20160269 Ver 1_401 Application_20160317

Strickland, Bev
From:Amelia H Boschen (Services - 6) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:50 AM
To:Montalvo, Sheri A
Cc:Strickland, Bev
Subject:RE: Dominion Roanoke Rapids North Side
Attachments:Dominion Roanoke Rapids Rec Area_PCN Submittal_3 of 3.pdf
Part 3 attached.

From: Montalvo, Sheri A \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Amelia H Boschen (Services - 6)
Cc: Strickland, Bev
Subject: Dominion Roanoke Rapids North Side

Amelia,

Can you please send the electronic version of the above project so that we can get it into our system easier?

Thanks

Sheri Montalvo
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit - Administrative Assistant
Department of Water Resources
Division of Environmental Quality

919-807-6303 (office)

[e-mail]

512 N. Salisbury St., Ste 942-G1, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Serive Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

1

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic message contains information which may be legally
confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer
relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The
information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
2

Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
5000 Dominion Boulevord, Glen Allen, VA 23060
dom.com
BY U.S. MAIL
December 10, 2015
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
;`Wftminion"
RE: Dominion - Roanoke Rapids North Side Dam Recreation Area Pro'ect
Archeological Investigation Survey, Request for Concurrence
Dear Ms. Bartos,
Dominion contacted your office regarding the development of three recreation areas in the
vicinity of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydroelectric Power Generating Stations in
February, 2015. Several areas within the projects' limits had been evaluated previously as part of
Dominion's Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) and Shoreline Management Plann
(SMP) for the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project. IWI le received conem ence 4.1 -0M. --lir nffic'P_
that no historic resources identified in the previously evaluated areas would be affected by the
recreation area construction and that no further evaluation was required in those areas. This
correspondence is provided in Attachment A of this submission for your reference.
The development of a recreation area on the north side of the Roanoke Rapids Dam will include
the construction of an approximately 1.5 mile access road to the site. The area in which the road
is to be constructed was not previously evaluated as part of the HPMP or the SMP. As such,
Dominion retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to conduct an archeological identification
survey in the area of the proposed access road. The full report is provided in Attachment B of
this submission.
As discussed in the report, none of the resources identified in the course of this investigation are
believed to be eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) and none
are recommended for further investigation. Dominion requests your concurrence that the project
may proceed without further cultural or historic evaluation.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Amelia Boschen
at [phone] or [e-mail].
dom.com.
Sincerely,
Cathy C. Ta or
Director, Electric Environmental Services
Attachment

Attachment A

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M, B,,mo-, Adrniniscrator
Governor Pat NlcCrors
Secretary Susan Klurtx
March 17, 20115
James Thornton
Dominion Generation
5000 Dorninion Boulevard, .In INE
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Office of Archives antl History
Dcpai�y secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop 3 Additional Recreation Areas in the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project, FERC P-20109,
Halifax and Northampton Counties, ER. 15-0467
Dear Mr. Thornton:
Thank you far your eniail of February 19, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which -would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no coint-rient on the project as proposed_
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance 'ti~`rith Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above cc}mmunt,
contact fence Giedhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
t nG ir{�r�i�1� Fat �l.re� ie��°�cl;nc rici.c�� . In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
al
'Ramona INT. Bartos
i l
1,ncatiom 104 1i.'ts[ jones street, 1L11etgh NL 27760I Mailing Address: 4617 ;%Iiit Service Center, ltaletglt NC 2?6'19-461' ielepTicrr elf ax: (31 t1) S{l7 65.i1!`tCi7.6599

From: James Thornton (Generation - 3)
To: Maria Gwmn (GeneWbon - 341
Ce: Corwin D Chamberlain„(Generation - )1: William C Miller !Generation - 31; Dula K Shehab-Dandan (Services -
fiL(Services
Subject FW: FERC Project 2009, Roanoke Rapids and Gaston, Historic Resources Review - CONFIDENTIAL. AND
SENSITIVE MATERIAL
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:51:48 PM
Hey Maria,
Good news on the Cultural Resources front. See attached.
jtm. rharraio-w
Hydro -The Doable Renewable
I echnILaI Consultant
Dominion Generation
5000 Dominion Blvd., In INE
Glen Allen, VA 23060
w [phone] c - [phone]
j arae s. t hornton Cadom.com
From: Sheerin, Renee[mailto:renee.5hearin@ncdcr,gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 7:00 PM
To: James Thornton (Generation - 3)
Subject: RE: FERC Project 2009, Roanoke Rapids and Gaston, Historic Resources Review -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SENSITIVE MATERIAL
Our response is attached. Thank you.
Kcnrx Shcarin
Slag llistcsric hrG%C'-V lilon Wficc
=:t�t7 flail Sc z ic: [;c+ to
Rt duil;h, W, 27699-4716
919 -8117-6584
Please see ht1V7//www.hpo_ncdrrgQv/cr/cr cmaALsubmittalltml for guidelines on submitting
projectsfor environmental review.
Environmental Review projects may be submitted to
rnyirs.lnrrit'n.t, .review(a,)ncdcr.g�v. I'lease do nol send .dip, .tif fader, dawnloads, or links
to web sites as m,,e are na able Iv proce rs t .hese�pes ra f ate�IS. 7h_ e a�Te sS[ae nye, including all
attachments, should he NO !car,ger than i D 9ne ahyte r.
Please only one project per email. Please allow at least 30 days for out review.
We try hard to complete the reviews in fewer days, but under state and federal
regulations we have a mandatory 30 days.
*This message does not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Cultural Resources. E -Mail to and
from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law (N.C.G.S. 132) and may be disclosed to third parties.*

From: lames Thornton (Generation - 3) [mai Ito :james.thorntonO dom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:17 AM
To: DCR - Environmentai_Review
Cc: Corwin D Chamberlain (Generation - 3)
Subject: FERC Project 2009, Roanoke Rapids and Gaston, Historic Resources Review - CONFIDENTIAL
AND SENSITIVE MATERIAL
COMMUNICATION CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL AND SENSITVE
MATERIAL
DO NOT SHARE OUTSIDE OF AGENCY WITHOUT SPECIFIC
PERMISSION FROM DOMINION
Good Morning,
Dominion is required by its Roanoke Rapids and Gaston FERC license (P-2009) to develop 3
additional recreation areas in 2016 in the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project. One will be
in the Gaston development and two in the Roanoke Rapids development. We are in the
process of preliminary planning and developing land/water impacts. In reviewing our
Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) and Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), we
are required to protect 5 areas of historic significance within the Gaston project boundary
and two within the Roanoke Rapids project boundary. None of the three recreation sites
are located within 100' of any of the sites for which protection / consultation with your
office is required (per the HPMP). (I have attached a Google Earth map with locations of
historic sites near Thelma. 31 HX -8 is approximately 1,800 feet NW of the existing Thelma
Pier.)
Two of the sites have previously been significantly disturbed. We are to develop a bank
fishing area at the an existing NCWRC Thelma boat landing. We will be adding ADA
accessible parking spaces with some minor grading and paving to an existing pier. Ail of
this area is within an area that was previously disturbed for the NCWRC parking lot.
The other previously - disturbed site is a bank fishing area on the north side of the Roanoke
Rapids dam. All of this area was excavated down to bedrock at time of dam construction in
the early 1950's. We will significantly upgrade the road access into the site, but only a
small portion of the road would be within the project boundary, previously disturbed
during construction and not located near any of the required protected sites. We will need
to construct an accessible path down to the waters edge and an accessible area along the
reservoir edge or a T shaped pier into the water.
Finally, we are to develop a "water to land" use area on an existing island within the

Gaston Reservoir. This will consist of riprap along a portion the shoreline of the island
where there is active erosion (less than 500'), adding a small boat dock, two picnic tables
and a porta-jon. This island would have had no reason to have been previously disturbed
during reservoir/dam development, but it too is not near any of the protected historical
resources.
My question, is there any additional historic evaluation required? Per the second
paragraph of our HPMP section 4.2, none of the sites are within 100' of know historic sites
and none are designated as special conservation or management areas. Dominion's read
on this is no additional protective measures are needed, but I'd like your concurrence.
I have attached a Google Earth map with locations of historic sites near Thelma. HX -8 is
approximately 1,800 feet NW of the existing Thelma Pier. Also attached an overview map
showing general locations of the three areas.
Thanks for your help. Please call me on my cell if you have any questions.
Ji ou Thcr rwo-n.
Hydra - The Doable Renewable
Technical Consultant
Dominion Generation
5000 Dumiriian Blvd., in INE
Glen Allen, VA 23060
w - [phone] c - [phone]
i ames_tharnton [e-mail]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may
be legally confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY
COMMODITY hid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional
express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the
individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not
the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the
message in error, and delete it. Thank you.

Attachment B

Archaeological Identification Survey
of Approximately 2.91 Hectares (7.18
Acres) Survey Associated with the
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas -
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
Project, Northampton County, North
Carolina
ER- 15-0467
(10 Stantec
Prepared for:
Dominion Resources, Inc.
Attn: Ms. Amelia Boschen
Soo Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen VA 25460
Prepared by:
Aimee J. Leithoff, Principal Investigator
and
Ellen Brady, Senior Principal Investigator
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
1049 Technology Park Drive
Glen Allen VA 23059
[phone]
October 13, 2015

Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... V
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................ VII
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1.1
2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT...............................................................2.3
2.1
INTRODUCTION ............ __.................. ..............................................................................2.3
2.2
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY ....................................
........... ....................................2.3
2.3
HYDROLOGY... ....... ................................ ................ .........
..................................... ........ 2.3
2.4
SOIL MORPHOLOGY..............................................................................
.... .............. --...... 2.3
2.5
NATURAL RESOURCES.... ..................................................
...... .................... .--.................. 2.4
3.0
CULTURAL CONTEXT......................................................................................................3.8
3.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................ ........................................................
3.8
3.1.1 Pre -Clovis (?--13.000 BC) ...............................................................................3.8
3.1 .2 Poleoindian Period (Prior to 80070 BC) ..................
.....................................3.8
3.1.3 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BC)...................................................................3.9
3.1.4 Woodland Period (1000-300 13C)....._ ...................
........... ............. I ........ 3,1()
3.1.5 Early Exploration -•-------- ------------• ......... ................................
.............. ............ 3.10
3. 1.6 Early Settlement-..........................................................................................
3.11
3.1.1 The Revolutionary War ............................ .............................
..................3.12
3.1.2 Early Industry............................................................................
_ ............ 3.12
3.1.3 The Civil War .......... ................ ..... ............... .......
...... ........... •-•........................ 3.34
3.1.4 The Postbellum Period .................. ••...........................................................3.
t 4
3.1 .5 Twentieth -Century Northampton County
...............................................3.14
4.0
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS...........................................................•..........................4.17
4.1.1 Archaeological Sites...................................................................................4.17
5.0
RESEARCH DESIGN......................................................................................................5.19
5.1
OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................5.19
5.2
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH...................................................................................................5.19
5.3
PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ........... .............. ...............
-...... .............. ......... .....5-14
5.3.1 Field Methods . ...... -....... ...............................................................................5.19
5.3.2 Definitions..................................................•......-•--...---...................................5.20
5.3.3 Laboratory Methods.... ..... -.-..... -- _..................
..............-....... --.----..5.20
5.4
REPORT PREPARATION.......... .......... __ ........ _ ............... ___
.................................... .-----5.21
5.5
EXPECTED RESULTS ......................... ............. ..........................
........ ___ .... ----........ ---- ...... 5.21
6.0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................6.22
6.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY .............. ............................
----......................... .............. -..6.22
6.2
SHOVEL TESTING .................................. ............ ..............................................................
6.26
6.3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS..........................................................................6.27
6.4
NEWLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................6.27
6.4.1 Newly identified Isolated Archaeological
Finds.....................................6.27

6.4.2 Newly Identified Archaeological Sites.....................................................6.30
6.4.3 Previously identified Archaeological Sites...............................................6.42
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................7.48
8.0 REFERENCES. .................................................................................... ........................... &49

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Survey Area ..................... ...................... ......... ....... .......................... 1.2
Figure 2. Soil Types within the Project Area.................................................................2.5
...
Figure 3. Soil Types within the Project Area..............................................................................2.6
Figure 4. Soil Types within the Project Area . .................................. ...................... -.........---....... .2-7
Figure 5. Detail of Burgher's 1722 A new map of Noah America shewing its principal
divisions, chief cities, townes, rivers, mountains &c. Defin. M. Burg. sculpt. Univ. Oxon.
Depicting the Carolina Colony with Little Interior Detail (Burgher 1722: Library of
Congress Geography and Map Division)..............................................................................3.12
Figure 6. Detail of A New Map of the State of North Carolina. Constructed from Actual
Surveys, authentic Public Documents and private Contributions by Robt. H. B. Brazier.
Published under the Patronage of the Legislature, by John Mac Rae. Published 1333.
(North Carolina Maps online: http://dc.liib.unc.edu) ...........................................................3.13
Figure 7. Detail of The Hudgins Company's new survey Map of North Carolina, circa
1904. (North Carolina Maps online: http://dc.lib.unc.edu). ..............................................3.15
Figure 8. Detail of 1967 Northampton County, North Carolina, published by the North
Carolina State Highway Commission, Bureau of Public Roads (North Carolina Maps
online: http://dc.Iib.unc.edu)............................. ....3-16
Figure 9. Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1.6 -Kilometer (1.0 -mile)
Radius of the Project Area....................................................................... .........4.13
Figure 10. General View of the Northern End of the Project Area from Route 48: View to
theSouth..... ................ .................................................... ......6.22
Figure 11. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 2.32: View to the
South.................................................................................................. ..................... .6.23
Figure 12. General View of Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 2.11: View to the South.
......................................................................................................................................................6.23
Figure 13. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 66; View to the
North............................................................................................................................................6.24
Figure 14. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of Site 31 NP383: View to
theSouth......................................................................................................................................6.24
Figure 1 S. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 41; View to the
North........................................................................... -•-....... .................. ...................... ............... 6.25
Figure 16. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 41, View to the
South.- .................................................. ............................... ........... - .---....... ............................. 6.25
Figure 17. Detail of Roanoke Rapids, NC 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle Depicting Newly
Identified Archaeological Resources 31 NP380, 31 NPD381, 31 NP382, and 31 NP383 . ..... 6.28
Figure 18. Base Map of Archaeological Investigations within Site 31 NP381....................6.29
Figure 19. General Vicinity of Site 31 NP380; View to the North..........................................6.30
Figure ?0- Rase Map of Archaeological Investigations within Site 31 NP380- ---- ...... -631
Figure 21. General Vicinity of Site 31 NP382: View to the South..........................................6.36
Figure 22. Base Map of Archaeological Investigations within Site 31 NP382....................6.37
Figure 23. General Vicinity of Site 31 NP383: View to the South. ........ -- ................ ............ 6.39
Figure 24. Base Map of Archaeological Investigations within Site 31 NP383....................6.40
Figure 25. General Vicinity of Site 31 NPI 06; View to the North..... ..................................... 6.43
Figure 26. Base Map of Archaeological investigations within Site 31 NPI 06 ....... ............. 6,44

LIST CF TABLES
Table1 Ivey to the Soils Map...................................................................--•---...------•-------......-----2.3
Table 2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1.6 -Kilometer Radius of the
ProjectArea....---•........................................................................................................................4.17
Table 3. STP 48 Soil Profile ....---•---•..................................................:......................................6.26
Table 4. STP 44 Soil Profile --------------•--........................................................................................6.26
Table 5. STP 48 Soil Profile .-----•..................................................................................................6.27
Table 6. Site 31 NP380, STP 67 Soil Profile ..... ................ ..................................... -........
--- ............ 6.32
Table 7 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 NP380....................................................................6.33
Table 8. STP 44 Soil Profile ..................................................... ..... .......••-............... .-.........
....... -.6.38
Table 9 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 NP382....................................................................6.38
Table 10. Site 31 NP383, STP 58 Soil Profile..........................................................
-6.41
Table 11 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 NP383..................................................................6.41
Table 12. Site 31 NP 106, STP 3.35 Soil Profile............................................................................6.45
Table 13 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31 NP106..................................................................6.45
Table 14. Recommendations for Archaeological Resources Identified ...........................7.48
LIST Of APPENDICES
APPENDIXA...............................................................................................
A.1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY ...................... .......... ......................... -- .......... -
APPENDIXB................................................................................................
13.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BASE MAPS ....................................................
......................... AA
A.1
......................... B.2
.......................... 13.2
iv

Management Summary
From September 8 to 16, 2015, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted an archaeological
identification survey of approximately 2.91 hectares (7.18 acres) associated with the i oke Gaston
Recreational Areas- Roanoke Rapids Northside barn Project in Northampton County, North Carolina on
behalf of Dominion Resources, Inc. Archaeological survey for the project included an approximately 50 -
foot wide proposed access road. The survey areas were primarily agricultural fields and light woods.
The archaeological survey was designed to locate and identify cultural resources within the defined survey
Corridor and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations regarding their potential
eligibility for listing in the National Register of historic Places (NRNP). Stantec conducted systematic
pedestrian suivey on a 50400t interval across the entire project area, in conjunction with systematic
shovel testing. The proposed access road was subject to shovel testing at 30 --dieter (98.44000 intervals
within the agricultural fields due to high surface visibility. Where the proposed access road crossed
woods or where cultural material was identified, shovel tests were excavated at 15 --meter (49-24000
intervals to provide adequate survey coverage. Radial shovel tests were excavated at 7.5 -mete€ (24.6 --foot)
intervals around positive shovel tests to determine the bounds of newly identified cultural resources. A
total of 83 shovel tests was excavated within the survey corridor with five shovel tests positive for cultural
material.
One previously identified archaeological site (31NPio6) was located within the survey corridor. Eight
previously identified archaeological sites are located within a 1.6 -kilometer (1 -mile) radius of the survey
corridor. One new isolated archaeological find (IF) (31NP38i) and three new archaeological sites
(31NP380, 31NP382, and 31NP383) were identified during t11is investigation. One previously identified
archaeological site (31NP1o6) was re-identified during this effort.
Recommendations for Archaeological Rt-gourcec Identified.
Resource
ResoureeT a
Association
Stantee Recommendation
3rNI'106
Lithic Scatter; Domestic
Prehistoric/Unknown
Further Work i11 the APE.
Occupation
Mid to Late 19th CenturyNo
,3iNPID7
Lithic Scatter/Camp
Archaic. Woodland
No Impact. No further 1Vork.
I Cum-Cufa Bottle Fragment, 1
(IF) 31NP381
Ironstone/White Grainite Rim
201h c.
Not Eligible; No further Work
Sherd
31NP38o
Domestic Occupation
Late 1g", - Early 201'
blot Eligible; No Further lVork
Centu r
;xIVP3$2
Trash Scatter
191h to 201h Centut °
Not Eligible; No Further Work
31NP383
Trash Scatter
Late 19t1, - Early 20th
Not Eligible; No Further Work
Century
tfil

Abbreviations
amyl
above mean sea level
APE
Area of Patential Effect
GIs
Geographic Information System
GPS
Glomal Positioning System
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources
NCGS
North Carolina Geologic Survey
NCSNP
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NPS
National Park Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
OSA
North Carolina Office of State ArchaCology
Stantec
Stautec Consulting Services Inc.
STP
Shovel Test Pit
11NC-RRA
CTniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — Research Laboratories of
Archaeology
USDI
United States Department of the Interior
USGS
United States Geology Society
X

1.0 INTRODUCTION
From. September S to 16, 2015, Stantec conducted an archaeological identification suiltey of
approximately 2.91 hectares (7.18 acres) associated with the Lake Gaston Recreational Areas- Roanoke
Rapids Northside Dain Project in Northampton County, North Carolina on behalf of Dominion Resources,
Inc. (Figure t). Archaeological survey for the project included an approximately So -foot wide proposed
access road. The survey areas were primarily agricultural fields and light woods.
Stantec designed the survey to identify all architectural and archaeological resources that may be present
in the project area and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations based on their potential
eligibility to the NRHP. To accomplish this, documentary research, archaeological field testing, and
architectural survey work were conducted in compliance «vith the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA-PL89-665), as amended, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Executive
Order 11-593, and relevant sections of 36CFR60 and 36CFIZSoo. The archaeological and architectural
investigations were conducted with reference to state and federal guidelines (Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeolggy and Historic Preseruation f United States Department of the
Interior {USDI} 1983]) for conducting archaeological and architectural investigations_ Laboratory
curation of cultural materials collected during the studies were matte with regard to federal (36 CFR 79)
and state (North Carolina Office of State Archaeology's [GSA] Archaeological Curation Standards)
guidelines. This report was prepared in accordance with the OSA's Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaeological Survey Reports in North Carolina (08A 1988).
Principal Investigator Aimee Leithoff oversaw the project and co-authored the report with Senior
Principal Investigator Ellen Brady. Project Archaeologist Taft Kiser supervised the archaeological field
work and was assisted in the field by Archaeological Technician William Stewart. Laboratory Supervisor
Emily Currne processed and analyzed all artifacts recovered during; the investigation. GIS Specialists
Sarah voeller and St=an Sutor prepared the report graphics and project maps. Copies of all field nates,
maps, correspondence, and historical research material.; are or. Tilt: at, Stantcc's office in Glen Aller,
Virginia.

f; E
;s
a-
pc
d
d
W
n
IV
m
L y v
a—
a
0
a
€s
G
U a O
m G u
gL
S F V n O I�••
P�o
7
v
J
f; E

2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
2.11 INTRODUCTION
The survey area consists of an approximately 50 -Moot wide corridor for a proposed access road. The
proposed access road extends in a roughly southern direction from Route 48 east of Family mane. The
proposed access road crosses agricultural fields that were primarily planted in cotton with areas of light
woods for the majority of the corridor. At the southern end of the project area denser woods are present
as well as a transmission line corridor.
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The approximately 2.91 -hectare (7.18 -acre) project area is located within the Piedmont physiographic
province. The Piedmont province is comprised of gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges
and little elevation change between hills and valleys (North Carolina Department of Environmental
Resources LNCDENR) n.d.). Elevation within the survey areas ranges from approximately 86.6 to 6o.9
meters (12c to Zoo feet) above mean sea level (amsl).
The project area is comprised of Eastern Slate Belt soils. Specifically, the survey area is located on
petamorphosed quare diorite. Petamorphosed quartz diorite is "...foliated to massive" (NCGS 1985).
2.3 HYDROLOGY
The project area is drained by LaRe Gaston which is formed by a dam on the Roanoke River. The Roanoke
River flows into the Albemarle Sound.
2.4 SOIL MORPHOLOGY
The soils in the project area range from moderately well drained to well drained and are comprised
primarily of sandy loans. 'fable i presents the soil types found within the project area and serves as it key
to Figures 2-Y.
2.3
Table 1 Key to the Soils Map
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Percent Slope
Drainage Description
Cris
Craven fine sandy loam
1_4%
Moderately well drained
LtD
l illington-Turbeville complex
8-15%
Well drained
TsA
Turbeville sandy loam
0-2%
Well drained
TsB
TtS2
Turbeville sandy loam
Turbeville sanely clay loam,
moderatelyeroded
2-6%
2-6%
Well drained
Well drained
2.3

2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES
The character of the topography, the proximity of water resources, and the types of sails all have a direct
effect on the variety of flora that is attracted to the setting and in turn, the fauna that relies on that
ecological setting for sustenance. The quantity and variety of both plants and animals in an area has a
direct influence on human habitation. Native American populations successfully utilized a wide variety of
native flora and Fauna whose seasonal availability was well-known to them.
A wide variety of native wildlife species still prosper in the upland and riverine setting and are typical of
the mid-Atlantic region. The most common terrestrial wildlife in the area today includes deer, turkey, fox,
raccoon, opossum, squirrel, rabbit, weasel, and groundhog. Amphibians and reptiles such as snakes,
lizards, salamanders, frogs, and turtles are found throughout the property=. Numerous species of wild
songbirds nest in the area. Birds of prey and waterfowl are also commonly seen (hent 1995).
2.4

)«
$
U
£;)f
,
,A 2
� >>
■�
J
�
|
-
�
�
|
|
�
.
|
|
■ �
. .. . .
�

,
!
) ()[
§
}
4-J
• z
-�--
+
..
2
| ..
.
.
|
!
,
I
|
2AL��%e.
:

3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
North Carolina's Native American prehistory typically is divided into three plain periods, Paleoindian,
Archaic, and Woodland based on changes in material culture and settlement systems_ Recently, the
possibility of human presence in the region that pre -dates the Paleoindian period has moved frclrn remote
to probable. For this reason, a Pre -Clovis discussion precedes the traditional tripartite division of North
Carolina's Native American history. The seventeenth-- through twentieth-century historical overview
follows the GSA's (revised 1998) guidelines. The cultural context, as defined by the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology provides the historic, social and environmental
information required for evaluation of any archaeological resources present within the project area.
3.1.1 Pre -Clovis (?-13,000 SC)
The 1927 discovery of a fluted point in the ribs of an extinct species of bison at Folsom, New Mexico
proved that ancient North Americans had immigrated daring the Pleistocene. It did not, however,
establish the precise timing of the arrival of humans in the Americas, nor did it adequately resolve
questions about the lifestyle of those societies (Meltzer 1988:2-3). Bath the stratigraphic record and the
radiocarbon assays from several sites, including the recently excavated Cactus Hill site in Sussex. County,
Virginia suggest the possibility of human occupation of North America before the fluted -point makers
appeared on [lie scene (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Buried strata at the Cactus Hilt Site have returned
radiocarbon dates of ts,000 years ago from strata situated below levels containing fluted points (McAvoy
and McAvoy 1997:165). To date only a handful of pre -Clovis sites have been identified in North America,
including in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Mexico. Though the likelihood of identifying pre -Clovis sites
within the project area is extremely low, it is possible that pre -Clovis peoples inhabited North Carolina.
3.1.2 Paleoindian Period (Prior to 8000 8C)
In the decades following the discovery at Folsom, New Mexico, the association of fluted points with the
bones of large, extinct mammals, in particular mastodons, on the western plains coupled with the scarcity
of other Paleoindian sites, led to the inference that the Paleoindian subsistence strategy centered on the
pursuit of big -game. This picture., however, exaggerates the reliance of western Paleoindian groUps on
large game and appears to be of limited relevance to eastern Paleoindian life. Hundreds of fluted points
have been recovered in North Carolina and over 1000 in Virginia (Anderson and Faught 1.998). The
archaeological data from Virginia compiled by Dr. Sen McCary records numerous discoveries of fluted
points, but no unambiguous association between extinct large game and fluted points (Boyd 1989:139). A
similar situation occurs throughout the eastern United States. For this reason, many archaeologists now
hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers (e.g., Grayson and Meltzer 2003; but see liiede)
and Haynes 2004).
Most large Paleoindian sites in the southeastern United States are quarry or quarry -related (Meltzer
1988:21), though multiple band aggregation sites also occur (McAvoy 1992:145). In North Carolina, most
Paleoindian sites are sparse and represent fluted points recovered from plow zone contexts in agricultural
fields (Daniel 2005). The Hardaway site is perhaps North Carolina's most significant Paleoindian
archaeological resource. The Hardaway site is located in Stanly County in the Piedmont physiographic
province, along the west bank of the Yadkin River. The site yielded stratified deposits including
Paleoindian material and Archaic period material.
ON

Recent research into the distribution of Paleoindian points throughout North Carolina has yielded
important information about raw material use in the state. Dr. I. Randolph Daniel Jr. of East Carolina
University has identified two distinct concentrations of Paleoindian points within the state. One
concentration appears to be situated within the Eastern Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain and ether is
situated in the Mountains. The Mountain concentration is smaller and separated from the other
concentration by a series of counties in which no Paleoindian material has been found to date. While the
Piediuont/Coastal concentration is comprised of fluted points produced from rhyolite likely from raw
material sources in Stanly and Montgomery Counties, it is likely that the Mountain concentration is
related to stone sources in Tennessee. Paleoindian people's in North Carolina utilized these. natural raw
material sources as quarries and transported both raw material and finished tools hundreds of miles from
the material source (Daniel 2005).
3.1.3 .archaic Period (8000-1000 BC)
The Archaic began with the northward retreat of periglacial environments and the appearance of
archaeological assemblages lacking fluted points. Vegetation changed from the dynamic, patchy forest
that lacked modern analogs to a mixed conifer -deciduous forest. An essentially modern vegetational
assemblage is inferred based on pollen data from contents as early as 6,000-5,00o BP (Brush 1956:151;
Webb 1988:405), though relative abundances of taxa fluctuated thereafter. During the Holocene, as
paleoclimatologists term the post -Pleistocene epoch, humans responded to emerging; differences in the;
availability of resources over the course of the year via increasing seasonal mobility.
In addition, in contrast with the broad similarity among Paleoindian point forms, distinct style zones
developed during the Early and Middle Archaic (8000--3500 B.C.). The Atlantic Coast/Southeastern
stylistic sequence was not characteristic of the Midwest (Ford 1974;392). In addition, increased use of
locally -available lithics occurred between 800o and 350o S.C. [Custer 1990:36; Sassaman, Manson, and
Charles x988:85-88), The reduction of the size of style zones and the focus on local lithie materials implies
contracting social networks and incipient territories, possibly a reaction to population growth (Anderson
and Hanson 1988:271).
While the Archaic period, often divided into three sub -periods (Early Archaic circa 8000-5000 BC,
Middle Archaic circa 5000--3000 BC, and Late Archaic circa 3000 -loon BC), appeals to have been
dominated by small mobile bands of hunter gatherers, there is evidence to suggest that some groups
settled in more permanent groups. Much of the Archaic material recovered from the Piedmont of North
Carolina has been identified in stratified contexts (University= of North Carolina, Chapel hill — Research
Laboratories of Archaeology [UNC --RIA} 2o1oa, Accessed 2015).
The Early Archaic period was marked by the adaptation of native populations to significant climate
change which had significant impacts on natural resources. With the big game animals no longer present
on the landscape, hunter -gatherer subsistence patterns became more generalized. As subsistence patterns
changed tool kits also changed. New projectile point types were developed (Palmer Corner --Notched and
Kirk Corner -Notched} and the use of hafted end scrapers increased (Coe 1964, Ward and Davis 1999),
New projectile point types also marked the Middle Archaic period, with Stanly Stemmed, Morrow
Mountain Stemmed, and Guilford Lanceolate points entering; the archaeological record; the Late Archaic
period would be marked by Savannah River points ('Ward and Davis 1999). Middle Archaic settlements in
the Piedmont are numerous and appear to represent temporary encampments (UNC-RLA 2010x,
Accessed 2015). The Gaston Site (31HX7) which is near the project area shows stratification and
continuous occupation through the Middle Archaic. Chipped -stone axes with lateral hafting notches have
also been recovered from the Gaston Site along with Guilford points (UNC-12LA 20ioa, Accessed 2015).
3.9

The number of Archaic period sites appears to increase over time, with Middle Archaic being more
numerous than Early Archaic sites and late Archaic sites increasing in frequency over Middle Archaic
sites. By the Late Archaic, settlement patterns as well as tool lits were changing. Whereas earlier Archaic
peoples had frequently camped in the vicinity of upland tributaries, Late Archaic populations trended
toward settlement near "...the mouths of major rivers" (Ward and Davis 1999:75)_ Along with this focus on
river settlement came increased importance of riverine resources (UNC -RLN 201.0a, Accessed 2010.
Evidence of an increased sedentism is also present in the Late Archaic; burials, hearths, and steatite bowls
suggest more extended occupation of sites than in previous Archaic periods (Coe X96; Ward and. Davis
1999). While the Piedmont has multiple Late Archaic sites the full range of Late Archaic sites have not
been documented within the Piedmont (UNC-RLA 2otoa, Accessed 2015).
3.1.4 Woodland Period (1000-3008C)
Increasing use of ceramic technology, a growing dependence upon horticulture, and a shin toward greater
sedentism all characterize the Woodland period in North Carolina. Most researchers divide the Woodland
period into three sub -periods (Early Woodland circa 1000-500 BC, Middle Woodland circa Soo BC --AD
Boo, and Late Woodland circa AD 800-1600) based primarily on stylistic and technological charges
observed in ceramic wares and projectile points, as well as shifts in settlement patterning (e.g., Gardner
r.98z). Not all researchers agree with this tripartite subdivision, however (e.g., Custer 1989).
The Early and Middle Woodiand Periods in the piedmont were defined primarily from salvage
excavations along the Roanoke River (UNC-RLA 2a1oa, Accessed 2016). The .Early and Middle Woodland
periods are known predominantly through ceramic studies, though other technological advances such as
the introduction of the bow and arrow are known from this period. Otherwise, however, the Early
Woodland is the least understood period in North Carolina's prehistory (Phelps 1985; Ward and Davis
1999). In particular, little is known about Early Woodland settlement patterns and subsistence strategies_
It is possible that this period saw continued reliance on marine resources with a seasonal cycle of fishing,
hunting, and gathering similar to that found in the Late Archaic (Ward and Davis 1999). In terms of
ceramic typology, piedmont region sites contain ceramics frons the Badin, Yadkin, Vincent and Clements
series. Badin series wares are sand tempered well -made vessels with decorated exterior surfaces,
including cordnarked and fabric -impressed motifs. Yakin follows the Badin ceramics and are similar
except they are crushed quartz tempered and add check stamping_ linear check stamping_ and simple
stamping made with carved wooden paddles to the cordmarked and fabric -impressed designs (UNC --RLN
2oiob, Accessed 2o15; Ward and Davis 1999).
As the piedmont moved into the Late Woodland similar patterns from the Early and Middle Woodland
until around A.D. 11oo when the population seems to consolidate and the archaeological record sees the
beginning of intertribal conflict. In many of the larger Piedmont Villages, stockades are found, built to
protect the inhabitants. The increased need for fortification is believed to be a result of increased
agricultural productions and efficiency and competition for good agricultural lands (UMC-ftL.A 2010a,
Accessed 2015).
3.1.5 Early Exploration
European explorers visited the region that would become North Carolina throughout the sixteenth
century. In the 1540s Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto journeyed within the interior portions of the
region where he encountered several indigenous groups (Clagget 1996). When the English arrived in
North Carolina in the late sixteenth century, they too found the region inhabited by multiple Indian
groups.
two

The 1584 expedition was followed up by two additional expeditions in 1585 and 1587. In 1585, Sir Richard
Grenville and Ralph Lane attempted settlement in North Carolina via military action. This attempted
settlement was followed up in 1587 by the establishment of a settlement on Roanoke Island which
famously ended in the mysterious disappearance of the English colonists (Quinn 1985).
3.1.6 Early SetHement
While exploration of the North Carolina coastal region began in the late sixteenth century, settlement in
the interior did not occur until the early eighteenth century. In -1629, King Charles I granted all the lands
south of Virginia to the thirty-sixth parallel to Robert Heath who invited development of the land grant.
Yet it was individuals from Virginia who would first settle the region to any significant degree rather than
colonists from England (Hoffer 2000). Following the Restoration, Icing Charles II rescinded Heath's land
grant and instead granted eight proprietors the region now comprising North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia. Europeans settlers began trading with the native Cherokee peoples of the mountain region in
the 16405.
Though the new Carolina colony was first presented to potential colonists as a place of religious tolerance
with a representative government, the a669 Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, prepared by John
Locke, instead established a feudal system. However, the Fundamental Constitutions were eventually
replaced by a more typical colonial government (Hoffer 2000; Reich 2001).
Settlement within the portion of Carolina that would become North Carolina began slowly. Farms and
villages were widely disbursed across the landscape. Settlers were overwhelmingly (95 percent)
subsistence farmers and transportation infrastructure such as roads and bridges were few and
unmaintained. Tobacco was the main export crop while corn was grown for use by the settlers and to feed
livestock. A few wealthy land owners resided on the coast and along rivers, but their wealth was not on par
with that of wealthy tobacco planters to the north (Hoffer 2000; Reich 200-1). By the late seventeenth -
century, North Carolina's settlers numbered around 3000. As noted previously, most of these settlers
migrated south from Virginia. They grew tobacco and corn and raised hogs but the lack of good harbors
restricted Colonial -era economic development. By 1712, North Carolina was treated as a separate colony
from the rest of Carolina due in part to its apparent lack of economic potential (Reich 2001).
Originally part of Bertie County, the Assembly created Northampton County in 1741. The county was
created to allow residents a more conveniently located courthouse which was built in the center of the
county. The Northampton Courthouse was established in 1742, as the simple name for the county's seat.
However, in 1823 Northampton Courthouse was incorporated, and the town's name was changed to
Jackson in honor of Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans and soon to be President of
the United States. The county of Northampton takes its name from James Compton, Earl of
Northampton (bttp:l/www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/ [Accessed 2015]).
Maps from this period depict settlement along the coast and some waterways within North Carolina but
either do not extend far enough west to capture the vicinity of the current survey area in modern
Northampton County (Nicholls 170o and Collet 1770, not shown) or provide little to no detail for the
interior of North Carolina (Figure 5).
3.11

North; `
Not to Scale `
P&NX91L AN IA.
V I to I I or
rf %A R Y _.
I
Of
)k�`�, C AR0LiN A, r� ;
y.
��' h�rxles"Ca�u
Eariano
VitarLs�a
.�1i:trio �V� I Or
��. a r�c►l.
Figure Detail of Burgher's 1722 Anew map ofNorth America spewing its principal divisions, chief
cities, townes, rivers, mountains &c. Delin. M. Burg. sculpt. Univ. Oxon. Depicting the Carolina
Colony with Little Interior Detail (Burgher 1722; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division).
.1.1.1 Phe Revolutionary War
North Carolina was a region divided during the Revolutionary War. Wealthy planters tended to be Whigs
while backcountry farmers tended to be Tories. Throughout 1775, Whigs actively resisted the British
Crown by calling Provincial Congresses to order; Governor Josiah Martin dissolved the General Assembly.
In August of 1775, a third Provincial Congress meeting "...ordered the enlistment of North Carolina's first
soldiers in the Continental Army..." and organized a Council of Safety, a group of 13 individuals placed to
oversee North Carolina's resistance efforts (Howard 2010).
North Carolina supplied many troops during the American Revolution; however the new state itself saw
little military action. Few British loyalists actively resisted Patriot control after their defeat at Moore's
Creek Bridge. This was due in part to the difficult choices they faced once the Whigs were in control;
either leave the Colonies behind by accompanying the British or remain to face Patriot rule (Howard
2010; Tindall and Shi 2000).
3.1.2 Early Industry
After the American Revolution improvements to local roads and to the Roanoke River were made to
facilitate transportation. The Roanoke Navigation Company was funded by both the Virginia and North
3.12

Carolina legislatures in 1817. Located at the falls of the Roanoke at Weldon a canal and locks were
completed in 1834. Soon after completion some of the lower locks were damaged by flooding and never
repaired (Tetra Tech 2005).
In 1833, the Petersburg Railroad Company constructed the first railroad to cross into North Carolina. The
rail line ran near Northampton to a trading post on the Roanoke River. The new route gave access from
North Carolina into Virginia and eventually another railroad was built to connect the east side of the state
to the west (http://www.northearWinahistoU.org/encyclopedia/ [Accessed 20157). By -1838 a segment of
the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad, from Emporia to the Roanoke River was completed. The community of
Gaston was established at the southern end of the line on the north side of the Roanoke River. By 1840
rail connected Wilmington to the Roanoke River at Weldon. Weldon would become a major market and
transportation center for the Roanoke River area. As transportation in the region improved, tobacco and
other cash crops became more important to local farmers, although the region would remain fairly rural
(Tetra Tech 2oo5). An -1833 map (Figure 6) of North Carolina illustrates the project area but with little
detail. Crossroads and local place names are noted as is the Roanoke River.
Figure 6. Detail of A New Map of the State of North Carolina. Constructed from Actual
Surveys, authentic Public Documents and private Contributions by Robt. H. B. Brazier.
Published under the Patronage of the Legislature, by John Mac Rae. Published 1833.
(North Carolina Maps online: http://dc.lib.unc.edu).
3.13

3.1.3 The Civil War
The railroad that ran through Weldon was a major supply line for the Confederacy. Supplies and troops
were transported by rail throughout the war. To take out the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Bridge
over the Roanoke River would have a victory for the Union forces (Tetra Tech 2005). The skirmish at
Boon's Mill on duly 28, 1863 was one of the only battles in the vicinity of the project area and in
Northampton County.
Brig. General Matt W. Ransom and his Confederate troops met the Union army who were set on
demolishing the railroad bridge at Weldon over the Roanoke River. Confederate soldiers fighting to
protect Boon's Mill feared the destruction of their family's plantations as the Union army moved to attack
the Confederate strongpoint. However, the Union avoided the farms and went straight for the railroad
tracks. The battle lasted only five hours, and only a few casualties were reported from either side. The
Union army failed to destroy the railroad bridge(http:lZwww.nortbearolinabistory.org/engyclopedia/
(Accessed 2015]). Many farms in the area were left untended during the war.
3.1.4 The Postbellum Period
Four years of war had a devastating effect on North Carolina, and Northampton County was no exception.
The combined loss of manpower and draft animals, the neglect of agricultural land, and the emancipation
of the slave population had a detrimental effect on the county's economic and social landscape in the
postwar era (Kaplan 1993).
Farming slowly came back as the major use of the land in the vicinity of the project area once the war was
over. Major cash crops included cotton, corn, and tobacco. Tobacco would decrease in the importance to
the local economy due to impacts from plant disease, and poor commercial conditions. Cotton would
grow in importance into the early twentieth-century. By the start of the twentieth-century, local farms
were typically smaller and owner -operated (Tetra Tech 2006). A circa 1904 map of Northampton County
shows little detail except for the major roads, the Weldon Railroad, and townships in the vicinity of the
project area.
3.1.5 Twentieth -Century Northampton County
In the twentieth century, following both World Wars and the Great Depression the local labor force was
greatly diminished and factories in local cities built up during the wars pulled what labor force remained
on the farms away (Tetra Tech 2006).
In 1956 and ig6o Roanoke Rapids Lake and Lake Gaston, respectively, were constructed to produce
hydroelectric power for the region. The Roanoke Rapids development consists of a concrete gravity dam,
a concrete ogee -type spillway, an 8 --mile long impoundment (Roanoke Rapids Lake), intakes integral with
concrete and masonry powerhouse, four Kaplan turbines, a tailrace channel, four generators connected to
two transformers, and appurtenant facilities (Tetra Tech 2006). The Gaston development was built
between 1g6o and 1962 and commercial operation started in February 1963. The Gaston development
consists of a concrete and earthen dam, a concrete ogee -type spillway, a 34 -mile long impoundment (Lake
Gaston), intakes integral with concrete and masonry powerhouse, three vertical shaft, fixed blade turbines
and one vertical shaft Kaplan turbine, four generators connected to two transforms, and appurtenant
facilities (Tetra Tech 2005).
3.14

Figure 7. Detail of The Hudgins Company's new survey Mup ofNorth Carolina, circa
1904. (North Carolina Maps online: http:/Ide.lib.une.edu.
3.15

f Item
�'�'Qr .• � USF
�� RDAF�IdRE �
ti A [ F
A
r
t tiy'
•r k � �V.
Figure S. ,�-eia�i vi i7v j �;Tf.'; i;iewer y#v.� C ;;2;;� � rr i a slue ieiiecu� �'eiviiSif�u vj ilic �avi"i:i
Carolina State Highway Commission, Bureau of Public Roads (North Carolina Maps
online: hhtp:lldc.lib.unc.edu).
3.16
r11
•+
� ! ;•
G ,ari
'
11f k
r
otil
. y rt tee• L
�: �_ � '.- ��i'•
r�.
' •� kiwMs
.r,.
f Item
�'�'Qr .• � USF
�� RDAF�IdRE �
ti A [ F
A
r
t tiy'
•r k � �V.
Figure S. ,�-eia�i vi i7v j �;Tf.'; i;iewer y#v.� C ;;2;;� � rr i a slue ieiiecu� �'eiviiSif�u vj ilic �avi"i:i
Carolina State Highway Commission, Bureau of Public Roads (North Carolina Maps
online: hhtp:lldc.lib.unc.edu).
3.16

4.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
4.1.1 Archaeological Sites
No previously identified archaeological sites are located within the project area. Eight previously
identified archaeological sites are located within a 1.6 -kilometer (1 -mile) radials of the project area (Table
2; Figure g). Five sites are limited activity sites that date to an unknown Prehistoric period or the Late
Archaic. Two sites are short term habitation sites that date to the Middle Archaic and Late Woodland.
One site is a long term habitation and lithic workshop that dates from the Middle Archaic through the
Woodland period. Seven sites have not been evaluated for listing on the NRBP and one site has been
determined to be not eligible for NRHP inclusion by the EISA.
Table 2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a s.6-Kilornett~r R ilius of the Project
Area
OSA Ili
Re3ource Type
Association
Recorded By
NRHP
Recommendation
311SP1eq
Short Term- Habitation
diddle Archaic
Thunderbird
Unassessed
Late Woodland
198
Long Term- Habitation
Middle Archaic
Thunderbird
31NP105
Lithic _Workshop
Late Archaic
1984
Unassessed
ih oodlaid
31NP1o6
United Activity - Lithic
Prehistoric Unknown
iu derbird
Unassessed
31NP107
Short Term- Habitation
tate Woodland
Thunderbird
Unassessed
108
31NP1o8
Limited Activity
Late Archaic
Tlu nderbird
Unassessed
3iNP1og
Limited Activity - Lithic
Prehistaric Unknown
Thunderbird
Unassessed
3iNP1io
Limited Activity
Late Archaic
Thunderbird
Unassessed
1()V0 -
New South
31NP251
Limited Activity - Lithic
Prehistoric Unknown
Associates
Not Eligible
4.17

5.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.1 OBJECTIVES
The Phase I cultural resources survey was designed to locate and identify all archaeological resources
within the project area. Stantec designed the survey to obtain sufficient information to make
recommendations about the research potential of identified cultural resources based on the resource's
potential eligibility for listing on the NR -HP. A cultural resource is gauged to be significant if it meets at
least one of four National Register criteria:
A. Associated ivith significant events in the broad patterns of national history.
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the worl~ of a master.
D. Capable of yielding important information about the past.
Criterion D typically applies to archaeological sites. In order to be capable of yielding important
information about the past, generally a site mast possess artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other
cultural features that make it possible to test historical hypotheses, corroborate and amplify currently
a:•ailable information, or reconstruct [he sequence of the local archaeological record.
5.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
The background research for the Phase I cultural resources survey included an on-site review of the OSA.
archives in Raleigh. The OSA files of archaeological sites were examined and information was retrieved cin
all sites located within a a..6 -kilometer (r -anile) radius of the project area. Background research also
focused on relevant sources of local historical information and available historical maps, which were
examined to provide an historical context for the study area and to check for any buildings and other
cultural features present within the project area.
5.3 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
5.3.1 Field Methods
Stantec field archaeologists conducted systematic pedestrian survey across the entire project area, in
conjunction with systematic shovel testing..phe project area consisted of a 5o -foot wide access road
corridor. The entire corridor was subject to systematic pedestrian survey on a 5o -foot intenial. The
proposed access road was subject to shovel testing at 30 -meter (98.44000 intervals within the
agricultural fields due to high surface visibility. Where the proposed access road crossed woods or where
cultural material was identified, shovel tests were excavated at _S -meter (49.2400t) intervals to provide
adequate survey coverage. Radial shovel tests were excavated at 7.5 -meter (24,6 -foot) intervals around
positive shovel tests to determine the bounds of newly identified cultural resources. Shovel tests were not
excavated in areas exhibiting 15 percent or greater slope or that were characterized by standing water.
5.19

All shovel tests measured approximately 0.38 meters (1.25 feet [15 inches]) in diameter and were
excavated to sterile subsoil. Soil from all shovel tests was passed through o.64 -centimeter (1/4 -inch) mesh
screen. For each excavated shovel test, the stratigraphic profile was recorded with complete descriptions
using Munsell color designators (Munsell Color 1994) and U.S. Department of Agriculture soil texture
terminology (Hudson 2006).
5.3.2 Definitions
Archaeological resources were classified as archaeological sites and isolated archaeological finds. An
archaeological site is regarded as any apparent location of human activity not limited to simple loss,
casual or single -episode discard, and having sufficient archaeological evidence to indicate that further
testing would produce interpretable archaeological data. In general, three artifacts within 30 meters (98.4
feet) of each other are considered to be an archaeological site.
In contrast, an isolated archaeological find is defined as an area marked by surface indications and little
else, and/or limited to simple loss, casual or single -episode discard which has low potential of possessing
interpretable archaeological resources_ Some areas with archaeological resources determined may be
recorded as locations. Examples of locations would be isolated projectile point finds, or scatters of not
more than three to five historic artifacts. Locations may also be defined as isolated finds of questionable
or non-diagnostic lithic material, such as possible fire -cracked rock or debitage_
In application, both of these definitions require a certain degree of judgment in the field and
consideration of a number- of variables. Contextual factors such as prior disturbance and secondary
deposition must be taken into account. The representativeness of the sample, as measured by such factors
as the degree of surface exposure and shovel test interval, must also be considered when determining the
nature of an archaeological resource. Both archaeological sites and isolatedfinds should ultimately be
accorded serious consideration as potentially important traces of past human activity.
5.3.3 Laboratory Methods
All archaeologic?1 data and specimens collected during the archaeological survey project, were transported
to 5tantec's laboratory in Glen Allen, Virginia for processing and analysis. These materials were processed
in accordance with the standards and guidelines laid out by the OSA. Prior to washing, artifacts from a
given provenience were first emptied into a screened basket and sorted. Next, the provenience
information fi-om the field bags was confirmed with the bag catalog and transferred onto bag tags. Stable
objects were washed with tap water using a soft brush, with careful intention paid to the edges of ceramics
and glass to aid in the identification of body type and to assist in mending. Washed items were then
placed by provenience on a during rack.
Once dry, the artifacts were re -bagged by provenience and material hype_ Artifacts of a given provenience
were placed in clean 2 -millimeter thick re --sealable polyethylene bags that were perforated to allow air
exchange. Each grouped material type was placed in a separate plastic bag (i.e., all glass in one bag, all
brick fragments in one bag, etc.) and each of these individual type bags were then placed in a larger bag
with the bag tag noting the provenience.
After processing and re -bagging, the entire artifact assemblage was then cataloged for analysis_ Stylistic
attributes were described using current terminology and recorded by count into a database for analysis.
Once all the artifacts were cataloged, the ceramics were then pulled from their bags and marked with
5.20

correct provenience information. Diagnostic ceramics were sorted out and grouped together based on type
or ware and/or vessel or function and checked for cross mends.
Analysis of prehistoric lithic artifacts was aided by standard reference works (Justice 1995; also Broyles
1971, Coe 1964; Ritchie 1971). Analysis of historic artifacts was aided by reference works such as The
Parks Canada Glass Glossarry (,Jones and Sullivan 1959), Telling Time for Archaeologists (Miller et al.
2000), the Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, (Noel Hume 1969), and the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation Laboratory Manual (Pittman et al. 1957). All materials generated by this project will be
curated according to the standards outlined in 36 CFR Part 79 ("Curatian of Federally -Owned and
Administered Archaeological Collections") and by the OSA. All processed artifact bags were deposited in
acid -free Hollinger boxes for permanent storage and will eventually be returned to the property owner
Upon conclusion of the project.
5.4 REPORT PREPARATION
The results of the archival research, fieldwork, and laboratory analysis were synthesized and summarized
within this report. The report describes the results of each of these facets of the .Phase I survey research
and is illustrated by selected snaps and drawings. Appendix A presents a descriptive catalog of all artifacts
recovered from surface and excavated contexts.
W&MWN 230114 1W *411VIP
Native American sites are generally found within 1,000 to l,Soo feet of a significant water source, ort
moderately well- to weII-drained soils on low relief landfornzs. The project area is located on gently
sloping to sloping land northeast of Roanoke Rapids Lake which was constructed in 1955, followed by
Lake Gaston in 1956, to provide hydro -electric power to the region. Fight previously, identified
archaeological sites are located within a 1.6 -kilometer (1 -mile) radius of the pr Ject area. Five sites ane
limited activity sites that date to an unknown Prehistoric period or the Late Archaic. Two sites are short
terra habitation sites that date to the Middle Archaic and Late Woodland. One site is a long Cerin
habitation and lithic workshop that dates from the Middle Archaic through the Woodland period. The
terraces above the lake which is formed from a darn across the Roanoke River will have a high probability
for Archaic and Woodland period sites. Given the narrow project area there is only a .low to moderate
probability of finding Archaic and Woodland period sites within the project area.
The project area consists largely of active agricultural fields with small pockets of woods. The project area
is a narrow corridor the follows an existing farm road and crosses agricultural fields. inuring the
twentieth-century and into current use several residential and farm buildings are visible in the Acinity of
the project area, there is a high probability of finding historic sites dating from the nineteenth- to
twentieth-century within the project area.
5.21

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The survey area consists of an approximately 50400t wide corridor for a proposed access road. The
proposed access road extends in a roughly southern direction from Route 48 east of Family Lane, The
proposed access road crosses agricultural fields that were primarily planted in cotton with areas of light
woods for the majority of the corridor. At the southern end of the project area denser woods are present
as well as a transmission line corridor (Figures io-16).
Figure 1o. General View of the Northern End of the Project Area from Route 48; View to the South.
5.22

Figure ri. General View- of the Project Area from the Vicinity of SIP 2.32; View to the South.
Figure 12. General View of Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 2.11; View to the South.
6.23

Figure 13. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP GG; View to the North.
Figure 14. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of Site 31NP383; View to the South.
6.24

Figure 15. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 41; View to the North.
Figure ifs. General View of the Project Area from the Vicinity of STP 41; View to the South.
6.25

6.2 SHOVEL TESTING
Eighty-three shove] tests were excavated within the project area. The entire corridor was subject to
systematic pedestrian survey on a 50 -foot interval. The proposed access road was subject to shovel testing
at 3o -meter (98.44000 intervals within the agricultural fields due to high surface visibility. Where the
proposed access road crosses woods or where cultural material was identified shovel tests were excavated
at 15 -meter (49.24000 intervals along due to decreased surface visibility or the identification of cultural
material on the surface. Radial shovel tests were excavated at 7.5 -ureter (24.6 -foot) intervals around
positive shovel tests to determine the bounds of newly identified cultural resources (Appendix B). Five
shovel tests were posi Live for cultural material and five areas of surface collection were identified resulting
in four new archaeological sites (31NP380-31NP383) and one previously recorded site (31NP1o6).
Two basic shovel test profile was found within project area. A representative profile (STP 48) consists of
two strata in profile and represents the deflated profile_ Stratum i was characterized as a layer of
7.5YR5/4 brown clayey sand that extended in depth from approximately o to o.o3 meters (0 to u.i feet)
below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown culturally
sterile clay subsoil. Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.03 to 0.15 meters (0.1 to 0.5 feet)
below ground surface (Table 3).
Table 3. STP 48 Sail Pro; rle
Stratum l]e tlx (m Calor ISOil a exture I Interpretation
1 0-0-03...._5YR5 brown Clayey sand Deflated A horizon
H 7_rVR 5 I cttC 1v { w [`lami Stub -_0i1
A second representative profile (STP 49) consisted of two strata in profile and is typical profile for most of
the project area. Stratum I was characterized as a layer Of 7.5YR4/3 brown clayey sand that extended in
depth from approximately o to o.o9 meters (0 to 0.3 feet) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I
was Stratum II, a layer of 7.5YR4/6 strong brown culturally sterile sandy clay subsoil. Stratum II was
excavated from. approximately 0.09 to 0.21 meters (o.3 to 0.7 feet) below ground surface (Table 4).
Table 4, STP 49 &-til Prnfle
Stratum Depth (m) Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation
F o-o.og 7.5YR4/.3 Clayey sand Plow Zone
it 0.0 9-0.21 5YR4/6 strong brown Sandy clay Subsoil
MW

6.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
The archaeological survey resulted in the identification of one new isolated archaeological finds
(31NP381), three new archaeological sites (31NP380, 31NP382 and 31NP0383), one pre-viously recorded
archaeological site crosses the project area (31NPio6). One additional previously recorded 31NP107 is
located just south of the project area.
6.4 NEWLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES
One new isolated archaeological find (31NP38i) and three new archaeological sites (31NP380, 3'NP382
and 31NP0383) were recorded as the result of these investigations (Figurer7). None of these resources
appear to be eligible for listing to the NRH P.
6.4.1 Newly Identified Isolated Archaeological Finds
6.4.1.1 Isolated Archaeological Find 31 NP387
Isolated Archaeological Find 31NP381 was identified in the road as surface collection near STP 48 and
consisted of one press molded Ironstone/White Granite rim sherd (1842) and one Coca-Cola bottle
fragment (ic)iG) (Figures 17-18: Appendix A). The area of surface collection extended approximately 22.5-
x-7.6 meters (74-x-25 feet). STPS 4t) and So were excavated in the vicinity and were bath negative. S`l'
49 consisted of two strata in profile. Stratum. I was characterized as a layer of 7.5yR4/3 brown clayey sand
that extended in depth frown approximately o to o.og teeters (o to 0.3 feet) below ground surface.
Underlying Stratum I was Stratums 11, a layer of 7.5Y1t4/6 strong brown culturally sterile sandy clay
subsoil. Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.og to 0.21 meters (0.3 to 0.7 beet) below ground
sur oce (r-b'le J1. The artifacts cor:p:.is1ng IsolateEl Find I were ecovem-ed from. ground sualb-ce.
By definition, Isolated Archaeological Find 31NP38,i is not eligible for listing on the
NRHP. No further work is recommended.
Table 5. S`i`.t= 413 Soil Profile
Stratum Depth (m) color Soil Type/Texture tntei retation
1 0-0.09 7.5YR4 ;3 brown CLavey sand Deflated A horizon
11 0.09--0.21 7.5YR4/6 strong brown Sandy clay_Subsoil
N- I

ILIJ
legend
Field Sifes
j^• "�� j wke Gassm Recreativnol ruse
L ��� � Raanake RapHi Nafn,sitle Dam
W"
1 C:owdnole9/sfemxhp 19a951a1e%one NaA�ColclnoflP53ZLU Feel
2. amor.evwr ®erre Mwc
i
v evv aoa
FeM
�:].5tl01N d�pna tloc�e�+ we d i 1x1 A
Stantec
m en R..mwv
.n e� msmxmsloaa
.ers wwin eoonol-rtene� n-qwx en aon•lene
henlwmi^^. �i+•Mswmlals.iorc
GwelNrgec+
damlr:an Resources
Fgirc Ho
17
";Ield Sites in Relation to
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
r -sur s sa
rl
1 � 31 NPM
11
!
i
3}NP38f jt
It
't
31NP382
1
_
}
ILIJ
legend
Field Sifes
j^• "�� j wke Gassm Recreativnol ruse
L ��� � Raanake RapHi Nafn,sitle Dam
W"
1 C:owdnole9/sfemxhp 19a951a1e%one NaA�ColclnoflP53ZLU Feel
2. amor.evwr ®erre Mwc
i
v evv aoa
FeM
�:].5tl01N d�pna tloc�e�+ we d i 1x1 A
Stantec
m en R..mwv
.n e� msmxmsloaa
.ers wwin eoonol-rtene� n-qwx en aon•lene
henlwmi^^. �i+•Mswmlals.iorc
GwelNrgec+
damlr:an Resources
Fgirc Ho
17
";Ield Sites in Relation to
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
r -sur s sa

MP1�F
f Ced�nple 5yslem: N� FIPIIWO Fal
z arhwrngervmang Moos
3. Miciesdl piedu[I screen fiol1:) rq�nnled mih portwwop kpm µcrowfl Cwpordm
n h'n nnin.eP nn T n rwie.c �n.m� IM
~npn. ax�ee. r+sxmn'ewn...�rr.�rtn�n m�. cr rvn
nnryrryanr •sn..�nu. nm pMy, Mm do ar-3 n•
11
Legend
6 s'10
le
I"W0,, o d.—I send IW71
■ PpyrresrP
■ $rPs
3� 5tantec
/.II
u1G31[Nen ca++e RmT Mcw.cn.Mw.th nilmT�rs.Ions
Mw,.r er. P. � ew a. m,aioau
noweulh' Recdtletl sle:
Clenl�Reje[l
Dominion Resources
rdnrer
Pgg Ho
$uhce CdecMorc
1B
f—'—'—j �Pc�p�RvoaancnaHoo:
MI.
Base Mapping for Site 31NP381 J382
L.W._.r Roonoba Rapl[Y,NVIMitle edm
p11d Preciously Recorded Site 31 NP]U6
tote Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
Pam. c r;

6.4.2 Newly Identified Archaeological Sites
Three new archaeological sites were recorded during the survey. These sites date from the late nineteenth
to twentieth century. Sites include indeterminate trash scatters and a domestic occupation.
6.4.2.1 Site 31 N P380
Site Date: Late 19th to loth c.
Site Tijpe: Domestic
Site Size: 79.25 meters (26o feet) NIS by 30.48 meters (loo feet) E/W
Survey Methodology: 15 -meter (49.2400t) interval shovel tests w/ 7,5 -meter (24.6 -foot) radials &
pedestrian survey
Total Shovel Test Pits: 7
Positive Shovel Test Pits: 5
Surface Finds: 76
Prehistoric Artifacts: o
Historic Artifacts: 102
Features: None
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site 31NP380 represents a historic domestic occupation dating to the late nineteenth to twentieth century.
The site is located at a small cross road on the edge of agricultural fields and a small clump of trees. The
site is northeast of Roanoke Rapids Lake on well drained TubervilIe sandy loam soils and is situated at or
near approximately 59.44 meters (195 feet) amsl. The site measures approximately 79.25-x-30.48 meters
(26o -x -loo feet) and encompasses approximately o.19 hectares (0.47 acres) in extent (Appendix S;
Figures 17, 19-20). The site was defined by surface collection and positive shovel tests within the project
limits.
Figure xy. General Vicinity of Site 31NP3$0; View to the North.
6.30

72
P,
Moles
I Cbmdmta Syge WV],�5rpreF WAn Lb aUPS 300 Feer
z Prmv:, t pvey Tr &ng wpx
3. rl,crosdr pptluM ufepn sne11M iepnnb0 wAn pexnlu� Tem Mcwsott C'aW�
,rents, .Sniwr,e�iy�rmm n:q �a mrnwpnrA nnee•we mmnn mr�n.nrni
Yre IM meuory nm wmncrnxx o� Yn nolo me rein rri
Legend
rae:—srr
• SIP, wl
— — — rwrcnune
Prer,ousN RecuOeO SAes
RNd Sles
S.rtiece Cd 'Yr�R
' 1 ar Gm,rn Recrcvhmvl wem
�.r er �% RoaswYe RppI�FlnAuwpe ppm
• F
o w w
FRR+
r eca fA, a�na tlxnnonr � pi � �.� vi
Stantec
mcsaon c.nn,.�xwm e,. ny.ti�xrs•,ax
.aroa�.r �•.. py w. a. •mreaeu�
CW.Ap"o
Dominion ReioUFCe5
Base Mapping for Site 31 IN P380
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam

A representative shovel test (STP 67) for Site 31NP380 consisted of two strata in prefile. Stratunn I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/4 brown sandy loam plow zone that extended in depth from
approximately o to 0.18 meters (o to 0.6 feet) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum i was Stratum 11,
a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown culturally sterile sandy clay subsoil. Stratum II was excavated from
approximately o.iS to 0.30 meters (0.6 to 1.o feet) below ground surface (Table 6).
Table 6. Site 3-INP38o, STP 67 Sail Profile
Stratum Depth (m) Color Soil DTa Texture Interpretation
I 0-0.18 YR4 brawn Sandy10anr Plow Zone.
II 0.18-0.3 7.5YR5 .0 strop Drown Sandy clay Subsoil
A total of too artifacts were recovered during the Phase l archaeological survey at site 3tNP380. The
artifacts reflect a late nineteenth to early twentieth-century domestic occupation. No Prehistoric artifacts
were recovered from the site.
The majority of the artifacts collected from site o0592-1 were domestic in function (83%, n=84) and were
either ceramics or glassware. The ceramics were both refined tableware and utilitarian wares typical of
the late 19th and early 20th century and included; ironstone (1842), trans€erprinted ironstone (1842),
porcellaneous, American stoneware with Albany stip (1805-), plain American stoneware, and porcelain.
The glassware was largely ABM ?oth century bottle glass and included ABM bottle glass (1904), ABM
canning jar (1900, pink depression glass (c1 gz0), millcglass canning jar lid liner (1869), ABM rattle glass
with capacity mark (c1913), ABM bottle glass with applied label (1935), ABM battle glass with painted
label "FD&C E ED No 3" (FD&C act 1938), and molded cobalt jar and amber liquor bottle glass.
A small amount (n=8) of architectural debris was collected including; brick, wire nails (1885), and a small
slate fragment. The architectural debris was generally consistent with late 19th to early loth century
constrtuction. Other artifacts recovered from the site included; lead fishing sinkers, a modern shotgun
shell, a shell hutten, a partial horseshoe, and a fragment of Bakelite plastic (1907). No prehistoric artifaeLs
were recovered.
The material dates from the lata nineteenth to early -twentieth century and was recovered from the surface
and approximately o to 0.18 meters (o to 0.6 feet) feet below ground surface in Stratum 1, plow zone
(Appendix A; Table 7).
Recommendations: Site 31NP380 represents a domestic occupation dating from the late nineteenth to
early -twentieth century. One hundred two artifacts were collected from this site. Seventy-six artifacts
were toile ded from two areas of surface collection. Twerpy-six ar6 Acis -were recovered from five shovel
tests. The site was defined by surface collection and positive shovel tests within the project area. While
the artifact density is fairly high the majority of the artifacts were recovered from surface context and the
remaining artifacts were recovered from fairly shallow plow zone. There is limited research potential
associated with a late -nineteenth to early twentieth-century domestic occupation therefore, ,Stantec
recommends Site VNP38o as not eligible for listing to the NRH',t' under Criterion D;
Criteria A through Civere not considered applicable to the evaluation sof this resource. No
,further archaeological work is recommended.
6.32

Table Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NP380.
ArtGroup
Object
Type i
Type a
Type 3
STP/
Stratum
Total
Surface
Collection
Activities
Fishing
lead
molded
Surface
Surface
2
Weight/Sinker
Collection
11
Rod
graphite
Surface
Surface
I
Collection
10
Activities Total
3
Architectural
Brick
ceramic
STP 68
1
2
Surface
Surface
3
Collection
10
Nail
iron
wine
STP 6,9
1
1
Unidentified
slate
Surface
Surface
3
{abject
Collection
10
Arciaitect:urul Total
7
Arms &
I Shotgun Shelf
brass
machine made
STP 68
I
t
Ammunition
Arms & Ammunition Total
Clothing
Button
shell
Surface
urface
1
Collection
10
Cle_etiling i ota%
I 1
Domes&
Bottle
glass
automatic
jar
Surface
Surface
5
ntachineblue
Collection
1C}
automatic
battle
STP 67
1
1
mac hinebright
green
automatic
bottle
STP 67
1
4
machinec:olorless
STP 68
I
5
STP 6g
I
2
Surface
Surface
S
Collection
10
jar
Surface
Surface
2
Collection
10
MMN

Table 7 Artifacts Recovered from Site 3tIVP380.
A�rtGroup
Object
Type i
Tyke 2
Type 3
STP/
Stratum
Total
Surface
Collection
Domestic
Battle
glass
nloldedamber
bottle, liquor
Surface
Surface
t
Collection
I1
moldedaqua
STP 68
I
1
.lar
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
10
nioldedbine
Surface
Surface
2
Collection
11
Solarized
moldedcolorless
Surface
Y
bottle
Surface
glass
Collection
............................
11
STP 68E
I
1
Brien
ceramic
Canning jar
glass
moldedaqua
jar
STP 67
1
1
Canning jar
mills glass
machine
lits liner
Surface
SUTfaCC1
1
lid liner
madewllite
Collection
in
Surtaci
Surlace
1
Collection
11
Ceramic
porcelain
molded
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
11
refined
press molded/
STP 67
I
1
earthenware
Ironstone/White
Granite
STP 68E
I
1
STP 69
1
1
Surface
Surface
23
Collection
1C)
Surface
Surface
8
Collection
11
trarsferprinted
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
10
11.34

Table 7 Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NP380.
Ax-tGroup
Object
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
STP/
Stratum
Total
Surface
Collection
Domestic
Ceramic
refilled
press molded/
Surface
Surface
3
earthenware
Porcellaneous
Collection
10
stoneivare
molded/
Surface
Surface
1
American
Collection
Stoneware
11
Domestic
Ceramic
Stoneware
molded/
albany slip
Surface
Surface
3
American
Collection
Stoneware
10
Container
milk glass
Surface
Surface
3
moldedwhite
unid container
Collection
10
Glassware
glass
machine
STIP 67
I
_
1
madecolorless
pressedpinit
unid container
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
10
Domestic Total
85
I -I ;rseslloe
i - an
might/iurged
Surface
Surfitce
1
Collection
10
Transportation Total
1
Unknown
Unidentified
bake 1ite
machi„e made
Surface
Surfac.•e
Object
Collection
10
iron
unidentified
STP 67
1
1
manufacture
STP 67E
I
1
plastic
unidentified
STP 67E
I
1
manufacture
Unlmown 'Total
4
102
Grand Total
6.35

6.4.2.2 Site 31 NP382
Site Date. 19th to 20th C.
Site Type: Trash Scatter
Site Size: 26.5 meters (87 feet) NIS by 8.5 meters (28 feet) E/W
Survey Methodology: 15 -meter (49.2400t) interval shovel tests & pedestrian survey
Total Shovel Test Pits: 2
Positive Shovel Test Pits: o
Surface Finds: 5
Prehistoric Artifacts: o
Historic Artifacts: 5
Features: None
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site 31NP382 represents a historic trash scatter dating to the nineteenth to twentieth century. The site is
located at a small cross road on the edge of agricultural fields and a small stand of trees. The site is
Northeast of Roanoke Rapids Lake on well drained Tuberville sandy clay loam, moderately erroded soils
and is situated at or near approximately 55.77 meters (183 feet) amsl. The site measures approximately
26.5-x-8.5 meters (87-x-28 feel) and encompasses approximately 0.17 hectares (0.042 acres) in extent
(Appendix B; Figures 17, 21-22). The site was defined by surface collection within the project limits.
Figure 21. General Vicinity of Site 3jLNP382; View to the South.
6.36

Ma}•.
1 Cooidno.c5y>Inn- k.� 198$S1okRonc laonh Camino FIDS $'XFl FyH
a µ�ene.nopnv Baps
3 vw11 pmd halfsl -apmW wm pwmgypR Ywn eNclwdl C�oiOAon
0
....„..i.s�s.wm�.�.•m�.,�r.o.., ne�..vr,,:. o��wno�i� � mn«�.
Legend
a w ua
.H
rem {,aa�o..���m•�m��...m... �.,.�,�
PoH Sil
M -
C 1 Stantec
••wMmri.n
uscso..a x.,,m.�xanns .wi'n:ii�miswni
o.. w we � mis�oae
Re�oufry Recoitletl Yles
C y PwC1
00,F4,10n 2P.$aRCBi
reJd 11[s
F �No
Slwle[e Cdk[Mfm
f'Base Mapping for Site 31 NP381/382
`._.-• J avae Raptls I+anhtpa Own
and Preciously Recorded Site 31 NP106
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
. u.• c s'

A. representative shovel test (STP 4) for Site 31NP382 consisted of two strata in prefile. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/4 brown clayey sand that extended in depth from approximately o to
0.03 meters (o to 0.1 feet) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of
7.5YR5/6 strong brown culturally sterile sandy clay subsoil. Stratum lI was excavated from approximately
0.03 to 0.15 meters (0.1 to 0.5 feet) below ground surface (Table 8).
Table S. STP 44 Soil Profile
Stratum Depth (m) Color Sail' a `t`exture interpretation
1 0-0.0brown Clayey sand
Deflated A horizon
II 0.03-0.15 .5YR5 6 Aron l7rown Sandy Clay Subsoil
Only five artifacts were recovered from. Site 31NP382, three ironstone fragments (1842), a brick fragment
and a fragment of molded milkglass_ The artifacts recovered, due to the low count and wide temporal
ranges of the types, suggest only a general 19th to loth century deposition. No prehistoric material was
recovered. The material was recovered from the surface and none of the shovel tests in the vicinity were
positive for cultural material f Appendix A; Table g).
Table 9 Artifacts Recovered frotu Site 31NP392,
ArtGroup
Object
Type x
Type 2
Type 3
Surface
Collection
SLratum
Total
Architectural
Brick
cerannic
Surface
Collection 6
Surface
1
Architectural Total
,
Domestic
Ceramic
refined
earthenware
press nnolded/
ironstone/VAlite
Granite
Surface
Cclleetio;n6
Surface
3
Container
milk glass
moldedwhite
unid
container
Surface
Collection 6
Surface
i
Domestic Total
4
Grand Total
5
Recommendations: Site 31NP382 represents a low-density historic trash scatter dating from the
nineteenth to twentieth century. Only five artifacts were recovered from within the bounds of the site, all
from the surface. While it is possible that these artifacts are related to the nineteenth to twentieth century
domestic occupation in the vicinity of the site, they retain little to no research potential. Due to a paucity
of artifacts and a lack of subsurface integrity, Stantec recommends Site 3iNP38.2 as not eligible
for Iisting to the NRI3P under Criterion .iii; Criteria A through C were not considered
applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No further archaeological tuori< is
recommended.
MR

6.4.2.3 Site 31 NP383
Site Date: Late 19th to Early 20th Century
Site Type: Trash Scatter
Site Size: 17.98 meters (59 feet) NIS by 8.23 meters (27 feet) E/W
Survey Methodology: 15 -meter (49.2400t) interval shovel tests & pedestrian survey (surface collection)
Total Shovel Test .Fits: 2
Positive Shovel Test Pits: o
Surface Finds: 21
Prehistoric Artifacts: 1
Historic Artifacts: 25
Features: None
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site 31NP383 represents a low-density historic trash scatter dating to the late -nineteenth to early -
twentieth century. The site is located on the edge of an active agricultural field adjacent to a dirt road. The
site is northeast of Roanoke Rapids Lake on well drained Tuberville sandy clay loam, moderately eroded
soils and is situated at or near approximately 59.74 meters (196 feet) amsl. The site measures
approximately 17.98 -x -S.23 meters (59-x-27 feet) and encompasses approximately 0.012 hectares (o.o3
acres) in extent (Appendix S; Figures 17, 23-24). The site was defined by surface collection within the
project limits.
Figure 23. General Vicinity of Site 31NP383; View to the South.
A representative shovel test (STP 58) for Site 31NP383 consisted of two strata in profile. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of 7.5YR4/3 brown clayey sand plow zone that extended in depth from
approximately o to 0.15 meters (0 to 0.5 feet) below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11,
a layer of 7.5YR416 strong brown culturally sterile sandy clay subsoil. Stratum II was excavated from
approximately 0.15 to 0.27 meters (o.6 to o.9 feet) below ground surface (Table 1o).
6.39

Figure 20
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Figure 24
Ell 1:1 E 1: i
F" 24
i----—t——--—_----—
rioure I8r22
L"Md
Feet
P -I— SOP
Si All
Stantec
One
cn on
Rewously Recorded Sees
CYenIN,9ec1
Fg2
, �4�
Hale
-----1Lake GaYoe4ewoof Nees -wk
M—ke RMi.a N-h,ide 0—
Base Mapping for Site 31 N P383
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
-.1,
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dom
Pog. 6 40

Table 2o. Site 31NP383, STP 58 Soil Profile
Stratum Depth (tn) I Color Soil a Texture Inter retation
Y
0-0.15 7.5YR4/.3 brown Claye • sand Plow Zone
ll
0.15-0.27 .5YR4 6 strong brown Sandy clay Subsoil
A total of 26 artifacts were recovered during the Phase I archaeological survey at site 31NP383. The
artifacts likely reflect a late nineteenth to early twentieth century trash scaLLer, .A single prehistoric
artifact was recovered from the site.
The majority of the artifacts collected from site 31NP383 were domestic in function (84.6`.'1, n=22) and
were either ceramics or glassware. The ceramics were typical of the late 19th and early 20th century and
included. ironstone (1842) and American stoneware with Albany slip {1805}. The glassware was largely
battle glass and included molded solarized bottle glass (ciMo), molded cobalt and colorless bottle glass,
and ABM bottle glass with applied label (1935). Other historic artifacts included two brick fragments and
an unidentified corroded iron fragment. One prehistoric artifact was recovered; a small angular fragment
of quartz shatter. The material was recovered from the surface and none of the shovel tests in the vicinity
were positive for cultural material (Appendix A; ]'able vi),
Table ti Artifacts Recovered from Site 3iNP383.
ArtGroup
Object
Type t
Type 2
Tyne 3
stuffacc
Stratmn
Total
Collection
Architectural
Brick
ceramic
Surface
Surface
2
Collection
8
Architectural
Total
2
Domestic
Bottle
glass
molded
bottle
Surface
Surface
2
Collection
8
lnoldedvlue
Bottle
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
8
nloldcdcclorless
battle
Surface
Surface
3
Collection
8
solarized
moldedcolorless
battle
Surface
Surface
2
glass
Collection
Surface
Surface
5
Collection
8
6.41

Table xx Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NP383.
ArtGroup
Object
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Surface
Stratum
Total
Collection
Ceramic
refined
press molded/
Surface
Surface
2
earthenware
Ironstone/Melte
Collection
Granite
Surface
Surface
5
Collection
S
stoneware
wheel thrown/
albany
Surface
Surface
t
American
slip
Collection
Stoneware
Surface
Surface
1
Collection
Domestic Total
22
I
Prehistoric Ethic quartz shatter Surface Surface
Collection
8
€'a•el:ist€rsie 'rota?
i
Unknown
Unidentified
iron
unidentified
Surface
t
Object
manufacture
Collection
a
Unknown Total
x
26
Grand Total
Recommendations: Site 31NP383 represents a late -nineteenth- to early --twentieth century trash scatter.
Twenty-six artifacts were recovered from within the hounds of the site, all from the surface. a4jacent to a
farm road. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material. While it is passible that these artifacts are
related to a late nineteenth to twentieth century domestic occupation in the vicinity of the site, they retain
little to no research potential. Due to a lack of subsurface integrity and research potential, Stantec
recommends Site 3xNP383 as not eligible for listing to the NRHP under Criterion D;
Criteria A through C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of this resource. No
further archaeological work is recommended.
6.4.3 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites
One previously recorded archaeological site crosses the project corridor and was re-identified during the
survey (31NP1o6). One previous previously recorded site (3rNP1o7) is not located within proposed road
corridor but is close to the project area and is also discussed below.
'.EM

6.4.3.1 Site 31 NP1 06
Site Date: Prehistoric/Unknown & Mid to Late 19th Century.
Site Type: Lithic Scatter & Domestic Occupation
Site Size: 8o meters (262 feet) NIS by 6o meters (197 feet) E/W
Survey Methodology: is -meter (49.2 -foot) interval shovel tests & pedestrian survey
Total Shovel Test Pits: 7
Positive Shovel Test Pits: o
Surface Finds: 32
Prehistoric Artifacts: 14
Historic A rtif acts: 18
Features: None
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site 31NP1o6 was identified by Thunderbird in 1984 (Gardner & Balicki 1985) as a prehistoric lithic
scatter that is located on the edge of an active agricultural field adjacent to a dirt road. Thunderbird
recommended no further work for the site but the site has not been formally evaluated by OSA. The
current project area runs through the middle of the site and as the entire site was not reinvestigated the
site boundaries were not changed. Both prehistoric lithic materials as well as raid to late nineteenth
century artifacts were identified during the current survey. Shovel tests were excavated on a 50400t
interval within the limits of the site and all were negative for cultural material. The project area runs
adjacent to a two -track road at the southern limits of the project area within the mapped site boundary.
Due to the proximity of the road to the project area artifact were collected from the surface of road. The
site is northeast of Roanoke Rapids Lake on well drained Tuberville sandy loam soils and is situated at or
near approximately 53.34 meters (175 feet) amsl. The site measures approximately 8o -x -6o meters (262-
x-197 feet) and encompasses approximately ❑.012 hectares (0.03 acres) in extent (Appendix B; Figures 2,
and 26).
Figure 25. Gen cral Vicinity of Site 31NPio6; Vic -A, to the North.
6.43

3M PIC
MAP,- R .
Legend
. Pis -sit
,� • s�P, N�
%o✓r Jy Recartled 9fes
Fele sAex
SrtfmcCaecbe
Hale.
iCv *oie $"I ­Hip 19873taleRlane NWh Cuiafnq Fin 3200 Feel �cC,.aF+m RecrmRmat.veos
]. Oi1Fon�nr®&e❑nv�s r.! Ron,ae 9WIds NMdo Dom
3. r.Rcnxofl ❑ooac+screen viorfxl+ea...+ed.nm ve,rr suon ram hacrome ce MM.n
�.m�. �.+,rvoM e. n v:rh �v n. z�.M•v+•n.rmn.+.��.n m. mm m.,rcoo�
eo,ml. ~ama.,�ea
a»of.,a�aFmvx�m,NR„a��r,�i Fee,
0� Stantec
�nh. mws.s�awr�.m
uuswm oAe�w�e.F.o- w. er..ea', enu.iwn
.n�vm +w .••br n. a, eoisiom
GaNfFl c+
�am::wi Resources
mi.
Previously Recorded Site 31 NP106
Lake Gaston Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Pam
Porje 6 ea

A representative shovel test (STP 3.35) for Site 3aNPzo6 consisted of two strata in profile. Stratum I was
characterized as a layer of IoYR4/3 brown sandy loam plow zone that extended in depth from
approximately o to o.o3 meters (o to o.l feet) below ground surface. Underlying; Stratum I was Stratum II,
a layer of 1oYR4/6 dark yellowish brown culturally sterile clay subsoil. Stratum Il was excavated from
approximately 0.03 to o.12 ineters (0.1 to 0.4 feet) below ground surface ('fable 12).
Table 12. Site 31NPxo6, STP 3,35 Soil Prefile
Stratum Depth (m) Color _ .._...�.... Soil 1 e Texture � Interpretation
I 0-0.0a to brown Sandy loam Deflated Plow Zone
lI 0.0 3-0,12 toY G dark yellowish b€�wn Clay Subsoil
A total of 32 artifacts were collected from. Site 31NP:io6 during the Phase 1 archaeological survey. The
artifact collection represents a mid-to-late nineteenth century doinestic occupation and a Prehistoric lithic
scatter.
A total of 18 historic artifacts were collected and were generally mid to late nineteenth century types.
Fourteen domestic artifacts were recovered which represents 78% of the historic- material and included;
plain whiteware (1820), sponged whiteware (1845), shell edged whitex-vare (c1840), and mold filo-t.77 olive
bottle glass. Three clothing items were recovered; a partial Muckle, a partial suspender brace, and a small
white grosser Mutton (1844). A small fragment of colorless window glass was also recovered.
Fourteen prehistoric lithic artifacts were recovered from Site 31NP1o6 which comprises 44% of the total
collection and included; a chert flake, quartz flakes, and quartz shatter. No temporat prehistoric types
were recovered at the site. The material was recovered from the surface adjacent to the project area
, )Ct aea v�tIse site NCie 2C�iii�'.l-MppenU niausc l, s o�Gi tests wit€€hn L€ic J,lgJe-12 1
'rabic 13 Artifacts Recovered froya Site 31tisPxo6.
ArtGroup
Object
Type t
Type 2
Type 3
Surface
Stratum
Total
Collection
Architectural
Window
glass
colorless
Surface
Surface
t
Collection
Architectural Total
2
Clothing
Buckle
metal,
east
Surface
Surface
1
unidentified
Collection.5
Button
porcelain
inolded
Surface
Surface
1
Collection 5
Suspender
metal,
cast
Surface
Surface
1
Brace
unidentified.
Collection ,
Clothing Total
3
Domestic
Bottle
glass
mold
bottle,
Surface
Surface
I
blownolive
wine
Collection 5
green
6.45

Table tS Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NPio6.
ArtGroup
Object
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Surface
Stratum
Total
Collection
Domestic
Ceramic
refined
press
Surface
Surface
S
earthenware
molded/
Collection q
Whiteware
Surface
Surface
4
Collection
shell
Surface
Surface
r
edged
Collection
sponge 1
Surface
Surface
3
collection'5
Domestic Total
14
Prehistoric
Lithic
cliert
fake
tertiary
Surface
Surface
1
Collection 5
quartz
ilai:e
tertlary
Stirtace `�..
Surface
5
Collecti011 4
shatter
Surface
Sttr€ace
7
Collection 4
Surface
Surface
i.
Collection 5
Prehistoric Total
14
Grand Total 1.32
J
Recommendalions: Site 31NPio6 represents a Prehistoric lithic scatter and raid Lo late nineteenth century
daarnestrc occupation, zlie sae. was ariginally recorded ily T1111Inuderbird in i9864 an G' recommended for no
further work although the site has not been formally evaluated by OSA_ The current project area runs
through the middle of the site. Because the entire site was not reinvestigated the site boundaries -were not
changed. Both prehistoric Ethic materials as well as mid to late nineteenth century artifacts were
identified during the current survey. Shovel tests were excavated on a So -foot interval within the limits of
the site and all were negative for cultural material. The project area is adjacent to a two-tradk road at the
within the mapped site boundwy. Due to the proximity of the road to the project area artifacts. were
collected from the surface of road. Because shovel testing and pedestrian survey within the project area
recovered no artifacts and shovel tests identifier] a deflated sail profile Stantee recommends the
portion of Site 31NP1o6 within the current project limits does not retain integrihj and
therefore no further archaeological work is recommended.
Mr.

6.4.3.2 Site 31 NP107
Site 31NP107 was identified by Thunderbird in 1984 (Gardner & Balicki 1985) as a prehistoric short terra
habitation that is located within a dirt two -track road. Thunderbird recommended no further work for the
site but the site has not been formally evaluated by OSA. During initial site visits to the project area, Site
31NPio7 was revisited as it appeared to be located within the current access road APE. However,
refinements to project mapping indicate that the site is in fact outside of the current project APE and will
not be affected. Because the site was reidentified during the initial site visits, a brief summary of the finds
are included here. The site form has been updated and a summary is provided here. Both shovel testing
and surface collection was conducted in the vicinity of the site. Artifacts recovered from the site date the
site to Archaic and Woodland period occupations.
A total of 136 artifacts were collected from Site 31NP107 during the Phase I archaeological survey. The
artifact collection represents a Prehistoric site with Archaic and Woodland occupations_ A small amount
of historic material was also recovered (n=3).
A total of 133 prehistoric artifacts were collected from Site 31NP107 which were all lithics and
manufactured from mainiv of quattz, with some quartzite and exotics such as cherts and jasper. The
temporal points recovered from the site included; an Arcliaic Laincl a paint, a quartzite Archaic Ralifax
point, and two small tipless quartz Woodland triangular points, identified as Clarksville. Debitage
consisted of a jasper flake, a quartzite flake, cheil and quartz flakes, and quartz shatter. Quartz fire
cracked rock cobbles were also recovered. No prehistoric ceramics were recovered from the site.
iia addition to the prehistoric material, two historic artifacts were collected; a modern fishing weight and
lure, and two Chinese Export porcelain sherds. The porcelain sherds are undecorated shall fragments,
generally typical of the 18th century.
Site 31NP107 is located outside of the current access road corridor and the site will not be impacted by the
proposed project. tAAlro further tvork is recommended for this site in essociation ivith the
current project.
* ]

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Froin September 8 to 16, 2015, Stantec conducted an archaeological identification survey of
approximately 2.91 hectares (7.18 acres) associated with the Lake Gaston Recreational Areas- Roanoke
Rapids Northside Dam Project in Northampton County, North Carolina on behalf of Dominion Resources,
Inc.. Archaeological survey for the project included an approximately 5o -foot wide proposed access road.
The survey areas were primarily agricultural fields and light woods.
The archaeological survey was designed to locate and identify cultural resources within the defined survey
corridor and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations regarding their potential
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Stantec conducted systematic
pedestrian survey on a 50400t interval across the entire project area, in conjunction with systematic
shovel testing. The proposed access road was subject to shovel testing at 30 -meter (98.44000 intervals
within the agricultural fields due to high surface visibility. Where the proposed access road cross woods
or where cultural material was identified, shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter (49.2400t) intervals to
provide adequate survey coverage. radial shovel tests were excavated at 7.6 -meter (24.6 -foot) intervals
around positive shovel tests to determine the bounds of neuly identified culhural resources. A total of 83
shovel tests was excavated within the survey corridor with five shovel tests positive for cultural material.
One previously identified archaeological site (31NP1o6) was located within Che survey corridor. Eight
previously identified archaeological sites are located within a 1.6 -kilometer (r -mile) radius of the survey
corridor. One new isolated archaeological find (IF) (31NP381) and three new archaeological sites
(31NP380, 31NP3S2, and 31NP383) were identified during this investigation. One preN iously identified
archaeological site (31NP1o6) was re-identified during this effort. An additional previously recorded site,
44NP107 was revisited, but is not located within the Anal access road corridor and will not be impacted.
'fable 14. R;*vo inendations for Arclhai.'ulu1 gical Resources Identified.
Resource
Resource a
Association
Stantec Recommendation
31NPzo6
Lithic Scatter; Domestic
Prehistoric/Unknown
�o Further Work lir the APE.
OCCU ation
mid to Late. 19th Centlll�
31NPiO7
Lithic Scatter/Camp
Archaic, Woodland
No Impact. No further Work.
1 Coca-Cola Bottle Fragment, r
(IF) 31NP381
Ironstone/White Grainite Rim
20i" C.
Not Eligible; No Further Work
Sherd
31NP380
Domestic Occupation
Late ug'il - Early 2otE'
Cent
Not Eligible; No Further Wolk
1NP 82
Trash Scatter
19t" to 201" Century
Not Eligible; No Further Work
3rNP3$3
Trash Scatter
Late ig", — Earl, ao",
Not Eligible; No Fui tY1er 4Vorlti
Centu
M

8.8 REFERENCES
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP)
2000 $6 CFR 800:Part Boo- Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. Federal Register,
September 2, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, David G. and M. K. Faught
1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. In Archaeology of Eastern
North America. Volume 26, pp. 163-187.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River. American Antiquity 53: 262-286.
Boyd, C.C., Jr,
1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 53-7o. Special Publication No. 19 of
the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz, Richmond.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of Archaeological Investigations
No. 3. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Morgantown.
Burghers, M.
1722 to itcui �i<aF+ UJ I'VV uI r�11 �r[G� Liu aIIGLutity iia pi a I -IF I uevtat�rta, %-mr-j a.LeIea, tCruiitcs, rivers,
mountains &c. Delin. M. Burg. sculpt. Univ. Oxon. Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division.
Clagget, Stephen R.
1996 North Carolina's First Colonists: i2,000 Years before Roanoke. Available from:
http://www.archaeology.neder.gov/ncarch/articles/isteolo.htm, Accessed 2o15.
Coe, Joffrey L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, N.S. 54(4), Philadelphia.
Custer, Jay F.
1a8a Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. University of
Delaware Press: Newark, DE.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
2oo5 The Archaeology of Early North Carolina: The Paleo-Indian Period. Available from:
http_/ / ncpedia. org f history/earlyf archaeology.
Dent, R. J.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press: New York.
8.49

Fiedel, S. J., and G. Haynes
2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer's "Requiem for Overkill." Journal of
Archaeological Science 31:121-131.
Ford, Richard 1.
1974 Northeastern Prehistory. Annual Review ofAnthropology 3: 385-413•
Gardner, W.. M. {ed.}
1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental
Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, ed. R. W. Moeller, pp. 53-86. American Indian
Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper No. 3, Washington, CT.
Gardner, William H., and Joseph Balicki
1985 A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Locations in GreensvilIe County Virignia and
Northampton County, North Carolina. Report on File at OSA, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer
2oo3 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal ofArchaeolo_gical Science 30:585-593.
Hoffer, Peter Charles
2000 The Brave New World: A History of Early America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
Howard, Josh
2o10 North Carolina in the US Revolution. Available from:
hM.1/ncpedia.oM/lhistoU/usrevolution/overview Accessed 2015-
http://www.civflwar.o Accessed, 2015.
Hudson, Mark S.
2oo6 Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture in
cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Government Printing Office,
Washington.
Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan
1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service,
Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Justice, Noel D.
1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the- Alidconctinental and Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Kaplan, Barbara Beigun
11943 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Cadmus
Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia.
McAvoy, Joseph M.
8.50

1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part L Clovis Settlement Patterns. Archeological Society of Virginia,
Special Publication No. 28. The Dietz Press, Richmond.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 "Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia." Research
Report Series No. 8, Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:
1-52.
Miller, George, Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
200o Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29: 1-22.
Munsell Color
1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New
Windsor, NY.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colon ialAmerica. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources (NCDENR)
n.d. Physiography. Available from: httpl/oortal.nedear.org/web/Ir/mineralresources. Accessed
August 2015.
North Carolina Geologic Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey, General Geologic Map.
Available from: htttzlln-Lmdb,usy-s.itoy.Ingm-bin p/zui pdjfflewer.Pl?id=1:3o6. Accessed
August 2015.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (GSA)
1988 Guidelines for Preparation of Archaeological Survey Reports in North Carolina.
n.d. Guidelines for Curation of Artifacts.
Phelps, D. S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium; edited by M. A. Mathis and J. J.
Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural
Resources, Raleigh.
Pittman, William, et al.
1987 Laboratory Manual, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation. Williamsburg, Virginia.
8.51

Quinn, David Beers
1985 Set Fairfor Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, x584 -16o6. The University of North Carolina Press.
Reich, Jerome R.
2001 Colonial America. Fifth edition. Prentice -Hall, Inc.
Ritchie, W. A.
1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and
Science Service, Bulletin 384, Albany.
Sassamau, Kenneth E., Glen T. Hanson and Tommy Charles
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter -Gatherer Range in the Savannah River
Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79-94.
Tetra Tech
2005 Historic Properties Management Plan Roanoke Rapid and Gaston Hydropower Project FERC
Project #2009.
Tindall, George Brown and David Emory Shi
2000 American, BriefFifth Edition. Volume 1. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
United States Department of the Interior (USDI)
1981 Department of the Interior's Regulations, 36 CFR Part 6o: National Register of Historic Places.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1983 Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interiors
Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1491 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S.
Department of the xr,terior, Interagency Resources Division, Washington D.C.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — Research Laboratories of Archaeology
201oa The Archaic Period in North Carolina: Mountains. Available from:
http://rla.une.edu/archaeone/time/.irrhaic mtn.htm. Accessed August 2o15.
2olob The Woodland and Mississippian Periods in North Carolina. Available from:
http./Zrla,une.edu/archaeone/tinie/wood App.htm. Accessed August 2015.
Ward, H.H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 The ?'ime before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press.
Web Soil Survey
2015 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Series
Classification Database
(http-//soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/scfile/index.html) [Accessed September
20151
8.52

Appendix A
A.1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY
A.T

Artifact Inventory
Gaston Lake Ph I
Context Count and Description
31NP1O6
F.S.#: 10 Surface Collection 4 ON OE STP 32-36
TPQ: 1824
5 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
7 Lithic Fragment, quartz, shatter
1 Window fragment, glass, colorless
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1820), Whiteware rim sherd
4 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1820), Whiteware body sherd
F.S.#: 11 Surface Collection 5 ON OE STP 36-38
TPQ: 1845
1 Bottle fragment, glass, mold blown, 19th c type., bottle, wine, olive green
1 Cora mit frnn monf raFnM oartha nwam nrocc mnlrlarl rlaen Whi lawam rim chord chn 11
edged
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, blue and blue sponged. (1845),
Whiteware body sherd sponge
4 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, , press molded (1820), body sherd
1 Button Complete abject, porcelain, molded, prosser (1844), 1cm L
I Buckie fragment, metal, unidentified, cast, "D" -shaped.
1 Suspender Brace fragment, metal, unidentified, cast
1 1 ithic Cornplete object, chert, flake, tertiary
1 Lithic Fragment, quartz, smaIt angular fragment., shatter
Recorder. • E.A. Lindtveit Page I of 9

Context Count and Description
31NP107
RSA 1 Surface Collection 1 ON OE
3 Lithic Fragment, chert, shatter
1 Lithic Complete abject, chert, flake, tertiary
10 Lithic Fragment, quartz, shatter
3 Lithic Complete object, quartz, biface preforms, biface, stage 1
11 Lithic Complete object, quartz, Flake, tertiary
Ii.S.#: 2 Surface Collection 2 ON OE
1 Lithic Complete object, jasper, flake, tertiary
1 Lithic Fragment, quartz, reddened, FCR
31 Lithic Fragment, quartz, shatter
20 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
2 Lithic Fragment, quartz, Small, thin, triangular points with tips missing. Woodland. Clarksville
(1400 to 1700 CE)., biface, projectile point, Clarksville
1 Lithic Complete object, quartzite, Thick point, side notched, slat base. Halifax (Middle Archaic
period, 3500 to 2800 BCE)., 4.1em L X 2.15cm W X 1.1cm H, biface, projectile point, Halifax
3 Lithic Complete object, chert, flake, tertiary
2 Ceramic fragment, porcelain, molded, 18thc type. Mends., Chinese Export body sherd
5 Lithic Fragment, chert, shatter
F.S.#: 3 Surface Collection 3 ON OE
3 Lithic Fragment, quartz, 30% cortex., flake, secondary
Revorderr. E.A.Lrirdtuert Page 2 of 9

Context Count and Description
1 Lithic Fragment, quartz, bihace
1 Lithic Complete object, chert, very tip missing. Thick narrow blade, Late Archaic stemmed
type. Possibly Lamoka (2500 to 1500 BCE). Weathered. X 1.9cm W, bitace, projectile point,
Lamoka
1 Fishing Weight/Sinker fragment, Small spinner lure and lead weight, nylon fishing line
remnant. Modem.
12 Lithic Fragment, quartz, shatter
2 Lithic Fragment, quartz, reddened, FCR
1 Lithic Complete object, chert, 20% cortex., flake, secondary
2 Lithic Fragment, chert, shatter
6 Lithic Fragment, quartz, 0% cortex., flake, tertiary
F.S.#: 4 ST 15 ON OE
1 Lithic Complete object, chert, flake, tertiary
2 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
F.S.#: 5 ST 15w ON OE
1 Lithic Complete object, quartz. flake. tertiary
1 Lithic Complete object, quartzite, flake, tertiary
F.S.#: 6 ST 16 ON OE
1 Lithic Complete object, quartz, 90% cortex, 1 cm L, flake, primary
1 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
F. S.#: 7 ST 17 ON OE
Recorder. E.A.Lrmltveft Page 3 of 9

Context Count and Description
2 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
F.S.#: S ST 20 ON OE
2 Lithic Fragment, quartz, shatter
F.S.#: 9 ST 20w ON OE
2 Lithic Complete object, quartz, flake, tertiary
Recorder: E.R.LindbePt Page 4 of 9

Context Count and Description
31 N P380
KSA 16 Surface Collection 10 ON OE
TPQ: 1920
3 Container fragment, milk glass, molded, unid container, white
3 Brick fragment, ceramic
1 Unidentified Object fragment, slate
1 Unidentified Object fragment, bakelite, machine made, (1907) handle fragment?
1 Road fragment, graphite
1 Button Complete object, shell, mother of pearl.
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, ABM (1904), capacity mark (0913), bottle,
colorless
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, ABM (1904), bottle, colorless
6 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, ABM (1904), bottle, colorless
1 Glassware fragment, glass, pressed, Depression glass (c1920 -30s), unid container, pink
1 Horseshoe fragment, iron, wrought/forged, cuikins. 19th/20thc.
1 Canning jar lid liner fragment, milk glass, machine made, (1869), lid liner, white
5 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, (1904) likely small jar, threaded finish, jar, blue
1 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, canning jar (0850-), jar, aqua
3 Ceramic fragment, stoneware, molded, (1805), American Stoneware body sherd albany slip
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1820), Porcellaneous base sherd
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Ironstone/White Granite base
sherd
10 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstonelWhite Granite body
sherd
Recorder. E.A.Lindtveft Page 5 of 9

Context Count and Description
7 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstoneNVhite Granite rim
sherd
2 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), tronstoneNVhite Granite handle
sherd
2 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, ABM (1904), jar, colorless
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstoneANhite Granite rim
sherd
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842) burned: possible transferprint
and printed makers mark., IronstonelWhite Granite body sherd tra n sferprinted
F.S.#: 17 ST 67, Stratum I ON OE
TPQ: 1935
1 Canning jar fragment, glass, molded, jar, aqua
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstoneANhite. Granite body
sherd
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, fugitive applied label (1935), battle, bright green
4 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, ABM (1904), bottle, colorless
1 Unidentified Object fragment, iron, unidentified manufacture, corroded
1 Glassware fragment, glass, machine made, marigold iridescent carnival glass (1905), colorless
Ii .S.#: IS ST 68, Stratttm I ON OE
TPQ: 1935
1 Shotgun Shell fragment, brass, machine made, centerfire. 20thc type.
1 Softie fragment, glass, automatic machine, (1904) Applied label (1935), capacity (0913).,
bottle, colorless
2 Brick fragment, ceramic
1 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, small shard., aqua
4 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, (1904), bottle, colorless
F.S.#: 19 ST 69, Stratum I ON OE
TPQ: 1935
Recorder: EA.Lindtveit Page 6 nj'9

Context Count and Description
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, fugitive painted label (1935) which includes the
words: "FD&C RED No 3" (FD&C act 1938)., bottle, colorless
1 Nail Complete object, iron, wire, (1885)
1 Battle fragment, glass, automatic machine, (1904), bottle, colorless
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstoneMhite Granite body
sherd
F.S.#: 20 Surface Collection I 1 ON OE
TPQ: 1880
2 Fishing Weight/Sinker Complete object, lead, molded
1 Bottle fragment, solarized glass, molded, (c1880), bottle, colorless
1 Canning jar lid liner fragment, milk glass, machine made, (1869); lid liner. white
2 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, cobalt, blue
1 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, dark amber, possibly mold blown., bottle, liquor, amber
1 Ceramic fragment, porcelain, molded, parian, possibly Figural
6 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), IronstonefWhite Granite body
sherd
1 Ceramic fragment, stoneware, molded, American Stoneware body sherd
2 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Ironstone/While Granite nm
sherd
F.S.#: 21 ST 67E, Stratum I ON OE
t Unidentified Object fragment, iron, unidentified manufacture, large, possibly cast iron.
1 Unidentified Object fragment, plastic, unidentified manufacture, Opaque brown plastic, likely
20d is
F.S.#: 22 ST 68E, Stratum 1 ON OE
TPQ: 1842
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (11342), IronstonetWhite Granite rim
sherd
Recorder: EA.Lindhoeit Page 7 of 9

Context Count and Description
1 Brick fragment, ceramic
31 NP381
F.S.#: 13 Surface Collection 7 ON OE
TPQ: 1916
1 Bottle fragment, glass, automatic machine, Coca -cola contour bottle (9916). Heavy ridges at
shoulder suggests a mid century date., bottle, soda, aqua
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Ironstone/White Granite rim
sherd
31NP382
RSA 12 Surface Collection 6 ON OE
TPQ: 1842
1 Container fragment, milk glass, molded, unid container, white
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, pressed, (1842), Ironstone/Whits Granite body sherd
1 Brick fragment, ceramic
Recorder: E',A.Lindtveit Page 8 of 9

Context Count and Description
31NP383
F.S.#: 14 Surface Collection 8 ON OE
TPQ: 1935
1 Lithic fragment, quartz, small angular fragment, shatter
2 Brick fragment, ceramic
1 Unidentified Object fragment, iron, unidentified manufacture, Corroded flat fragment
1 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, likely machine made. Cobalt blue,, bottle, blue
1 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, small shard with applied label of small dots (Ben -day
printing?). Applied label (1935)., bottle, colorless
2 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, small shards, bottle
2 Bottle fragment, glass, molded, small shards, bottle, colorless
5 Bottle fragment, solarized glass, molded, c1880, bottle, colorless
1 Ceramic fragment, stoneware, wheel thrown, (1805-), American Stoneware body sherd albany
slip
3 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Ironstone/White Granite base
sherd
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Sronstone/White Granite body
sherd
1 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), ironstone/White Granite rim
sherd
F.S.#: 23 Surface Collection ON OE
TPQ: 1880
1 Ceramic fragment, stoneware, wheel thrown, (1805), American Stoneware base sherd aibany
slip
2 Ceramic fragment, refined earthenware, press molded, (1842), Ironstone/While Granite body
sherd
2 Bottle fragment, solarized glass, molded, 0880, bottle, colorless
Recorder: E.A.Virdtveft Page 9 of 9

Appendix B
B.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BASE MAPS

legend o 150 Sao eer
1 in F
Paotrve SiP � C
. M AN Stantec
r.Lold,Lrc
rvrdw>tr Recorneosr
rwa 9ros
L.LIeee CdecYmf
LLdeL
1. Syrrdn: L 1MStWeFlone NoNh Cnd- Fin 32 Feer ' Lok¢C.prlpn RecmoYma,..em
2. IXlM1oinwpery o Nr Mops Redw[[RepiOsNulrtskle Dom
S'n—lr p,oduclstrcd'r y 411 iePWwIM p&Mi Yom r eo—fl Ccepudnn
:�.Le nni;K:°�n�e"�','r�an,.�
oar ors iw n ony wry ron• rM c�.•� a ry•...,n w ine bele
lase Mapping for lake Gaston
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam
.,..pen m sws en eur r,na
M n,.aen xers•loa,
e. brow �. enrs�,om
C�nriR,ged
PORnirYorr Resources
F¢re rn.
Apprndix 8.1
lase Mapping for lake Gaston
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam

Stoles
i. Cour Ir flv Sy;f : NAD r"3 SrnnPomr MAh CQrp WS 3WD r�
xreens
amein.agciymN Nsepe
3 hrcwsvn vcmw+rorRl revimmdwn veimwvn nem �iosvn onvarnrnn
Isg�nd
0 r by SrP
Sift Al
Aeywush RecatleO Lles
riwyr�,
"w-cdbchorb
f ---•—j cm�cana, a���iA.�o,
R—O&RWdM NWNMc Wm
r-r.&W IAr[fdignddmm,wr wo d srxr 71 r
�+ Stantec
enrrnwecr
Domimm Resources
Appendix B-2
Base Mapping for Lake Gaston
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dom

Appendix $.2 i
-- -- - -- ;---- - -- - - -
Appendix B.3
� F
i
1 � I
� 1
! i
•
1wt ►R
i ' r
i
lad
1 76
1
i t
! � i
{ i
i 73
tt
a
i>f � R1NP.'iArl
r 0 it
6Y radial east
new
1 connrwre System: 1up 1983 SWeMme VWh Q:rC HIPS 3300 Feel
I aew:.gv rNwln
a M;ereedr protlU&�el ween Ynllfi iewlnrea.nm aefn+xven tram rinefen cmlwrerlem
..r rynp�eas re.weY nre rnmrnwrene ine Brae Inn .`v`��
rn•�
Legend
fto—SIV
■ SIP, Al
— — — rrplcn lie
n•e.scr,fty Reeertletl SAef
F.e10 Yres
surececerenanr
�r• • i Imo
RcpAs GOlkopi aOOnena D
iacnoRe nerllrije D.
0 150 30,
IM IN Onawi Gwv—I Mg 13.171 r
Stantec
w�e�w e..ml—
GerilrNgecl
Dominion Resources
pp pr p
Appendix 6.3
YIe
Base Mapping for Lake Gaston
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Darn
Sit' 67 rodid south { r UP 57 radec3l ec
I
{
! � F
!
i
I
i
iGs
! i
i
.
� 81►rPJtl�
sn
d:
F
lei
i
i I
1 �
Appendix B.3
!,w i
a' Appendix B.4
new
1 connrwre System: 1up 1983 SWeMme VWh Q:rC HIPS 3300 Feel
I aew:.gv rNwln
a M;ereedr protlU&�el ween Ynllfi iewlnrea.nm aefn+xven tram rinefen cmlwrerlem
..r rynp�eas re.weY nre rnmrnwrene ine Brae Inn .`v`��
rn•�
Legend
fto—SIV
■ SIP, Al
— — — rrplcn lie
n•e.scr,fty Reeertletl SAef
F.e10 Yres
surececerenanr
�r• • i Imo
RcpAs GOlkopi aOOnena D
iacnoRe nerllrije D.
0 150 30,
IM IN Onawi Gwv—I Mg 13.171 r
Stantec
w�e�w e..ml—
GerilrNgecl
Dominion Resources
pp pr p
Appendix 6.3
YIe
Base Mapping for Lake Gaston
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Darn

Naar
r cawn.mearsrem: Nao rsessr°iencne Nenecmd�r, res san r«i
Z O�hdmagery®9P9 MOPr
s nscnsenvreavcrreeenanipr,�.�ba.,,ma=an„b�o�,reoowecoaaro��w,
Legend
o iso .wo
veer
is.nm uro„o..ai.ew,�,�w.0 wn arri.s��
rour'R SIP
n� v
Stantec
. rnercn ane
�...
rin+nas
_ amMaa ream swsa,m
,xsarma, nne>,emnnr cn wWrr:amnisiPm
AeWwYy RecpOetl Saes
GenrTiIXac1
�ornR:an Resources
r,.a sah
suancecaec+a>,u
Appendix BA
RPvnwsRCPis:r+wmsbeoom
Base Ma In for Lake Gaston
Pp 9
L._._r
Recreational Areas
Roanoke Rapids Northside Dam

. -STATE c,
7
C�
>na pan+`
rte^ Quay �r
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
January 26, 2016
Cathy C. Taylor
Director, Environmental Services
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Roanoke Rapids North Side Dam Recreation Area Project, Archaeological Investigation Survey,
Northampton County, ER 15-0467
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Thank you for your letter of December 10, 2015, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Aimee J.
Leithoff and Ellen Brady of Stantec for the above project.
During the course of the survey, four sites were located within the project area. The following properties
are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
31NP3 80 * *, 31NP3 81 * *, 31NP3 82 * *, and 31NP3 83 * *, lack of integrity and
inability to contribute to an understanding of the area's history
Ms. Leithoff and Ms. Brady have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
Stantec also revisited previously recorded sites 31NP 106& 106** and 31NP 107. They found that the
portion of 31NP 106& 106* * within the project's corridor did not retain integrity and merited no further
work. We concur with this recommendation, noting that the portion of 31NP106&106** outside the present
project corridor remains unassessed as to its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
Refinements to project mapping found that 31NP107 is outside the project corridor. No further work is
recommended at this site in connection with the proposed project, and it remains unassessed as to its
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental. review(cr,,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Amelia Boschen Dominion Resources Inc. amelia.h.boschen(a�dom.com