.84
8.5E-02
0.4
0.0100
0.002
MW-6
1 88.95
1 2.5E+00
1 0.12
0.0130
0.271
MW-bd
1 88.98
1 4.3E-02
1 0.24
Average: 0.0382
NOTE:
1) Hydraulic Conductivity values for MW locations from Withers and Ravenel "Evaluation
of Groundwater Flow and Direction", November 1994 except MW-9 and MW-10 which
were obtained from ENSOL "Results of Pump Test", December 2004. Values for PZ
By: JS
Date: 6/24/20
locations from the July 1991 Geologic & Hydrogeologic Study, prepared by
2) Porosity values estimated from McWorter and Sunada (1977) (http://web.ead.ant.gov/resrad/datacoll/porosity.htm)
3) Velocity Calculated from V=K*i/n
V = velocity
K = Hydraulic Conductivity
i = Gradient
n = Porosity
4) Hydraulic Gradient Measured from Long Term Seasonal High Groundwater Composite Potentormetric Surface
H:\Projects\Wilson County (NC)\Wilson 20-1 (Site Suitability & PTC)\03 Attachments\A. Site Suitability -Design Hydro\Site Study -Design Hydro\Tables\Wilson Tables

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER Tables
Vertical Gradient MW-6 S/D
Wilson County Westside C and D Phase 2 Landfill
Date
MW-6
MW-6d
Vertical Gradient
05/01/2020
88.95
88.03
0.041053101
06/16/2020
88.98
88.12
0.038375725
Average
0.039714413
Downward Gradient
TOC
Ground
Top of
Bottom
Midpoint
Elevation
Elevation
Screen
of Screen
of Screen
MW-6
95.84
93.76
83.76
73.76
78.76
MW-6d
1 96.38
93.85
1 58.85
1 53.85
1 56.35
TOC = Top of Well Casing
Vertical Gradient calculated using the following equation:
(WTE Shallow Well - WTE Deep Well) Where:
(Shallow Screen midpoint - Deep Screen midpoint) WTE= Water Table Elevation
MW-6 S/D
1360.00
1260.00
E
M
1160.00
c
0
0 1060.00
v
W
L 960.00
a
3 860.00
3
0 760.00
660.00 !
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
�--I M LO N a) c\-I M L N (n -1 M u) N Q1 -1 N �* l\D 0000 O N t Lfl
O O O O O r-I -1 N N N N N M O O O O
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Ln L(1 Ln Ln Ln Ln L!1 Ln L!1 Ln Ln Ln Ln L!1 Ln Ln lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Date
—■ MW-6d
By: MG
Date:?/15/201?
H:AProjects\Wilson County(NC)\Wilson 20-1(Site Suitability 6 PTC)\03 Attachments\A. Site Suitability -Design Hydro\Site Study -Design Hydro\Tables\Wilson Tables

DocuSign Envelope ID: OB5295AB-4DC5-4351-B971-8351AB2384C6
SMITH GARDNER
Table 6
Subgrade Separation Summary
Wilson Couny Westside C and D Phase 2 Landfill
Well
Proposed
Subgrade
Composite Long-
Term Season
High
Vertical Separation of
Subgrade above
Composite Long -Term
Seasonal High
PZ-1
111.30
105.53
5.77
PZ-2
NA
92.78
--
PZ-3
99.29
94.54
4.75
PZ-4
NA
88.25
--
MW-1
NA
107.40
--
MW-2
99.70
92.23
7.47
MW-3
NA
88.25
--
MW-4
NA
89.18
--
M W-5
107.73
102.01
5.72
NOTE:
Data is presented in units of feet above mean sea level (amsl)
2. Proposed subgrade elevations were extrapolated from the Application for Permit to Construct
3. NA = Well outside footprint - separation is not applicable
MG
7/15/17
H:AProjects\Wilson County(NC)\Wilson 20-1(Site Suitability 6 PTC)\03 Attachments\A. Site Suitability -Design Hydro\Site Study -Design Hydro\Tables\Wilson Tables

Appendix A
Location Restriction Documentation
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

Appendix A.1
2020Wetlands Mapping
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

Kevin Martin
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:56 AM
To: Kevin Martin
Subject: RE: SAW-2017-01597 Wilson County Landfill Site Visit Notes
Attachments: Wilson County Landfill ORM_Upload_Sheet_AgResources_Rapanos_20190428.xlsm
Hey Kevin,
The map looks correct. I've attached our ORM aquatic upload sheet if you would fill that out,
in-leu of any other table. I entered a couple just for your reference, but didn't enter the
acreage/linear footage or lat/long. You don't need to worry about the HGM code or local
waterway. As with the other project, please enter the ditches in acreages and consider them
open waters. Please ONLY include acreages of the portion of the aquatic resource that is inside
of your boundaries. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards and Stay Well,
Sam
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 22
[e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 5:16 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2017-01597 Wilson County Landfill Site Visit Notes
Sam I think this map address your requests please review and let me know, I will probably add
one more data point location (DP8), the coordinates I wrote down for it are way off, but other
than that should be final. Once you are good I will supplement and revise the Old JD request
(including the aquatic resource table) and submit one complete package for your approval,
thanks and stay safe.
1

Kevin C. Martin
Principal
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Visit us at SancIEC.com!
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named
addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This electronic communication may
not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and
recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of convenience and should not be
used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original
signature and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the
original communication from your system. Thank you
-----Original Message -----
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:37 AM
To: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2017-01597 Wilson County Landfill Site Visit Notes
Good morning Kevin,
I've attached my field notes map for your reference. Per our site visit (28 Feb 2019), please
make the following changes to the above referenced map/table, and return via email:
1) Please ensure your revised map mirrors the corrections on the enclosed map (rather than
writing everything out);
2) Please provide table that includes the linear footage/acreage of all features located inside of
your evaluation limits. Please also place an approved JD boundary around the features
excavated in uplands (and provide their acreages);
z

3) Please ensure the data points collected in upland areas (that were possibly wetlands) are
shown on the map;
4) Stream C is a jurisdictional ditch, not a stream channel. Please label and provide acreage for
this feature; and
5) The feature between W9 and W8 is also a jurisdictional ditch. Please label and provide
acreage for this feature.
Please also note the old sediment basin wetland and wetland area located just north of the
sediment basin are very low quality wetlands. If mitigation is required, it should be at a lesser
ratio for these areas. Please be prepared to demonstrate the low quality utilizing NC WAM.
Please also label these features as WXXXXX to be consistent with the rest of the wetland
nomenclature on the map.
Lastly, to be consist with our discussions in the field, please ensure all jurisdictional ditches are
quantified in acres, not linear feet.
The Corps Action ID for the project is: SAW-2017-01597. Please reference this number on all
future correspondence.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards,
Sam
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 22
[e-mail]
3

Appendix A.2
Soil Map
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

USDA SOIL MAP UNITS -
DOMINANT SOIL ORDER
Alfisals
0 Bodies of Water
Data Not Available
Entisols
_j Histosols
D Inreptisols
0 No Soil
0 Spodosols
Ultisols `'
Tt
AaA
Ra
AaA
TaB
Ud
a
AaA
Tt
� ti✓
GtB2 r� /
1
Ir
Bb 1
WaB
i GtJ2
1
1
a
m
WaB
V` 42
'n
� REFERENCE
=1 0 250 500 750 1,000 j- uspA SSURGfl SOIL DATABASE,
Feet DATED 2020-
0
WESTSIDE COD LANDFILL- AREA 2 EXPANSION
o WILSON COUNTY, NC
SMITH GARDNER
Y
0
USDA SOILS MAP
c DRAWN: APPROVED- SCALE- DATE: PROJECT NO.: F GURE NO.:
N
12 JDM A 1:61000 Jul. 2021 WILSON 20-1 i

Appendix A.3
Archaeological Study and Correspondence
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona hi. Hartos, Adminimrator
S;(wemor Rsiy Choler Sccrermy D. Reid Wilmn
July 5, 2021
Dawn Reid dawnreid(a),archcon.org
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Re: Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 31WL02 and
31 W L 178: and Supplemental Phase 11 Investigations at 31 W L 178, Wilson County, ER 17-1519
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your submission of the revised report and addendum report for the above -referenced project.
We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
In a letter dated April 29, 2021, we concurred that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178 are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. We understand it is the intent of the applicant to
avoid the portions of sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 that are eligible for listing in the National Register. Based
on the results of the supplemental work conducted at 31 W L 178, we concur that the portion of the site
outside the proposed preservation area depicted in Figure I 1 of the addendum report does not contribute to
its National Register eligibility, and no further consideration of archaeological resources are warranted for
that area.
For us to determine`that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 will not be affected by the proposed undertaking, we
request that a preservation plan be developed and forwarded to this office for review and comment. We
recommend that proposed measures be selected to ensure sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 are protected in
perpetuity. This could be accomplished by establishing a cultural conservation easement or divesting the
sites to a land trust such as the Archaeological Conservancy
(https:llwww.arcliaeolo_ alronsery_ancy.ors;about-usWe recommend contacting Kelley Berliner of the
Archaeological Conservancy at [e-mail] for more information about potential preservation
measures. _
Finally, in our letter of April 29 we requested that the Phase II report be revised before resubmittal so that it
contains the following information:
— Designations for test units and scrapes at site 31 WL 178 illustrated in Figure 4.1 (p.102)
— Site maps showing the locations of identified features
— Revision of project area maps to include the proposed sediment pond as part of the area of potential
effects
Location: 101) I mt jontx Sweet, "1(. }ih NUI 27601 Mailing Addrrss: 4617 [Hail Sm ice (:niter, R.-angh NC 37649-4617 Telephone/Fax (419) ii14-6570/814-6999
W,

f We have received a paper copy of the revised report, but not a digital copy on disk as specified by Office of
State Archaeology guidelines (htt s:l/fiies.nc, ov/diicr-arch/OSA Guidelines Dec2017. df, pages 17-18).
Once we have received the digital copy, we will proceed with our review of the revised report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 105 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at`919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewnncdcr. =ov. In ill future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking. number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

Supplemental Phase II Investigations at 31WL178
Addendum to
Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill:
Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina
Southerlin et al. 2021
ER 17-1519
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
June2021

Supplemental Phase II Investigations at 31WL178
Addendum to
Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill:
Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared for
Smith & Gardner
Raleigh, North Carolina
by
Dawn Reid
Senior Archaeologist
�Gt
b Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
June 2021

In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson County,
North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed approximately 34
acres. The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area boundaries were comprised primarily of
property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary
of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was characterized by fallow agricultural fields, but
foundations and waste ponds from use of the property as a hog farm were also present.
Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178. Site
31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic and
ceramic artifacts at the site. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility recommendation was
advanced for this site. Site 31 WL 178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey.
Native American components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An
eighteenth -century historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass
and ceramics.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Southerlin 2017). Site 31WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified at
site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains the
potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits. Previous
work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component consists of a
possible middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.
Because both sites appeared to retain sufficient integrity to have further research potential, their NRHP
eligibility recommendation were classified as "unassessed." Additional evaluation (i.e., Phase II testing) of
both sites was recommended in order to definitively determine the NRHP eligibility of both sites. This
recommendation was concurred with by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Phase 11 testing
excavations were conducted between February and April 2020.
The Phase 11 testing of site 31 WL 178 included detailed archival research, the excavation of five 1- by
2-meter test units, machine scrapes that exposed approximately 175 m2, and the excavation of 15 cultural
features. All but one of the cultural features were exposed in Scrape 10 in the eastern portion of the site. This
complex was comprised of numerous pits, many overlapping. Based on artifacts, bone, and ethnobotanical
material recovered, it appears that these pits were used for debris disposal.
Based on archival research and artifact analysis, the historic occupation at 31WL178 extended from
approximately 1770 through 1830 and is associated with Samuel Farmer's ownership of the property. Artifact
analysis suggests high middle class socioeconomic status for the site occupants. Samuel Farmer held extensive
land holdings and was a slave owner.
Bone was moderately abundant but preservation was generally poor. Several large elements were
piece plotted and identified to species in the field. Upon removal from their soil matrix, most crumbled.
Botanical remains were also abundant and preservation was good. Ethnobotanical analysis identified a number
of domesticates, including corn, grape, and peach.
The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts. But this area was extremely
disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric tools were found at Scrape 10, including

several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic disturbance, the prehistoric component at this
site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or significant information about the prehistoric
occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric component at 31WL178 was recommended not
eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 was found to retain intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early
nineteenth century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most appear
to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts could be used as status
indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and charcoal) was
present and could shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early American residents
of what would become Wilson County. Artifact and feature distributions could be further utilized to identify
specific activity areas. Based on these factors, site 31WL178 was recommended eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D. Only the eastern portion of the site was determined to contain significant deposits and features
and that portion of the site was delineated for preservation.
Following review of the Phase 11 testing document, the SHPO requested additional excavations in the
western portion of the site. Site 31WL178 is on the highest in elevation in the project area and sits on a
relatively flat to slightly sloping terrace overlooking the modern Toisnot Swamp floodplain. A sloped/scoured
terrace surface between 31WL178 and lower terrace fluvial deposits was likely incised by Toisnot
Swamp/Creek. Flood traction deposits and reworking of sediments is the most likely site formation process at
31WL178 and it was determined through geomorphology analysis that less than 40-45 centimeters of
sediments have been deposited over the last 10,000 years. However, former stable surfaces were identified at
27 and 40 centimeters below surface (cmbs) based on granulometry data and the presence of a YD onset Pt
anomaly at 42-45 cmbs. The rapid decrease in artifact frequency below 40 centimeters was interpreted to
represent a lower boundary for the majority of in -situ occupation floors (Moore et al. 2018). The supplemental
excavations were intended to explore the possible Early Archaic zone at the 42-45-centimeter depth in the
portions of the site that were not slated for preservation.
These supplemental excavations were comprised of machine scraping and the excavation of 2 by 2-
meter units. A smoothed bladed machine removed A -horizon soils, exposing the transition to E-horizon soils
in the southwestern portion of the site (Figure 1). Each scrape measured 3 by 5 meters. Following removal of
the topsoil, each scrape was shovel shaved and examined for possible soil anomalies exposed at depths of 38
and 35 centimeters, respectively. A 2 by 2-meter unit was delineated in the northeast corner of each scrape.
Each unit was excavated in 10-centimeter levels into loamy clay subsoil beneath the possible occupation zone.
These efforts are discussed in detail below.
Scrape 11
Scrape 11 was placed in the south-central portion of site 31WL178 (Figure 1). Two machine scrapes
and a 1 by 1 test unit excavated during testing in this area were unproductive; however, this portion of the site
had yielded prehistoric lithic debitage during survey. The machine removed approximately 38 centimeters of
topsoil, exposing the E-horizon. No potentially cultural soil anomalies were noted (Figure 2). One quartz flake
and one piece of quartz shatter were piece plotted in the scrape floor.
Unit 206 was placed in the northeast corner of Scrape 11. This unit measured 2 by 2 meters and was
excavated in two arbitrary levels. Unit fill was by removed by quadrants and screened through 0.25-inch
hardware mesh. All recovered artifacts were bagged by quadrant.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

a � �� {�'"� r 7 . • —.gam _�� _,- 7
-�s
20
-'Olt�
A-;
31WL178
Project Boundary • Positive
Revised APE • Negative
Site Boundary (NottXsca'No pig
❑ 1X2 rn Test Unit (Motto scale)
3 x 5 Scrape (Not to Scale) r `
0 10 20 30 40
w'' ,
+ T
Meters s /
Figure 0. Map showing location of the supplemental scrapes and test units at 31 WL 178.
Inc. Phase Il Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

a
.'�--,.ors y�y-�-'`�` �•""� � i.F: -�,� -J`t
Figure 2. Plan view of Scrape 11 following shovel shaving.
III
Level 1 was excavated from 38 to 48 cmbs through very compact pale brown (10YR6/3) silty loam.
A total of 26 artifacts was recovered from this level (Table 1). The majority of the flakes are very small
thinning flakes, indicative of tertiary reduction and/or tool resharpening but none can be attributed to a specific
temporal occupation. The single ceramic is a residual sherd (<2cm). Level 2 was excavated to a depth of 58
cmbs through yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay loam (Figure 3). Three metavolcanic and one quartz thinning
flakes were recovered from Level 2: one from the southwest quadrant, one from the northeast quadrant, and
two from the northwest quadrant.
Table 1. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Unit 206. Level 1.
Artifact Type
# Recovered by Quadrant
NE
SE
NW
SW
Metavolcanic flake/flake fragment
2
4
9
4
Quartz flake/flake fragment
3
2
-
1
Residual sherd
1
-
-
-
TOTAL
6
6
9
5
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 3. Plan view of Unit 206, base of Level 2.
A full profile of Scrape 11 was drawn and photographed in the field. From the ground surface, the soil
profile was comprised of 32 centimeters of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty sand overlying pale
brown (10YR6/3) silty loam. Yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay loam subsoil was encountered at depths
ranging from 40 to 52 centimeters below the ground surface. Figure 4 presents a view of the scrape and unit
profiles. The potential Early Archaic zone soils consisted of pale brown silty loam, although no temporally
diagnostic artifacts were recovered from this soil zone.
Scrape 12
Scrape 12 was excavated immediately southwest of Scrape 11 (see Figure 1). The machine removed
approximately 35 centimeters of topsoil. The scrape was then shovel shaved. Two potentially cultural soil
anomalies were identified and designated as Features 701 and 702 (Figure 5). Unit 207, measuring 2 by 2
meters, was defined in the northeast corner of the scrape. Feature 702 was located in the southwest corner of
the unit. Feature 701 was located outside of the unit in the western portion of the scrape. One piece of quartz
shatter and one metavolcanic flake fragment were piece plotted in the floor of the scrape.
Unit 207 was excavated in a single arbitrary 10-centimeter level to a maximum depth of 45
centimeters. The upper portion of the level contained very compact brownish yellow (10YR6/6) clayey loam.
The lower portion of the level contained dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil (Figure
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 4. Full north profile in Scrape 11.
6). Three metavolcanic thinning flakes were recovered from the northwest quadrant. The other quadrants were
sterile.
Feature 702 was pedestalled during unit excavation and removed separately. In plan view, this
anomaly consisted of an irregular stain of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty loam measuring
approximately 30 centimeters in diameter. The north half of this stain was removed and screened through
0.25-inch hardware mesh. No artifacts were recovered. In profile, this stain extended to below a depth of 1.0
meter below the ground surface, where it spread in width (Figure 7). This stain was determined to be the result
of natural processes (i.e., tree bum/rot).
Feature 702 was located in the western portion of the scrape. In plan view, this anomaly appeared to
consist of two overlapping stains (Figure 8). The southern stain was roughly circular and consisted of dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/4) silty loam. The northern stain consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) with
inclusions of red (2.5YR5/8) loamy clay and specks of charcoal. The southern stain was bisected and the east
half was removed and the fill screened. One metavolcanic thinning flake was recovered from the feature fill
and one quartz core fragment was recovered from the surrounding matrix. In profile this anomaly was poorly
defined (Figure 9). The northern stain was bisected and the south half was removed and screened. One
metavolcanic flake was recovered from the fill. In profile, this stain had a basin shaped base that terminated
at a depth of 10 centimeters below the scrape surface (Figure 10). Both of these stains were determined to be
the result of natural processes.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 5. Plan view of Scrape 12.
r
�rrrrr
WOW -
Figure
6. Plan view of Unit 207, base of Level 1.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

...� fie¢-fvre 7Ga
r
Kr.
Figure 7. South profile of Feature 702.
ih
3l W U78
SC RAPE # 12
P1an-e.- of
FEPTUR-L Ir i0l
a>a n=
rn =
Figure 8. Feature 701, plan view.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

31WL1�{ $
aGaiew
Figure 9. West profile of Feature 701.
3ML178
SrrCRAP� #
W
r.41
Figure 10. North profile of Feature 702.
Inc. Phase II Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

No cultural features were identified in Scrapes 11 and 12. Although the artifacts recovered in the
potential lower occupation zone could date to the earliest period of human settlement, no temporally
diagnostics were recovered. Artifacts were relatively sparse and their small size confirm Moore et al.'s (2018)
view that the displacement of very small artifacts below occupation levels is common at Coastal Plain sites in
the Southeast due purely to natural processes. These supplemental excavations have confirmed the lack of
significant deposits in the western portion of the site 31L178.
As discussed in Southerlin et al. (2021), the portion of site 31 WL178 that contains significant deposits
and intact cultural features will be preserved. In addition, the entirety of site 31 WL02 will be preserved in
place. The proposed sediment pond has been relocated outside of the site boundaries. Figure 11 shows the
areas slated for preservation within the proposed landfill expansion area.
44
Wilson County Soilid Waste
Tract Boundary Archaeological Site
Revised APE Area to be Preserved
N
0 40 80 120 160
4'E
Meters y
Figure IL Map showing areas slated for preservation.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

References Cited
Moore, C. R., Mark J. Brooks, I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., Andrew H. Ivester, James K. Feathers, and Terry E.
Barbour
2018 Regional Manifestations of Late Quaternary Climate Change and Archaeological Site Burial
along the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In Early Human Life on the Southeastern Coastal Plain
edited by Albert C. Goodyear and Christopher R. Moore, pp. 193-235. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, Christopher Moore, and Lesley Raymer
2021 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 31 WL02 and
31 WL178, Wilson County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Barw-,;, Admintstrazor
C;nverruir Roy Cooper,
Secrrfary I], Reid Wilson
April 29, 2021
Dawn Reid dawn reidCr arch, c
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Phase 11 ArchaeoIogical Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 3I WL02 and
31 WL 178, Wilson County, ER 17-I519
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your submission of the report and site forms for the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
Archaeological investigations at sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 identified intact deposits that have the
potential to provide important information about the past. American Indian use of both site areas, which are
separated by a farm road, is documented for the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland Periods. Given
the presence of artifacts attributed to the same time periods on both sides of the farm road, sites 31 WL2 and
31 WL 178 are perhaps best understood as a single multicomponent site. This is corroborated by the
geomorphology study, which identified an anomaly dating to the Younger Dryas onset (ca. 12,800 calendar
years before present) at 41-45 cm (14.5-17.7 inches) below the ground surface at both sites, establishing
lateral correlation between them.
Site 31 WL 178 is distinguished by the presence of features that date ca. 1770 to 1830 and are potentially
associated with Samuel Farmer's ownership of the property. Samuel Farmer had extensive land holdings
and was a slave owner. Given the presence of a diverse artifact assemblage as well as faunal and botanical
remains, additional investigations of the eighteenth and early ninetlwenth century deposits at 31 WL178 have
the potential to provide information about the early economic and social history of Wilson County.
f
We concur that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178 are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. Both sites are eligible at the local level in the category of prehistoric archaeology,
with site 3I WL178 also having components that may yield important information in the categories of
historic archaeology and exploration/settlement. The variety of analyses brought to bear on materials
collected from 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 as part of the present work is commendable, as they highlight the
multiple lines of evidence that are present at these sites.
We understand it is the intent of the applicant to avoid portions of -sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178. Given the
demonstrated significance of these sites, we recommend that consideratipn be given to redesigning the
Project to completely avoid them. If this is not feasible, we recommend development of a plan to mitigate
adverse effects to the portions of these sites that will be affected by the project. This plan should be
Location: U19 11,2€I Jr n" Strrcr, k;duph Nr: 27601 Mailing Address' 4617 Mail `—icr (Inrer, Raie* W. 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]fi/814."98
Y

developed with consideration for what is known about the areas to be affected, including the potential for
American Indian burials and other features, the Younger Dryas onset anomaly, and documented variations
in artifact density.
We request that the report be revised before resubmittal so that it contains the following information:
• Designations for test units and scrapes at site 31 WL178 illustrated in Figure 4.1 (p:102)
■ Site maps showing the locations of identified features
• Revision of project area maps to include the proposed sediment pond as -part of the area of potential
effects
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 env ironmental.review(a-)ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
-' State Historic Preservation Officer

Phase II Testing Management Summary and
National Register of Historic Places Statement of Eligibility
For Archaeological Sites 31WL02 and 31WL178,
Wilson County Solid Waste Site, Wilson County North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared by
Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
August 2020
Introduction
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed
approximately 34 acres (Figure 1). The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area
boundaries were comprised primarily of property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by
the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was
characterized by fallow agricultural fields. This survey was undertaken on behalf of Bartlett Engineering
and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within
the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was advanced for this site. Site
31WL178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey. Native American
components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An eighteenth -century
historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass and ceramics. Based
solely on the surface collection, site 31 WL 178 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Figure 2). Site 31 WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified
at site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains
the potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits.
Previous work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component
consists of a middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.

�_77'-~
/ 'I
f/
/
NASH Elm City ri
COUNTY
1
i a J
EDGECOMBE
COUNTY
Sims
ti
Wilson 5 O
� (�, Prajecl Vicnity
WILSON
COUNTY
`
Saratoga
LN(Y)
Lucama
1 �a Black
Creek
Z
Stantonsburg
��
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
® County Boundary
GREENE
COUNTY
0 Municipal Boundary
WAYNE
0 1.5 3
COUNTY
4.5 6
Miles
Figure 1. Map showing approximate location of the project area.
Following consultations with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeologists, a Phase II
testing plan was developed to more fully assess sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178. This plan consisted of several
tasks, including:
• Excavation of five 1 by 2-meter test units;
• Machine scraping away the plow zone at ten 3 by 5-meter scrapes;
• Sampling of identified cultural features and analyses of their contents;
• Geomorphological analysis of the project setting;
• Metal detector survey; and
• Detailed archival research on the historic occupations
Field tasks were conducted between 3 February and 7 April 2020. Archival research and laboratory analyses
are ongoing.
Based on the results of this investigation, both sites have demonstrated that they retain sealed
contexts which can contribute data on research themes about both historic and prehistoric lifeways. Site
31WL02 can add new information about Archaic and Woodland settlement in the region. Site 31WL178
can contribute to our understanding of early historic settlement in what is now Wilson County during the
late eighteenth through early nineteenth century. This document provides an update on the Phase II testing
of sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178, including a definitive NRHP eligibility statement for each site.

31WL178
It
-
Y �
i
`- 31 WL02'`
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
Original APE
Revised APE
CDfootprint_50ftcorridor
potential_pond
- � Archaeological Site
ti
0 50 100 150 200
!' S
Meters
Figure 2. Aerial map showing sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 in relationship to the original APE
and the revised APE.

Site 31WL02
Field Results
Metal Detection. Metal detection survey was conducted at 31 WL02 but with disappointing results.
A previously identified late nineteenth/early twentieth century component associated with a dairy farm had
been identified at the far northern part of the site, but this component was determined not eligible for the
NRHP and was not the focus of metal detection efforts. Metal detection efforts were instead focused on
identifying any items which could be linked to the Late Woodland (Protohistoric) component at the site. In
addition to general metal detection sweeps at 7.5-meter intervals across the site area, machine scrapes and
features were metal detected. Extensive metal debris was found in the northern part of the site, but no items
linked to the Late Woodland (or early historic) occupation were identified.
Test Units. Five test units measuring 1 by 2 meters were excavated at 31WL02 (Figure 3). These
units exposed disturbed plow zone contexts ranging in depths from 20 — 35 centimeters below surface.
Subsequent sub -plow zone levels were excavated in arbitrary 10-centimeter zones. Maximum depths of test
units ranged between 40 and 100 centimeters below the surface. Two cultural features (Features 601 and
602) were identified in test units; Feature 601 was identified in Test Unit 201 and Feature 602 was identified
in Test Unit 202. A variety of diagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from test units. Table
1 summarizes details of the test units at 31 WL02. Unit profile photographs are presented in Appendix A.
Table 1. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31WL02.
Test Unit
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity
Historic
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Lithics
Ceramics
Organic
(Presence/
Absence
201
169
12
Bone
102
19th-20th cen.
601
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
240
34
Absent
6
Unknown historic
602
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Middle Archaic
203
184
50
Bone
3
L. 19' -E. 20" cen.
-
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
204
75
10
Charcoal
-
Late Woodland
-
Middle Woodland
205
136
12
Absent
-
Late Woodland
-

31 WL178 _
'2
8
' 9 `201
�Y `
I 202 7 +,
203
1
Y
�.�• � ' � yam.
Legend
APE
Archaeological Site
Sediment Pond
■ Test Unit
Scraped Area
2-ft Contour
N
E
�s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 3. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL02.

Machine Scrapes. A total of 10 3 by 5 meter machine scrapes were excavated at 31 WL02 (see
Figure 3). A backhoe with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plow zone, exposing E horizon soil. Each
machine scrape was then shovel shaved. Machine scrapes 2 and 10 were abandoned due to the high water
table, but two replacement scrapes were excavated in new locations. Fourteen features were identified in
these scrapes. In addition, a number of diagnostic artifacts were collected while troweling the scrapes. In
Scrapes 5, 8, and 12 a 10-centimeter level measuring 2 by 2 meters was excavated to sample artifact bearing
zones below the plow zone. Plan views of a selection of these scrapes is presented in Appendix A.
Features. A total of 17 soil anomalies were classified as Features (Table 2), and 13 were examined
in more detail. Most of these are pit features, but several are possibly plow dip disturbances. Diagnostic
Woodland and/or Archaic artifacts were collected from five features. Feature examination included the
excavation and retrieval of soil samples for fine and water screening. Faunal preservation was fair, and
faunal remains were collected from seven features. Charcoal fragments were common, and carbonized plant
remains were collected from 10 features. Plan and profile views of examples of these features are presented
in Appendix A.
Table 2. Description of Features at Site 31 WL02.
Feature
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity/Weight
Historic
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity/
Weight
Lithics
Ceramics
Charcoal/Bone
601
108
6
Bone-0.24g
0.2g
Unknown historic
Test Unit 201
Charcoal-5.3g
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
EarlyArchaic
602
8
1
-
-
Unknown prehistoric
Test Unit 202
603
26
3
Bone-3.52g
-
Unknown prehistoric
Scrape 7
Charcoal-0.9
604
117
12
Bone -3.3g
0.4g
Unknown historic
Scrape 7
Charcoal-22.3g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
605
196
78
Bone-60.75g
-
Late Woodland
Scrape 7
Charcoal-4.6g
Middle Woodland
606
153
26
Bone-4.7g
1
Unknown historic
Scrape 6
Charcoal-6.8g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Early Archaic
607
Not Excavated
608
Not Excavated
609
Not Excavated
610
21
-
Charcoal-37.3g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
611
38
Charcoal-I.Og
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
612
52
Charcoal-1.34g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
613
STERILE
614
STERILE
615
137
8
Bone-5.99g
5
Unidentified historic
Scrape 11
Charcoal-6.lg
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
616
110
30
Bone-33.18g
Unidentified historic
Scrape 8
Charcoal- 11. 8g
Early Woodland
Middle Woodland
617
Not Excavated

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
Dr. Christopher Moore is conducting geomorphological studies at sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178.
He sampled three areas at the two sites and determined that they are situated on three separate terraces. The
upper terrace is associated with 31 WL 178 and the middle and lower terraces are associated with 31 WL02.
Dr. Moore has conducted geochemical and sedimentology analyses and has submitted three soil
samples for Optically -Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating. Most of his analyses are completed, but he
is waiting on a final OSL date to finish his geomorphological assessment.
Dr. Moore noted a platinum (Pt) anomaly at 42.5 to 45 centimeters below the surface at 31 WL 178
and a remnant of this anomaly at 31 WL02 at the same depth. The presence of this anomaly suggests the
Younger Dryas (YDB) onset zone (ca. 12,835 to 12,735 cal BP) is at this depth, indicating the shallow
nature of both sites. OSL dates should help confirm this. Based on his research, Dr. Moore has noted Early
Archaic points conflated with Paleo material at the same depth as a consistent pattern. The presence of
flakes deeper than this depth is likely the result of trickle down due to natural processes and bioturbation.
Preliminary OSL results for a sample taken at a depth of 70 centimeters below surface at 31 WL02 could be
as old as 100,000 years. This result in combination with the depth of the platinum anomaly confirms the
relatively shallow nature of both sites, with the human occupations being confined to the upper 45
centimeters of soil.
Faunal Analysis
Bone fragments were collected from seven pit features at 31WL02. A total of 115 bone fragments
weighing 111.71 grams was collected during Phase 2 investigations, mostly from feature contexts (Table
3). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 12.37323 g. Deer accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by UID Mammal. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is burned or calcined. Deer and squirrel are the only species that could be identified
(Table 4).
The modifications identified in the bone assemblage indicate disposal of the bone in a fire or the
burning of debris in a disposal pit. Two features, 605 and 616, each yielded elements representing the entire
body of a deer and these animals account for 59 percent of the assemblage's total meat weight. However,
the lack of gnawing modifications indicates that all of the pit features yielding faunal material were sealed
from scavengers. The presence of squirrel could indicate the exploitation of small mammals as a food source
or simply the incidental presence of the animal at the site. None of the bones are suspected of being human.

Table 3. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Contexts at 31 WL02.
Feature
Number�Count/Weight:::1
Bone
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
4+ / 0.56 g
UID Mammal
609
-
-
602
-
-
610
-
-
603
5+ /3.16 g
UID Mammal
611
-
-
604
- / 0.76 g
-
612
-
-
605
67 / 43.31 g
UID Mammal, Deer,
Squirrel
613
-
606
2+ / 4.7 g
UID L . Mammal
614
-
-
607
-
-
615
l l+ / 6.37 g
UID Mammal
608
-
-
616
24+ / 33.18 g
Deer
Table 4. Site 31 WL02 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
F---iAXON
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
94
28.9
-
-
4.313284
34.8
UID L . Mammal
2
4.18
0.756935
6.1
Odocoileus vir imanus
18
51.81
2
75
7.294109
59.0
Sciurus s .
1
0.3
1
25
0.0089
0.07
UID Bone
-
26.52
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
115
111.71
3
100
12.37323
99.97
Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were not uncommon in features at 31 WL02. Samples from feature
contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer, archaeobotanist with Paleobot of Decatur,
Georgia. The purpose of the ethnobotanical analysis is to assess the conditions, variety, and preservation of
plant remains and to determine likely avenues for further ethnobotanical and subsistence research at the
site. Ms. Raymer's analyses will also seek to determine if domesticated plant species are present in Native
American features, as well as determining what native plant species may have been used. This analysis is
ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey identified historic and prehistoric components at 31 WL02
(Southerlin 2017). The historic component was associated with a late nineteenth through middle twentieth
century dairy farm complex. No structural remains were found during the survey, and push -piles within the
nearby tree line indicated structures were likely razed. The historic component at 31 WL02 was determined
to be unlikely to yield new or significant information about the historic occupation of the region. For this
reason, the historic component at 31 WL02 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. During the Phase
II field investigations historic debris was found buried in shallow pits/machine scrapes, further confirming
the disturbed nature of the late nineteenth through twentieth century historic component and the
recommendation that the historic component at 31 WL02 is not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL02 retains intact cultural features associated with the Native American occupations.
Intact pit features were identified in two test units and multiple machine scrapes in the northeastern part of
the site. A number of the pit features yielded diagnostic Woodland ceramics. However, Late Woodland
Cashie ceramics linked to post -contact Tuscaroroa Indian contexts were not identified, nor were any Late

Woodland ceramics found in association with Colonial Period artifacts. Thus, while Cashie pottery was
found at the site, it is believed to be associated with the pre -contact Tuscarora.
There is also evidence that intact sub -plow zone Archaic contexts are present. A number of
diagnostic Archaic points, as well as various amounts of lithic debris, were recovered while troweling the
machine scrapes, However, geomorphological evidence suggests that the Early through Late Archaic
components may be restricted to a very narrow zone between 30-40 centimeters below the ground surface.
The function of the pit features at 31WL02 is currently unknown, although most appear to have
been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used to reconstruct
material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and charcoal) is present and can shed light on
the subsistence and/or environmental reconstruction of what would become Wilson County. It is considered
likely that many additional cultural features are present in the northeastern part of the site. Similar types of
features identified at 31 WL02 have been found at other Native American sites in Wilson County, some of
which were found to be associated with human burials. Based on these factors, site 31 WL02 is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. This Phase 11 has served to define the eastern
portion of site 31 WL02 as having retained the most significant features and deposits. The western portion
of the site has undergone varying degrees of disturbance and no intact cultural features were identified in
the test units or scrapes excavated there. Figure 4 illustrates the portion of the site that is recommended for
either preservation or mitigation.
If impacts to the significant portion of site 31 WL02 are to be avoided, permanent measures to
ensure preservation into the future will be necessary. These measures will be determined by the SHPO but
may include development and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation
or conservation easement, and the installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL02 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the vicinity of cultural features identified during the Phase 11
investigation.
2. Radiocarbon dating of multiple organic samples, especially in context with diagnostic ceramics or
stone tools.
3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or not
they are associated with an individual household or a larger settlement type with multiple
households (e.g., hamlet or village).
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing subsistence
and environmental reconstruction.
Site 31WL178
Field Results
Metal Detection
As at site 31 WL02, metal detection sweeps were conducted at 7.5-meter intervals across the site
area; machine scrapes and features were also metal detected. No early historic items linked to the late

201 ./
� . 202 /6 7/ r ,
31 WLW02 g
293
4 h•
4"
Legend
APE
QArchaeological Site
® Further Work
® Sediment Pond
© Test Unit
Scraped Area
— 2-ft Contour
N
WE
s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 4. Map showing the portion of 31 WL02 considered to retain significant deposits.

eighteenth/early nineteenth century component at 31WL178 were identified. However, a dense scatter of
aluminum siding fragments from the hog farm was found in the southwest part of the site.
Test Units
Five 1 by 2-meter test units were excavated at site 31WL178. These units were placed in areas
where survey shovel tests had encountered either deep deposits or temporally diagnostic artifacts (Figure
5). The plowzone was removed as a single level; subsequent levels were excavated in 10-centimeter
increments. A brief summary of each test unit's characteristics is presented in Table 5. Unit profile
photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Table 5. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31 WL 178.
Test Unit
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
201
13
10
8
5/45.lg
103
L. 181"- E. 19' cen.
-
Early 201 cen.
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
15
9
6
144.Og
115
L. 18' -E. 19t' cen.
-
Archaic
203
3
7
5
1/88.8g
15
17'to mid/L. 18' cen.
-
20' cen.
Late Woodland
204
6
7
4
1/9.6g
81
18' -E.19' cen.
-
k05j
-
10
:!:1:T99:1=iO
Mid/L. 20::1 "' cen.
-
Late Woodland
Machine Scrapes
Ten machine scrapes measuring 3 by 5-meters were exposed at 31 WL 178 (see Figure 4). A backhoe
with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plowzone, exposing E horizon soil. Each machine scrape was
then shovel shaved. The depth of the plowzone was variable across the site, although it averaged between
35 and 40 centimeters below surface. Scrapes 1 through 8 contained tree stains but no cultural features.
Scrape 9 contained one possible post stain and two tree burns. Scrape 10 contained a cluster of stains that
were determined to be cultural in nature.
Features
A total of 13 circular or ovoid features of varying sizes were at least partially exposed in Scrape 10
(Table 6). Plan and profile views of these features are presented in Appendix B. Three additional soil
anomalies were identified in another machine scrape, but these were determined to be tree root disturbances.
Diagnostic historic ceramics from features consist primarily of creamwares and pearlwares, and strongly
support a late eighteenth through early nineteenth century association. Bone and charcoal fragments were
collected from almost every feature. A number of prehistoric artifacts were found in these features, but
these are the result of the historic pits being dug through prehistoric contexts; no evidence of intact
prehistoric contexts were found at 31WL178

_ -fr y
:7 '
n
a
4
20°
Legend
APE - Test Unit
31 WL178 2-Foot Contour
Scraped area
9
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters
1 inch = 30 meters
Figure 5. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL 178.

Table 6. Description of Features at Site 31 WL 178.
Feature
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
Charcoal/
Bone
601
4
24
499.8g
Bone-
33
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
6.14g
cen.
Charcoal-
Unknown prehistoric
3.1
602
-
1
0.9g
Bone-
23
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
17.56g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
20.4
603
-
-
2/3.7g
Bone-
45
Middle Woodland
Scrape 10
0.13g
Middle Archaic
Charcoal-
5.4
604
12
5
36
159.5g
Bone-
95
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
260.43g
cen.
Charcoal-
Early Woodland
27.3g
Late Archaic
605
-
-
1
-
Bone-
2
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
142.88g
Unknown prehistoric
606
4
2
2
371.6g
Bone-
80
L. 17th — E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
15.36g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
6. l l
607
30
13
25
2/747.
Bone-
67
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
07g
48.41g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
69.85
608
5
-
828.lg
Bone-
12
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
0.47g
Unknown prehistoric
Charcoal-
20.7
609
7
4
8
212.1g
Bone-
Mid/L. 18th -19th cen.
Scrape 10
8.82g
Late Woodland
Charcoal-
Li
Middle Woodland
21.68
Middle Archaic
610
STERILE
611
STERILE
612
STERILE
613
5
1
5
949.98
Bone-
39
E.18m-E.19' cen.
Scrape 10
g
0.07g
Early Woodland
Charcoal-
1.95g
614
25
12
126
3/1681
Bone-
78
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
.3g
160.25g
Late Woodland
TUs 4 and
Charcoal-
5
359.95
615
5
3
7
381.lg
Bone-
34
Mid/L. 181h -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
36.54g
Woodland Period
TU 8
Charcoal-
13.1
616
1
-
1
93.9
Bone-
4
E. 19' cen.
Scrape 10,
3.94g
Unknown prehistoric
TU 9

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
See Site 31 WL02 Discussion
Faunal Analysis
The faunal assemblage contains 1,468 bones weighing 932.35 g, recovered from 13 features (Table
6). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 111.6358 g. Cow accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by pig and deer. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is friable, and the vast majority could not be identified to a specific species. However,
deer, cow, pig, and turtle are represented (Table 7). Pig skull fragments, teeth, and tooth fragments were
recovered from Features 604, 607, and 609, suggesting the disposal of butchering debris. From Feature 614,
pig elements representing head (including whole teeth), forequarter, and hindquarter, and foot are present,
indicating the presence of the whole animal. Cow remains from Feature 604 represent head and forequarter
elements. Based on the prevalence of burning and calcining on the bones recovered from Features 602, 604,
and 607, it is apparent that debris deposited in these pits was burned. Turtle may be present on the site
incidentally, although they have been utilized as a meat source.
Table 6. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Context at 31WL178.
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
1 / 2.2 g
Pig
609
29+ / 8.83 g
UID Mammal, Pi
602
67+ / 17.56 g
UID Mammal, Pig
610
-
-
603
-/0.13 g
-
611
-
-
604
121+ / 259.39 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
612
-
-
605
110+ / 155.62 g
UID Mammal, Deer
613
-+ / 0.07 g-
606
87+ /17.11 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal
614
245+ / 158.67 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
607
152+ /48.41 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal, Pi
615
83+ /36.89 g
Pig
608
1+ / 0.47 g
Pig
616
1 / 3.94 g
Cow
Table 7. Site 31WL178 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
TAXON
F-
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
998
125.01
-
-
16.11574
14.4
UID Lg. Mammal
2
11.65
-
-
1.904116
1.7
UID Lg. Mammal
cf. Bos turus
1
10.6
-
-
1.748941
1.6
Sus scrofa (pig)
251
210.22
3
42.8
25.72804
23
Bos Taurus (cow)
71
416.27
2
28.6
47.58144
42.6
Odocoileus A.rginianus (deer)
101
142.88
1
14.3
18.17499
16.3
Testudines
Unidentified turtle
17
4.13
1
14.3
0.382549
0.03
UID Bone
-
11.59
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
1,468
932.25
7
100.0
1 111.6358
99.63

Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were common in features at 31WL178. As with the ethnobotanical
material from 31 WL02, samples from feature contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer.
Her analysis is ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey also identified a prehistoric component at 31 WL 178 (Southerlin
2017). During Phase Il, ceramic and lithic artifacts were found to be lightly scattered across the site. No
intact midden deposits, cultural features, or intact buried cultural zones associated with the prehistoric
occupation at 31 WL 178 were found. The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts
at the site. But this area was extremely disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric
tools were found at Scrape 10, including several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic
disturbance, the prehistoric component at this site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or
significant information about the prehistoric occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric
component at 31WL178 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 retains intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early nineteenth
century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most
appear to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used as
status indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and
charcoal) is present and can shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early
American residents of what would become Wilson County. Based on the Phase 11 tasks conducted to date,
artifact and feature distributions can be utilized to identify specific activity areas. Based on these factors,
site 31 WL 178 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Presently, the potential occupants
of the site are unknown; however, additional archival research may be able to shed light on their identity.
This Phase II has served to define the eastern portion of site 31WL178 as having retained the most
significant features and deposits (Figure 6). The western portion of the site has undergone varying degrees
of disturbance, and no intact cultural features were identified in the test units or scrapes excavated there.
Preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 or mitigation of proposed adverse impacts
should be considered. If impacts to the significant site area will be avoided, permanent measures to ensure
its preservation into the future will be necessary. As noted for site 31 WL02, these measures will be
determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and may include development and execution
of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation or conservation easement, and the
installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the immediate vicinity of Scrape 10 in an effort to determine
if any additional intact cultural features are present. We recommend a minimum of three
additional machine scrapes to further attempt to identify cultural features, particularly those
that may be associated with a house.
2. The expansion of Scrape 10 to fully expose all features.

- , I
\
Jf
E
f
f 204 202 ■
a 201_
I
31WLW02
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site ■ Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
Figure 6. Map showing the significant portion of site 31WL178.
W-�m
N
WL
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters

3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or
not they are associated with a house or to determine if they represent one house, a small
community with multiple households (plantation?), or some commercial/production/industrial
activity.
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing
subsistence and environmental reconstruction.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Archaeological investigations at 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 have identified intact archaeological
contexts at both sites. Prehistoric Native American Archaic and Woodland components were identified at
31 WL02. Numerous undisturbed cultural features were identified which can help document past prehistoric
settlement and subsistence patterns, as well as details of general lifeways (i.e., lithic use patterns and
material preferences, ceramic technology, etc.). At 31WL178, intact contexts associated with a late
eighteenth/early nineteenth century historic occupation were identified. This historic component predates
the formation of Wilson County. These early settlers would have been residents of Edgecombe County at
that time. Both sites are recommended eligible for the NRHP. Preservation or mitigation of portions of
both sites is recommended.
This document summarizes the results of Phase II testing at both sites. We anticipate having data
from all specialized analyses by mid -September 2020, and a draft report ready for SHPO review by the end
of September 2020. As SHPO review typically takes about 30 days, comments/acceptance by the SHPO
would be expected by the end of October 2020.

Appendix A
31WL02: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL02

Machine Scrapes at 31WL02 - Scrapes 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12 (Scrapes 2 and 10 abandoned)

.� ...,. r

Features at 31WL02
Feature 601, plan

ICI
i
..y
Feature 613, profile .
Feature 615, plan ,

Appendix B
31NVL178: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL178

Machine Scrapes at 31WL178 - Scrapes 1,3,5,8,10
5s
l Scrape 8

r
Y'
•j
Scrape 10 after cleanup
L

Features at 31WL178

�. - 1 �M7 � S Y'1
�, � +� �'ar S fir. - - _ - '��

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 8, 2018
David B. Morton
Bartlett Engineering & Surveying
1906 Nash Street South
Wilson, NC 27893
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Archaeological Survey of the Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract, Wilson County, ER 17-1519
Dear Mr. Morton:
Thank you for your letter transmitting the above -referenced archaeological survey report. We have reviewed
the report and offer the following comments.
Intensive archaeological survey of the specified 34-acre area of potential effects resulted in the relocation and
delineation of sites 31WL2 and 31WL178. Based on the artifacts recovered and soil stratigraphy revealed
during the survey, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. recommends that additional work be
undertaken to determine if these sites have the potential to provide important information about the Early
Archaic Period, the Tuscarora, and the eighteenth -century settlement of Wilson County. This office concurs
with these recommendations. No ground -disturbing activities should be undertaken in the 31WL2 and
31WL178 site areas until they can be assessed to determine if they are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
We request that a site assessment research plan be submitted to this office for review prior to any additional
archaeological fieldwork activities. Alternatively, if the proposed project can be redesigned to avoid sites
31WL2 and 31WL178, we request a preservation plan be submitted for review. Thank you for your
consideration, and we look forward to working with you to help protect North Carolina's historic resources.
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 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
c2(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Archaeological Survey of the
Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2017

Archaeological Survey of the
Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared for
Bartlett Engineering and Surveying
Wilson, North Carolina
Prepared by
TrolbK Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2017

Management Summary
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompasses about
34 acres. The property is owned by Wilson County and the boundaries are comprised primarily of property
lines, with the exception of the eastern boundary which is bounded by the floodplain of Buck Branch, a
tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract is characterized by fallow agricultural fields.
However, the remains of a modern hog farm are present in the tract. This survey was undertaken on behalf
of Bartlett Engineering and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological
resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility
to the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified with the prof ect tract, 31 WL02 and 31 WL 17 8/178 * *.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was made on the archaeological site
form. Site 31WL178/178** was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey.
Native American components identified include Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An
eighteenth century historic component was identified based on the recovery of historic glass and ceramics.
Although only a surface survey was conducted, 31WL178/178** was recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
A total of 352 shovel tests were excavated during this investigation. Artifacts were collected from
128 of these. This survey established boundaries for the two previously recorded sites, which may have been
one continuous site before the area was disturbed by construction of the hog farm in 1990. Site
31 WL02/02** was found to have both historic and prehistoric components. Relatively deep deposits were
found at this site, and the earliest prehistoric component identified is from the Early Archaic Period.
Multiple ceramic period components were also identified, spanning the Woodland Period. The historic
component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a nineteenth/twentieth century
dairy farm complex. Site 31WL178/178** also has historic and prehistoric components. Our investigation
identified Early, Middle, and Late Woodland occupations and the potential for intact evidence of earlier
occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits. Previous work at the site documented Middle
and Late Archaic components. The historic component includes evidence of a middle eighteenth century
occupation, and a light scatter of more modern material.
Because both sites appear to retain sufficient integrity to give them good research potential, their
NRHP eligibility recommendation are classified as "unassessed." Site 31 WL02/02* * may have the potential
to add new information about Archaic and Woodland settlement and life -ways in the region. Site
31WL178/178** may also have the potential to contribute significant data on Archaic and Woodland
settlement and life -ways, but also may contribute to our understanding of early historic settlement in the
project area during the eighteenth century. Additional evaluation (i.e., Phase II testing) of both sites will be
necessary in order to definitively determine their NRHP eligibility. Until the NRHP eligibility of both sites
is clarified, preservation is recommended.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary................................................................ ii
Listof Figures........................................................................iv
Listof Tables........................................................................iv
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation ........................................ 1
The Project Tract.............................................................. 1
Methods of Investigation........................................................ 5
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ........................................... 8
Environmental Overview........................................................ 8
Cultural Overview............................................................. 12
Chapter 3. Results of Background Research . ............................................. 26
Chapter 4. Results of the Archaeological Survey ........................................... 31
31WL02/02**................................................................ 31
31WL178/178**.............................................................. 47
Chapter 5. Summary and Recommendations .............................................. 56
Summary.................................................................... 56
Recommendations............................................................. 59
References Cited.................................................................... 60
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog and Projectile Point Report
Appendix B. Artifact Plates
Appendix C. Resume of Principal Investigator
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion project area... 1
Figure 1.2.
Aerial view of the project area . ............................................
2
Figure 1.3.
View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southeast ...................
3
Figure 1.4.
View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southwest ..................
3
Figure 1.5.
View of the remains of the hog farm, facing west ...............................
4
Figure 1.6.
View of the southern portion of the survey area, facing south .....................
4
Figure 1.7.
View of the southern end of the survey area, facing south .........................
5
Figure 2.1.
Map showing the project area and the physiographic provinces of North Carolina.. ...
8
Figure 2.2.
Map showing the location of the project area withing the Contentnea Creek subbasin..
9
Figure 2.3.
View of Buck Branch, facing northeast from the southern part of the survey area.....
10
Figure 2.4.
Map showing soils in the survey tract .......................................
11
Figure 2.5.
Map of North Carolina showing the Tuscarora territory in yellow .................
18
Figure 2.6.
Map showing the project vicinity in the early eighteenth century . ................
21
Figure 2.7.
Portion of the 1770 Collett map showing the project vicinity .....................
23
Figure 2.8.
Map showing the project area at the end of the Civil War .......................
25
Figure 3.1.
Map showing the locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the project
vicinity...............................................................
27
Figure 3.2.
Wilson County soil map from 1925 showing the project area .....................
28
Figure 3.3.
Aerial photograph from 1957 showing structures in the project vicinity linked to a
dairyfarm.............................................................
29
Figure 3.4.
Aerial photograph from 1993 showing the newly constructed hog farm .............
30
Figure 4.1.
Map showing the locations of 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178**.................
32
Figure 4.2.
Aerial photograph showing site details ......................................
33
Figure 4.3.
LiDAR map showing site details ...........................................
34
Figure 4.4.
View of hog farm silos and hog house rubble, facing west .......................
35
Figure 4.5.
View of hog house foundation, facing west ..................................
35
Figure 4.6.
View of concrete structure next to waste lagoon, facing southeast .................
36
Figure 4.7.
View of waste lagoon, facing east ..........................................
36
Figure 4.8.
Shovel test at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), 31WL02/02**.......................
38
Figure 4.9.
Shovel test at Provenience 16 (N230 E425), 31WL02/02**......................
38
Figure 4.10.
Shovel test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455), 31WL02/02**......................
39
Figure 4.11.
Shovel test at Provenience 97 (N500 E500), 31WL02/02**......................
39
Figure 4.12.
Plan map showing the distribution of historic artifacts at 31WL02/02**............
40
Figure 4.13.
Map showing prehistoric artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**...................
42
Figure 4.14.
Map showing prehistoric ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**............
45
Figure 4.15.
Map showing prehistoric lithic artifact distribution at 31LW02/02**..............
46
Figure 4.16.
Soil profile at Provenience 26 (N590 E440), 31WL178/178**...................
48
Figure 4.17.
Soil profile at Provenience 10 (N560 E440), 31WL178/178**...................
48
Figure 4.18.
Map showing historic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**...................
50
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
iv

List of Figures (continued)
Page
Figure 4.19. Map showing Native American artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**............ 51
Figure 4.20. Map showing Native American ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**..... 52
Figure 4.21. Map showing Native American lithic artifact distribution by material type at
31WL178/178**....................................................... 53
Figure 5.1. Map showing the distribution of Cashie pottery fragments in the project area........ 58
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1.
Summary of Soils in the Wilson Solid Waste Expansion Tracts . .................
10
Table 2.2.
Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal
Plain.................................................................
13
Table 2.3.
Summary of Faunal Species from 31BR7, the Jordan's Landing Site ..............
19
Table 3.1.
Summary of Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity ........................
26
Table 4.1.
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL02/02**................
41
Table 4.2.
Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.......
43
Table 4.3.
Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.........
43
Table 4.4.
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit........
49
Table 4.5.
Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.....
54
Table 4.6.
Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.......
54
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
v

Chapter 1. Introduction and Investigation Methods
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. This survey was undertaken for Bartlett Engineering and Surveying on behalf of
the Wilson County government. In a letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources dated 11 September 2017 (ER 17-1519), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) noted the
presence of two previously recorded archaeological sites within the survey area. Because of the
archaeological sensitivity ofthe area, the SHPO recommended that an archaeological survey ofthe expansion
area be conducted and the previously recorded sites located and evaluated for National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) eligibility. This investigation was conducted pursuant to Section 106 ofthe National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified as 36CFR Part 800. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological
resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility
to the NRHP, and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
The Project Tract
The survey
area is located in the
central portion of
Wilson County, about
3 kilometers east of the
town of Wilson (Figure
1.1). The project tract
is located south of
State Route (SR) 42,
on property owned by
Wilson County. An
existing and active
land fill is present on
the property. The
setting is on high
ground bordering Buck
Branch, about 500
meters north of its
confluence with
Toisnot Creek. The
project area
NASH Elm City ti
COUNTY
T-- _; ,EDGECOMBE
COUNTY
Sims
Wilson ^ Proa w��nYj
' WILSON
` COUNTY Lp-._�,.
Saratoga
JOtsNSTON Lucama
Black
Creek �.
Stantonshurg
Kenly
VYtlsan co. solid Waste
GREENE
- County Eaundary
C Municipal Boundary WAYN E COUN. T1Y�
K COUN-v
/k ❑ 1.5 3 6.5 6
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Wilson County Solid Waste
encompasses Expansion project area.
approximately 34
acres, the majority of which is fallow agricultural fields (Figure 1.2). The remains of a hog farm, including
structural remains and waste lagoons, are located in the tract. Figures 1.3 through 1.7 present views of the
project tract.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 1.2. Aerial view of the project area.
-AEC, Inc. Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
2

Figure 1.3. View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southeast.
Figure 1.4. View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southwest.
.-AGC, Inc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 3

Figure 1.5. View of the remains of the hog farm, facing west.
Figure 1.6. View of the southern portion of the survey tract, facing south.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 4

Figure 1.7. View of the southern end of the survey area, facing south.
Methods of Investigation
This investigation consisted of four primary tasks: Background Research, Field Investigations,
Laboratory Analyses, and Project Documentation. Background Research was conducted to identify any
archaeological resources in the project area, to establish the cultural history of the project vicinity, and to
understand changes in the natural and cultural landscape. Field Investigations were conducted to collect a
representative artifact sample, define the horizontal and vertical boundaries of identified sites, and to evaluate
the contexts from which the artifacts were collected. Laboratory Analysis entailed the cleaning and
identification of artifacts collected during the survey. Project Documentation consisted of compiling project
data in a bound report for review by the SHPO. Each of these tasks is discussed in detail below.
Background Research
Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. This review served to identify
previously recorded resources in the proj ect vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context
of the project tract. Historic maps of Wilson County and the project vicinity were also examined. These
included:
• 1709 John Lawson map
• 1770 Collett map
• 1861 Bache map of North Carolina
• 1879 Map of Wilson County (E.P. Tucker)
• 1925 Wilson County soil map
• 1957 USDA aerial photograph
• 1993 aerial photograph
• 1910s Map of Wilson County, North Carolina showing rural delivery routes
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
5

1938 Wilson County Highway map
1978 USGS Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
The current Wilson County Soil Survey and United States Agricultural Department (USDA) online database
was consulted to determine soil types within the project tract and environmental characteristics of the
surrounding area. Finally, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery was used to examine details of
the tract.
Field Investigation
As surface visibility was poor in the survey area, systematic shovel testing was the primary artifact
collection method. Prior to field investigations a 30-meter grid was overlain on project tract maps using
ArcGIS software. This map was then downloaded onto a handheld Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning
System (GPS) unit. Using the GPS unit, each 30-meter grid point was marked on the ground with an orange
pin flag; the transect number and shovel test number was recorded on each pin flag. Shovel tests were dug
at all grid points except in the waste lagoons and in the area of the former hog houses. Following the 30-
meter interval coverage, shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the initial shovel tests that
had yielded artifacts.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter. Shovel tests were
excavated in natural levels, allowing us to distinguish artifacts from plowzone and sub-plowzone contexts.
Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25 inch wire mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test
by level were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with
the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of
artifacts, and initials of the excavator. Site boundaries were determined when two consecutive negative
shovel tests were encountered.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field
showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a
Trimble GPS unit, and the locations were then relayed onto project maps.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria which must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, some historic period
archaeological sites can be considered under all four criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the formal determination of the site significance is
made by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRHP and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 6

the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a site
meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Again, preservation ofthe resource is advocated. Ifpreservation is not possible, mitigation options (e.g., data
recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis
Laboratory work began with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the
context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), was assigned to each positive shovel test location or
surface collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class was then assigned
a number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the
case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. Native American artifacts
were identified using Coe (1964), Herbert (2009), and Phelps and Heath (1998). Historic artifacts were
identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate),
method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g.,
tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges were categorized using Aultman et
al. (2015), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Lindsey 2017), Marcel (1994), Liller et al. (2000),
Samford (2014), South (1977, 2004), and Wilson and Snodgrass (2008). Consultations were also held with
Mr. Thomas Beaman, Jr., Associate Professor in Anthropology and Archaeology at Wake Technical
Community College due to his intimate knowledge of Wilson County's archaeological resources and his
direct experience with the two previously recorded archaeological sites in the project tract. Artifact
descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded. All diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were labeled with
a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink. The artifact inventory catalog and representative
artifact photographs are presented in appendices.
At the conclusion of this project, all project related material, including field notes, artifacts, and
project maps, will be prepared for curation based on standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation offederally
Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule) and in the OSA curation guidelines.
These standards and guidelines require that all proj ect-related material be placed in archivally stable storage
bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be
submitted to OSA for permanent curation or returned to the property owners (if requested).
Project Documentation
Project documentation involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter provides environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. Next, the results of
the field investigation are discussed. Each identified resource is described, shown on project maps, and
NRHP eligibility recommendations are advanced. The data obtained through laboratory analysis are included
in site descriptions. Finally, a summary of the overall project is presented along with management
recommendations, as appropriate.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
7

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
To interpret cultural resources, it is necessary to understand the larger context within which they
occur. The natural environment, technological development, and ideological values are all intertwined in
shaping the way humans live. In this chapter, details about the local environment and cultural development
in the region are presented to provide a context within which cultural resources can be assessed. This basic
framework is an important tool in evaluating the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of
these resources.
Environmental Overview
Wilson County is
mostly located in the
Coastal Plain
physiographic province of
North Carolina (Figure
2.1), but the northwestern
part of the county is in the
Piedmont (Sink 1983); the
project area is in the
Coastal Plain. The Coastal
Plain is gently sloping to
the southeast. Elevations
vary between 305 feet
above mean sea level
(amsl) in the northern part
of the county near the Nash
County boundary and 60
feet amsl near where
Contentnea Creek crosses
the Wilson/Edgecomb
county line (Sink 1983).
Elevations in the project
tract range from 90 to 110
feet amsl.
Drainage
Figure 2.1. Map showing the project area and the physiographic
provinces of North Carolina.
The Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion project area is located within the Contentnea Creek
subbasin of the greater Neuse River Basin (Figure 2.2). Contentnea Creek and it's tributary Toisnot Creek
(sometimes referred to as Toisnot Swamp) drain about 84 percent of Wilson County (Sink 1983). The survey
area is located just west of Buck Branch, a small tributary of Toisnot Creek. Buck Branch is just over 2 3.2
kilometers (2 miles) long, from its headwaters to it's confluence with Toisnot Creek. Figure 2.3 shows a
swampy portion of Buck Branch just east of the southern part of the project area. The confluence of Buck
Branch and Toisnot Creek is approximately 600 meters (1,968 feet) south ofthe project area. The confluence
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 2.2. Map showing the location of the project area within the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
of Toisnot Creek and Contentnea Creek is approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southeast of the project
area. Contentnea Creek is a significant tributary of the Neuse River. The Neuse River flows southeast, past
New Bern, and drains into Pamlico Sound.
Climate
Like most of central and eastern North Carolina, the climate of Wilson County is temperate,
characterized by mild winters and warm summers. January tends to be the coldest month, with daily average
temperatures ranging between 31.2 and 52.8 degrees Fahrenheit (Sink 1983). July tends to be the hottest
month, with daily average temperatures ranging between 68.2 and 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Normal annual
precipitation is about 47.25 inches, with the summer being the wettest season. October is the driest month,
averaging 2.64 inches of rainfall, and July is the wettest month, averaging 6.06 inches of rainfall. The county
averages just over 4 inches of snowfall per year.
Soils
The Coastal Plain soils of Wilson County are underlain by unconsolidated sandy and clayey
sediments (Sink 1983). Six soil types are present in the project tract (Figure 2.4; Table 2.1). More than half
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 9

Figure 2.3. View of Buck Branch, facing northeast from the southern part of the
survey area.
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils in the Wilson Solid Waste Exnansion Tracts (USDA 2017).
Soil Type
Description
Acres
Altavista fine sandy loam (AaA)
moderately well -drained, 0 - 3% slope, rarely flooded
1.8
Goldsboro sandy loam (GoA)
moderately well -drained, 0 - 2% slope
0.2
Gritney sandy loam (GtB2)
Moderately well drained, 2 - 5% slope, moderately eroded
5.5
Tarboro sand (TaB)
Somewhat excessively drained, 0 - 5% slope, rarely flooded
2.5
Tomotley fine sandy loam (Tt)
Poorly drained, 0 - 2 % slope, rarely flooded
3.8
Wagram loamy sand (WaB)
well drained, 0 - 6% slope, forms on ridges and broad interstream
divides on marine terraces
20.0
Total
33.8
(59.2% / 20 acres) of the project tract is classified as Wagram loamy sand. Wagram soils are located in the
northern and central part of the survey area. This soil type is well drained and is viewed as having high
potential for archaeological remains. Gritney sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil encompassing
16.3 (5.5 acres) percent of the survey area. It is found in the central part of the survey area. This is a
moderately eroded soil. Tomotley fine sandy loam is a poorly drained soil located in the southwestern part
of the survey area. It encompasses 11 percent (3.8 acres) of the survey area. Tarboro sand is somewhat
�•' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
[D]

.a
X
Wilson Co. Solid Waste Sites
Project Boundary = Gritney Sandy Loam (GtB2)
Altavista Fine Sandy Loam (AaA) Tarboro Sand (TaB)
Bibb Loam (Bb) �_'. Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam (Tt)I
Goldsboro Sandy Loam (GoA) - Wagram Loamy Sand (WaB)
0 40 80 120 160
ll' 3 •:
s Meters
Figure 2.4. Map showing soils in the survey tract (USGS 1978 Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle).
:-PGC, Inc.- Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

excessively drained soil located in the southeastern corner of the survey area. This soil forms in low-lying
settings that rarely flooded. Tarboro sand 2.5 acres, or 7.2 percent of the survey area. Altavista fine sandy
loam encompasses 1.8 acres, or 5.2 percent of the extreme southern part of the proj ect area. Goldsboro sandy
loam is located in the extreme northern part of the survey area, and accounts for 0.2 acres, or about 0.7
percent of the survey area. The well drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils are considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains.
Paleoenvironment
Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) include a general warming trend, melting
of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years
ago the ocean was located 80 to 161 kilometers (50 to 100 miles) east of its present position, and the project
area was probably a rather unremarkable interriverine Coastal Plain flatwoods. During the last 5,000 years
there has apparently been a 400 to 500 year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about 2.0 meters (6.6 ft; Brooks
et al. 1989; Colquhoun et al. 1981).
The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern United
States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture augmented the
northward advance of the oak -hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al. (1985),
palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance between
9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was gradually being
replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).
From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a
thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).
Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species
(e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period
12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large
mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.
Cultural Overview
Pre -Contact Period
The following discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the
northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 12

throughout the time prior to the arrival of Europeans. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the chronological
sequence of Native American occupation of the northern Coastal Plain.
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Temporal
Phase
Diagnostic Artifacts
Settlement
Subsistence
Period
Paleiondian
Clovis
large, triangular, fluted or side -notched
small, seasonal camps
intensive foraging,
10,000-8,000 BC
projectile points
focus on large fauna
Dalton
Archaic
Taylor
side -notched projectile points
larger, seasonal camps;
intensive foraging
8,000-1,000 BC
Kirk/Palmer
corner --notched projectile points
base camps
Lecroy
bifurcated points
stemmed points
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Savannah
large Savannah River Points
first shell middens in
use of marine
River
Stallings Island fiber tempered and Thom's
the Carolinas
resources
Creek sand tempered ceramics in southern
part of NC coast
Woodland
Deep Creek
large triangular points (Roanoke Triangular)
small, dispersed
intensive foraging
1,000 BC- 1713
sand tempered pottery
villages; focus on flood
supplemented by
cord marked surface treatments
plain areas
horticulture;
agriculture;
continued focus on
Mt. Pleasant /
sand tempered ceramics with fabric and cord
flexed burials and
shellfish
Cape Fear
marked surface decorations; small triangular
cremations
projectile points
Cashie /
pebble tempered pottery (Tuscarora Indians)
large, permanent
European trade
Collington
villages; deer skin trade
intensive agriculture,
shell tempered pottery (Pamlico Indians ?)
focus remains on
corn; supplemented
Tuscarora War
bv Euro can ains
Brady and Lautzenheiser (1999); Haag (1958); Phelps (1983), Ward and Davis (1999)
The fossil record shows that many now -extinct animals once roamed the North America continent
for millions of years, but human remains appear to be more recent, indicating that humans are relatively new
arrivals in North America. Abundant evidence has been found confirming that migrant bands of humans
living a hunter -gatherer lifestyle were scattered across North America by 12,000 years ago. This time period
corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent during the
last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). However, research conducted over the past few decades has
begun to cast doubt on this theory. Evidence is being recognized that humans were spread across North and
South America possibly as early as 20,000 years ago, although much is still not understood about exactly
when, where, and who were the first people to visit and settle in North America.
Investigations at ancient archaeological sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating the
Holocene epoch, which began approximately 12,000 years ago. Current research conducted at the Topper
Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 to 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites,
44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates. One contentious point about these early
sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized as the earliest New World culture, Clovis.
Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 13

lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997;
and McDonald 2000).
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type have led some researchers to hypothesize
about other avenues of migration (Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories contend that
the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago and that multiple
migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one presumed to
have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific
rim (Stanford et al. 2006). Coastal migration theories envision sea faring people using boats to make the
journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
A number of archaeological sites in the project region date to the late Pleistocene. During this
period, the climate of North Carolina was cooler and wetter than today, with temperatures from 5 to 11
degrees Fahrenheit (F ) lower on the average, and more abundant rain, though spread more evenly through
the year. Sea level was over 100 feet lower than today and the Atlantic coast line would have been much
farther east than its current position. Vegetation would have consisted of spruce -pine parklands and near
tundra conditions in the mountains and foothills, while oak -beech -hickory -hemlock forests would have been
present in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
Archaeological sites from the late Pleistocene (10, 000-8, 000 BC) in eastern North Carolina are
known only from surface contexts. Archaeologists refer to this time span as the Paleoindian Period. While
intact sites should exist in the region along major streams, little effort has be made to identify these early
sites (Byrd 1997; Phelps 1983). The major artifact marker for this time frame is the Clovis lanceolate fluted
point (Gardner 1974, 1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been
recovered throughout the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in
the eastern United States (Ward and Davis 1999). The majority of Clovis points have been recovered from
surface contexts, although some sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined
subsurface Clovis contexts. A total of nine fluted points has been documented in the project vicinity (Pitt
County and the seven adjacent counties). Three fluted points have been documented in Pitt County (Daniel
2005), all from surface contexts and private collections.
In North Carolina, most of the tools from 10,000-12,000 years ago occur as isolated surface finds
(Ward and Davis 1999), indicating to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this
period and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group
movements were probably well -scheduled and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained
to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and
Hanson 1988). Small base camps were likely established for the seasonally -mobile family groups who
hunted deer, elk, bear, and possibly caribou. Smaller special activity and resource procurement sites away
from the main camp are also likely.
O'Steen (1996) analyzed early human settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility with time. Early sites seem to be restricted to the flood
plains, while later sites were distributed widely in the uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of
environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing
environments trending toward increased deciduous forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 14

megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth
may have also been a factor.
Between about 81 000 -1, 000 BC new tool forms and subsistence strategies emerge in the Southeast.
Archaeologists refer to this time span as the Archaic Period. The Native American chronological sequence
defined by Coe (1964) for this span of time is primarily based on work in the Piedmont, but generally seems
to be applicable to the Coastal Plain. However, for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, much data are still
needed to refine the chronology and gain a better understanding of Native American lifeways. Most of what
is known ofthis time period comes from surface collections (Ward and Davis 1999), but recent investigations
have identified stratified deposits dating to this period in the northern coastal plain of North Carolina
(Barbour 2015).
The climate gradually warmed during this time period, becoming somewhat similar to today's
environment. There is evidence of a particularly warmer and drier period ca. 6,500 years ago. The
vegetation was similar to that today, with deciduous forests and developing pine forests, especially in the
coastal plain. Swamp communities developed as sea levels rose.
People lived and conducted activities at a variety of site types. These site types range from small
hunting camps to large base camps or small villages. Camp sites are assumed to have been occupied
seasonally to take advantage of the locally available plants and animals. Group sizes may have ranged from
single families to several families (bands) (Ward and Davis).
From 8, 000 to 6, 000 BC (Early Archaic) the climate is marked by a shift from a boreal forest to more
northern hardwoods. Southern pines became the dominant species as the Oak -Hickory forest retreated to the
Piedmont (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985). Site types are generally of two kinds:
base camps at stream confluences and small temporary resource procurement sites located in areas with
seasonally variable resources (Phelps 1981, 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). The smaller temporary
procurement camps and the larger base camps are found at a ratio of ten to one (Ward and Davis 1999).
Palmer and Kirk corner -notched spear points are diagnostic of this time period.
Work at Squires Ridge (31ED365) identified stratified deposits dating to approximately 8,000 years
ago at a depth of about 80 centimeters below the ground surface (+/-10 cm). Artifacts produced from a wide
variety of stone types, including quartzite, quartz, orthoquartzite, metavolcanic, and syenite, were recovered,
suggesting opportunistic collection of raw material rather than specific preferences (Barbour 2015).
Diagnostic artifacts recovered for this time frame include Kirk Stemmed spear points.
From about 6, 000 to 3, OOOBC (Middle Archaic), settlement and subsistence strategies appear to have
remained constant, although there is a noted increase in the number of sites recorded from earlier times
(Ward and Davis 1999). A new suite of diagnostic stone tools appears, characterized by Stanly Stemmed,
Morrow Mountain Stemmed, and Guilford Lanceolate spear points. In the current project region, Morrow
Mountain and Guilford phases are believed to have been introduced from the west (Coe 1964). Phelps
(1964) referred to this as the "Western Intrusive Horizon." Halifax style projectile points have also been
found in the northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina. This point style dates to approximately 4,000 BC and
was introduced from peoples living to the north (Coe 1964). People of this time period continued a hunting
and gathering lifestyle, but cultivation and rudimentary gardening of plants was being practiced by about
2,000 BC.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 15

The period between 3, 000 to 1, 000 BC (Late Archaic) marks a shift of settlements from upland
tributary streams to the mouths of major rivers. This shift allowed for the inclusion of marine and estuarine
resources in the people's diet. The predominant characteristic tool type of the this time is the Savannah River
spear point. These large points are stemmed with triangular blades and may have been used as knives as well
as spear points.
About 2,500 BC, fired clay pottery began being produced. The earliest well dated ceramic types in
the Southeast are fiber tempered Stallings wares and sand tempered Thoms Creek wares. Also most common
on archaeological sites in the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, Stallings and Thoms Creek
wares have been recovered from sites in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Stallings sherds have been
found as far north as the Tar River drainage. Sand tempered Thoms Creek wares tend to be limited to
Brunswick and New Hanover counties (Ward and Davis 1999). These ceramics are often found in
association with Savannah River phase contexts.
By about 1,000 BC the climate was much as it is today, with some minor fluctuations. Vegetation
was also similar to today, although virgin forests were present and better soil conditions existed before
disturbance by European -style farming practices. Agricultural practices were developed, with corn, beans,
squash, and sunflowers being early domesticates (Ward and Davis 1999). Seasonal movements to collect
available plants or hunt animals were still practiced. Archaeologists refer to the period between 1,000 BC
and 1715 as the Woodland Period.
It is believed that the bow and arrow was introduced in the Southeast during this time. Small
triangular arrowheads are common, along with many varieties of pottery. There is very little subsistence data
available for this time frame on the northern Coastal Plain, but what is known points to a continuation of
hunting, gathering, and fishing practices. The importance of horticulture in the diet during this period is still
debated (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999), but it was likely no more than a supplement to the other
strategies already in place.
Settlements included large and small camps, as well as are large and permanently occupied villages
with substantial houses of wood or wattle and daub with thatched roofs. Sand burial mounds appear, but are
not common. The majority of ceramics found during this time period are referenced as Deep Creek, and this
time period has been designated as the Deep Creek Phase. Deep Creek ceramics are sand tempered and cord -
marked, with net impressed, simple stamped, and plain as minority surface treatments. The coarse quartz
sand temper is present in high proportions. The Lenoir ceramics identified by Crawford (1966) and the New
River ceramics identified by Loftfield (1976) in other parts of the Coastal Plain seem to be identical to Deep
Creek wares (Herbert 2011).
Steatite tempered Marcey Creek ceramics are also found in small amounts in the region. Marcey
Creek ceramics originate in the Mid -Atlantic region to the north. Large triangular points similar to what Coe
(1964) and South (1959) called Roanoke triangular points have been found associated with Deep Creek
ceramics (Phelps 1983). These factors may suggest that northern groups of people are beginning to have
some influence in the project region. Work at the Squires Ridge site (31ED365) identified characteristic
Deep Creek pottery fragments at about 20 to 40 centimeters below the ground surface. Associated artifacts
included one Yadkin and one Roanoke triangular projectile points (Barbour 2015).
The Mount Pleasant Phase has been defined as dating from around 300 to 800 AD in the northern
Coastal Plain. During this time span, numerous sand burial mounds were built in the southern inner Coastal
Plain (Ward and Davis 1999).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 16

The distinctive type of pottery for this phase (also called Mount Pleasant) is tempered with fine and
medium sized sand, with occasional granule or pebble size inclusions (Phelps 1983). Surface decorations
include fabric impressed, net impressed, cord marked, and smoothed sherds. The bow and arrow continued
to be used, as reflected by the occurrence of small triangular points. Settlements became more permanent,
although some time was spent during the year at the coast to collect shell fish. Domestic plants were also
a more important part of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999). Maize -based agriculture was present by 800 AD
in the Southeast, and is believed to be correlated to with a significant increase in population, as well as
increased cultural complexity (Smith 1986).
Contact Period
The period between 800 AD until the first contact with Europeans was marked by continuity, and
the changes that occurred were typically gradual in nature. There were few differences between the pre -
pottery lifestyles and the lifestyles of the people of the period of time immediately following the introduction
of ceramic technology. Changes in technology, subsistence, and political organization seem to reflect few
outside influences. Overall, it was a period of stability (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Iroquois -speaking Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Nottoway tribes did not extend eastward to the
coastal zone. Algonkian speaking people, called the Carolina Algonkians, resided in the northern Outer
Coastal Plain of North Carolina, east of the Tuscorora's territory (Mintz et al. 2011; Ward and Davis 1999).
Physical, cultural, and linguistic differences emerged that can be traced to documented tribes who occupied
the coast at the time of European contact (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Tuscarora of North Carolina are an Iroquoian group that migrated to the area centuries before
the arrival of Europeans. Phelps (1983) identified the Cashie phase as being associated with the ancestors
of modern Tuscarora people. Although Phelps (1983) has AD 800 as a starting date for this period, Heath
and Swindle (2011) have reexamined some of Phelps data and they suggest the beginning date is around AD
1200.
Archaeological sites where the ancestors of the Tuscarora lived are most easily identified by their
distinctive pottery, referred to as Cashie wares. Three Cashie phases have been identified: Cashie I (1200-
1650), Cashie II (1650-1717), and Cashie ITI (1717-1803). Tuscarora archaeological sites are most readily
identified by their distinctive pottery and there is growing evidence that the appearance of this ceramic type
marks the initial colonization of North Carolina's interior coastal plain by the ancestors of the Tuscarora.
Cashie pottery is perhaps best know for the type of temper mixed with the clay. Pebble -size pieces of quartz
visible in pottery fragments are characteristic of Cashie pottery (Phelps 1983). However, while the pebble -
tempered pottery is most common, temperless and sand tempered pottery is also present in the
Tuscarora/Cashie ceramic assemblages (Heath and Swindell 2011; Phelps 1983). There are three main
treatments used on the surface of Cashie vessels: fabric impression, simple stamping, and plain. Early in the
phase, fabric impressed vessels were most common. Over time, simple stamped surfaces become more
common, and toward the end of the phase, plain surfaces dominate (Heath and Swindell 2011). Incised
designs are also present but in low numbers. The incising is typically applied near the rim and/or overlapping
fabric impressions or simple stamping on the vessel surfaces (Heath and Swindell 2011).
Mortuary practices in the northern Coastal Plain underwent a rapid transformation at the beginning
of the Cashie phase. Earlier peoples burial practice included primary burial and cremations. With the Cashie
phase, carefully processed skeletal remains are located in small ossuaries inside dwellings or adjacent to
primary habitation areas (Heath and Swindle 2011). Funerary objects often include shell beads, but many
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 17

burials have no funerary objects. Bone pins, antler or bone awls, and bone needles have also been found in
burials.
Cashie I is the period of time identified with the migration and settlement of Tuscarora people prior
to sustained contact with Europeans. Initial settlement is believed to have occurred along the Roanoke and
Tar -Pamlico river basins. Settlement of the middle Neuse River basin does not appear to have occurred until
around 1450. According to settler accounts, the Tuscarora occupied the "country lying between the sea
shores and the mountains, which divided the Atlantic states" (Rights 1957). Figure 2.5 shows the region
believed to be the Carolina Tuscarora's homeland.
North Coastal Plain
P
S1LF
Iar�� mgham Caswell I I R� i Lake Northampton{ �G�tes ; aZ C t
P rson i c aergq o� - A `y P-6 6
'Reidsville He derso Cr[¢.4tpn �a Hertford
� - 1 nvilleI - Halifax Q r - - - - - -1 Per-`
Cqu' ns
Franklin I I r P
reensbo6 t Falls,V
• I Bertie �4
Guilford O E' 4� Nash i -
�- _ DuG .� River ,
• + f Edgec be I
�_ Cha�ljll {{'' Wake 'r J� �Jd Tyrrel
rk I r� !s Evei* Jot• - Wilson Martin Laket I Dare
1e Randolp I Chatham !Lake F9 �� i.z.
r 4 ville
?
Pitt � ` Beaufor � � kc t
.Sant � i Joh on r + E � I � „
t �9 Wayne +Green 1 k'et ti
�g Moore �' _ 'Neuse'
Lenoir .Craven
- i -
Cwn6 !land Pamlico
hmond Hoke , Fay ttevill T Jones °r-fir
Figure 2.5. Map of North Carolina showing the Tuscarora territory in yellow.
Subsistence and settlement patterns remained unchanged during the early years of European
settlement in North Carolina. Hunting, gathering, shell fishing, and agriculture each played a part of the
Native American subsistence strategy, and Cashie ceramics were still produced. Excavations at Neoheroka
Fort (31GR4) provide subsistence data from 1713. Flotation samples from house features yielded large
quantities of corn, peaches, and beans. The acidic soil left bone fragments in poor condition, but deer and
racoon bones were identified (Byrd 1997).
The Tuscarora primarily used quartz and quartzite to construct stone tools. They made small
triangular arrow points of a style common across the Southeastern Woodlands. Most of the stone used for
tools was collected from cobble deposits, but trade of non -local materials may have occurred. Maize, beans,
squash, sunflower goosefoot, amaranth, and sumpweed are typical foods of this time. Carbonized remains
of wild foods such as hickory, acorns, walnuts, persimmon, and wild grapes have been identified in Cashie
features (Byrd 1997). Based on his work at the Tuscarora Jordan's Landing site (31BR7), Byrd (1997) has
presented a summary of animal species that were exploited (Table 2.3).
There were several Tuscarora towns located along Contentnea Creek, which flows from the north
and west into the Neuse River. Catechna is one of the most historically significant of these towns and was
the organizing point for the uprising, led by Chief Hancock, that triggered the Tuscarora War. It was also
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y. 18

Table 2.3. Summary of Faunal Species from 31BR7, the Jordan's Landing Site (Byrd 1997).
Mammals
Reptiles
Birds
Fish
Amphibians
Shellfish
Odocoileus virginianus
Chelydra serpentina
Meleagris gallopavo
Amia calva
Rana catesbeiana
Elliptio complanata
white tailed deer
snapping turtle
wild turkey
bowfin
American bullfrog
eastern elliptio
Ursus americanus
Terrapene carolina
UID Anserinae
Lepisosteus sp.
Ligumia nasuta
black bear
box turtle
goose/duck
Gar
eastern pondmussel
c.f. Canus lupus
Pseudemys sp.
Colinus virgianus
Amieurus catus
possible wolf
tooter turtle
northern bobwhite
white catfish
Lynx rufus
Agkistrodon
Amieurus natalis
bobcat
piscivorus
yellow bullhead catfish
Cottonmouth moccasin
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Elaphe guttata
Morone saxatillis
gray fox
com snake
stripped bass
Castor canadensis
Morone americanus
beaver
white perch
Procyon lotor
Esox sp.
raccoon
Pike
Didelphus marsupialus
Acipenser sp.
opossum
Sturgeon
Ondatra zibethica
Micropterus sp.
muskrat
Black bass
Sylvilagus floridanus
Moxostoma sp.
eastern cottontail rabbit
Carolina redhorse
Sciurus carolinensis
Perca flavescens
eastern gray squirrel
yellow perch
Mephitis mephitis
Micropogonias undulatus
skunk
Atlantic croaker
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
Amieurus nebulosus
brown bullhead catfish
Micropterus salmoides
lar emouth bass
the location of the execution of John Lawson, who had devoted much time to learning about the tribe. He
was captured at the beginning of the Tuscarora War and held for months with an associate and two slaves
in Catechna. After quarreling with one of the chiefs, he was tortured and killed; the others were eventually
set free (Byrd and Heath 1997). There has been some debate as to the exact location of the town based on
conflicting historical accounts, but in 1997, archaeologists from East Carolina University settled on the areas
around Grifton based on a synthesis of historical and archaeological research (Byrd and Heath 1997).
The Cashie II phase begins with period of initial contact with Europeans and ends with the close of
the Tuscarora War. Early European explorers, such as John Lawson, interacted and documented details
about the Tuscaroras and their settlements. In 1701, John Lawson, the explorer, wrote that the Tuscarora
had fifteen towns and almost twelve hundred fighting men (Rights 1957). Figure 2.4 shows a map of the
project area made by Lawson (1709).
There were two dialects of the Tuscarora language in North Carolina and each group operated as
independent polities (Heath and Swindle 2011). These are referred to as the Upper Tuscaroras and the Lower
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y. 19

Tuscaroras. King Blunt was the leader of the Upper Tuscarora towns concentrated on the Tar -Pamlico and
Roanoke rivers. These people were called the Skarure. King Hancock was leader of the Lower Tuscaroras
towns concentrated along Contentnea Creek, a maj or tributary of the Neuse River. These people were called
the Kahtehnu. It is estimated that there were 6,000-8,000 people among the Upper and Lower Tuscaroras
by the early 1700s (Heath and Swindle 2011).
The designation of Tuscarora settlements as "towns" or "villages" by early European observers has
been used to imply that the Tuscaroras were concentrated in large compact communities. However,
archaeological surveys along Contentnea Creek have shown that Lower towns were not nucleated settlements
(Beaman 2010). They appear to have been arranged into loosely arranged clusters of multi -family hamlets,
or extended family farmsteads. They were located on elevated land forms with loamy soil along Contentnea
Creek and its second and third order tributaries (Heath and Swindle 2011). Palisaded settlements may have
dispersed near primary settlements as a defensive measure, as disperse settlements tend to be more difficult
to defend from attack.
The time of contact between Indians living in North Carolina and Europeans arriving from Spain and
England varied considerably across the state. The earliest European arrivals did not herald the beginnings
of significant changes in the histories of North Carolina's tribes. In fact, the Tuscarora and their Algonkian
neighbors remained relatively immune to the effects of European settlement until 1650 when Virginia
colonists began to move into northeastern North Carolina (Ward and Davis 1999:273-275). They were
among the first groups of Native Americans that English explorers and colonizers encountered in North
Carolina.
By the mid 1600s, the Tuscaroras were receiving European trade goods. They became important
partners to the colonists in the deer -skin and the Native American slave trades. Trade items were of minor
importance until around 1650, but by 1700 iron hoes, nails, spikes, axes, and knives were being regularly
traded. Glass beads were also important trade items, as were copper items. Copper and brass kettles were
often used as raw materials to make other items, such as copper beads and tinklers. European manufactured
ceramics have also been found at Tuscarora sites (Heath and Swindell 2011).
Land -grabbing by Europeans and an illegal trade in Native Americans as slaves set the stage for
subsequent conflicts with the tribes of the coast and Coastal Plain. Wars in other parts of the colonies, such
as the Chowanoc War in Virginia in 1675, fostered a negative attitude toward the native tribes by the settlers
(Ward and Davis 1999). The Lords Proprietors gave colonists permission to deal with the natives as they
saw fit, and colonists encroached upon native lands with little or no compensation.
The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the distribution of rewards to those who
had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell 1989). This initiated the Proprietary colonial
period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until 1729. The Colony of Carolina was established in 1663
when approximately 500 settlers were living between Albemarle Sound and the Virginia border. By the late
1600s, settlers had moved to Pamlico Sound and, not long after, moved to the Neuse River Basin (Ward and
Davis 1999).
The settlers' movement inland began to cause friction with the Tuscarora Indians. Although settlers
did not move into what would become Wilson County until the 1740s, a historic Tuscarora town, Tosneoc
(Toisnot), is believed to have been located there. The town was named by John Lawson in the chronicle of
his journey from Charleston, South Carolina to Bath, North Carolina. Recent investigations in Wilson
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 20

County have identified eighteen sites that could be identified with the Tuscarora community of Tosneoc.
The sites are clustered along Contentnea Creek and its tributaries (Beaman 2008).
The proprietary government instructed the settlers to deal with the Tuscaroras as they saw fit, which
generally meant they took the land with little or no compensation. In addition to land grabbing, settlers also
engaged in Indian slave trading despite its illegality. Frustrated with the situation, the Tuscaroras sought
permission to move to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania agreed to accept the Tuscaroras, provided North Carolina
certify the past good behaviour of the Tuscaroras. North Carolina refused to provide the certification (Ward
and Davis 1999).
Figure 2.6 shows the project region when John Lawson passed through in 1701. In 1711, a group
of Swiss settlers went to settle land near the confluence of the Neuse and Trent rivers. They found an Indian
village occupying the land. John Lawson, the surveyor -general, told the settlers they had title to the land and
to remove the Indians (Utley and Washburn 1985). On September 22, 1711, the Tuscaroras attacked the
colonists killing more than 130 people beginning the Tuscarora War. Among the first casualties of the
Tuscarora War was John Lawson (Powell 1989).
a v
L .B Z�
D Project Area " .,
�0,
Zx
C rxlfi2rrrz 3 "the
00
f 13'ej�11'
Figure 2.6. Map showing the project vicinity in the early eighteenth century (Lawson 1709).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
21

Colonel John Barnwell of South Carolina led a force of 30 soldiers and 500 Indians to North
Carolina to help defeat the Tuscaroras. After forcing the Tuscaroras into a treaty in the Spring of 1712,
Barnwell immediately seized some Indians as slaves, breaking the treaty. Fighting resumed in the summer
of 1712. Colonel James Moore, also from South Carolina, marched on the Tuscarora's main fighting force
at Fort Neoheroka on Contentnea Creek (in present day Greene County) in March 1713. Several hundred
natives were killed, and 400 were captured and sold into slavery to pay for the campaign (Utley and
Washburn 1985).
During the war, a small portion of the Tuscaroras living along the northern limits of their range
remained friendly to the settlers. Because they were neutral during the war, they were given preferential
treatment. In 1715, Tom Blount, their chief, signed a peace treaty, formally ending the war. Most of the
Tuscaroras soon moved to New York to live with their Iroquois relatives (Powell 1989; Utley and Washburn
1985; Ward and Davis 1999).
The Tuscaroras sought permission to move to Pennsylvania to save their way of life, but were denied
when North Carolina failed to certify their past good behavior. Seeing no alternative, on September 22,
1711, the Tuscarora revolted, killing 130 colonists. The ensuing Tuscarora War lasted three and half years
and left 200 colonists and 1,000 tribal members dead, and approximately 1,000 more sold into slavery (Ward
and Davis 1999:274).
The Tuscarora War (1711-1713) was in fact a conflict between several Native American groups and
the colonists. The Lower Tuscaroras, and some oftheir Algonkian and Siouan neighbors attacked plantations
on the lower Tar -Pamlico and Neuse rivers. The upper Tuscaroras remained neutral or at times even allied
with the colonists of Carolina and Virginia (Heath and Swindle 2011). After the defeat of the Lower
Tuscaroras at Neoheroka Fort, King Blunt was recognized by the colonists as the "King of the Tuscaroras."
Post -Contact Period
Years of turmoil brought about by an unstable system of government and the resulting Tuscarora War
left the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted until the Lords and Proprietors
were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989). Some Tuscaroras
remained in North Carolina after the Tuscarora War, and their material remains are associated with the
Cashie III phase. At this time, most Carolina Tuscaroras lived within the Indian Lands reservation of Bertie
County. These were mostly from the Upper Tuscarora towns. Over several decades the lands were leased
or sold and the regional population diminished as some people relocated among the Haudenosaunee in New
York or in other colonies (Heath and Swindle 2011). The last group of Tuscaroras living at Indian Woods
relocated to New York in 1803.
The acquisition of North Carolina by the Crown initiated a period of relatively stable government.
During this time, immigration into North Carolina was along three major routes (Powell 1989): western
North Carolina was settled by German and Scots -Irish immigrants arriving from Pennsylvania and Virginia
via the Great Wagon Road; new arrivals at the important towns of New Bern and Brunswick pushed west
up the Cape Fear and Neuse river valleys; and colonists from South Carolina advanced up the Pee Dee and
Catawba rivers in search of new land.
The first English and Scots -Irish settlers arrived in the area that would become Wilson County during
the 1740s, although the population was sparse. Figure 2.7 shows the sparsely settled area in 1770. As late
as the Revolutionary War, the population of the project region was low.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 22

41,� it fiver
ro
19
—T-A R kt TT
r
�.E $ DIA
16m-
Project Area \ _:
kw ?• ��_
a2
Figure 2.7. Portion of the 1770 Collett map showing the project vicinity.
During the Revolutionary War in 1781, British General Cornwallis wrote to General Clinton "North
Carolina is, of all the provinces in North America, the most difficult to attack... on account of its great extent,
of its numberless rivers and creeks, and the total want of interior navigation" (Carrington 1974). In spite of
these setbacks, the British did fight in North Carolina. They focused much of their strength on dividing the
north and the south, somewhere along the Virginia line but were hindered by the low number of Loyalist
supporters in the area, as well as their minimal knowledge of the land. Two large victories were won along
the North Carolina/South Carolina border that helped turn the tide toward eventual American victory. The
October 7, 1780 Battle of Kings Mountain was an enormous victory of Patriots over Loyalists that caused
Cornwallis to withdraw out of North Carolina back into South Carolina (Powell 1989). Not long after, at
Cowpens, on January 17, 1781, the Americans defeated the British again under the command of Daniel
Morgan. Nine months later Cornwallis surrendered to Washington in Yorktown, Virginia (Powell 1989).
No fighting took place in Wilson County, but General Cornwallis did march across the area on his way to
Wilmington.
Following the Revolutionary War, paper money lost its value, agricultural pursuits were no longer
profitable, and commerce slowed almost to a stop. Lack of adequate transportation and communication made
improvements nearly impossible. Large numbers of Highlanders left North Carolina, returning to Great
Britain or emigrating to Canada, Florida, and the West Indies (Powell 1989). It was not until the beginning
-Anc�„.. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
23

of the nineteenth century that gains were made in repairing these economic and social damages. The
production of tar, turpentine, and lumber from vast pine forests in the Sandhills District soon became a maj or
cash industry (Powell 1989; Wilson County 2008).
Railroads first came to what would become Wilson County (Edgecombe County at the time) in the
1830s. The Wilmington and Raleigh railroad was completed in 1939 with stops at Bardin's Depot, Toisnot,
and Joyner's Depot. These stops would later become the towns of Black Creek, Wilson, and Elm City,
respectively. State legislators from Edgecombe County, introduced bills in1848 to establish the town of
Wilson. Wilson was incorporated on January 29, 1849 and was named after Louis Dicken Wilson, a long
time state representative and senator. Wilson County was formed six years later in 1855. Wilson became
the county seat (City of Wilson 2008; Corbitt 2000; Wilson County 2008).
North Carolina saw much more fighting on its own soil during the Civil War. The fall of New Bern
in 1862 alarmed the North Carolinians who responded by initiating military training camps all over including
around LaGrange and Kinston. Troops assembled in Kinston to build defenses but were soon sent to defend
Petersburg, leaving the Kinston front weakened (Trotter 1989). Union forces had to move through the area
to get to Goldsboro, igniting a few battles. Two major battles were fought near Kinston (12 miles southwest
of the project tract), the Kinston Battle in 1862 and the Battle of Wyse Fork Battle in 1865. Both battles
occurred when Confederate troops attempted to halt the advance of the Union army toward Goldsboro. In
both instances, the Union troops won. On March 14, 1865, Kinston fell to the Union Army. Pitt County saw
a battle at Tranter's Creek, which forms the northeastern boundary of the County, in 1862. Union soldiers
out of Washington, North Carolina fought Confederate soldiers who were barricaded in mill buildings along
the creek. The Confederate Colonel, George Singletary, was killed and the rest of his troops retreated
(National Park Service 2015).
Local economies in most of the southern states were devastated after the Civil War due to the loss
of slave labor and damage to property and fields. Few farmers had the money to pay for field labor and many
had to sell their land (York 1992). Farm size also began to decline during this time period as tenancy
increased (Piehl 1979). The tenant farmer system led to economic and social problems in the region, and
many African American laborers who could afford to migrated to other areas. This migration began at the
end of the 1870s and continued through the 1890s (Watson 1979). Tobacco gained in popularity due to
lowering prices of cotton, and by the nineteenth century tobacco joined cotton as a major cash crop (Piehl
1979). This tobacco boom stimulated a population boom as well (Black and Black 1989).
The Civil War had little direct effect on Wilson County, as no major battles were fought in the
county. However, Union General William T. Sherman marched his soldiers through the region in March
1865 on their way to Raleigh. On March 19, 1865, Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston and his troops
waited for Sherman's arrival at Bentonville, a small town in Johnston County south of Wilson County.
Between 85,000 and 90,000 soldiers were involved in the battle, and it was one of the bloodiest battles ever
fought in North Carolina. More than 4,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or missing (Angley et al. 1995;
Powell 1989). After the battle, Sherman moved on to occupy Raleigh.
Figure 2.8 presents a map of the project vicinity at the end of the Civil War (Bache 1865). After
the Civil War came to an end, the South was divided into five military districts with a general commander
to help organize elections and the rebuilding of government. The Carolinas were overseen by Major General
Daniel Sickles. Before they could rejoin the Union, all of the Southern states were required to ratify the
Fourteenth Amendment, which gave citizenship and civil liberties to freed blacks, and allow universal
suffrage. North Carolina ratified the amendment and reentered the Union in 1868 (Powell 1989).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 24

yll
r
Figure 2.8. Map showing the project area at the end of the Civil War (Bache 1865).
During this period, the naval stores industry began to wane and tar and turpentine became less
economically viable. In Wilson County, cotton became the cash crop, as it was for the surrounding counties
and throughout the south. By the 1890s, tobacco had become more important, and Wilson opened its first
tobacco warehouse in 1890. Wilson had the country's largest flue -cured market in 1919 and came to be
known as the "World's Greatest Tobacco Market" (Harrell 2008).
Wilson County remained rural and dependent on agriculture until World War II. Following the war,
the economy diversified as manufacturing plants moved to the county. Today, Wilson County has large tire
and pharmaceutical plants as well as several smaller manufacturing plants. Despite the diversification,
Wilson County remains home to tobacco marketing firms and is still a large producer of flue -cured tobacco
(Wilson County 2008).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
25

Chapter 3. Results of Background Research
Background research began with a review of reports, maps, and files at the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA). in Raleigh. A review of site files records identified two previously recorded
archaeological sites in the project tract (31 WL02 and 31 WL178/178* *) and an additional five archaeological
sites within 0.5 mile of the tract boundaries (Table 3.1; Figure 3.1).
Table 3.1. Summary of Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity.
Site Number
Component
Reference
31 WL02
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL03
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL05
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL06
Native American
archaeological site form
31WL178/178** (WCS-4)
Native American
Historic (18th/19th c)
Gardner 1990
31WL179 (WCS-5)
Native American
Gardner 1990
31WL180 (WCS-6)
Native American
Gardner 1990
Site 31 WL02 is a Native American site. The location plotted for the site on the OSA topographic
map is in the central portion of the southern half of the survey tract; a site boundary is not shown, just a
triangle symbol noting its general location. This site was recorded by Hugh B. Johnson in 1968. Mr.
Johnson had recorded numerous archaeological sites in Wilson County, but unfortunately he did not record
the precise locations of the artifacts he collected (Thomas Beaman, personal communication 2017). The
archaeological site file data notes that the site was revisited in 1975 by Trawick Ward. A surface collection
was made at this time but there is no record of what was collected.
In 1990, East Carolina University conducted the Wilson County Archaeological project. The object
of the project was to "promote interest in the area's past, to provide secondary school teachers with
knowledge and experience about local prehistory and history which they could then convey to their students,
and to expose the general public to the discipline and methods of archaeology" (Gardner 1991:1). The
survey focused along land along Toisnot Creek and the primary research focus was to try and locate the
remains of the Tuscarora settlement of Tosneoc. The survey used students and volunteers to conduct field
and lab work. During the course of the project, approximately 250 acres were surveyed and 14
archaeological sites were recorded. Field methods focused on surface survey only, so subsurface data was
not collected from any of the sites. Site 31WL178/178** was one of the sites recorded during the survey,
and was given a field designation as Site WCS-4 (Gardner 1991). However, in the project report the
discussion of the site (as well as the rest of the sites recorded) is limited to an artifact inventory. The artifacts
were collected from an area approximately 100 meter in diameter. A total of 465 artifacts were collected
from 31WL178/178**, including 11 sand tempered pottery fragments (1 listed as complicated stamped, the
remainder as indeterminate fragments), 56 stone tools and tool fragments, and 398 pieces of lithic debitage.
The lithic tools include 10 projectile points/knives (PPKs) identified as Stanley, Morrow Mountain,
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 26

42
� i ; m • � r . � I J
!11' ��' Caul ort sate Hwy a2' i 4. OW #Edwa
jrr f - M if ro
31WL5
inot
/r t-r3l
�f
31WL8
WL1791179** .3 Cj� �/''•_✓ � II
�f "*` 31WL178117841
31WL212'*
J .f
Hut f 1i �� C
o
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
f' �, -:� }�� �� i.-W Tract Boundary N
Previously Recorded Site S
0 200 400 600 800
Meters
Figure 3.1. Map showing the locations ofpreviously recorded archaeological sites in the proj ect vicinity
(USGS 1978 Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
27

Guilford, Savannah River, Halifax, and Woodland triangular types, one preform, 19 bifaces, nine retouched
flakes, one hammerstone, three cores, and one anvil stone. There is no notation of the types of raw lithic
materials present. A total of 74 historic glass and ceramic artifacts were also collected from
31WL178/178**. The collection includes three dark green bottle fragments and 71 ceramic artifacts. The
ceramic artifacts include creamware, pearlware, stoneware, and porcelain fragments. These indicate a
possible middle eighteenth through nineteenth century historic period of use and/or occupation at the site.
Gardner (1991) noted that the survey failed to locate any site likely to be the Tuscarora town of Tosneoc.
A nearby survey by Tom Hargrove (1992) gives some idea of site density in the vicinity of the study
area. Hargrove's (1992) survey is located about one mile east of the current project area, and encompassed
400 acres. As with the Gardner (1991) survey, surface survey was the principal method used and no
subsurface excavations were conducted. A total of 24 archaeological sites were recorded, giving the survey
area a site density of one site per 16.6 acres. Nineteen of the sites have prehistoric components, 10 of which
have Woodland components. Sites 31WL197 and 31WL201 had possible Late Woodland components.
Hargrove (1992) did not recommend additional work at any of the prehistoric sites.
Figure 3.2. Wilson County soil map from 1925 showing the
project area.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
A review of historic maps and
aerial photographs was conducted.
The 1925 Wilson County soil survey
map (Figure 3.2), a 1957 aerial
photograph (Figure 3.3), and the 1978
USGS Saratoga, NC topographic map
(see Figure 3.1), as well as a more
modern aerial photograph (Figure 3.4),
reveal that numerous structures have
been present in the study tract. We
were able to determine that two
businesses once operated at least
partially within the project area. The
Larry Moore Dairy Farm was located
in the project area until about 1970.
According to David Morton of Bartlett
Engineering (personal communication
2017) , his uncle worked at the dairy
farm in 1966, but joined the military
and did a tour of duty in Viet Nam.
When he completed his military
service in 1970 and returned home, the
dairy farm was no longer in operation.
Around 1990, a hog farm operated by
Mo Mohensky was constructed at least
partially within the survey area
(Robert Bartlett, Bartlett Engineering,
personal communication 2017).
Construction of the hog farm and road
improvements have heavily impacted
elements of the dairy farm once
located in the project vicinity.
Y' 28

Figure 3.3. Aerial photograph from 1957 showing structures in the project vicinity linked to a dairy
farm.
-ACC, lncr;` Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
29

Figure 3.4. Aerial photograph from 1993 showing the newly constructed hog farm.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 30

Chapter 4. Results of Field Survey
The project tract totals approximately 34 acres, mostly encompassing fallow agricultural fields,
although the remains of a hog farm occupies a number of acres within the tract. As noted in Chapter 1,
survey methods included 30-meter interval shovel tests across the entire tract except in the hog farm area,
followed by 15-meter interval shovel tests around any initial survey shovel test that yielded artifacts. As a
result of the survey, two archaeological sites, 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178**, were identified and
evaluated (Figures 4.1 through 4.3).
Structures are shown in the project area on the 1925 Wilson County soil map, a 1957 aerial
photograph, and the 1967 Saratoga, NC USGS topographic map. These structures were associated with the
Larry Moore Dairy Farm. However, they were all destroyed by construction of the hog farm and graded road
that bisects the project tract. The hog farm began operation about 1990 and continued until about 2005
(Robert Bartlett, Bartlett Engineering, personal communication 2017). Figures 4.4 through 4.7 show
elements of the hog farm that remain in the western portion of the project area. Construction of the hog farm
impacted a portion of 32WL178/178**, and it is possible that sites 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178** were
once comprised of a continuous artifact scatter prior to this disturbance.
Field investigations were conducted 17-20 October 2017. The author served as Field Director and
the field crew consisted of Andy Jordan, Brooke Brilliant, Katherine Parker, Dawn Reid, and Luan Cao.
Time spent in the field surveying the tract totaled about 87 person hours, or about 11 person days.
A total of 352 shovel tests were excavated during this investigation, with artifacts collected from 128
of these. A total of 121 shovel tests were excavated during the initial 30-meter interval survey coverage.
Artifacts were collected from 37 of these shovel tests. An additional 231 shovel tests were then excavated
at 15-meter intervals to further evaluate archaeological deposits. Ninety-one of these tests yielded artifacts.
A total of 505 historic and prehistoric artifacts and 104.66 grams of various historic materials (i.e., brick,
mortar, etc.) were collected during this investigation. The artifact inventory is presented in Appendix A and
representative artifact photographs are in Appendix B.
Site 31WL02/02** Revisit
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter
Prehistoric artifact scatter
Component: Early Archaic, Middle Woodland,
Late Woodland
Middle 19`h-Early 20' century
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unassessed
UTM (NAD 27): N3956606 E241125
USGS Quad: Saratoga, NC (1978)
Soil Type: Altavista fine sandy loam, Gritney sandy
loam, Tarboro sand, Tomotley fine sandy loam,
Wagram loamy sand
Site 31WL02/02** was identified by a local artifact collector, Hugh B. Johnson, in 1968. Mr.
Johnson made a general collection of artifacts but did not keep records on artifacts themselves or their
specific locations. The site form on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) indicates that the site was
revisited by Trawick Ward in 1975, but there is no information provided as to his activities there. Maps on
file as OSA show only a general location for the site, with a triangle symbol plotted in the southern portion
of the project tract.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 31

Al
�jr
,. f�
31WL1781178**
f
i�
+ ti4
rlf .r r i AF . !j
31WL212** f �•_ +f `'
/ X 1
f t ff i r
311. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
v
f Tract Boundary
Arehaeolagicai Site
-- - - 0 200 400 600 Boo
�-�
� Meters
Figure 4.L Map showing the locations of 31WL2/2** and3lWL178/178** (1978 USGS Saratoga, NC
7.5minute topographic quadrangle).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
32

Vr _
Q.
ko
D a O 0 DD 0 0 Do
0 0 -0 00 C) c] ..
O a D 4 d' fl 0 0 a 0 0 0)
. t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 D
0 0 -0 ❑ D 0
. &I..,t
s+' Q-, a D D■ 0 0 0 6 0
_ 113 '.11 105 1Cr3 107-
4 a 0 0 0 0 0,-
57 :�R
AG
100
•
a
O
O
a
1011
xe
i
f
0
0
of
0•
"
» _
k7
K
3a
P1
a1
0
0
0
0
00
Waste Lagoon
0
0
6
0
0'.
PO
81
37, 83
0
o
a
6
0
00
a
rr}
rr
i�
0
0
0
0
•
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
D
a
a
'
-5;
V
71
-
T3
0
00
0
o
0
0
0❑
0
E'3
Ea
Fi
%E
6
O
O
0
0
O
o
D
0 0
❑
a
Q❑
0
o
04
c
6
o
o
o
O
0 0
4
0
0
0
0
+ 0
0
4
0
0
0
a
0
0 0 O
4
0
6
ti tip'.
SC
0
0
0
00
o
0
0
A.
0
a
0
y r
:'
a'
c
t_
4S AK7-47�=la$
=c
•
O
0
0
0_
D
00
0 0 0
a
q
er.
37;
iEi
C
0
0
00
Q,
❑�
❑
0 0 0 0
0
0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a
0
2£
0
0 0
, 33
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
P-
as 26
� Project Boundary
6 • 4
20
4
21
22 =23
0 Now Archaeological Site
-
0 0 o a 0■
0
O
D
�
0 4'
o Positive Shovel Test
a a 0 0
•,y
02
0
03 0
• Negative Shovel Test
�
R
9
10
0 0 a 0 a 0 0
0
7
0
3
0 f
d 5r
} X No Dig
sr. a 0 0
0
0
'
0
N
6 6
a
9 30 50 90 120
SLE
y. Meters
Figure 4.2. Aerial photograph showing site details.
-ACC,�nc.-- Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
33

0
ii ❑ ❑
0 ❑ o r
o ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a
0]
25 26
0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a 0 0'
� 73"..23
o ❑ D D a •
20 a
❑ 0 ❑❑ D D 0 0
16 17 18 19
r a 1C13 14 _
O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 24 13 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i
O ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ O
O ❑ ❑ O ❑ •
109 114 111 112
O ❑ O ❑ ❑
-103 104 105 196 1il7
i97 98 99 140 1il2
Q
8
❑
Waste Lagoon 3
- 79
0 ❑
❑ — 1 '0
0
• ❑ 0
Su 57 58
❑ • 0 D 0 ❑
59 fi0
D
fit
❑ o• 0 00 a
55
c❑❑
50 53
❑ o a -
52
53
54
o
41 2 43 45
48 47
48
49 �
i ❑ CI
D
36 37 3 39
O ❑
46
- 31
O O O O o ❑' '
32
28
33
34 35
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
D ❑
24
zs 2s
Project Boundary
a ❑ ❑ o D a
❑ a Q,
0
zo z1
z2
z 3
New Archaeological site
❑ D D o a a❑
15 16
12
17
13
1a
o Positive Shovel Test
0 ❑ ❑ ❑,
• Negative Shovel Test
❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑
8
14
x No Dig
❑ ❑ ❑
3
1
4
5
N
❑ ❑ 0
❑
0 30 60 90 120
Meters
Figure 4.3. LiDAR map showing site details.
-A£C,Inc. Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
34

Figure 4.4. View of hog farm silos and hog house rubble, facing west.
Figure 4.5. View of hog house foundation, facing west.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 35

Figure 4.6. View of concrete structure next to waste lagoon, facing southeast.
Figure 4.7. View of waste lagoon, facing east.
-ACC, lncr; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ti
36

This site occupies most of the project tract that is south of the graded road. This portion of the
project area had been in cultivation for many years, but was fallow with tall weeds during field
investigations. Artifacts were collected from 33 shovel tests during the initial 30-meter interval survey. An
additional 186 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the original positive shovel tests, and
artifacts were collected from 80 of these. Based on the distribution of positive shovel tests, dimensions of
360 meters north -south by 285 meters east -west were established (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3).
As five different soil types are present within the site boundaries, it is not surprising that soil profiles
in shovel tests varied. Figures 4.8 through 4.11 show examples of shovel test profiles. In the far southern
part of the site at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), the soil profile consists of a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4)
sandy loam plowzone to a depth of about 30 centimeters. Below this was yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy
loam to a depth of about 50 centimeters. Sterile subsoil consisted of yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy clay
loam. At Provenience 16 (N230 E425) the plowzone consisted of approximately 25 centimeters of brown
(10YR4/3) sandy loam. Dark yellowish brown (1 OYR4/6) sandy loam extended to a depth of 55 centimeters
below surface. Sterile subsoil consisted of light yellowish brown (10YR6/4) sandy clay loam. The shovel
test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455) exposed a plowzone of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) sandy loam to
a depth of about 30 centimeters. Below this was yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy loam. Sterile subsoil
consisted of brownish yellow (10YR6/6) sandy clay loam. At the northern end of the site, the soil profile
at Provenience 97 (N500 E 500) consists of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) sandy loam plowzone to a
depth of approximately 35 centimeters. Beneath this was yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sandy loam to a depth
of 55 centimeters. Sterile subsoil was light gray (10YR7/2) sandy loam.
A total of 441 historic and prehistoric artifacts and 84.9 grams of miscellaneous historic material
were collected from 113 shovel tests at 31 WL02/02**. Native American artifacts were collected from 104
shovel tests and historic artifacts were collected from 28 shovel tests. Most of the historic artifacts at
31 WL2/2** are concentrated in the northeastern part of the site (Figure 4.12), in the vicinity of a cluster of
structures possibly associated with the Larry Moore Dairy Farm (see Figure 3.3).
Historic artifacts include ceramic (n=4), glass (n=37), metal (n=5), asphalt shingle (n=4), bone (n=1),
plastic (n=6), unidentified material (n=1), slate fragments (n=2), mortar (n=4.6g), brick (n= 78.4 g), and coal
(n=1.9g). Ceramic artifacts include an ironstone fragment, two stoneware fragments, and a ceramic marble.
Glass artifacts are more abundant than ceramic artifacts at 31WL02/02**. Based on established
manufacturing dates, the historic material recovered from this site reflect an occupation period spanning the
middle nineteenth through early twentieth centuries. Table 4.1 presents a summary of this material.
A total of 381 Native American artifacts were collected from 104 shovel tests at 31WL02/02**
(Figure 4.13; Table 4.2). This includes 62 ceramics and 319 lithic artifacts. Ceramics were collected from
41 shovel tests (Figure 4.14). Fifteen sherds are identified as belonging to the Late Woodland Cashie series,
primarily based on temper type. These include one simple stamped sherds, one sherd whose surface
decoration could not be identified, and 13 residual sherds. Five sherds are identified as Middle Woodland
Mount Pleasant sherds; two have plain surfaces, one has an unidentifiable surface modification, and two are
residual sherds. Nine pottery fragments are tentatively identified as Early Woodland/Middle Woodland types
(Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant). Two of these sherds have fabric impressed surfaces and seven are small
residual sherds. Overall, the highest percentage of recovered sherds (53%) are residual.
Lithic artifacts dominate the artifacts assemblage, accounting for 84 percent (n=319) of the total
Native American artifacts recovered (Table 4.3). Metavolcanic artifacts are most common (n=184). These
were collected from 71 shovel tests and account for 57.7 percent of the lithic artifacts in the assemblage.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 37

r•
ter. .
Figure 4.8. Shovel test at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), 31WL02/02**.
IL
Figure 4.9. Shovel test at Provenience 16 (N230 E425), 31WL02/02**
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
38

• �-+�+�^ •� ,i' is -r, — __ �!' �'
�Wti .S� Y`ti
3� "
Figure 4.10. Shovel test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455), 31 WL02/02**.
,a,'r�� � �y�;g r •L
1 f ,yy
Figure 4.11. Shovel test at Provenience 97 (N500 E500), 31 WL02/02**
-ACC, lnar• " Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ti
39

--own- --
.. �• s
w r 1 8 � 9�C-111 112.
a 103 'C4 105 •C6
�y ��-107
R 0 L98yy 0
ti 97 99 CC 101 102
0 �'.
93 94 95 96
R 0 0-
.. 87 88 89 90 91
X
84 85 S6 ■.
}. R 0
79 80 81 �a 82 83 w
X
76 77 78
w w w ! X
68 69 70 71 72 73 w� ~
62 63 �:. 64 65 66
58 57 5S 59 60 61
■
0
Gil i ! w • i • i w i • „ w w ! i -
50 51 52 53 54
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
36 7 38 39 40 }ii1 :'" A 04
• ' i ti:
Tim 32 33 34 35 r+'
27 28 29 30 * rN VV
24 25 26 •.� r
19 20 222 23'. 9' ±yi . ..►.,
000
14 15 16 17 A.k
11 ' 12 13 , N
s R E ., 41
6 7 8 9 10 Wf
i w ! 2 :3 5 Site 31 WL02102w*
1
Project Boundary Brick Only
NewArchaeciogical Site Historic Artifacts
Positive ST 0
i Negative ST 1 - 4
R`� •''Y X No Dig * 5-8
r N':-.� �•_�. � f.e ��1►�.: T.Y •�: :fir R 4� h
0 25 50 75 100
+ •;= " ti i ti'+i'E"..� •. :`.''ti .''1,... + +yam; :-, .
Meters
Figure 4.12. Plan snap showing the distribution of historic artifacts at 31 WL02/02**.
-r GCJnc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
40

Table 4.1. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WL02/02**.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity/Weight
Ceramics:
Ironstone, Undecorated
post 1840'
1
Stoneware, Albany Slipped
1830-19202
1
Unglazed Stoneware
1
Marble, Unglazed Earthenware
common mid- 1700s to 1930s3
1
Glass:
Brown Bottle Glass
10
Clear Bottle Glass
9
Clear Flat Glass
3 window glass, 1 likely window glass
5
Clear Lamp Glass
very thin
l
Clear Unidentified Glass
1
Light Green Bottle Glass
2
Light Green Flat Glass
3 window glass, 5 likely window glass
8
Milkglass Unidentified Glass
green painted exterior
1
Metal:
Aluminum Button
2-hole, 1 piece, post 1880s°
1
Copper Alloy Fastener
possible rivet fragment
1
Iron Hardware
likely trivet leg, possibly cast iron cookware handle or leg
1
Iron Unidentified Form
1
Nail, UID
1
Other:
Asphalt Roofing Shingle Fragment
post 1840s'
4
Bone, UID Mammal
juvenile, unfused epiphysis from phalanx, possible pig
1
Brick Fragments
78.4g
Coal
1.9g
Mortar
4.6g
Plastic
post 18686
6
Slate Fragments
2
Unidentified
possible egg shell fragment or modern material
1
Total
60/84.9
lAultman et al. 2015; 2South 2004; 3Samford 2014; 4Marcel 1994; 5Wilson and Snodgrass 2008; 6Miller et al. 2000
.-AGC, Inc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 41

108r 109-110-11'�12
i ! i Q D D o
1p1 104 105106 1054'
�- x i D [? '
:y• 9Ei 104 : 101 10
53 94 95 96 i
.'JR. —.7 i 0 0 0 i. i
y +�: S7 Sb 89 90 91 92
iC i Y 0 0 0i
{ ' 84 5� 86
79 }r,o ..� ; Q 83
• t t 0 C? 0
{76 78
X i d ! V 4J
74 75 ti
68 69 7071 72 r 73.
62 63 64 65 66
!!! Q! Q. G D D Q( Jar•
50. 57 58 59 60 6m.
! ! ! & ! ! 0 ! 0 Q 40
55
<7 • ! ! ! !
60 51 52 553 54
41 42 43 44 5,-. •46 47 49' 4
• 0 0 0 0
36 3 7 38 39 40
'1 32 '3 '4 35 71 r� * .Y
27 28 29 W .*
0 ! i 0 6 C : r1• !
24 26 20 4 F r*
,� i • i i 0 x
19 20 21 2222 23. +
t t4 0 4�h 4;? i$1 r F +
• a
11 12 ,3
i ! i a 0 - CI)0 r`
g 7 8 9 • A
0 0 Q
L 5
! . 6 C) 00.
t
i ! • Site 31WL02102**
Project Boundary Prehistoric Artifacts
yam' 'fit_ 0 New Archaeological Site 0 0
..$r Positive ST 1 -6
Negative ST 7 - 12
X No Dig 13 - 17
54 75 194
1 .,d
Meters
Figure 4.13. Map showing prehistoric artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**.
A£ [nc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
42

Table 4.2. Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Ceramics:
Cashie Simple Stamped Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie UID Decorated Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie Residual Sherds
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
13
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Fabric Impressed Body Sherd
Early/Middle Woodland
2
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
Early/Middle Woodland
7
Mount Pleasant Plain Body Sherds
2 mend, Middle Woodland
2
Mount Pleasant UID Decorated Body Sherd
Middle Woodland
1
Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
possible Mount Pleasant, Middle
Woodland
2
UID Type Residual Sherds
33
Total
62
'Phelps and Heath 1998; 2Herbert 2009
Table 4.3. Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Lithics:
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Core
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
175
Metavolcanic Projectile Point Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Rock
3 cultural?
3
Metavolcanic Shatter
1
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake
2
Milky Quartz Projectile Point, Kirk/Palmer
Early Archaic'
1
Translucent Quartz Projectile Point Fragment
1
Quartz Fire Cracked Rock
1
Quartz Flake Tool
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
92
Quartz Shatter
13
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 43

Quartzite Fire Cracked Rock
1
Quartzite Flake Tool
1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
15
Sandstone Rock/Concretion
cultural?
4
UID Material Flake Tool
1
UID Material Flake/Flake Fragment
1
UID Material Groundstone
1
UID Material Rock
1 cultural?, 1 possible groundstone?
2
Total
319
`Coe 1964
Metavolcanic artifact classes include: biface fragment (n=1), core (n=1), flake/flake fragments (n=175), PPK
tip fragment (n=1), utilized flake (n=2), and rock/shatter (n=4).
Quartz accounts for 109 of the lithic artifacts recovered. These include an Early Archaic
Kirk/Palmer projectile point/knife (PPK), flakes, flake tools, and shatter. The remaining lithic artifacts
recovered are comprised of quartzite, sandstone, and an unidentifiable material. In terms of material
distribution, metavolcanics and quartz span the entire site with little evidence of discrete and/or isolated
concentrations (Figure 4.15). Quartzite appears to be more prevalent in the southern portion of the site.
Overall lithic artifacts are more concentrated in the northern and southern portions of the site, with lower
artifact concentrations noted in the central portion. Of the 71 shovel tests from which lithic artifacts were
recovered, 38 yielded had artifacts from sub-plowzone contexts.
In summary, 31WL02/02** is a multiple component archaeological site, with both historic and
prehistoric components. The historic artifact assemblage suggests the occupation may span the middle
nineteenth through early twentieth centuries. Most of the historic artifacts are concentrated in the
northeastern part of the site, in the vicinity of the former location of a structure complex, possibly associated
with the Larry Moore Dairy Farm. We found no evidence intact contexts associated with the historic
occupation. For this reason, the historic component at 31WL02/02** is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
The Native American occupation of 31WL02/02** is extensive, but discrete concentrations of
artifacts occur in the northern and southern ends of the site. The earliest occupation of the site took place
during the Early Archaic Period. A Kirk Corner Notched PPK was recovered in the northern part of the site
at Provenience 107 (N515 E560). This PPK was recovered from sub-plowzone contexts, and numerous
shovel tests at the site recovered artifacts from similar contexts. Middle and Late Archaic components were
identified by Gardner (1991) at 31WL178/178**, and it is possible that multiple Archaic components are
present in the apparently undisturbed sub-plowzone soils. Ceramic artifacts confirm Woodland Period
occupation at the site. Diagnostic ceramic types represent Middle and Late Woodland occupations. The Late
Woodland occupation is of interest because of its association with the Tuscarora. Possible Cashie pottery
fragments were collected from 16 shovel tests. Although these shovel tests are scattered across the site,
slight concentrations occur in the northern and southern parts of the site. Although none were identified
during this survey, intact cultural features including burials have been exposed at other Tuscarora
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 44

108 1 9 10 11
X t
97 g$ 99 !C. !o
0 C)
f
93 93 c) a0
# I a C) Jq i
is g7 9,1j f, fF
1.' Q
0.
53 55
79 $0 81 -82
t i t ,77 t
r76 7$
# • D -
74
$8 $9 70 71 72 73
02 sa sa `sa 6�
" • • • • _ i i _ i �.
S6 57 58 59 60 51
55
50 51 52 S3 54
41 42 43 44 as 46 47 48 49, �+
6 37 38 39 4Q 4
31 =2 '3 _"[ 35 y1r1
i i i t t t Q 9 0 O•A
27 28 9 30
i s t t •
as 25 5
.r.� t i • C
' 19 ?0 21 22 23 F
i e 0 0 •,
14 15 16 .7
11 12 13 /'�
t t t V IM () 0 �
6 7 g a 14 +N At
z 8
! • # 4 U O tt
1
• • { Site 31WL02/02**
Project Boundary Prehistoric: Ceramics
New Archaeological Site 0
c Positive 5T 0 1
• Negative ST () 2-3
X No Dig
4-5
N
0 25 50 75 100
lL' F
Mete rs
Figure 4.14. Map showing prehistoric ceramic artifact distribution at 31 WL02/02**.
A£ [nc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
45

# M1 i
a e 110 1
10Bx 10d 11'Q r
i 1010105 10107
100101 102
�94 9a
Y
i E)9
x
9r�
' � FY : Sr 88 S9 9U 1
�: eAP�e
i• -
84 Sa 86
r
k?�f� 79 ;t, 0 q S10 6
X 74 ! ! �D, a
r 0_
! i i G! i i i 0
56 57 58 59 60 51
O.Geoe
50 51 52 A,
! 0 ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! i 0 ,P
�}1 �12 as a4 a� a15 a; as �� ; .4
:�6 .�: .�s .�s as n• s . ti so'
*�+
27 28 @ 29 ;iU
0 i 0 24 a2,� � .2a • .�:'
19 2C 1`! t2
14 t: 16 7' 18 • i�! u
Q T 1291
u 7 b 9 1U • t
0 1 G '� a t
'�— Site 31WL02102**
• ' ° Project Boundary
New Archaeoiogicai Site ® Metavolcanic
e positive ST 0 Quartz
• Negative 5T - Quartzite
X No dig
N
U 25 50 75 100
w F
Figure 4.15. Map showing prehistoric lithic artifact distribution by material type at 31WL02/02**
-AGC,,,'Inc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
y,
46

archaeological sites in the region. As this site has the potential to contain intact Archaic and Woodland
archaeological deposits, further research will be necessary to determine its full research potential and NRHP
eligibility. At present, the NRHP status of site 31WL02/02**is considered unassessed at the survey level
of evaluation.
Site 31WL178/178** Revisit
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter UTM (NAD 27): N3956865 E241135
Prehistoric artifact scatter
Component: 181" century USGS Quad: Saratoga, NC (1978)
Archaic, Woodland
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unassessed Soil Type: Wagram loamy sand
Site 31 WL178/178** was recorded in 1990 during a survey conducted by East Carolina University
(Gardner 1991). The survey collected historic and prehistoric artifacts from the site area, but there is no site
map showing the distribution of the different components. The site is in the vicinity of the easternmost
structure complex shown on the 1957 aerial photograph (see Figure 3.3). A structure is also shown near this
location on the 1925 Wilson County soil survey map (see Figure 3.2) and on the 1978 USGS Saratoga, NC
topographic map (see Figure 3.4). However, the historic artifact scatter in the far northeastern part of
31WL02/02** corresponds well to the historic structure complex on the 1957 aerial photograph and the
structures shown on the 1925 soil map and the 1978 topographic map as well making it difficult to determine
which of these sites may contain the remnants of those structures.
Site 31 WL 178/ 178* * is a multi -component site located in the northern part of this survey area. This
area has been cultivated for many years, but was fallow and overgrown with weeds during field
investigations (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). Our examination of this area began with the excavation of shovel
tests at 30-meter intervals across the tract. Artifacts were collected from 12 shovel tests in the vicinity of
the plotted location of 31 WL 178/178**. An additional 54 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals
around all shovel tests where artifacts were collected during the 30-meter interval coverage. Based on the
distribution of artifacts in shovel tests, site dimensions measure approximately 120 meters north -south by
180 meters east -west were established (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Artifacts were recovered to a maximum
depth of approximately 65 centimeters below the ground surface, but sub-plowzone contexts were most
commonly encountered between 40 and 55 centimeters in depth.
The soil profile varied somewhat across the site. In all areas, the plowzone was comprised of brown
(10YR3/3) to dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam. At Provenience 26 (N590 E440; Figure 4.16), the
plowzone (0-30 cm) was underlain by yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sandy loam to a depth of 40 centimeters.
Below this depth, yellowish brown (10YR5/8) sandy clay loam subsoil was present. However, at
Provenience 10 (N590 E440; Figure 4.17) subsoil was encountered much deeper. At this shovel test the
plowzone consisted of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam and extended to an approximate depth of
35 centimeters. The plowzone was underlain by yellowish brown (1 OYR5/4) sandy loam. Subsoil consisted
of yellowish brown (10YR5/8) sandy clay and was not encountered until a depth of 70 centimeters below
the ground surface.
Artifacts were collected from 12 shovel tests on the 30-meter grid at this site, and artifacts were
collected from an additional 15 shovel tests when completing the 15-meter interval coverage. In total,
artifacts were collected from 27 shovel tests at 31WL178/178**.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 47

Figure 4.16. Soil profile at Provenience 26 (N590 E440), 31WL178/178**.
vigure 4.17. Doll protlle at Provenience I (N65U L44U), 31 WL1 /t5/1 /ZS--.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
%' 48

Historic artifacts were collected from nine shovel tests and brick fragments were recovered from
another five tests (Figure 4.18; Table 4.4) . The recovered artifacts include five ceramic sherds, four glass
fragments, one piece of metal, and 19.6 grams of brick. The glass fragments (clear and brown bottle glass)
and metal chain link, are likely twentieth century contaminants, possibly associated with the middle twentieth
century dairy farm.
Table 4.4. Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity/
Weight
Ceramics:
Agateware, Lead Glazed
1740-17751
1
Creamware, Undecorated
1760-18202
1
Pearlware, Undecorated
1780-18402
1
Stoneware, Nottingham
1700-18102, rouletted design
1
Stoneware, White Salt -Glazed
1720-17752
1
Glass:
Brown Bottle Glass
1 with knurling on base, post 19403; 1 with
threaded finish, dominant post 19303
3
Clear Bottle Glass
1
Metal:
Chain Fragment
possible chain from bicycle or chainsaw
1
Other:
Brick Fragments
19.6g
Total
10/19.6
1FLMNH 2O09; 2South 1977; 3Lindsey 2017
Five historic ceramic fragments were collected; one fragment each of ceamware, pearlware,
agateware, white salt glazed stoneware, and Nottingham stoneware. The maximum range of manufacture
for these items is between 1700 and 1810, indicating an eighteenth century occupation. Brick fragments
recovered are clustered in the eastern portion of the site and may be related to a structure associated with the
early historic component.
Native American artifacts were collected from 25 shovel tests at 31 WL178/178** (Figure 4.19). A
total of 54 Native American artifacts were collected from the site. This includes nine ceramic fragments and
45 lithic artifacts. Figures 4.20 and 4.21 show the distribution of ceramic and lithic artifacts, respectively.
Native American ceramics (n=9) were collected from five shovel tests. The attributes of these ceramics are
presented in Table 4.5. Overall, the ceramics recovered are relatively small, with none greater than a few
centimeters in diameter. However, distinctive temper types and surface treatments could be identified
allowing several of the sherds to be assigned to a specific Woodland phase. One possible Early/Middle
Woodland Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant sherd and two possible Late Woodland Cashie sherds (associated
with the Tuscarora) were identified.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 49

Figure 4.18. Map showing historic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**.
-ACC, lnc"•; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina 50

Figure 4.19. Map showing Native American artifact distribution at 31 WL178/178**.
-ACC, lnc"•; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
51

>f ,
24 26
p !
- "c2 2?
20i 21
L
Site 31WL1781178* • - * e
Project Boundary Prehistoric: Ceramics
= New Archaeological Site
Positive ST 1 • m:.
0 Negative ST 2
X No Dig `
3
a 20 40 60 80
y Metiers
Figure 4.20. Map showing Native American ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**.
-ACC,�nc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
1!
52

""own
r
28
C2I
_ C 24 ? C26
C _ - 22> 23 i f
2 21 i
01S G16 01 r 018 01n
0 (D L) 0 01-1 01' (312 13 014,
o o e
- 1
Site 31WL1781178**
Project Boundary
New Archaeological Site Metavoleanic
Positive ST Quartz
• Negative ST i •
X No [Dig
v
0 20 40 W 30
E i • i
y Meters
Figure 4.21. Map showing Native American lithic artifact distribution by material type at
31WL178/178**.
-Anc�„.. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
53

Table 4.5. Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Ceramics:
Cashie Simple Stamped Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie Residual Sherds
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
Early/Middle Woodland'
1
UID Type UID Decoration Body Sherd
1
UID Type Residual Sherds
5
Total
'Phelps and Heath 1998; 2Herbert 2009
A total of 45 lithic artifacts were collected from 24 shovel tests (Table 4.6). Although most of the
lithic artifacts were recovered from the plowzone, a number of shovel tests yielded lithic artifacts from sub-
plowzone contexts between 40 and 65 centimeters below the ground surface. The majority of the lithic
artifacts (n=28) are of metavolcanic material. Metavolcanic artifacts were collected from 19 shovel tests
and account for 62 percent of the lithic assemblage from 31WL178/178**. Fifteen quartz artifacts were
collected from 11 shovel tests, accounting for 33 percent of the lithic artifacts from the site.. One of the
quartz items is a small triangular point. Metavolcanic and quartz artifacts co-occur in six shovel tests. The
remaining two lithic artifacts from the site are of sandstone and an unidentified material.
Table 4.6. Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quanti
Lithics:
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
27
Translucent Quartz Projectile Point
small triangular, possibly Late Woodland'
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
14
Sandstone Rock
cultural?
1
UID Material Rock
cultural?
1
Total
45
'Coe 1964
In summary, 31 WL178/178** is a multiple component archaeological site The historic component
at 31WL178/178** may have been occupied a hundred years before the creation of Wilson County in 1855,
and before the founding of the Town of Wilson in 1849. The site's historic occupation span may date back
to the initial European settlement in the area when the Toisnot Primitive Baptist Church was established in
1756. While the early historic artifacts are relatively sparse at 31WL178/178**, they are concentrated in
an area where brick fragments suggest a structure once stood. Although the site appears to have been
impacted by the road constructed along its northern border, it is possible that intact historic cultural features
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 54

(well, privy, cellar, etc.) are present beneath the plowzone. The historic component at 31 WL 178/ 178* * may
have the potential to add to our understanding of early historic settlement in the region. The significance of
the historic component remains unassessed at the survey level of investigation and additional work is
recommended make a definitive statement about the NRHP eligibility of the historic component.
Although this investigation only identified Woodland Period components at 31WL178/178**,
Gardner's (1991) original surface survey of the site identified Middle and Late Archaic components at the
site. The Middle and Late Archaic components identified by Gardner (1991) may be linked to the deeper
sub-plowzone artifacts collected during this survey. This suggests that stratified deposits may be present.
The Native American occupation at 31 WL 178/178 * * is also of interest because of a possible association with
the Late Woodland Tuscarora. Possible Cashie sherds were collected from three shovel tests during this
investigation. The Tuscarora were the last Native Americans in the area and intact features have been found
at other Tuscarora sites in the region. Based on these considerations, the Native American component at
31WL178/178** may also have the potential to contribute new information about Archaic and Late
Woodland occupation in Wilson County. For these reasons, the Native American component at
31WL178/178** is also considered unassessed at the survey level of evaluation.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 55

Chapter 5. Summary and Recommendations
Summary
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of approximately 34 acres targeted for expansion of the Wilson County Sild Waste
Landfill. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) identified two archaeological sites in the proposed
expansion area, 31 WL02/02** and 31 WL178/178**, and recommended a systematic archaeological survey
be conducted to define and evaluate these sites.
Both sites were revisited and systematic survey served to define their vertical and horizontal
boundaries. In addition, diagnostic artifacts from historic and prehistoric components were collected and
their intra-site artifact distributions were examined. Based on the results of this investigation, both sites
appear to have retained intact Native American deposits and site 31 WL178/178** contains deposits dating
to the earliest settlement of the project area. It is recommended that both sites be subjected to additional
work in order to definitively determine their National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility.
Should additional investigation be conducted at sites 31WL02/02** and 31WL178/178**, three
primary research topics should be explored:
Deep (sub-plowzone) archaeological deposits associated with Archaic occupations
Late Woodland (Tuscaroroa) settlement; and
Early Historic (18"' century) settlement in Wilson County
Deep (sub plowzone) Deposits
Based on the results of this investigation and those of Gardner's (1991) survey, Early, Middle and
Late Archaic components area present in the study area. Many shovel tests excavated during this survey
yielded artifacts from relatively deep sub-plowzone contexts. The Early Archaic PPK was recovered from
sub-plowzone contexts in a shovel test at 31 WL02/02**, strongly suggesting that such early deposits remain
intact. Although uncommon, Moore and Daniel (2011) have identified stratified Archaic deposits along the
Tar River by conducting geoarchaeological investigations and sites 31 WL02/02* * and 31 WL 178/ 178** may
be able to contribute to that body of data. The Archaic deposits can potentially provide data on Archaic lithic
procurement, utilization, and discard patterns (Lawrence et al., 2011). Further field work at these sites
should include geomorphological analyses and test unit excavations to obtain better artifact samples and to
assess stratigraphic contexts. To this end, in test units the plowzone should be removed as a single level and
subsequent levels should be excavated in 10 centimeter increments.
Late Woodland Settlement
Beaman (2010) states that scattered distribution of archaeological sites with Cashie pottery fragments
along upper Contentnea Creek and Toisnot Creek may represent the Tuscarora community of Tosneoc.
Thomas Beaman (2010) has presented an excellent discussion of the search for Tosneoc (Toisnot). The
Tuscarora community of Tosneoc was mentioned by John Lawson in 1701, but he did not visit the village
and there is no specific information about it's location (Beaman 2010). While there is no doubt that the
prof ect area is within the former territory of the Tuscarora, the location of Tosneoc is not given in any known
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 56

historic documents, and it is assumed that it was located along Toisnot Creek. Beaman (2010) notes that in
the Iroquoian language, "tosneoc" means "next to two rivers." The location near the confluence of Buck
Branch and Toisnot Creek is considered a possible location for this village. Beaman (2010) notes that a local
collector thought that the project area was the location of Tosneoc, and this was given some weight when
Cashie ceramics were identified in the artifact collection made by Gardner (1991) at 31WL178/178* * .
However, there are reasons to question whether or not the project area is associated with Tosneoc.
First, Tosneoc is a Contact Period site mentioned by John Lawson in 1701. By this time the Tuscarora were
trading partners with the Europeans. Their role in the deer skin trade would have provided ample opportunity
to acquire European manufactured items. However, no European items dating to the early eighteenth century
were found during our survey. Although this could be the result of our sampling strategy. Secondly, the
prof ect tract's location is not consistent with the general location description if Tosneoc means "between two
rivers." While Toisnot Creek is a sizeable tributary of Contentnea Creek, Buck Branch is a minor tributary
of Toisnot Creek. A good candidate for a location "between two rivers" would be at the confluence of
Toisnot Creek and Contentnea Creek, or perhaps at the confluence of Toisnot Creek and White Oak Swamp.
Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of Cashie ceramics in the study tract. Eighteen shovel tests
distributed across 31WL02/02** and 31WL178/178** yielded Cashie sherds. These sherds are probably
not the remains of one or two pots broken into many pieces and widely scattered through plowing and other
processes. It is more likely that these scattered sherds represent artifacts associated with different and
discrete activity areas. Thus the "community" concept may be appropriate when addressing the Tuscarora
occupation in the project tract. However, the different activity areas may not have been occupied
simultaneously but sequentially over a long period of time. More in-depth work at the sites may serve to
clarify the potential for addressing this issue.
Additional archaeological evaluation of 31 WL02/02 * * and 31 WL 178/ 178 * * would help to determine
if the Late Woodland ceramics at these sites are from the Contact or Pre -Contact time periods. Furthermore,
both of these sites have similarities to the Contentnea Creek Site (31WL37), which is also in Wilson County.
Intact cultural features, including human burials, were identified at 31 WL37 (Millis 2009), suggesting that
caution should be exercised at such sites until the potential for intact features is fully explored. Further work
at these sites should include metal detecting to see if a significant Post Contact component is present,
excavation of test units to obtain better artifact samples, and machine scraping to expose possible cultural
features.
Early Historic Settlement in Wilson County
In 1741, John Thomas became the first European settler in the area when he bought 300 acres near
the confluence of Toisnot Creek and White Oak Swamp (Valentine 2002). Soon after, in 1756, Toisnot
Primitive Baptist Church was established along Toisnot Creek. However, the area remained sparsely settled
until the Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad passed through the region in the late 1830s. Historic artifacts
collected at 31WL178/178** have manufacturing ranges may date to the time of this European settlement
expansion in the region. Very little is known about the early historic settlement. Additional evaluation of
31WL178/178** is need to determine if intact archaeological contexts are present which can help provide
information about the period of transition from Tuscarora to European control of the region. It is
recommended that metal detection be conducted to obtain a better artifact sample and further explore artifact
distributions and that machine scraping be conducted to expose possible cultural features.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 57

C3
! 08 109 110 111 - —11
* 03 .l 04 5 147"
97 98 r9
93 94 95 96 1n-
87 83 ' $4 4 9
:x D:
hr - 54 65
0` 62 53
X • f f 0 J..
75
* ti
'68 89 70 71 72 73. :, Ir
z i . :.E2 .• 63 * 63 6c �67
.Y
f 6 • 057 • '_, f59 • � 60 ` ' "► �
55 z }
51 52 57 54
d1 42 43 45-46 47
f 35 37 449 .2t .._: 48: 45 -
i .• .. 32 33�,�3,{d.
27
28 29 30' -
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
s
24 25
• • -. r s
22
Q Project Boundary
Cashie Ceramics
s iA
9 26 21
76 7 : 23
New Archaeologkal Site
0 Nat Present
♦ a
..12. '3
-1 -� 1
positive ST
Present
- :c 7
9 10
4 Negative S7
2 3
N4 ❑I
U 30
80 90 120
�P
Meters
Figure 5.1. Map showing the distribution of Cashie pottery fragments in the project area.
-ACC,�nc.-- Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
58

Recommendations
At the survey level of evaluation, it was determined that potentially significant archaeological
deposits from the Archaic, Woodland, and Historic periods may be present at 31WL02/02** and
31 WL178/178**. No land -disturbing activities should be conducted within the defined archaeological site
boundaries prior to both sites being further evaluated. At this time, preservation in place is being considered
as an option. Areas outside the site boundaries do not contain sensitive archaeological deposits, and should
be available for use for expansion of the solid waste site. However, to ensure that the archaeological sites
are not inadvertently impacted, some type of physical markers (e.g., fencing or some type of visible markers)
should distinguish the site boundaries.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 59

References Cited
Abbott, Lawrence E. Jr., Kathleen M. Ferrell, John G. Nickerson, and Norma K. Gay
2011 Lithic Resources ofthe North Carolina Coastal Plain: Prehistoric Acquisition and Utilization
Patterns. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia. Edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R.P. Stephen Davis. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication No. 30.
Adovasio, J. M. and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit ofArchaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist
19:317-41.
Algonkian Indians of North Carolina, Inc.
2004 Roanoake-Hatteras Tribal History. Electronic Document, http://www.ncalgonquians.com.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf, accessed 15 November 2017.
Bache, A. D.
1865 U.S. Coast Survey of North Carolina and South Carolina map.
Barbour, Terry E.
2015 Reconstructing the Culture History of the Multicomponent Site Squires Ridge (31ED365)
Within the Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina. MA Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
Beaman, Thomas
2010 "Next to Two Rivers": The Wilson County Sesquicentennial Survey to Locate the Late
Woodland and Protohistoric Tuscarora Community of Tosneoc, in North Carolina Archaeology
Volume 59(113-140).
Billings, D. B.
1988 Geotechnical Evaluation for Planning, Project Characterization and Environmental
Assessment. Ms on file, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 60

Black, A. and D. Black
1989 Historic and Architectural Resources of Kinston, North Carolina. National Register of
Historic Places Multiple Property Nomination Form. Ms. On file, North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper (editors)
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brady, Ellen M. and Loretta Lautzenheiser
1999 Archaeological Testing of Sites 31PM38 and 31PM42, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, NC.
Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun and J.G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence -Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100.
University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principal Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics forldentification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series.
Byrd, John E.
1997 Tuscarora Subsistence Practices in the Late Woodland Period: The Zooarchaeology of the
Jordan's Landing Site. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 27.
Byrd, John E. and Charles L. Heath
1997 The Rediscovery of the Tuscaroran Homeland: A Final Report of the Archaeological Survey
ofthe Contentnea CreekDrainage 1995-1997. David S. Phelps Archaeological Laboratory. East
Carolina University, Greenville.
Carrington, Henry B.
1974 Battle Maps and Charts of the American Revolution. Arno Press, New York.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5). Philadelphia, PA
Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States.
In Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp.
144-150.
Corbitt, David Leroy
2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
`' ' 61

Crawford, Robert Guy Hodges
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina. M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History ofthe Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland
Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In
Pollen Records ofLate-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant, Jr., and
R. G. Holloway. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy 11,
edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
1987 Late Quaternary Dynamics of Temperate Forests: Applications of Paleoecology to Issues
of Global Environmental Change. Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 6, No. 2.
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume 1: The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Driver, J.C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.
Egloff, Keith T.
1985 Spheres of Cultural Interaction across the Coastal Plain of Virginia in the Woodland Period.
In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., and H.
Trawick Ward, pp 229-242. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Manuscript on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection.
histarch/gallery_types/.
Electronic document, http://www.flnmh.ufl.edu/
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University ofAmerica, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No.1. Washington,
D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 62

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael
R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by J. B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hagg, William G.
1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. Coastal Studies Series 2. Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Heath, Charles L. And E. Clay Swindell
2011 Coastal Plain Iroquoians Before and After Contact: An Interpretive Study of Cashie Phase
Archaeological Research in Northeastern North Carolina. In The Archaeology of North
Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and
R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pages 10-1 through 10-104. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication Number 30.
Herbert, Joseph
2011 Recent Woodland Archaeology in Coastal North Carolina. In The Archaeology of North
Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and
R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pages. 4-1 through 4-58. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication Number 30.
Husketh, S. J.
1921 Natural Resources of Pitt. In Pitt County, Economic and Social, edited by S. O.
Worthington. Greenville Publishing Company, Greenville, NC.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C 1 Dating ofthe Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:73-
94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Addditonal Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description ofNorthern Virginia Chapters
—ASV's 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, Appendix G.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
Karnowski, Edwin, J. B. Newman, James Dunn, and J. A. Meadows
1974 Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 63

King, Henry T.
1911 Sketches of Pitt County, A Brief History of the County, 1704-1910. Edwards and Broughton
Printing Company, Raleigh, NC.
Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
Lawson, John
1709 A New Voyage to Carolina. http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/lawson/lawso60.jpg.
Lindsey, Bill
2016 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website." Electronic Document,
https:Hsha.org/bottle/index.htm.
Loftfield, Thomas C.
1976 A Brief and True Report...: An Archaeological Interpretation ofthe Southern North Carolina
Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI..
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp.257-314. Academic Press, New York.
Marcel, Sarah Elizabeth
1994 Buttoning Down the Past: A Look at Buttons as Indicators of Chronology and Material
Culture." University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Mattson, Richard L. and Frances P. Alexander
1994 Ayden Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.
McAvoy, J. M. And L. D. McAvoy, editors
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Speical
Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the
Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincause, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez, and
D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1):172-179.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 64

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew D. Madsen.
1997 "Telling Time for Archaeologists." Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 29, no. 1
(2000): Pp 1-22.
Millis, Heather
2009 Data Recovery Excavations at the Contentnea Creek Site (31 WL37), Wilson County.
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. Prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC
Mintz, John J.
2011 ..They in Respect of Troubling our Inhabiting and Planting, Are Not to be Feared:"
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Coastal Populations Before and After European
Contact. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 8-1-8-9. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.
Moore, Christopher R. And I. Randolph Daniel
2011 Geoarchaeological Investigations of Stratified Sand Ridges Along the Tar River, North
Carolina. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia. Edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R.P. Stephen Davis. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication No. 30.
National Park Service (NPS)
2015 The American Battlefield Protection Program: Battle Summaries: Tranter's Creek.
Electronic Document, http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/nc006.htm, accessed 2 June 2015.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
2015 Pitt County. Electronic Document, http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/codata/pitt.pdf, accessed 3
June 2015.
Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University, AL.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, editors. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Phelps, David Sutton
1964 The Final Phases of the Eastern Archaic. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Tulane University, LA.
1981 The Archaeology of Colington Island. East Carolina University Archaeology Research
Report 3, Greenville, NC.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 65

David Sutton Phelps continued
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Phelps, David S., and Charles L. Heath.
1998 Cashie Series Ceramics From The Interior Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Circa AD 800-
1725." East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Piehl, C.
1979 White Society in the Black Belt, 1870-1920, A Study of Four North Carolina Counties.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University.
Pitt County Development Commission (PCDC)
2015a Geography and Climate. Electronic Document,
http://locateincarolina.com/geography-climate/.
Pitt County Development Commission (PCDC) continued
2015b Major Employers. Electronic Document, http://locateincarolina.com/major-employers/.
Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science
33:1-19.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh.
Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.
Rights, Douglas L.
1957 The American Indian in North Carolina. John F Blair, Winston-Salem, NC.
Samford, Patricia
2014 Marbles. Electronic document. Diagnositc Artifacts in Maryland.
https: //www. j efpat. org/diagnostic/SmallFinds/Marbles/index-marbles.html.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 66

Sink, Larry T.
1983 Soil Survey of Wilson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500-500 BP.
In Advances in World Archaeology, Volume 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close. Academic
Press, Orlando, FL.
South, Stanley
1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, and D. Gentry Steele
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael R. Waters, pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Trotter, W.
1989 Ironclads and Columbiads. Signal Research, Greensboro, NC.
United States Census Bureau
2015 Pitt County, North Carolina. Electronic Document.
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37147.html.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2015 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/.
United States Geological Service (USGS)
1982 Ayden, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 353-81. North Carolina 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.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 67

Watson, Alan
1979 Edgecombe County, A Brief History. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Wilson, Richa, and Kathleen Snodgrass
2008 Early 20th-Century Building Materials: Siding and Roofing. Facilities Tech Tips United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology and Development Program.
Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf08732308/pdf08732308dpi72.pdf.
York, D. H.
1992 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Tull -Worth -Holland Farm.
Ms. On file, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 68

Appendix A.
Artifact Catalog and Projectile Point Report
Provenience Techniques
Each location from which artifacts were recovered was assigned a unique provenience number. Numbers after
the decimal place designate a surface collection (e.g., 0), a general subsurface collection (e.g., 1), or a specific level
below surface (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)

Artifact Catalog
Wilson Countv Waste Sites
Site Number 31WL02/02** Rev
Provenience Number:
1.1
Revisit, N170 E425, 0-15 cm, Strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl
1
2.9
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), eroded, possible cord
marked?,
Provenience
Number:
2.1
Revisit, N185
E410, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p2
1
2.9
Residual Sherd
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
vcst, fabric impressed
2
m3
1
2.5
Metavolcanic Shatter Banded
with cortex, weathered
3
m4
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
crystal quartz
Provenience
Number:
3.1
Revisit, N185
E425, 0-50 cm, Strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p5
1
3.9
CoarseNC Sand Temper Deep Cr/Mt P Fabric
loose weave
Impressed Body Sherd
Provenience
Number:
4.1
Revisit, N185
E440, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p6
1
3.2
Residual Sherd
cord marked, CST, Deep Creek/Mount
Pleasant?
2
m7
4
3.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
3
m8
2
4.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
5.1
Revisit, N185
E455, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p9
1
4.4
Coarse Sand Temper Deep Cr/Mt P Fabric
(E/M WDLD), tight weave
Impressed Body Sherd
2
p10
2
5.1
Residual Sherd
1-eroded with Est with coarse
inclusions; 1 eroded plain with CST,
oxidized; 2-UID type
3
ml l
3
4.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with cortex -secondary flake
4
m12
1
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Revisit, N200
E350, TR2 ST4, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m13
1
0.7
Metal Fastener Copper Alloy
possible rivet fragment?
Provenience
Number:
7.1
Revisit, N200
E380, TR2 ST3, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m14
1
1.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
8.2
Revisit, N200
E410, TR2 ST2, 40-55 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m15
2
1.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
2
m16
1
9.6
Quartzite Fire Cracked Rock With Cortex
heat treated, cobble fragment
3
b17
1
0.4
Bone UID Mammal
juvenile, unfused epiphysis from
phalanx, possible pig?
Page 1 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
9.1
Revisit, N200 E425, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m18
1
5.5
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
10.1
Revisit, N200
E440, TR2 STl, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p19
2
1.7
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 1-very small and eroded,
mst; 1-fabric impressed? cord marked?,
VCST, crushed quartz
2
m20
11
8.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m21
2
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m22
1
1
Quartz Shatter
5
m23
1
0.6
Unidentified Material Rock
jasper?, cultural?
Provenience
Number:
11.1
Revisit, N215
E395, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m24
1
1.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m25
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
12.1
Revisit, N215
E410, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p26
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (LWDLD), fabric
impressed, CST with VCS inclusions
2
m27
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m28
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
13.1
Revisit, N215
E440, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p29
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
eroded, m/cst, possible Deep
Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M Woodland)
2
m30
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
14.1
Revisit, N230
E380, TR3 ST3, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m31
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m32
1
0.1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
15.1
Revisit, N230
E410, TR3 ST2, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p33
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/ Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), fabric impressed, VCST
2
m34
3
3.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic, 2 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
3
m35
1
1.8
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
15.2
Revisit, N230
E410, TR3 ST2, 30-60 cm, zone H
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m36
8
3.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 porphyritic; 4 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
2
m37
3
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
3
m38
1
0.3
Quartz Shatter
Page 2 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
16.1
Revisit, N230 E425, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
1
2
Quartz Shatter With Cortex
with terrestrial cortex
Provenience
Number:
16.2
Revisit, N230
E425, 25+, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m40
2
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m41
1
11.8
Quartz Flake Tool
unifacial flaking on 1 edge
3
m42
3
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered, possibly porphyritic?
4
m43
1
0.6
Unidentified Material Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?, conglomerate?
Provenience
Number:
17.1
Revisit, N230
E440, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m44
7
11
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 1 greenstone-like
2
m45
1
0.7
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
3
m46
4
0.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
4
m47
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Rock
metavolcanic? Cultural?
Provenience
Number:
18.1
Revisit, N230
E455, 0-60 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p48
5
4.2
Residual Sherd
5-UID type; 4 uid decoration, likely
fabric impressed, 1 fabric impressed; 5
M/CST
2
m49
9
3.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 possibly banded, 2 weathered
3
m50
2
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m51
1
0
possible egg shell fragment or modern
material?, weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
19.1
Revisit, N245
E395, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m52
1
0.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m53
0
2.2
Brick Fragment
3
m54
1
0.3
Slate Fragment
4
m55
2
0.3
Plastic
1 red with uid embossing, milky color
5
m56
4
0.9
Other Historic
asphalt roofing shingle fragments
Provenience
Number:
20.2
Revisit, N245
E410, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m57
1
0.5
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
cobble cortex, primary flake
2
m58
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
21.1
Revisit, N245
E425, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p59
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
UID type; UID Decoration; MST;
micaceous
2
m60
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m61
3
2.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m62
1
7.8
Metavolcanic Core Porphyritic Rhyolite
5
m63
1
16.6
Quartzite Flake Tool
unifacial flaking and possible use wear
on ledge
6
m64
1
4.8
Quartz Shatter
Page 3 of 18

Artifact Catalog
7 m65 1 0.2 Plastic blue plastic fragment
Provenience Number:
22.1
Revisit, N245 E440, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m66
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m67
1
0.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
cobble cortex, primary flake
3
m68
1
14.6
Quartz Shatter
cultural?
4
m69
1
0.4
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
22.2
Revisit, N245
E440, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p70
1
3.1
CoarseNC Sand Temper Cashie Simple
interior surface fragmented
Stamped Body Sherd
2
m71
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m72
1
0.2
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m73
2
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
23.1
Revisit, N245
N455, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p74
1
3.4
Medium/Coarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
UID Decoration Body Sherd
cord? Fabric?, possible grog inclusions
2
a75
1
2.5
Quartz Biface Fragment
2 bifacial edges
3
p76
2
1.2
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 2 MST, and eroded
4
m77
3
3.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
5
m78
4
3.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 1 Felsic Tuff, 2 weathered
6
m79
1
0.1
Plastic
thin, black on 1 side, white on 1 side
Provenience
Number:
23.2
Revisit, N245
N455, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m80
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m81
2
1.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
24.4
Revisit, N260
E425, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m82
2
5.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
25.1
Revisit, N260
E455, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m83
3
2.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 2 felsic tuff?, 1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
26.1
Revisit, N260
E470, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m84
2
2.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m85
1
0.7
Quartz Shatter
3
m86
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
27.1
Revisit, N275
E380, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m87
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with cobble cortex -primary flake
Provenience
Number:
28.1
Revisit, N275
E410, 10-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 4 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m88
1
1.8
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
29.1
Revisit, N275
E440, 15-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m89
1
2.7
Unidentified Material Flake Tool
dark color, possible bifacial retouch on
1 edge, unifacial usewear on 1 edge;
rhyolite? Chert? Gunflint?
Provenience
Number:
30.1
Revisit, N275
N455, 10-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m90
1
1.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
31.1
Revisit, N290
E350, TR5 ST5, 15-30cm, base zone 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p91
1
2.4
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, VCS with granular inclusions
2
m92
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
32.1
Revisit, N290
E410, TR5 ST3, 15-30cm, base zone 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p93
1
0.8
Residual Sherd
UID type, eroded, M/CST, very small
2
m94
3
1.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m95
1
2
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
33.1
Revisit, N290,
E440, TR5 ST2, 0-10 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p96
1
1.2
Residual Sherd
Possible Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant
(E/M WDLD); fabric impressed, CST
with VCS inclusions
Provenience
Number:
34.2
Revisit, N290
E455, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m97
1
1.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic
Tuff felsic tuff?, weathered
Provenience
Number:
35.1
Revisit, N290
E470, TR5 STl, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p98
1
1.4
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), CST, UID
decoration, possible fabric impressed?
2
m99
1
2.6
Quartz Shatter With Cortex
with cobble cortex
3
m100
1
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?
4
m101
3
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 2 felsic tuff? and weathered
5
m102
1
0.1
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
36.1
Revisit, N305
E320, 15-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m103
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
37.1
Revisit, N305
E350, 10-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m104
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
38.1
Revisit, N305
E365, 10-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 5 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m 105
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
39.1
Revisit, N305
E395, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m106
2
12.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 large and bulky
2
m107
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
3
m108
1
0.5
Slate
cultural?
Provenience
Number:
40.1
Revisit, N305
E470
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m109
1
2.6
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, secondary flake
2
m110
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
41.1
Revisit, N320
E320, TR6 ST7, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl l l
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
UID type, UID decoration, fabric
impressed?, CST
Provenience
Number:
42.2
Revisit, N320
E335, 30-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 12
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
banded?, weathered, porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
43.1
Revisit, N320
E350, TR6 ST6, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 13
2
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
1 felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
44.2
Revisit, N320
E365, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 14
1
0.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
ml 15
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
45.2
Revisit, N320
E395, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 16
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
46.1
Revisit, N320
E410, TR6 ST4, 0-25 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 17
2
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
1 banded, weathered and with possible
use wear
2
ml18
1
2.9
Concretion
sandstone?
Provenience
Number:
47.1
Revisit, N320
E425, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m119
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
48.1
Revisit, N320
E440 TR6 ST3, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m120
1
2.8
Concretion
sandstone?
Provenience
Number:
49.1
Revisit, N320
E470, TR6 ST2, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl21
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
UID type, VCST, UID decoration
2
m122
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Page 6 of 18

Artifact Catalog
3
m123
0
4
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
50.2
Revisit, N335
E290, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p124
2
3.7
Residual Sherd
1- Possible Cashie (L WDLD), VCST,
plain; 1-UID type, VCST, eroded
Provenience
Number:
51.2
Revisit, N335
E320, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m125
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
52.2
Revisit, N335
E425, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m126
3
13.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 2 possible felsic tuff, 1
large with possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
53.2
Revisit, N335
E440, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p127
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, UID decoration, MST, very
small
2
m128
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
54.1
Revisit, N335
E455, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m129
1
2.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
large, possible use wear on 1 edge
Provenience
Number:
54.2
Revisit, N335
E455, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m130
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
55.2
Revisit, N350
E455, 30-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml31
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
56.2
Revisit, N365
E290, 20 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m132
1
138.6
Metal Cookware Iron
possible cast iron stove grate handle,
trivet leg, or cast iron cookware handle
or leg
Provenience
Number:
57.1
Revisit, N365
E320, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p133
1
2.2
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, overstamped, VCST with
granular inclusions
2
m134
1
0.7
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
57.2
Revisit, N365
E320, 20-60 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m135
2
2.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1-porphoritic, 1 with cortex
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
58.1
Revisit, N365
E380, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 7 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m136
1
3.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
59.1
Revisit, N365
E455, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m137
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
60.1
Revisit, N365
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p138
1
0.2
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded
2
m139
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
60.2
Revisit, N365
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m140
1
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
small bit of cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
61.2
Revisit, N365
E500, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl41
2
1.1
Residual Sherd
2 UID type; 1-very small and eroded
with CST; 1 fabric impressed, with
MST, very small
2
m142
2
4.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
62.1
Revisit, N380
E350, TR8 ST7, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p143
2
1.3
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded
2
m144
1
2.3
Quartz Shatter
3
m145
3
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic and weathered
Provenience
Number:
63.1
Revisit, N380
E380, TR8 ST6, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m146
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
64.1
Revisit, N380
E500, TR8 ST2, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m147
2
0.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 cultural?
2
m148
2
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
3
m149
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
bifacial pressure flaking on 1 edge,
porphyritic
Provenience Number:
65.1
Revisit, N380 E515, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m150
2
0.4 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
ml51
1
0.2 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
66.1
Revisit, N380 E530, TR8 STl, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
p152
5
4 Residual Sherd
5 UID type; 1 UID decoration and
C/VCST; 4 very small and eroded
Provenience
Number:
67.1
Revisit, N380 E545, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m153
2
0.3 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with small bit of cobble cortex
Page 8 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m154
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
68.2
Revisit, N395
E335, 20-30 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
111
m155
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
69.1
Revisit, N395
E350, 0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m156
4
1.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
porphyritic, 1 with cortex
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
70.2
Revisit, N395
E365, 20-60 ern
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m157
1
1.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, possible unifacial
use wear on 1 edge
2
m158
2
50.4
Metavolcanic Rock
1 heat treated?, cultural??
Provenience
Number:
71.2
Revisit, N395
E515, 20-40 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m159
1
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
72.2
Revisit, N395
E530, 20-40 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m160
2
6.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 with possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
73.1
Revisit, N395
E545, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl61
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small, plain? Eroded,
FST
Provenience Number:
74.1
Revisit, N410 E290, TR9 ST8, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m162
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m163
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural??
Provenience
Number:
75.1
Revisit, N410
N515, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p164
2
3.7
Residual Sherd
2 possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
1 plain with C/VCST, 1 fabric
impressed? With C/VCST
2
m165
2
1.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
76.1
Revisit, N425
E500, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m166
1
5.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
77.1
Revisit, N425
E515, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p167
4
6.3
Residual Sherd
1-possible Cashie (L WDLD), cord
marked? Simple stamped?,
overstamped with CST with granular
inclusions; 1-UID type fabric
impressed with VCST; 1 possible
Cashie, eroded with VCST; 1 UID
decoration with CST
Page 9 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m168
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m169
3
2.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 1 with possible use wear
4
p170
1
5
Albany Slipped Stoneware Ceramic
body
Provenience
Number:
78.1
Revisit, N425
E545, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl71
1
1.2
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), UID
decoration -cord marked?, fabric
impressed?; MST
2
m172
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
79.1
Revisit, N440
E350, TR10 ST7, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m173
5
3.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 felsic tuff?, 3 weathered
2
m174
1
2.9
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
quartzite?
Provenience
Number:
80.1
Revisit, N440
E500, TR10 ST3, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m175
1
1.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
small bit of cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
81.1
Revisit, N440
E515, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m176
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
81.2
Revisit, N440
E515, 20-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m177
1
9.1
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake Banded
use wear on 1 edge
2
m178
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff?
3
m179
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
82.1
Revisit ,N440
E545, 15-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m180
1
0.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m181
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
83.1
Revisit, N440
E560, TR10 STI, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m182
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
84.1
Revisit, N455
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m183
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff?, weathered
Provenience
Number:
84.2
Revisit, N455
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p184
1
0.5
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded,
CNCST
2
m185
1
5.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m186
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
85.2
Revisit, N455
E500, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m187
1
0.6
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded, CST
Page 10 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m188
1
19.8
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
large
Provenience
Number:
86.1
Revisit, N455
E530, 0-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p189
2
5.2
Residual Sherd
2 possible Cashie (L WDLD), 1 fabric
impressed? with scraped interior and
CST; 1 UID decoration with VCST
2
m190
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m191
1
1.1
Light Green Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
87.2
Revisit, N470
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m192
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m193
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m194
1
0.3
Light Green Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
88.1
Revisit, N470
E500, TR11 ST3, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p195
2
1
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 2 very small and eroded, 1
MST, 1 CST
2
m196
4
1.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 felsic tuff?; 1 weathered; 2
porphyritic
3
m197
1
4.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
heat treated, possible use wear
4
m198
1
1.6
Quartz Fire Cracked Rock With Cortex
cobble fragment
5
m199
1
0.7
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
89.1
Revisit, N470
E515, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p200
1
2.3
VCS/Granular Temper Cashie UID Decoration possible Cashie (L WDLD), Fabric
Body Sherd
impressed?
2
p201
1
2.5
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/ Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), eroded, VCST
3
m202
1
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?
Provenience Number:
89.2 Revisit, N470 E515, 30-70 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity Weight (g)
Description Comments
1
p203
2 3.7
Very Coarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant 2 possible Mount Pleasant, 2 mend
Plain Body Sherd
2
m204
4 1.8
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment 2 mend
3
m205
1 0.2
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number: 90.1 Revisit, N470 E530, TR11 ST2, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 p206 3 4.2 Residual Sherd
2 m207 5
6.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
Cortex
3 m208 4
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
4 m209 1
3.5
Light Green Flat Glass
5 m210 1
4
Concretion Rock
Page 11 of 18
Comments
1 UID type, simple stamped with
M/CST and granular inclu.; 1 possible
Cashie (L WDLD), eroded with
VC/granular sand temper; 1 UID type,
eroded with CST
1 with cortex, 3 weathered, 1 felsic
tuff?
1 primary flake with cobble cortex
window glass
sandstone

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
91.1
Revisit, N470 E545, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p2l l
1
2.7
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), fabric
impressed, VCST
2
m212
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m213
2
4.6
Quartz Shatter
4
m214
1
29.1
Unidentified Material Groundstone With
2 flat surfaces, possible metate
Cortex
fragment?
5
m215
0
0.4
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
92.1
Revisit, N470
E575, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m216
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
92.2
Revisit, N470
E575, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m217
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
2
m218
1
4.5
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
Provenience
Number:
93.1
Revisit, N485
E500, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p219
1
0.7
Residual Sherd
1 UID type, UID Decoration, possible
fabric impressed?, M/CST
2
m220
3
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
94.1
Revisit, N485
E515, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m221
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m222
1
2
Plastic
white plastic fragment
Provenience
Number:
94.2
Revisit, N485
E515, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p223
1
0.7
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded, UID
decoration, CST
2
m224
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered
3
m225
1
0.7
Plastic
white plastic fragment
4
m226
1
0.1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
95.1
Revisit, N485
E530, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m227
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m228
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m229
0
1.9
Coal
4
m230
1
1.1
Clear Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
96.1
Revisit, N485
E545, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m231
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m232
1
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
97.2
Revisit, N500
E500, TR12 ST3, 15-35 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 12 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
p233
1
2.8
Residual Sherd
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
UID Decoration, net impressed
2
m234
2
4.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
primary flake with cobble cortex, 2
mend
Provenience
Number:
97.3
Revisit, N500
E500, TR12 ST3, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m235
7
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic, 6 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
98.1
Revisit, N500
E515, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p236
1
38.1
Unglazed Stoneware Ceramic
UID Form, flat exterior, interior has lip
and cone -shaped protrusion, utilitarian?
2
p237
1
0.4
Undecorated Ironstone Ceramic
body
3
a238
1
0.4
Button Metal
aluminum, 2-hole, 1 piece (post 1880s,
Marcel 1994)
4
m239
2
2.9
Clear Bottle Glass
body fragments
5
m240
8
7.4
Brown Bottle Glass
body fragments
6
m241
19.4
Brick Fragment
1 with coarse sand inclusions
7
m242
0
0
Coal
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
99.2
Revisit, N500
E530, TR12 ST2, 30-60 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p243
1
2.3
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), cord marked, VCST
2
m244
13
4.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
9 felsic tuff?, 3 weathered, 1 porphyritic
3
m245
1
16.8
Unidentified Material Rock
possible groundstone?
4
m246
1
1
Light Green Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
100.1
Revisit, N500
E545 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m247
1
2.2
Nail Fragment Unidentified
2
m248
2
3.5
Brown Bottle Glass
body fragments
3
m249
1
1.8
Clear Bottle Glass
embossed with "-AW-/- RE-/-O-"
4
m250
1
2.2
Clear Flat Glass
likely window glass
Provenience
Number:
101.1
Revisit, N500
E560, TR12 STI, 0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m251
1
1.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
102.1
Revisit, N500
E575, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m252
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff.
2
m253
1
0.9
Milkglass Unidentified Glass
green painted exterior surface
Provenience
Number:
103.1
Revisit, N515
E500, 040 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
a254
1
4
Personal Item Marble
unglazed earthenware marble (common
by mid-1700s to 1930s, Samford 2014)
Provenience
Number:
104.1
Revisit, N515
E515, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 13 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m255
1
0.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m256
1
0
Clear Lamp Glass
weights <0.1 g, very thin
3
m257
1
0.8
Light Green Flat Glass
likely window glass
Provenience
Number:
105.2
Revisit, N515
E530, 10-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m258
1
1.6
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake
felsic tuft*?, use wear on 1 side of 1 edge
2
m259
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m260
1
1
Clear Bottle Glass
body
Provenience
Number:
106.1
Revisit, N515
E545, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m261
2
3.9
Clear Bottle Glass
1 body, 1 base with mold seam
Provenience
Number:
107.2
Revisit, N515
E560, 15-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
a262
1
9.5
Milky Quartz Projectile Point
Kirk/Pahner (Early Archaic), corner
notched, resharpened, ground base
2
m263
3
6.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1 with cortex, 1 weathered with
Cortex
possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
108.1
Revisit, N530E470, TR13 ST4, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p264
1
1.5
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, VCS/granular temper
2
m265
0
4.6
Mortar
3
m266
1
4.3
Sandstone Rock
cultural???
Provenience
Number:
108.2
Revisit, N530E470, TR13 ST4, 25-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m267
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weight <0.1g, felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
109.1
Revisit, N530E500, TR13 ST3, 0-15 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m268
1
2.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m269
2
1.9
Clear Flat Glass
window glass
3
m270
0
36.2
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
109.2
Revisit, N530
E500, TR13 ST3, 15-35 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m271
3
7.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
110.1
Revisit, N530
E515, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m272
2
1.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1 cultural?
Cortex
2
m273
4
4.2
Light Green Flat Glass
likely window glass
3
m274
1
0.3
Clear Unidentified Glass
worn
4
m275
1
4.7
Light Green Bottle Glass
5
m276
0
13.1
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
110.2
Revisit, N530
E515, 20-50 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 14 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
a277
1
2.1
Metavolcanic P. Point Fragment
tip fragment, weathered
2
m278
2
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
3
m279
1
1.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m280
1
0.3
Clear Flat Glass
5
m281
0
1.7
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
111.2
Revisit, N530
E530, TR13 ST2, 30-45 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m282
1
1.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
112.1
Revisit, N530
E575, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m283
1.4
Brick Fragment
Site Number 31WL178/178**
Provenience Number:
1.1
Revisit, N560 E440, TR14 ST5, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml
1
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
2.1
Revisit, N575
E395, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m2
2
0.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
1 weathered and banded
2
m3
1
0.7
Brown Bottle Glass
rim with threaded finish (dominant
post 1930, (Lindsey 2017)
Provenience
Number:
3.1
Revisit, N575
E410, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m4
1
0.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
4.1
Revisit, N575
E425, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m5
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m6
1
8.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m7
1
1
Brown Bottle Glass
base fragment with knurling (post
1940, Lindsey 2017)
Provenience
Number:
5.1
Revisit, N590
E350, TR15 ST7, 0-30 cm plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m8
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m9
1
17.8
Metal Hardware Iron
chain fragment, bike? Chainsaw?
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Revisit, N590
E365, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m10
1
0.9
Clear Bottle Glass
body
Provenience
Number:
7.2
Revisit, N590
E395, 30-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml l
1
1.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
8.2
Revisit, N590
E410, TR15 ST5, 35-60 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m12
1
2.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Page 15 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m13
1
0.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
9.1
Revisit, N590
E425, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m14
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
10.1
Revisit, N590
E440, TR15 ST4, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m15
1
84.7
Unidentified Material Rock
cultural??
Provenience
Number:
10.2
Revisit, N590
E440, TR15 ST4, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p16
3
4.8
Residual Sherd
1-Possible Cashie (L WDLD), UID
decoration, fabric? cord?, CST; 2- UID
type, very small and eroded, CST?
2
m17
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
11.2
Revisit, N590
E470, TR15 ST3, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m18
4
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 porphyritic, 1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
12.1
Revisit, N590
E500 TR15 ST2, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p19
2
2.3
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 1 eroded and CST, 1
eroded and VCST
2
m20
1
0.4
Undecorated Creamware Ceramic
body, glaze partially chipped off both
sides
3
m21
0
1.2
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
12.2
Revisit, N590E500, TR15 ST2, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m22
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, primary flake
2
m23
3
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
13.1
Revisit, N590
E515, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m24
0
0.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
14.1
Revisit, N590
E530, TR15 STl, 0-35 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m25
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
15.2
Revisit, N605
E350, 30-55 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m26
1
18.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
large, possible use wear
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
16.1
Revisit, N605
E440, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p27
1
3.4
VCS/Granular Temper Cashie Simple
overstamped
Stamped Body Sherd
2
m28
2
5.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 with possible use wear
3
m29
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
Page 16 of 18

Artifact Catalog
4
p30
1
3.2
Nottingham Stoneware Ceramic
roulette design, body
5
m31
1
1.6
Sandstone Rock
likely not cultural
Provenience
Number:
16.2
Revisit, N605
E440 30+ cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p32
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded,
VC/Granular sand temper
2
m33
1
0.6
Brown Bottle Glass
base? body?, very small
3
m34
0
0.7
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
17.1
Revisit, N605
E470, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m35
0
1.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
17.2
Revisit, N605
E470, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m36
2
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic
2
m37
0
0.3
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
18.1
Revisit, N605
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
0
1
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
18.2
Revisit, N605
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
1
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
19.1
Revisit, N605
E500, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m40
1
0.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
20.1
Revisit, N620
E455, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m41
2
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m42
1
12.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered, large and bulky
3
m43
0
10.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
20.2
Revisit, N620
E455, 35-50 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m44
1
16.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with terrestrial cortex
2
m45
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
21.1
Revisit, N620
E470, TR16 ST2, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m46
1
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered
2
m47
1
2.9
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
bifacial pressure flaking on 1 edge,
weathered, possibly banded
Provenience
Number:
22.1
Revisit, N635
E440, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m48
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Page 17 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
23.1
Revisit, N635 E455, 25-40 cm, top of zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m49
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m50
1
1.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered, banded?
3
p51
1
0.8
Undecorated Pearlware Ceramic
base, glaze chipped off interior and
exterior
Provenience
Number:
24.1
Revisit, N650
E380, TR17 ST4, 35-65 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p52
1
3.2
Residual Sherd
possible Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant
(E/M WDLD), plain, VCST
Provenience
Number:
25.1
Revisit, N650
E410, TR17ST3, 0-35cm, trans pz/z H
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m53
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
2 with cobble cortex
2
p54
1
0.2
Lead Glazed Agateware Ceramic
body, glaze chipped off interior
Provenience
Number:
26.1
Revisit, N650
E440, TR17 ST2, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p55
1
2.5
Coarse Sand Temper UID Decoration Body
cord? Simple stamped?, possible Deep
Sherd
Creek/ Mount Pleasant?, possible
Cashie?
2 m56 1 1.4 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3 m57 0 2.7 Brick Fragment
Provenience Number: 27.1 Revisit, N665 E440, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 a58 1 1.1 Translucent Quartz Projectile Point
Provenience Number: 28.1 Revisit, N680 E440, TR18 ST1, 0-10 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 p59 1 0.3 White Salt Glazed Undecorated Stoneware
Ceramic
Page 18 of 18
Comments
small triangular, 13.6 mm wide,
19.7mm long
Comments

Site Number
Provenience: Cat #
Point Classification
Temporal Affiliation
Lithic Material
General Measurements
Length
Width
Weight
Basal Attributes
Base Type
Ground?
Maximum Width
Width at Neck
Depth of Concavity
Blade Attributes
PPK Point Report
31WL02/02** Revisit
107.2 1
Kirk/Palmer
Early Archaic
Milky Quartz
38.9 mm
22 mm
9.5 g
Notched
Yes
21.4 mm
16.2 mm
0 mm
Symmetric?
Yes
Beveled?
Yes L
Serrated?
Yes
Maximum Length
25.3 mm
Maximum Width
22 mm
Maximum Thickness
10.9 mm
Comment Corner notched, base chipped, 1 side beveled
Site Number
Provenience: Cat #
Point Classification
Temporal Affiliation
Lithic Material
General Measurements
Length
Width
Weight
Basal Attributes
Base Type
Ground?
Maximum Width
Width at Neck
Depth of Concavity
Blade Attributes
Symmetric?
Beveled?
Serrated?
Maximum Length
Maximum Width
Maximum Thickness
Comment base chipped
31WL178/178** Revisit
27.1 1
Small Triangular
Late Woodland
Translucent Quartz
19.6 mm
13.6 mm
1.1 g
Stemless Triangular
No
13.6 mm
0 mm
0 mm
Yes
No
No
19.6 mm
13.6 mm
5 mm
Page 1 of 2

PPK Fragment Report
Site Number 31WL02/02** Revisit
Provenience: 110.2 1
Lithic Material Metavolcanic
General Measurements
Length 30.4 mm
Width 15.5 mm
Weight
2.1 g
Fracture Type
Perverse
Fragment Type
Body
Base Type
Unknown
Comments Tip fragment, weathered ' M '""'""'""r""'""'""'""'""'""'""'
Page 2 of 2

Appendix B.
Artifact Plates

r
Kirk/Palmer
Milky Quartz PPK, 107.2:1
Metavolcanic
PPK Fragment,
110.2:1
Quartz
Quartzite Flake Tool, 16.2:2
Quartz Biface
Fragment, 23.1:2
Metavolcanic
Biface Fragment,
64.1:3
Rhyolite Metavolcanic
Flake Tool, 29.1:1 Core, 21.1:4
Flake Tool, 21.1:5.
+ Quartz Flakes/ .�
Flake Fragments,
Quartzite FCR, 8.2:2 5.1:3 1•
Metavolcanic Flakes/
Flake Fragments, 90.1:2
Mf rr�ir 1 ? ; q y
1
Metavolcanic Flakes/
Flake Fragments, 23.1:5
Figure 1. A sample of lithic artifacts from site 31WL2/2** Revisit.
Page 1 of 4

Possible
Cashie
Simple Stamped Simple Stamped Fabric Impressed,
Body Sherd, Body Sherd, Body Sherd, 91.1:1
108.1:1 22.2:1
Mount
N' ��� Pleasant
UID Decorated Fabric Impressed Plain Body Sherds
Body Sherd, 23.1:1 Body Sherd, 2.1:1 (2 Mend), 89.2:1
Fabric Deep Creek/
Impressed Mount Pleasant
:~ Body Sherd,
3.1:1 Ord Marked
Fabric Impressed'�ET�'ch IIiIIN2 a Body Sherd,
-
Body Sherd, 5.1:1 y
4.1:1
Figure 2. A sample of prehistoric ceramics from site 31WL2/2**
Revisit.
Figure 3. A selection of historic artifacts from site 31WL2/2** Revisit.
Page 2 of 4

f
Small Triangular Metavolcanic
Translucent Quartz Biface Fragment,
PPK, 27.1:1 21.1:2
i
F . Quartz Flake/Flake Metavolcanic
Quartz Flakes/Flake Fragment, 26.1:2 Flake/Flake
Fragments, 16.1:2 Fragment, 21.1:1
NETRfC S 2 8 4 5
4
Metavolcanic
ents,
IFI
i
Figure 4. A sample of lithic artifacts from site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Figure 5. A sample of prehistoric ceramics from site
31WL178/178** Revisit.
Page 3 of 4

Agateware, 25.1:2 a. _
Undecorate 7e-amware, Undec6rated Pearlware
12.1:2 23.1:3
Rouletted Nottingham
Stoneware, 16.1:4
OMAN
s
Brown #`
Bottle Glass, Brown
4.1:3 Bottle Glass,
Undecorated White Salt -
Glazed Stoneware, 28.1:1
3
Brick
Fragments,
16.2:3
Figure 6. A sample of historic artifacts from site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Page 4 of 4

Appendix C.
Resume of Principal Investigator

BOBBY GERALD SOUTHERLIN
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
704 West Main Street
Clayton, NC 27520
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
CEO, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Senior Archaeologist, Principal Investigator, Field Director, Zooarchaeologist
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Yemasee Indian Archaeology in South Carolina
Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Etowah River Valley
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
Material Culture Replication (lithics and ceramics)
EDUCATION:
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Georgia, 1993.
B.A. in Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1988.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
North Carolina Archaeological Society (Life Member)
North Carolina Professional Council
Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists
Society for Georgia Archaeology (Life Member)
Society for American Archaeology
Archaeological Society of South Carolina (Life Member)
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS (Phase I) and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TESTING
(Phase II)
Utility Corridors for ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Duke
Power Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and Transco Pipeline Company
(Houston).
Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina
Department of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)
Development Tracts for Consolidated Government of the City of Columbus/Muscogee County
(Georgia), Macon County (North Carolina), U.S. Corps of Engineers (Savannah and Mobile
Districts), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Columbia), and various private developers
(Georgia and South Carolina)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY (Phase III)
Yemasee Indian occupations at the Chechessee Old Field sites (38BU1605 and 38BU1609) for the
Chechessee Creek Club
Three prehistoric sites (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) in Horry County, South Carolina for
Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club (Myrtle Beach, S.C.)

Two Prehistoric sites (38LX50 and 38LX141) in Lexington County, South Carolina for the South
Carolina Department of Transportation
The Callawassie Burial Mound and Village site (38BU19) in Beaufort County, South Carolina
Two prehistoric sites (9FL203 and 9FL206) in Floyd County, Georgia for the Georgia Department
of Transportation
EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES
Fort Jackson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Robbins Air Force Base, GA; Fort Benning, GA; Hurlbert
Field, FL; Coastal Systems Station Panama City, FL; Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
• Georgia Power Company (Flint River Hydroelectric Project)
• Duke Energy (Shoreline Surveys at Lake James and Lake Norman North Carolina and Fishing Creek
Lake, South Carolina)
• Crisp County Power Commission (Lake Blackshear, Georgia)
** A detailed listing of individual projects is available upon request

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Harnma M. harms, Admini%trvnr
Got mor )toy C x4wr
Suntory $u.i I I I FanrJ[mr
September 11, 2017
David B. Morton day dla�bartietwa&com
Bartlett Engineering & Surveying
I906 Nash Street South
Wilson, NC 27893
Re: Wilson County Solid Waste Services New Activity Areas, ER 17-1519
Dear Mr. Morton:
Office of Archn'[- ■nd $ ftsenn
1)(T+ut) SCLCrrtsrr Knon Ckvlr -
Thank -You for your submission of August 9, 2017, concerning the above referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
There are not historic buildings that will be affected by this project.
Three of the five proposed activity areas do not contain previously recorded cultural resources, and
construction in these locations is unlikely to affect any significant historic properties. These three areas
include the proposed hurricane debris area, the proposed yard waste compost and mulch processing
expansion area, and the proposed LC1D landfill area. No work with regard to historic sites is
recommended for these areas.
Two previously recorded archaeological sites, 31 WL2 and 31 WL178, are located in the proposed
Westside 11 C&D landfill area and the proposed C&D recycle area, respectively. These sites have not
been assessed to determine whether they are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
While fanning operations have taken place in the project area, analysis of aerial imagery from 1957 to
present suggests that intact portions of these archaeological sites may be present in the parcel, particularly
along the margin of Suck Branch. — —
We recommend that prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the Westside 1I C&D
landfill area and the proposed C&D recycle area, a comprehensive archaeological survey of these two
areas be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey will be to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project, Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology
Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation.
LOcr<thm: lull - r251) n Strut, Itak-Igh NCI 2-1 UP I 1Msib PSAddrcss:4617.%IAd'wntcrf;rnive. I:skyh NC274fY)4617 TeLephooe/Fiax-(!19) 60765701007.65"
r

One paper copy and a digital copy of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one paper copy and a
digital copy of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of
State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. A list of archaeological consultants who
have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
www.archaeology.seder.gqv/ncarch/resouree/consultants.htrn. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
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 comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. I all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely yours,
r} Ramona Bartos

Appendix A.4
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Correspondence
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

a man Roy Cooper. Governor
■0, i NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■�xna NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
a lee Walter Clark. Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-11370
February 13, 2020
Robert Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, INC 27615
RE: Wilson Landfill; 13165.W9
Dear Robert Zarzecki:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httos://www.fws.aov/offices/Directorv/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butlerCo)ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
INC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Q 121 W JONES STREET. RnLDGi4. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 17699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]i21

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Wilson Landfill
Project No. 13165.W9
February 13, 2020
NCNHDE-11370
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name t Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
III Date Rank A
Amphibian 35990 Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad 1949-05-02 X 5-Very --- Significantly G5 S2
Low Rare
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on February 13, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q1 Jan 2020.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-11370: Wilson Landfill
�o
5cc$ Nf' HlgnwaY 42 1�
'L
�P3r�
ashy SrE, {
a
Alamo °F m
Happy Valby 7y1 Ir y
ye��k Golf Caurse 'v
aV�v
anon Pa
'-ia .
If
{� o s'Idy Creeh
N s,
sfi
Wi:
S
February 13, 2020
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
Page 3 of 3
1:27,830
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 km
Sources. Esn- HERE. Garrrin. Inter p. in ement P Corp.. GESCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS. MRCAN, G—a 3—, IG N. Kadastei Nt., Ordnance Survey. rsri Japan_
MLI �Yi Ghurs (Hvnp Korgj, (c) 9pen54reeUolap cantreutors, and the GIS
User C unlry

Appendix A.5
Water Supply Watershed Map
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

NC Water Supply Watersheds
IISoII
8/5/2020, 3:51:24 PM
Water Supply Watersheds 0 WS-IV NSWP
0 WS-III NSWP
Surface Water Classifications
0 WS-III NSWC
1:72,224
0 0.5 1 2 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
NCDENR Div. Water Resources
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE I State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE

Appendix A.6
Threatened and Endangered Species
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

8/30/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
SMITH GARNER
Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
1 message
Kevin Martin <[e-mail]> Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM
To: Robert Bartlett <[e-mail]>, Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
Robert and Mike, see USFWS concurrence below, that was quick.
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:08 AM
To: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>; Suiter, Dale <[e-mail]>;
Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Kevin,
The Service concurs with your may affect, not likely to adversely affect determine on for
Michaux's sumac for this project as proposed.
Thanks,
John
From: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6f99fc3a5l &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3Al667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3Al 66712921657... 1 /4

8/30/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
Good Morning John, this past Friday (5/15/2020) 1 went back out to the Wilson Landfill Site
to conduct addi onal surveys for Michaux's sumac within the op mal survey window. Can
you let me know what you need from me as far as upda ng this report or making it so that
USFWS concurs with the determine on for Michaux's sumac "May affect, not likely to
adversely affect". I conducted surveys for Michaux's sumac in areas of poten al habitat and
did not observe any specimens. Just let me know if you want updated photo pages or
anything.
Thanks
Kevin C. Martin
Principal
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Visit us at SandEC.com!
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This
electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are
provided as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you
From: Kevin Mar In
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Robert Bartle <[e-mail]>; Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
Subject: USFWS Response DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Wilson Landfill Property
Robert and Mike see below, USFWS accepted our findings for all species except they want us
to do a survey for Michaux's sumac. They just couldn't resist the snarky comment "As the
Service has told staff at Soil and Environmental Consultants mul ple mes, plant surveys
outside the survey window will almost always not be valid" We have explained to USFWS
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6f99fc3a5l &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1 667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A1 6671292 1657... 2/4

8/30/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
that we never know if they will or will not consider them valid so we always have to ask to
find out!
The op mal survey window for Michaux's sumac is May -October, so we are currently in
season to survey for it. It would cost $1500 for us to do the site survey and update the
report and submit to USFWS. Let us know if you want to proceed, Thanks
Kevin C. Martin
Principal
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Visit us at SandEC.com!
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This
electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are
provided as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:27:57 PM
To: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>; Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Suiter, Dale
<[e-mail]>; Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Mason Montgomery
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Kevin,
The Service concurs with the determinaons f or all the species except for Michaux's sumac. The survey was done outside of the
survey window. As the Service has told staff at Soil and Environmental Consultants mulple mes, plan t surveys outside the survey
window will almost always not be valid. If there is a need to conduct them outside the window, the Service should be contacted in
advance to determine the likelihood of being accepted.
Thanks
John
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6f99fc3a5l &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A166712921657... 3/4

8/30/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
From: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:35 PM
To: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Mar In <[e-mail]>; Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Mason Montgomery
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Good a. ernoon, a ached you will find the T&E Report for the Wilson Landfill Property.
Thank you and please let me know if you have any quesons or concerns.
Kevin Murphrey
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office 984-238-2650 1 Ext: 1003
Mobile [phone]
[e-mail]
Visit us at sandec.com
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6f99fc3a5l &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A166712921657... 4/4

Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falls ofNeuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC:27615 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
sander. com
March 23, 2020
S&EC Project No.: 13165.W9
To: Bartlett Engineering
Attn: Robert Bartlett
1906 Nash Street N
Wilson, NC 27893
Re: THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES REPORT
Wilson Landfill Property, Wilson, Wilson County, NC (+/- 129 acres)
2401-2449 Bullard Ct, Wilson County, NC
Dear Robert Bartlett:
On February 25, 2020, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) evaluated the Wilson Landfill
property for Endangered species. The property is located at 2401-2449 Bullard Ct in Wilson County, NC.
On site surface waters flow into the Toisnot Swamp in the Neuse River Basin, which has been classified
in the "Classification and NC DWQ Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North
Carolina" as C;Sw,NSW.
We obtained the attached automatically generated official species list for the project study area from the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) report identifying
the protected species on or within one mile of the project area that could potentially be affected by the
project. USFWS & NCNHP reports were updated as of the date of this report. The official species list is
valid for 90 days.
We conducted preliminary surveys to identify potential suitable habitat for the species listed for Wilson
County, NC. This included assessing the physical characteristics of the streams, identifying vegetated
communities, and looking for evidence of the listed species onsite. The results of the search are discussed
below.
Wilson Landfill Property - S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 1 of 6

March 23, 2020
S&EC Project #13165.W9
RESULTS:
The USFWS official species list for the project study area identifies the following species:
• Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Endangered
• Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), Proposed Threatened
• Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus), Proposed Endangered
• Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii), Endangered
The NCNHP report does not identify any federally endangered species as occurring within one mile of
the project study area. Other State listed species that were found within the project study area are listed
in the attached NCNHP report.
RED -COCKADED WOODPECKER (Picoides borealis):
Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat includes forests with trees old enough for
roosting, generally at least 60-120 years old, depending on the species of pine. For nesting or roosting
habiat, RCW's need open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older. RCWs need live, large
older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred, but other
species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or that
have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood
stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In
good, moderately -stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres
(USFWS 2003).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
During our assessment, we determined that there is no potential suitable habitat for the RCW within the
project study area. The pines that are located within the project study area too young to be considered
suitable foraging or nesting habitat. In the Southwestern portion of the project study area, there are some
pines that could potentially be old enough to be considered forging habitat. This area; however, has a
dense hardwood understory that would rule out suitable habitat for the RCW. Additionally, the NCNHP
report indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Wilson Landfill Property - S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 2 of 6

March 23, 2020
S&EC Project #13165.W9
NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG (Necturus lewish:
Description: The Neuse River waterdog habitat requirements include low to moderate gradient streams
and low current velocity. It is a fully aquatic salamander, never leaving the water. It lacks lungs, getting
oxygen form the water via external gills and needs clean, flowing water with high dissolved oxygen
concentrations. This species dwells in streams wider than 15 meters but has been found in smaller creeks
(USFWS 2019).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
During our assessment, we determined that there is no potential suitable habitat for the Neuse River
waterdog within the project study area. Features A and B have low to no baseflow, and do not contain
the adequate substrate needed for this species. Portions of Feature C appear to have clean, flowing water;
however, the substrate consists of mostly silt and is approximately 4ft wide. Additionally, the NCNHP
report indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to
these factors, we concluded that the project would have "No effect" on the Neuse River waterdog.
CAROLINA MADTOM (Noturus furiosus):
Description: Suitable habitat for the Carolina madtom occurs in riffles, runs, and pools in medium to
large streams and rivers. Ideally, it habits fresh waters with continuous, year-round flow and moderate
gradient in both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. Optimal substrate for the
Carolina madtom is predominantly silt -free, stable, gravel and cobble bottom habitat, and it must have
cover for nest sites, including under rocks, bark, relic mussel shells, and even cans and bottles (USFWS
2019).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
During our assessment, we determined that there is no potential suitable habitat for the Carolina madtom
within the project study area. Features A and B have low to no baseflow, and do not contain the adequate
substrate needed for this species. Portions of Feature C appear to have clean, flowing water; however,
the substrate consists of mostly silt and is approximately 4ft wide. Additionally, the NCNHP report
indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to these
factors, we concluded that the project would have "No effect" on the Carolina madtom
Wilson Landfill Property - S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 3 of 6

March 23, 2020
S&EC Project #13165.W9
MICHAUX'S SUMAC Whys michauxit):
Description: Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This
plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Several
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights -of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings (USFWS 2003).
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
During our assessment, we determined that there is potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac
onsite. We visited a known population of Michaux's sumac within Wake County prior to conducting our
preliminary surveys. Portions of the study area contain successional areas and open areas along field
edges that provide the open, disturbed habitat that Michaux's sumac prefers. During our surveys
however, we did not observe any specimens within the project study area. Additionally, the NCNHP
report indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. S&EC
staff conducted field surveys for this species outside of the USFWS approved survey window (May -
October). Given the lack of species present, but presence of suitable habitat and other sumac species, we
concluded that the project would "not likely adversely affect" Michaux's sumac.
BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT
S&EC personnel conducted preliminary surveys of suitable habitat, nesting sites, and individual Bald
Eagles within the project study area. During our survey, we found no evidence of Bald Eagles or any
foraging/nesting sites within the project study area. Given the lack of species present, we have concluded
that the project is "Unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles ". We believe no Eagle Act Permit is required.
NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT (Myotis sententrionalis):
S&EC personnel conducted preliminary surveys for suitable habitat and individual Northern Long-eared
Bats (NLEB's) within the project study area. During our survey, we found no induvial species. Due to
the nature of the project being residential development, and the suitable habitat, we concluded that the
project would "May affect, but not likely to adversely affect" NLEB's.
Wilson Landfill Property - S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 4 of 6

March 23, 2020
S&EC Project #13165.W9
CONCLUSION:
After completing the habitat assessments and preliminary surveys, S&EC completed the attached
"Species Conclusion Table" and "Self -Certification Letter". Using language typically used by the
UFWS in their conclusion letters, we have concluded that it appears the proposed project is not likely
to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We strongly recommend requesting a concurrence letter from the UFWS.
Sincerely,
SOIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA
Kevin Murphrey
Environmental Scientist, Wetlands Department
Attachments:
1. USGS Vicinity Map
2. Soil Survey Vicinity Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Photo Report
5. FWS List of threatened and endangered species that occur in your proposed location, and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. Official Species List. February 13, 2020.
6. NHP report re: Wilson Landfill Property. February 13, 2020.
7. S&EC - FWS Species Conclusion Table. Signed 03/23/2020.
8. S&EC - FWS Self -Certification Letter. Signed 03/23/2020.
Wilson Landfill Property - S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 5 of 6

March 23, 2020
S&EC Project #13165.W9
References:
-US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) & Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office Online Project Reviews website.
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 30pp.
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Second Revision. Atlanta GA 316 pp.
-North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Biotics Database. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/ Southeast Region. 2019. Carolina Madtom. Species Profile.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/fishes/carolina-madtom/.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/ Southeast Region. 2019. Neuse River Waterdog. Species Profile.
https://www.fws. gov/southeast/wildlife/amphibians/neuse-river-waterdog/
Wilson Landfill Property — S&EC Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Page 6 of 6

42 - - -
CtiSCt
;Cem
qP
v
I_
� .•�1%jY �F� ?�f
66-
Project Number: USGS Map Map Title: N
13165.W9 0 1,000 2,000
Project Manager: I I I I I I
KM Wilson Co Landfill Feet
Scale: 1 1000' Wilson County, NC
" = •
5nil .'k Environmental Consultants, PA
Source: 2019 USGS
Date: 94II VA C . R—L &IOL IN. R.L NC M15.1'hon: f'f1•ij Mc • Fay OW1 Nagai
03/03/2020 Saratoga, NC Quad^°�"�

Nod ° GtB2
201
; r
F
r A Y A "A
BIB AVB
Bb GtB2 a
7J
NO&
lV o Bj t N C}�`.sb
[� w10 Gi tG 2 �
'Q 0
Gt.2 A T t
d i
GtB 2 .
Fla MaA
,'4A
N
T rQ
A A
GtB2
Vf k. _ a B a
T t.
}. 04�? ;
r Wao GtB2
Nos
aA
z G t B L f
B k.} { aR f
t f WILSON
COUNTY
R h S'tA LANDFILL'
U d
01
Project Number: Map Title: N
13165.W9 0 1,000 2,000
Project Manager: Soil Survey Map I I I I I I
KM Wilson Co Landfill Feet
Scale: 1 1000
Wilson County, NC
" = ' •
Source: Soil & Erjv}ronmental Consultants, PA
Date: Wilson County MI.,aR-iFtiem.R—LSUQPGA.Rak10h NC ML5-i'M1111'?1")IH,:ml-F-jVW1&%-94i7
03/03/2020 Soil Survey Sheet 6 ~ &--

oefiaeee Deane.lJen erw.6era er me os
Legend
New Evaluation Limits
AJD Areas -
j
�`.•�- Potentially Jurisdictional Intermittent Stream
i m Confirmed by Sam Dailey of the
JW
Potentially Jurisdictional Ditch i USACE on 0212812020. /
Potentially Jurisdictional Pond
Potentially Jurisdictional Wetland
\� 2' Wilson County Contours
NOTE:
Wetlantls W1, W2, antl W3 are flagged _
Y�
with pink S&EC logo Flagging.
Wetlantls , Wg, WT, WS 8 W9 are flagged
with orangeS &EC EC logo flagging.
V - - -
�
188 TT 107 & 185 168 TT 185 & 189, 169 TT 173
93 & 176 TT GH /nvs �+
0
a�
Ph-12
i
Old sediment basin �
Borrow pit excavated in uplands 177 TT PL
ePp
^I t�
W5 ../� W9
Evaluaoen eernerflaggea w;m 01 & 15 TT CH
blue antl wfiiR s.,,ed flagging —' - - !•
�— 77 TT 36 /I
218 & 243 TT Culvert
Photo 11
i Photos M j
• � C (Feature C) I � � _
" 23 Old sediment
23 TT Evaluation Limits uProP •* �.207 & 20
vn8 TT Ditch
14 TT CH
(Feature ai I . / 217 TT PL
61
Borrow it excavated in uplands
Abandoned hog waste
-�� Pnoros 13 t lagoons in uplands
W1 its' �reemre ni W3 _
Ph0t01° . ?• �h .S. �,.
50 ���— .F. _ • I• .
WLeP 1 }
f� I t 15 •' ig1 r 1 ® � Jj� � -�
i
��-- B
Evaluation boundary flagged with 125
!� white and blue striped Flagging / rr �I
T \�
Wetland Sketch Map WilsonCountyLandfill 0 200 400 800
P-5 Ne. scale: 5oi! & lEnvlrorxmentnl Cvnsulcan[Rr PA
1J166.W6 1 =200' ... ... .. ..
Protect Mgr.: 02I21I2020 -pared by: "•-~,•—— •�, -. Fee`
- H l

Job #: 13165.W9
03/23/2020
Threatened and Endangered Species Photo Report for the
Wilson Landfill Property
Photo 1: Intermittent stream (Feature A) facing north, upstream
Photo 2: Intermittent stream (Feature A) facing south, downstream

Job #: 13165.W9
03/23/2020
Photo 3: Intermittent stream (Feature A) substrate
-45
34 1..'
Photo 4: Intermittent stream (Feature B) facing north, upstream
2

42
r.
tw.
. . . . . . . . . . .
n'Mmlj

Job #: 13165.W9
03/23/2020
Photo 7: Intermittent stream (Feature Q facing south, downstream
Photo 8: Intermittent stream (Feature Q substrate

Job #: 13165.W9
03/23/2020
Photo 9: Suitable Michaux's sumac habitat in successional area
Photo 10: Suitable Michaux's sumac habitat in successional area

`Y �:,i 1
d i+' • y� ��W�r�4
- — +
�_. '�ri:: i.:�j �. �.:�:5'�, � ��i *�tr�fi ri'.Y ti'lr.� r 1 • V _ e ... '-
�; :' ,i '•�-':��=`•*;r�8r I•,r /..°:.• try •r.,r' _ _ -��>� lr� �1�� �`�� `!;•'.. '1
l S:
S ti

Job #: 13165.W9
03/23/2020
Photo 13: Disturbed area along path
Photo 14: Disturbed area along path
7

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Pet '-' Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: February 13, 2020
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0646
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 2
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0646
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Project Type: Landfill
Project Description: LCID & C&D Landfill, Wilson, Wilson County, NC
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.72276402078487N77.86343186792863W
H q.F.S :aIw, ?9T 7
Counties: Wilson, NC

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Amphibians
NAME
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Threatened
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes
NAME
STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Endangered
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 4
Flowering Plants
NAME
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
STATUS
Endangered
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Date: 03/23/2020
Species / Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act
Notes / Documentation
Determination
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Picoides borealis)
staff on 2/25/2020
Neuse River Waterdog
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Necturus lewisi)
staff on 2/25/2020
Carolina Madtom
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Noturus furiosus)
staff on 2/25/2020
Michaux's Sumac
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Rhus michauxii)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Bald Eagle
No suitable habitat present,
No Eagle Act Permit Required
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Northern Long-eared Bat
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Myotis septentrionalis)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Critical Habitat
No critical habitat present
No effect
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Kevin Murphrey / Environmental Scientist, Wetlands Department at S&EC, PA 03/23/2020
Signature /Title Date

United States Department of the
Project Name
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 3/23/2020
Self -Certification Letter
Wilson Landfill Property
Dear Applicant:
x�arevr�s
Interior
F
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
❑✓ proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
❑� "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at Raleigh(cr�,fws.gov or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

8/14/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
1 message
Kevin Martin <[e-mail]> Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM
To: Robert Bartlett <[e-mail]>, Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
Robert and Mike, see USFWS concurrence below, that was quick.
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:08 AM
To: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>; Suiter, Dale <[e-mail]>;
Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Kevin,
The Service concurs with your may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for
Michaux's sumac for this project as proposed.
Thanks,
John
From: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=6f99fc3a51 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A166712921657... 1 /4

8/14/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
Good Morning John, this past Friday (5/15/2020) 1 went back out to the Wilson Landfill Site
to conduct additional surveys for Michaux's sumac within the optimal survey window. Can
you let me know what you need from me as far as updating this report or making it so that
USFWS concurs with the determination for Michaux's sumac "May affect, not likely to
adversely affect". I conducted surveys for Michaux's sumac in areas of potential habitat and
did not observe any specimens. Just let me know if you want updated photo pages or
anything.
Thanks
Kevin C. Martin
Principal
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Visit us at SandEC.com!
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This
electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are
provided as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you
From: Kevin Martin
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Robert Bartlett <[e-mail]>; Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
Subject: USFWS Response DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Wilson Landfill Property
Robert and Mike see below, USFWS accepted our findings for all species except they want us
to do a survey for Michaux's sumac. They just couldn't resist the snarky comment "As the
Service has told staff at Soil and Environmental Consultants multiple times, plant surveys
outside the survey window will almost always not be valid" We have explained to USFWS
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=6f99fc3a51 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1 667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A1 6671292 1657... 2/4

8/14/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
that we never know if they will or will not consider them valid so we always have to ask to
find out!
The optimal survey window for Michaux's sumac is May -October, so we are currently in
season to survey for it. It would cost $1500 for us to do the site survey and update the
report and submit to USFWS. Let us know if you want to proceed, Thanks
Kevin C. Martin
Principal
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Visit us at SandEC.com!
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This
electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are
provided as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:27:57 PM
To: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>; Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Suiter, Dale
<[e-mail]>; Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Mason Montgomery
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: DUE DATE: MAY 21, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Kevin,
The Service concurs with the determinations for all the species except for Michaux's sumac. The survey was done outside of the
survey window. As the Service has told staff at Soil and Environmental Consultants multiple times, plant surveys outside the survey
window will almost always not be valid. If there is a need to conduct them outside the window, the Service should be contacted in
advance to determine the likelihood of being accepted.
Thanks
John
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=6f99fc3a51 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A166712921657... 3/4

8/14/2020 Smith Gardner, Inc Mail - USFWS Response Michaux's Sumac Wilson Landfill Property
From: Kevin Murphrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:35 PM
To: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>; Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Mason Montgomery
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wilson Landfill Property
Good afternoon, attached you will find the T&E Report for the Wilson Landfill Property.
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kevin Murphrey
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office 984-238-2650 1 Ext: 1003
Mobile [phone]
[e-mail]
Visit us at sandec.com
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=6f99fc3a51 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1667129216575420706&simpl=msg-f%3A166712921657... 4/4

Appendix
Soil Boring/Piezometer Installation Records
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

Client: Wilson County
Project Number: Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SCR
BORING ID: MW-1
SMITH+ GA R O N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
a mi.gnxc: I eiaxze.ns:
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: YES
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter.- 4 inches
Screened Interval: 10-20'
Weather.- Cool, Overcast
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 03/03/20
Depth of Boring: 20'
Drilling Contractor: Piedmont Indust. Svcs, Inc.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 03/03/20
Water Level: 4'
❑
E
$
C
a
E
CL
�
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
❑
E
Q
U
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
Monitoring Well
2
a
O
n
�?
Construction Details
❑
Q
J
❑
❑
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
E
m
(6
to
J
N
2
1
2
3
0-5'
no
0-4' Organics, top soil
4
4' Water
5
5' Red, orange, moist, fat clay
6
7
7' Tan, moist, lean sandy clay
5-10,
no
8
8' Tan, wet, sandy clay
9
10
11
12
13
10-15'
no
10-15' Tan, wet, sandy clay
14
15
16
17
17-20' Dark tan, brown, wet, sandy clay
18
15-20
no
19
20
NOTES:
Date
Time
Checked by Date:

Client., Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-7 Logged By: SCR
BORING ID: MW-2
SMITH-GAR 0 N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
.. .... ,_ _
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method., Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed., YES
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter., 4 inches
Screened Interval., 10-20'
Weather., Cool, Overcast
Ground Elevation:
Date Started., 03/03/20
Depth of Boring: 20'
Drilling Contractor., Piedmont Indust. Svcs, Inc.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished., 03/03/20
Water Level. 2'
t]
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
E
a
J
L
a
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
M
(n
J
N
2
1
2
2' Water
3
0-5'
no
0-5' Orange, tan, wet, sandy clay
4
5
6
7
7' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay
5-10'
no
8
9
10
10, Brown, tan, wet, sandy clay
11
12
13
10-15'
no
11-15' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay
14
15
16
17
18
15-20'
no
15-20' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay with shell fragments
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by oace.

Client., Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SCR
BORING ID: MW-3
SMITH G A R U N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method., Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed., YES
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval., 10-20'
Weather., Cool, Clear
Ground Elevation:
Date Started., 03/04/20
Depth of Boring: 20'
Drilling Contractor., Piedmont Indust. Svcs, Inc.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished., 03/04/20
Water Level. 1.5'
t]
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
E
a
cc
L
a
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
f0
rn
J
N
2
1
1.5' Water
2
3
0-5'
no
0-5' Tan, wet, silty sand
4
5
6
7
7-10' Dark gray, wet, silty sand
5-10,
no
8
9
10
11
12
13
10-15'
no
10-17' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay
14
15
16
17
17-20' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay with shell fragments
18
15-20'
no
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by oace.

Client., Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SCR
BORING ID: MW-4
SMITH G A R O N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method., Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed., YES
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval., 10-20'
Weather., Cool, Clear
Ground Elevation:
Date Started., 03/04/20
Depth of Boring: 20'
Drilling Contractor., Piedmont Indust. Svcs, Inc.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished., 03/04/20
Water Level. 8'
t]
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
E
a
cc
L
a
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
f0
rn
J
N
2
1
0-3' Organics, roots, topsoil
2
3
0-5'
no
3-4' Tan, brown, moist, clayey sand
4
4-5' Tan, brown, moist, fat sandy clay
5
6
7
5-10,
no
5-10' Orange, red, moist, fat sandy clay
8
8' Water
9
10
11
12
13
10-15'
no
10-15' Orange, wet sandy clay
14
15
16
17
18
15-20'
no
15-20' Dark gray, wet, sandy clay with shell fragments
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by oace.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: MW-5
SMITHG A R O N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
„__ ...
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: YES
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval: 10-20'
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 20'
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04113/20
Water Level: 11.9
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
ico
m
a
E
a
J
L
a
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
M
(n
J
N
2
1
2
3
0-5'
no
0-5 Topsoil to reddish yellow silty sand
4
5
6
7
5-10,
no
8
8 Grey clayey sand
9
10
1
10 Brownish yellow sandy silt
11
12
12 Grey with red sandy clay
13
10-15'
no
13 reddish yellow sandy silt
14
14 wet
15
16
17
18
15-20'
no
15-20 reddish yellow sandy silt
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by oace.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number: Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: MW-6
SMITHG A R D N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: I Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: YES
Sample Type(s): NIA
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval: 10-20'
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 40'
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished., 04/13I20
Water Level: 7.5'
L
o
o
T
n
E
�
m
m
L
a
o
a`o
O
co
CL
m
�?
U
�?
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
(6
V)
J
N
2
1
2
3
0-5'
no
0-5 Topsoil with sandy silt
4
5
6
7
Silty sand
5-10'
no
Wet at 7 feet
8
9
10
11
12
13
10-15
no
10-15 Wet silty sand
14
15
16
17
18
15-20'
no
15-20 Wet silty sand
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Ch-ke by Date'

Client: Wilson County
Project Number Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORINGID: MW-6D
SMITHGARQNER
—Lonatlon: 2400 NC 42 real Wilson, NC
_
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed. YES
Sample Type(s): NIA
Boring Diameter. I inches
Screened Interval: 3s-40'
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started. 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 40•
Dolling Cont—tor.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04/13/20
Water Level: 11.6
C
❑
�
E
n
o
o
a
E
?
E
a
E
a
J
-
r
❑
`o
O
c
v
d
ur
U
❑
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
in
x
1
2
3
0-5'
no
0-5 Topsoil, Sandy
4
5
6
7
5-10'
no
5-10 Sand
8
9
10
11
12
13
10-15'
no
10-15 Sand
14
15
16
17
18
15-20'
no
15-20 Sand
19
20
21
22
21 uao �o xs 3o Grey sandy silty clay
33 —s no 3035 Grey sandy silty day
as as<s ,w 3s<o Grey sandy silty clay

Client: Wilson County
Project Number Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORINGID: MW-6D
SMITHGARQNER
—Lonatlon: 2400 NC 42 real Wilson, NC
_
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed. YES
Sample Type(s): NIA
Boring Diameter. I inches
Screened Interval: 20-40'
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started. 04/13/20
Depth offloong: 40•
Dolling Cont—tor.
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04/13/20
Water Level: 11.6
C
❑
�
E
n
o
o
a
E
?
E
a
E
a
J
-
r
❑
`o
O
c
v
d
ur
U
❑
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
in
x
21
22
23
no
20 - 25 Sand
24
25
26
27
no
25 - 40 Gray sandy silty clay
28
29
30
31
32
33
no
34
35
36
37
38
no
39
40
Boring Terminated at 40 feet
21
22
21 uao �o xs 3o Grey sandy silty clay
33 —s no 3035 Grey sandy silty day
as as<s ,w 3s<o Grey sandy silty clay

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: SB-1
SMITHG A R O N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04113/20
Water Level:
E
t
L
o
a
E
N
C
in
m
a
cc E
a
cc
L
a
d
�`o
O
G
c
a
No
m
u?
U
u�
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
itttttlit
componen(s), mosure conen, srucure, anguary, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Detailst
f0
(n
J
N
2
1
2
2-3 Topsoil
3
0-5'
no
3-4 Reddish brown silty sand
4
5
4-6 Brownish sand
6
7
5-10'
no
6-10 Reddish yellow gray clayey sand
8
9
9 Wet
10
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by Date'.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: SB-2
SMITHGAR 0 N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
., ..
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04113/20
Water Level:
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
cc E
a
cc
L
a
d
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
u�
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
f0
(n
J
N
2
1
2
0-4 Reddish gray sandy clay
3
0-5'
no
4
1
1
1
1
4 Wet
5
6
4-8 Reddish Gray sandy clay
7
5-10'
no
S
8-10 Sand
9
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by Dare.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: SB-3
SMITHG A R O N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04113/20
Water Level:
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
cc E
a
cc
L
a
d
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
u�
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
tttttt componen(s), moisure conen, srucure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
f0
(n
J
N
2
1
2
0-4 Yellow Reddish clayey sand
3
0-5'
no
4
1
1
1
1
4 Wet
5
6
4-8 Gray silty sandy clay
7
5-10'
no
8
8-10 Yellow reddish sandy clay, saturated
9
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Checked by Dare.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: SB-4
SMITHGAR 0 N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter: 4 inches
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04113/20
Water Level:
E
t
L
o
a
E
ID
C
in
m
a
cc E
a
cc
L
a
d
�`o
O
a
c
a
No
m
u?
U
u�
j
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
tttttt componen(s), moisure conen, srucure, angularity, maximum
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
Monitoring Well
Construction Details
f0
(n
J
N
2
1
0-1 Topsoil
2
3
0-5'
no
4
5
1-8 Yellowish brown silty sand
6
7
5-10'
no
8
9
8-10 Reddish gray clayey sand
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Check.d by Dace.

Client: Wilson County
Project Number., Wilson-20-1 Logged By: SWH
BORING ID: SB-4
SMITHG A R D N E R
Site Location: 2400 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
••
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): NIA
Boring Diameter:
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04/13/20
Water Level.,
E
L
ID
C
a
E
a
u?
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
t
o
L
a
�`o
c
U
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
Monitoring Well
in
a
O
a
Construction Details
a
J
No
j
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
E
m
m
M
(n
J
N
2
1
0-1 Topsoil
2
3
0-5'
no
4
5
1-8 Yellowish brown silty sand
6
7
5-10'
no
8
1
1
1
8 Grayish red silty clayey sand
Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Check.d by Dace.

Client: Wilson County
ProLogged By: SWH
SM 1 T H - G A R O N E R
BORING ID: TP-2
Si elect Location: 24'00 NC 42 East Wilson, NC
Boring Location: Wilson C&D Landfill
Sheet: 1 Of 1
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Augers
Well Installed: NO
Sample Type(s): N/A
Boring Diameter:
Screened Interval:
Weather:
Ground Elevation:
Date Started: 04/13/20
Depth of Boring: 10
Drilling Contractor:
TOC Elevation:
Date Finished: 04/13/20
Water Level:
E
L
ID
C
a
E
a
�?
MATERIALS: Color, size, range, MAIN COMPONENT, minor
t
o
L 1S
�`o
c
U
component(s), moisture content, structure, angularity, maximum
Monitoring Well
in
a
d
O
a
u�
Construction Details
a
cc
No
j
grain size, odor, and Geologic Unit (If Known)
E
m
m
f0
(n
J
N
2
1
0-1 Topsoil
2
3
0-5'
no
4
5
1-8 Yellowish brown silty sand
6
7
8
1
1
1
Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
Time
NOTES:
Check.d by Dace.

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT:
Wilson County
PROJECT #:
Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID:
PZ-1
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown clayey fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SM
C
4 - 6'
Brown/reddish clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown/reddish clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Tan/reddish fine sandy CLAY
CH
F
13.5 - 15'
Orange/tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange/tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments: 3/22/2006 WL: 11.60' below TOC

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: PZ-2
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown/orange silty clayey fine SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown/tan silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Orange silty clayey fine SAND
SC
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND w/shell fragments
SC
Comments: 3/22/2006 WL: 9.21' below TOC

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: PZ-3
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SM
C
4 - 6'
Orange silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Gray/tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Orange/brown silty clayey medium SAND
SC
F
13.5 - 15'
Orange/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
Comments: 3/22/2006 WL: 11.30' below TOC

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: PZ-4
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Orange/tan silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown silty medium SAND w/ fine gravel
SM
D
6 - 8'
Tan silty clayey fine SAND
SP
E
8 - 10'
Tan silty medium to coarse SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray/orange clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments: 3/22/2006 WL: 7.10' below TOC

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-5
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 30'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Brown/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Tan silty fine SAND
SM
F
13.5 - 15'
Gray silty clayey fine SAND w/ increasing clay
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange silty clayey fine SAND w/ less clay
SC
H
23 - 25'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
1
28 - 30'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-6
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown clayey silty fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Reddish silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
C
4 - 6'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
D
6 - 8'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
E
8 - 10'
Reddish/orange silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
F
13.6 - 15'
Tan/brown silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray silty fine sandy CLAY w/ shells
ML
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-7
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty fine SAND
SM
C
4 - 6'
Tan silty fine to medium SAND
SM
D
6 - 8'
Tan silty fine to medium SAND
SM
E
8 - 10'
Orange clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
F
13.5 - 15'
Orange/tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange/dark gray silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-8
Date: April 18-22, 2006
Method: Hollow -Stem AUpE
Contractor: Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Brown/gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Tan silty fine to medium SAND
SW
E
8 - 10'
Tan silty fine to medium SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Orange silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-9
Date: April 18-22, 2006
Method: Hollow -Stem AUpE
Contractor: Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Tan/orange silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Gray/orange silty clayey medium SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Orange clayey silty medium SAND
SW
E
8 - 10'
Orange clayey silty medium SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray silty medium SAND
SW
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-10
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Orange silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
B
2 - 4'
Tan/orange silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
C
4 - 6'
Tan/orange silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
D
6 - 8'
Gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Gray silty fine SAND
SP
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray silty clayey medium SAND w/ f. gravel
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-11
Date: April 18-22, 2006
Method: Hollow -Stem AUpE
Contractor: Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 50'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Tan/reddish silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
F
13.5 - 15'
Tan/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Tan/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
H
23.5 - 25'
Dark gray fine sandy CLAY
CL
1
28.5 - 30'
Dark gray fine sandy CLAY
CL
J
33.5 - 35'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
K
38.5 - 40'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND w/ shells
SC
L
43.5 - 45'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND w/shells
SC
M
48.5 - 50'
Brown fine sandy clayey SILT
ML
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-12
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 40'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown clayey silty fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Orange/reddish silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
D
6 - 8'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
E
8 - 10'
Reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
F
13.5 - 15'
Tan silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
H
23.5 - 25'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
1
28.5 - 30'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND w/ shells
SC
J
33.5 - 35'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND w/ shells
SC
K
38.5 - 40'
Dark gray clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-13
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Gray fine SAND w/ fine gravel
SW
B
2 - 4'
Gray silty fine to medium SAND
SP
C
4 - 6'
Gray silty fine to medium SAND
SP
D
6 - 8'
Orange silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
E
8 - 10'
Gray fine sandy silty CLAY
CH
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-14
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 25'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty fine SAND
SP
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown/tan silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Brown silty medium to coarse SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
G
18.5 - 20'
Orange/reddish silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
H
22.5 - 25'
Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-15
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown clayey silty fine SAND
SM
B
2 - 4'
Brown clayey silty fine SAND
SM
C
4 - 6'
Brown/reddish silty clayey fine to medium SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Brown/reddish silty clayey fine SAND
SC
E
8 - 10'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
F
13.5 - 15'
Reddish/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
CL
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray silty fine sandy CLAY
CH
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-17
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 20'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
B
2 - 4'
Brown/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
C
4 - 6'
Gray clayey fine SAND
SC
D
6 - 8'
Gray silty fine to medium SAND
SW
E
8 - 10'
Gray silty medium to coarse SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Gray silty medium SAND
SP
G
18.5 - 20'
Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-18
Date:
April 18-22, 2006
Method:
Hollow -Stem Auger
Contractor:
Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 15'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
B
2 - 4'
Tan/brown silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
C
4 - 6'
Gray silty fine sandy CLAY
CH
D
6 - 8'
Gray silty fine sandy CLAY
CH
E
8 - 10'
Brown silty medium SAND
SP
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND
SC
Comments:

BABB AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
SOIL BORING LOG
PROJECT: Wilson County
PROJECT #: Mohesky Farm Property
BORING ID: B-19
Date: April 18-22, 2006
Method: Hollow -Stem AUpE
Contractor: Carolina Drilling
Page: 1 of 1
Total Depth: 15'
Boring Dia: 8.25 inches
Field Rep: G. Babb
Sample
Number
Depth
Interval
Description
Blow
Count
Field
Screen
Notes
A
0 - 2'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
B
2 - 4'
Brown silty clayey fine SAND
SC
C
4 - 6'
Brown/tan silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
D
6 - 8'
Brown silty fine sandy CLAY
ML
E
8 - 10'
Gray silty fine to medium SAND
SW
F
13.5 - 15'
Dark gray silty clayey medium SAND
SW
Comments:

Appendix
Geotechnical Laboratory Analytical Report
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

e technics
May 8, 2020 1
geotechnical & ge0synth etie testing
Project No. 2020-097-001
Mr. Spence Hollomon
Smith + Gardner,lnc.
14 N. Boylan Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27603
[e-mail]
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
Wilson 20-1
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are
believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the
specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no
position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the
material for its intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed
to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral
with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client
and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days
as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further
assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
• l��iGl�/��
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
DCN. Data Transmittal Letter Date.- l/28/05 Rev.: l
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasyn:hetic Testing
MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D 2216-10
Client: Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference: Wilson 20-1
Project No.: R-2020-097-001
Lab ID:
-001
-002
-003
-004
-005
Boring No.:
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Depth (ft):
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample No.:
SB-1
SB-1
SB-1
SB-2
SB-3
Tare Number
AH
Y
Y3
W5
AF
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
59.13
54.08
51.58
57.85
45.37
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
52.52
51.11
43.03
51.55
34.79
Weight of Tare (g)
15.52
15.55
15.57
15.55
15.37
Weight of Water (g)
6.61
2.97
8.55
6.30
10.58
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
37.00
35.56
27.46
36.00
19.42
Water Content (%)
17.9
8.4
31.1
17.5
54.5
Lab ID
-006
-007
-008
-009
-010
Boring No.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample No.
SB-4
SB-4
MW-5
MW-5
MW-6
Tare Number
KP
U
D1
1 M
W2
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
57.29
58.01
45.72
54.15
69.32
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
52.35
48.73
37.87
45.45
59.13
Weight of Tare (g)
15.46
15.11
15.19
15.78
15.77
Weight of Water (g)
4.94
9.28
7.85
8.70
10.19
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
36.89
33.62
22.68
29.67
43.36
Water Content (%) 13.4 27.6 34.6 29.3 23.5
Notes :
Tested By RFF Date 4124120 Checked By GEM Date 4127120
page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S1 DATE: 3/18/13 REVISION: 4
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D 2216-10
Client: Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference: Wilson 20-1
Project No.: R-2020-097-001
Lab ID:
-011
-012
-013
Boring No.:
NA
NA
NA
Depth (ft):
NA
NA
NA
Sample No.:
MW-6D
TP-1
TP-2
Tare Number
AQ
TB-05
TB-09
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
50.29
487.21
417.27
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
42.52
451.66
390.82
Weight of Tare (g)
15.42
135.09
134.72
Weight of Water (g)
7.77
35.55
26.45
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
27.10
316.57
256.10
Water Content (%)
Notes :
28.7 11.2 10.3
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasyn:hetic Testing
Tested By RFF/GG Date 5/5/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/7/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S1 DATE: 3/18/13 REVISION: 4
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 0-4
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-001 Soil Color Tan
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SM, TESTED
USCS Classification siLTYsAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.00
52.33
47.67
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 0-4
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-001 Soil Color Tan
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel
0.24
0.00
2
99.76
Sand
56.92
57.06
0.05
42.84
Silt
22.49
22.54
0.002
20.35
Clay
20.35
20.40
USDA Classification:
SANDY CLAY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-001 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
0-4
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-1
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-001
Soil Color
Tan
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
E2
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
39.92
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
39.68
Weight of Tare (g)
22.60
Weight of Water (g)
0.24
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
17.08
Moisture Content (%) 1.4
are No.
866
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
661.82
✓eight of Tare (g)
86.47
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
575.35
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
567.40
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 88.36
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 87.14
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 41.64
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 45.50
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9976
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 1.36
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 566.04
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
1.36
0.2
0.2
99.8
99.8
#20
0.85
2.41
2.8
2.8
97.2
97.0
#40
0.425
5.87
6.7
9.5
90.5
90.3
#60
0.250
8.12
9.3
18.8
81.2
81.0
#140
0.106
22.56
25.9
44.7
55.3
55.2
#200
0.075
6.54
7.5
52.2
47.8
47.7
Pan
-
41.64
47.8
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-001 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-001
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 0-4
Sample No. SB-1
Soil Color Tan
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
36.0
23.4
3.77
32.2
36.6
0.01291
0.0294
36.5
5
33.0
23.3
3.78
29.2
33.2
0.01293
0.0191
33.1
15
30.0
23.2
3.80
26.2
29.8
0.01294
0.0113
29.7
30
28.0
23.3
3.78
24.2
27.5
0.01293
0.0081
27.4
60
26.0
23.4
3.77
22.2
25.3
0.01291
0.0058
25.2
250
23.0
23.6
3.73
19.3
21.9
0.01288
0.0029
21.8
1440
20.0
23.3
3.78
16.2
18.4
0.01293
0.0012
18.4
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 87.14 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.986
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.76
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-001 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
0-4
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-1
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-001
Soil Description:
TAN SILT
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
AH
33
29
26
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
59.13
21.87
22.84
19.41
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
52.52
19.01
19.69
16.75
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.52
6.97
7.00
7.00
1
Weight of Water (g):
6.6
2.9
3.2
2.7
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
37.0
12.0
12.7
9.8
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
17.9
23.8
24.8
27.3
N
Number of Blows:
34
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 10 4
Liquid Limit (%): 13.78
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 13.08 13.78
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 12.38 13.02
Plastic Limit (%): 13
Weight of Tare (g): 6.97 6.99
Weight of Water (g): 0.7 0.8
Plasticity Index (%): 1
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 5.4 6.0
USCS Symbol: ML
Moisture Content (%): 12.9 12.6 0.3
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 0.84
28
27
26
e
25
C
d
o 24
U
d
23
22
21
20
1
Flow Curve
60
u
50
40
X
d
C
❑ T 30
U
.y
a
20
10
10
Number of Blows
100
0
1
CL- ML
Plasticity Chart
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By TB Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/7/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 4-6
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-002 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
IL
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SM, TESTED
(Non -Plastic)
USCS Classification SILTYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T__q mP r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.00
73.65
26.35
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn 11) r10.1Chaatl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 4-6
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-002 Soil Color Brown
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 0.17
0.00
2
99.83
Sand 76.12
76.25
0.05
23.72
Silt 13.68
13.70
0.002
10.03
Clay 10.03
10.05
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-002 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
4-6
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-1
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-002
Soil Color
Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
are No.
S-1
✓gt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
38.98
✓gt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
38.85
✓eight of Tare (g)
21.74
✓eight of Water (g)
0.13
✓eight of Dry Soil (g)
17.11
Moisture Content (%) 0.8
are No.
317
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
804.04
✓eight of Tare (g)
83.86
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
720.18
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
714.76
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 91.53
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 90.84
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 23.98
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 66.86
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9983
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 1.18
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 713.58
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
1.18
0.2
0.2
99.8
99.8
#20
0.85
4.60
5.1
5.1
94.9
94.8
#40
0.425
15.64
17.2
22.3
77.7
77.6
#60
0.250
18.08
19.9
42.2
57.8
57.7
#140
0.106
24.30
26.8
68.9
31.1
31.0
#200
0.075
4.24
4.7
73.6
26.4
26.4
Pan
-
23.98
26.4
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-002 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-002
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 4-6
Sample No. SB-1
Soil Color Brown
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
23.0
23.2
3.80
19.2
20.9
0.01294
0.0324
20.9
5
22.0
23.2
3.80
18.2
19.8
0.01294
0.0206
19.8
15
20.0
23.1
3.82
16.2
17.6
0.01296
0.0121
17.6
30
18.0
23.1
3.82
14.2
15.5
0.01296
0.0086
15.4
60
16.0
23.3
3.78
12.2
13.3
0.01293
0.0062
13.3
250
14.0
23.5
3.75
10.2
11.2
0.01290
0.0031
11.2
1440
12.0
23
3.83
8.2
8.9
0.01297
0.0013
8.9
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 90.84 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.992
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.83
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-002 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-10
Client: Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference: Wilson 20-1
Project No.: R-2020-097-001
Lab ID: R-2020-097-001-002
As Received
Water Content
Tare Number
Y
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
54.08
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
51.11
Weight of Tare (g)
15.55
Weight of Water (g)
2.97
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
35.56
Water Content (%) 8.4
eotechnics
geotecilnical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
Boring No.: NA
Depth (ft): 4-6
Sample No.: SB-1
Color: Brown Sand
( Mlnus No. 40 sieve material)
NON - PLASTIC
MATERIAL
Tested By SS Date 511120 Checked By GEM Date 514120
/DCN: CT-S4C, DATE: 4/27/17, REVISION: 4e SlExcellExcel QAISpreadsheetsUmit NP.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 6-9
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-003 Soil Color Light Gray
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90 -0-77-7
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol CH, TESTED
USCS Classification FAT CLAY
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CinR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVICInN• R
0.00
12.02
87.98
I
7-01191) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 6-9
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-003 Soil Color Light Gray
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY
Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel
0.04
0.00
2
99.96
Sand
15.70
15.70
0.05
84.27
Silt
25.15
25.16
0.002
59.12
Clay
59.12
59.14
USDA Classification: CLAY
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-003 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
6-9
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-1
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-003
Soil Color
Light Gray
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
B-10
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
32.05
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
31.12
Weight of Tare (g)
15.90
Weight of Water (g)
0.93
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
15.22
Moisture Content (%) 6.1
are No.
399
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
654.67
✓eight of Tare (g)
86.31
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
568.36
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
535.64
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 66.29
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 62.47
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 54.98
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 7.49
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9996
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 0.20
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 535.44
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
0.20
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#20
0.85
0.61
1.0
1.0
99.0
99.0
#40
0.425
1.26
2.0
3.0
97.0
97.0
#60
0.250
1.09
1.7
4.7
95.3
95.2
#140
0.106
2.09
3.3
8.1
91.9
91.9
#200
0.075
2.44
3.9
12.0
88.0
88.0
Pan
-
54.98
88.0
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-003 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-003
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 6-9
Sample No. SB-1
Soil Color Light Gray
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
53.0
23.4
3.77
49.2
78.0
0.01291
0.0252
78.0
5
51.0
23.3
3.78
47.2
74.8
0.01293
0.0163
74.8
15
48.0
23.3
3.78
44.2
70.1
0.01293
0.0097
70.0
30
46.0
23.4
3.77
42.2
66.9
0.01291
0.0070
66.9
60
43.0
23.5
3.75
39.2
62.2
0.01290
0.0051
62.2
250
42.0
23.6
3.73
38.3
60.6
0.01288
0.0025
60.6
1440
38.5
23.2
3.80
34.7
55.0
0.01294
0.0011
55.0
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 62.47 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.942
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.96
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-003 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
6-9
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-1
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-003
Soil Description:
LIGHT GRAY FAT CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
Y3
5M
Z-4
E
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
51.58
28.96
28.70
29.11
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
43.03
23.57
23.24
22.97
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.57
15.57
15.53
15.22
1
Weight of Water (g):
8.6
5.4
5.5
6.1
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
27.5
8.0
7.7
7.8
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
31.1
67.4
70.8
79.2
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 19 15
Liquid Limit (%): 72
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 14.69 14.66
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 13.41 13.41
Plastic Limit (%): 20
Weight of Tare (g): 7.00 6.97
Weight of Water (g): 1.3 1.3
Plasticity Index (%): 52
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 6.4 6.4
USCS Symbol: CH
Moisture Content (%): 20.0 19.4 0.6
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.4
Flow Curve
80
78
76
e
y 74
c
0
U
72
l6
70
68
66 L
1
10
Number of Blows
60
50
e 40
X
m
c
T 30
U
.y
06 2
0
a
10
D
100
0
1
CL- ML
Plasticity Chart
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/4/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/5/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 4-8
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-2
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-004 Soil Color Gray
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.00
54.60
45.40
1
7-01)91) PRnIFrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 4-8
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-2
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-004 Soil Color Gray
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 0.07
0.00
2
99.93
Sand 59.51
59.55
0.05
40.42
Silt 20.48
20.50
0.002
19.93
Clay 19.93
19.95
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-004 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
4-8
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-2
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-004
Soil Color
Gray
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
are No.
Z-1
✓gt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
41.08
✓gt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
40.58
✓eight of Tare (g)
21.93
✓eight of Water (g)
0.50
✓eight of Dry Soil (g)
18.65
Moisture Content (%) 2.7
are No.
398
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
852.32
✓eight of Tare (g)
83.82
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
768.50
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
748.45
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 67.72
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 65.95
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 29.96
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 35.99
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9993
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 0.56
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 747.89
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
0.56
0.1
0.1
99.9
99.9
#20
0.85
1.06
1.6
1.6
98.4
98.3
#40
0.425
3.21
4.9
6.5
93.5
93.5
#60
0.250
6.90
10.5
16.9
83.1
83.0
#140
0.106
19.45
29.5
46.4
53.6
53.5
#200
0.075
5.37
8.1
54.6
45.4
45.4
Pan
-
29.96
45.4
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-004 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-004
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 4-8
Sample No. SB-2
Soil Color Gray
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
27.0
23.1
3.82
23.2
34.8
0.01296
0.0316
34.8
5
25.0
23.1
3.82
21.2
31.8
0.01296
0.0202
31.8
15
23.0
23
3.83
19.2
28.8
0.01297
0.0119
28.7
30
21.0
23.1
3.82
17.2
25.8
0.01296
0.0085
25.8
60
20.0
23.2
3.80
16.2
24.3
0.01294
0.0060
24.3
250
18.0
23.5
3.75
14.2
21.4
0.01290
0.0030
21.4
1440
16.0
23.1
3.82
12.2
18.3
0.01296
0.0013
18.3
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 65.95 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.974
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.93
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-004 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotediniul & yeasynthetic testing
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
4-8
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-2
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-004
Soil Description:
GRAY LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
W5
BB
3
A-1
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
57.85
31.98
30.68
28.98
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
51.55
28.73
27.52
26.02
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.55
15.45
15.35
15.41
1
Weight of Water (g):
6.3
3.3
3.2
3.0
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
36.0
13.3
12.2
10.6
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
17.5
24.5
26.0
27.9
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 11 27
Liquid Limit (%): 26
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 20.76 20.17
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 19.15 18.61
Plastic Limit (%): 13
Weight of Tare (g): 7.01 6.95
Weight of Water (g): 1.6 1.6
Plasticity Index (%): 13
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 12.1 11.7
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 13.3 13.4 -0.1
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
29
28 p
27
26
C
m 25
c
0
V 24
d
l6
23
22
21
20
1 10
Number of Blows
60
50
cZ 40
X
d
c
T 30
U
.y
�6 20
a
10
0
100
CL- ML
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/1/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/4/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-3
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-005 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100- "77`07
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0 ---L L
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol CL, TESTED
USCS Classification SANDYLEANCLAY
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVICInN• R
0.00
30.37
69.63
1
7-01191) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-3
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-005 Soil Color Brown
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 0.02
0.00
2
99.98
Sand 37.83
37.84
0.05
62.15
Silt 34.58
34.59
0.002
27.57
Clay 27.57
27.58
USDA Classification: CLAY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-005 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
NA
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-3
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-005
Soil Color
Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
E-20
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
37.88
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
36.58
Weight of Tare (g)
21.92
Weight of Water (g)
1.30
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
14.66
Moisture Content (%) 8.9
are No.
314
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
648.38
✓eight of Tare (g)
84.25
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
564.13
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
518.19
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 68.49
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 62.91
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 43.81
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 19.10
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9998
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 0.08
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 518.11
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
0.08
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#20
0.85
0.20
0.3
0.3
99.7
99.7
#40
0.425
0.29
0.5
0.8
99.2
99.2
#60
0.250
0.21
0.3
1.1
98.9
98.9
#140
0.106
8.18
13.0
14.1
85.9
85.9
#200
0.075
10.22
16.2
30.4
69.6
69.6
Pan
-
43.81
69.6
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-005 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-005
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) NA
Sample No. SB-3
Soil Color Brown
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
37.0
23.3
3.78
33.2
52.3
0.01293
0.0292
52.3
5
33.0
23.3
3.78
29.2
46.0
0.01293
0.0191
46.0
15
31.0
23.3
3.78
27.2
42.8
0.01293
0.0112
42.8
30
28.0
23.3
3.78
24.2
38.1
0.01293
0.0081
38.1
60
26.0
23.3
3.78
22.2
35.0
0.01293
0.0058
35.0
250
23.0
23.6
3.73
19.3
30.3
0.01288
0.0029
30.3
1440
19.0
23.4
3.77
15.2
24.0
0.01291
0.0012
24.0
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 62.91 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.919
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.98
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-005 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-3
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-005
Soil Description:
BROWN LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
AF
AB
O
1-7
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
45.37
29.73
30.75
30.01
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
34.79
26.02
26.49
25.81
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.37
15.53
15.17
15.40
1
Weight of Water (g):
10.6
3.7
4.3
4.2
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
19.4
10.5
11.3
10.4
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
54.5
35.4
37.6
40.3
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 2 32
Liquid Limit (%): 37
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 17.82 17.85
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 16.33 16.34
Plastic Limit (%): 16
Weight of Tare (g): 7.05 6.94
Weight of Water (g): 1.5 1.5
Plasticity Index (%): 21
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 9.3 9.4
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 16.1 16.1 0.0
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
45
40
e
35
d
C
O
U
d 30
25
20
1
Flow Curve
10
Number of Blows
60
50
40
X
d
C
T 30
U
.y
a
20
10
0
100
CL- ML
Plasticity Chart
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/1/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/4/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 1-8
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-4
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-006 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.00
67.33
32.67
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 1-8
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-4
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-006 Soil Color Brown
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 0.39
0.00
2
99.61
Sand 67.99
68.26
0.05
31.62
Silt 13.28
13.33
0.002
18.34
Clay 18.34
18.41
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-006 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
1-8
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-4
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-006
Soil Color
Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
are No.
N-1
✓gt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
32.61
✓gt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
32.34
✓eight of Tare (g)
15.71
✓eight of Water (g)
0.27
✓eight of Dry Soil (g)
16.63
Moisture Content (%) 1.6
are No.
318
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
791.55
✓eight of Tare (g)
86.41
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
705.14
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
693.92
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 69.82
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 68.70
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 22.53
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 46.17
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9961
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 2.73
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 691.19
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
2.73
0.4
0.4
99.6
99.6
#20
0.85
4.73
6.9
6.9
93.1
92.7
#40
0.425
12.03
17.5
24.4
75.6
75.3
#60
0.250
11.00
16.0
40.4
59.6
59.4
#140
0.106
15.46
22.5
62.9
37.1
36.9
#200
0.075
2.95
4.3
67.2
32.8
32.7
Pan
-
22.53
32.8
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-006 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-006
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 1-8
Sample No. SB-4
Soil Color Brown
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
25.0
23.3
3.78
21.2
30.6
0.01293
0.0319
30.5
5
22.0
23.3
3.78
18.2
26.2
0.01293
0.0206
26.1
15
21.0
23.2
3.80
17.2
24.8
0.01294
0.0120
24.7
30
19.5
23.2
3.80
15.7
22.6
0.01294
0.0086
22.5
60
18.5
23.3
3.78
14.7
21.2
0.01293
0.0061
21.1
250
17.0
23.6
3.73
13.3
19.1
0.01288
0.0030
19.0
1440
16.0
23.3
3.78
12.2
17.6
0.01293
0.0013
17.5
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 68.70 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.984
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.61
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-006 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotediniul & geasynthetic testing
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
1-8
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-4
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-006
Soil Description:
BROWN LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
KP
Al
B2
AO
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
57.29
31.29
30.05
29.36
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
52.35
27.79
26.67
25.97
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.46
15.42
15.37
15.37
1
Weight of Water (g):
4.9
3.5
3.4
3.4
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
36.9
12.4
11.3
10.6
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
13.4
28.3
29.9
32.0
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test
1
2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number:
3
30
Liquid Limit (%):
30
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
18.96
17.50
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
17.47
16.17
Plastic Limit (%):
14
Weight of Tare (g):
7.01
7.03
Weight of Water (g):
1.5
1.3
Plasticity Index (%):
16
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
10.5
9.1
USCS Symbol:
CL
Moisture Content (%):
14.2
14.6 -0.3
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
33
32 ❑
32
31
C
m 31
c
0
CL 30
d 1
l6
30
29
29
28
1 10
Number of Blows
60
50
cZ 40
X
d
c
T 30
U
.y
`6 20
a
10
0
100 t
CL- ML
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/4/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/5/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 8-10
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-4
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-007 Soil Color Orange
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0 IL -i
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.23
56.56
43.21
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 8-10
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. SB-4
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-007 Soil Color Orange
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel
4.04
0.00
2
95.96
Sand
53.79
56.05
0.05
42.17
Silt
15.41
16.06
0.002
26.76
Clay
26.76
27.88
USDA Classification:
SANDY CLAY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-007 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
8-10
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
SB-4
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-007
Soil Color
Orange
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
C-27
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
37.60
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
36.89
Weight of Tare (g)
21.86
Weight of Water (g)
0.71
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
15.03
Moisture Content (%) 4.7
are No.
312
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
813.60
✓eight of Tare (g)
84.02
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
729.58
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
697.94
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 66.18
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 63.19
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 28.45
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 34.74
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9596
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 28.20
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 669.74
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
1.64
0.2
0.2
99.8
99.8
#10
2.00
26.56
3.8
4.0
96.0
96.0
#20
0.85
8.44
13.4
13.4
86.6
83.1
#40
0.425
9.60
15.2
28.5
71.5
68.6
#60
0.250
7.28
11.5
40.1
59.9
57.5
#140
0.106
6.62
10.5
50.5
49.5
47.5
#200
0.075
2.80
4.4
55.0
45.0
43.2
Pan
-
28.45
45.0
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-007 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-007
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 8-10
Sample No. SB-4
Soil Color Orange
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
31.0
23.3
3.78
27.2
42.6
0.01293
0.0306
40.9
5
28.0
23.2
3.80
24.2
37.9
0.01294
0.0198
36.4
15
26.0
23.1
3.82
22.2
34.8
0.01296
0.0116
33.3
30
24.0
23.2
3.80
20.2
31.6
0.01294
0.0083
30.4
60
24.0
23.3
3.78
20.2
31.7
0.01293
0.0059
30.4
250
22.0
23.6
3.73
18.3
28.6
0.01288
0.0029
27.5
1440
21.0
23.1
3.82
17.2
26.9
0.01296
0.0012
25.8
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 63.19 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.955
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 95.96
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-007 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
8-10
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
SB-4
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-007
Soil Description:
ORANGE FAT CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
U
7
33
8
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
58.01
21.41
21.36
20.87
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
48.73
16.71
16.59
16.03
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.11
6.92
6.94
7.01
1
Weight of Water (g):
9.3
4.7
4.8
4.8
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
33.6
9.8
9.7
9.0
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
27.6
48.0
49.4
53.7
N
Number of Blows:
35
24
16
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 5 9
Liquid Limit (%): 50
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 17.53 17.32
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 15.93 15.77
Plastic Limit (%): 18
Weight of Tare (g): 6.97 7.02
Weight of Water (g): 1.6 1.6
Plasticity Index (%): 32
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 9.0 8.8
USCS Symbol: CH
Moisture Content (%): 17.9 17.7 0.1
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.4
Flow Curve
56
54
Li
52
e
50
C
d
o 48
U
d
46
44
42
40
1 10
Number of Blows
60
50
40
X
d
c
T 30
U
.y
a
20
10
0
100
CL- ML
Plasticity Chart
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/4/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/5/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 13-14
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-5
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-008 Soil Color Orange
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol CL, TESTED
USCS Classification LEAN CLAY WITH SAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CinR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVICInN• R
0.00
22.56
77.44
I
7-01191) PRnIFrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 13-14
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-5
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-008 Soil Color Orange
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY
Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel
0.28
0.00
2
99.72
Sand
27.78
27.86
0.05
71.93
Silt
27.93
28.01
0.002
44.01
Clay
44.01
44.13
USDA Classification: CLAY
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-008 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
13-14
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
MW-5
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-008
Soil Color
Orange
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
are No.
M-1
✓gt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
36.45
✓gt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
35.69
✓eight of Tare (g)
15.98
✓eight of Water (g)
0.76
✓eight of Dry Soil (g)
19.71
Moisture Content (%) 3.9
are No.
307
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
498.41
✓eight of Tare (g)
109.47
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
388.94
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
374.54
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 68.07
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 65.54
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 50.90
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 14.64
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9972
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 1.06
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 373.48
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
1.06
0.3
0.3
99.7
99.7
#20
0.85
0.23
0.4
0.4
99.6
99.4
#40
0.425
0.19
0.3
0.6
99.4
99.1
#60
0.250
0.31
0.5
1.1
98.9
98.6
#140
0.106
6.97
10.6
11.7
88.3
88.0
#200
0.075
6.94
10.6
22.3
77.7
77.4
Pan
-
50.90
77.7
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-008 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-008
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 13-14
Sample No. MW-5
Soil Color Orange
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
46.0
23.3
3.78
42.2
63.8
0.01293
0.0270
63.6
5
43.0
23.2
3.80
39.2
59.2
0.01294
0.0176
59.0
15
40.0
23.2
3.80
36.2
54.7
0.01294
0.0104
54.5
30
38.0
23.3
3.78
34.2
51.7
0.01293
0.0075
51.5
60
37.0
23.3
3.78
33.2
50.2
0.01293
0.0053
50.0
250
34.0
23.6
3.73
30.3
45.7
0.01288
0.0027
45.6
1440
31.0
23.1
3.82
27.2
41.1
0.01296
0.0011
40.9
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 65.54 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.963
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 99.72
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-008 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
13-14
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
MW-5
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-008
Soil Description:
ORANGE LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
KP
V-2
K
A-O
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
57.29
30.65
26.40
27.96
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
52.35
26.13
22.78
23.69
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.46
15.56
15.20
15.38
1
Weight of Water (g):
4.9
4.5
3.6
4.3
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
36.9
10.6
7.6
8.3
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
13.4
42.8
47.8
51.4
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 6 B1
Liquid Limit (%): 47
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 14.91 24.04
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 13.65 22.66
Plastic Limit (%): 19
Weight of Tare (g): 7.01 15.62
Weight of Water (g): 1.3 1.4
Plasticity Index (%): 28
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 6.6 7.0
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 19.0 19.6 -0.6
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
Flow Curve
55
50
45
e
y 40
c
0
U
35
l°
30
25
20 L
1
10
Number of Blows
60
50
e 40
]
X
m
c
T 30
U
.y
0. 2
0
a
10
100
0
1
CL- ML
Plasticity Chart
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By TB Date 5/1/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/4/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1a S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 14-15
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-5
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-009 Soil Color Orange
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt lay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
IL
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SM, TESTED
(Non -Plastic)
USCS Classification SILTYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T__q mP r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnw. R
0.00
75.55
24.45
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn 11) r10.1Chaatl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) 14-15
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-5
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-009 Soil Color Orange
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 0.00
0.00
2
100.00
Sand 76.87
76.87
0.05
23.13
Silt 8.85
8.85
0.002
14.28
Clay 14.28
14.28
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-009 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
14-15
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
MW-5
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-009
Soil Color
Orange
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
B-20
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
36.30
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
36.12
Weight of Tare (g)
22.01
Weight of Water (g)
0.18
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
14.11
Moisture Content (%) 1.3
are No.
215
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
481.65
✓eight of Tare (g)
172.11
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
309.54
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
305.64
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 79.34
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 78.34
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 19.15
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 59.19
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 1.0000
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 0.00
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 305.64
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#20
0.85
0.32
0.4
0.4
99.6
99.6
#40
0.425
0.95
1.2
1.6
98.4
98.4
#60
0.250
6.79
8.7
10.3
89.7
89.7
#140
0.106
45.64
58.3
68.5
31.5
31.5
#200
0.075
5.49
7.0
75.6
24.4
24.4
Pan
-
19.15
24.4
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-009 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-009
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) 14-15
Sample No. MW-5
Soil Color Orange
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
21.0
23.3
3.78
17.2
21.8
0.01293
0.0328
21.8
5
20.0
23.3
3.78
16.2
20.5
0.01293
0.0209
20.5
15
20.0
23.3
3.78
16.2
20.5
0.01293
0.0120
20.5
30
18.5
23.3
3.78
14.7
18.6
0.01293
0.0086
18.6
60
17.5
23.3
3.78
13.7
17.3
0.01293
0.0061
17.3
250
16.0
23.6
3.73
12.3
15.5
0.01288
0.0030
15.5
1440
14.0
23.4
3.77
10.2
12.9
0.01291
0.0013
12.9
Specimen Data Other
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 78.34 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.987
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 100.00
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-009 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotecilnical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-10
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
14-15
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
MW-5
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-009
Color:
Orange
( Mlnus No. 40 sieve material)
As Received
Water Content
Tare Number
1 M
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
54.15
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
45.45
Weight of Tare (g)
15.78
Weight of Water (g)
8.70
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
29.67
Water Content (%) 29.3
NON - PLASTIC
MATERIAL
Tested By TB Date 516120 Checked By GEM Date 517120
/DCN: CT-S4C, DATE: 4/27/17, REVISION: 4e SlExcellExcel QAISpreadsheetsUmit NP.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & geasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-6
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-010 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel
sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
0]
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
IL
30
20
10
LL L L _-L-
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm)
USCS Summary
Percentage
Greater Than #4
Gravel
0.05
#4 To #200
Sand
93.80
Finer Than #200
Silt & Clay
6.16
D60 = 0.65
USCS Symbol SP-SM, TESTED D30 = 0.43 CC = 1.96
(Non -Plastic)
USCS Classification POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT D10 = 0.144 CU = 4.56
nano 1 of 4 nCN• CT__q mP nATF• 70AMA RFVlglnN• 9 7 On9n PRnIFCT.Q1.Qmith + Rar nar19n9nA07 R+ _ Wilann 90_91l9090A07A09A9n nrainsiavAhv 91) Y10.1Qhaat9
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-6
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-010 Soil Color Brown
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY
Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel
2.04
0.00
2
97.96
Sand
92.18
94.10
0.05
5.78
Silt
1.91
1.95
0.002
3.87
Clay
3.87
3.95
USDA Classification: SAND
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-010 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
NA
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
MW-6
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-010
Soil Color
Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
R1
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
81.73
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
81.51
Weight of Tare (g)
15.17
Weight of Water (g)
0.22
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
66.34
Moisture Content (%) 0.3
are No. 213
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 955.75
✓eight of Tare (g) 173.03
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 782.72
otal Dry Sample Weight (g) 780.19
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 93.28
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 92.97
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 5.84
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 87.13
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9796
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 15.88
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 764.31
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.37
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
15.51
2.0
2.0
98.0
98.0
#20
0.85
18.43
19.8
19.8
80.2
78.5
#40
0.425
46.72
50.3
70.1
29.9
29.3
#60
0.250
13.57
14.6
84.7
15.3
15.0
#140
0.106
7.36
7.9
92.6
7.4
7.3
#200
0.075
1.05
1.1
93.7
6.3
6.2
Pan
-
5.84
6.3
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-010 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-010
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) NA
Sample No. MW-6
Soil Color Brown
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
9.0
23.4
3.77
5.2
5.6
0.01291
0.0352
5.5
5
9.0
23.4
3.77
5.2
5.6
0.01291
0.0222
5.5
15
9.0
23.4
3.77
5.2
5.6
0.01291
0.0128
5.5
30
9.0
23.4
3.77
5.2
5.6
0.01291
0.0091
5.5
60
8.0
23.4
3.77
4.2
4.5
0.01291
0.0065
4.4
250
8.0
23.6
3.73
4.3
4.5
0.01288
0.0032
4.4
1440
7.0
23.3
3.78
3.2
3.4
0.01293
0.0013
3.4
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 92.97 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.997
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 97.96
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-010 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-10
Client: Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference: Wilson 20-1
Project No.: R-2020-097-001
Lab ID: R-2020-097-001-010
As Received
Water Content
Tare Number
W-2
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
69.32
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
59.13
Weight of Tare (g)
15.77
Weight of Water (g)
10.19
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
43.36
Water Content (%) 23.5
eotechnics
geotecilnical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
Boring No.:
NA
Depth (ft):
NA
Sample No.:
MW-6
Color:
Brown Sand
( Mlnus No. 40 sieve material)
NON - PLASTIC
MATERIAL
Tested By SS Date 511120 Checked By GEM Date 514120
/DCN: CT-S4C, DATE: 4/27/17, REVISION: 4e SlExcellExcel QAISpreadsheetsUmit NP.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-6D
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-011 Soil Color Gray
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
a
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T_CYnR r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
1.64
73.02
25.35
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn —i—i—h,,H 11) r10.1Ch—tl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. MW-6D
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-011 Soil Color Gray
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 3.93
0.00
2
96.07
Sand 71.19
74.10
0.05
24.88
Silt 15.80
16.44
0.002
9.09
Clay 9.09
9.46
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-011 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
NA
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
MW-6D
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-011
Soil Color
Gray
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
are No.
V-1
✓gt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
41.06
✓gt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
40.92
✓eight of Tare (g)
21.84
✓eight of Water (g)
0.14
✓eight of Dry Soil (g)
19.08
Moisture Content (%) 0.7
are No. 2010
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 443.65
✓eight of Tare (g) 169.08
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 274.57
otal Dry Sample Weight (g) 272.65
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 87.52
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 86.88
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 22.92
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 63.96
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9607
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 10.72
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 261.93
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
4.46
1.6
1.6
98.4
98.4
#10
2.00
6.26
2.3
3.9
96.1
96.1
#20
0.85
8.10
9.3
9.3
90.7
87.1
#40
0.425
26.96
31.0
40.4
59.6
57.3
#60
0.250
18.55
21.4
61.7
38.3
36.8
#140
0.106
9.19
10.6
72.3
27.7
26.6
#200
0.075
1.16
1.3
73.6
26.4
25.3
Pan
-
22.92
26.4
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-011 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-011
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) NA
Sample No. MW-6D
Soil Color Gray
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
26.0
23.5
3.75
22.2
25.4
0.01290
0.0316
24.4
5
25.0
23.4
3.77
21.2
24.2
0.01291
0.0202
23.2
15
22.0
23.4
3.77
18.2
20.8
0.01291
0.0119
20.0
30
20.0
23.4
3.77
16.2
18.5
0.01291
0.0085
17.8
60
18.0
23.4
3.77
14.2
16.2
0.01291
0.0061
15.6
250
14.0
23.8
3.70
10.3
11.7
0.01285
0.0030
11.3
1440
10.0
23.5
3.75
6.2
7.1
0.01290
0.0013
6.8
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 86.88 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.993
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 96.07
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-011 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotediniul & geasynthetic testing
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
MW-6D
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-011
Soil Description:
GRAY LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40
( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve marena►. wee me -- ►eve ana r►yaromerer14na►ys►s-- grapn page Tor me compere marena► aescr►pr►on
As Received Moisture Content
Liquid Limit Test
ASTM D2216-10
1
2
3
M
Tare Number:
AQ
B
V-2
K
U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
50.29
28.89
29.87
29.99
L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
42.52
25.65
26.44
26.19
T
Weight of Tare (g):
15.42
15.15
15.63
15.20
1
Weight of Water (g):
7.8
3.2
3.4
3.8
P
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
27.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
O
Was As Received MC Preserved:
Yes
Moisture Content (%):
28.7
30.9
31.7
34.6
N
Number of Blows:
35
25
15
T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range
Test Results
Tare Number: 25 17
Liquid Limit (%): 32
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 16.44 17.71
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 15.19 16.32
Plastic Limit (%): 15
Weight of Tare (g): 6.99 7.02
Weight of Water (g): 1.3 1.4
Plasticity Index (%): 17
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 8.2 9.3
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 15.2 14.9 0.3
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
35
35
34
34
C
m 33
c
0
Ci 33
d
l6
32
32
31
31
1
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
60
50
cZ 40
X
d
c
T 30
U
.y
`6 20
a
Li
10
J
0
10 100 t
Number of Blows
CL- ML
uiquiu urns t io)
10
Tested By SS Date 5/4/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/5/20
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/1& S:IExcellExcel QkSpreadsheetsUmit 3Pt.x/s
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. TP-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-012 Soil Color Tan
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
m
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
IL
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SM, TESTED
(Non -Plastic)
USCS Classification SILTYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T__q mP r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnw. R
0.03
72.32
27.65
1
7-01)91) PRnIFrT.CLCmith Wilmn 11) r10.1Chaatl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotethn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. TP-1
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-012 Soil Color Tan
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 1.30
0.00
2
98.70
Sand 73.71
74.68
0.05
24.99
Silt 13.14
13.31
0.002
11.85
Clay 11.85
12.00
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-012 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
NA
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
TP-1
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-012
Soil Color
Tan
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
14
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
36.22
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
33.56
Weight of Tare (g)
7.02
Weight of Water (g)
2.66
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
26.54
Moisture Content (%) 10.0
are No.
923
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)
1142.35
✓eight of Tare (g)
229.75
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g)
912.60
otal Dry Sample Weight (g)
830.45
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 93.25
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 84.76
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 23.75
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 61.01
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #10) 0.9870
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 10.79
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 819.66
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.21
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
10.58
1.3
1.3
98.7
98.7
#20
0.85
7.86
9.3
9.3
90.7
89.5
#40
0.425
14.18
16.7
26.0
74.0
73.0
#60
0.250
12.69
15.0
41.0
59.0
58.3
#140
0.106
22.05
26.0
67.0
33.0
32.6
#200
0.075
4.23
5.0
72.0
28.0
27.7
Pan
-
23.75
28.0
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-012 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-012
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) NA
Sample No. TP-1
Soil Color Tan
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
23.0
23.2
3.80
19.2
22.4
0.01294
0.0324
22.1
5
21.0
23.2
3.80
17.2
20.1
0.01294
0.0208
19.8
15
20.0
23.2
3.80
16.2
18.9
0.01294
0.0121
18.7
30
18.0
23.2
3.80
14.2
16.6
0.01294
0.0086
16.4
60
17.0
23.4
3.77
13.2
15.5
0.01291
0.0061
15.3
250
15.0
23.6
3.73
11.3
13.2
0.01288
0.0030
13.0
1440
13.0
23.3
3.78
9.2
10.8
0.01293
0.0013
10.6
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 84.76 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.909
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 98.70
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-012 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotecilnical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-10
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
TP-1
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-012
Color:
Tan
( Mlnus No. 40 sieve material)
As Received
Water Content
Tare Number
TB-05
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
487.21
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
451.66
Weight of Tare (g)
135.09
Weight of Water (g)
35.55
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
316.57
Water Content (%) 11.2
NON - PLASTIC
MATERIAL
Tested By TB Date 516120 Checked By GEM Date 517120
/DCN: CT-S4C, DATE: 4/27/17, REVISION: 4e SlExcellExcel QAISpreadsheetsUmit NP.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D698-12
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
TP-1
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-012
Test Method
STANDARD
Visual Description: Tan Silty Sand
W1111
125
120
MIN
110
105
Optimum Moisture Content (%): 8.5
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 126.0
Specific Gravity 2.70
Assumed
-- — — — — — —— — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)
Tested By GG Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 1 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:5/1/13 REVISION: 16
20
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client:
Client Reference:
Project No.:
Lab I D:
Visual Description
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D698-12
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Wilson 20-1
R-2020-097-001
R-2020-097-001-012
Tan Silty Sand
otal Weight of the Sample (g):
,s Received Water Content (%):
ssumed Specific Gravity:
Percent Retained on 3/4":
Percent Retained on 3/8":
Percent Retained on #4:
Oversize Material:
Procedure Used:
24250
NA
2.70
0
0
NA
Not included
B
Boring No.:
Depth (ft):
Sample No
eotechnics
geotedinul & yeasynthetic testing
NA
NA
TP-1
Test Type:
STANDARD
Rammer Weight (lb):
5.5
Rammer Drop (in):
12
Rammer Type:
MECHANICAL
Machine ID:
R606
Mold ID:
R552
Mold diameter:
4"
Weight of the Mold (g):
4228
Volume of the Mold (cm3):
942
Mold / Specimen
Point No.
1
2
3
4
5
Weight of Mold & Wet Sample (g):
6076
6273
6303
6285
6236
Weight of Mold (g):
4228
4228
4228
4228
4228
Weight of Wet Sample (g):
1849
2045
2075
2058
2008
Mold Volume (cm3):
942
942
942
942
942
Moisture Content / Density
Tare Number:
911
900
913
903
912
Weight of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
311.70
542.60
484.50
343.30
373.30
Weight of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
299.94
510.21
450.69
317.77
340.30
Weight of Tare (g):
102.40
101.70
102.90
103.00
101.30
Weight of Water (g):
11.76
32.39
33.81
25.53
33.00
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
197.54
408.51
347.79
214.77
239.00
Wet Density (g/cm):
1.96
2.17
2.20
2.18
2.13
Wet Density (pcf):
122.4
135.5
137.5
136.3
133.0
Moisture Content (%):
6.0
7.9
9.7
11.9
13.8
Dry Density (pcf):
115.6
125.5
125.3
121.8
116.9
Zero Air Voids
Moisture Content (%): 11.0 14.9 18.8
Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 129.9 120.1 111.8
Tested By GG Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 2 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:511113 REVISION: 16 S:Excell1Excel QalSpreadsheetslProctorxls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinuI & yeasynlhetic Tntiny
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. TP-2
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-013 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS
cobbles
gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA
cobbles
gravel
sand silt ay
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
t
rn
Z 60
T
0]
50
c
LL
d 40
U
N
IL
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Sieve Sizes (mm
Greater Than #4
#4 To #200
Finer Than #200
USCS Summary
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
USCS Symbol SM, TESTED
(Non -Plastic)
USCS Classification SILTYSAND
nAnA 1 of 4 nr.w. f.T__q mP r1ATF• 70A/11 RFVlglnN• R
0.05
73.67
26.29
1
7-01)91) PRn1FrT.CLCmith Wilmn 11) r10.1Chaatl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechn!a I & geosyntheti[ testing
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc. Boring No. NA
Client Reference Wilson 20-1 Depth (ft) NA
Project No. R-2020-097-001 Sample No. TP-2
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-013 Soil Color Brown
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT SAND
Particle
Size (mm)
Percent
Finer
USDA SUMMARY Actual
Percentage
Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 1.84
0.00
2
98.16
Sand 74.49
75.89
0.05
23.67
Silt 11.96
12.19
0.002
11.70
Clay 11.70
11.92
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7126113 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-013 grainsievehyd 10.xls]Sheetl
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.
NA
Client Reference
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft)
NA
Project No.
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.
TP-2
Lab ID
R-2020-097-001-013
Soil Color
Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content
Tare No.
12
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)
33.69
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)
31.39
Weight of Tare (g)
6.89
Weight of Water (g)
2.30
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
24.50
Moisture Content (%) 9.4
are No. AF01
✓gt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 741.33
✓eight of Tare (g) 226.15
it Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 515.18
otal Dry Sample Weight (g) 471.71
eotechnics
geotediniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Hydrometer Specimen Data
Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) 92.43
Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) 84.50
Weight of - #200 Material (g) 22.63
Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 61.87
J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #101 0.9816
Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) 8.68
Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 463.03
Sieve
Sieve
Wgt.of Soil
Percent
Accumulated
Percent
Accumulated
Size
Opening
Retained
Retained
Percent
Finer
Percent
(mm)
Retained
Finer
(gm)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(°/D)
(%)
12"
300
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6"
150
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3"
75
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 1 /2"
37.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
ill
25.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/4"
19.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 /2"
12.5
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3/8"
9.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#4
4.75
0.23
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
#10
2.00
8.45
1.8
1.8
98.2
98.2
#20
0.85
6.90
8.2
8.2
91.8
90.1
#40
0.425
15.52
18.4
26.5
73.5
72.1
#60
0.250
16.90
20.0
46.5
53.5
52.5
#140
0.106
19.06
22.6
69.1
30.9
30.3
#200
0.075
3.49
4.1
73.2
26.8
26.3
Pan
-
22.63
26.8
100.0
-
-
Notes :
Tested By SS Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-013 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Client Reference Wilson 20-1
Project No. R-2020-097-001
Lab ID R-2020-097-001-013
Boring No. NA
Depth (ft) NA
Sample No. TP-2
Soil Color Brown
eotechnics
geoteciiniuI & geasynthetic Testing
Elapsed
Time
(min)
R
Measured
Temp.
( ° C)
Composite
Correction
R
Corrected
N
(%)
K
Factor
Diameter
( mm)
N'
(% )
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
22.0
23.1
3.82
18.2
21.3
0.01296
0.0326
20.9
5
20.0
23.1
3.82
16.2
19.0
0.01296
0.0209
18.6
15
19.0
23.1
3.82
15.2
17.8
0.01296
0.0121
17.5
30
18.0
23.1
3.82
14.2
16.6
0.01296
0.0086
16.3
60
16.0
23.1
3.82
12.2
14.3
0.01296
0.0062
14.0
250
14.0
23.4
3.77
10.2
12.0
0.01291
0.0031
11.8
1440
14.0
22.7
3.88
10.1
11.9
0.01302
0.0013
11.6
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 84.50 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.914
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 98.16
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By RFF Date 5/6/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:12020 PROJECTSISmith + Gardneh2020-097 S+G - Wilson 20-11[2020-097-001-013 grainsievehyd 10.x1s]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotecilnical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-10
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
TP-2
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-013
Color:
Brown
( Mlnus No. 40 sieve material)
As Received
Water Content
Tare Number
TB-09
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)
417.27
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)
390.82
Weight of Tare (g)
134.72
Weight of Water (g)
26.45
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
256.10
Water Content (%) 10.3
NON - PLASTIC
MATERIAL
Tested By TB Date 516120 Checked By GEM Date 517120
/DCN: CT-S4C, DATE: 4/27/17, REVISION: 4e SlExcellExcel QAISpreadsheetsUmit NP.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geoteciinical & yeasyn�hetic tes�iny
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D698-12
Client:
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Boring No.:
NA
Client Reference:
Wilson 20-1
Depth (ft):
NA
Project No.:
R-2020-097-001
Sample No.:
TP-2
Lab ID:
R-2020-097-001-013
Test Method
STANDARD
Visual Description: Brown Silty Sand
W1111
125
120
MIN
110
105
Optimum Moisture Content (%): 8.7
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 125.6
Specific Gravity 2.70
Assumed
-- — — — — — —— — — — — —
—
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 5 10 15
Moisture Content (%)
Tested By GG Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 1 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:5/1/13 REVISION: 16
20
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client:
Client Reference:
Project No.:
Lab I D:
Visual Description
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D698-12
Smith + Gardner, Inc.
Wilson 20-1
R-2020-097-001
R-2020-097-001-013
Brown Silty Sand
otal Weight of the Sample (g):
,s Received Water Content (%):
ssumed Specific Gravity:
Percent Retained on 3/4":
Percent Retained on 3/8":
Percent Retained on #4:
Oversize Material:
Procedure Used:
22250
NA
2.70
0
0
NA
Not included
B
Boring No.:
Depth (ft):
Sample No
eotechnics
geotedinul & yeasynthetic testing
NA
NA
TP-2
Test Type:
STANDARD
Rammer Weight (lb):
5.5
Rammer Drop (in):
12
Rammer Type:
MECHANICAL
Machine ID:
R606
Mold ID:
R552
Mold diameter:
4"
Weight of the Mold (g):
4227
Volume of the Mold (cm3):
942
Mold / Specimen
Point No.
1
2
3
4
5
Weight of Mold & Wet Sample (g):
6083
6255
6300
6273
6232
Weight of Mold (g):
4227
4227
4227
4227
4227
Weight of Wet Sample (g):
1855
2028
2073
2046
2005
Mold Volume (cm3):
942
942
942
942
942
Moisture Content / Density
Tare Number:
901
90
907
906
908
Weight of Tare & Wet Sample (g):
405.30
362.80
345.60
418.60
354.20
Weight of Tare & Dry Sample (g):
388.55
344.31
323.93
385.53
324.29
Weight of Tare (g):
99.10
103.30
101.30
102.50
102.40
Weight of Water (g):
16.75
18.49
21.67
33.07
29.91
Weight of Dry Sample (g):
289.45
241.01
222.63
283.03
221.89
Wet Density (g/cm):
1.97
2.15
2.20
2.17
2.13
Wet Density (pcf):
122.9
134.3
137.3
135.5
132.8
Moisture Content (%):
5.8
7.7
9.7
11.7
13.5
Dry Density (pcf):
116.2
124.7
125.1
121.3
117.0
Zero Air Voids
Moisture Content (%): 11.0 14.9 18.8
Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 129.9 120.1 111.8
Tested By GG Date 5/7/20 Checked By GEM Date 5/8/20
page 2 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:511113 REVISION: 16 S:Excell1Excel QalSpreadsheetslProctorxls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Appendix
Aquifer Slug Testing Data and Effective Porosity Evaluation
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

0.1
m
a>
N
M
E
L
O
Z 0.01
80. 160. 240. 320. 400.
Time (sec)
Data Set: H:\...\MW-1.agt
Date: 06/22/20
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:45:13
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.11 ft
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-1)
Initial Displacement: 6.2 ft
Static Water Column Height: 18.11 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
Clll I ITI(lAl
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 1.258 ft/day
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.578 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D Landfill MW-1
Record Count 97
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644, SN#:
5644. SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (I TemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
9:24:51 AM
0
7.722
17.741
0
9:24:51 AM
0.25
7.723
17.737
-0.001
9:24:52 AM
0.57
7.723
17.757
-0.002
9:24:52 AM
0.75
7.722
17.75
0
9:24:52 AM
1
7.72
17.752
0.005
9:24:52 AM
1.25
7.721
17.737
0.002
9:24:53 AM
1.507
7.723
17.764
-0.002
9:24:53 AM
1.75
7.719
17.757
0.007
9:24:53 AM
2
7.72
17.733
0.004
9:24:53 AM
2.25
7.72
17.754
0.005
9:24:54 AM
2.5
7.721
17.757
0.003
9:24:54 AM
2.75
7.719
17.766
0.008
9:24:54 AM
3
7.714
17.77
0.018
9:24:54 AM
3.25
7.189
17.776
1.23
9:24:55 AM
3.5
5.679
17.769
4.717
9:24:55 AM
3.75
5.04
17.772
6.192
9:24:55 AM
4
6.346
17.747
3.178
9:24:55 AM
4.25
6.225
17.767
3.458
9:24:56 AM
4.5
6.275
17.777
3.34
9:24:56 AM
4.75
6.326
17.771
3.225
9:24:56 AM
5
6.353
17.771
3.162
9:24:56 AM
5.25
6.353
17.763
3.162
9:24:57 AM
5.5
6.422
17.773
3.003
9:24:57 AM
5.75
6.446
17.775
2.946
9:24:57 AM
6
6.471
17.778
2.889
9:24:57 AM
6.36
6.511
17.759
2.797
9:24:58 AM
6.72
6.55
17.752
2.706
9:24:58 AM
7.14
6.591
17.768
2.612
9:24:59 AM
7.56
6.627
17.745
2.528
9:24:59 AM
7.98
6.665
17.754
2.441
9:24:59 AM
8.46
6.701
17.774
2.358
9:25:00 AM
9
6.743
17.752
2.261
9:25:00 AM
9.48
6.778
17.77
2.18
9:25:01 AM
10.08
6.818
17.747
2.087
9:25:02 AM
10.68
6.854
17.76
2.003

9:25:02 AM
11.28
6.89
17.748
1.921
9:25:03 AM
11.94
6.925
17.726
1.841
9:25:04 AM
12.66
6.96
17.744
1.759
9:25:04 AM
13.44
6.996
17.747
1.677
9:25:05 AM
14.22
7.031
17.74
1.596
9:25:06 AM
15.06
7.067
17.759
1.513
9:25:07 AM
15.96
7.099
17.731
1.439
9:25:08 AM
16.92
7.129
17.762
1.368
9:25:09 AM
17.88
7.161
17.733
1.296
9:25:10 AM
18.96
7.193
17.741
1.223
9:25:11 AM
20.1
7.222
17.736
1.154
9:25:12 AM
21.3
7.251
17.744
1.087
9:25:14 AM
22.56
7.278
17.749
1.025
9:25:15 AM
23.88
7.301
17.756
0.971
9:25:16 AM
25.32
7.329
17.752
0.909
9:25:18 AM
26.82
7.349
17.74
0.861
9:25:19 AM
28.38
7.374
17.744
0.805
9:25:21 AM
30.06
7.395
17.74
0.756
9:25:23 AM
31.86
7.414
17.774
0.712
9:25:25 AM
33.72
7.433
17.752
0.669
9:25:27 AM
36.059
7.457
17.752
0.613
9:25:29 AM
37.86
7.47
17.746
0.583
9:25:31 AM
40.08
7.485
17.754
0.547
9:25:33 AM
42.48
7.499
17.748
0.515
9:25:36 AM
45
7.517
17.762
0.474
9:25:39 AM
47.64
7.529
17.76
0.447
9:25:41 AM
50.46
7.54
17.754
0.421
9:25:44 AM
53.46
7.552
17.734
0.394
9:25:48 AM
56.64
7.561
17.748
0.371
9:25:51 AM
60
7.574
17.762
0.343
9:25:55 AM
63.6
7.581
17.74
0.327
9:25:58 AM
67.2
7.589
17.761
0.306
9:26:02 AM
71.4
7.601
17.735
0.281
9:26:07 AM
75.6
7.607
17.736
0.266
9:26:11 AM
79.8
7.613
17.742
0.253
9:26:16 AM
84.6
7.617
17.762
0.242
9:26:21 AM
90
7.625
17.78
0.224
9:26:26 AM
94.8
7.631
17.776
0.21
9:26:32 AM
101.065
7.634
17.772
0.204
9:26:38 AM
106.8
7.639
17.769
0.191
9:26:44 AM
112.8
7.64
17.76
0.189
9:26:50 AM
119.4
7.645
17.773
0.178
9:26:58 AM
126.6
7.648
17.783
0.171
9:27:05 AM
134.4
7.651
17.758
0.164
9:27:13 AM
142.2
7.654
17.784
0.158
9:27:22 AM
150.6
7.657
17.744
0.15
9:27:31 AM
159.6
7.659
17.789
0.145

9:27:40 AM
169.2
7.662
17.748
0.138
9:27:50 AM
178.8
7.661
17.741
0.141
9:28:01 AM
189.6
7.664
17.758
0.135
9:28:12 AM
201.054
7.666
17.765
0.13
9:28:24 AM
213
7.668
17.745
0.125
9:28:37 AM
225.6
7.669
17.759
0.123
9:28:50 AM
238.8
7.672
17.775
0.116
9:29:04 AM
253.2
7.671
17.771
0.118
9:29:19 AM
268.2
7.672
17.781
0.115
9:29:35 AM
283.8
7.671
17.767
0.119
9:29:52 AM
300.6
7.671
17.791
0.118
9:30:10 AM
318.6
7.675
17.791
0.108
9:30:28 AM
337.2
7.672
17.758
0.116
9:30:49 AM
357.6
7.675
17.788
0.109
9:31:10 AM
378.6
7.675
17.788
0.109

0.1
0.01
0.001 L
0.
Data Set: H:\...\MW-2.agt
Date: 06/22/20
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
Saturated Thickness: 20.66 ft
40. 80. 120. 160
Time (sec)
Initial Displacement: 5. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.398 ft/day
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:46:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
200.
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2)
Static Water Column Height: 20.66 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 1.114 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D Landfill MW-2
Record Count 83
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644. SN#:
5644 SN#:
564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (ITern
perah Level Depth To Water (ft)
10:37:40 AM
0
8.995
17.016
-0.042
10:37:40 AM
0.251
8.995
17.045
-0.043
10:37:40 AM
0.501
8.991
17.035
-0.033
10:37:41 AM
0.896
8.996
17.052
-0.045
10:37:41 AM
1.019
9.004
17.017
-0.062
10:37:41 AM
1.251
8.986
17.024
-0.022
10:37:41 AM
1.501
8.995
17.055
-0.041
10:37:42 AM
1.751
8.99
17.069
-0.03
10:37:42 AM
2.001
8.99
17.037
-0.031
10:37:42 AM
2.251
9.007
17.053
-0.069
10:37:42 AM
2.501
8.978
17.037
-0.004
10:37:43 AM
2.751
8.986
17.06
-0.021
10:37:43 AM
3.001
8.988
17.068
-0.026
10:37:43 AM
3.251
8.989
17.082
-0.029
10:37:43 AM
3.501
8.987
17.055
-0.024
10:37:44 AM
4.024
8.988
17.069
-0.026
10:37:44 AM
4.146
8.988
17.082
-0.026
10:37:44 AM
4.269
8.986
17.073
-0.021
10:37:44 AM
4.501
8.989
17.055
-0.029
10:37:45 AM
4.751
8.988
17.087
-0.025
10:37:45 AM
5.001
8.977
17.051
-0.001
10:37:45 AM
5.251
8.613
17.069
0.84
10:37:45 AM
5.501
8.836
17.051
0.325
10:37:46 AM
5.751
8.915
17.058
0.142
10:37:46 AM
6.001
8.141
17.076
1.93
10:37:46 AM
6.361
6.854
17.051
4.9
10:37:47 AM
6.721
7.365
17.069
3.721
10:37:47 AM
7.141
7.576
17.065
3.233
10:37:47 AM
7.561
7.634
17.066
3.101
10:37:48 AM
7.981
7.672
17.066
3.012
10:37:48 AM
8.461
7.722
17.037
2.898
10:37:49 AM
9.037
7.77
17.07
2.786
10:37:49 AM
9.481
7.815
17.061
2.683
10:37:50 AM
10.081
7.859
17.047
2.581
10:37:51 AM
10.681
7.903
17.061
2.48

10:37:51 AM
11.281
7.942
17.055
2.389
10:37:52 AM
11.941
7.983
17.036
2.294
10:37:52 AM
12.661
8.022
17.037
2.203
10:37:53 AM
13.441
8.064
17.038
2.108
10:37:54 AM
14.221
8.1
17.056
2.024
10:37:55 AM
15.061
8.145
17.038
1.921
10:37:56 AM
15.961
8.183
17.068
1.834
10:37:57 AM
16.921
8.223
17.044
1.74
10:37:58 AM
17.88
8.26
17.038
1.654
10:37:59 AM
19.05
8.304
17.064
1.553
10:38:00 AM
20.101
8.342
17.064
1.465
10:38:01 AM
21.301
8.381
17.045
1.375
10:38:02 AM
22.561
8.42
17.037
1.286
10:38:04 AM
24.051
8.462
17.051
1.188
10:38:05 AM
25.321
8.494
17.061
1.114
10:38:07 AM
26.821
8.532
17.048
1.028
10:38:08 AM
28.38
8.568
17.04
0.944
10:38:10 AM
30.061
8.602
17.035
0.865
10:38:12 AM
31.86
8.639
17.064
0.78
10:38:14 AM
33.721
8.666
17.051
0.717
10:38:16 AM
35.761
8.698
17.058
0.643
10:38:18 AM
37.86
8.727
17.05
0.577
10:38:20 AM
40.08
8.751
17.056
0.521
10:38:22 AM
42.481
8.776
17.046
0.465
10:38:25 AM
45
8.798
17.059
0.412
10:38:27 AM
47.641
8.817
17.04
0.369
10:38:30 AM
50.461
8.836
17.056
0.325
10:38:33 AM
53.461
8.851
17.037
0.289
10:38:36 AM
56.641
8.867
17.033
0.254
10:38:40 AM
60
8.883
17.058
0.217
10:38:43 AM
63.6
8.891
17.038
0.197
10:38:47 AM
67.2
8.899
17.035
0.18
10:38:51 AM
71.401
8.91
17.061
0.154
10:38:55 AM
75.6
8.914
17.038
0.146
10:39:00 AM
79.8
8.919
17.023
0.132
10:39:04 AM
84.6
8.923
17.068
0.125
10:39:10 AM
90
8.928
17.062
0.113
10:39:15 AM
94.8
8.934
17.077
0.099
10:39:21 AM
100.8
8.936
17.042
0.094
10:39:27 AM
106.8
8.938
17.041
0.088
10:39:33 AM
112.8
8.939
17.039
0.086
10:39:39 AM
119.4
8.942
17.082
0.08
10:39:46 AM
126.6
8.943
17.053
0.078
10:39:54 AM
134.4
8.934
17.068
0.1
10:40:02 AM
142.2
8.943
17.055
0.078
10:40:10 AM
150.6
8.947
17.043
0.069
10:40:19 AM
159.6
8.947
17.062
0.068

10:40:29 AM 169.2 8.949 17.038 0.065

0.1
m
a>
N
M
E
L
O
Z 0.01
160. 320. 480. 640. 800.
Time (sec)
Data Set: H:\...\MW-3.agt
Date: 06/22/20
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:46:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.46 ft
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-3)
Initial Displacement: 4.5 ft
Static Water Column Height: 19.46 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
Clll I ITI(lAl
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.1489 ft/day
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 3.434 ft

Log Data: Wilson County MW-3
Record Count 110
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644 SN#:
5644, SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (I TemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
10:11:07 AM
0
8.781
15.215
0.015
10:11:07 AM
0.25
8.781
15.232
0.015
10:11:07 AM
0.5
8.783
15.256
0.012
10:11:08 AM
0.812
8.783
15.238
0.012
10:11:08 AM
1
8.781
15.265
0.016
10:11:08 AM
1.25
8.783
15.279
0.012
10:11:08 AM
1.5
8.779
15.234
0.02
10:11:08 AM
1.75
8.779
15.254
0.021
10:11:09 AM
2
8.78
15.252
0.017
10:11:09 AM
2.25
8.78
15.256
0.018
10:11:09 AM
2.5
8.778
15.247
0.022
10:11:09 AM
2.75
8.78
15.252
0.019
10:11:10 AM
3
8.779
15.266
0.02
10:11:10 AM
3.25
8.78
15.236
0.019
10:11:10 AM
3.5
8.778
15.254
0.022
10:11:10 AM
3.75
8.699
15.284
0.206
10:11:11 AM
4
7.721
15.268
2.463
10:11:11 AM
4.25
7.483
15.266
3.013
10:11:11 AM
4.5
7.132
15.26
3.823
10:11:11 AM
4.75
7.229
15.271
3.599
10:11:12 AM
5
6.977
15.276
4.182
10:11:12 AM
5.25
7.147
15.273
3.789
10:11:12 AM
5.5
7.159
15.268
3.762
10:11:12 AM
5.75
7.167
15.285
3.742
10:11:13 AM
6
7.164
15.292
3.75
10:11:13 AM
6.36
7.177
15.268
3.72
10:11:13 AM
6.72
7.186
15.268
3.698
10:11:14 AM
7.14
7.212
15.306
3.639
10:11:14 AM
7.561
7.228
15.283
3.603
10:11:15 AM
7.98
7.237
15.29
3.581
10:11:15 AM
8.46
7.243
15.3
3.568
10:11:16 AM
9
7.249
15.289
3.554
10:11:16 AM
9.48
7.258
15.286
3.532
10:11:17 AM
10.081
7.267
15.314
3.51
10:11:17 AM
10.681
7.274
15.292
3.496

10:11:18 AM
11.281
7.279
15.296
3.483
10:11:19 AM
11.94
7.284
15.293
3.473
10:11:19 AM
12.66
7.288
15.314
3.464
10:11:20 AM
13.44
7.29
15.278
3.459
10:11:21 AM
14.22
7.297
15.335
3.443
10:11:22 AM
15.06
7.298
15.302
3.439
10:11:23 AM
15.96
7.302
15.327
3.432
10:11:24 AM
16.92
7.307
15.335
3.419
10:11:25 AM
17.88
7.307
15.325
3.418
10:11:26 AM
18.96
7.314
15.334
3.404
10:11:27 AM
20.101
7.317
15.317
3.397
10:11:28 AM
21.301
7.319
15.347
3.391
10:11:29 AM
22.561
7.324
15.376
3.381
10:11:31 AM
23.88
7.327
15.35
3.374
10:11:32 AM
25.321
7.331
15.377
3.363
10:11:34 AM
26.821
7.336
15.361
3.353
10:11:35 AM
28.38
7.341
15.39
3.34
10:11:37 AM
30.315
7.345
15.398
3.331
10:11:39 AM
31.86
7.349
15.428
3.321
10:11:40 AM
33.72
7.352
15.421
3.314
10:11:42 AM
35.76
7.355
15.447
3.309
10:11:45 AM
37.86
7.36
15.406
3.296
10:11:47 AM
40.331
7.368
15.459
3.279
10:11:49 AM
42.48
7.371
15.448
3.271
10:11:52 AM
45
7.378
15.469
3.255
10:11:54 AM
47.64
7.383
15.45
3.244
10:11:57 AM
50.46
7.392
15.496
3.222
10:12:00 AM
53.46
7.393
15.492
3.22
10:12:03 AM
56.64
7.401
15.511
3.203
10:12:07 AM
60
7.408
15.516
3.187
10:12:10 AM
63.6
7.415
15.534
3.169
10:12:14 AM
67.2
7.419
15.525
3.16
10:12:18 AM
71.4
7.429
15.532
3.137
10:12:22 AM
75.6
7.434
15.573
3.125
10:12:26 AM
79.8
7.441
15.582
3.11
10:12:31 AM
84.6
7.451
15.59
3.086
10:12:37 AM
90
7.46
15.596
3.065
10:12:41 AM
94.8
7.468
15.62
3.047
10:12:47 AM
100.8
7.479
15.643
3.022
10:12:53 AM
106.8
7.49
15.653
2.997
10:12:59 AM
112.8
7.498
15.656
2.977
10:13:06 AM
119.4
7.511
15.704
2.949
10:13:13 AM
126.6
7.52
15.699
2.928
10:13:21 AM
134.4
7.531
15.728
2.901
10:13:29 AM
142.2
7.544
15.708
2.871
10:13:37 AM
150.6
7.556
15.776
2.843
10:13:46 AM
159.6
7.57
15.787
2.813

10:13:56 AM
169.2
7.583
15.765
2.782
10:14:05 AM
178.8
7.597
15.813
2.75
10:14:16 AM
189.6
7.612
15.829
2.715
10:14:28 AM
201
7.629
15.851
2.676
10:14:40 AM
213
7.642
15.869
2.645
10:14:52 AM
225.6
7.66
15.876
2.605
10:15:05 AM
238.8
7.675
15.888
2.57
10:15:20 AM
253.2
7.697
15.886
2.519
10:15:35 AM
268.2
7.714
15.918
2.48
10:15:50 AM
283.8
7.733
15.933
2.437
10:16:07 AM
300.636
7.753
15.96
2.389
10:16:25 AM
318.6
7.773
15.97
2.344
10:16:44 AM
337.2
7.794
15.997
2.294
10:17:04 AM
357.6
7.817
15.999
2.243
10:17:25 AM
378.6
7.841
15.997
2.187
10:17:47 AM
400.8
7.865
16.053
2.131
10:18:11 AM
424.8
7.888
16.034
2.077
10:18:37 AM
450
7.913
16.047
2.021
10:19:03 AM
476.4
7.94
16.034
1.957
10:19:31 AM
504.6
7.964
16.071
1.903
10:20:01 AM
534.6
7.988
16.075
1.846
10:20:33 AM
566.4
8.018
16.108
1.778
10:21:07 AM
600
8.042
16.068
1.722
10:21:43 AM
636.26
8.068
16.121
1.663
10:22:19 AM
672
8.094
16.122
1.602
10:23:01 AM
714
8.121
16.114
1.539
10:23:43 AM
756
8.145
16.108
1.484
10:24:25 AM
798
8.168
16.121
1.43

M
E
i
O
z 0.01
Data Set: H:\...\MW-4.agt
Date: 06/22/20
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
Saturated Thickness: 16.54 ft
160. 320. 480. 640. 800.
Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:47:03
PROJECT INFORMATION
Initial Displacement: 6. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.1833 ft/day
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-4)
Static Water Column Height: 16.54 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
Q/l1 I ITIll011
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 2.962 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D MW-4
Record Count 108
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644. SN#:
5644 SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (ITemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
9:47:44 AM
0
7.323
15.755
0.002
9:47:45 AM
0.251
7.322
15.762
0.005
9:47:45 AM
0.501
7.321
15.772
0.005
9:47:45 AM
0.761
7.322
15.775
0.003
9:47:45 AM
1.001
7.318
15.811
0.012
9:47:46 AM
1.251
7.321
15.782
0.007
9:47:46 AM
1.501
7.32
15.761
0.008
9:47:46 AM
1.751
7.32
15.771
0.008
9:47:46 AM
2.001
7.321
15.786
0.006
9:47:47 AM
2.251
7.337
15.771
-0.032
9:47:47 AM
2.501
7.316
15.779
0.017
9:47:47 AM
2.751
7.316
15.809
0.018
9:47:47 AM
3.001
6.846
15.792
1.103
9:47:48 AM
3.251
5.267
15.8
4.749
9:47:48 AM
3.501
4.928
15.781
5.53
9:47:48 AM
3.751
5.606
15.776
3.966
9:47:48 AM
4.001
5.879
15.761
3.335
9:47:49 AM
4.251
5.87
15.791
3.356
9:47:49 AM
4.501
5.908
15.78
3.267
9:47:49 AM
4.751
5.864
15.8
3.369
9:47:49 AM
5.001
5.91
15.817
3.264
9:47:50 AM
5.251
5.903
15.791
3.28
9:47:50 AM
5.501
5.914
15.783
3.255
9:47:50 AM
5.751
5.9
15.783
3.286
9:47:50 AM
6.001
5.927
15.807
3.224
9:47:51 AM
6.361
5.932
15.784
3.212
9:47:51 AM
6.721
5.938
15.803
3.199
9:47:51 AM
7.141
5.936
15.778
3.203
9:47:52 AM
7.561
5.945
15.811
3.183
9:47:52 AM
7.981
5.949
15.8
3.173
9:47:53 AM
8.461
5.953
15.787
3.164
9:47:53 AM
9.001
5.959
15.792
3.15
9:47:54 AM
9.481
5.964
15.791
3.139
9:47:54 AM
10.081
5.967
15.812
3.132
9:47:55 AM
10.681
5.969
15.804
3.127

9:47:56 AM
11.281
5.972
15.776
3.12
9:47:56 AM
11.941
5.977
15.795
3.109
9:47:57 AM
12.661
5.981
15.798
3.101
9:47:58 AM
13.441
5.985
15.784
3.092
9:47:58 AM
14.221
5.987
15.79
3.085
9:47:59 AM
15.061
5.988
15.784
3.083
9:48:00 AM
15.961
5.991
15.775
3.076
9:48:01 AM
16.921
5.994
15.796
3.069
9:48:02 AM
17.881
6.001
15.773
3.054
9:48:03 AM
18.961
6
15.784
3.055
9:48:04 AM
20.101
6.005
15.818
3.045
9:48:06 AM
21.301
6.008
15.787
3.037
9:48:07 AM
22.561
6.013
15.793
3.025
9:48:08 AM
23.881
6.017
15.798
3.016
9:48:10 AM
25.321
6.019
15.801
3.012
9:48:11 AM
26.821
6.025
15.797
2.999
9:48:13 AM
28.381
6.026
15.813
2.995
9:48:14 AM
30.061
6.032
15.835
2.982
9:48:16 AM
31.861
6.037
15.8
2.97
9:48:18 AM
33.721
6.04
15.837
2.963
9:48:20 AM
35.761
6.045
15.822
2.952
9:48:22 AM
37.861
6.051
15.802
2.938
9:48:24 AM
40.081
6.056
15.827
2.927
9:48:27 AM
42.481
6.062
15.829
2.913
9:48:29 AM
45.064
6.068
15.84
2.898
9:48:32 AM
47.641
6.074
15.815
2.886
9:48:35 AM
50.461
6.082
15.814
2.867
9:48:38 AM
53.461
6.085
15.824
2.86
9:48:41 AM
56.641
6.092
15.821
2.843
9:48:44 AM
60.083
6.103
15.841
2.819
9:48:48 AM
63.601
6.106
15.811
2.812
9:48:51 AM
67.2
6.116
15.827
2.788
9:48:56 AM
71.401
6.124
15.824
2.77
9:49:00 AM
75.601
6.133
15.848
2.749
9:49:04 AM
80.11
6.144
15.845
2.724
9:49:09 AM
84.601
6.15
15.835
2.708
9:49:14 AM
90.126
6.165
15.888
2.675
9:49:19 AM
94.801
6.174
15.851
2.654
9:49:25 AM
100.801
6.185
15.858
2.628
9:49:31 AM
106.801
6.196
15.851
2.603
9:49:37 AM
112.801
6.207
15.845
2.578
9:49:44 AM
119.4
6.22
15.855
2.549
9:49:51 AM
126.601
6.232
15.872
2.52
9:49:59 AM
134.4
6.248
15.859
2.483
9:50:06 AM
142.2
6.262
15.88
2.45
9:50:15 AM
150.601
6.277
15.874
2.417
9:50:24 AM
159.601
6.291
15.882
2.385

9:50:33 AM
169.2
6.308
15.867
2.345
9:50:43 AM
178.801
6.325
15.885
2.304
9:50:54 AM
189.6
6.343
15.89
2.263
9:51:05 AM
201
6.362
15.908
2.221
9:51:17 AM
213
6.381
15.909
2.176
9:51:30 AM
225.6
6.401
15.916
2.131
9:51:43 AM
238.801
6.42
15.88
2.085
9:51:57 AM
253.2
6.442
15.92
2.036
9:52:12 AM
268.2
6.462
15.917
1.99
9:52:28 AM
283.8
6.486
15.927
1.934
9:52:45 AM
300.6
6.506
15.939
1.888
9:53:03 AM
318.6
6.529
15.918
1.835
9:53:21 AM
337.2
6.554
15.925
1.777
9:53:42 AM
357.6
6.581
15.945
1.714
9:54:03 AM
378.6
6.602
15.93
1.665
9:54:25 AM
400.8
6.626
15.97
1.61
9:54:49 AM
424.8
6.723
15.948
1.385
9:55:14 AM
450
6.676
15.95
1.494
9:55:41 AM
476.4
6.704
15.922
1.429
9:56:09 AM
504.6
6.728
15.943
1.375
9:56:39 AM
534.6
6.754
15.931
1.316
9:57:11 AM
566.4
6.778
15.936
1.259
9:57:44 AM
600
6.802
15.898
1.203
9:58:20 AM
636.146
6.827
15.946
1.146
9:58:56 AM
672
6.849
15.923
1.096
9:59:38 AM
714
6.876
15.939
1.033

0.1
0.01
0.001 L
0.
Data Set: H:\...\MW-5.agt
Date: 06/22/20
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
Saturated Thickness: 11.18 ft
60. 120. 180. 240. 300.
Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:47:39
PROJECT INFORMATION
Initial Displacement: 5. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-5)
Static Water Column Height: 11.18 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
C /ll I ITIlIAI
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.838 ft/day y0 = 1.183 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D Landfill MW-5
Record Col 90
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644,
SN#: 5644.
SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (ITemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
########
0
4.875
15.864
0.029
########
0.251
4.875
15.851
0.029
########
0.501
4.877
15.846
0.025
########
0.88
4.876
15.875
0.028
########
1.003
4.878
15.872
0.022
########
1.251
4.875
15.878
0.029
########
1.501
4.875
15.861
0.03
########
1.799
4.877
15.87
0.025
########
2.003
4.877
15.887
0.026
########
2.251
4.874
15.893
0.032
########
2.501
4.875
15.867
0.03
########
3.023
4.859
15.884
0.066
########
3.145
4.835
15.879
0.122
########
3.268
4.787
15.888
0.234
########
3.501
4.779
15.89
0.251
########
3.751
4.83
15.879
0.134
########
4.001
4.838
15.892
0.116
########
4.251
4.717
15.889
0.394
########
4.501
4.826
15.866
0.142
########
4.751
4.708
15.888
0.416
########
5.001
4.692
15.879
0.451
########
5.251
3.664
15.899
2.826
########
5.501
2.741
15.871
4.958
########
5.751
4.442
15.874
1.028
########
6.001
3.989
15.882
2.075
########
6.361
4.044
15.866
1.948
########
6.721
4.082
15.84
1.86
########
7.141
4.089
15.878
1.846
########
7.561
4.09
15.888
1.842
########
8.035
4.13
15.869
1.751
########
8.461
4.157
15.877
1.689
########
9.001
4.195
15.868
1.6
########
9.481
4.22
15.874
1.543
########
10.081
4.258
15.853
1.455
########
10.681
4.29
15.853
1.381

########
11.281
4.315
15.878
1.322
########
11.94
4.346
15.87
1.251
########
12.66
4.37
15.84
1.195
########
13.44
4.392
15.875
1.144
########
14.221
4.409
15.877
1.105
########
15.061
4.428
15.845
1.061
########
15.96
4.445
15.84
1.022
########
16.92
4.457
15.863
0.995
########
18.037
4.471
15.869
0.963
########
18.96
4.48
15.872
0.942
########
20.101
4.49
15.858
0.918
########
21.301
4.504
15.843
0.885
########
22.561
4.513
15.864
0.866
########
23.88
4.523
15.836
0.842
########
25.321
4.533
15.875
0.82
########
26.821
4.543
15.842
0.797
########
28.38
4.557
15.864
0.765
########
30.061
4.566
15.845
0.744
########
31.86
4.574
15.843
0.724
########
33.721
4.583
15.861
0.705
########
35.761
4.589
15.871
0.689
########
38.087
4.602
15.861
0.659
########
40.08
4.61
15.836
0.641
########
42.481
4.619
15.853
0.62
########
45
4.626
15.826
0.604
########
47.64
4.636
15.83
0.581
########
50.46
4.643
15.845
0.567
########
53.46
4.651
15.812
0.547
########
56.64
4.659
15.856
0.529
########
60
4.666
15.844
0.513
########
63.6
4.674
15.838
0.495
########
67.2
4.681
15.815
0.478
########
71.4
4.687
15.828
0.464
########
75.6
4.692
15.841
0.453
########
79.8
4.697
15.811
0.441
########
84.6
4.702
15.815
0.428
########
90
4.708
15.811
0.414
########
94.8
4.713
15.836
0.404
########
100.8
4.718
15.805
0.392
########
106.8
4.722
15.809
0.384
########
112.8
4.724
15.802
0.378
########
119.4
4.73
15.827
0.365
########
126.6
4.734
15.813
0.356
########
134.4
4.735
15.784
0.354
########
142.2
4.736
15.798
0.35
########
150.6
4.74
15.798
0.342
########
159.6
4.741
15.806
0.339

########
169.2
4.742
15.802
0.337
########
178.805
4.745
15.805
0.33
########
189.6
4.744
15.804
0.333
########
201
4.748
15.799
0.323
########
213
4.746
15.782
0.328
########
225.6
4.747
15.823
0.324
########
238.8
4.749
15.792
0.321
########
253.2
4.749
15.795
0.321

0.1
m
a)
N
M
E
O
Z 0.01
7
0.001 L
0.
Data Set: H:\...\MW-6.agt
Date: 06/22/20
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
Saturated Thickness: 16.06 ft
60. 120. 180
Time (sec)
Initial Displacement: 5.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 2.492 ft/day
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:48:11
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
240. 300.
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-6)
Static Water Column Height: 16.06 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.6531 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D Landfill MW-6
Record Count 90
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644 SN#:
5644. SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (I TemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
11:12:20 AM
0
6.932
16.328
0.024
11:12:20 AM
0.251
6.935
16.324
0.017
11:12:20 AM
0.501
6.933
16.323
0.022
11:12:21 AM
0.751
6.933
16.343
0.022
11:12:21 AM
1.001
6.934
16.322
0.019
11:12:21 AM
1.251
6.931
16.33
0.028
11:12:21 AM
1.501
6.931
16.328
0.026
11:12:22 AM
1.751
6.933
16.33
0.021
11:12:22 AM
2.001
6.949
16.322
-0.014
11:12:22 AM
2.251
6.936
16.328
0.015
11:12:22 AM
2.501
6.937
16.341
0.013
11:12:23 AM
2.751
6.939
16.325
0.007
11:12:23 AM
3.001
6.912
16.353
0.071
11:12:23 AM
3.251
6.844
16.339
0.227
11:12:23 AM
3.501
4.715
16.321
5.143
11:12:24 AM
3.751
6.143
16.324
1.846
11:12:24 AM
4.001
6.067
16.339
2.023
11:12:24 AM
4.251
6.085
16.351
1.98
11:12:24 AM
4.501
6.106
16.326
1.932
11:12:25 AM
4.751
6.125
16.343
1.887
11:12:25 AM
5.001
6.14
16.336
1.852
11:12:25 AM
5.251
6.157
16.336
1.813
11:12:25 AM
5.501
6.172
16.319
1.778
11:12:26 AM
5.751
6.183
16.326
1.755
11:12:26 AM
6.001
6.199
16.349
1.717
11:12:26 AM
6.361
6.216
16.319
1.678
11:12:27 AM
6.721
6.232
16.316
1.641
11:12:27 AM
7.141
6.249
16.314
1.6
11:12:27 AM
7.561
6.268
16.33
1.558
11:12:28 AM
7.981
6.287
16.334
1.514
11:12:28 AM
8.461
6.305
16.328
1.472
11:12:29 AM
9.001
6.323
16.31
1.431
11:12:29 AM
9.481
6.339
16.302
1.395
11:12:30 AM
10.081
6.357
16.309
1.353
11:12:31 AM
10.681
6.372
16.299
1.318

11:12:31 AM
11.281
6.389
16.298
1.279
11:12:32 AM
11.941
6.408
16.311
1.235
11:12:33 AM
12.66
6.427
16.293
1.189
11:12:33 AM
13.441
6.445
16.304
1.149
11:12:34 AM
14.221
6.464
16.259
1.106
11:12:35 AM
15.061
6.484
16.268
1.059
11:12:36 AM
15.961
6.5
16.259
1.022
11:12:37 AM
16.921
6.518
16.278
0.981
11:12:38 AM
17.881
6.533
16.257
0.945
11:12:39 AM
18.961
6.555
16.28
0.895
11:12:40 AM
20.101
6.573
16.283
0.852
11:12:41 AM
21.301
6.592
16.272
0.809
11:12:42 AM
22.561
6.612
16.25
0.764
11:12:44 AM
23.88
6.63
16.232
0.722
11:12:45 AM
25.321
6.647
16.24
0.683
11:12:47 AM
26.821
6.662
16.256
0.648
11:12:48 AM
28.381
6.679
16.24
0.608
11:12:50 AM
30.061
6.696
16.234
0.569
11:12:52 AM
31.86
6.715
16.228
0.526
11:12:54 AM
33.721
6.731
16.199
0.488
11:12:56 AM
35.761
6.743
16.179
0.461
11:12:58 AM
37.861
6.76
16.188
0.423
11:13:00 AM
40.081
6.774
16.203
0.389
11:13:02 AM
42.481
6.786
16.21
0.361
11:13:05 AM
45
6.8
16.185
0.329
11:13:08 AM
47.64
6.816
16.163
0.293
11:13:10 AM
50.461
6.825
16.152
0.273
11:13:13 AM
53.461
6.832
16.162
0.255
11:13:17 AM
56.64
6.843
16.15
0.231
11:13:20 AM
60
6.851
16.135
0.211
11:13:23 AM
63.6
6.86
16.131
0.19
11:13:27 AM
67.2
6.867
16.153
0.175
11:13:31 AM
71.4
6.874
16.111
0.158
11:13:35 AM
75.6
6.876
16.111
0.153
11:13:40 AM
79.8
6.885
16.112
0.133
11:13:44 AM
84.6
6.891
16.076
0.12
11:13:50 AM
90
6.895
16.062
0.11
11:13:55 AM
94.8
6.898
16.073
0.104
11:14:01 AM
100.8
6.901
16.039
0.096
11:14:07 AM
106.8
6.902
16.031
0.094
11:14:13 AM
112.8
6.908
16.011
0.08
11:14:19 AM
119.4
6.908
15.996
0.079
11:14:26 AM
126.6
6.91
15.979
0.076
11:14:34 AM
134.4
6.909
15.988
0.078
11:14:42 AM
142.2
6.911
16
0.073
11:14:50 AM
150.6
6.912
15.959
0.071
11:14:59 AM
159.6
6.915
15.936
0.065

11:15:09 AM
169.2
6.915
15.933
0.065
11:15:19 AM
178.8
6.918
15.937
0.056
11:15:29 AM
189.6
6.918
15.933
0.056
11:15:41 AM
201
6.916
15.885
0.062
11:15:53 AM
213
6.917
15.896
0.059
11:16:05 AM
225.6
6.915
15.885
0.063
11:16:19 AM
238.8
6.915
15.873
0.065
11:16:33 AM
253.2
6.917
15.84
0.06

M
E
i
O
z 0.01
Data Set: H:\...\MW-6D.agt
Date: 06/22/20
Company: Smith+Gardner
Client: Wilson C&D
Project: Wilson-20-1
Test Date: 5/1/2020
600. 1.2E+3 1.8E+3 2.4E+3 3.0E+3
Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 10:48:42
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 36.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-6D)
Initial Displacement: 6.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 36.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 40. ft Screen Length: 10. ft
Casing Radius: 0.085 ft Well Radius: 0.085 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.
C /ll I ITIlIAI
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.04307 ft/day
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 3.512 ft

Log Data: Wilson County C&D Landfill MW-6D
Record Count 126
Sensors 1
1 564435 Pressure/Temp 30 PSIG (21m/69ft)
Time Zone: Eastern Daylight Time
Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pri Sensor: Pres(G) 69ft
Elapsed Tii
SN#: 5644, SN#:
5644. SN#: 564435
Time
Seconds
Pressure (ITemperatL
Level Depth To Water (ft)
11:20:34 AM
0
16.123
16.447
0.005
11:20:34 AM
0.25
16.123
16.449
0.004
11:20:35 AM
0.5
16.122
16.477
0.007
11:20:35 AM
0.88
16.119
16.494
0.014
11:20:35 AM
1.003
16.125
16.481
-0.001
11:20:35 AM
1.25
16.121
16.472
0.008
11:20:36 AM
1.5
16.121
16.487
0.009
11:20:36 AM
1.885
16.118
16.489
0.015
11:20:36 AM
2.009
16.123
16.499
0.003
11:20:36 AM
2.25
16.122
16.508
0.007
11:20:37 AM
2.5
16.122
16.489
0.007
11:20:37 AM
2.75
16.119
16.501
0.012
11:20:37 AM
3
14.581
16.481
3.566
11:20:37 AM
3.25
14.061
16.481
4.766
11:20:38 AM
3.5
14.748
16.467
3.18
11:20:38 AM
3.75
14.155
16.496
4.549
11:20:38 AM
4
14.209
16.5
4.425
11:20:38 AM
4.25
13.885
16.493
5.171
11:20:39 AM
4.5
14.114
16.472
4.643
11:20:39 AM
4.75
14.004
16.49
4.898
11:20:39 AM
5
13.775
16.507
5.426
11:20:39 AM
5.25
13.815
16.515
5.333
11:20:40 AM
5.5
13.584
16.499
5.866
11:20:40 AM
5.75
13.334
16.506
6.443
11:20:40 AM
6
13.338
16.487
6.435
11:20:41 AM
6.36
13.441
16.498
6.198
11:20:41 AM
6.72
13.47
16.502
6.131
11:20:41 AM
7.14
13.488
16.494
6.088
11:20:42 AM
7.561
13.503
16.534
6.054
11:20:42 AM
7.98
13.518
16.492
6.02
11:20:43 AM
8.461
13.782
16.505
5.41
11:20:43 AM
9
13.93
16.502
5.069
11:20:44 AM
9.48
13.926
16.497
5.076
11:20:44 AM
10.08
13.953
16.494
5.015
11:20:45 AM
10.68
13.964
16.51
4.99

11:20:45 AM
11.28
14.144
16.523
4.574
11:20:46 AM
11.94
14.323
16.527
4.16
11:20:47 AM
12.66
14.769
16.512
3.13
11:20:48 AM
13.44
14.583
16.507
3.56
11:20:48 AM
14.22
14.564
16.53
3.603
11:20:49 AM
15.061
14.567
16.526
3.598
11:20:50 AM
15.96
14.568
16.507
3.596
11:20:51 AM
16.92
14.57
16.551
3.59
11:20:52 AM
17.88
14.57
16.518
3.589
11:20:53 AM
18.96
14.573
16.522
3.583
11:20:54 AM
20.1
14.575
16.518
3.578
11:20:55 AM
21.3
14.575
16.53
3.578
11:20:57 AM
22.56
14.579
16.552
3.569
11:20:58 AM
23.88
14.578
16.541
3.572
11:20:59 AM
25.32
14.58
16.568
3.568
11:21:01 AM
26.821
14.581
16.563
3.565
11:21:03 AM
28.38
14.584
16.55
3.558
11:21:04 AM
30.061
14.586
16.568
3.554
11:21:06 AM
31.86
14.585
16.581
3.555
11:21:08 AM
33.72
14.587
16.58
3.552
11:21:10 AM
35.76
14.586
16.607
3.552
11:21:12 AM
37.86
14.593
16.605
3.538
11:21:14 AM
40.08
14.592
16.594
3.539
11:21:17 AM
42.48
14.593
16.589
3.537
11:21:19 AM
45
14.597
16.611
3.528
11:21:22 AM
47.64
14.597
16.623
3.528
11:21:25 AM
50.46
14.6
16.645
3.52
11:21:28 AM
53.52
14.604
16.663
3.512
11:21:31 AM
56.64
14.602
16.665
3.516
11:21:34 AM
60
14.608
16.648
3.502
11:21:38 AM
63.6
14.609
16.677
3.499
11:21:41 AM
67.2
14.613
16.663
3.491
11:21:46 AM
71.4
14.612
16.689
3.492
11:21:50 AM
75.6
14.619
16.668
3.476
11:21:54 AM
79.8
14.622
16.712
3.471
11:21:59 AM
84.6
14.624
16.713
3.466
11:22:04 AM
90
14.628
16.709
3.455
11:22:09 AM
94.8
14.632
16.72
3.446
11:22:15 AM
100.8
14.632
16.742
3.447
11:22:21 AM
106.8
14.639
16.753
3.43
11:22:27 AM
112.8
14.643
16.766
3.422
11:22:34 AM
119.4
14.645
16.775
3.417
11:22:41 AM
126.6
14.651
16.784
3.403
11:22:49 AM
134.4
14.657
16.798
3.388
11:22:56 AM
142.2
14.66
16.8
3.383
11:23:05 AM
150.6
14.665
16.829
3.371
11:23:14 AM
159.6
14.67
16.842
3.36

11:23:23 AM
169.2
14.676
16.849
3.345
11:23:33 AM
178.83
14.683
16.858
3.329
11:23:44 AM
189.6
14.686
16.865
3.322
11:23:55 AM
201
14.694
16.869
3.303
11:24:07 AM
213.019
14.698
16.871
3.294
11:24:20 AM
225.6
14.708
16.891
3.27
11:24:33 AM
238.904
14.711
16.919
3.265
11:24:47 AM
253.2
14.72
16.908
3.243
11:25:02 AM
268.2
14.727
16.925
3.226
11:25:18 AM
284.01
14.737
16.944
3.205
11:25:35 AM
300.6
14.744
16.949
3.188
11:25:53 AM
318.6
14.752
16.937
3.17
11:26:11 AM
337.2
14.763
16.937
3.144
11:26:32 AM
357.6
14.772
16.988
3.125
11:26:53 AM
378.6
14.778
16.972
3.109
11:27:15 AM
400.8
14.79
17.019
3.082
11:27:39 AM
424.8
14.802
16.998
3.055
11:28:04 AM
450
14.814
16.998
3.027
11:28:31 AM
476.4
14.825
17.022
3.002
11:28:59 AM
504.6
14.839
17.048
2.968
11:29:29 AM
534.6
14.85
17.037
2.944
11:30:01 AM
566.4
14.862
17.019
2.916
11:30:34 AM
600
14.875
17.041
2.885
11:31:10 AM
636
14.89
17.065
2.851
11:31:46 AM
672
14.906
17.035
2.815
11:32:28 AM
714.275
14.922
17.069
2.777
11:33:10 AM
756
14.938
17.064
2.74
11:33:52 AM
798
14.955
17.067
2.701
11:34:40 AM
846
14.973
17.064
2.66
11:35:34 AM
900
14.989
17.066
2.623
11:36:22 AM
948
15
17.05
2.597
11:37:22 AM
1008
15.026
17.052
2.538
11:38:22 AM
1068
15.043
17.064
2.498
11:39:22 AM
1128
15.059
17.098
2.462
11:40:28 AM
1194
15.08
17.074
2.413
11:41:40 AM
1266
15.1
17.074
2.367
11:42:58 AM
1344
15.121
17.072
2.319
11:44:16 AM
1422
15.141
17.073
2.272
11:45:40 AM
1506
15.16
17.098
2.227
11:47:10 AM
1596
15.185
17.077
2.17
11:48:46 AM
1692
15.204
17.105
2.126
11:50:22 AM
1788
15.225
17.073
2.077
11:52:10 AM
1896
15.25
17.076
2.021
11:54:04 AM
2010.304
15.273
17.119
1.968

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)

0, t
�%PL ANAnOA
Line 4 -�-guaM #Wurc; }'ice
.80 ftaide a �rrfnk
smid 2-. s
� k D,
CLAY 70
140
Ll
SAND) CLAY SI Or Y C-1 L AY
LAY SILT �
CLAY -SAND
I� 5 SA NDY
SILT I C-1
2 -S]L43
i k slze tpercmt)