PNG479SupplementalInfo_Appendix C

("'KL E/NFEL OER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
APPENDIX C
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report

KL E/NFEL DER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
PIEDMONT NATRUAL GAS TRANSMISSION
LINE 479
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(ER 22-1057)
20213937.001A - Phase 1
20213937.002A - Phase 2
FEBRUARY 7, 2023
Copyright 2023 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved
ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042
© 2023 Kleinfelder
February 7, 2023
www.kleinfelder.com
3200 Gateway Centre Blvd. Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
A Report Prepared for:
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION LINE 479
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
Joseph Stair, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator
Amanda Stamper, MA, RPA Archaeologist
Eric Strother, MA, RPA, ITR Reviewer
KLEINFELDER
3200 Gateway Centre Blvd Ste. 100
Morrisville, NC 27560
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office No. ER 22-1057
February 7, 2023
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page ii of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
PHASEIARCHAEOLOGICALSURVEY
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION LINE 479
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(ER 22-1057)
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Kleinfelder has completed an archaeological survey for the proposed transmission pipeline in
Robeson County, North Carolina (ER 22-1057). The survey was conducted for Piedmont Natural
Gas (PNG), in a manner consistent with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. The resulting report meets the guidelines issued
by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO) and the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA). The projects' area of potential effect (APE), encompasses potential
effects to archaeological resources, is defined as the limits of ground disturbance (LOD) which
includes the main 27.5-mile-long pipeline alignment, the temporary construction easement (TCE),
6.6 miles of temporary and permanent access easements, and one 29.8 acre staging yard that
will also be surveyed. One previous survey has been conducted for a portion of the current APE
(Green et al. 2011; Green and Nagle 2010). This survey addressed a 200-foot corridor along
Line 175 (Sutton Pipeline) overlapping with 6.8 mile of the current alignment. This investigation
excluded areas previously surveyed in 2010 and 2011, wetlands delineated by Kleinfelder in
2022, the department of transportation right-of-way along roads. The APE involves 258.6 acres
(104.7 ha), in a rural portion of eastern Robeson County, North Carolina, located approximately
three miles east, south, and west of the City of Lumberton. The APE is comprised mostly
agricultural fields, however, in the eastern half there are more wooded tracts especially near the
Lumber River and along other streams and rivers.
The purpose of the survey is to confirm if archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for listing,
or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located
within the project APE for direct effects on archaeological resources. Background research was
conducted at OSA in Raleigh and using online resources from agency sites and historic archives.
The purpose of the background research was to provide historic context and natural setting
information and to review the results of previous research in and near the APE.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page iii of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
Kleinfelder conducted the archaeological survey between July 18 and August 9, 2022. A second
mobilization took place from September 28 to September 30, 2022, to survey reroutes of the main
alignment. The APE was given full consideration and included visual reconnaissance with digital
photographic documentation as well as intensive survey of areas without the following: standing
water, obvious heavy saturation, signs of very poor drainage, obvious disturbance by previous
earth moving activities, or erosion. For surface survey, if sufficient visibility (50 percent or greater)
was present, the intensive survey was conducted by pedestrian walkover transects at 10-m
intervals. In the acreages without sufficient surface visibility, intensive survey was conducted by
shovel tests placed at 30-m (approximately 100-ft) intervals. A total of 599 shovel tests were
excavated in the APE.
Four archaeological resources were previously recorded for the PNG Sutton Pipeline (Green et
al 2011; Green and Nagle 2010) and the proposed Highway 72 Rail Site (Southerlin 2016) that
are located in the APE for the proposed Line 479. They are 31 R13490, 31 R13491, 31 RB505 and
31 R13566. Sites 31 RB492, 31 RB565, and 31 RB634 are located within 30 m or less of the APE.
The only one of these three sites to extend into the APE was 31 RB565. Every attempt was made
to relocate previously recorded sites 31 RB490 and 31 RB566 within the APE, but no cultural
remains for either were documented during intensive survey for the Line 479 pipeline corridor at
the locations on file at OSA for these sites.
As a result of the survey, four newly identified archaeological resources (31 RB651, 31 RB652,
31 R13653, and 31 RB654) were recorded, and two previously recorded resources were relocated
and revisited (31 RB491 and 31 R13565). Site 31 RB654 is the Collins Family Cemetery that was
in use from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century and is marked on the 1972 USGS SW
Lumberton topographic map. It is a small family cemetery (15 graves) lacking significant historical
associations, exceptional design or artistic merit, and a substantial burial population that could
yield significant information per physical anthropological studies. It is recommended as not
eligible for listing in the NRHP but should be treated under North Carolina statutes regarding
cemeteries. Kleinfelder recommends placing at the minimum a 30-foot buffer around this
cemetery to avoid any impacts to it.
The other five sites are all historic domestic scatters. Three of these (31 R13491, 31 RB565, and
31 RB652) match up to projections based on structures from historic maps and aerial imagery. All
date to the late nineteenth to the twentieth century with 31 RB651 having more artifacts from the
20213937.001A I RAI-23R150042 Page iv of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
early nineteenth century. All the artifacts recovered from these sites were collected from the
surface or the plow zone of agricultural fields and were widely dispersed across documented site
areas indicating that none of them had intact cultural deposits. These fields have been impacted
by one or more centuries of plowing. In addition, many of the sites exhibit artifacts that are only
small fragments and reflect the impacts of repeated soil turnover by agricultural equipment.
Although these sites have yielded information regarding the approximate location of a site
potentially occupied as early as the nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide additional
information on nineteenth- to twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North
Carolina. The portion of these sites within the APE is recommended as not eligible for listing in
the NRHP. No further work is recommended.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page v of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY......................................................................................................III
FIGURES.................................................................................................................................
VII
TABLES.................................................................................................................................
VIII
1 INTRODUCTION
.............................................................................................................1
1.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE ...........................................
1
1.2
PROJECT STAFF....................................................................................
2
2 NATURAL SETTTING....................................................................................................6
2.1
PHYSIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................6
2.2
GEOLOGY AND SOILS...........................................................................
6
2.3
HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION..........................................................
8
3 CULTURAL CONTEXT...................................................................................................9
3.1
PRECONTACT BACKGROUND..............................................................
9
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period..........................................................................
9
3.1.2 Archaic Period...............................................................................
11
3.1.3 Woodland Period...........................................................................
13
3.2
HISTORIC BACKGROUND....................................................................
17
3.2.1 Early European Explorations and the Contact Period ...................
17
3.2.2 Post contact Period.......................................................................
19
3.3
PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE APE ...................................................
26
3.4
PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE APE VINCITY....................................
27
4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................31
4.1 METHODS.............................................................................................
31
4.1.1 Documentary Research................................................................
31
4.1.2 Field Methods................................................................................
31
4.1.3 Laboratory Methods......................................................................
33
4.1.4 Mapping/GIS.................................................................................
33
4.1.5 Evaluation.....................................................................................
33
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY STRATEGIES AND RESULTS .............
35
4.2.1 Introduction...................................................................................
35
4.2.2 Sites Descriptions and Recommendations ....................................
44
4.3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.............................................................
71
5 REFERENCES CITED..................................................................................................73
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page vi of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1-1 GENERAL LOCATION.....................................................................................3
FIGURE 1.1-2 APE ON ORTHO..............................................................................................4
FIGURE 1.1-3 APE ON TOPO.................................................................................................5
FIGURE 4.2-1 FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (AGRICULTURAL FIELD) .......................37
FIGURE 4.2-2 FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (WOODS) ............................................... 38
FIGURE 4.2-3 FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (OVERGROWN GRASS).........................39
FIGURE 4.2-4 FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (WETLAND LOGGING) ...........................40
FIGURE 4.2-5 FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (ROAD DISTURBED)...............................41
FIGURE 4.2-6 SITE LOCATIONS ON TOPO........................................................................42
FIGURE 4.2-7 INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB491........................................................49
FIGURE 4.2-8 FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB491 ......................50
FIGURE 4.2-9 INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB565........................................................51
FIGURE 4.2-10 FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB565 ......................52
FIGURE 4.2-11 INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB651.........................................................53
FIGURE 4.2-12 FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB651 ......................54
FIGURE 4.2-13 INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB652........................................................59
FIGURE 4.2-14 FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB562 ......................60
FIGURE 4.2-15 INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB653........................................................63
FIGURE 4.2-16
FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB653 ......................64
FIGURE 4.2-17
INDIVIDUAL SITE MAP SITE: 31 RB654........................................................65
FIGURE 4.2-18
FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB654 ......................67
FIGURE 4.2-19
GRAVE MARKERS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB654 .........................68
FIGURE 4.2-20
OTHER MARKERS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB654 .........................70
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page vii of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
TABLES
TABLE 2.2-1
DETAILED LIST OF SOILS IN THE APE.............................................................7
TABLE 3.3-1
SUMMARY OF RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INSIDE THE
APE...............................................................................................................................
26
TABLE 3.3-2
SUMMARY OF RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN A ONE -
MILE RADIUS AROUND THE APE..............................................................................28
TABLE 4.2-1
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVISITED (BOLD) OR
NEWLY RECORDED DURING THE CURRENT SURVEY...........................................43
TABLE 4.2-2
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31RB491 ............................45
TABLE 4.2-3
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31 RB565 ............................47
TABLE 4.2-4
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31 RB651 ............................55
TABLE 4.2-5
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31 RB652 ............................57
TABLE 4.2-6
DETAILS OF MARKED GRAVES FROM 31 RB654............................................66
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page viii of viii February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE
Kleinfelder completed an archaeological survey for a proposed transmission pipeline in Robeson
County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1-1). The survey was conducted for PNG, in a manner consistent
with compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects (Federal
Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 1983, P. 44716-44742, et seq.) as well as the guidelines
issued by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and the North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology (OSA). The cultural resources survey plan for the project was
reviewed and approved in consultation with OSA (Appendix B).
The purpose of the survey was to confirm if archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for, or
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within
the project area of potential effect (APE) for direct effects on archaeological resources. The
disturbance along the pipeline will be 80 feet (ft) wide (50 ft permanent, 30 ft temporary) and
includes the excavation, installation, and burial of the 12 in pipe and associated impact on the first
few feet of the ground surface from the heavy machinery required for this project. The trench
excavated to place the pipe will measure a minimum of 2 ft wide and 5 ft feet deep. The projects'
area APE addressing potential effects to archaeological resources is defined as the limits of
ground disturbance (LOD) which includes the main 27.5-mile-long pipeline alignment, the
temporary construction easement (TCE), 6.6 miles of temporary and permanent access
easements, and one 29.8 acre staging yard that will also be surveyed.
One previous survey has been conducted for a portion of the current APE (Green et al. 2011).
This survey addressed a 200-ft corridor along Line 175 (Sutton Pipeline) overlapping with 6.8 mi
of the current alignment. There are a few spots within with the TCE and access easements (15.1
acres) that do not overlap with this previous survey (see Figure 1). This investigation excluded
areas previously surveyed in 2010 and 2011, wetlands delineated by Kleinfelder in 2022, the
department of transportation right-of-way along roads. The APE involves 258.6 acres (104.7 ha),
as shown in Figure 1.1-2 and 1.1-3, in a rural portion of eastern Robeson County, located
approximately three miles east, south, and west of the City of Lumberton. The APE is comprised
mostly agricultural fields, however, in the eastern half there are more wooded tracts especially
near the Lumber River and along other streams and rivers. There are portions of the APE that
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 1 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
parallel Evergreen Church and Parnell Roads. The APE has been broken up into 22 Segments
(A-U) for planning purposes (see Figure 4.1-1 in Appendix A).
1.2 PROJECT STAFF
Kleinfelder conducted the archaeological survey between July 18 and August 9, 2022. A second
mobilization took place from September 28 to September 30, 2022, to survey reroutes of the main
alignment. A total of 91 person -days were required to complete the field portion of the survey.
Joseph Stair, MA, RPA was the principal investigator and project archaeologist. Liz Kizior, MS,
was the field director and Isaiah Moose, MA, was the crew chief. The project field crew included
senior technician Matt Donathan as well as technicians Anne O'Donnell MA, Nicholas
Nightenhelser BA, and Caitlin Rifenburg BA. Emilio Arias was the GIS and GPS coordinator, who
prepared the report graphics and GIS products. Mr. Stair conducted background research for site
analysis and historic context development. The artifacts from the investigation were processed
and analyzed by Amanda Stamper, MA, RPA. Mr. Stair prepared the site forms and the final
report.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 2 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 1.1-1
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 3 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

is
[ Scotland I
kCounty-fi
Dill
County
vp.r i ng Saint P,
FB I fad-e-nj
LC Zou-n t -y
I
Columbus
County
jr)
V
.4-
Pembroke
,7
V
0
711
•
r
N,,qvm 711
Ell
7
VA,
Lumberton
e'
-Its
140
&
y 21
Raynham
McDonald
Rowland
Sr
2 1 0 2
010o:::�
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED:
12/15/2022
Miles
141�
General Location Map
1 in = 2 miles
KLAff1NF-AffLA0AEA?
CREATED BY: EArias
BY:
is
The information —&d on this graphic has been —piled from. variety of
issmb;ecttuchangewithemtnedce.KleinfeldermakesnurepresenmtatiunsurCHECKED
LEGEND
Source: World Street and Open Street Map
and
is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
Bright People. Right Solutions.
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
Survey Areas (259 ac. were obtained from ESRI Basemap.
ftherf .. ti— —tth—IeHA.fthe
P.Iy-mg—i—mgthemf.—ti—
..W.kleinfelder.com
7Fle
Robeson County, North Carolina
See Path

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 1.1-2
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 4 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 1.1-3
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 5 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

'Po
�rtitiNc N�oaS,t� c�
20 � r�
y y
\y — w
I -o30
J
- 3
r Iy
,
f
C\
,
r`.
1521
Sil
07 a 1 ! c 65e
�
f SW F71 - - - - - - r �a� f \ _ ti b1'l1 r uin 'yi �i` •Y 1561- `• � r. / '.•t l�. - J \ `y� p � i ` y �i-`- •_; O so I j 1 - /Y ,3,
,
y I
'p _ ...0�^.�• �'\. _ - URC'Mt.( 1005 +Lirai.ch 1971 �� i
I
s-, a e7 ltte
T_A NAP r.. i �y Uin yi f 1972
y >�� P? ranch - a0 ). �1 Ytt hire Oak S
\•
1 \ 1• �iY -Barkerd
'-- - - - -
- /[�, Ten Mile �.-
4 _ 31RB566
_ / , • !c' of °'2 r \ >i - -I z �\�<�q o - >, o'�-' ti'`;
Gpp
e Bray 616 - \ a -Y- o
C !Ve-Ica" i - ..304- ,
t 1/
Z
,
m
3
_ f3
rh
\ -
h ' r - a"l,o
R Tel
1535 - r eadoty BrrLC
f 1 S \
Lum aolP !' � _lam
r kG
,r
ertan
ell <- �� ♦ \' Yss' y r b
qD
.-r--Ofi f� o� HST
r E 7T JO ~
ZP -' "-' • EP nNcH R� 31 RB490
p mac r / n e' .: o l - 1 1 i\ /, - -
/4 I tb ', Ao / Bf , Y - +-}.i / \mm , o . I
/A ti
ks u
;O
o c y wl A Dc
Elrod
o air, Ile
onof �
P x\\ rulrranch hfocc`asii1Br
ROBE SON COUNTY/(. O 'IC<-I�� / ,`4iPtA6a0
�i - �' ••., �'
2515 P `1
iN
a�
�✓f
Cob
31 RB491
31 RB654 i
%``� BRAN01 RO RQ
f SrH.rr
I�
1 / \ \ -
J .. [o
115i � •. — � ..17 Rraq -
2
-a_,c - 31RB651 � � _ �__ iTTMAN'gD _ P 2�
p — 1
q�wAN RU. - _ i - -\_ '- C Butters\
Tr -
1.5 0.75 0 1.5 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Miles �� CREATED: 12/15/2022 General Location Map
LEGEND 1 in = 2 miles KLE//VFEL�ER CREATED BY: EArias
Survey Areas (259 ac. ) e into oration Included on this graphic represen atlon has been compiled from a variety of ■
± roe and is subject to changewi ou[notice.Klelneldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor CHECKED BY: SD
renties, express or implied, as to accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or dghts to Me Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Previous) Survey Areas Green et. al 2011 Source: USGS Topographic Map was obtained userprauph inr°rmatlee rhisd°eument is n°[ intended for us, aa,land —sy product
y y ( ) eheofeesigtied--iIndedasae°nshi-spdeslgndecI,ttheneusenofthe \\ FILENAME: Line479
from ESRI Basemap. ertheroireeretie°titaithe W.hiegraphicr'preaenatleniaatthesnleriaknrthe5e www.kleinfelder.com Robeson County, North Carolina
Site Boundary pally usingnrmisusi^gmeinrnrmati° See File Path

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
2 NATURAL SETTTING
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY
The APE is located in central Robeson County around the City of Lumberton, North Carolina. The
location is part of the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. In general, the
Coastal Plain is an area of low elevation consisting of relatively unconsolidated beds of
terrestrially and marine -deposited sand, gravel, and clay sediments (Fenneman 1938:1-120;
Thornbury 1965:30-71). The Atlantic Coastal Plain includes Pleistocene terraces that range from
approximately 270 to 25 ft (82 to 8 meters [m]) above mean sea level (AMSL). The APE is located
on the Sunderland Terrace, with an elevation ranging approximately from 100 to 180 ft (11 to 13
m) AMSL. Overall, the Coastal Plain can be characterized as a flat to gently undulating
topographic province.
The proposed natural gas line corridor primarily crosses the center of upland flats on marine
terraces before they cross through drainages, wetlands, and Carolina bays. In some instances,
the APE parallels streams and wetland areas.
2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Most of the APE is located on the Duplin Formation Undivided which is characterized by shelly,
medium- to coarse -grained sand, sandy marl, and limestone, bluish gray. The central portion of
the APE where Phase 1 and Phase 2 intersect is located on the Black Creek Formation with clay,
gray to black, lignitic; contains thin beds and laminae of fine-grained micaceous sand and thick
lenses of cross -bedded sand. Glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses in upper part. These
are depicted and described on the Geologic Map of North Carolina (NCGS 1985).
The APE is located mostly on the Norfolk -Rains -Goldsboro soil association (McCachren 1978).
These soils are well drained to poorly drained soil, nearly level and gently sloping soils that have
a loamy subsoil. These soils are mostly found on uplands. Approximately 43.0 percent of the
APE is mapped as having very poorly drained, poorly drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils.
In general, these areas correspond to wetlands that are located along several of the creeks and
drainages as well as Carolina bays. The rest of the soils in the APE are mapped as excessively
well -drained, well -drained, or moderately well drained. There are no eroded or excessively sloped
(greater than 15 percent) area in the APE. More than half of the soils in the APE (those with good
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 6 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

(KLE/NFELCER
enght P-pi,. Right 5.1.6-.
drainage) were considered to have higher potential for sites of human habitation. Table 2.2-1
provides a detailed list of the soils in APE.
TABLE 2.2-1: DETAILED LIST OF SOILS IN THE APE (USDA/NRCS 2023)
SOIL NAME �F--
Bibb soils
DRAINAGE
CLASSIFICATION
Poorlydrained
ACRES
1.6
PERCENT
0.6%
Borrow pit
0.8
0.3%
Coxville loam
Poorly drained
7.5
2.9%
Dunbar sandy loam
Somewhat poorly
drained
2.3
0.9%
Du lin sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Moderately well drained
3.3
1.3%
Faceville fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Well drained
0.5
0.2%
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, Southern Coastal Plain
Moderately well drained
42.9
16.6%
Johns sandy loam
Moderately well drained
8.2
3.2%
Kalmia loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Well drained
2.6
1.0%
Lakeland sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Excessively drained
8.1
3.1 %
Leon sand
Poorly drained
0.6
0.2%
Lumbee sandy loam
Poorly drained
19.0
7.3%
Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Somewhat poorly
drained
7.8
3.0%
Marlboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Well drained
1.0
0.4%
Marlboro sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Well drained
0.4
0.2%
McColl loam
Poorly drained
2.0
0.8%
Meggett fine sandy loam
Poorly drained
0.5
0.2%
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Well drained
47.3
18.3%
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Well drained
4.2
1.6%
Pactolus loamy sand
Moderately well drained
1.9
0.7%
Pante o fine sandy loam
Very poorly drained
12.4
4.8%
Plummer and Osier soils
Poorly drained
5.9
2.3%
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Somewhat excessively
drained
11.8
4.6%
Portsmouth loam
Very poorly drained
7.8
3.0%
Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Poorly drained
37.7
14.6%
Rutle a loamy sand
Very poorly drained
3.2
1.2%
Toisnot loam
Poorly drained
0.1
0.0%
Torhunta loam
Very poorly drained
1.7
0.6%
Water
0.3
0.1 %
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
Well drained
14.3
5.5%
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Somewhat excessively
drained
1.0
0.4%
Total
258.6
100.0%
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 7 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
2.3 HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION
The APE is drained by many unnamed intermittent and ephemeral drainages that feed into Bear
Swamp, Holy Swamp, White Oak Branch, Raft Swamp, Jacks Branch, Lumber River, Jacob
Swamp, Little Jacob Swamp, Panther Branch, Cox Branch, Little Swamp, and Big Swamp. These
all feed into the Lumber River Drainage Basin. Close proximity to so many water sources greatly
increase the probability of finding archaeological resources. The APE is in the Southeastern
Evergreen Forest Region (Braun 1950). This region, essentially coextensive with the Coastal
Plain, is typified by its preponderance of coniferous trees. The portions of the project area under
cultivation have various degrees of crop cover mainly from soybeans, cotton, and corn. There
are wooded portions of the APE, but these are located adjacent to wetlands and streams. Some
of the larger wooded tracts had been recently logged. Most of the access easements ran along
pre-existing paved or dirt agricultural access roads
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 8 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
3 CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 PRECONTACT BACKGROUND
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period
Native American occupation of eastern North America dates to at least 12.8 to 13.1
thousand years ago, the conventional temporal boundary associated with the Clovis
tradition (Anderson et al. 2019; Waters et al. 2011). The evidence for occupations at this
time includes fluted projectile points (i.e., the Clovis type) (Griffin 1967; Justice 1987).
These points are generally scarce and often occur as isolated finds in disturbed surface
contexts. Geographic concentrations of fluted points, including the Clovis type and
related types such as Cumberland, occur in the eastern half of the United States. At least
444 fluted projectile points have been reported from North Carolina (Anderson and Faught
1998; Anderson et al. 2010). Other Paleoindian projectile point types found in North
Carolina are Redstone and Hardaway -Dalton (Daniel 2006). The points were used in the
context of a mobile subsistence pattern based upon hunting and gathering in a boreal
forest environment.
Evidence for much earlier New World lithic industries suggests that the makers of fluted points
may represent relatively late migrations to the New World. Alternatively, the distinct fluted point
technology may have developed within the New World in the context of Late Pleistocene
populations established prior to the Clovis temporal boundary (Anderson and Faught 1998;
Goebel et al. 2008; Meltzer 1989; Waters et al. 2011). The Cactus Hill site in southeastern Virginia
has produced lithic artifacts (prismatic blades, polyhedral cores, and bifaces) from sandy deposits
below intact Clovis horizons (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:179-180). Radiocarbon dating suggests
that the sub -Clovis material may date to as early as 17,000 radiocarbon years before present
(RCYBP), which is significantly earlier than the Clovis temporal boundary (Goodyear 2006;
McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:179-180). This stratified site is situated on a sand dune along the
Nottoway River. Stratification was the result of relatively steady aeolian sand deposition
throughout the occupation of the site (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:8-10; Wagner and McAvoy
2004). The Topper site, located in the Piedmont of South Carolina, has also been discussed as
a possible site of pre -Clovis occupations (Goodyear 1999, 2000, 2006), but the potential evidence
including concentrations of unusual microlithic artifacts reflecting a "smash -core" technology is
less well understood. The SV-2 site, located in the Saltville Valley (Valley and Ridge province) of
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 9 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
southwestern Virginia, has yielded a distinctive concentration of proboscidean bone in association
with a possible bone tool yielding a collagen date of 14,510±80 RCYBP (Goodyear 2006;
McDonald 2000).
An important North Carolina site yielding evidence of Paleoindian occupation is the Hardaway
site (31 ST4), which was found in an alluvial setting. This site is located in the Uwharrie Mountains
area on the west bank of the Yadkin River (Coe 1964:56; Ward and Davis 1999:38). Spanning
the boundaries of the northwestern, central, and southern Piedmont archaeological regions, this
area includes important sources of metavolcanic stone used throughout the state during the
various precontact periods (Daniel 1998, Ward and Davis 1999:38). Three fluted points,
mentioned in passing by Coe (1964:120) and recently reexamined by Daniel (2006), were
recovered from surface contexts at Hardaway. These have been classified as the Clovis or
Redstone types, which, respectively, represent the early and middle Paleoindian subperiods in
North Carolina (Daniel 2006:108). Hardaway -Dalton points represent late Paleoindian to Early
Archaic occupation of the site (Daniel 1998). Investigations of deposits at the Hardaway site form
the basis for the Paleoindian and Early Archaic sequences defined by Coe (1964) for the Carolina
Piedmont. Later investigations at sites along the Haw River in Chatham County served to
reconfirm the cultural -temporal framework (Claggett and Cable 1982).
Point types such as Hardaway Side -Notched mark the transition to the Early Archaic period (ca.
8000 B.C.) (Daniel 1998:52; Justice 1987:43). These points have been recovered from stratified
Paleoindian to Archaic contexts in eastern North America (Daniel 1998) and have characteristics
that are more typical of the side- and corner -notched traditions of the Early Archaic period (Ward
and Davis 1999:45).
The Paleoindian sequence for the Coastal Plain is generalized from the Piedmont data. In his
review of Coastal Plain archaeology, Phelps (1983) argues that stratified Paleoindian sites are
present on the Coastal Plain and await discovery through such means as predictive modeling.
Since the sea level rose during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition, it is also likely that a number
of coastal Paleoindian sites are currently submerged (Ward and Davis 1999:36). Phelps (1983)
had reported one possible Paleoindian site on the inner Coastal Plain in Pitt County. This site,
now known as Barber Creek (31 PT259), is located on a relict aeolian sand dune along Barber
Creek near its confluence with the Tar River. Excavations at the site have documented well -
stratified Woodland through Early Archaic deposits (Daniel et al. 2008; McFadden 2009). The
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 10 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
results demonstrate the importance of locating additional dune formations with potential for intact
stratified early to middle Holocene epoch sites. Research by Moore (2009a) has focused on the
identification and modeling of relict dune locations along the Tar River in Pitt and Edgecombe
Counties. His testing at the Owens Ridge site (31 ED369) has documented a source -bordering
dune from the edge of the Tar River upper paleo-braidplain. This dune yielded buried cultural
material including an Early Archaic Palmer Corner -Notched point base. Analysis of stratigraphy
and dating suggests the possibility of an earlier Early Archaic or late Paleoindian occupation
below a Palmer occupation (Moore 2009a:2).
3.1.2 Archaic Period
The Archaic period (8000-1000 B.C.) was a time of climatic change. A shift from boreal forests
to northern hardwoods occurred around the time of the Early Archaic period (8000-6000 B.C.).
During the early part portion of this time, a cool, moist climate prompted the expansion of species -
rich Mixed Hardwood Forest in the eastern United States (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt
and Delcourt 1985). During the drier and warmer Hypsithermal or Altithermal phase, which
roughly corresponds to the Middle Archaic period (6000-3000 B.C.), the Oak -Chestnut Forest
became dominant in the central and southern Appalachians, oak and hickory were replaced by
southern pine on the Coastal Plain, and the Oak -Hickory -Southern Pine Forest covered the
Piedmont (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985; Ward and Davis 1999:63).
These changes were accompanied by a gradual increase in population density, as concluded in
a recent study of statewide projectile point distribution and frequency trends (McReynolds 2005).
Population on the Coastal Plain, however, may have been relatively low compared to the
Piedmont (McReynolds 2005:29).
The Early Archaic Palmer phase (ca. 8000-7000 B.C.) is typified by a small corner -notched blade
with a straight, ground base and pronounced serrations (Ward and Davis 1999:55). During the
Early Archaic Kirk phase (ca. 7000-6000 B.C.) the points increased in size and basal grinding
declined (Ward and Davis 1999:55). Broad -stemmed, deeply serrated points (Kirk Serrated and
Kirk Stemmed) gradually replaced the earlier corner -notched style. The use of end scrapers
continued during the Early Archaic period, and other formal tools include gravers, drills, and
perforators (Coe 1964; Davis and Daniel 1990; Ward and Davis 1999:55). Both Palmer and Kirk
points are found on the Coastal Plain, but most are from surface contexts (Ward and Davis
1999:72-73). An exception to this comes from the recent work at the Barber Creek site (31 PT259)
in Pitt County, where the Palmer Corner Notched form was recovered from at least two subsurface
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 11 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
contexts in aeolian sediment (Choate 2011; McFadden 2009; Moore 2009b). Barber Creek has
also yielded three St. Albans points from subsurface contexts with chronometric dating consistent
with the Early Archaic period (Choate 2011). The St. Albans Side Notched type, with its notched
base, is described a bifurcate type and is diagnostic of the Early Archaic (6,900-6,500 B.C.; Davis
and Daniel 1990). Some researchers have pointed out that bifurcate points are not commonly
recovered from the North Carolina Coastal Plain (e.g. McFadden 2009). Ward and Davis (1999)
do not include bifurcates in their discussion of Early Archaic diagnostics of this region.
The Middle Archaic Stanly phase (ca. 6000-5500 B.C.) appears to have developed out of the
preceding phases (Coe 1964:122; Ward and Davis 1999:61) and is represented on the Coastal
Plain by the presence of Stanly Stemmed points. These points have a broad Christmas tree -
shaped blade and a square stem with basal notching. Based on Piedmont data, the major
difference in the Stanly phase artifact assemblage seems to be the appearance of polished stone
atlatl weights. Formal chipped stone tools, such as scrapers, are infrequently recovered, and
expedient flake tools were apparently sufficient for most processing tasks (Ward and Davis
1999:63).
The Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases also appear during the Middle Archaic period. Coe
(1964:122-123) considers these phases to be without local technological precedent and views
them as western intrusive horizons. Morrow Mountain Stemmed projectile points outnumber other
Middle Archaic types in the northern Coastal Plain region (Ward and Davis 1999:75). Both
Morrow Mountain I and II Stemmed projectile points are relatively small with a short, tapering
stem. Based on data from the Doerschuck site, Davis and Daniel (1990) date these points to
approximately 5500-5000 B.C. The analysis of material from the Haw River sites suggests that
the Morrow Mountain types may actually represent the continuation of the stemmed point tradition
(Claggett and Cable 1982). Claggett and Cable (1982:485) note a trend toward contracting stems
beginning with the Stanly tradition and "culminating with the extreme stem contraction that
characterizes the Morrow Mountain cluster."
Guilford projectile points, which represent "a potentially anomalous situation in the overall
Piedmont sequence" (Claggett and Cable 1982:39), are found in two forms: a lanceolate variety,
the most commonly recovered, and a form with a weakly developed stem. According to Davis
and Daniel (1990), this date to about 5000-4000 B.C. The Guilford type has been described as
"a thick, lanceolate bifacial cutting or piercing implement that apparently interrupts the Archaic
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 12 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
development trend from notched to stemmed points" (Claggett and Cable 1982:39). The apparent
deviation in development is all the more noteworthy when the Late Archaic Savannah River
projectile point, which represents clear evidence of a return to the Archaic developmental
continuum, is considered. A more recent study, however, has used mixed deposits and
transitional forms from the Lowder's Ferry site (31 ST7) in Stanly County to question the intrusive
interpretation for Guilford and Morrow Mountain points (Drye 1997). Even more recently, the
recovery of Savannah River, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford points from the same undisturbed
strata at a site in Randolph County (31 RD1166) provides evidence of cultural continuity during
the Archaic period (Lautzenheiser et al. 1999:62).
The Halifax phase was identified from the Gaston site (31 HX7) on the Roanoke River near the
fall line transition zone (Coe 1964). The Halifax point type, usually made of vein quartz or
quartzite, is a slender blade with shallow side notches. The base and side notches were usually
ground. At the Gaston site, the Halifax zone occurs above Guilford material, suggesting a late
Middle Archaic temporal affiliation. The Halifax point is well represented in the northern Coastal
Plain (Phelps 1983), and Coe (1964:123) has proposed a northern origin for the Halifax phase.
The Late Archaic period of the Coastal Plain is marked by the Savannah River phase (3000 to
1000 B.C.). During this time evidence for larger sites suggests a more settled lifestyle and the
framework for the emergence of pottery and horticulture (Ward 1983; Ward and Davis 1999:75).
Typical artifacts include steatite bowls and the Savannah River projectile point, which has a large,
heavy, triangular blade and a broad stem (Coe 1964:44; Phelps 1983). Oliver (1985) has noted
that the smaller variant, the Small Savannah River Stemmed point, serves as a temporal marker
for the later part of the Savannah River phase.
The earliest ceramics recorded in the Carolinas are fiber -tempered sherds made as early as 2500
B.C. These Stallings series ceramics have been recovered from South Carolina and the southern
Coastal Plain region of North Carolina and reflect larger developments along the south Atlantic
coast (Ward and Davis 1999:76; Phelps 1983).
3.1.3 Woodland Period
The Early Woodland period (1000 B.C.-300 B.C.) and its transition from the Archaic period is the
least known of the precontact periods from the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983). Much of what is
known is based upon the study of ceramic assemblages, and "because few Early Woodland
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 13 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
components have been isolated stratigraphically, the detailed studies needed to clarify
interregional temporal relationships are not possible at this time" (Ward and Davis 1999:201).
The Deep Creek series, first defined at the Parker site (31 ED29) in Edgecombe County, has been
defined as the Early Woodland ceramic series for the northern Coastal Plain (Phelps 1981 a:57-
105, 1983). The Parker assemblage includes coarse -sand -tempered sherds with primarily cord -
marked, but also net -impressed, fabric -impressed, and simple -stamped surface treatments.
Since the initial definition of the series, one calibrated radiocarbon date of 1120 B.C. has been
reported in association with a net -impressed vessel (Eastman 1994). This date, however, is
suspected to be too early, especially since net -impressed surfaces are thought to represent a
later development in the series (Ward and Davis 1999:201-202). Recent work by Roberts (2011),
using a robust assemblage from the Barber Creek site (31 PT259) in Pitt County, refines the series
definition to include medium- to very coarse -sand tempered sherds (with some larger temper
elements) along with the surface treatments described by Phelps (1983).
Byrd (1999), attempting to clarify interregional relationships, suggests that the Deep Creek series
is broadly related to other sand -tempered series defined for adjacent regions. These series
include New River (southern Coastal Plain), Badin (North Carolina Piedmont), and Stony Creek
(Eastern Virginia). He also places the shell -tempered Mockley series into the Early Woodland
temporal period (Byrd 1999). Mockley ceramics, previously attributed to the Middle Woodland
period in Virginia and Delaware, have been recovered along the Chowan River and the Currituck
Sound (Ward and Davis 1999:203). Other materials associated with the Early Woodland period
of the northern Coastal Plain include large Roanoke Triangular projectile points and possibly
steatite vessels (Phelps 1983).
The Middle Woodland period (300 B.C.-A.D. 800) of the northern Coastal Plain is the Mount
Pleasant phase (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999:203). Mount Pleasant series vessels are
tempered with sand and "larger clastic inclusions (pebbles, `grit') in varying amounts" (Phelps
1983:32). Green (1986:77) describes the temper as "granular to very coarse sized (about 1-3
mm) rock particles, chiefly quartz and feldspar, comprising 3-15 percent of the paste." Departing
from Phelps, Herbert (2003:71) has restricted the definition of the Mount Pleasant series to
vessels with granule- to pebble -sized quartz inclusions or granules and clay. Vessels with only
fine -to -medium -sand inclusions are excluded from his series definition, and he notes that there
are, in general, difficulties with classification of sand -tempered materials.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 14 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Mount Pleasant surfaces can be fabric -impressed, cord -marked, net -impressed, smoothed, or
plain with incised lines (Phelps 1983), and Herbert's (2003) formal types are based on the
following surface finishes: fabric impressed, cord marked, net impressed, simple stamped,
punctuated, and plain. Radiocarbon dates associated with Mount Pleasant ceramics at the Rush
Point site (31 DR15) and the Tillet site (31 DR35), both in Dare County, range from approximately
A.D. 200 to 800 (Phelps 1983; Eastman 1994). Recent radiocarbon dates for Mount Pleasant
features from 31 WL37 in Wilson County have calibrated intercepts ranging between A.D. 980 and
1290. The Mount Pleasant ceramics associated with these dates are primarily fabric -impressed
(Millis 2001:393). Radiocarbon dates from the Mabrey Bridge site (31 ED333) in Edgecombe
County suggest that ceramics assigned to the Mount Pleasant series were used as late as A.D.
1000 and possibly later. The associated sherds are both cord -marked and fabric -impressed
(Bamann 2006:192).
The Hanover series, a clay- or grog -tempered series defined for the southern Coastal Plain by
South (1976), appears in minor amounts in Middle Woodland assemblages of the northern
Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983). Herbert and Mathis (1996) and Herbert (1999) have expanded the
series definition. For example, though the series was first identified by the presence of "grog"
(crushed sherd) temper, Herbert and Mathis (1996) argue that unfired clay pellets and prefired
clay pellets may also occur as temper and Herbert (2003:74-77; 191) notes that clay, clay and
sand, grog, and grog and sand temper is found. Surface impressions on Hanover sherds include
coarse weft -faced, fine to medium weft -faced, or simple interlaced or twined fabrics, as well as
parallel or perpendicular cord -marking (Herbert and Mathis 1996). Herbert (2003:74-77) also
includes net -impressed, simple -stamped, paddle -edge stamped, plain, check -stamped, and
smoothed -over stamped surfaces in the series. Phelps (1981 b:42) notes that some Mount
Pleasant sherds may also have clay temper, suggesting that some Hanover sherds at northern
Coastal Plain sites may represent local tempering traditions rather than patterns of southern
interaction.
The Late Woodland period (A.D. 800-1650) is the last precontact period for the northern Coastal
Plain, and the associated archaeological assemblages have been linked to historically
documented tribal or linguistic groups. The artifact assemblage of the Cashie phase, which
Phelps (1983) associates with the Late Woodland and contact -period Tuscarora occupation of
the northern inner Coastal Plain, includes a pebble -tempered ceramic series with a distinctive
interior finish (Green 1986:72-74; Phelps 1983). The temper is described as "often protruding
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 15 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
through vessel walls to the surface although in most cases a final interior finishing has smoothed
over the lumps" (Phelps 1980:48). Green states that the reduced interior surface "appears almost
burnished to the senses, and is characteristic of Cashie ware" (1986:72). Exterior surfaces are
fabric -impressed, simple -stamped, and plain. Rims are straight or everted and can also be folded
to the exterior. Punctuations, incisions, and finger pinching can be found as decorations on vessel
rims. Associated calibrated radiocarbon dates at the Jordan's Landing site (31 BR7), the Thorpe
site, the Tower Hill site (31 LR1), 31 WL37, and the Mabrey Bridge site (31 ED333) fall between
A.D. 786 and A.D. 1680 (Bamann 2006:240; Eastman 1994; Millis 2001:377). Other items in the
Cashie assemblage include pipes, bone awls and perforators, shell beads, small Roanoke and
Clarksville triangular projectile points, blades, celts, milling stones, and drills (Phelps 1983).
Evidence from the Jordan's Landing village site (31 BR7) in Bertie County suggests a mixed
economy that included crops, game, and freshwater resources. Historic seasonal hunting camps
were documented (Ward and Davis 1999:224).
Shell -tempered Colington series ceramics of the northern estuarine Coastal Plain area are
associated with Late Woodland and Contact period Algonkian-speaking groups (Ward and Davis
1999:211). Colington ceramics have fabric -impressed, simple -stamped, plain, and incised
exteriors. Simple or folded rims can be incised or punctuated and diagonally marked with a dowel
or fabric -wrapped paddle edge on the interior (Green 1986:69-71; Phelps 1983). Projectile points
associated with the Colington phase are a small triangular type, and shell tools and beads,
together with bone tools, are also recovered. Site locations are concentrated along streams,
sounds, and estuaries. Site types include seasonal shellfish gathering and fishing camps,
longhouse village sites in areas suitable for horticulture, and ossuary sites located near the
villages (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999:211-216).
Initial contact with Europeans began in the sixteenth century and is known as the Protohistoric
period. On the northern section of the coast, the first contact took place in 1584, when an
expedition led by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe arrived off the Outer Banks along with the
artist John White and the scientist Thomas Harriot, whose writings and drawings provide the first
documentary evidence of the local inhabitants in the region. Algonkian-speaking peoples endured
the effects of early interaction with British explorers and colonists on Roanoke Island before
retreating in the face of larger -scale settlement activities around Albemarle Sound, beginning in
the 1650s (Powell 1989:15-16). In the southern portion of North Carolina's coast, Siouan
speakers referred to as the Cape Fear Indians first encountered European explorers Lucas
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 16 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Vasques de Ayllon and Giovanni da Verrazona in the 1520s. They were still residing in the area
when the first short-lived settlement, known as Charles Towne, was established at the mouth of
the Cape Fear River from 1661-1667. However, the Cape Fear Indians had disappeared by 1725
when British colonists from South Carolina established the first permanent settlement in the Cape
Fear region. Like many other Native Americans, they suffered the effects of newly introduced
diseases, became engaged in conflicts with Europeans, experienced geographic displacement,
and either joined other groups or died out entirely as their numbers thinned (Dobyns 1985; Mintz
et al. 2011). Cultural patterns observed in the Late Woodland archaeological record continued
into the Protohistoric period, with the addition of European trade goods in the material
assemblage. Based on historic -period accounts, it is known that native groups in the project
region were organized as ranked, kin -based societies; they lived in semi -permanent villages,
where they maintained garden plots as well as fishing, hunting, and collecting a variety of wild
foods. Chiefly descent was reckoned through matrilineage, and polygyny was practiced (Swanton
1946). These cultural patterns changed as a result of interaction with European colonists.
3.2 HISTORIC BACKGROUND
3.2.1 Early European Explorations and the Contact Period
At the time of the first European explorations of North Carolina, Algonkian peoples were known
to still inhabit the Tidewater region in the northern Coastal Plain, and the Tuscarora were located
in the interior (Phelps 1983). The Tuscarora are generally identified as the historic period
descendants of the precontact Cashie phase peoples (Phelps 1983). The historic Tuscarora were
members of the Iroquoian language family. Although agriculturalists, they relied on extensive
hunting and gathering. Their settlement pattern appears to have included both dispersed
groupings of houses near arable land and seasonal hunting quarters (Boyce 1978; Byrd 1997).
The English settlement of Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 was the first successful one in North
America. In the 1650s, scores of Virginians pushed south into the Albemarle region of North
Carolina, in pursuit of new, richer lands (Ready 2005). These early settlers sought to accumulate
large estates and speculate in land, as had been done in Virginia, as opposed to the compact
settlements and relatively small holdings proposed in the Concessions and Agreements of 1665
and in the Fundamental Constitutions (Ready 2005:42). Around the 1650s, settlement began
pushing toward the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Settlers purchased their land from the local
Native Americans and recorded their grants in Virginia (Powell 1988:21). By the 1660s the
Albemarle region was the site of the only structured government in the Carolinas colony (Baxley
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 17 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
and Powell 2006). In 1662 Samuel Stephens, the son of a member of Virginia's House of
Burgesses and the owner of vast acreage in Albemarle, was appointed "commander of the
southern plantation" by the Virginia Council (Daniels 2005; Powell 1988:22). By 1663,
approximately 500 Euro American colonists had settled in the Albemarle area; however, due to
its distance from Jamestown, the area was thought to be a haven for runaway servants, debtors,
thieves, fleeing criminals, and pirates (Powell 1988:27; Walbert 2023a). By 1696 settlements on
the northern side of Albemarle Sound were expanding, and Bath County was formed near the
Pamlico River. In 1705 a colony of French Huguenots who had been dissatisfied in Virginia had
resettled there (Powell 1988:29).
In the mid -sixteenth century, more than 100,000 Native Americans are thought to have been living
in present-day North Carolina, with the Tuscarora, Catawba, and Cherokee being the largest
tribes. Many of the Tuscarora lived in the Coastal Plain region, while the Catawba lived in the
Piedmont, and the Cherokee in the mountain region to the west (Claggett 1995). The Iroquoian
Nottoways and Meherrin tribes lived in autonomous villages at the current -day border between
Virginia and North Carolina. The Iroquoian Tuscarora were the most populous and powerful tribe
in eastern North Carolina, with settlements located along Coastal Plain rivers (Bishir and Southern
1996:8).
European settlement was confined to the Coastal Plain into the early eighteenth century. The first
recorded Euro-American expedition to North Carolina's Piedmont region was led by John Lawson
in 1700-1701, traveling north from the southern coast of the Carolinas (present-day Charleston)
on a native trading path, crossing the Yadkin River and turning east near present day High Point
(Holloman 2004; North Carolina Historic Sites 2023; Valentine 2002:4). After visiting Occaneechi
Town (near present-day Hillsborough), they crossed the falls of the Neuse River in present-day
Wake County and arrived at a Tuscarora settlement near Wilson County, which may have been
the town of Tosneoc (present-day Toisnot) (North Carolina Historic Sites 2023; Valentine 2002:4).
By 1711, settlements had spread up the Tar and Neuse Rivers, as coastal Native American
groups became displaced by the European settlement that had also moved into the interior. The
Tuscarora, along with other Native American groups, alarmed at the threat to their homeland,
attacked the settlements on September 22, 1711, which resulted in the Tuscarora War. This war
lasted almost three and a half years (Lee 1963:21), during which the Tuscarora built several
protective forts. After the signing of a peace treaty in 1715, the Tuscarora were granted a
20213937.001A I RAI-23R150042 Page 18 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
reservation on the north side of the Roanoke River; thus, having lost their native land in North
Carolina (La Vere 2013). The remaining Tuscarora moved to a reservation north of the Roanoke
River and to Pennsylvania and New York. The present-day Tuscarora tribe's members remaining
in North Carolina are centered primarily in Robeson County (Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina
2013). The Lumbee tribe, descendants of the Siouan Cheraws who fought against the Tuscarora,
are also centered in Robeson County, with their economic, cultural, and political center at
Pembroke (Lumbee Tribe 2023).
3.2.2 Post contact Period
While many of those settling in the northern areas of the Carolinas became small tobacco planters
with few enslaved workers, the southern part of the colony in the sphere of Charles Town
developed extensive rice plantations with large, enslaved work forces during the seventeenth
century to support the sugar plantations in the West Indies (Independence Hall Association 2014).
In 1712, North and South Carolina were divided, and in 1719 the land in South Carolina —with
more resources and more potential for taxation — was acquired by Britain's King George I from
seven of the Lords Proprietors, and it became a royal colony (Walbert 2023b). In 1727 King
George I ordered the boundary between Virginia and the northern Carolina territory to be
surveyed, and in 1729, North Carolina also became a royal colony (Powell 1988:35). Permanent
settlement along the Cape Fear, the earliest in the southern part of North Carolina, began in the
late 1720s, with colonists moving northward from South Carolina. Although North Carolina had
approximately 36,000 residents when it became a royal colony in 1729, more than 80 percent
were concentrated around Albemarle Sound. Significant expansion of the colony, however, was
on the horizon and by 1760, a population of 130,000 stretched from the coast to the Blue Ridge
Mountains (Connor 1919:144). A system of plantation agriculture developed as planters used
enslaved labor to cultivate wheat, corn, peas, and tobacco, as well as apples and peaches for
brandy. Timber and forest products from North Carolina's pine forests including shingles, planks,
barrel staves and heads were produced, as were the commodities of turpentine, tar, and pitch
used by the Royal Navy (Griffin 1976; North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 2014a;
Powell 1988:42-43). From about 1720 to 1870, North Carolina led the world in the production of
naval stores (Lefler and Newsome 1973:97).
Expansion into the backcountry of southern North Carolina began during the mid-1700s and the
Inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions of the colony began seeing increasing numbers of
settlers. Colonists from northern colonies, who travelled down the Great Wagon Road into North
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 19 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Carolina from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, were lured to the colony by large amounts
of fertile land. These colonists generally migrated in family or community groups and created
small settlements that reinforced these bonds. The result was a number of rural settlements
scattered along the inland landscape, with some small villages that served as trading centers
(Kars 2002:15-18).
In addition to the settlers from the north, who were primarily of English descent, other groups also
migrated to the inland portion of southern North Carolina during the eighteenth century. Scottish
Highlanders began arriving in the colony as early as 1729, with the first large group landing in
1739. Their numbers increased significantly during the 1760s and 1770s, with colonists of Scottish
descent making up 7.5 percent of North Carolina's population by 1790. Fleeing poverty and high
rents charged by English landholders in their own country, they came to North Carolina to improve
their fortunes. The majority of the Scottish Highlanders landed at Wilmington and began moving
up the Cape Fear River and its tributaries looking for unclaimed land. They eventually settled near
Cross Creek, which had been established by Wilmington merchants in 1754, and founded the
village of Campbellton; the two villages were subsequently combined into the town of Fayetteville.
As the population of Scottish colonists grew, they spread out among settlements that were within
many present-day counties, including: Anson, Bladen, Richmond, Robeson, and Scotland (Inter -
University Consortium for Political and Social Research [ICPSR]; Watson 1992; Connor 1919).
In addition to Scottish Highlanders, other groups immigrated to the inland areas of North Carolina
during the mid- to late 1700s. Scots -Irish settlers, who were people of Scottish descent who had
been living in Northern Ireland since the early 1600s, sought land and religious freedom in the
American colonies. During the eighteenth century, approximately 250,000 Scots -Irish came to the
colonies, with a large number landing in Philadelphia and settling in the inland areas of
Pennsylvania. High land prices and border disputes with Maryland, however, caused some of
these settlers to move southward into Virginia and North Carolina. Following the Great Wagon
Road, Scots -Irish families began applying for land grants in the newly formed Anson County in
1749. Small groups of Scots -Irish landed at Charleston, Wilmington, and New Bern as well,
traveling along the rivers into unsettled inland areas (Hoefling 2005:52-55; Connor 1919:165).
Groups of Welsh, English, and German settlers also joined the influx into the backcountry during
the 1700s. All of these new immigrants to the North Carolina colony established communities
around their traditional religious beliefs and endeavored to retain much of their language and
customs over the ensuing decades (Connor 1919:168, 176).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 20 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
In these interior areas, landholdings were generally smaller than they were along the coast.
Settlements were primarily comprised of small farmers, who owned few or no slaves, and crops
were often planted among the trees that remained on large expanses of uncleared farmland.
Although many crops were grown for home consumption, corn was the main agricultural product
of the region during the eighteenth century. Corn was a versatile crop that could be used for both
human consumption and fodder for livestock; mills were built to process the corn into meal that
would be stored for winter or easily transported. Backcountry farmers also planted wheat, rye,
barley, oats, tobacco, flax, and hemp, raised livestock, and engaged in the production of naval
stores. Garden produce and hunting wild game supplemented their diets. Although the majority
of farm products were used for home consumption, excess yields, as well as the timber, tar, pitch,
and turpentine produced from the pine forests, were traded in nearby towns to supplement the
income of these small, self-sufficient farmers (Connor 1919:189-190; Hoefling 2005:57-58).
These agricultural practices would continue through the eighteenth and into the nineteenth
century.
The transportation network of eighteenth -century North Carolina necessitated the self-sufficiency
of interior residents, since the primary roads of the colony ran more north -south than east -west,
connecting the area to Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Georgia instead of the coastal
settlements within the colony. Transportation from inland settlements to the coast was primarily
via rivers and streams, although many of these were navigable only for limited stretches. Lack of
easy transportation options made the trade of a single staple crop unprofitable, preventing, the
backcountry residents of North Carolina from developing a plantation -based economy similar to
coastal settlements (Ready 2005:65).
In 1729, as settlers moved into the Cape Fear region. New Hanover County was created from
Craven County and encompassed all of southern North Carolina. Only five years later, interior
migration had increased enough that Bladen County was formed from the western portion of New
Hanover. In 1750, the western portion of Bladen County was separated to form Anson County
and, in 1764, Brunswick County was created from the southern portion of New Hanover. The
eastern portion of Anson County was formed into Richmond County in 1779 and the western part
of Bladen County was split off to form Roberson County in 1786. In 1808, Columbus County was
formed from portions of Bladen and Brunswick counties. The final county in the project area,
Scotland, was formed in 1899 from the eastern portion of Richmond County (Corbitt 1950).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 21 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
By the 1760s, North Carolina's relations with England were strained because of the history of
ineffective colonial government. The Stamp Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in
March 1765, taxed all printed paper in the American colonies, including shipping documents.
Opposition to the act in the colonies was almost immediate, especially in port cities. Tensions
grew between colonists and the colonial government during the 1760s and 1770s, and when
fighting began at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, in April 1775, North Carolina colonists
saw a parallel to their own earlier struggles against the Stamp Act. With open warfare seemingly
inevitable. North Carolina colonists aligned themselves as either Patriots (Whigs) or Loyalists
(Tories). Provincial Congresses had been held during 1774 and 1775 and the third of these
congresses, in August 1775, organized the enlistment of the colony's citizens in the Continental
Army. A 13-member Committee of Safety was organized to oversee the colony's resistance to the
British. The Halifax Resolves, which were the colony's official endorsement of pursuing
independence from England, were adopted by the Provincial Congress in April 1776 and were
presented to the Continental Congress by delegates from North Carolina in May (Connor
1919:384-388; Russell 2000:80-84). Although little actual fighting occurred in North Carolina, the
residents still felt the effects of the Revolutionary War. The colony sent soldiers to join the
Continental Army and the North Carolina troops saw significant action during the war. As British
troops attempted to secure the Carolina backcountry during 1780 and 1781, some skirmishes
took place in North Carolina. British General Charles Cornwallis marched through Bladen,
Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and New Hanover counties during 1780 and 1781, while the Continental
Army under General Nathaniel Greene moved through Anson County.
During the antebellum period, North Carolina retained its agriculture character and its population
consisted primarily of subsistence farmers. At the turn of the nineteenth century, with the
exception of Wilmington on the coast, the southern portion of the state had only a few small towns
that were spread throughout the landscape of farms (Figure 3.3). Contemporary observers
referred to North Carolina as "a state asleep", due to the limited industry, inadequate education
and transportation systems, and lack of sufficient capital in the state's three small banks (Ready
2005:164). Connections between the coastal population and the settlers who had migrated to
interior counties were few, as the limited number of roads in the state were poorly maintained.
Rivers that could not support navigation far upstream hindered the shipment of products to and
from the state's interior counties, making the development of a single cash crop economy nearly
impossible (Ready 2005:163).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 22 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
During the first three decades of the 1800s, there was a growing disconnect between the eastern
and western areas of the state, with the dividing line between the two sections running
approximately through Robeson County. Spurred by vast expanses of unclaimed land, settlers
were pushing farther westward during the early nineteenth century, increasing the population of
the western counties; however, the majority of the state's taxable wealth remained in the east.
Additionally, eastern counties had already developed with slavery as an established institution,
while many of the western settlers owned no slaves and the institution did not gain hold to the
same extent. The western counties resented the large percentage of representatives from the
eastern cities and counties in the state legislature, which was maintained by the larger number of
slaves and the borough franchise that allowed older towns to have their own representatives,
separate from those of the county. The western population also sought internal improvements
that would provide transportation for their crops and allow them access to the markets in the east,
north, and south (Ready 2005:164-167). In 1835, a new state constitution addressed some of
these concerns by eliminating the borough franchise and creating more equal representation,
allowing North Carolina's government to begin fostering further development. The new
constitution also enacted harsh restrictions to free blacks in the state, including eliminating their
right to vote. This laid the foundation for the passage of strict "black codes" in the years that
followed and aligned North Carolina's stance on blacks and slavery with that of other southern
states (Ready 2005:176-177).
The most profitable economic pursuits, however, were lumber and naval stores production. These
two industries exploited the vast forest resources of North Carolina and were often carried out by
slave labor, who could be more profitably deployed in pine forests than in agricultural fields in
areas were soils were poor and yields were low (Sharpe 1958). The Lumber River, which is one
of the primary drainage basins within the project corridor, derived its name from the harvesting of
timber along its banks and the transportation of the trees by floating them downriver. Tar, pitch,
and turpentine are the three main naval stores, all produced from pine trees. Tar was made by
extracting the gum residue from dead pine wood in an earth covered kiln (Perry 1968). Dead pine
wood and branches were piled in a circle in the kiln and then covered with earth and pine straw;
here they would be burned slowly to extract tar. As the kiln was fired, tar flowed down the sides
of the floor into the gutter (or conduit), from which it could be collected (Outland 1996; Robinson
1997).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 23 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, tar and pitch were the most produced naval store
products, but after 1830, 'with changes in usage and demand, the focus shifted to distilled
turpentine. Turpentine was an effective solvent for crude rubber, and as rubber production
increased in the 1830s the need for such a product also increased. Spirits of turpentine were also
being developed as a lighting source, as a turpentine and alcohol mixture called camphene was
becoming an inexpensive and popular replacement for whale oil. The increased demand for these
products required an increase in their production, a situation to which North Carolina, quickly
adapted (Perry 1968; Outland 1996). The period from 1824 to 1860 saw a marked increase in the
production of naval stores within the state, which had over 1,600 turpentine distilleries by 1860.
The production of naval stores was the only industry in the state that was carried out primarily for
the purposes of exportation of products, with over 66 percent of the nation's turpentine produced
in North Carolina and approximately half of that production occurring in Bladen and New Hanover
counties (Ready 2005:183-184).
The advent of railroad technology provided a transportation method that was more reliable and
less expensive for the transportation of agricultural products from farms in the interior of the state,
providing access to markets along the coast, as well as in South Carolina and Virginia. Although
the idea of a railroad in North Carolina had begun in the 1820s, the first tracks were not laid in the
state until the 1830s, when the Petersburg Railroad (operating in Virginia) extended its tracks nine
miles into its southern neighbor to the town of Halifax. The state-owned North Carolina Railroad
continued to build additional tracks and claimed 223 miles of tracks within the state in 1856. This
development of the railroad fostered growth in the small communities that the tracks passed
through and resulted in North Carolina having the best interior railroad system in the South at the
beginning of the Civil War (Ready 2005:179-181).
In 1860, the question of whether to secede from the Union again divided the eastern portion of
North Carolina from the western portion. The majority of the slaveholders in the state were located
in the eastern portion, while in many of the western counties only a small percentage of whites
owned slaves. In Wilmington, demonstrators publicly supported secession, while voters in the
western counties had Unionist sentiments. North Carolina joined other southern states in
seceding in May 1861, five months after South Carolina became the first state to secede (Barrett
1963:6-10). The Civil War disrupted trade and transportation throughout North Carolina.
Blockades interrupted the shipments of naval stores out of North Carolina, nullifying the most
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 24 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
profitable economic venture of many of the southern counties. However, few major battles were
fought within the state and none in Robeson County.
The conclusion of the Civil War meant an end to military engagements, but it also brought
devastating consequences to much of the former Confederacy. The prevailing economic system,
which had been based on slavery, was abolished. Debt within the southern states was high, while
destruction of property during the war limited efforts to return to a semblance of normal life. Both
soldiers returning from war, many severely wounded, and former slaves needed to find new ways
to integrate into society (Ready 2005:250-253).
Despite the end of slavery, agriculture continued to dominate much of the region after the Civil
War, although crop production fell during the early Reconstruction era. In areas where the
landholdings had been large, these plantations were often broken up into smaller units. Most
owners could no longer afford such large holdings, since they could not make them profitable
without slave labor. In Robeson County, the total number of farms increased significantly from
1,161 in 1860 to 7,666 in 1930 while the average acreage per farm decreased (Ready 2005:
ICPSR).
During the late nineteenth century, tenancy and sharecropping developed across the south, as
landless farmers, both black and white, sought arrangements that would allow them to continue
farming to support their families. The newly freed black slaves were forced into these
arrangements because they had no land, little money, and few other options. As the 1800s drew
to a close, many white farmers succumbed to large debts and also became tenants for large
landholders. Two categories of tenancy developed, cash tenants and share tenants. Cash tenants
provided their own tools and seed, gaining ownership of the crop they produced while paying rent
on their house and land to the landlord. Sharecroppers could not afford their own tools or seeds;
the landlords supplied these items and subtracted their value from the farmer's share of the crop.
Both systems resulted in many small farmers living meager existences (Ready 2005:284-290).
In Robeson County, however, percentages of sharecroppers and cash tenants were relatively
low. Black farmers were more likely to work under cash or share tenancy arrangements, with
greater than 50 percent of their farms worked by cash or share tenants. These statistics indicate
that in large portions of the project area, farmers were able to retain ownership of their farms,
however small, and resisted falling into cash tenancy or sharecropping (ICPSR).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 25 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
6rrght PeoA�e. Ri4hi Snlutivns.
The late nineteenth and early twentieth century brought periods of growth and development to
southern North Carolina, especially in the Piedmont. The resumption of railroad construction after
the Civil War brought relative prosperity to many small towns located along the railroad routes.
Existing railroad routes were expanded, new routes linking the western portion of the state to the
coast were built, and smaller companies were purchased and consolidated into large railroad
conglomerations. In the Piedmont counties, small mill operations had begun before the Civil War,
but larger, industrialized textile mills became a dominant feature in the economy during the last
decades of the 1800s (Ready 2005:170-173).
The twentieth century brought changes and economic development to large portions of North
Carolina. Although family farms were gradually being replaced by larger scale agricultural
ventures, the southeastern portion of the state retained its overwhelmingly rural character and
agriculture remained the primary economic activity at the turn of the century. This is illustrated in
Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 (See Appendix A) showing the primarily agricultural setting of the APE in
1950 and 1970. As the century progressed, the gradual adoption of mechanical farm practices
and larger landholdings decreased the number of agricultural jobs available (Ready 2005).
3.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE APE
Four archaeological resources including 31 RB490, 31 RB491, 31 RB505, and 31 RB566 were
previously recorded for the PNG Sutton Pipeline (Green et al 2011; Green and Nagle 2010) and
the proposed Highway 72 Rail Site (Southerlin 2016) and are located within the current APE for
the proposed Line 479 (see Table 3.3-1).
TABLE 3.3-1
SUMMARY OF RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INSIDE THE APE
•
•D OF OCCUPATION
STATUS
31 RB490
Archaic and Woodland lithic and ceramic scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB491
Historic Domestic Scatter; Unattributed Precontact
Not Eligible
lithic isolated find
31 RB505
20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB566
20th century farm complex
Unassessed
All previously recorded sites in the APE were part of the cultural resources survey performed by
S&ME for the Sutton Pipeline project (Green et al 2011; Green and Nagle 2010), except for
31 RB566 which was recorded as part of a reconnaissance for the Highway 72 Rail Site (Southerlin
2016). Site 31 RB490 is an Early Archaic and Woodland period site located in the woods and an
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 26 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
agricultural field on a terrace adjacent to Big Swamp. The initial shovel testing recovered
diagnostic artifacts from 20 shovel tests from depths between 0-80 cmbs, some beneath the plow
zone. A possible post mold was also recorded. To better determine this site's eligibility to the
NRHP, eight 1-x-1-m test units were excavated as part of a Phase II investigation (Green et al
2011; Green and Nagle 2010). It was clear from this effort, that the site had a low density of
artifacts, poor stratigraphic integrity, and a lack of features (the post mold was modern) resulting
in the site not being recommended as to eligible to the NRHP. Site 31 RB491 is a mid -twentieth
century house site and precontact isolated find located on an upland flat in agricultural field. Five
shovel tests yielded a total of 36 artifacts and 12 more were collected from the surface. This site
was recommended as not eligible because all the artifacts came from the plow zone or surface.
Site 31 RB505 is an Early to Mid -twentieth century historic artifact scatter located in an agricultural
field on an upland flat adjacent to Evergreen Church Rd. This site yielded 34 artifacts from surface
collection and had a total of 7 positive shovel tests. The 2010 topographic maps show that the
structures that stood in this location as early as 1972 were no longer present. All artifacts were
recovered from the plow zone or the surface. This site was not recommended eligible based on
the lack of surface features and intact deposits. Site 31 RB566 is a twentieth century historic
artifact surface scatter. This site was unassessed for the NRHP as it was recorded from a
reconnaissance. A 1938 aerial image shows that a structure used to stand in this location and
that by 2006 aerial imagery shows the structure had been demolished.
3.4 PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE APE VINCITY
Sites 31 RB492, 31 RB565, and 31 RB634 are located within 30 m or less of the APE. OSA records
indicate that 34 other previously recorded resources are within an approximately one -mile radius
of the APE (see Table 3.3-2).
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 27 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
TABLE 3.3-2
SUMMARY OF RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN A ONE -MILE
RADIUS AROUND THE APE
•
31 RB1
•D OF OCCUPATION
Woodland lithic scatter
STATUS
Unassessed
31 RB324
Prehistoric lithic scatter; 18th century domestic artifact
scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB326
Woodland artifact scatter; 19th-20th century artifact
scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB332
Woodland artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB336
19th-20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB337
Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter; 19th-20th century
artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB338
Middle Archaic -Woodland artifact scatter; 20th century
artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB339
Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB340
Archaic -Woodland artifact scatter; Unknown Historic
isolated artifact
Not Eligible
31 RB362
Woodland artifact scatter; 20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB426
Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter; 20th century artifact
scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB476
20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB492
Late Archaic, Early Woodland, and Indeterminate
Woodland lithic and ceramic scatter; Historic Domestic
Scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB496
20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB497
20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB506
Unattributed Precontact artifact scatter; 20th century
house site
Unassessed
31 RB540
Unnamed Cemetery
Not Eligible
31 RB544
19th century isolated find
Not Eligible
31 RB545
Early Woodland isolated find
Not Eligible
31 RB562
20th century artifact scatter
Not Eligible
31 RB563
20th century store and house
Unassessed
31 RB564
20th century artifact scatter
Unassessed
31 RB565
20th century artifact scatter
Unassessed
31 RB567
20th century farm complex
Unassessed
31 RB568
20th century house site
Unassessed
31 RB569
20th century house site
Unassessed
31 RB570
20th century house site
Unassessed
31 RB571
20th century building remains
Unassessed
31 RB634
Prehistoric and Historic; no form on file
No data
31 RB635
Historic; no form on file
No data
31 RB636
Prehistoric and Historic; no form on file
No data
31 RB637
Historic; no form on file
No data
31 RB638
Historic; no form on file
No data
31 RB639
Prehistoric; no form on file
No data
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 28 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
STATUSOSA SITE # SITE TYPE/PERIOD OF OCCUPATION NRHP ELIGIBILITY
31 RB640 Historic; no form on file No data
31 RB641 Prehistoric and Historic; no form on file No data
31 RB647 Historic; no form on file No data
Site 31 RB492 is located 30 m south of the APE and just 250 m southwest of 31 RB490 and
31 RB491. Like 31 RB490 this site showed potential to have diagnostic precontact artifacts from
beneath the plow zone and additional shovel testing and 12 1-x-1-m test units were used to
evaluate the site's potential eligibility. Small surface collections and 58 shovel tests yielded 188
artifacts, including lithics and ceramics from the Middle Archaic through the Woodland period and
a small assemblage of Historic domestic artifacts. The tests units revealed that this site had
almost 90 percent of its artifacts yielding from the plow zone. They also illustrated how large and
diffuse the site was most likely from agricultural activities which resulted in the recommendation
of ineligible for the NRHP. Site 31 RB565 is located just two meters south of the APE. This site
is located approximately 290 m east of 31 RB566 and is similar to it by being a twentieth century
historic artifact surface scatter. However, this site differs by having a large concentration of
structural debris. This site was unassessed for the NRHP as it was recorded from a
reconnaissance (Southerlin 2016). A 1908 soil map and a 1938 aerial image show that multiple
structures used to stand in this location and that by 1999 aerial imagery shows the structure had
been demolished. Site 31 RB634 is located 120 m north of the APE. This multicomponent site
was surveyed in 2020 but no site form was available, and it remains unassessed for the NHRP.
There are three previous cultural resource investigations that overlap with the proposed APE for
Line 479. The Sutton pipeline (Green et al 2011; Green and Nagle 2010) overlaps with 6.8 miles
of the western third of the APE. However, there are multiple small areas and access easements
in the Line 479 corridor that were not covered by that survey (see Figure 4.1-1). The Sutton
pipeline also overlaps with the entire portion of APE proposed for the staging yard located east of
the eastern terminus of the APE. The Atlantic Coast (Stanyard et al. 2016) pipeline only overlaps
with a small area at the western terminus of the APE. Nine sites (31 RB563 through 31 RB571)
were identified during a reconnaissance of the Pembroke Rail Connector tract (Southerlin 2016).
None of these sites were formally delineated or assessed for potential NRHP eligibility. The
portion of this investigation that overlaps with the APE is along NC 72 between Odum Rd and
Lowe Rd.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 29 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
Within 1.0-mile of the APE are two other previous cultural surveys that do not overlap with the
proposed Line 479 corridor. They were conducted for the US 74 Maxton Bypass (Terrell et al.
1999) and the Moss Neck Watershed (Sellon 1980). Another nine sites (31 RB634 through
31 RB641; and 31 RB647) were assigned site numbers but no site form was ever submitted to the
Office of State Archaeology. A number of the archaeological sites in Table 4.2-1 were
documented during the Robeson Trails archaeological survey conducted by Stanley Knick (1988)
of the Native American Resource Center, Pembroke State University. This investigation was a
reconnaissance level survey that focused on portions of Robeson County not previously surveyed
and was partially funded by a North Carolina Division of Archives and History grant.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 30 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 METHODS
4.1.1 Documentary Research
Prior to conducting archaeological fieldwork, background research was conducted on the general
historic context and natural setting of the area, information on previously recorded sites in and
near the APE, review of soil maps, and review of historic maps. Records and reports of previous
archaeological research and specific resources in the region were collected from OSA in order to
document previous studies in the project area as well as to collect data to understand broader
issues of regional precontact and historical archaeology. Additional research was conducted
using sources and historic contexts from material found online. Results of the background
research indicating known site locations or potential site locations were incorporated into the
project field mapping.
4.1.2 Field Methods
The entire APE was given full consideration and included visual reconnaissance with digital
photographic documentation as well as intensive survey of areas without the following: standing
water, obvious heavy saturation, signs of very poor drainage, obvious disturbance by previous
earth moving activities or erosion, and excessive slope. There were 60 test locations that were
not excavated because of these conditions. For surface survey, if sufficient visibility was present
(greater than 50 percent), the intensive survey was conducted by systematic walkover transects
(pedestrian survey) at intervals to be determined by visibility and plowing patterns (generally
approximately 10 m). Shovel tests were placed at a 30 m interval in areas of sites discovered by
surface survey, both to reveal the soil profile and provide information on subsurface potential.
Survey of site areas outside the APE was not included, but boundaries were estimated using
visible surface features and landform characteristics. Aside from the large areas of systematic
walkover, there were 92 isolated test locations that had clear enough surface visibility for surface
walkover.
In the acreages without sufficient surface visibility (below 50 percent), intensive survey was
conducted by shovel tests placed at 30-m (approximately 100-ft) intervals. If the area were
suspected to be heavily disturbed or eroded, or otherwise appears to have reduced potential for
archaeological sites such as would be indicated by hydric (poorly drained) soils, shovel tests were
placed at expanded intervals (e.g., approximately 60 meters) or judgmentally to investigate and
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 31 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.Nv '.
V
document the extent of the disturbance or characteristics. Additional shovel tests were placed
judgmentally in areas of high probability to provide additional coverage. If an area had marginal
surface visibility (some consistent visibility but below 50 percent), shovel tests were placed at a
greater interval to create a combined survey strategy. In areas adjacent to Carolina bays, the
shovel test interval was always 30 m regardless of soil drainage class, slope, or disturbance.
Figure 4.1-1 in Appendix A illustrates the survey strategies utilized across the entire APE.
The approximate horizontal and vertical extent of each site, as well as the internal configuration
of the site, were defined using closer interval surface survey transects (approximately 5 m) or
supplemental radial shovel tests at 15 m intervals. Where sites were defined by surface artifacts,
at least four shovel tests per acre were excavated to provide information on the depth of strata.
Where sites are defined by shovel testing alone, two negative shovel tests in each direction along
transects were used to establish the site boundary.
Shovel tests were usually 30 x 30 cm and excavated into the subsoil or sterile soil. Occasionally
larger tests were utilized. Fill from the tests were screened through 6.35-mm/0.25 in mesh screen.
Shovel tests were recorded on standard forms, and digital photography was used to document
the site setting. Selected shovel tests profiles were photographed for inclusion in this report.
When an archaeological site was identified, temporary site field numbers were assigned with an
abbreviated project number and the map letter (e.g. L497-A1). An archaeological site, per OSA
guidelines, is defined by a location with one or more artifacts or a feature (hearth, refuse pit,
articulated brick, ruinous structure, etc.). Appropriate artifacts and samples collected from the
archaeological investigations were stored in bags labeled by provenience units. Some categories
of artifacts such as, but not limited to, brick, window glass, or fire -cracked rock, were documented
and discarded in the field. Survey did not extend beyond the APE except for cemeteries. Internal
site characteristics were defined by supplemental judgmental shovel tests as necessary.
Individual surface finds were not all piece plotted, but the site boundary based on the extent of
surface artifacts was mapped with GPS. As necessary for more complex sites, areas of observed
concentrations or surface features were plotted with GPS. Permanent state site numbers were
obtained from OSA at the conclusion of the field work phase of the investigation. Information on
archaeological sites was entered into OSA Archaeological Site Forms.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 32 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
4.1.3 Laboratory Methods
Upon completion of fieldwork, the artifacts recovered during the project survey were processed
and analyzed by Kleinfelder staff members. All artifacts were cleaned, labeled, and prepared for
curation according to the standards and guidelines issued by OSA. Accession numbers were
assigned by OSA. All artifacts have been prepared for curation per the instructions outlined in
the Archaeological Curation Standards and Guidelines (OSA 2017). Artifacts will be curated or
returned to the landowner per instructions from the project owner.
Analysis included classification and quantification of the recovered artifacts as, presented in
Appendix C. All the artifacts collected as part of this survey were historic. Bulk materials such as
brick were noted if present, but generally not retained. Historic ceramics as well as historic glass,
if recovered, were defined as to type and temporal placement using the appropriate typologies.
Standard sources frequently utilized include FMNH (2023); Greer (1981); Lindsey (2023); and
Miller et al. (2000). Other historic materials such as metal fasteners and personal items (nails,
buttons, etc.) were similarly classified using sources such as Miller et al. (2000) and Nelson
(1968). Modern items within sites were generally noted but not collected or analyzed in detail.
There are no materials requiring stabilization or further treatment.
4.1.4 Mapping/GIS
To record survey transects, positive shovel tests, and site features in the field, Kleinfelder
employed EoS Arrow 100 GNSS Receiver in conjunction with ESRI Field Maps software, which
provided submeter accuracy when corrected or post -processed using reference data. The
reference data used during the current project was acquired from the nearest Continuously
Operating Reference Station (CORS) operated and maintained by the National Geodetic Survey
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Georeferenced digital USGS
topographic maps and aerial imagery maps were acquired through ESRI's ArcGIS online
services.
4.1.5 Evaluation
The purpose of the archaeological fieldwork and post -field analyses is to collect data on sites to
support eligibility recommendations for the NRHP. The NRHP criteria require that the quality of
significance in American history, architecture, culture, and archaeology should be present in
buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 33 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that the buildings, structures, objects, sites,
or districts:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction.
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
(National Park Service 2023).
One of the most important aspects of significance in evaluating the eligibility of archaeological
sites is scientific (research) value. It is, therefore, essential to establish a scientific,
archaeological, and historic framework to interpret the identified resources. This framework
derives from several sources, including research themes and questions relevant to the history
and prehistory of, for this project, the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina and the Southeast in
general as well as themes of historical archaeology and precontact Native American archaeology
in general. With regard to open-air historic and precontact Native American sites with no above-
ground surface manifestations, eligibility or potential eligibility is most typically established with
reference to Criterion D of the NRHP, which includes the stipulation that a site must have the
potential to contribute new information through additional work; however, all NRHP criteria are
applied in evaluation. Additionally, establishing a context to assess historic period sites involves
an examination of the historical record. This is often done during a separate and more intensive
level of investigation for sites appearing potentially eligible for the NRHP and is done to determine
the site's potential to address questions related to lifeways, socioeconomic trends, and specific
events from the post -contact period through the middle of the twentieth century.
In general, archaeological sites that lack sub -plow zone artifact -bearing deposits, have low -
density artifact distributions, contain evidence of deep plowing, lack spatial integrity, lack artifact
concentrations, or exhibit signs of earth -disturbing activities do not appear to be good candidates
for inclusion in the NRHP. Sites that contain or may contain concentrations of artifacts, intact
surface features, or intact subsurface cultural deposits may be recommended for additional
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 34 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
evaluation to determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP based on their potential for
significant information regarding the past. Historic sites that contain intact above -ground features
as well as sites that contain discrete deposits that represent well-defined time periods, either as
part of a longer occupation or a single short occupation, are more likely to be recommended for
additional evaluation.
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY STRATEGIES AND RESULTS
4.2.1 Introduction
The APE is divided into 22 discrete segments (A through V see Figure 4.1-1 in Appendix A) that
are separated by drainages, roads, landforms, and railroad tracks with the long axis of the APE
oriented northwest -southeast and curves south around Lumberton to stay outside of the city. The
APE's most common landform is marine terrace flats with stream terraces and ridge toes less
common in the areas that cross streams, rivers, and wetlands. With the Lumber River cutting
through the center of the APE, the pipeline corridor is characterized by large flat areas that are
drained by many intermittent and permanent streams. The majority of the current land use is
currently used for agricultural fields planted with soybeans, cotton, and corn (Figure 4.2-1).
Wooded areas near streams, rivers, and wetlands make up the majority of the remaining areas
(Figure 4.2-2). There are also a few areas with overgrown grass and heavy secondary brush in
the form of thorns and vines (Figure 4.2-3).
Survey strategies included pedestrian survey in areas with greater than 50 percent surface
visibility (126 acres), standard shovel testing at 30-m intervals for areas with no surface visibility
(100 acres), shovel testing at 15-m interval from crew error (0.2 acres) in one spot at the beginning
of the project, and visual inspection of disturbed areas (32 acres) that included low-lying wet
areas, ground disturbance from recent logging (Figure 4.2-4), or disturbance from roads or
modern development (Figure 4.2-5). These visually inspected areas were not tested due to their
lack of archaeological potential. Approximately 599 shovel tests were excavated including those
excavated for site delineations. In addition to these shovel tests, 92 individual test locations had
clear enough surface visibility to be investigated with pedestrian survey. Another 60 individual
test locations had no potential due to disturbance or wetlands. The archaeological survey could
only fit a single transect of shovel tests along most of the gas line corridor as it was not wide
enough to place a second transect, however there are several wider locations in the APE that
required additional transects.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 35 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'. Right 5.l.N-'.
V
Two resource types were documented during the survey including historic domestic scatters
(primarily late nineteenth to twentieth century) and historic cemeteries. In total, four
archaeological resources were newly recorded during the survey and two were relocated and
revisited (31 RB491 and 31 RB565). These include five historic sites and one historic cemetery.
All of these except for one were identified through pedestrian survey. Site 31 RB653 was located
through shovel testing. These sites revisited and newly recorded during the survey are
summarized in Table 4.2-1 and depicted in Figure 4.2-6. The table also contains preliminary
information on NRHP recommendations for each of the resources. Every attempt was made to
relocate previously recorded sites 31 RB490 and 31 RB566 within the APE, but no cultural remains
for either were documented during intensive survey for the Line 479 pipeline corridor at the
locations on file at OSA for these sites.
20213937.001A I RAI-23R150042 Page 36 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-1
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 37 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-1: FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (AGRICULTURE FIELDS)
AGRICULTURAL FIELD, GOOD VISIBILITY, LOOKING NORHEAST
YY
41
AGRICULTURAL FIELD, BAD VISIBILITY LOOKING NORTHWEST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-2
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 38 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-2: FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (WOODS)
MIXED CLOSED WOODS, LOOKING NORTHEAST
�I01,
:1
a
i
41
MIXED OPEN WOODS, LOOKING NORTHEAST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-3
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 39 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-3: FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (OVERGROWN GRASS)
HEAVY SECONDARY GROWTH, LOOKING SOUTHEAST
OVERGROWN GRASS, LOOKING SOUTH

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-4
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 40 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-4: FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (WETLAND LOGGING)
LOW-LYING WET AREA, LOOKING NORTHWEST
RECENTLY LOGGED, LOOKING SOUTHEAST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-5
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 41 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-5: FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE APE (ROAD DISTURBED)
PREEXISTING ACCESS ROAD, LOOKING SOUTH
Y" Y
n
�.a
CONSTRUCTION DISTURBANCE, LOOKING EAST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-6
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 42 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

(0
DE`R
pNILP
,%?�~
R.
1710
ua 1 1 C� ' yt sw m7� f _ ` _ _� 4 f r r I ark
m sOjr Rra' n
yoq ,<�� 1005
rAN�p
.e , `f r" - Y ! I I ,"i ': >\ ,,` � - r i Y". "� - �j N. _ _ •-. pC �Y RC s E�yO �
�nq C
/: _ �. 1 .t '�.t li'.— • i _ _.O 1 WA .,.—_ _ .�..� 0. IND1P�
\ r b +4 ePa-ALL ,•,` •� C rl \ ,'` 21 Barked .Ten Mile
/ ¢' -�" dt ',�• -� '��, -- l`. _ "Z--1_ r, off. � o0
/ Ti_: \ y �, y 31RB565 2025 n a h,�
/ —�_y�....r.. `j—� �"f'O e,Udk i
i
< 2003 a -
`; ' — t� ." Branch
41
k
_
l�r�
Q o ri zo
Gport
tiar�'Errreyers
11 _,
-
i a
r eado °E son Sw n.t
did
Yde
Jr,
.y �GCtp W. _ �/ ��.. ._ NCH RO - ;i� 7*H
f53
�_II�(/J ? �. _�
Rim\
Elrod NJrkAENFICrltl
5 4iAP RY _ o �a`o. (6F'rrt/Rc/1
OBESON COUNT
- - - +Av
ti ti� 31 RB654 2421 74 `"a?ip 2� 31RB491
sRAVCtf
r
/.or1q Rt'agr�
31 RB651
:J:�
;O;r �. Butters
1y
- SMvaNk tNuaci�� � zz a2-�
1.5 0.75 0 1.5 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Miles CREATED: 12/16/2022 Site Locations on Topo
LEGEND The information included
in = 2 miles KLE//VFELOER CREATED BY: EArias A 2-6
on this graphic representvar ation has been complied from a iety of F
rce and is subject to changewithou[ retire. Klelnfeldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor CHECKED BY: JS
ramie., express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or dgh is to th Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Source: USGS Topographic Map was usa`ofsuch intormatlon. This d-umentianotintendedforuseasalandsu,eyproduct Line479
obtained from ESRI Basema°r'sudeaignedorintendedaaaeonstr°"'°ndeaig"°°°ument.Theuaeermiau FILE NAME:
P• ortheinformationeontainedonthisgraphicreprese-tionis tthesolerisknrthe5e www.kleinfelder.com Robeson Count North Carolina
Site Boundary party°singormis°singtheinbrmation v,
See File Path

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
All potential site locations suggested by map projections from background research (see Figure
3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in Appendix A) were fully investigated, and this report includes discussion of any
newly recorded resources that correlate with these projections. All the artifacts recovered from
these sites were collected from the surface or the plow zone of agricultural fields indicating that
none of them had intact cultural deposits. These fields have been impacted by one or more
centuries of plowing. In addition, many of the sites exhibit artifacts that are only small fragments
and reflect the impacts of repeated soil turnover by agricultural equipment. Although these sites
(31 R13491, 31 R13565, 31 R13651, 31 R13652, and 31 R13653) have yielded information regarding the
approximate location of a site potentially occupied as early as the nineteenth century, it would be
unlikely to provide additional information on nineteenth- to twentieth-century domestic life in the
Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The portion of these sites within the APE is recommended
as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is recommended.
Site 31 RB654 is a small family cemetery (15 graves) lacking significant historical associations,
exceptional design or artistic merit, and a substantial burial population that could yield significant
information per physical anthropological studies. It is recommended as not eligible for listing in
the NRHP but should be treated under North Carolina statutes regarding cemeteries. Kleinfelder
recommends placing at the minimum a 30 ft buffer around this cemetery to avoid any impacts to
it.
TABLE 4.2-1
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVISITED (BOLD) AND NEWLY
RECORDED DURING THE CURRENT SURVEY
SITE
SITE TYPE
NRHP ELIGIBILITY
RECOMMENDATION
31 RB491
Historic Domestic Scatter: late nineteenth to
Not Eligible, No Further
twentieth century
Work
31 RB565
Historic Domestic Scatter: late nineteenth to
Not Eligible, No Further
twentieth century
Work
31 RB651
Historic Domestic Scatter: nineteenth to twentieth
Not Eligible, No Further
century
Work
31 RB652
Historic Domestic Scatter: late nineteenth to
Not Eligible, No Further
twentieth century
Work
31 RB653
Historic Domestic Scatter: late nineteenth to
Not Eligible, No Further
twentieth century
Work
31 RB654
Historic Cemetery: Collins Family Cemetery; 1881 —
Not Eligible, Avoidance
1939
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 43 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Appendix C lists detailed provenance data and references used to determine the date of
production for diagnostic artifacts summarized in each site description. Site descriptions and
recommendations are listed below.
4.2.2 Sites Descriptions and Recommendations
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB491
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter: late nineteenth to twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: marine terrace, agricultural field freshly disked
SOIL TYPE: Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
SITE SIZE: 88 x 60 m (288 x 197 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This moderate density domestic scatter was encountered during systematic
pedestrian survey in a freshly disked agricultural field situated on a marine terrace near the tree
line (Figure 4.2-7). There was 100 percent visibility at the site (Figure 4.2-8). The site boundary
was delineated through surface walkover and the general surface collection came from this entire
area. This site was located at the previously recorded location on file at OSA (Green et al. 2011;
Green and Nagle 2010), however the site boundary has expanded to the south and west which
is most likely a result of spreading through repeated disking and plowing of the agricultural field.
Shovel testing revealed a three -zone soil profile generally consistent with the Goldsboro series.
Zone 1 is a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sand plow zone 20-30 cm in thickness, Zone 2 is a brown
(10YR 5/2) sand E-horizon mottled with soil from Zone 1, and Zone 3 is yellowish brown (10YR
5/6) sandy clay subsoil (see Figure 4.2-8). A total of 4 positive shovel tests and a general surface
collection resulted in the recovery of 95 artifacts. All artifacts were recovered from Zone 1 and
the surface, with the exception of Shovel Tests D1 and D5 which yielded a few artifacts from Zone
2, but the soil profile indicated that Zone 2 has been mixed with Zone 1 . Table 4.2-2 details the
artifacts recovered from the site.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 44 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL INFIE-L CHR
eiight P-Pi'. Right Suluh'o-
TABLE 4.2-2: SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31 RB491
TYPE
Whiteware, undecorated
COUNTARTIFACT
6
6.3%
Whiteware, molded
4
4.2%
Whiteware, hand painted
2
2.1 %
Whiteware, black glazed
1
1.1 %
Whiteware, Royal China, Currier & Ives
1
1.1 %
Whiteware, Currier & Ives
1
1.1 %
Porcelain, undecorated
1
1.1 %
Porcelain, molded
1
1.1 %
Bottle glass, colorless, crown finish,
machine made
1
1.1 %
Bottle glass, aqua, small mouth external
thread finish, machine made
1
1.1 %
Canning jar lid liner, opaque white "milk
lass"
5
5.3%
Jar glass, sapphire blue, wide mouth
external thread finish, machine made
1
1.1 %
Jar glass, colorless, wide mouth external
thread finish
2
2.1 %
Container glass, 7-ugreen
1
1.1%
Container glass, opaque white "milk lass"
7
7.4%
Container glass, aqua
4
4.2%
Container glass, amber
2
2.1 %
Container glass, cobalt blue
5
5.3%
Container glass, colorless, machine made
4
4.2%
Container glass, colorless
26
27.4%
Flat/window glass, light aqua
3
3.2%
Flat/window glass, colorless
2
2.1 %
Safety lass, colorless
2
2.1 %
Table glass, opaque white "milk lass"
1
1.1 %
Bolt, square
1
1.1 %
Nail, wire
1
1.1 %
Iron, fragments, indeterminate
2
2.1 %
Brick, fragments
6
6.3%
Mortar, fragment
1
1.1 %
Total
95
100.00%
The majority of artifacts date from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, including the whiteware,
wire nail, canning jar lids, jar glass, and much of the container glass. The rest date only to the
twentieth century such as the Currier and Ives whiteware and the machine -made container glass,
with the exception of the opaque white "milk glass" table glass which dates primarily to the
nineteenth century. The 1950 aerial imagery shows two structures present where this site is
located (see Figure 3.2-1 in Appendix A). The 1970 Bladenboro USGS topographic map shows
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 45 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
one structure present where this site is located (see Figure 3.2-2 in Appendix A). It is likely that
this site resulted from the demolition of these structures, which was subsequently dispersed
through agricultural activities. Brick fragments were scattered through out the site but was more
concentrated at the center of the site boundary which may indicate the initial location of one of
the structures.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is characterized as a moderate density historic domestic scatter
that resulted from the demolition of more than one structure. Although this site has yielded
information regarding the approximate location of a site potentially occupied as early as the
nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide additional information on nineteenth- to
twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The site is
recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and does not appear eligible under
Criteria A, B, or C. No further work is recommended.
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB565
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter: late nineteenth to twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: marine terrace, agricultural field, soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Marlboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 30 x 12 m (100 x 40 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This moderate density domestic scatter was encountered during systematic
pedestrian survey in an agricultural field planted with soybeans situated on a marine terrace
approximately 20 m southwest of NC 72 (Figure 4.2-9). There was 60-70 percent surface visibility
at the site (Figure 4.2-10). The site boundary was delineated through surface walkover and the
general surface collection came from this entire area. This site was located at the previously
recorded location on file at OSA (Southerlin 2016), however the site boundary has expanded to
the east and southeast. Although there was no survey outside of the APE, this site most likely
continues to the southwest beyond APE. Shovel testing revealed a two -zone soil profile generally
consistent with the Marlboro series. Zone 1 is a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam plow
zone 15 cm in thickness and Zone 2 is brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil (see Figure
4.2-10). A total of one positive shovel test and a general surface collection resulted in the recovery
of 79 artifacts. All artifacts were recovered from Zone 1 and the surface. Table 4.2-3 details the
artifacts recovered from the site.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 46 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
TABLE 4.2-3: SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31RB565
ARTIFACT TYPE
Whiteware, undecorated
COUNT
1
%
1.3%
Institutional ware hotel china), undecorated
1
1.3%
Institutional ware hotel china), brown and black lazed/painted
1
1.3%
Canning jar lid liner, opaque white "milk lass"
1
1.3%
Jar glass, colorless, wide mouth external thread finish
1
1.3%
Container glass, 7-up" green, melted
1
1.3%
Container glass, aqua, machine -made
1
1.3%
Container glass, aqua
2
2.5%
Container glass, amber, machine -made
1
1.3%
Container glass, amber
1
1.3%
Container glass, colorless, machine made
1
1.3%
Container glass, colorless
29
36.7%
Flat/window glass, light aqua
5
6.3%
Nail, fragment, indeterminate
1
1.3%
Nail, complete, wire
1
1.3%
Marble, machine -made
1
1.3%
Brick, fragments
18
22.8%
Mortar, fragments
3
3.8%
Drywall, synthetic
1
1.3%
Indeterminate, fragment, drywall?
8
10.1 %
Total
79
100.00%
The majority of artifacts date from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, including the whiteware,
hotel china, wire nail, canning jar lids, jar glass, and much of the container glass. The rest date
only to the twentieth century such as the machine -made container glass, marble, and drywall. The
1950 aerial imagery and the 1972 NW Lumberton USGS topographic map shows two structures
present where this site is located (see Figure 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in Appendix A). It is likely that this
site resulted from the demolition of these structures, which was subsequently dispersed through
agricultural activities. Brick fragments were scattered throughout the site. This site is also located
adjacent to a farm access road.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is characterized as a moderate density historic domestic scatter
that resulted from the demolition of more than one structure. Although this site has yielded
information regarding the approximate location of a site potentially occupied as early as the
nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide additional information on nineteenth- to
twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The portion of this
site within the APE is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and does not
appear eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. No further work is recommended.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 47 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB651
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter: nineteenth to twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland marine terrace, agricultural field, planted cotton
SOIL TYPE: Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 52 x 45 m (171 x 148 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This moderate density domestic scatter was encountered during systematic
pedestrian survey in an agricultural field planted with cotton situated on an upland marine terrace
approximately 20 m east of Martin Luther King Dr (Figure 4.2-11). There was 80 percent surface
visibility at the site (Figure 4.2-12). The site boundary was delineated through surface walkover
and the general surface collection came from this entire area. Shovel testing revealed a two -zone
soil profile generally consistent with the Wagram series. Zone 1 is a dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2) sand plow zone 20-25 cm in thickness and Zone 2 is brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand
subsoil (see Figure 4.2-12). A total of two positive shovel tests and a general surface collection
resulted in the recovery of 137 artifacts. All artifacts were recovered from Zone 1 and the surface.
Table 4.2-4 details the artifacts recovered from the site.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 48 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-7
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 49 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

a
w
a�
N
N
O
N
V
N
N
co
0
I
, W*,MJ
,6
mL M
00
31 RB491
rq
W"M
-lei
100 50 0 100
LEGEND Feet
Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 1 in = 100 feet
Site Boundary Th°i"f°."°"" °d°d°"hs9."ph .°p.°s°"�°"n"se°°" °mP°df.°m" ".se'°
°"" s°,
Positive Shovel Tests Imagery p P'°ss P"°d,"s`°""°'"`y.`° P'°`°"°ss "'°°1— °'^9"` `°"°
Ima er was obtained from ESRI Basema se`°rs°°h "r°,m"h°".Thsd°°°m°" s"° "°"d°dr°,°s°"s" ""ds°N°yP,°d°°
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021. of,he fit o a,;o °o,a;°do ,hsg;"ph; 6—,ese �ti°`sa„neso,eskof,nes°
• Negative Shovel Tests P"rty°s--ti—s°si"9
KLE//VFELA0ER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfeldeccom
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
31 RB491 Site Map
FIGURE
4.2-7
CREATED: 12/14/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-8
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 50 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-8: FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB491
SITE OVERVIEW, LOOKING EAST
DITCH AND PUSH PILE, LOOKING EAST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-9
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 51 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

a
w
a�
N
N
O
N
V
N
N
co
0
31 RB565 "*%
�r -I&■WP; AM
6
25 12.5 0 25
Feet
LEGEND 1 in = 25 feet
Survey Areas (259 ac. +) °coati°"i" °d°d°"thisgraphi repr°s°"Kati°"hash°°n °mpiedfr°ma ari°ty°t
and iss°h;°K°inr°dermakes—p--tati°ns°r
0 Site BoundaryIma er was obtained from ESRI Basema `a^i°s,°.p,°ss°rimer°d,ast°a"°'a`y,`°cop'°`°"°ss Kim°""°ss °'dgh t°g°
9 Y p• s° s`itdesi9�erd outdid ...�o tis°.ti ded9df °sm.s. Lease,°m° se°°t
Positive Shovel Tests Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021. of,h°i�r°m,ati--tai—d— this graphicrepr°s°nag°nis atth°s°,°risk °fth°
party using or misusing the information.
KL E//VFEL DER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
�� www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
31 RB565 Site Map
FIGURE
4.2-9
CREATED: 12/14/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
l• _ _ , _ ,� _,_

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-10
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 52 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-10: FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB565
SITE OVERVIEW, LOOKING SOUTHWEST
ST 1 SOIL PROFILE, DISTURBED LOOKING SOUTHWEST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-11
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 53 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

a
w
a�
N
O
V
N
0
rj
f
'N
� • M
31 RB651
r
•
r
•
` 7 .
50 25 0 50 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND
� Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Feet CREATED: 12/14/2022 31 RB651 Site Map
1 in = 50 feet KLE//VFELOER CREATED BY: EArias
0 Slte Boundary o.ao dedo hs9.aPh , ese�o naseee omPedf.oma.a.etyof is
4.2-11
;a��a d ss ere <<o ha 9ewd""u"dye.Ke��rede,makes�o,eP."gha o so, CHECKED BY:
�—, esso, m 11ed,as oa== ,a y.=omwece ess. me ess.o,d9h� ode Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Positive Shovel Tests Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. se`'f_',�ro,mat_ Thsdo� —tis—tiwt-dedf—s-Z -d--yP d- FILE NAME: Line 4tu
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021. 79
of,heW...t;o�—t.i,°d-thsg ph; °ep,ese �ti°`sa„neso,e-isko„he www.kleinfelder.com
• Negative Shovel Tests party-imgo,mi-simgthem.—tio See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-12
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 54 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-12: FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL 31RB651
SITE OVERVIEW, LOOKING EAST
ST 4 SOIL PROFILE, LOOKING NORTHEAST

l KLE/NFELOER
eiight Pe pi'.RightSuluh'o-
TABLE 4.2-4: SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31RB651
ARTIFACT TYPE
Whiteware, undecorated
COUNT
30
%
21.9%
Whiteware, molded
2
1.5%
Whiteware, hand painted
1
0.7%
Whiteware, edged
1
0.7%
Whiteware, annular ware, banded
3
2.2%
Whiteware, transfer printed
5
3.6%
Whiteware, blue -glazed
1
0.7%
Porcelain, undecorated
1
0.7%
Porcelain, molded
1
0.7%
White granite (ironstone), undecorated
6
4.4%
White granite (ironstone), transfer printed
2
1.5%
Stoneware North American), Albany Bristol
3
2.2%
Stoneware North American), Bristol glazed
3
2.2%
Stoneware (North American), gray salt -glazed
exterior, Albany -slipped interior
1
0.7%
Stoneware (North American), brown salt -glazed
exterior, iron oxide -washed interior
1
0.7%
Stoneware (North American), brown salt -glazed
exterior, salt -glazed interior
1
0.7%
Stoneware (North American), brown salt -glazed
exterior, gray -bodied
2
1.5%
Bottle glass, amber, double ring finish
1
0.7%
Canning jar lid liner, opaque white "milk lass"
3
2.2%
Jar glass, aqua, wide mouth external thread finish
1
0.7%
Container glass, solarized/manganese dioxide
decolorized
4
2.9%
Container glass, opaque white "milk lass"
2
1.5%
Container glass, aqua
19
13.9%
Container glass, amber
1
0.7%
Container glass, cobalt blue
1
0.7%
Container glass, olive green
1
0.7%
Container glass, very dark olive green
3
2.2%
Container glass, solarized/selenium or arsenic
decolorized
1
0.7%
Container glass, yellow amber
1
0.7%
Container glass, colorless, machine made
1
0.7%
Container glass, colorless
19
13.9%
Flat/window glass, light aqua
7
5.1 %
Flat/window glass, colorless
1
0.7%
Table glass, colorless
2
1.5%
Nail, indeterminate
2
1.5%
Button, Ceramic, Prosser, two -hole, fisheye
1
0.7%
Brick, fragments
1
0.7%
Aluminum, indeterminate, fragment
1
0.7%
Total
137
100.00%
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 55 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
The majority of artifacts date from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, including the whiteware,
white granite (ironstone), ceramic button, wire nail, canning jar lids, jar glass, and much of the
container glass. The rest date only to the twentieth century such as the machine -made container
glass, amber and straw -tinted container glass, Bristol -glazed stoneware (North American), and
Albany Bristol stoneware (North American). There were a few artifacts that date exclusively to
the nineteenth century including edged whiteware, salt -glazed stoneware (North American), and
yellow amber container glass. Neither the 1950 aerial imagery or the 1972 SW Lumberton USGS
topographic map shows any structures at this location (see Figure 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in Appendix
A). It is likely that this site resulted from the demolition of at least one structure or was the dump
site from a demolished structure, which was subsequently dispersed through agricultural
activities. Brick fragments were scattered throughout the site.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is characterized as a moderate density historic domestic scatter
that resulted from the demolition of more than one structure or a dump site from a demolished
structure. Although this site has yielded information regarding the approximate location of a site
potentially occupied as early as the nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide additional
information on nineteenth- to twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North
Carolina. The site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and does not
appear eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. No further work is recommended.
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB652
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter: late nineteenth to twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland marine terrace, agricultural field, planted corn
SOIL TYPE: Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent
slope
SITE SIZE: 50 x 35 m (164 x 115 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This moderate density domestic scatter was encountered during systematic
pedestrian survey in an agricultural field planted with corn situated on an upland marine terrace
approximately 10 m north of North Chicken Rd (Figure 4.2-13). This site was only delineated
within the APE and could extend to the north and east. There was 60-70 percent visibility at the
site (Figure 4.2-14). The site boundary was delineated through surface walkover and the general
surface collection came from this entire area. Shovel testing revealed a two -zone soil profile
generally consistent with the Rains series. Zone 1 is a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam
plow zone 15-30 cm in thickness and Zone 2 is brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand clay loam
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 56 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

l KLE/NFELOER
eiight Pe pi'.RightSuluh'o-
subsoil (see Figure 4.2-14). A total of four positive shovel tests and a general surface collection
resulted in the recovery of 117 artifacts. All artifacts were recovered from Zone 1 and the surface.
Table 4.2-5 details the artifacts recovered from the site.
TABLE 4.2-5: SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM 31 RB652
ARTIFACT TYPE
Whiteware, undecorated
COUNT
13
%
11.2%
Whiteware, glazed
7
6.0%
Whiteware, brown transfer- printed
1
0.9%
Whiteware, decal decorated/Decalcomania
1
0.9%
Whiteware, blue transfer -printed Blue Willow pattern
4
3.4%
Porcelain, transfer printed
1
0.9%
Porcelain, blue transfer -printed Blue Willow pattern
2
1.7%
Porcelain, bathroom/light fixture fragment
2
1.7%
White granite (ironstone), undecorated
1
0.9%
White granite (ironstone), molded
2
1.7%
White granite (ironstone), blue transfer -printed Blue Willow
pattern
3
2.6%
Stoneware (North American), molded, Bristol -glazed
exterior, unglazed interior
1
0.9%
Yellow ware
2
1.7%
Bottle glass, colorless, small mouth external thread
continuous finish, machine made
1
0.9%
Bottle glass, colorless, Pepsi "wave" bottle
1
0.9%
Jar glass, cobalt blue, wide mouth external thread finish
1
0.9%
Container glass, solarized/manganese dioxide decolorized
3
2.6%
Container glass, opaque white "milk glass"
1
0.9%
Container glass, aqua
8
6.9%
Container glass, 7-ugreen
1
0.9%
Container glass, gray -tinted, solarized/decolorized
3
2.6%
Container glass, solarized/selenium or arsenic
decolorized, machine made
1
0.9%
Container glass, colorless, Owens-Illinois Glass Company
1
0.9%
Container glass, colorless, machine made
4
3.4%
Container glass, colorless
32
27.6%
Flat/window glass, light aqua
2
1.7%
Table glass, "Jade-ite"
3
2.6%
Marble, glass, machine -made
2
1.7%
Glass, fragment, red, indeterminate
1
0.9%
Plastic, fragments, indeterminate
2
1.7%
Iron, fragment, indeterminate
1
0.9%
Brick, fragments, machine made
5
4.3%
Aluminum, indeterminate, fragments
2
1.7%
Ceramic, fragment, sewer/drainage pipe
1
0.9%
Total
116
100.00%
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 57 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
The majority of artifacts date from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, including the whiteware,
white granite (ironstone), yellow ware, jar glass, and much of the container glass. The rest date
only to the twentieth century such as the machine -made container glass, gray -tinted and straw -
tinted container glass, Bristol -glazed stoneware (North American), machine made marbles, Jade-
ite table glass, and bottle glass. There was a single artifact that dates exclusively to the nineteenth
century, a brown transfer printed sherd. The 1950 aerial imagery and the 1972 Pembroke USGS
topographic map shows at least one structure present where this site is located (see Figure 3.2-
1 and 3.2-2 in Appendix A). It is likely that this site resulted from the demolition of this structure,
which was subsequently dispersed through agricultural activities. Brick fragments were scattered
throughout the site.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 58 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-13
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 59 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

�1
�^ 1AAF
. I
D2
• D3f�
01
Ch`�Ken Rd
N
50 25 0 50
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
Feet
��
CREATED:
12/14/2022
31 RB652 Site Map
LEGEND
1 in = 50 feet
Survey Areas (259 ac. +)
Theinf°..ti°ninc &d°nthis hic.e f
KLE//VFEL�ER
CREATED BY:
EArias
4.2-13
Site BoundaryImagery
was obtained from ESRI Basema
9 Y p•
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021.
graypres—ti-h-been-°mpiledfmmavariety°
ce and is subject t° change without notice. Kleinfelder makes n° representations or
.a""es,express °,implied, ast°accu,acy c°mpleteness time""ess,
ser°tsuchint°rmad°n.Thisd°cumentisn°tintendedter°seasalands°rveypr°duct
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
FILENAME:
Positive Shovel Tests
o„, i,d a,o ,hsg;apni °ep,ese o`szfl esole iskotthese
part>us;ng°rmsus;ngpe;nt°,mat;°n.
www.kleinfeldeccom
Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-14
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 60 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-14: FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31 RB652
SITE OVERVIEW, LOOKING WEST
ST 2 SOIL PROFILE, LOOKING NORTHWEST

KLE/NFEL DER
errght PeoAie. Right Snlutivns.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is characterized as a moderate density historic domestic scatter
that resulted from the demolition of at least one structure. Although this site has yielded
information regarding the approximate location of a site potentially occupied as early as the
nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide additional information on nineteenth- to
twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The portion of this
site within the APE is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and does not
appear eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. No further work is recommended.
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB653
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic domestic scatter: late nineteenth to twentieth century
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland marine terrace, agricultural field, planted soybeans
SOIL TYPE: Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 25 x 13 m (85 x 43 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This low -density domestic scatter was encountered during systematic shovel
testing and pedestrian survey in an agricultural field planted with soybeans situated on an upland
marine terrace approximately 200 m east of Ten Mile Branch (Figure 4.2-15). This site was only
delineated within the APE and could extend to the northeast and southwest. There was 10 to 50
percent visibility at the site (Figure 4.2-16). Shovel testing revealed a two -zone soil profile
generally consistent with the Goldsboro series. Zone 1 is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2)
sandy loam plow zone 30-35 cm in thickness and Zone 2 is yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy
clay loam subsoil (see Figure 4.2-16). A total of three positive shovel tests resulted in the recovery
of six artifacts. All artifacts were recovered from Zone 1.
Artifacts collected from this site include one white granite (ironstone) sherd, one piece of Owens-
Illinois Glass Company machine made colorless container glass, one piece of colorless container
glass, one piece of colorless internal threaded bottle closure/stopper, and one piece of amber
container glass, and indeterminate iron fragment. All these artifacts date to the late nineteenth to
twentieth century except for the amber glass and the Owen -Illinois glass which dates to the
twentieth century.
Neither the 1950 aerial imagery or the 1972 SW Lumberton USGS topographic map shows any
structures at this location (see Figure 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in Appendix A). However, the former does
show that the site location was wooded in 1950. With a lack of architectural artifacts this site may
have been the result of deposition from farming activity.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 61 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kieinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
RECOMMENDATION: This site is characterized as a low density historic domestic scatter that
may have been deposited during farm activity. Although this site has yielded information
regarding the approximate location of a site potentially occupied as early as the nineteenth
century, it would be unlikely to provide additional information on nineteenth- to twentieth-century
domestic life in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. The portion of this site within the APE
is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and does not appear eligible
under Criteria A, B, or C. No further work is recommended.
SITE NUMBER: 31 RB654
COMPONENT TYPE(S): historic cemetery: 1881 — 1939
LANDFORM/VEGETATION: upland marine terrace, wooded
SOIL TYPE: Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
SITE SIZE: 28 x 23 m (92 x 75 ft)
DESCRIPTION: This historic cemetery is located on an upland marine terrace in a wooded area
just north of an agricultural field (Figure 4.2-17). It was encountered during shovel testing and
was identified by the inscribed headstones visible at the edge of the tree line. Kleinfelder did
survey outside of the APE, to find the full extent of the cemetery boundary to the east of the APE
in order to inform avoidance strategies.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 62 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-15
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 63 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

a
w
D
N
N
O
N
to
N
N
N
0
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Negative Ped Survey
Site Boundary Shovel Test - No Dig
Positive Shovel Tests
• Negative Shovel Tests
50 25 0 50 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Individual Site Maps
1 in = 50 feet KL E//VFEL OER CREATED BY: EArias
Imagery was obtained from Theinfn.ntinnincmdednnmisg.nphi�,ep,esentntinnhnsheen�nmpi�edf,mm��nhetynf
ESRIBasemap. zndissoh;ecttnchzngewi n fond e.Keinfede,mnkesnn,ep,esentntinnsn, CHECKED BY: JS
n�d-,- essn,imwied,-t.—u—y.—plete-.timeline--nght to a Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. se`of-chinfnnnndin.Thisdn�--is-wt-dedfn,�se—.1-d- -eyp d- Line 479
sitdesig—dn,int &dzszcn--fi— d-igndnco—.The�sen,mis�se FILE NAME:
Imagery Date: 1/29/2021. oftheinfn ztinncnntzinednnthisgrnphi ,ep,esenndnnisntthasne,isknrthe www.kleinfelder.com Robeson County, North Carolina
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
FIGURE
4.2-15

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-16
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 64 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-16: FIELD CONDITIONS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31RB653
.r ,.
SITE OVERVIEW, LOOKING SOUTH
.s
SOIL PROFILE, ST 1, LOOKING EAST
SOIL PROFILE, ST 1, LOOKING EAST

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-17
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 65 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

a
10
31 RB654
LEGEND 25 12.5 0 25
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Feet
0 Site Boundary 1 in = 25 feet
Recorded Sites Th°wf..ti-"cl°d°d-this 9 phi .°p.°s° ti-h-I,--piledlY°m" ".°ty°f
""disc°hj°°<<°ch. °9 iJ,°°�"°h°°.K16W" ld°,m"k°s"°,°P,°s°"t"t�°"s°,
"d—,°xp,°ss°,mw�°d,-t°"°—cy.°°mw°�°—.��m°1�"°ss.°,d9h�t° °
• Foot Grave Markers Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. no`°rs°°h "r°" Thsd°°°m°"ti—twt-d°dr°,°se-1-d--yP d°°t
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021. heW..;o °o,a;°do ,hsg, h;�°ep,ese �ti°,`sa„nes 1--f,nes°
Head Grave Markers °"rty°s'"9°`m's°s'"9"°'"`°" ""°"
KLE//VFEL�ER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfeldeccom
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Individual Site Maps
FIGURE
4.2-17
CREATED: 12/16/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY:is
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
The cemetery is overgrown and some of the markers are blocked by vegetation (Figure 4.2-18).
There are a total of 15 marked graves and zero unmarked graves (Figure 4.2-19). All the graves
have inscriptions except for four and are detailed in Table 4.2-6. The graves are oriented west to
east. There is a large push pile along the eastern boundary of this cemetery that has modern
construction trash in it.
TABLE 4.2-6: DETAILS OF MARKED GRAVES FROM 31 RB654
NAME(S)
CONDITION
MARKER
MARKER
ON
DATE
DATE
TYPE
MATERIAL
OF
1
MARKER
A. Strong
Headstone
Limestone
MARKER
Faded
Wishart
2
Mary E.
Nov. 17 1841
Mar. 12 1911
Headstone/Ob
Limestone
Faded
Wishart
elisk
3
Edgar C.
Jan 8 1861
Nov 25 1921
Headstone
Diorite
Faded
Watson
4
Ophelia E.
Jun 9 1860
July 11 1934
Headstone
Granite
Good
Watson
and Footer
5
No
Limestone
Fair
inscription
6
Sarah D.
Mar 15 1936
Jan 30 1910
Headstone
Limestone
Fair
Collins
and Footer
7
Clarence
Mar 25 1860
Aug 13 1881
Headstone
Limestone
Fair
Collins
and Footer
Nash, son
of John H
and Sarah
D. Collins
8
No
Granite
inscription
9
James A.
Dec 25 1874
Aug 22 1906
Headstone
Limestone
Broken,
Collins
lying flat
10
John H.
Feb 28 1834
Sept 15 1885
Headstone
Granite
Broken,
Collins
lying flat
next to base
11
No
Limestone
Base only
inscription
12
No
Limestone
Part of
inscription
another
13
Uther M.,
Feb 16 1910
Aug 18 1911
Headstone
Limestone
Fair
son of D.
N. and Lillie
Lovett
14
W. M.
Jan 7 1864
Oct 31 1913
3D Headstone
Cement
Good
Lovett
shaped like
tree
15
? Lamb
? 10 1868
? 14 1939
Headstone
Limestone
Top corner
broken off
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 66 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-18
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 67 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

��� d
i • •a r'
``
�
k ���
�'
�
��
�-
�1 ,.
�% ••
riP
Tt
..
ire` 3".;
- __
..
3 �_
--
i�
.
f
- � -- - �
,�,
� - �,
_.
�,..
_
,
'��
- � ,°.�
�wg
kyd
-
�
��
� ,'
�
�
� h
l �' i
a _.
_ a
`�hw. i _ � -
�
R
�
h:,
�
��
d.
�''�
f

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-19
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 68 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-19: MARKED GRAVES AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31RB654
OLDEST MARKER, GRAVE 7, LOOKING EAST
MOST RECENT MARKER, GRAVE 15, LOOKING NORTHWEST

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
The inscription on Grave Marker 1 indicated that Aladon Strong Wishart attained the rank of
Corporal in the 31s' North Carolina infantry regiment in the Confederate Army. Grave Marker 14
is a cement headstone in the shape of a tree trunk used as a memorial for members of the
Woodman of the world (Figure 4.2-20).
It would appear that the cemetery was used as early as 1881 and that it was last used in 1939.
The four principal family names associated with this cemetery are Collins, Wishart, Watson, and
Lovett. This cemetery appears on the 1972 USGS SW Lumberton topographic map (see Figure
3.2-2 in Appendix A) as well as the most current topographic map.
RECOMMENDATION: An overview of local history did not yield historically significant information
on the Collins, Wishart, Watson, and Lovett families. Due to the lack of association with significant
events or the lives of persons significant in our past, the cemetery does not appear eligible for the
NRHP under Criteria A and B. The cemetery also does not appear eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion C due to the lack of distinctive design features. Therefore, it does not meet the
requirements of Criteria C and D, as it contains no graves of important persons, is not of great
age, contains no special design elements, and is not an important representation of significant
events. The small burial population would not provide significant information, and the cemetery
does not appear eligible under Criterion D.
Kleinfelder recommends placing at the minimum a 30 ft buffer around this cemetery to avoid any
impacts to it. No further work at this site is recommended; however, in the event that design plans
change and the cemetery cannot be avoided, the graves would need to be relocated in
accordance with applicable state laws and following additional consultation with NCHPO.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 69 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
FIGURE 4.2-20
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 70 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURE 4.2-20: OTHER MARKERS AT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 31RB654
sw
y
$►4049
v
� jY4
5
GRAVE MARKER 1, A. STRONG WISHART, LOOKING EAST
GRAVE MARKER 14, W. M. LOVETT, LOOKING NORTHEAST

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
4.3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of the survey of the 27.5-mile-long PNG proposed transmission pipeline and its
associated staging yard, temporary construction easement, and access easements is to confirm
if archaeological sites that are listed in, eligible for listing in, or potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the project APE for direct effects
on archaeological resources. The APE is located in Robeson County and in consultation with
NCHPO consists of 258.6 acres (104.7 ha) excluding areas previously surveyed in 2010 and
2011, wetlands delineated by Kleinfelder in 2022, and the NC Department of Transportation right-
of-way along roads. The APE was given full consideration and included visual reconnaissance
with digital photographic documentation as well as intensive survey of areas without the following:
standing water, obvious heavy saturation, signs of very poor drainage, obvious disturbance by
previous earth moving activities, or erosion. For surface survey, if sufficient visibility (50 percent
or greater) was present, the intensive survey was conducted by pedestrian walkover transects at
10-m intervals. In the acreages without sufficient surface visibility, intensive survey was conducted
by shovel tests placed at 30-m (approximately 100-ft) intervals. A total of 599 shovel tests were
excavated in the APE. Based on previous research in the vicinity of the APE, prominent historic
themes in the project area include Archaic and Woodland period Native American settlement and
historic rural settlement from the nineteenth century through the present with emphasis on
agriculture.
Four archaeological resources (31 RB490, 31 RB491, 31 RB505 and 31 RB566) were previously
recorded for the PNG Sutton Pipeline (Green et al 2011; Green and Nagle 2010) and the proposed
Highway 72 Rail Site (Southerlin 2016) that are located in the APE for the proposed Line 479.
Sites 31 RB492, 31 RB565, and 31 RB634 are located within 30 m or less of the APE, but only
31 RB565 extends into the APE. Every attempt was made to relocate previously recorded sites
31 RB490 and 31 RB566 within the APE, but no cultural remains for either were documented
during intensive survey for the Line 479 pipeline corridor at the locations on file at OSA for these
sites.
As a result of the survey, four newly identified archaeological resources (31 RB651, 31 RB652,
31 RB653, and 31 RB654) were recorded, and two previously recorded resources were relocated
and revisited (31 RB491 and 31 RB565). Site 31 RB654 is the Collins Family Cemetery that was
in use from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century and is marked on the 1972 USGS SW
Lumberton topographic map. It is a small family cemetery (15 graves) lacking significant historical
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 71 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
associations, exceptional design or artistic merit, and a substantial burial population that could
yield significant information per physical anthropological studies. It is recommended as not
eligible for listing in the NRHP but should be treated under North Carolina statutes regarding
cemeteries. Kleinfelder recommends placing at the minimum a 30 ft buffer around this cemetery
to avoid any impacts to it.
The other five sites are all historic domestic scatters. Three of these (31 RB491, 31 RB565, and
31 RB652) match up to projections based on structures from historic maps and aerial imagery. All
of them date to the late nineteenth to the twentieth century with 31 RB651 having more artifacts
from the early nineteenth century. All the artifacts recovered from these sites were collected from
the surface or the plow zone of agricultural fields and were widely dispersed across documented
site areas indicating that none of them had intact cultural deposits. These fields have been
impacted by one or more centuries of plowing. In addition, many of the sites exhibit artifacts that
are only small fragments and reflect the impacts of repeated soil turnover by agricultural
equipment. Although these sites have yielded information regarding the approximate location of
a site potentially occupied as early as the nineteenth century, it would be unlikely to provide
additional information on nineteenth- to twentieth-century domestic life in the Coastal Plain region
of North Carolina. The portion of these sites within the APE is recommended as not eligible for
the NRHP. No further work is recommended.
The lack of precontact period occupations at the sites recorded in this survey is likely a reflection
of the proposed route for the transmission pipeline. The route cuts across upland areas and over
streams, drainages, and wetlands instead of running parallel to them on stream terraces, ridge
toes, and floods which have a higher probability for precontact occupation.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 72 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
5 REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, David G., and Michael K. Faught
1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 26:163-187.
Anderson, David G., David S. Brose, Dena F. Dincauze, Michael J. Shott, Robert S. Grumet,
and Richard C. Waldbauer
2019 The Earliest Americans Theme Study. Archaeology Program, National Park Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261286408_The_Earliest Americans_Paleoind
ian_Theme_Study_for_the_Eastern_ United —States, accessed March 2019.
Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, J. Christopher Gillam, Erik N. Johanson,
Derek T. Anderson, Albert C. Goodyear, and Ashley M. Smallwood
2010 PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 38: 63-90.
Bamann, Susan E.
2006 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Mabrey Bridge Site (31ED333), Bridge 53 Over
Fishing Creek, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research.
Submitted to North Carolina Department of Transportation. Copies available from Human
Environment Section, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Barrett, John Gilchrest
1963 The Civil War in North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Bishir, Catherine W., and Michael T. Southern
1996 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Eastern North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Boyce, D. W.
1978 Iroquoian Tribes of the Virginia -North Carolina Coastal Plain. In Northeast, edited by B.
G. Trigger, pp. 282-289. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, W. C. Sturtevant,
general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 73 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia.
Byrd, J. E.
1997 Tuscarora Subsistence Practices in the Late Woodland Period: The
Zooarchaeology of the Jordan's Landing Site. North Carolina Archaeological
Council, Publication 27.
1999 Ceramic Types and Typology in Northeastern North Carolina: The View
from the Davenport Site (31 BR39). North Carolina Archaeology 48:95-106.
Choate, Brian C.
2011 Stratigraphic Investigations at Barber Creek (31 PT259): Reconstructing the
Culture -History of a Multicomponent Site in the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, East Carolina
University, Greenville, North Carolina.
Claggett, Stephen R.
1995 First Immigrants: Native American Settlement of North Carolina. Tar Heel Junior
Historian 34:1-5. North Carolina Museum of History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable, assemblers
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Ms. on file, Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the North Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5), Philadelphia.
Connor, Robert D. W.,
1919 History of North Carolina. Volume l: The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods, 1584-
1783. The Lewis Publishing Company, New York.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina State
Department of Archives and History, Raleigh.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 74 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited., Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
2006 Three Fluted Points from the Hardaway Site, North Carolina. North Carolina
Archaeology 55:103-111.
Daniels, Dennis F.
2005 Samuel Stephens. Published online by NCPedia
http://ncpedia.org/biography/governors/stephens. Site accessed January 2023.
Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., Keith C. Seramur, Tara L. Potts, and Matthew W. Jorgenson
2008 Searching a Sand Dune: Shovel Testing the Barber Creek Site. North Carolina
Archaeology 57:50-77.
Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr., and I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.
1990 Projectile Point Classification Project: The Classification of Projectile Points in Existing
Archaeological Collections from North Carolina. Research Laboratories of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Delcourt, H., and P. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United
States. In Pollen Records of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited
byV. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. G. Holloway, pp. 1-37. American Association of
Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, P., and H. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present. In
Geobotany ll, edited by R. C. Roman, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1985 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North
America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 75 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Drye, Carmen M.
1997 An Analysis and Interpretation of the Archaic Projectile Point Sequence from Lowder's
Ferry, Stanly County, North Carolina. Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Eastman, Jane M.
1994 The North Carolina Radiocarbon Date Study (Part 1). Southern Indian Studies 42.
Fenneman, Nevin
1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York. Electronic document,
https://www.lawrencechs.com, accessed January 2019.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
2023 Digital Type Collections. Electronic document,
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/, accessed January 2023.
Goebel, Ted, Michael E. Waters, and Dennis H. O'Rourke
2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in America. Science 319:1497-1502.
Goodyear, Albert C., III
1999 Results of the 1999 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 4(1-3):8-13.
2000 Topper Site: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 5(2):18-26.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley P. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael A. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Center for the Study of the First
Americans and Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Greer, Georgeanna H.
1981 American Stonewares: The Art & Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.
Atglen, Pennsylvania.
Green, Paul R.
1986 The Archaeology of "Chowanoke". Results of the 1983-1984 Investigations at Mount
Pleasant and Liberty Hill, Hertford County, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 76 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Green, William and Kimberly Nagle
2010 Management summary for Phase I and 11 cultural resource investigations at the Anson
and Sutton Compressor Stations, Anson and Robeson Counties, North Carolina. S&ME,
Inc., Columbia, SC.
Green, William, Kimberly Nagle, and Heather C. Jones
2011 Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed PNG Sutton Pipeline Project, Anson,
Bladen Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Richmond, Robeson, and Scotland
Counties, North Carolina. S&ME, Inc., Columbia, SC.
Griffin, Hazel
1976 Northampton History. Published in Footprints in Northampton 1741-1776-1976.
Northampton County Bicentennial Committee, Jackson, North Carolina.
Griffin, J. B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Herbert, Joseph M.
1999 Prehistoric Pottery Taxonomy and Sequence on the Southern Coast of North Carolina.
North Carolina Archaeology 48:37-58.
2003 Woodland Ceramics and Social Boundaries of Coastal North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill.
Herbert, Joseph M., and Mark A. Mathis
1996 An Appraisal and Re-evaluation of the Prehistoric Pottery Sequence of Southern Coastal
North Carolina. In Prehistoric Ceramics of the Carolinas, edited by David G. Anderson,
pp. 136-189. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.
Hoefling, Larry J.
2005 Chasing the Frontier. Scots -Irish in Early America. iUniverse Publishers, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
20213937.001A I RAI-23R150042 Page 77 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Holloman, Charles R.
2004 John Lawson, 1674-1711. Published online by Documenting the American South.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/lawson/bio.html. Site accessed January 2023. Dictionary of
North Carolina Biography. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Independence Hall Association
2014 Creating the Carolinas. http://www.ushistory.org/us/5c.asp. Site accessed March 30,
2015.
Inter -University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
2023 "United States Historical Census Data Browser." Available at: <http: //fisher.) ib. Virginia.e
du.census>
Isa, Mari
2017 Jadeite: The (Negligibly) Radioactive Kitchenware for The Nuclear Age. CAPBlog (blog),
November 30, 2017. Electronic document, http://campusarch.msu.edu/?p=5712,
accessed February 14, 2020.
Justice, Noel. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Kars, Marjoleine
2002 Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre -Revolutionary North Carolina.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Kennett, Linda Hamer
2013 Currier and Ives China: Americana. Greensburg Daily News. Electronic document,
https://www.greensburgdailynews.com/opinion/columns/currier-and-ives-china-
americana/article_7fca4418-6f15-570d-b10e-1f01c7b93d31.html, accessed July 9, 2022.
Knick, Stanley
1988 Robeson Trails Archaeological Survey and Reconnaissance in Robeson County.
Pembroke State University, Native American Resource Center, Pembroke, NC.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 78 of 85 February 7, 2023
0 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
La Vere, David
2013 The Tuscarora War. Indians, Settlers, and the Fight for the Carolina Colonies.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lautzenheiser, Loretta, Mary A. Holm, Susan E. Bamann, Jane Eastman, and Shane C. Petersen
1999 Archaeological Data Recovery, Sites 31 RD 1166, 31 RD 1192, and 31 GF376, Proposed
Randleman Reservoir, Randolph and Guilford Counties, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina
Research, Inc., Submitted to Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. Copies available
from the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Lee, E. Lawrence
1963 Indian Wars in North Carolina, 1663-1763. Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission,
Raleigh.
Lefler, Hugh T., and Albert R. Newsome
1973 The History of a Southern State: North Carolina. Third edition. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lindsey, Bill
2023 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document,
http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed January 2023.
Lockhart, Bill
2010 Bottles on the Border: The History and Bottles of the Soft Drink Industry in El Paso, Texas,
1881 — 2000. Electronic document, https:Hsha.org/bottle/References.htm, accessed June
2, 2022.
Lockhart, Bill, and Russ Hoenig
2015 The Bewildering Array of Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Logos and Codes. Electronic
document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/Owenslllinois2Ol5.pdf, accessed June 1, 2022.
Lumbee Tribe
http://www.lumbeetribe.com/index.php?option=com—content&view=article&id=l 35&ltemi
d=115. Site accessed January 2023.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 79 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-Pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory (MAC Lab)
2022 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory's Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland.
Division of the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. Electronic document,
http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/index.htm, accessed March 17, 2022.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
McCachren, Clifford M.
1978 Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service.
McDonald, Jerry N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention
to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 B.P. Jeffersoniana: Contributions from the Virginia Museum
of Natural History 9:1-59.
McFadden, Paulette
2009 Geoarchaeological Investigations of Dune Formation and Artifact Deposition at Barber
Creek (31 PT259). Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, East Carolina
University, Greenville, North Carolina.
McReynolds, Theresa
2005 Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile Points.
North Carolina Archaeology 54:1-33.
Meltzer, David J.
1989 Why Don't We Know When the First People Came to North America? American Antiquity
54(3):471-490.
Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 80 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFEL DER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
Millis, Heather
2001 Data Recovery Excavations at 31 WL37 on Upper Contentnea Creek, Wilson County,
North Carolina (Draft). TRC Corporation, Submitted to North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Copies available from North Carolina Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh.
Mintz, John J., Thomas E. Beaman, Jr., and Paul J. Mohler
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.
2009a Geoarchaeology and Geochronology at the Owens Ridge Site (31 ED369). North Carolina
Archaeological Society Newsletter 18(4):1-5.
2009b Late Quaternary Geoarchaeology and Geochronology of Stratified Aeolian Deposits, Tar
River, North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Coastal Resources Management
Program, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
National Park Service
2023 National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation. United States Department of
the Interior, National Park Service. Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrbl5/nrbl5_2.htm, accessed January 2023.
Nelson, Lee H.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. History News 24(11): 1-11.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
2014 Historic Halifax: The River and the Valley. http://www.nchistoricsites.org/halifax/river-
valley.htm. Site accessed January 2023.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 81 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh.
North Carolina Historic Sites
2023 Historic Bath: John Lawson. http://www.nchistoricsites.org/bath/lawson.htm. Site
accessed January 2023.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research,
Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. Raleigh, NC.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens, Jr., and H.
T. Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University.
Outland, Robert B., III
1996 Slavery, Work, and the Geography of the North Carolina Naval Stores Industry, 1835-
1860. The Journal of Southern History 62(I):27-56.
Perry, Percival
1968 The Naval -Stores Industry in the Old South: 1790-1860. The Journal of Southern History
34(4):509-526.
Phelps, David S.
1980 Archaeological Salvage of the Thorpe Site and Other Investigations Along the U.S.
Bypass, Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Report 1, Archaeology
Laboratory, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
1981 a Archaeological Survey of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Publication 16, North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.
1981 b The Archaeology of Colington Island. Archaeological Research Report No. 3,
Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by M. A. Mathis and J. J. Crow, pp. 1-52. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 82 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
0,rght F-pi,.Right5.l.tb-
V
Powell, William S.
1988 North Carolina: A History. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Rae, Haniya
2016 An Exciting History of Drywall. Electronic document,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/07/an-exciting-history-of-
drywall/493502/, accessed February 4, 2020.
Ready, Milton
2005 The Tar Heel State. A History of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia.
Roberts, Joseph F.
2011 Prehistoric Ceramics from the Barber Creek Site (31 PT259), Greenville, North Carolina.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1997 Port Brunswick and the Colonial Naval Stores Industry: Historical and Archaeological
Observations. North Carolina Archaeology 46:51-68.
Russell, David Lee
2000 The American Revolution in the Southern Colonies. McFarland and Company, Inc.,
Jefferson, North Carolina.
Sellon, Michael R.
1980 Moss Neck Watershed, Robeson County, North Carolina: Archeological and Historical
Reconnaissance. Indian Museum of the Carolinas, Inc., Laurinburg, NC.
Sharpe, Bill
1958 A New Geography of North Carolina. Sharpe Publishing Company, Raleigh.
South, Stanley
1976 An Archeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. The Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology Notebook 8:1-55.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 83 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght Fe pi'. Right 5.l.tbv
V
Southerlin, Bobby
2016 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Highway 72 Rail Site,
Robeson County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
Sprague, Roderick
2002 China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating. Historical Archaeology 36(2):111-127.
Stanyard, William F., Larissa A. Thomas, Laura Voisin George, and Edward Schneider
2016 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project: North Carolina
Project Components. Natural Resource Group, LLC, Duluth, GA.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Terrell, William H., William H. Radisch, Kristin H. Hill, Kenneth W. Robinson, and J. Ned
Woodall
1999 Archaeological Investigations, US 74 Maxton Bypass to NC 41, Robeson County, North
Carolina. Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, NC.
Thornbury, William
1965 Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley, New York.
Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina
2013 History. http://www.tuscaroranationnc.com/history. Site accessed January 2023.
USDA/NRCS
2023 Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and Natural Resource
Conservation Service [NRCS] Soil Mapping and Official Soil Series Descriptions).
Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/, accessed January 2023.
Valentine, Patrick M.
2002 The Rise of a Southern Town: Wilson, North Carolina 1849-1920. Gateway Press,
Baltimore, Maryland.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 84 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELOER
O'rght F-pi'.Right5.l.tb-
V
Wagner, Daniel P., and Joseph M. McAvoy
2004 Pedoarchaeology of Cactus Hill, a Sandy Paleoindian Site in Southeastern Virginia, USA.
Geoarchaeology 19(4):297-322.
Walbert, David
2023a A Little Kingdom in Carolina. Published online by LearnNC.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1665. Site accessed January 2023.
UNC School of Education, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
2023b A Royal Colony. Published online by LearnNC.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1973. Site accessed January 2023.
UNC School of Education, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by M. A. Mathis and J. J. Crow, pp. 53-81. 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.
Waters, Michael R., Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese.
Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles
T. Hallmark, Michael B. Collins, and James E. Wiederhold
2011 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site,
Texas. Science 331:1599-1603.
Watson, Alan D.
1992 Wilmington: Port of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 Page 85 of 85 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

iCLE/NFEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
APPENDIX A
LARGE REPORT FIGURES
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
= I Map View
Site Boundary
1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
10IMillill
R
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1 i n = 5-- ft
KL H1NF-HL A0ER
CREATED BY:
EArias
The-sd is included on this graphic representation has been compiled tmm a Mahe of
is to Kleinfelder
CHECKED BY:
JS
Source: 1950
USGS.
ce and subject change without notice. makes no representations or
anfies, express o,implied,-toaccuracy.completeness. timeliness, or nghts to th a
serotsuchinformation.Thisdocumentisnetintendedteruseassland--eypmdoct
erisitdesig—derintendedasacenstr-ti—&signdec-t.The useormisuse
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:
m
of the information contained — this graphic representaton is at the sole risk of the
W W W. klei nfelder. com
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
I
I
FIGURE
1950 Aerial Map
3.2-1 A
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina

t `
—y- — — . 4.
.4
_ 4w
� r
4
low
i� •
L _ - -- - ----`'
:� ,
4"W
AA
rt
LEGEND 500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 1950 Aerial Map
_ Map View 1 in = 500 ft CREATED
assreoa9ewooaeeermzesoorepreseozoosor BY: EArias
Tmf.i--thisghie sti-has—pkdfi-... -t.f KLEINFELOE4
3.2-1 BSite Boundary
CHECKED BY: JS
a es.e. esso, mp ed,as oa ,a y. omwee ess. me ess.o,d9h� ore Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1950 Ma Projection Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained senor-�h r.—ti Thisdoc�me�tis�.ti�te�dedrorose.s.l.odsm,eyprod.t
p j from US195 o,s rdes�9�edo,��reTdedasa o sr, ro des9 do me r The seo,ms FILE NAME: Line 479
orrhe ro�ario�—t.i—d—this9 phi—preae t-is.t--1—skorthese www.kleinfeldeceom Robeson County, North Carolina
1950 Map Projection party s 9�rmss 9de f�rma�.
S7RIeth

i
46
r!
�a
- I +
14'-
1�'
I
a
-
SI
LEGEND
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
?
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1950 Aerial Map
_ I Map View
1 in = 500 ft
KL E//VFEL DER
CREATED BY:
EArias
3.2-1 C
Site Boundary
0 1950 Ma Projection
p 1
t -d d this g phis p �t h h pled from a a,ety of
d h;e << n g mo c e Ki rem preseotzh-sor
sa, p so pl d a pete orngh6to a
ofs-h��f.—ti- Thisdoc—is-wt-dedfor— s_� d_—ypr.d-
oonsltdeslg—dorlot &d—.—str-ti— esigodo�� —The— r-
Bright People. Right Solutions.
��
CHECKED BY:
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained
1
FILE NAME:
Q 1950 Map Projection
from USGS.
oflhelofo zHoocootzloedoothisgrzphicrep,ese ado sa<<hesoehskof hese
p.1y-imgormi-simgthem.—ti-
www.kleinfelder.eom
Robeson County, North Carolina
see File Path

�1#
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
= I Map View
Site Boundary
1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
n
Jr 7
K
-k iy r, — -
v
�V+
� t
OL
♦_
. a
t � I
A
+ y .
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 1950 Aerial Map
1 in = 500 ft J
KLE//VFELOER 3 CREATED BY: EArias
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of " 2- 1 D
ce and issmb;ecttuchangewithmmtnmdce.Kleinfeldermakesnurepresenmtatiunsur CHECKED BY: J
anfies, eapr—sur ilied, - to accuracy. completeness, timeliness, ur nghts to the Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained serorsuchinrermaden. mpThisdocumentisnotintendedforuse aealands—eypr.duct Line 479
from USGS. or is it deaignedorintendedaeaconstrmctiondesigndocumenot.The use or —use FILE NAME:
of the information contained on this graphic repprese ti- is at the sole risk of the www.kleinfelder.com Robeson County, North Carolina
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path

LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
Pro—
ftiv
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1 i n = 500 ft
KL E//VFEL OER
CREATED BY:
EArias
The-salien included en this graphic represen alien has been cempiled fmm a ahe of
is to Kleinfelder
CHECKED BY:
JS
ce and subject change without notice. makes no representations or
anh__presaer implied.as to accuracy....pletenessaimeliness. er dghts to the
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained .fst.hinfermaden. This ducumentisnetint-dedfe,use—.1-d--eyp,educt
from USGS. erisitdesig—derintended— .—stmcti— d-igndec-t.The usee,misuse
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:
of the inf=ti— contained — this graphic representafion is at the sole risk of the
www.kleinfelder.com
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
1950 Aerial Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
At I
FIGURE
3.2-1 E

J'
LEGEND
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED:
12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
Feet
1950 Aerial Map
_ Map View
Site Boundary
ryaid
1950 Ma Projection
p 1
Q 1950 Map Projection
1 in = 500 ft
mf...ti-�� &do this grzphicrepreae ti- hasI,— complied from a --t,of
is-1-fechzogewith—t—t—Klelofeldermakes—,ep,ese- h-sor
.f fti -fpr—se,i.piled,rifeaec—cy,cempl--ss,tlme—ss.erng-tette
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained se`. -ch e,made This de -- is - wt-dedferoae —,-d--ypred-t
from USGS. ofgisltdeslg—der lot &d—.—str-ti—deslgode--t.The�seer—
effhe fem,afie�ee�fal—d— this grzphlcrep,eseoafieolszt-s-r,skefthe5e
Wy-imgermi-simgd,e��fe,mafi-.
KLEINFELOHA?
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
3.2-1 H
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
see File Path

LEGEND 500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED: 12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Feet
1950 Aerial Map
_ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary mf..ti-�� &d-thisgr hi re s—ti-hasI,—compliedfi—a--t,of
ry-dis- bl- <ochzogewith—t—ti� K16wfelde,..Wsoorepreae-h-sor
a ti-,-. sso, m 11ed,-toa�� —y,completeness,tlme—ss.-ngh6tothe
1950 Ma Projection Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained se`of st-h pro—t- This doc—is-wt-d ed fur — —, -d--y product
p 1 from USGS. oo,, deslg—dor �t &d—.—st—ti—&sigodoco —. The —.,—
otthei�to�ati--t.i—d—this g phlcrepreseoafiooiszt-s--kofthe5e
1950 Map Projection party-img.'mi-simgthem.—ti-�
KLEINFELOE/Q
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
3.2-1 1
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

z
44,
.. �'. _" .
Y
-
+i ' — f
Tw
ic
r
•
a 'yes •r t h 3 � •1- Y
, t
v 4
r.r
e
1..
M _
Fr
'
- r
r •
�5 +
M'
C
r
w
r�
a�," '• r • _ A'M R t. ^TT,,.AYF-i r,�.....f �aR _ -? - , '�.t -^�M' {�i, , .v ,YM-� y, -
I
P.
. ,,i ,, , r i��lf'� „-• ._ :? „�, --0 r ; e.: � >� �'. � v
i
44,
.. �'. _" .
Y
-
+i ' — f
Tw
ic
r
•
a 'yes •r t h 3 � •1- Y
, t
v 4
r.r
e
1..
M _
Fr
'
- r
r •
�5 +
M'
C
r
w
r�
a�," '• r • _ A'M R t. ^TT,,.AYF-i r,�.....f �aR _ -? - , '�.t -^�M' {�i, , .v ,YM-� y, -
I
P.
. ,,i ,, , r i��lf'� „-• ._ :? „�, --0 r ; e.: � >� �'. � v
i
LEGEND 500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED: 12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Feet
_ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
IIIII. Site Boundary The I f ..ti- included - this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
ryand issoh;ecttechangewi a tnedee Kielnfeidermakesnerepres-tat�enser
antes,e.presserlmpiled,asteaee raey.cempietenessalmeilness.er gh tette
1950 Ma Projection Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained serofs eh nfermaden This decoment is net intended fer use asaland survey pmdoct
p 1 er
from USGS. sitdesignederintendedasaeenstr-ti.ndesignd.-meat Theoseerm
eftheinfmmati--toi—d— this graphicrepresenafienisatthes-riskefthe5e
1950 Map Projection pafty-ing er mi-sing the mfi. atien.
KL �/NF-�L OAF
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.eom
1950 Aerial Map
ISM //�
V . `-1 J
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
-gip
P
•� .nit i•`�'�
V� a .
L it
FA, }
?r
— 'fit a +�„�� •��r ,. t .. ,+
0.
1
_ _ _ _ — - _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet �� CREATED: 12/16/2022 1950 Aerial Map
d i n = 500 ft KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias
The inf ..firm i ll,, d, d nn this grzphic represen atinn has been nmpi ed fmm n n.iety of is
3. 2-1 K
znd ieao, ,to chzngewig n,Innh.a..pl,e.de,mn—Inn,ep,esentntinns n, CHECKED BY:
nnies,e. essn,imhied.nstnn,iu,n=wt-m df., s,-m 1-sa,n—yp, du,t Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained sthifi � hinfn,mngnn.T&d me--fiti dt igdfn,--t.Tn eyp,nd t Line 479
from USGS. nn,isitdesignednrintendedzszcnnstmctinndesigndncoment.The�sen,mis�se FILE NAME: nftheinfnmztinncnntzinednnthisgrnphi ,ep,esenngnnisntthasne,isknfthe www.kleinfelder.com Robeson County, North Carolina
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path

9
I
7
y,
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
LEGEND
CREATED:
12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) ` F �' Feet
1950 Aerial Map
_ Map View s
1 in = 500 ft
KLEINF-HLOER
CREATED BY:
EArias
3.2-1 L
CHECKED BY:
JS
The f t -dd thisg phis p �t h h piledfrom. --t,of
Site Boundary d h1-t n th c a K, ,em
0 1950 Ma Projection
p 1
g represe-h-sor
1 sa, p so pl d t a y P1- , e— rnghtst.-
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained i .fst-h �ro,m t—This dog —tis—tiwt-ded ror—as. zo d survey product
from USGS. ouris,deslg—donut &dzs.—str-ti— d-igoduco — They-.—s
Bright People. Right Solutions.
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
0 1950 Map Projection ',
et the f=ti--t.i—d—thisgrzphlcrepreseoatieoisztthesuleriskefthe
party s germs s gde te,mate
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson County, North Carolina
see File Path

1\
,r T
ifk-
ate 3 .•+
x
r;
7� -
;a�
J.
J — _
x
. - P 1 la. ..f � -• '� { � t. � S fir:.. '
• E �" fits ��k ;•:.
r
6
I ,
--
LEGEND
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED: 12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
I _ Map View
Site Boundary
C� 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
°r Feet
1 in = 500 ft
Themf — dio-bl- too.,s if�,eP,eseK16w�lds,— omPedr,oma ahetyor
a�d�ss�hre�<<ochzogewitho�;�od�e.K1e��re�de,makes
ba���es.e.p,esso,moved,as;oa==.a=y.=omweteoessameloess.ordgh6to a
ource: 1950 Aerial Project obtained se`of`i� �ro,mado� Thisdo��me�;�s�o;mt dedro, seasa -d--yP d� ;
, FfsromUSGS. sitdesig—dory t—&dasa ors;, fi—deslgodo—t.The—.1mi-
or;he f=tio��o-i—d—;hisg ph ,eg,ee �tlonlsztthe-le HA fthe
Wyv mg.' i- smg �helnformzhon
KL E/NFEL DER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
1950 Aerial Map
3.2-1 M
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
= I Map View
Site Boundary
1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
w
�• ���? .."wry.
1
y"*
k
)r.z
4'�71-
�. s •a# + � `ate` �
lit
44 + r yl $
0
1
+ti � �,FSr' rp • y�
41
R,
I Ilk
S tit �*
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
9
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1950 Aerial Map
1 i n = 500 ft
KL E//VFEL A0ER
CREATED BY:
EArias
The information Included on this graphic enlsdon has been compiled from a variety of
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained
t rmt
rce and is subject to change without notice. Klelnfelder makes no representations or
-sommies,expressorimplied, astoaccuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
userofsurhinrermaten.Thieducumentienetintended orueeaealandeu eyproduo`
ohesn designedresign d The se a
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JS
s
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
from USGS.
or -1mindedasi construction u or of the
is t the
o, rty.iim,atimis—imathomnthisgraphicrepreeenatlonieattheeolerieketthe
party using or misusing the information.
www.kleinfeldeeeom
Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path
h
Z2! ]!
FIGURE
3.2-1 NI

LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ Map View
Site Boundary
1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
ss.
p
J
. 5 Z
500 250 0 500
Feet
1 in = 500 nI
The information Included on this graft- teethe. Klei f has been complied from a variety of
rce and is subject to change without retire. Klelnfelder makes no representations or
-rommi-,express„implied, as to accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained Usa`,fsudhidr,rmati,,.Thisd,tamedtisn,tidmodedforueeaeelendsd,dypredudt
,r is It designed or intended— a construction deslg, document The u se or misuse
from USGS. oofthei,fermati--1aided,, this graphicrepreaemetim,is tthesolerisskofthe
party using or misusing the information.
KLE//VFEL0ER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.IN kleinfeldeceom
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
1950 Aerial Map
CREATED: 12/16/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: s
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
S7RIeth
FIGURE
3.2-1 O

3
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet e�-100� CREATED: 12/16/2022
1 in = 5-- ft KLE/NFELOER CREATED BY: EArias
The�nrn�dis�n 1-tnn hsgrzphicreprt—K1tlunhasbeencumpl�ed s n,.r,s rnr CHECKED BY: JS
nu s ,i h g g, d K f d . rig h,t.tur Bright People. Right Solutions.
r t p pl d t y. pl t .t u—y r.d ttie
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained se r h' r d .Th' d < < d dd d orveyprud FILE NAME:
from USGS. nnr cd 'g d c d d p r e 'g d hes nrmsu
nrtn r c -' d this
g pncrepresenGfiun'sn<<hesnle,sknrttthe5e www.kleinfeldeccom
party usimg ormsus ng the mfi. t-.
See File Path
0
1950 Aerial Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FIGURE
3.2-1 P

�+ ° . ti�r� .ram•' � Est.,' � _ . ,
Ft.
T '� i+' •� IL
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
aP
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1950 Aerial Map
1 in = 5ft
id his d f
decio hhee
KLE//VFELOER
CREATED BY:
EArias
3.2-1 R
o�a o o g.aphi .ep.ese-- as ompi e.om a ahety of
�e a�diss�hre�<<ochzogewitho���od�e.K�ei�re�dermzkesoorepreseotztioosor
a _p—, ,i-plied,"t......... L -p"t..... imeioess.ornghlto a
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained 'f` t'h ro,mado .This do..—is�o wt-dedro, seasa1-d--yp d-
dedasa
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
is
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
from USGS. ft'isitdesigoedori a o s,octioodesigodocomeot.The seo,mis se
of the io f=ti—--i—d — thing phis represeo Gfioo is zt the sole rink of the
party using "misusing the information.
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

-13
LEGEND
Survey Areas (259 ac.
Map View
Site Boundary
1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
— — — — — — — — - - - - -
7 7� - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L - - - - -
ov
- N
4, v
4W. y
7
'k. 1k
14 .
A
J
-
— — — — — — — — — —
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
0066iiiii?0000�� Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1 in = 500 ft
KL DER
CREATED BY:
EArias
Z mf .. is included —&d- this graphic representation has I,— compiled fr... Mahe of
is —1- t. K16wfelder
AEINF-HL
CHECKED BY:
is
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained
from USGS.
--s -d without —t— ..Ws — ­--h-s r
express r Pfied, - t. accuracy. completeness. t--ss. r ng- t. -
such - Thisnet is t intended for use — , -d S—ey pr.d
=— id d — . —str­ti— desig� do--t. The use or —use
—ris it d-ig-
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:
f the information contained — this graphic representation is t the sole risk f the
....kleinfelder.com
party using or misusing the W.—ti_
See File Path
4
1950 Aerial Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FIGURE
3.2-ISI

E
L
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
= I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
0 1950 Map Projection
ti-q
Sf
t
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 1950 Aerial Map
1 i n = 5ft KL E//VFEL A0ER CREATED BY: EArias
e.. lien included en this graphic represen -- atiun has been compiled tmm a ahe et CHECKED BY: JS
ce and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
anies,e.pressurimplied,asteaccuracy.cumpletenessaimeliness.urdgh to a Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained serotsuchintermaden.Thisdocumentisnutint-dedforuseasal-dsu—yprud- Line 479
from USGS. urisitd-ignedurintendedaeacunstmcti— d-igndocoment.The— rmisu— FILE NAME:
et theinte,matiun--ined—this graphicrepresentat- isatthesuleriskufthe www.kleinfelder.com Robeson County, North Carolina
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
FIGURE
3.2-1 T

4.
Xt' ° !
IL JT
4 "
AS
Ak
� - r'e e. o � � � r �. a ,�. rya y � •z r 4..
, fi - ' � o ,� _ # �, r tll�t�` - 15, � a ' r 'f ♦ • „ Y �:�v a ;_f s i 7� � �:a. ''4 -
a
n y to wl•� t v'�::. 5 ^„Y{ + 4� #}�
{
;
v
F
�
�„ ' � .S 1 '�
ir. ',mot '' � .' �
..
•i � r �.. .} -
. ,11^ �� .
r..•.�t
.y�
�f
4.
-
..
4
+r
LEGEND
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
CREATED:
12/16/2022
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
Feet
1950 Aerial Map
I _ Map View
1 in = 5-- ft
KLHINF-HLOER
3.2-1 V
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY:
JS
Site Boundary
ry
Th dedo hsgrzphic.ep.ese K16w� ldshe.Ws
K1e��re�de,makes�oreprese��a��o�so,
1950 Ma Projection
p 1
—eedfr-.t— .
a�d�ss�hre�<<ochzogewitho���od�e
—s-di
.f �d i-fp as..impiled•a t—ceraCYLC-P1--SSLt--ss—ng-t.the
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained Zr. -ch .—ti This do--tis—tiwt-dedforoaeza-d--ypr.d-
from USGS. ofgisitdeslg—dorlot &d— .—str-ti— esigodo�� —The— r—
Bright People. Right Solutions.
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
0 1950 Map Projection
of he fo�atio�—t.i—d— this gr.phicreprese mho isat-s- r,syof he5e
pny-imgormi-simgthem.—ti-L
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

l,t
LEGEND
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
_ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1950 Map Projection
1950 Map Projection
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1 in = 5-- ft
KLHINF-HLOER
CREATED BY:
EArias
om d is included on this graphic representation has been compiled a Marie y of
is to Kleinfelder
CHECKED BY:
JS
ce and subject change without notice. -
makes no representations or
ex anfies, press or implied, - to accuracy. completeness. timeliness, or nghts to th a
Source: 1950 Aerial Project obtained serotsuchintormad-Thisdec—tisnetintendedteruse— ,-d--eypmd-t
from USGS. or is itd-ignedorintendedaeacenstr-ti— d-igndec-t.The useormisu
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:
of the information contained — this graphic representaton is at the sole risk of these
www. klei nfelder. com
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
FIGURE
1950 Aerial Map
3.2-1 V
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina

T ,.
�E A S T cH ti, L'a' -I y
� 1
CEz 'ITCHY �.. ll"
1
> ..,. T ti/ I _ _ _ H•i3e •\ ber 0c r _ ,
C —( 9�
p � r i ,
1-4
— — — — x Pleafpnt fls FDA .
.,. 4 ,„ -cam :" � �a-� , � • ��� ''a �_�`��j
6�i
.ee
pl
� 9
i. .. _ ...... t,r� e,en<.rCh
<•b��soure ` - - 'tom, 1 `_ w+i g�`?�e
tsel
Lit
F
�` -v .:�: �, �, e ,�, - H — ^.�`- ti W6 `v � IE;m - •• Geer"':' i Gem' ,� I �:. +.�} -
' _
S:
l
F
` d - nePA�,eRr cF rtas i '�;� MEepa t ♦ I �� •- �, ,,,,„ � .i i" 1. 0
r
h
m m. ... <:w. � ,n.. - I �" � — _�_ — •.w '. Y o" _.. � rl. - SrnFlet _
zo <
m,
,o
z -
'ag
w
ce
~
surese
Elrod . .F S I /".�.- ,.. � � °':''S� � � •�w��.- - 1 � � t'r -
L
wq,"p
ROBE SON COUNTY < _,,,e � I „ "....... ; ��- �S- „� �-.D �„ - i• _ - -"�-�
-; ... _ ..
to
�t—
s
en
.<.a wn
7
p o f •gRAA a:._ .m Shy � ...
r
�� — - _
31RB491
1156
-
c�•'yam
08
R ay,n ali m 429
31 RB651
t- - -
-
� z
r
-
- J
. 4
MCDalald - J - _ - - -
- , lA g 8 nc6 . " - .-
_. _ t
J
31 RB653 - e a o _
_y
vi M
LEGEND 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
0 Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) Miles CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
I _ I Map View 1 in = 2 miles � KLE//VFEL�ER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary The iLtormation Included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a verlery of 3.2-2
randissubjecttochangewithou[notice.Klelnfeldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor CHECKED BY: JS
renties, express or implied, as to accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
0 1972 Map Projection Asa`ofsuchicturmatlen.Thisd-roentiscutictendedteruaeas ed sc,cy product Line Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were erisitdesigncdorictendedasac-structiondesigndocnmeet.Theuseormisus FILE NAME: IIId@X
obtained from USGS. ortheinrem,ationcentaiccd-thisgraphicrepresectatlonisatthesideriskutthe e www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection padyusingormisusingtleinformation. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

LILL l
P pi ng-
UM
PCem
1 f L
- ` I 1340,
+� r .,
%
9/51
i 1
1
- - o
16 Fi
i
�4 - •'-
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 In = 500 ft
Site Boundary The mf.—.ti- — &d-thisg, hi� -e ese� ti-h-I,--piledi,om.--tyof
zod is —I- to chzoge wifto t �.d— <16WeII..k— — reprea- t— or
apt-,-p,e ' m 11ed,-I.. � -,—pleteoeea,tlme1loess.-nght I. a
1972 Map Projection se`ofst-h��f—m-Thisdo��me�tis-wt-dedio,�se—.I-d_—yp d-
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were .1iI d-ig—dorht &dasa�o�st-fi—d-ilg doc —.The—.,mi--
obtainedfromUSGS. or the mf.-.III�o-i—d—thin g phlcrepreseoafiooisatthasoleHAorthe
1972 Map Projection pzly-mg.'mi—mg�mf.—ti o
KLEINFEL0E/Q
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 TOpo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2A
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

8
ear Swami
ry'
.0
•
— —f
e I
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary Thewf..ti- — &d-thisgr hicr reae ti-h-b —piledfr.. a,eyof
a dis-1-foch.og wifto t—k—K16Wo Idermakes— 'Preaeofztlooeo,
a-fees•e.P,essor pfied,a t.—u,any.�omPlefe�es.t-1loe7 rngh-.-
1972 Map Projection se`ofs��h fo,mado Thisdo��me�fis�o wt-dedfor seasa1-ds eyProd-
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were o,s;foes;goedorlofeodedzszcoosfr floodeslgodocomeof.Theoseormisose
obtained from USGS. of the �fo.afi— �o-i—d — this grzphlc rePreseoGfioo is of the sole risk of the
1972 Map Projection Wyosmgormi—mg�mf.—ti o. I
KLE1NFELA0EA?
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
I
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2B
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

T
11
V
. 1
�s I
I
I
I
I
L I
I
I
I
I
I
I
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary Thewf..ti- — &d-thisgr.phi�, rese� ti-h-b —piledfr.. a,etyof
a dis-1 „och.og wifto t—k—K16Wo Eder-1k—'Preaeotztlooeor
a -,ye _pr— rimpfied,a t.—u,any.�omPleteoee .t-1loe7 rngh-.-
1972 Map Projection se`ofs��h fo,mado Thisdo��me�,is�o wt-dedfor seasa1-ds eyProd-
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were o,s;,des;goedorl ,e dedasa o s„,IoodeslgodocomeotTheoseormisose
obtained from USGS. or,he W...ti— �o-i—d — this grzphlc rePreseoGfioo is a„he sole risk ofMtZ
1972 Map Projection Wyosmgormi—mgg, mf.—tio
KLE1NFELA0ER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 TOpo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2C
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

I _
� LL
I
r 11
Qt
Lid 16
;010,
Z
�Q.
C 163
.` .06
-Lt
500 250 0 500 �� PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L Map View 1 i n = 500 ft � KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary TheiLtormationIncluded-this graphic representation has beon compiledfromavariety of 3.2-2D
randissubjecttochangewithou[notice.Klelnfeldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor CHECKED BY: JS
mnties,e.pmssorimplied,astoaccuracy,completeness, timeliness, or doh is to Me Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection userofsuchinfurmatlen Thiaducumentisnetintended nrueeaealandsun•eyproduct Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were erieitdeaignedorintendedasaconstruetiondesigndocume^t.Theuseorm;aus �� FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. ertheindesig,oneenntendedasisgraphicrepreaenmtleniaattheaeledakerthe e www.kleinfeldeccom
1972 Map Projection pady^si,kormis^aing�hei^formation. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

/60
---------—-----
0
r
1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1 - J
at
■
52
® or
•
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 In = 500 ft
Site Boundary The W..ti-�� &d-thisgrzphicr reae ti-hasb—compiled from a-r'etyof
a dis-1-fech.og wifte t—k—K16Wo Idermakes�e,ep,ese�f.t—or
a�f�e _pr—rimpfied,asfe cc any.cemplefeoee.t—lloess.erngh6fette
1972 Map Projection se`of-ch fe,made Thisdee�me�fis�e wt-dedfe, seasa a ds rng-t�ef
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were e,s,fd-ig—derhf &dasaee�sf—ti—d-igodec—.Theoseermisose
obtained from USGS. of the �fem,ati— ee-i—d — this grzphlc represeoGfieo is of the sale hsk of the
1972 Map Projection party smgormi—mgg, mf.—ti-
KLEINFELOE/Q
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 TOpo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2E
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

=-
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —I
/5
ti
L13
(1521 -
urn t Swa
/54
I
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ I Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary The mf...ti-�� &d-thisgrzphicr reae ti-hasb—compiled from a —'etyof
adis-1-fe&'zo wig--e—K16wfeldermakes—.ep.e—.t—or
a fes.-fpr— rimpfied,- teaee—CYLeemwece�es Lt-1loeea.erngh6t.-
1972 Map Projection se`of-ch fe—ma Thisdo��me�fis�o wt-dedfor�seasa a ds—yprod-t
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were Fors;,des;g—derhf &dasaee� tr-ti—d-ilg dec --The— rml —
obtained from USGS. ofthei�femti— ee-i—d— thisgrzphlcrepreseoGfieoisofthesee-kofthe
1972 Map Projection Pzfty ngermi—mg�h mf.—teo.
KLEINFELOHA?
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.eom
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2F
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

l Orr,
Cl C)
------------
.36 Ili. �41,f LU Ii
lU At
/490
1 566
s W to r Tan
kit
}
1
1550
I_ ___________ ______ _______ v _________
Oil (ryy
N
500 250 0 500 �� PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
ft
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 nI KLE//VFELDER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary a io ma[ion Included on this graphic represen atlon has been compiled from a verle y of 3 ■ 2-2 G
sources and issubjecttochenge.ithoutnotice.Kioinfaiderm,kesnomp,,,,t,ti,nsor CHECKED BY: JS
ren[ies, express or implied, as [o accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or fights to Me Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection usernisuchintermaten Thisdmumentianetintended oruaeaaalandaorveyprodunt Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were nor is it designed or intended asaeenstruetiundesign decumentTheuseurmisus FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. of the inrem,atieneentainedenthisgraphicrspresentatunisatthes,Isris erthe e www.kleinfeldeccom
1972 Map Projection padyusingermisusingdeintermatien. S7Fleth Robeson County, North Carolina

I
17
145.,Gay
f, .JIB
ilk
�-Bea u • . .
— — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
}2 I
� I
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft /�� c c CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary Thewfs..ti-oc &d- this gr.phi� ese ti-h-bee —piled fromzvzrletyof %�LE�NFEL�E/Q JS 3.2-2H
e -dis-1 e<<eeh.og ifte t edee.K16wfeldermzkeaoe,eP,ese�a a se, CHECKED BY:
a�f�e _Pr—,i.plled,-teacc—cy.—ple�e�ess,tlme�loe— rngh6te a Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection se`of-chwf.—m . Thisdecomeotlsoetloteodedfe, seasa a ds eyP,ed e Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were e,s;,d-ig—der;�� &d-- s, IeodeslgodecomeotTheoseermisose FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. erthe mf...ti—ee-i—d— this gr.phlcrepreseoGfieoisa<<hesee-ker he www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection Party.mge,mi—mgg, mf.—ties See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina
----------------
1

5' L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
y -
i
..!
r
L A
Ul
0
ff�jf bta tin
t_
F
v
.
J
- -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a
AP
•
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - I Nei _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I /J - - - I�A
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary The wf ..ti- — &d - this grzphic r rpresenoGti- has b— compiled from a �ahety of
adis-1-fech.og wiftet—a—K16Wo Idermakesoe'resotztleose,
a�f�es. e.press er impfied, - to cc—cy, cempleteoee . t-1loeea. er ngh6 to tt e
1972 Map Projection se`ofs eh fe,made Thisde��—tf �o wt-dedfor seasa1-d--yprod f
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were e,s;,des;g—der;�f &dasaee�sf—ti—d-igodeco —. The —rml —
obtained from USGS. effhe �femafe ee fa ede fhsgrzphlcr rpres oGfieo saffheseerlskeffhe
1972 Map Projection party.mge,mi—mgg, mfe,mafie
KL E1NFEL A0EA?
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfeldeccom
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
3.2-21
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

■ 6 i
—, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i = — — — — — — — —may — — — —
L `1
675 676
--AOWWW- 7s
T
■
ti
'67 61'
r ` - Wate
133
2
_1� �+
- _ -
s.�
LV
RLA—Ulf
,till• -
--- -- - - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- CY-- ;�, --- ----------- ----
Ilia— Ails
Tle —� 110
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 TOpo Map
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary Thewf..ti-- thisgr hicr rea ti-h-—piled fr...-etyof KLE1NFELAOEA? JS 3.2-2J
a d ss hre ffochzogewgo f od e.Ke fede,makes o,ep,ese fafo so, CHECKED BY:
a�f�e _pr— rimpfied, -t. cc—cy.—plefeoee .t-1loess.orngh t. a Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection se`ofs��h fo,mado Thsdo me f s of fe dedfo, seasa a ds��,eyp,od f Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were o,i, des;g—dor;�f &dasa—tr-ti—d-ilg doc—.Theoaeormisose FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. of the i�=.ti— �o-i—d — this grzphlc represeoGfioo is of the so a -k of the www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection party.mgormi—mg�mf.—ti o. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

IkA-
n
AL—
WN
' f&-N
E 4Ti F.J.5 H'
JUN
-- ��
I�
0
------ ------------
-------- ►- ----------f----
�
j ILLL,
kb_ •
k 0
a
A 0
damp
ES
lk
F"
ndusrial
)C +r I Tye
� `\PH
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ � Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary The itorma[ion Included oo this graphic representetion has been compiled from a variety of
sources and issubjecttochangewitlmutnotice.Kleinfeldermekescootp—cetionsor
ranties,expressorimplied,as[oaccuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
1972 Map Projection Usa'nfsuchintermatlen Thisducumentisnetintended or useeselendso Byproduct
re1972 Topographic Maps were oreace��FILE
Fbtu,,cndfrom USGS. ortheinrem,ationcentsinedenthisgraphicrepresenatlonisatthesoleriskofthe
Map Projectionpartyoeingormisosingiheintormation.
� KL E//VFEL DER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com1972
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
//� //�
3.2-2 K
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
NAME:
See File Path

0-1�� ------------------ \-Z-i -------------- --
i
-- — — — —— ;=N' ———— — --——
136
.• • i - '
500 250 0 500 �� PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet �� CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft C KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias A A
Site Boundary .c iL o ma[ion Included on this graphic represen atlon has been compiled from a verle y of 3 ■ `-`
r andissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.Welnfeldermakesnorepresentationsor CHECKED BY: JS
ti-,express or implied, as to accuracy,completeness. tlmellness,ordghtsto Me Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection userofsuch inturmation. This duc—ectisno[intendedforus, asalandsc,cyproduct LIne479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were our is itdesig—dorintendedaaaconstrucuti, al godue vmeet.The use ormi1cs �� FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. of the inrem,ati.c—t.iced.nthisgraphicrepresentstinnisatthesole^akofthe a www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection padyuaingormisuaingdeinlormation See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

I
7 I
I
_ I
I
I
I
K
J
•
r a
W Ilk
5r
1 \ 4
JF
/25 '111111
bUU 2bU U bUU
LEGEND Feet
_
L _ I Map View 1 i n = 500 ft
Site Boundary The iLtorma[ior Included- this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
r and issubjec,tochaogevith—tnog—Weiufeldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor
ramie ir.fpressorimplied,as[oaccuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
1972 Map Projection userofsuchintormationThird-ror—tisrotintendedforus, a, landsr,oyproduct
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were or laltdesignodorintendedasacooetrueti-designdocumeot.Th.useormis.
obtained from USGS. ortheinrom,ati--tainedonthisgraphicrsprosentationisatthesoleriskofthe e
1972 Map Projection partyoamgormisoaingthointormati-.
��
� KL E//VFEL DER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
HKUJEGI NU. 2U21JUJ1.UU1A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
//� //�
3.2-2M
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

i
LEGEND
l _ I Map View
Site Boundary
0 1972 Map Projection
1972 Map Projection
Z
a
7
74
125
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet
CREATED: 12/15/2022
1 in = 500 ft
The information Included on this graphic repr9— Kitl of has been compiled from a variety of
rce and is subject to change without notice. Klelnfelder makes no representations or
renties, express,r implied, as t,',—racy,completeness, timeliness, or dghtst,Me
Source: 1972 Topographic Ma s were °ear°fe°°h'"r°— fi.,,.Thlsd°enmentisn° i-ededf,r°eeaeala°ds—eypr°d°°t
P,rlsltdssigned,ri—dedasac—tructi„d,slg,dec,meet The use,rm—e
obtained from USGS. erthe inrem,ati,n--ined- this graphicrsp,s,s,tatl„is tthe a,I,dskefthe
C KLE//VFELOER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
\\ �i
www.kleinfelder.com
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: c�
J"
FILE NAME:
party using or misusing theint,rmati,n.
See File Path
1972 Topo Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
3.2-2 NI

M
P'A!
Ilkt
LEGEND
l _ Map View
Site Boundary
0 1972 Map Projection
1972 Map Projection
dr
Y�
k,
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED: 12/15/2022
1 in = 500 nh
The information Included on this graphic t retire. Ki on has been compiled from a variety of
rce and is subject to change without retire. Klelnfelder makes no representations or
ranties, express or implied, as to accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or dgh is to th
Source: 1972 Topographic Ma s were °earofsgchinf°rmatien.Thiad°cumentian°time"ded gruaeaaalanda° eypred°nt
P or is it designed or intended aaaconetructionresign docpment.The useormis—
obtained from USGS. ofthe i"f°m'ati°n--ined on this graphi°rep,osenteti,e is at the sole risk of the
KLE//VFELDER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
\\ www.kleinfelder.com
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: s
JS
FILE NAME:
party using or misusing iheintormation.
See File Path
L
1
{{F1�
{
1972 Topo Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FIGURE
3.2-

I _ I
I i I
I I
I � I
I I
_ I
pe
r
I =rmsi'n /0
I I
1 I
1 � I
9
I � I
I � I
� � I
1
I
I
I
o I
I
I
L
J
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND �� Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L _ I Map View � 1 i n = 500 ft KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias p
Site Boundary uinrometier,"ludedenthis graphlcrepreseessionhasbee, complledfrour ,rieryof CHECKED BY: c and is subject to change without-9— Welnfelder makes no representations or JS
renties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection usergisuchinturmatien This duc^mentiscut intendedferus, salend s^nreyproduct Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were orlsltdesigrcdori^te^dedasaeenstruetis^desl9^dnc^meet. The use ormisuse FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. of the inrem,atieneentaiced.nthis graphicrepresentetionisatthe s,Is risk ofthe www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection pady^singermis^aingthe intermatien. �Se File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
i'I Idle
■I -
I
P'J
I
o
-� 900L� IF
- rb Fit.
I
CA
■
I
I
j
500 250 0 500 f PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND ��. Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft KL E//VFEL OER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary i ro.dio-thl—tIo&miwith-t ti—<10 nasm.kk mPiledr,oma�a,etyor JS 3■2-ZQ
L` a�d�s��e�e�<<o�ha�9ew�t,o���oh�e.K�e��reIde,makes�o,eP,ese��at�o�so, CHECKED BY:
a�ties -e ssorimpfied.-I. ==�r-y.—pi-I, ea,tlme1loe— rng-I. a Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
0 1972 Map Projection = of-ch f.r—ti Thlsdo��—tit- wt-dedlbr—e-ds�Neyprod Line479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were nor;s;,des;g—dorh, &d—.c-st—ti—&slgodo-t.The — rmisose FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. of me �ro�a�m�c-t.i ed—thisgrzphlcrepre a ado isa<<hesoa-1,or he www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection p.1y-mg ormi-singthe mfi. ti-. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

emIA
U
i
A= .
L.
0
a
r �
.
NEW d*LU.ILIL Ap_
500 250 0 500
LEGEND 006iiiiMMOMMOMMOMI Feet
L _ Map View 1 In = 500 ft
Site Boundary The W...tio� �� &d - this gr hlc rePreae i- has -,-piled piled f,om a ahety of
-diss�hree<<eeh'og "th—tt tee.K16Wo Idermzkes— 'Preaeotztleoaer
a es.e.Presserimpfied,-te'ee�,aey,cemPheteoeeaLhm 'oeea.erngh6te�he
1972 Map Projection se`ofs eh fe,made Thisdo��me��is�o wt-dedforuseasa1-ds eyProd�
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were e,s;,des;go derh� &dasaee�s�, d—d_igode .-tLThe oaeerml a
obtained from USGS. erthe i�=.tie a t.wed—thing phicreprese t� isztthe s�letl kerthe
1972 Map Projection Party scge,mis mgtheme,m't1e
KL EINFEL OE/Q
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2 R
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Add
1161.0111
• ilk_
�%krM6
law
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L Map View 1 i n = 500 ft KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary The 'informationlncludedonthis graphicrepresentetlonhaslee, complledfrom everleryof CHECKED BY: c 3•2-2S
rce and is subject to change without notice. Klelnfelder makes no representations or JS
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection uofsuchintormaton This dorumen[ is rot intended for use eselend so sypror- Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were crisltdesigrodorintendedaeaconstruetiondeslgndocvmentTh. use ormisus FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. oftherok,nneti——tainedonthisgraphicrepresenra^nnis atthe s,Is risk ofthe e www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection psrtyosimgormisoaingtheinbrmati-. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

�a
.- ,
~ L — — — — — 1 k_x
�.
it
L
%111116 .0.0/
�— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————-
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L Map View 1 i n = 500 ft � KL E//VFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary The iLtormatiorincludedonthis graphicrepreseessionhasbeencompiledfromavariety of 3.2-2T
r ardissubjecttoch,rgewith.rt retire. Welnfeldermakesnorepresen[a[ionsor CHECKED BY: JS
ren[ies, express or implied, as to accuracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
u 1972 Map Projection rintormation Thiedocomertierotintended orueeaealandeo eyprodunt Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were seerrsofsuch„dseigredorintendedasacorstrnetiondeelgodocumeet.The ueeormi— �� FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. or the inrem,atioreontainedonthisgraphicrepreeentetionis tthee,Isriskofthe e www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection partyoemgormisosingthe inbrmatio See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

a
LLmmid
z a
a
`m
0
IF
moo ap
Alovmoo a :
139.
3 0 06,
66%)
----------------------------------
500 250 0 500
LEGEND Feet
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft
Site Boundary The W...tio��� &d-thisg, hi�,eP,ese ti-hashee—piled f,..t:t �etyof
a dis-1 - t.&.�9e ift�t—o e.K16Wo Ide,..WsoorePreseotztloosor
a d—,e.p—o, m 11ed,-t.acc—�y.�omwe�e—.t-111—I o,'gl-t.�e
1972 Map Projection se`ofst-hwfom - Thisdo��me��is�o wt-dedf., seasa ads �,eyP, 't
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were o,s;,des;g edo,; a dedasa o s, ;o des;g do me ,The seo,ms se
obtained from USGS. or the W...ti—�o-i—d— thin g, hi ,ep,ese mho isa<<hesoa-kor he
1972 Map Projection Party-mg.,mis�smg9� mf.—ti-
KLEINFELOE/Q
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
1972 Topo Map
FIGURE
3.2-2V
CREATED: 12/15/2022
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
See File Path

Gum
A�
1 •
1 LZ
/0 15,__ NN 07' -LLIL&
• , 31RB490 — .��■
16
n rl
1
Epr
- r ■�� EL
..�,
—tom i f
1 ILIIi
4
L1r.1�
m t'k��_
r
FLU:
06
_LJO NJLL&
— _L.0
T
.i Auk—_
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/15/2022 1972 Topo Map
L _ Map View 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
Site Boundary Therf..ti- ­ &d-thisgraphi� ese ti-h-bee —piled fr..t:t .f KLEINFELOER 3.2-ZV
a dis-bl ­ t.&'�9ew��,o���od LK16Wo ldermzkesoo,eP,ese a o so, CHECKED BY: JS
a es.ef eso 11ed,a t.—u,anyL�'P1eteoeea.tlmeloess.orngh6to Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
1972 Map Projection se`ofst �h fo,mado Thisdo��me��is�o w� dedIr—t.'s"..d-,prodo Line 479
Source: 1972 Topographic Maps were ­ rs;,des;g edo,; a dedasa o s, ;o des;g do me ,The seo,ms se FILE NAME:
obtained from USGS. oft'e ro�a o o a edo hsg,aPh ,eP,ese ado sa<<hesoe,skor he www.kleinfelder.com
1972 Map Projection Party-mg.,mis�smg9� mf., tlo� See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

lie
9r "�! . q`.: .ski ' p . ' F • •' � '� � _ �` , �� �a :y.. `ti \ i
�.�.. � I 1. • II — _ � — — — "''� •_ ti �!. � r' ; `�� .
— — — — — I r ,wk "M. AFT
,Y�'y •� ` r. , ,`
©
:4-
�,; ��' �• � �� I _ .' _ I— — 31RB565 `� l-- � r. '� a,�:,�! t;' �-. � � �yR
_ � .� -)� • O �: J :�®,-<. �.I �_ .-_��ti y„�� mot'
i 1 — 1— 415
---
'
11
R
W�/ !
1 '!
r _2940
a 31 RB490
t
I
I
31 RB654—
/ 17 t 31RB491
31RB651
— — — — —
1.5 0.75 0 1.5 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
LEGEND
SurveyAreas 259 ac. ± Miles CREATED: 12/14/2022 Survey Strategies Ma
( ) 0 Green et al 2011 Y J p
_ I Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) 1 in = 2 miles CREATED BY: EArias
Source: World Imagery was heir°.ati°°°el°ded°° this graphicrepreae°tati°°h-I,——piled b°ma�ar b f KLE//VFEL�ER CHECKED BY: JS
Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) a°diss° eett°eha°gewi °°t°°dee.Kei°tedermales°°represe°tati°°s°r Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
obtained from ESRI Basemap. ;a°ties,e.press°rimpfed,aet—c°racy.—plet—s.time1—s—ng-t°de
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands Imagery Source: NC CGIA. °ser°f-chi°f° ss°° Thisd°e°me°tis-wto dedr°r°seasa'a^ds°°,eypr°d°et FILE NAME: Line 479
's it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
+ Imagery Date: 1/29/2021 ofthemr°.ati°°--i°ed°°this graphicrePreae° t-isat-s-risk°rthe www.kleinfelder.com Robeson Count North Carolina
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ) ROW Party°sing°rmie°sing,heiW.—ti°° y:
See File Path
FIGURE
4.1-1
Index

Q
AdIll
A._
+•' CMG �'�``,'�. s ,. /. , ti f e f
01, 4
a I
4.1
IMP
�• -� , ,:
fi
w
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. 'F
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021 "' • - A� �.'y. A
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) KLE//VFELOER 4�1-1 B
rn° i°r°nnae°° �°�wd°d °° this g.apm�.°p.°s°°tee°° nas n°°° �°mpa°d o-°m a •a,�°ty °r CHECKED BY: JS
� Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) a°d'ss° a°9° '"°°`^°°`°.o'°'^`°'d°,ma"°s^°`° °s° "°°s°` Piedmont Natural Gas
wa„a° m Bright People. Right Solutions.
.v v,°d° c Line 479
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands �o,�s��d°s�9°°d°,�°�°°d°dasa�°°s�,°���°°d°sag°d°�°m°°� Tn°°s°°,m�s°s° FILE NAME:
°rtn°i°r°.ati°°°°°t.i—d—thii grapni°,°p.°s°°mod°°isa<<n°s°°,ask°rtn° www.kleinfelder.com Robeson Count North Carolina
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW party°sir, rmi—ir9d,°i°f.—ti°°. S7Fleth y'

N
4-
. fk
M
a
N^\,
7,
........ . . . . .
Source: World Imagery was
obtained from
ESRI Be emap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date:
1/29/2021
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. 0 Green et al 2011 1 in= 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L7.j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. Th°irf .. ti- —&d- this ­phi—p--ti- h- b— -­I�d f— KLAEINF-AffLoAlEA? - 4.1 -1 C
1111111110 Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. t :t=,f CHECKED BY: is
Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
Y=,t Line 479
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. Delineated Wetlands FILE NAME:
.fth°irf .. I 1111.�� www.kleinfelder.com
No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ROW wy-irg—i—irg�°irf.mn.ti— See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

'-A
I
`7
7
Source: World
Imagery was obtained from ESR1 B-emap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND 0066iiQMMMMMMM� Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L7.j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac.±) Th� wf—ti- —&d- this g,aphih- b— -­I°d f— a --t,.f KLHINF-AffLOHA? 4.1-1D
-- -d i� -bj- t. &—g—ith— —t— K16wf�ld�, mak— CHECKED BY: is
Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) Piedmont Natural Gas
_f —h i—ati_ � d-- is - wt-d°d f., a -d _—y t.- Bright People. Right Solutions.
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. Delineated Wetlands ­ is it d-ig—d- —&d — a --ti— d-ig° d--t. Th° —1 m=ct E: Line 479
.f th° wf—ti— c-tai—d — this g,aphi—p--b.— at - -1--f www.kleinfelder.com
E= No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ROW pafty.wg—i—wgth°wf—ati-. F� See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

ra Chicken Rd
e��pP
O�
�O�
g
HiDemie D7
8
-.. r
am
W Loozo V;' z� ,
i
1 •
1.
j PI
t
a
1-1
— — — — — — '
— — — — — — — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
F
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021 ?
M
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
LEGEND
'M
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
1 in = 500 ft
CREATED BY:
EArias
L .j Map View 0 Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
Th�irf ^°j°d°d°^this
KL E//VFEL DER
4.1-1 E
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
L
9,^p„°,°P,°s°^�°^„^s„°°^°°mp°dr,°m^.^,°ty°r
°°s^^d ss°„°°"°°„^^9°wd°° ^°d°°o'°^`°'d°,m^"°s^° °p,°s°^`^`°^s°
e`ors°°„ ^r°,m^d°^.T„isd°°°m°^
od^s^°°^s„°°,;°^d°s;g^d°°°m°^, T„°°s°°,ms°s°
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
�•Ir '
°rt„°^r--- ti°^°°^t^i^°d°^t„isg,^p„i°.°p.°s°^�h°^11Itth°s°°risk°rt„°
www.kleinfelder.com
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) — ROW
p^rtv°si^g°rmi—ir9d,° ^r°rm^ti-^
Robeson Count North Carolina
y'
See File Path

f MA WWI,
A, gal
Al.,
... . ... ......
_.__ ... alp '•'• ._.__ ... tla - - - - _ k..
- - ,41- tlr
I it
Aa-
L6
� � h
3�
0
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. ,
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021 - ` is
/ A
t'
31 RB5
J �jI
60
�+r
ti
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
LEGEND
'"�•
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
0 Green et al 2011
1 in = 500 ft
CREATED BY:
EArias
L j Map View
Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
T„°^r°.dii° �^°'°d°d°^:„s9,^P„°,°P,°s°^�:°^„^s„°°^°°mP°dr,°m^ ^,°ty°r
KL E//VFEL DER
4.1-1 G
� Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
L
l
°°s^^d ss°„I°°"°°„^^g°wd°°r^°d°° K°^'°'d°,m^"°s^° °P,°s°^'^'°^s°
w°d,^sr°^°^=y.=°mw°:°^°ss.rm°^°ss.°,dg„�r°d°
e`ors°°„^r°,m^d°^.T„s^s^^^ds°N°yp d°°:
.,s;rd°sig°°d°,;^r°^d°d^s^°°^sr,u�ti.^d°slg^d°°°m°^r.T„°°s°°,m;s°s°
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
FILE NAME:
0 No Dig -Disturbed (32 ac. ±)
ROW
rr„°^r°^r°^°°^r^^°d°^r„IsgrzP„°,°p,°s°^^h°^ s^rr„°s°°risk °rr„°
P. vy_i^9°'mi_si^9�°
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson Count North Carolina
y'
See File Path

.Y
?1 ki
ki
Ek-..,.t. � � P
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
LEGEND
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
L .j Map View 0 Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) — ROW
.
. j
o7
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
Survey Strategies Map
1 i n = 500 ft
KL E//VFEL OER
CREATED BY:
EArias
emrd is included en this graphic t—Whas been compiled a Mahe of
is to Kleinfelder
CHECKED BY:
JS
4.1 1 H
—ntztiun
subject change wittiout notice. -r
wace and makes no representations or
r;anfies,e.presserimplied,asteaccuracy.cumpleteneea,timelineea,urrgh tutte
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
sit designed er intended as a censtructien design decument. The use er misuse
Bright People. Right Solutions.
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
FILE NAME:
Pf heinfe,matiencentainedenthisgraphicrepreaenteb-n tthesuleriakufthe
party using or misusing Jhe information.
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

I�
IN 10011111I 1 .1
g ' ,14
yyy -
42,�
///40
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI 3111111.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 112912021
}
F
1
b.
fit_; r� �• §
._ , s
a
,1
- r
�'�11i14111f�11{1i
.....
1' �i'I if Ilil� i�lUljjlil,
LEGEND
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW
ow-
-
— — — — - —
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED: 12/16/2022
1 in = 500 ft
The infem,atien included en this graphic representation has been compiled fmm a �artety of
--rfce and is subject to change wittiout notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
ies,expressorimplied. as to accuracy. completenessaimeliness.orrighistothe
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
s itdesigned or intended asacenstroction design document. The use er misuse
of neinfematmncentainedenthisgraphicrepresenafionisatthesoleriskefthe
KL E//VFEL OER
Bright People. RightSolutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
FILE NAME:
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
Survey Strategies Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
L'
*,
FIGURE
4.1-11 1

0
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
pEeD g�af+ch
Rd
LEGEND
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW
500 250 0 500
Ir _ -
��
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
1 i n = 500 ft
CREATED BY:
EArias
KL E//VFEL A0ER
em alien included en this graphic represen atiun has been compiled fmm a ahe of
and is subject to change wittiout notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
CHECKED BY:
JS
wace
ranfies,expressurimplied. asteaccuracy.cumpletenessaimeliness.urdgh to a
useof Tnhis docua ment is notiut intdeendigend usmeeas surveey pruoduct
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:ofne
dfor
.aThlaend
i istudceh iinformatioinne.
infem.ti—-ntaied — this aphic eeeesate iskofthe
www.kleinfeldeccom
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
FIGURE
Survey Strategies Map
4.1-1J
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina

R^
CrA
.. / /
:'/ i ��-. , • �cp � mom.
^ �5
N Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
0
4,, �\ ,
al.► At
'J? M
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---- -------- -------
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
LEGEND M- Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) °coati°n included°nthis grap„is represen ati°n„as „een c°mpiled t,°ma arte °t KLE/NFELoER
� Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) cesandissu„;ectt°�han it e°t—t Kleintelde,makesn°repreaentati°na°, CHECKED BY: JS
L wartanti-,expreea°,implied,-t°accu,acy.c°mpleteneea, timeliness.°rdgh t°de Bright People. Right Solutions.
e °f such information. This document is no[ intended for use as a land survey product
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands d _ o,isitdesigned°,intendedasac°nst,ucti°ndesignd°current T„euse°,misuse FILE NAME:
ONo Di - Disturbed 32 . ROW "°"heinr°mat°nc°ntained°nthisgraphicrepresena°°nisa"„es°le,is"°rthe www.kleinfelder.com
g ( ac±) - party using °rmisusing �heinf°rmati°n. CPP File Pafh
R
Survey Strategies Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
V
FIGURE
4.1-1 K

owl
4r
q
IJ
Z�-
e
I
4"
V.0 oo
NA
I or plu�' ,, T
,
Z:
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Base
�p
Imagery Source: NC CGIA Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
006iiiiiJMMMMMM�
LEGEND
Feet
CREATED: 12 /16/2022'
= Survey Areas (259 ac. Green et al 2011
1 in= 500 ft
CREATED BY: EArias
L7.j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac.
KLAff1NF-AffLA0AEA?
1111111110 Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac.
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. Delineated Wetlands
The;"f°m,ati°ninc&d-thisgraphi—preaentat;°"has„een-°­Ied f—. --t,.f
---rd is &.- wi—tr.d— K16rreld-- r.
--n—, _­— innplied­ ---y —nrp1--. ­7 ngh
=,s-h rf.—�—Thi�d.-- is not
i�t
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY: is
FILE NAME:
E= No Dig -Disturbed (32 ac. ROW
.f th� irf -rt.i—d — thia ­phi—p--b.— t - s--k f
party -irg .' mi—irg �e irf.mr.ti.
WW..kleinfelder.com
CPP Pil. Pafh
r—
Survey Strategies Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
J�'
FIGURE
4.1 -1 L

u
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
LEGEND
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW
y v
500 250 0 500 �� PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022
1 i n = 500 ft KL E//VFEL OER CREATED BY: EArias
omrd is included on this graphic t—ti entztion has been compiled -r a �artety of CHECKED BY: JS
wace and is subject to change wittiout notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
r„anies.e.p,esse,implied.astoaccuracy.completeness,timeliness.-nghtstotte Bright People. Right Solutions.
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
s it d-ignedorint—ded— construction design document. The a se e, misuse FILE NAME:
of the inform.tion contained— this graphic represent -is at the sole risk of the www. kleinfelder.eom
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
Survey Strategies Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FIGURE
4.1-1 MI

u
31 RB651 °
�a
40W
t
1. 1
VOWf,
V
f Ej
't
r
!T 1► �- r '! slr
(213 'mot% 1 , - -:_-
Ilk, fill
g T.1
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Be emap. X -T
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
All
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND Feet �� CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) KL E//VFEL OER 4.1-1 N
rn°mm d.i°°�wd°d°°a g,aith—t ,t—K16rrld b°°°�°r.'p o-°ma�a,�°ty°r CHECKED BY: JS
Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)`°sa°d'ss°nl°"`°`na°9°w'"°°`^°°`°o'°'^`°'d°,ma"°s^°` °s°°ra"°°s°` Piedmont Natural Gas
,, s.°f—at°r.Thi�d.as°° ra°v.° dwdr.,°ss.rma°°ss.°,n9n�r Bright People. Right Solutions.
°r s° n °r°,mae°°. This d° °m°°c s °°c °c°°d°d r°, °s° as a is°d s°N°v Line 479
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands �o,�s�rd°s�9°°d°,�°�°°d°dasa�°°sr,°���°°d°sag°d°�°m°°r Tn°°s°°,m�s°s° FILE NAME:
°rrn°i°r°sari°°°°°rai—d—thil graphic r°p,°s°°mod°°satn°s°e-k°rrn° www.kleinfelder.com Robeson Count North Carolina
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW party.ii g°,mis.ii gd, ii r°,mari°°. See File Path y'

Lb N\ I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
. , - 0'
N
Anx,
0i
A;
...... .. .....
AL
'J&
Source: World Imagery was
sj&
obtained from ES lBaemap. "P
Imagery Source: NC CGIA Imagery Date: 112 021
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND 016iiiii?MMMMMM� Felt CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. Green et al 2011 1 in= 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. T11 irf .. ti- —&d - thi� ­phi—p--ti- h- b— -­I�d f,.mt:t=.f KL AEINF-AEL ADAER 4.1-10
T11 T
1111111110 Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. �111— CHECKED BY: isl
J ­ -­— mpfi°d­ ---y —mpl-- ngh t Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
w""
A� f —h rf.—�— Thi� d-- i� - rt-d�d f., 1.rd --y t
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. Delineated Wetlands FILE NAME: Line 479
�f th° irf .. ti— -rt.i—d — thi­phi—p--b.— t s--k f tt ....kleinfelder.com
0No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ROW P.1y -irg .' mi—irg �° rf.—ti- See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

AN
lop
1 , . 51
r
r
t •
%
.'' fir. :::__: '.. • ...__ ?Sl.�r. :::__: .. • ...__ :::__: -, ... � N.h;:
`-:...J u-
rK
.•.-:`.: u.;.,i, .. :`_:'::..plc :.,1•.: :'.':'::.. Al" i
1
:: ..:. !.. .:.,i,. :.... of .:.,i1. .l,.
.l .....: .._..Jcr .....: .._.. _. .:.'::: .._ plc
•Qr -- } I
I
I
r I
f- L
JIlk
r�
r•
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND '�� Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) ' a KL E//VFEL DER 4.1-1 P
_m_rdi^'_t°^' e'i—t°v,°s°^tee°^„^sn°°^ °mva°do-°m^ ^,�°ty°r CHECKED BY: JS
Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) °°s^^d ss°n°°<<°°n^^9°w�°°:^°°°° "'°^'°'d°,m^"°s^°, °s° °^s°,
�Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
eor,=irf.—a-rmsd°�°—is-irt-d°dr°,°s°^s^i^^d--yp d- LIne479
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands d _ o,s;:d°s; FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com Robeson Count North Carolina
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW °,ms°s^9�° ^f°m ° See File Path y'

t A.5"
�
�
7p'
-Ir
#44 Fw�� 1:1 1-�.♦!li
lk *.2r, X,
/ y� �"'
'
*Jy11 _Al
00-
. . . . . . . . . . . . ---------
....... ....... .......
'ti. I• " b- - -
5M
!low
� 4;

e
4 \ ?
4,
Y•
X
,r_.
Y f; • T
C '
C SA
Source: world Imagery was obtained from —I Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
LEGEND
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW
T ! qh
4;1
f
L
f
i-- —————————————— //
r
-
Mk
500 250 0 500
Feet
1 in = 500 ft
The icfeormation included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
and is subject to change wittiout notice.mKleinfelderplmakes no representations or
` L
t. or ngh t or mp
warranties, express ilied, - t. accuracym , c eteness. imeliness. ts the
e of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
_
s it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
'�.
.f the information contained — this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
/
�i or
o,. -———— — — — — ——
Ilk,
y„41A ;1�
-
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
/^\
CREATED:
12/16/2022
KLHINF-HLOER
CREATED BY:
EArias
CHECKED BY:
JS
Bright People. Right Solutions.
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
See File Path
Survey Strategies Map
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479
Robeson County, North Carolina
FIGURE
4.1-1 RI

NEW,
ON-
7
S)j&
Worldery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
le
,.r 74,77-111T dh,
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
LEGEND "MM6 Feet CREATED: 12/16/2022 Survey Strategies Map
Survey Areas (259 ac. Green et al 2011 1 in 500 ft CREATED BY: EArias
L7.j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. rf .. ti- —&d- thi� ­phi—p--ti- h- b— -­Ied f—. --t,.f KLAff1NF-AffLA0AEA? CHECKED BY: is
1111111110 Site Boundary Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ---rd�is —1- t. &.rg—i—t —�— K16rreld�, nn— r.
--n—, —ss -,innpli�d­ ---y. —pl--s. t,--ss—righ� t. Bright People. Right Solutions. Piedmont Natural Gas
f —h information. T, document —tirt-ded r—s—s. 1.rd survey product
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. Delineated Wetlands —is td-ig=i-rdisd.s. —rst—ti— &sign d--. Th—s—nnisu— FILE NAME: Line 479
f the irf --- ti— -rt.i—d _ tis ­Phi� ­--- Is t - s.1—isk f th� www.kleinfelder.com Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ROW Pany _irg .' mi_Sirg �e irf.'rn.ti_ I I See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina

RP
A
Source: World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap.
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery Date: 1/29/2021
0 Xk Tr 1;
oriY►
a
yE �
tip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
500 250 0 500 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
FIGURE
LEGEND Feet �N'
CREATED: 12/16/2022
Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±) 0 Green et al 2011 1 in = 500 ft
L .j Map View Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±) °tea, i° �°°1°d°d °° ,his 9,aPni°,°P,°s°°d3, °° hash°°° °°mp °d r,°m a �a,�°ty °r
1111111110 Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±) a°d'ss°h°, mpfia°9°wed,°°,°°dy.-pl`°'d°"^a"°s^°r°pr°e°°,a"°°s°`
wa„°.p,°ss° Thi°d.as,°a°°°, ry dwdf., s.,m°°°ss.°,d9h�,°�°
irs°°higr dad°°.Thsd°°°m°°,s°°,°d-ig° r°,°s°asaha s°Nmp,°d°°,
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands �o,�s�,d°s�9°°d°,i°,°°d°dasa�°°s„°�,�°°d°sag°d°�°m°°, T„°°s°°,mis°s°
°„h°i°M.ti°°=°-i—d—this 9 phl°,°p,°s°°mod°° sa„h°s°edsk°„h°
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±) ROW party-irg°,mi—ir9d,°i°f.—ti°°.
KL E//VFEL OER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
www.kleinfelder.com
4.1-1 U
CREATED BY: EArias
CHECKED BY: JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
Robeson Count North Carolina
y'
FILE NAME:
See File Path

oil
L'.
4� \
� 1
—t s
Imagery Source: NC CGIA. Imagery 11, d111, Date: E/29/2021emap.
Ink
M1`
500 250 0 500
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
LEGEND
Feet
CREATED:
12/16/2022
Survey Strategies Map
= Survey Areas (259 ac. ±)
0 Green et al 2011
1 in = 500 ft
CREATED BY:
EArias
L .j Map View
0 Shovel Testing at 15 m (0.2 ac. ±)
Th° i°r°.a��°° �°��°d°d °° �h�s �°mp��°d r,°m a rah°ty °r
KL E//VFEL oER
4. 1 _1 v
� Site Boundary 0 Shovel Testing at 30 m (100 ac. ±)
Pedestrian Survey (126 ac. ±) 0 Delineated Wetlands
g,aph��,°p,°s°°���°°hash°°°
a°d'ss°h°"`°`ha°g°'"°°`^°°`°,o'°^`°'d°,ma"°s^°`°p,°s°^`a"°°s°`
wa„arf-express.,rrpfl°d,-t. ��°—y—rrp1°�°°°ss.t-1�°°s-nght°�°
°°rs°�h°r°,mad°°. This d°�°—is-°t°°d°dr°,°s°asa1a°d--yFd°-t
o,s d°s9°°d°, °°°d°dasa °°s,° °°d°sg°d° °m°° Th°°s°°,ms°s°
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JS
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line479
FILE NAME:
0 No Dig - Disturbed (32 ac. ±)
— ROW
°rth°i°r°..ti— °°tai°°d°°this 9 phicr°p,°s°° - sa<<h°s°e-k°rth°
partv°si°g°,mi—ir9d,° °f.mr.ti°°,
www.kleinfeldeccom
Robeson Count North Carolina
y'
See File Path

iCLE/NFEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
APPENDIX B
APPROVED SAMPLING STRATEGY
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

KLE/NFELDER
Bright People. Right Solutions.
June 3, 2022
Kleinfelder Project No.: 20213937.001A
PROJECT: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 479, Robeson County, NC Survey Plan
Proposal to Conduct Cultural Resources Services
1. Introduction
Kleinfelder proposes to conduct an archaeological survey for the natural gas line project referenced
above. The work will be completed for Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) in a manner consistent with
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. It will
also meet the guidelines set forth by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and Office
of State Archaeology (OSA).
Based on on the most recent routing as of May 24, 2022, the natural gas line corridor is approximately
27.5 mi in length (Figure 1). A construction corridor width of approximately 80 ft is assumed and one
transect of shovel tests is proposed along the main alignment. There are multiple areas within the
temporary construction easement (TCE see Figure 1) that are wide enough to require an additional
transect of shovel tests. There are also approximately 6.6 miles of temporary and permanent access
easements and one 29.8 acre staging yard that will also be surveyed. The general alignment, permanent
easement, TCE, permanent and temporary access easements, station easements, and staging yard as
described above comprise the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archaeological resources. This is the
same as the maximum limits of ground disturbance (LOD). Minor changes to the current alignment may
occur before the time of the survey, but it is assumed a significantly modified APE will not be introduced.
One previous survey has been conducted for a portion of the current APE (Green et al. 2011). This survey
addressed a 200-ft corridor along Line 175 (Sutton Pipeline) overlapping with 6.8 mi of the current
alignment. There are a few spots within with the TCE and access easements (15.1 acres) that do not
overlap with this previous survey (see Figure 1). Only one previously recorded archaeological site,
31RD505, is associated with this section of alignment which was determined not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This proposal does not include resurvey of the areas covered in 2011.
In late 2021 and early 2022, Kleinfelder delineated the aquatic wetlands within the APE (see Figure 1).
This proposal does not include survey of areas of identified wetlands. The right -of way (ROW) for all roads
within the APE will also be excluded.
According to OSA, two previously recorded but unassessed sites are located in or adjacent to the APE
(31RB565 and 31RB566). These were recorded in a reconnaissance report (Southerlin 2016) and will need
to be relocated and fully delineated.
This proposal provides a scope of work and cost estimate for:
20213937.001A Page 1 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

• Archaeological field survey of approximately 27.5 mi of alignment and associated extensions
(access easements and staging yard) (excludes previously surveyed area, delineated wetlands,
and ROW)
• Recommendations for sites documented in APE (not eligible for NRHP, eligible for NRHP, or
further intensive work required for assessment)
• Technical reporting per guidelines issued by OSA in Spring 2017
The purpose of the work will be to determine if archaeological sites that are on, or potentially eligible for,
the NRHP are wholly or partly located within the APE. If such sites are found to be present, the resulting
report will make recommendations for any needed additional work or management options. If sites that
appear potentially eligible for the NRHP are located in the survey areas, additional evaluation including
test units may be necessary. This additional work is not covered under this scope.
2. PROPOSED INVESTIGATIONS
Background Research. Kleinfelder will conduct background research to provide archaeological context as
well as comparative information for sites recorded during the survey. Research will be conducted at the
archives of OSA and using local libraries as necessary in addition to using the resources in the Kleinfelder
library and online.
Coordination of Survey Methods. Kleinfelder has recommended consultation with OSA, prior to survey,
to review and approve the approach outlined in this scope of work. OSA's recommended survey methods
allow expanded shovel test intervals of low probability areas (see OSA 2017). Low probability areas are
generally understood to include areas of steep slope, obviously previously disturbed areas, and areas of
poorly drained soils. If OSA does not approve the survey plan or asks for an additional level of effort, a
supplemental agreement may be necessary.
Archaeological Survey Fieldwork and Analysis. The APE will be given full consideration and will include
visual reconnaissance with digital photographic documentation as well as intensive survey of areas
without the following: standing water, obvious heavy saturation, signs of very poor drainage, obvious
disturbance by previous earth moving activities or erosion, and excessive slope. For surface survey, if
sufficient visibility is present (greater than 50 percent), the intensive survey will be conducted by
systematic walkover transects at intervals to be determined by visibility and plowing patterns (generally
approximately 10 m). Shovel tests will be placed judgmentally in areas of sites discovered by surface
survey, both to reveal the soil profile and provide information on subsurface potential. Survey of site
areas outside the APE is not included, but every attempt will be made to estimate boundaries using visible
surface features and landform characteristics.
In the acreages without sufficient surface visibility (below 50 percent), intensive survey will be conducted
by shovel tests placed at 30-m (approximately 100-ft) intervals. If the area is suspected to be heavily
disturbed or eroded, or otherwise appears to have reduced potential for archaeological sites such as
would be indicated by hydric (poorly drained) soils, shovel tests may be placed at expanded intervals (e.g.
approximately 60 meters) or judgmentally to investigate and document the extent of the disturbance or
characteristics. Additional shovel tests will be placed judgmentally in areas of high probability to provide
additional coverage. If an area has marginal surface visibility (some consistent visibility but below 40
percent), shovel tests will be placed at a greater interval to create a combined survey strategy. In areas
20213937.001A Page 2 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

adjacent to Carolina bays, the shovel test interval will always be 30 m regardless of soil drainage class,
slope, or disturbance. No more than 1500 shovel tests in Phase 1 (south of N Chicken Road) and 200
shovel tests in Phase 2 (north of N Chicken Road) are expected (see Figure 1D) to completely survey the
APE. Based on previous experience in the region and historic maps projections from both aerial imagery
and topographic maps, recordation of no more than 37 sites in Phase 1 (including two cemeteries) and
four sites in Phase 2 are anticipated.
The approximate horizontal and vertical extent of each site, as well as the internal configuration of the
site, will be defined using closer interval surface survey transects or supplemental radial shovel tests at
15 m intervals. Where sites are defined by surface artifacts, at least four shovel tests per acre will be
excavated to provide information on the depth of strata. Where sites are defined by shovel testing alone,
two negative shovel tests in each direction along transects will be used to establish the site boundary.
Shovel tests are usually 30 x 30 cm and are excavated into the subsoil or sterile soil. Occasionally larger
tests will be utilized. Fill from the tests will be screened through 6.35-mm/0.25 in mesh screen. Shovel
test will be recorded on standard forms, and digital photography will be used to document the site setting.
Selected shovel tests profiles will be photographed for inclusion in the report.
When an archaeological site is identified, temporary site field numbers will be assigned. An archaeological
site, per OSA guidelines, is defined by a location with one or more artifacts or a feature (hearth, refuse
pit, articulated brick, ruinous structure, etc.). Appropriate artifacts and samples collected from the
archaeological investigations will be stored in bags labeled by provenience units. Some categories of
artifacts such as, but not limited to, brick, window glass, or fire -cracked rock, may be documented and
discarded in the field. This proposal assumes that larger sites will be sampled at the discretion of the
principal investigator.
If possible, an assessment of NRHP eligibility will be made. This is usually possible when the site is clearly
not eligible, for example when artifacts are recovered from disturbed contexts such as the plow zone or
modern layers of fill. This assessment is less possible when the site may be eligible, for example when
only part of a site yields artifacts from intact stratigraphic zones or when the eligibility of the site is
influenced by post field artifact analysis. In that event, it maybe necessary to conduct additional testing
(Phase II) to evaluate the site for eligibility for the NRHP under a separate scope of work.
Laboratory processing of artifact samples will include washing, labeling, and cataloging as detailed in the
Archaeological Curation Standards and Guidelines issued by OSA. Artifact information will be entered into
database for analysis. Accession numbers will be obtained from OSA. The report estimate will include a
OSA one-time fee for the curation/storage of artifacts based on the assumption that the artifacts will
be donated for permanent research curation.
Sites will be recorded on OSA Archaeological Site Forms. Permanent state site numbers will be obtained
from OSA per guidelines for archaeological survey reports. All necessary form attachments, such as
artifact inventories, will be prepared.
Progress Reporting. A brief email progress report with results of the field investigation and preliminary
recommendations will be provided at the end of each week in the field.
20213937.001A Page 3 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

3. TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARATION
Compiled results of the fieldwork and analyses will be included in a survey and evaluation report meeting
OSA guidelines. The report will contain the following required components; management summary, an
introduction with definition of the project scope and personnel, a natural and historic context,
methodology, results of the archaeological survey with NRHP recommendations, and recommendations
for any further work and/or resource management that may be needed. Views of general conditions and
sites will be included, and graphics will depict archaeological site boundaries and survey coverage by
archaeological field strategy. The boundaries will be shown on a USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, on more
detailed maps, and at other scales if requested. The archaeological site forms will be included with the
report submittal.
A draft copy of the report will be submitted electronically to PNG in PDF format. Kleinfelder will address
up to one round of comments from PNG, after which the digital copies and two printed copies of the final
report and site forms will be submitted to OSA for review and comment. If extensive revisions are
requested by the reviewing agency that require more than one business day to implement, a
supplemental agreement and schedule revision will be necessary.
4. SCHEDULE
The schedule will be initiated with written Notice to Proceed (NTP). Fieldwork initiation will depend on
receipt of up-to-date mapping and acknowledgement of access from the project's land agent. Completion
of fieldwork for Phase 1 of the proposed work is anticipated to require approximately three weeks (14
eight hours days). The draft report will be completed within three business weeks of conclusion of the
fieldwork. Completion of fieldwork for Phase 2 of the proposed work is anticipated to require
approximately one week (4 eight hours days). The draft report will be completed within one week of
conclusion of the fieldwork. No overtime is currently budgeted but would be needed for field schedule
compression. The schedule to complete Phase 2 of the proposed works assumes a single field
mobilization for both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
5. DELIVERABLES
• Phase 1
o Post -field management summary (PDF) within one week of fieldwork completion
o Preliminary GIS data on any potentially significant sites or resources (shapefiles) within
one week of fieldwork completion
o Draft cultural resources report (PDF) within three weeks of fieldwork completion
o Internal Technical Review by Kleinfelder within one week of completion of draft report
o Revised cultural resources report addressing comments from PNG (PDF and paper copy)
within one week of receiving comments
o Completed site forms within three weeks of fieldwork completion
• Phase 2
o Post -field management summary (PDF) within two business days of fieldwork completion
o Preliminary GIS data on any potentially significant sites or resources (shapefiles) within
two business days of fieldwork completion
o Draft cultural resources report (PDF) within one week of fieldwork completion
20213937.001A Page 4 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

o Internal Technical Review by Kleinfelder within three business days of completion of draft
report
o Revised cultural resources report addressing comments from PNG (PDF and paper copy)
within two days of receiving comments
o Completed site forms within one week of fieldwork completion
6. CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
1. No work on tasks will begin without a mutually acceptable, fully executed contract and written NTP.
2. PNG is responsible for landowner coordination for and permission to access all the survey areas prior
to the commencement and for the duration of the Phase I survey. PNG will resolve or provide
Kleinfelder contact information if locked gates prevent access or if livestock are encountered in survey
areas.
3. No human remains will be encountered.
4. Level of effort beyond the number of shovel tests, sites, and resources stated above may necessitate
a supplemental agreement.
5. A crew size of 5 archaeological technicians and 1 Crew Chief.
6. One third of areas surveyed in agricultural field will have sufficient surface visibility (greater than 50
percent) to utilize systematic walkover at 10 m intervals.
7. SAFETY
As a firm, Kleinfelder holds safety paramount to our business activities. We follow the industry leading
Loss Prevention System® (LPS) with a goal of having zero incidents on all of our projects. Kleinfelder's LPS
is a behavior -based system that incorporates tools specifically designed to empower our people, evaluate
for and prevent loss potentials, and provide effective solutions to manage potential and realized losses
impacting both traditional health and safety issues and business operations.
Specifically, the goal of LPS is to prevent or reduce severity of personal injuries, equipment or property
damage, product quality incidents such as spills and leaks, regulatory assessments, operational or system
inefficiencies, and near losses/misses. Our staff uses LPS and Kleinfelder developed tools to ASSESS those
factors that cause or contribute to these types of incidents, ANALYZE corrective measures and identify
tools required to mitigate the hazards, and ACT to implement solutions that eliminate or reduce the
likelihood that the event could recur. The program involves all layers of the organization, including
technicians, engineers, scientists, supervisors, managers, administrators, and executives.
Components of the program include regularly scheduled safety meetings; Job Safety Analysis for priority
job activities; Project Safety Audits; lessons learned on incidents and near loss investigations; site -specific
safety plans for all projects; effective hazard controls; and internet- based, self- directed, and ongoing
safety training, among others.
8. COVID-19
Orders or restrictions issued by civil authorities and other conditions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic
may interfere with Kleinfelder ability to perform or otherwise impact our ability to work. Kleinfelder will
20213937.001A Page 5 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

communicate any anticipated delays or impacts and work closely with the client to identify a mutually
acceptable solution to advance Kleinfelder's completion of its services.
9. LIMITATIONS
Our work will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
other members of Kleinfelder profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at
the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations will be based on a
limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the
data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services,
communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.
This proposal is valid for a period of 45 days from the date of this proposal, unless a longer period is
specifically required by the RFP in which case that time frame will apply. This proposal was prepared
specifically for the client and its designated representatives and may not be provided to others without
Kleinfelder express permission.
KLEINFELDER, INC.
g'-Xp� A
I/I
UA
Joseph Stair, M.A., RPA
Project Archaeologist
FIGURES
Figure 1— Proposed Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
References Cited
Green, William, Kimberly Nagle, and Heather C. Jones
2011 Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed PNG Sutton Pipeline Project, Anson, Bladen
Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Richmond, Robeson, and Scotland Counties, North Carolina.
S&ME, Inc., Columbia, SC.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines: for Background Research, Field
Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. Raleigh, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2016 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Highway 72 Rail Site, Roberson County,
North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
20213937.001A Page 6 of 6 June 3, 2022
© 2022 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Morrisville, NC 27560 p 1919.755.5011 f 1919.755.1414

;t
Q
w
N
N
0
N
0
OR-
74
^
y hn \
• 4 -* y,<�'- r� ����1 '•':•�r' '�•,-''F ''ram.
r e.r �:I a
1
�-
t.
1 'rt M
`4
LEGEND "'' `
Green et. al 2011 Temporary Access Easement
., ROW Proposed Station Easement
Existing Easement Staging Yard i �' • -
TCE 0 Ag Wetland • �, +
Proposed Permanent Easement Wetland r,�• '� y;� �.`
PermanentAccess Easement LOD
it I
,r A Archaeological Sites'
0 3,750 7,500 15,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet CREATED: 6/2/2022 Proposed Phase 1
1 inch = 7,500 feet Archaeology Survey
' KL E/IVFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias
The Information Inclutled on this graphic representation has been compiletl from a variety of
n anals,,,,rm nhangawithoa]n y,ee einreiaermt—snore nght,teter CHECKED BY: JStair Piedmont Natural Gas
aurtantles, express or lmplletl, as to acwracy, mmple[eness, timeliness, or rights to the Bright People. Right Solutions.
eeranon inrermauen. Thia tlncumem is nni mtendetl rnr aaeasaiand aa�ey prndua Line 479 Replacement
Source: USGS Topographic Map was obtained from ESRI none Adaaignadent.,naaaaaaeo.phetionaasgnaewmanc Thaaaa .fthe FILE NAME: P
Basemap.
ormemrorma, eemaitheonmIsgrapnlerepresemarienisacmeseiedakerme www.kleinfeIder.com
pony ,elnq er m�e�alnq ma lnmrTannn. See File Path Robeson County, North Carolina Index

w
w
D
N
N
0
N
N
N
(6
a:
Of
`-
_ i,
A::'
r r t§ _
- ♦ �s .` •�, aw \..J s+1�.f��,.���'.. ��7. .Il .l,',1"� .�`.':��T ;.th
v:
LEGEND
Green et. al 2011 Permanent Access Easement
ROW Temporary Access Easement ,
Existing Easement Proposed Station Easement
TICE �4� Wetland Y
Proposed Permanent Easement 0 LOD
S'
Fy.
i r$Ott, tsof v r
t l�. tl 3A a�� r` .,K" :1 ��'�;��•:� ilk
- 1 4_ r 1Is
.4,.
as
0 250 500 1,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet CREATED: 6/2/2022 Proposed Phase 1
1 inch = 500 feet Archaeology Survey
The information inclutled -this graphic representation has been mmpiletl from a variety of KL E/NFEL DER CREATED BY: EArias 1 B
e andisaubjecttcchangewitho,tnotice.rdelufeldermakeano epsesentationsor CHECKED BY: JStair Piedmont Natural Gas
aunanties, eapme orimplid.asloacmracy,mmpleteness,bmelinass, or.ghts in
Bright People. Right Solutions.
use of such iMormation. This document is not intended far use as a land au way product Line 479 Replacement
is it d esigned or i mended as aconstrucibn desgn dommeM. The use or misuse �. FILE NAME: P
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the www. kle i nfeld er. co m
party using or mlausing the l nf.—lion. Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

E
LEGEND
Green et. al 2011
ROW
Existing Easement
TCE k
Proposed Permanent Easement
Temporary Access Easement
Ag Wetland
Wetland
LOD
01
i• N ilk r
r _ .
Oil
to �aL�`�) I �• : ~`.� ,�` �
VI
70io
4 I
Ar
`1 i
✓ � � . '�, � '�"' _ �! 1,
b �1 A
• r ��• rut !\ � '
Y ` _rY
0 f t M
0 250 500 1,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet CREATED: 6/2/2022 Proposed Phase 1
1 inch = 500 feet CREATED BY: EArias Archaeology Survey
The information included -this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of KL E/NFEL DER 1 C
aonce andissobieatochangewitho,tnolbe.rdeinfeklermakesnorepresentationsor CHECKED BY: JStair Piedmont Natural Gas
annes, eapms orimplied,asto-.racy,mmpleteness,, meliness,ornghtstothe Bright People. Right Solutions,
e of sJch information. This document is not intended foraseas ,lend s—yprndnnt Line 479 Replacement
Source: USGSTopographic Map was obtained from ESRI nor isidesigned orintended asaconstrocibndesgndoconiThe..ormisuse �. FILENAME: P
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the www. kle nfeld er. co m
Basemap. Perry ,sing ormisosingthe lnformahon. Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

x
E
irr
j L
311
N ^ n J 1
Nor
0
g
a a
j7LEGEND
reen et. al 2011
W OW
11TCE
N Proposed Permanent Easement
N 11 T Wetland
,�� - lam[-'' �•� r �, ^ . r J.
S,
ilk
0 250 500 1,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A FIGURE
Feet CREATED: 6/2/2022 Proposed Phase 1
1 inch = 500 feet CREATED BY: EArias Archaeology Survey
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety KL of E/NFEL D
aunER
ce 1 F
andissubjeatcchangewilhoutnolbrd e.einfeklermakesnosepresentationsor CHECKED BY: JStair Piedmont Natural Gas
anbas, eapme orimplied,asloacmracy,mmpleteness,timeliness,orrightsrothe Bright People. Right Solutions.
e of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey protluct Line 479
Source: USGS Topographic Map was obtained from ESRI nor isidesignedorintendedasaconstrucibndesgndoco—rd.The— ormisuse �. FILENAME: Replacement
of the information contained on this graphic representation is st the sole risk of the www. kle nfeld er. co m
Basemap. party using ormlausingthe lnformahon. Robeson County, North Carolina
See File Path

E
IOft A
1.
me.µ
Fr I[f�yI //�' M. ti ' / � �' ♦1�
h I''r • y .�..
t r- tHa-.. y q � �� } `^x4 ,yi f�.'Hy, � �I I� �' • �� 1 r i- ` /; � � ' % +
ttrV.
�
/�f1'^A. y f�"iIv'�Y]• i�r�'�''W -f% M �r� �Ql'Hn._.. .. _-_- y ♦%n-� , �� iYl�°�.� �_^s'' Y~� t ,�
AZt
/ rrr������rrr''q�, I 9• Y•.'p .., �� F'q��yY.�, �� 7�. %% '� '
'��'» . - `"'•'�,ti -AYr r� ',1, � yq�� ',�.- .ram -
\ \
w n /Ak
r LEGEND
a ROW
TCE
a
W — Proposed Permanent Easement
Ag Wetland
N U Wetland
N LOD
A Archaeological Sites
o '
I
Ct rs,:, t3 -I
r�=�a
• ll
r-
Af
J . *0It
• / F
rf '
•+1 ra .�• .� i
ar
0 250 500 1,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet �� CREATED: 6/2/2022
1 inch = 500 feet KLE/NFELDER CREATED BY: EArias
The information inclutletl on this graphic representation has been mmpiletl from a variety of
ce andissubiedtochangewilhoulnolbe.rdeinfelermakesnosepresentationsor CHECKED BY: JStair
aunanbes, ea p,,,ri.plid,aslo-.racy,..pleteness,f.elin-.,ordighIs Wthe Bright People. Right Solutions.
e of such information. This tlocument is not intended for use as a land survey protluct
Source: USGSTopographic Map was obtained from ESRI"Iitdesignedorintendedasacon&,ctbndesgnd000—rd.Theuseormisuse �. FILENAME:
Basemap. of me information contametl on this graphic representation last the sale disk of the www.kleinfelder.com
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
FIGURE
Proposed Phase 1
Archaeology Survey
1G
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479 Replacement
Robeson County, North Carolina

(0
LEGEND
ROW
TICE
Proposed Permanent Easement
Temporary Access Easement
Wetland
LOD
;V
fffffr. '• �.
�..
0 250 500 1,000 PROJECT NO. 20213937.001A
Feet CREATED: 6/2/2022
1 inch = 500 feet KLE//VFELOER CREATED BY: EArias
The information included on this graphic representation has been mno rep from a variety of
ce and isaubjecitochangewilhoutnolbe.WeinfeNermakesnorepreaentationsor CHECKED BY: JStair
wanannes, express or imp lied. as to acmracy, mm pleteness, 4 meliness,ordghtstothe Bright People. Right Solutions.
se of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey prod -
Source: USGS Topographic Map was obtained from ESRI nor isidesigned orintended asaconstructiondesign dooniThe..ormi. FILENAME:
Basem ap. of the inforni contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the www.kleinfelder.com
party using or misusing the information.
See File Path
k
Proposed Phase 1
Archaeology Survey
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 479 Replacement
Robeson County, North Carolina
i •.r.
FIGURE
1N

�- - t�„�'.y #� s]iY}� .-•..` : •} +Ash'" ',," }
��`�' •�.� ^ r;. Y ,_" ^.+ � !�-5• , .�' _ r` 4 �a �r y Sty'.
_ _ _.. � � �:.�k s! � • -- - . - :'�,� �..�! �.,. + - _ � la ..� tip'.
// _'y�iN
tia
{ �S
OW
0
k ` �- A �•�' ,.ice - - K *.
•"' - �� i_�� .i'a ��± O.af4 ,•al?�:}t%�'Wsa--r.7. ?'������ �;..�•+r? •7 � �.�� d «W �r• , -.i`+ •�'�� y• k w'"_ s

a
w
N
0
N
0
mor
• e. _k'� .Y�AYr� J ��e�
ti 1�r
r i ,� %".�T - �N 3..�� •f; "+�a ,fir •�YA.
LEGEND
ROW
TCE
Proposed Permanent Easement
Temporary Access Easement
Wetland
LOD
01
.
y, t.
— 4
kaw,
� t
0 250 500 1,000
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
Proposed Phase 1
Feet
CREATED:
6/2/2022
1 inch = 500 feet
Archaeology Survey
KL E/NFEL DER
CREATED BY:
EArias
1 R
The information inclutltt c this graphic representation has been mno rep Rom a variety of
source ndxpmu orimpld,,sttlhoulnoiy,.mpintnermakesno.,.renf..Ih.r
waounties,eapressorimplietl.autoacain mpleteru,, meliness.orrightstothe
Bright People. Right Solutions.
CHECKED BY:
JStair
Piedmont Natural Gas
tin.
uses it deiffrgned oriintendd.s.contisnolinteeign forusentaheuse ormprotluct
ienaeeignetlormlentleaaeaooneo-uofionaeaignaorlimem.rneaeeormi�,ae
\\
\
FILE NAME:
Line 479 Replacement
P
of the information contained on this graphic representation isat the We risk of the
www.kleinfelder.com
Robeson County, North Carolina
party using or misusing theinrormauon.
See File Path

co
LEGEND"
ROW �►;
- TICE
Proposed Permanent Easement
Temporary Access Easement �,.
IT Wetland `
0 LOD
Ll
0 250 500 1,000
PROJECT NO.
20213937.001A
FIGURE
Proposed Phase 1
Feet
CREATED:
6/2/2022
1 inch = 500 feet
Archaeology Survey
KL E/NFEL DER
CREATED BY:
EArias
IT
The information inclutltt c this graphic representation has been mmpiletl hom a variety of
notice. rdemillet nermakesno .,orri htstosor
ce andxisubjeato lied,
aunanties, express or implietl, as to acmracy, mmpleteness,timeliness, or rights Wthe
Bright People. Right Solutions,
CHECKED BY:
JStair
Piedmont Natural Gas
use of such information. This document is not insentient for use as a land su" yprotluct
or is it d esigned or i mended as a constructbn design dom meal. The u se ormiauae
�.
FILE NAME:
Line 479 Replacement
P
of the information conmined on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
www. kle i nfeld er. co m
Robeson County, North Carolina
party us In g or mlaus ing the lnformah on.
See File Path

('KL E MIEL DER
Wght F-pie. Right Salutivns.
APPENDIX C
ARTIFACT INVENTORY
20213937.001A I RAL23R150042 February 7, 2023
© 2023 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

Appendix A - Artifact Inventory
Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
Brick
2
brick
coarse
fragment
earthenware
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
Glass
1
bottle glass
glass
finish fragment
colorless
crown finish,
1903 - present
Miller et al. 2000
machine made
(most
common after
1917)
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "G" opaque white
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
"milk glass"
31RB491
ST DI
1/2
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
Glass
5
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
colorless
31RB491
STDI
1/2
Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
31RB491
ST D1
1/2
H Misc
2
indeterminate
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
one flat, indeterminate
shape; one rounded,
indeterminate shape
31RB491
ST D2
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB491
ST D2
1 Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
31RB491
ST D2
1 Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
colorless
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB491
ST D2
1
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
finish fragment
sapphire blue
wide mouth
1903 - mid-
Lindsey 2022; Miller
external thread
20th century
et al. 2000
finish, machine
(most
made
common after
1g171
31RB491
ST D2
1
Glass
2
safety glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
31RB491
ST D3
1
H Fasten/Tool
1
nail
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
wire
c. 1850s -
Nelson 1968
present
31RB491
ST D5
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
colorless
c. 1870s -
Lindsey 2022
fragment
present
31RB491
ST DS
1
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830-present
FMNH 2022
earthenware
31RB491
ST D5
1
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
base fragment
black glazed
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
earthenware
31RB491
ST DS
2
Brick
1
brick
coarse
fragment
earthenware
31RB491
ST DS
2
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB491
ST D5
2
Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
31RB491
Surface
surface
Brick
3
brick
coarse
fragment
Collection
earthenware
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
bottle glass
glass
finish fragment
aqua
small mouth
1903 - present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
external thread
(most
finish, machine
common after
made
1917)
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "lA"
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "JAR" / "35" /
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
"GEN"
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "R"
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
containerglass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
3
container glass
glass
base fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
stippled, embossed lines
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
molded
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
stippled
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
"7-up"green
late-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body, finish, and neck
cobalt blue
1840s - mid-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
20th century
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
4
container glass
glass
body fragment
cobalt blue
1840s-mid-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
20th century
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
embossed "POND'S" / "27"
opaque white
Pond's
1870s -
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th centuml
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/Treatment
Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
molded flowers
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th cem-)
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
ribbed
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th centumi
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
3
container glass
glass
body fragment
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th rant —I
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
15
containerglass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
amber
primarily late
Lindsey 2022
Collection
1910s -
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed "LGW"
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
/ "64" / "60" / "Al"
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed "O"
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
embossed"DICIN"
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
finish fragment
embossed "H58"
colorless
wide mouth
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
external thread
present
finish
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
finish fragment
colorless
wide mouth
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
external thread
present
finish
31RB491
Surface
surface
Glass
1
table glass
glass
rim fragment
molded, scalloped
opaque white
1743 -
Noel Hume 1969
Collection
"milk glass"
(primarily)
19th century
31RB491
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
molded
Collection
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB491
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
undecorated
Collection
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
4
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
molded
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
blue transfer -printed
Royal China,
1950 - 1970
Kennett 2013
Collection
earthenware
Currier & Ives design with
Currier & Ives
scroll work border
31RB491
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
blue transfer -printed
Currier & Ives
late-1940s -
Kennett 2013
Collection
earthenware
Currier & Ives design
1986
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
footring fragment
green hand -painted leaf
hand painted
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
4
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
brown and gray hand
hand painted
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
painted
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Fastentrool
1
bolt
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
square
Collection
31RB491
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
mortar
mortar
fragment
Collection
31RB565
ST 01
1
Brick
8
brick
coarse
fragment
earthenware
31RB565
ST O1
1
Glass
16
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c. 1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type
Comment Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB565
ST 01
1
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
heat
c. 1870s-
Lindsey 2022
altered/melted
present
31RB565
ST 01
1
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
contoured/molded
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB565
ST 01
1
H Fasten/Tool
1
nail
iron/iron alloy
complete
corroded
wire, common
c. 1850s -
Nelson 1968
present
31RB565
ST 01
1
H Fasten/Tool
1
nail
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
indeterminate
31RB565
ST 01
1
H Misc
8
indeterminate
indeterminate
fragment
possible heat altered drywall
31RB565
ST 01
1
H Misc
3
mortar
mortar
fragment
31RB565
Surface
surface
Brick
10
brick
coarse
fragment
Collection
earthenware
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "PORC"
opaque white
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
"milk glass"
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
stippled
amber
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
amber
primarily late
Lindsey 2022
Collection
1910s -
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
"7-up" green
heat
late-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
century -
present
31RB565 Surface surface Glass
1 container glass
glass
base and body
stippled base, embossed colorless machine made
Collection
fragment
"CLE"
c. 1940 - Lindsey 2022
present
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
heat
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
century -
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
stippled base, embossed
aqua
machine made
c. 1940 -
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
"93" / "3016"
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
9
containerglass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
5
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
lightaqua
Collection
31RB565
Surface
surface
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
finish fragment
colorless
wide mouth
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
external thread
present
finish
31RB565
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
institutional ware
porcelaneous
rim fragment
brown and black
1879 - present
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
(hotel china)
glazed/painted
31RB565
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
institutional ware
porcelaneous
body fragment
undecorated
Collection
(hotel china)
31RB565
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB565
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
drywall
synthetic
fragment
white
post-1916
Rae 2016
Collection
(most
common post-
1945)
31RB565
Surface
surface
HPers
1
marble
glass
complete
white
machine made
1901-present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
31RB651
ST 02
1
Glass
3
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
ST 02
1
Glass
4
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB651
ST 02
1
Glass
2
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
31RB651
ST 02
1
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
base fragment
brown transfer -printed
1830-present
FMNH 2022
earthenware
"many"
31RB651
ST 02
1
HCeram
2
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830-present
FMNH 2022
earthenware
31RB651
ST 05
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB651
ST 05
1
Glass
6
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB651
ST 05
1
H Fasten/Tool
1
nail
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
indeterminate
31RB651
ST 05
1
H Fasten/Tool
1
nail
iron/iron alloy
complete
corroded
indeterminate
31RB651
Surface
surface
Brick
1
brick
coarse
fragment
heat altered
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
bottle glass
glass
finish fragment
amber
double ring finish
primarily late
Lindsey 2022
Collection
1910s— 1920s
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
2
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
embossed "GENU"
opaque white
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
"milk glass"
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
canning jar lid liner
glass
fragment
opaque white
post-1869
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
"milk glass"
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness;
parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color Condition Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
base fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua heat
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
century -
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
embossed "ADE" / "OLA" / aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"MARK"
century -
present
31RB651 Surface surface Glass 1 container glass glass base and body amethyst solarized/mangan 1820s - 1930s Lindsey 2022
Collection fragment ese dioxide (most
decolorized common
1890s - 1920s)
31RB651 Surface surface Glass 1 container glass glass body fragment yellow amber heat primarily pre- Lindsey 2022
Collection altered/melted 1890
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
olive green
primarily pre-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
1910
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
base and body
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
century -
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
cobalt blue
1840s-mid-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
20th century
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th cent —I
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
containerglass
glass
base and body
embossed "S" in a circle colorless
c. 1870s -
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
maker's mark / "7" on base
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
3
container glass
glass
body fragment
amethyst solarized/mangan
1820s-1930s
Lindsey 2022
Collection
ese dioxide
(most
decolorized
common
1890s - 1920s)
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th centuml
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
amber
primarily late
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
1930s -
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
very dark olive
primarily pre-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
green
1920
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
ribbed
very dark olive
primarily pre-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
green
1920
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
2
containerglass
glass
body fragment
ribbed
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
stippled
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
7
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
8
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
straw tinted
solarized/selenium
c. 1910-mid-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
or arsenic
20th century
decolorized, heat
altered/melted
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
5
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
Collection
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
colorless
Collection
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
body and finish
aqua
wide mouth
c. 1858-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
external thread
present
finish
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
table glass
glass
stem base fragment
molded
colorless
Collection
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
Surface
surface
Glass
1
table glass
glass
base and body
molded
colorless
Collection
fragment
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
undecorated
Collection
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
molded
Collection
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
brown salt -glazed exterior
gray bodied
primarily pre-
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
American)
1860
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
2
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
Albany -slipped interior,
buff bodied
Albany Bristol
c. 1900- 1915
Greer 1981; Miller et
Collection
American)
Bristol -glazed exterior
al. 2000
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
base fragment
Albany -slipped interior,
buff bodied
Albany Bristol
c. 1900- 1915
Greer 1981; Miller et
Collection
American)
Bristol -glazed exterior
al. 2000
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
3
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
Bristol glazed
buff bodied
c. 1900-
Greer 1981
Collection
American)
present
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
gray salt -glazed exterior,
buff bodied
primarily pre-
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
American)
Albany -slipped interior
20th century
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
brown salt -glazed exterior,
gray bodied
primarily pre-
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
American)
iron oxide -washed interior
20th century
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
rim fragment
brown salt -glazed exterior,
gray bodied
primarily pre-
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
American)
salt -glazed interior
20th century
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
base fragment
brown salt -glazed exterior
gray bodied
primarily pre-
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
American)
1860
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
4
white granite
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color
Condition Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
white granite
refined
rim fragment
undecorated
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
white granite
refined
body fragment
green transfer printed
transfer printed
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
rim fragment
black transfer -printed line,
transfer printed
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
molded, scalloped rim
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
white granite
refined
footring fragment
undecorated
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
light brown and dark
annular wa re,
1830-20th
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
brown banded exterior
banded
century
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
black transfer printed
transfer printed
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
10
whiteware
refined
footring fragment
undecorated
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
molded
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
7
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
undecorated
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
11
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
blue -glazed interior
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
molded, scalloped
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
3
whiteware
refined
body fragment
blue transfer printed
transfer printed
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
2
whiteware
refined
body fragment
pale blue -slipped exterior
annularware,
1830-20th
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
banded
century
31RB651
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
reddish -pink and blue
hand painted
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
hand -painted floral design
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
blue edged, unscalloped
edged
1840s - 1860s
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
earthenware
rim with impressed curved
lines
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
indeterminate
aluminum
fragment
corroded
Collection
31RB651
Surface
surface
H Pers
1
button
ceramic
complete
white
Prosser, two-
1840- c. 1960
Sprague 2002
Collection
hole, fisheye
(most
common
1850 - 1920)
31RB652
STD1
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB652
ST D2
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
indeterminate
colorless
heat
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
fragment
altered/melted
present
31RB652
ST D2
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled
straw tinted
solarized/selenium
machine made
c. 1940-mid-
Lindsey 2022
or arsenic
20th century
decolorized, heat
altered/melted
31RB652
ST D2
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB652
ST D3
1
Brick
4
brick
coarse
fragment
machine made
earthenware
31RB652
ST D3
1
Glass
6
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/Treatment
Color
Condition
Type
Comment Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
ST D3
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
embossed partial
colorless
c. 1870s -
Lindsey 2022
letters/numbers
present
31RB652
ST D3
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB652
ST D3
1
H Misc
1
indeterminate
aluminum
fragment
possible can fragment
31RB652
ST D3
1
H Misc
1
indeterminate
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
possible nail or wire fragment
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
1
bottle glass
glass
body fragment
embossed basketweave
colorless
Pepsi "wave"
1940- 1958
Lockhart 2010
design, embossed "LA",
bottle
stippled
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
ribbed
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
century -
present
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
amethyst
solarized/mangan
1820s-1930s
Lindsey 2022
ese dioxide
(most
decolorized
common
1890s - 1920s)
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
8
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB652
ST D4
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed "77 9"
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB652
ST D4
1
HCeram
3
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830-present
FMNH 2022
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
Brick
1
brick
coarse
fragment
Collection
earthenware
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
bottle glass
glass
finish and neck
colorless
small mouth
1903 - present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
fragment
external thread
(most
(continuous)
common after
finish, machine
1917)
made
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
aqua
heat
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
century -
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
embossed partial
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
letters/numbers
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
containerglass
glass
base fragment
gray tinted
solarized/decoloriz
primarily
Lindsey 2022
Collection
ed
1915 - 1925
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
embossed "Bottle Made in
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
Italy" on base
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base and body
stippled base
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
colorless
heat
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
body fragment
molded/ribbed
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
heat
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
7
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
opaque white
1870s-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"milk glass"
present
(primarily
1870s - mid-
20th centurvl
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color
Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
ribbed
"7-up" green
heat
late-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
altered/melted
century -
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
embossed cursive "ists"
amethyst
solarized/mangan
1820s - 1930s
Lindsey 2022
Collection
ese dioxide
(most
decolorized
common
1890s - 1920s)
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
2
container glass
glass
indeterminate
gray tinted
heat
primarily
Lindsey 2022
Collection
fragment
altered/melted;
1915 - 1925
solarized/decoloriz
ed
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
3
containerglass
glass
body fragment
aqua
c. early-19th
Lindsey 2022
Collection
century -
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed
colorless
Owens-Illinois
1954-early-
Lockhart and Hoenig
Collection
"BOTTLE" / "5" /"I" in an
Glass Company
21st century
2015
oval maker's mark
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
light amethyst
solarized/mangan
1820s-1930s
Lindsey 2022
Collection
ese dioxide
(most
decolorized
common
1890s - 1920s)
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed "620" /
colorless
machine made
c. 1940-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
"53"
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
2
flat/window glass
glass
fragment
light aqua
Collection
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
indeterminate glass
glass
fragment
red
Collection
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
jar glass
glass
finish fragment
cobalt blue
wide mouth
c. 1858- mid-
Lindsey 2022
Collection
external thread
20th century
finish
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
marble
glass
complete
gray, green,
machine made
1901-present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
and white
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment
Color Condition
Type
Comment Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
marble
glass
complete
gray, green,
machine made
1901-present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
orange, and
white
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
1
table glass
glass
body fragment
opaque
"Jade-ite"
post-1930
Isa 2017
Collection
green/jade
green
31RB652
Surface
surface
Glass
2
table glass
glass
rim fragment
molded
opaque
"lade-ite"
post-1930
Isa 2017
Collection
green/jade
green
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
bathroom/light
porcelain
fragment
black -glazed exterior,
Collection
fixture
unglazed interior
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
Blue Willow
Collection
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
porcelain
porcelain
body fragment
blue transfer -printed
transfer printed
probable Blue Willow pattern
Collection
design
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
porcelain
porcelain
rim fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
Blue Willow
Collection
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
stoneware (North
stoneware
body fragment
molded, Bristol -glazed
white bodied
c. 1900-
Greer 1981
Collection
American)
exterior, unglazed interior
present
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
base fragment
undecorated
heat altered
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
body fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
Blue Willow
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
rim fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
Blue Willow
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
rim fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
heat altered
Blue Willow
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
Willow pattern
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness;
parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color
Condition Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
white granite
refined
base, body, and
molded
1842 - 1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
footring fragment
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
white granite
refined
handle fragment
molded
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
(ironstone)
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
base and body
black glazed
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
fragment
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
2
whiteware
refined
body fragment
light -yellow glazed interior
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
brown transfer printed
transfer printed
1830- 1869
FMNH 2O22; Miller et
Collection
earthenware
al. 2000
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
2
whiteware
refined
body fragment
dark yellow glazed
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
4
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
undecorated
1830- present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
2
whiteware
refined
rim fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
heat altered Blue Willow
1830 - present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
earthenware
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
5
whiteware
refined
body fragment
undecorated
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
base fragment
undecorated
heat altered
1830 - present
FMNH 2O22
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
2
whiteware
refined
body fragment
blue transfer -printed Blue
Blue Willow
1830-present
Miller et al. 2000
Collection
earthenware
Willow pattern
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
molded, green -glazed
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
interior
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone
Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/Treatment
Color Condition
Type
Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
whiteware
refined
footring fragment
light -yellow glazed
1830-present
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Ceram
1
whiteware
refined
body fragment
Floral decal remnant
decal
1890- 1950s
MAC Lab 2022
Collection
earthenware
decorated/Decalc
omania
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
yellow ware
refined
body fragment
brown bands of slip
1840-20th
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
century
31RB652
Surface
surface
HCeram
1
yellow ware
refined
body fragment
molded
1840-20th
FMNH 2022
Collection
earthenware
century
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
bathroom/light
porcelain
fragment
embossed "ADE IN" /
Collection
fixture
"U.S.A."
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
indeterminate
plastic
fragment
blue
thin, flat, irregular shape
Collection
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
indeterminate
plastic
fragment
blue, green,
thin, flat, irregular shape
Collection
and white
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
indeterminate
aluminum
fragment
corroded
possible can fragment
Collection
31RB652
Surface
surface
H Misc
1
pipe
coarse
fragment
sewer/drainage
Collection
earthenware
31RB653
ST O3
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
amber
primarily late
Lindsey 2022
1910s-
present
31RB653
ST O1
1
Glass
1
container glass
glass
body fragment
colorless
c.1870s-
Lindsey 2022
present
31RB653
ST O1
1
HCeram
1
white granite
refined
rim fragment
undecorated
1842-1930
Miller et al. 2000
(ironstone)
earthenware
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness

Site
Prov.
Zone Analytic
Count
Object/ Material
Base Material
Form/ Portion
Decoration/ Treatment Color Condition
Type Comment
Prod. Date
Date Ref.
Class
31RB653
ST 01
1 H Misc
1
indeterminate
iron/iron alloy
fragment
corroded
Flat, irregular shape
31RB653
ST D2
1 Glass
1
bottle
glass
fragment
embossed "CRYST" colorless
internal threaded
c. 1870s -
Lindsey 2022
closure/stopper
present
31RB653
ST D4
1 Glass
1
container glass
glass
base fragment
stippled, embossed partial colorless
Owens-Illinois
1929-1966
Lockhart and Hoenig
"I" in a diamond and oval
Glass Company,
2015
maker's mark / "2" / "2."
machine made
Point measurements: ML=max length; SL=stem length; SW=shoulder width; BW=basal width; MT=max thickness; parentheses indicate estimation based on near completeness