The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160921 Ver 2_More Info Received_20180109Strickland, Bev From: Lindsey Stone <Istone@segi.us> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 10:54 AM To: Mairs, Robb L Cc: Dana Lutheran; jennifer.burdette@ncdenr.gov Subject: [External] Re: Wyndwater Phase 6 Hold Request Attachments: Archaeological Phase I Identification Survey of the Wyndwater-Phase 6 Wetland Impact Area Draft Report.pdf CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov. Good morning, Robb, I've copied you on an email to Renee Gledhill -Earley of the SHPO with the archaeological report for Wyndwater Phase 6, but I also included it here. There were no significant findings during the survey. wanted to check with you on the status of the project in your office. How much time is left for the review? Thank you for your time, Lindsey 191 Lindsey Stone Southern Environmental Group, Inc. 5315 South College Road, Suite E Wilmington, NC 28412 Office 910.452.2711 Mobile 910.660.1969 From: Lindsey Stone <Istone@segi.us> To: Robb L. Mairs <robb.mairs@ncdenr.gov>; "jennifer.burdette@ncdenr.gov" <jennifer.burdette@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Dana Lutheran <dlutheran@segi.us> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:37 AM Subject: Wyndwater Phase 6 Hold Request Good morning, The Wyndwater Phase 6 project in Pender County is currently under review to meet Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The archaeological review should be complete within a week, but this will be followed by the review period by the State Historic Preservation Office. We'd like to request the project be put on hold until this part of the review process can be completed. Thank you for your consideration. Have a great weekend! All the best, Lindsey Lindsey Stone Southern Environmental Group, Inc. 5315 South College Road, Suite E Wilmington, NC 28412 Office 910.452.2711 Mobile 910.660.1969 Q Virus -free. www.avast.com Archaeological Phase I Identification Survey of the Wyndwater - Phase 6 Wetland Impact Area, Pender County, North Carolina (ER 17-1894) Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. 2017 Archaeological Phase I Identification Survey of the Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract, Pender County, North Carolina (ER 17-1894) Prepared for: Southern Environmental Group, Inc. Wilmington, North Carolina Prepared by: Luan Thanh Cao Archaeologist Dawn Reid Principal Investigator Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. 2017 Management Summary On behalf of Southern Environmental Group, Inc., Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., completed the Archaeological Phase I Identification Survey of the Wyndwater — Phase 6 Tract, Pender County, North Carolina. This investigation was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The objectives of this survey were to identify all archaeological resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), evaluate their significance based on the National Register of Historic Places criteria, and determine the potential effects of the proposed development. In a letter dated 12 October 2017, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that comprehensive survey be conducted of the Wynwater development tract. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defined the project APE as the 2.4 -acre (1.0 ha) area within the larger development tract. The survey involved a 100 percent pedestrian walkover and shovel testing at 30 -meter (98.4 -ft) intervals. Shovel tests generally revealed hydric soils throughout the project area. Standing water is also present in some portions of the tract. No previous or new archaeological resources were identified within the APE. No further archaeological investigation is recommended. �r►c Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina Table of Contents ManagementSummary.................................................................................................................................. i Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................................... ii Listof Figures.............................................................................................................................................. iii Listof Tables...............................................................................................................................................iii Chapter1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... l Methodsof Investigation.......................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview................................................................................. 5 Environmental Overview.......................................................................................................................... 5 CulturalOverview..................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation.................................................................................................12 BackgroundResearch.............................................................................................................................12 Archaeological Survey Results...............................................................................................................14 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................14 ReferencesCited.........................................................................................................................................18 Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina List of Figures Figure 1.1. Location of project tract........................................................................................................ l Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the location of the project tract .................................................. 2 Figure 2.1. Physiographic provinces of North Carolina.......................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2. White Oak River Basin......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.3. Distribution of soil types in APE.......................................................................................... 7 Figure 3.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) radius of the APE.....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 3.2. 1912 Soil Map of Pender County showing project area......................................................13 Figure 3.3 1938 Pender County Highway Map showing project area..................................................13 Figure 3.4. General view of APE facing southwest..............................................................................14 Figure 3.5 Shovel test grid in the project APE.....................................................................................15 Figure 3.6. Shovel Test 5 soil profile, looking north.............................................................................17 Figure 3.7 Shovel Test 24 soil profile, looking south..........................................................................17 List of Tables Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in Project Area............................................................................ 7 Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1.6 Kilometer (1 mile) of Survey Area.....................................................................................................................................12 Table 3.2. Summary of Shovel Testing Results...................................................................................16 I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina Chapter 1. Introduction On behalf of Southern Environmental Group, Inc., Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., completed the Archaeological Phase I Identification Survey of the Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract in Pender County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1). This survey was completed on December 15, 2017, by Mr. Luan Cao, M.S., RPA, Archaeologist, and Ms. Brooke Brilliant, M.A., RPA, Archaeologist, under the direction of Dawn Reid, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator. The project tract is located southwest of 206 Cardinal Acres Drive, Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina. The project Area of Potential Effect, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a 2.4 -acre (1.0 -ha) area within the larger development tract (Figure 1.2). This investigation was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The objectives of this survey were to identify all archaeological resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE), evaluate their significance based on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) criteria, and determine the potential effects of the proposed development. oUPLIN COUNTY 777 SAMPSON COUNTY 11 / . ONSILOW C 53 COUNTY 117 PEN�EYR C UO NT 421 117 � BLAQEN COUNTY Project Vicinity 17 270 210 133 50 421 17 i 421 Wyndwater - Phase 6 Survey NEW - Atkinson - Surf City HAN ER Topsail Sound BUrgaW - Topsail Beach COUNTY - Saint Helena - Wetha BRUNSWICK N COUNTY 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 w E Miles s Figure 1.1 Location of project tract. ir►c Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina Figure 1.2 Topographic map showing the location of the project tract (1997 [2000 ed.] Top Sail, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle). Methods of Investigation This investigation consisted of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation, Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below. Background Research. Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, as well as the Office of Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously recorded resources in the project tract and its vicinity, in addition to providing data on the prehistoric and historical context of the project tract. Background research also included a review of available historic aerial photographs and maps. Field Investigations. This archaeological survey was conducted in compliance with or exceeded all standards established by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (2017). The field survey consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 30 -meter (98.4 -ft) intervals along transects spaced 30 meters (98.4 ft) apart regardless of potential for archaeological deposits. Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters (5.9 in) in diameter and were excavated to bedrock, the water table, or 10 centimeters (3.9 in) into subsoil. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25 -inch wire mesh. Details of soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. When present, artifacts are collected and placed in plastic bags I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 2 Pender County, North Carolina labeled with the date, field site number, provenience, depth of recovery, and initials of the excavator. Archaeological resources are delineated with short interval shovel testing and surface inspection. A site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30 -meter (98.4 -ft) or less diameter of surface exposure or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or management reason. When sites are identified, site settings are photographed with a digital camera and sketch maps are produced in the field showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site is recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps. Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRNP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60) established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, all archaeological sites can be considered under all four criteria. The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the NRNP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered. Laboratory Analysis. When artifacts are collected, laboratory work begins with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), is assigned to each positive shovel test location or surface collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class is then assigned a number. Artifacts are cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case of prehistoric lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. When diagnostic prehistoric artifacts are recovered, they are compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Justice 1987; Oliver 1985; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993, 2002; Ward and Davis, Jr. 1999). Historic artifacts are identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges are categorized using Aultman et al. (2016), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004). Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights are recorded. All diagnostic and crossmended artifacts are labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink. When artifacts are collected, a Deed of Gift is sought to transfer ownership of any artifacts recovered on private property to the State of North Carolina at the conclusion of the project. Once a Deed �r►c Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina of Gift is obtained, all project related materials, including field notes, artifacts, and project maps, are prepared for curation based on standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule) and in the OSA Curation guidelines. These standards and guidelines require that all project -related material be placed in archivally stable storage bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be submitted to OSA for permanent curation. Recovered archaeological remains for which a Deed of Gift cannot be obtained are returned to the property owner. Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. This document presents the results of the archival research, the field investigation, and laboratory analysis. The following chapters provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. A discussion of field investigation results follows. Finally, a project summary is presented with management recommendations, as appropriate. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 4 Pender County, North Carolina Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview Environmental Overview Pender County is located in southeastern North Carolina encompassing 933 square miles (2,416 square km) surrounded by New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, Balden, Sampson, Duplin, Onslow counties, and the Atlantic Ocean. The project area is located within the Inner Coastal Plain, which is defined by generally low and flat topography and known for wetlands and pocosins (Figure 2.1). Elevation in the coastal plain ranges from 660 feet (201 m) above mean sea level (AMSL) to sea level while elevation in the project area ranges between 25 to 35 feet (7.6 to 10.7 m) AMSL. Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina Piedmont InnerCao stal Outer/ Plaint—Coastal Blue -Plain Ritlge Project Vicinity r 0 40 80 120 180 w F 5 Miles Figure 2.1. Physiographic provinces of North Carolina. Drainage The project area is located within the White Oak River Basin, which encompasses 1,264 square miles (3,273 square km; Figure 2.2). The White Oak River Basin contains the drainages of the New River, White Oak River, Newport River, the North River. The project tract drains into an unnamed tributary of Mullet Run that feeds into Virginia Creek before running into Topsail Sound. Ir►c Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina SAMPSON LENOIR PAMLICO COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY JONES COUNTY CRAVEN COUNTY DUPLIN COUNTY CUMBERLAND COUNTY CARTERET COUNTY ONSLOW COUNTY BLADEN COUNTY PENDER COUNTY Project Vicinity NEW COLUMBUS HANOVER COUNTY COUNTY Atlantic Ocean BRUNSWICK COUNTY memo— Figure 2.2. White Oak River Basin. Climate The climate of the project area is subtropical with mild winters and hot, humid summers (Barnhill 1990). The average high summer temperature is 78 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The average winter high temperature is 48 degrees F. Annual precipitation is approximately 51 inches (129.5 cm). Geology and Soils The project area is located within the River Bend Formation, a tertiary period formation defined by its limestone and calcarenite overlain and intercalated with indurated, sandy, molluscan -mold limestone. Two soil types were present within the project area, Autreyville Fine Sand (AuB) and Foreston Loam Fine Sand (Fo) (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.1). Autreyville Fine Sand (AuB) is characterized by being well -drained, and forms from fluviomarine deposits. It is generally associated with wooded areas and cropland (Barnhill 1990). Foreston Loam Fine Sand (Fo) is characterized by being moderately well drained, forming on slightly convex interstream divides near shallow drainages from sandy and loamy sediments. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 6 Pender County, North Carolina IV Wyndwater - Phase 6 Survey Wyndwater- Phase 6 Development Area Q Project APE Autreyville Fine Sand (Au B; 14% Slope) Foreston Loam Fine Sand (Fo; 0-2% Slope) v 0 30 60 90 120 4 t Mete rs Figure 2.3. Distribution of soil types in APE. Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in Project Area (USDA 2017). Soil Series Drainage Landform Slope Percent Area Autreyville Fine Sand AuB Well -Drained Marine Terraces and Uplands 1-4 65 Foreston Loam Fine Moderately Well Drained High Ridges and Slightly Convex 0-2 35 Sand (Fo) Interstream Divides Paleoenvironment Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000 years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) including a general warming trend, melting of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years ago the ocean was located 50 to 100 miles east of its present position, and the project area was probably rather unremarkable interriverine Coastal Plain flatwoods. During the last 5,000 years there has been a 400 to 500 year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (Brooks et al. 1989; Colquhoun et al. 1981). The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about 12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately 10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern United States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 7 Pender County, North Carolina moisture augmented the northward advance of the oak -hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al. (1985), palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance between 9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was gradually being replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12). From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979; Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications (i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer 1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962). Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species (e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct toward the end of the glacial period 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast. Cultural Overview The following discussion summarizes the various occupations in southeastern North Carolina, emphasizing technological change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory. Paleoindian Period (12,000 — 8,000 BC) Until recently, there was a general consensus among archaeologists that bands of hunter -gatherers arrived in North America approximately 12,000 years ago. The Native Americans are thought to have arrived in North America by crossing a land bridge linking Siberia to the North American continent (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). However, there seems to be growing evidence that Native American ancestors may have arrived much earlier. Recent discoveries such as Kennewick Man and the Gordon Creek Woman, whose remains were found in Washington and Colorado, respectively, have been found to be between I I - 12,000 years old (Morell 1998; Preston 1997; Slayman 1997; Swedlund and Anderson 1999). Additional fuel for this controversy is supplied by the Monte Verde site in South America, which has been dated to approximately 12,500 years ago (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In South Carolina, work by Albert Goodyear at the Topper site in Aiken County yielded radiocarbon dates suggesting the site may have been occupied between 20-50,000 years ago (Goodyear 2005). However, debate continues about the validity of the early arrival of humans in North America. The major artifact marker for this period is the Clovis lanceolate fluted spear point (Gardner 1974, 1989; Griffin 1967). Smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, are characteristic of the later portion of the period (Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton (Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Perkinson (1971, 1973) recorded Paleoindian fluted points in North Carolina. The Piedmont of North Carolina appears to have been more intensively occupied than the Coastal Plain by Paleoindian peoples. This is in contrast to distribution studies in South Carolina, which show more fluted points in the Coastal Plain than in the Piedmont (Goodyear et al. 1989). Stoltman (1965) mapped the occurrence of fluted point finds in the eastern United States and noted that these had a high correlation with reports of extinct mastodon finds in the region. They concluded that Paleoindian hunters were focusing on mastodon. Other researchers (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Michie 1977) have noted that fluted points are most common near major rivers I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 8 Pender County, North Carolina at areas where river valleys are constricted providing ease in fording the waterways, such as the Fall Line Zone (where mastodon and other Pleistocene game animals would be concentrated). Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States; this indicates to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period, and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988). O'Steen et al. (1986) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River Valley in northeastern Georgia. O'Steen et al. (1986) noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest portion of the period seem to be restricted to the flood plains, while later sites were distributed widely in the uplands, showing what O'Steen, et al. (1986) interpreted as "settling in" and exploitation of a wider range of environmental subsistence resources. If this pattern holds true for the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous forest and small mammal resources, and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna; population growth could be another factor. Archaic Period (8,000 —1,000 BC) The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research in the Southeast. However, for the Coastal area of North Carolina, much data are still needed to refine the chronology and gain a better understanding of subsistence strategies and site size and function of Archaic time period. Most of what is known of this time period comes from surface collections (Ward and Davis 1999). The chronological sequence defined by Coe (1964) for the Archaic North Carolina Piedmont is applicable to the Coast and Coastal Plain. Early Archaic (8,000 - 6,000 BC). The Early Archaic period is marked by a shift from a boreal forest to more northern hardwoods. Southern pines became the dominant species as the Oak -Hickory forest retreated to the Piedmont (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985). Site types are generally of two types: base camps at stream confluences and small temporary procurement sites located in areas with seasonally variable resources (Phelps 1981, 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). The smaller temporary procurement camps and the larger base camps are found at a ratio of ten to one (Ward and Davis 1999). Palmer and Kirk corner -notched spear points are diagnostic of the time period. Middle Archaic (6,000 -3,000 BC). Settlement and subsistence strategy remained constant through the Middle Archaic, although there is a noted increase in site frequency (Ward and Davis 1999). Stanly Stemmed, Morrow Mountain Stemmed, and Guilford Lanceolate spear points are the primary diagnostic artifacts of this time period. Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases are believed to have been introduced from the west (Coe 1964). Phelps (1964) referred to this as the "Western Intrusive horizon." Halifax projectile points have also been found in the north Coastal Plain of North Carolina. These points date to approximately 4000 BC and were introduced from peoples living to the north (Coe 1964). Late Archaic (3,000 - 1,000 BC). This time period marks a shift of settlements from upland tributary streams to the mouths of major rivers. This shift allowed native peoples to include marine and estuarine resources in their diet. The predominant spear type of the Late Archaic is the Savannah River spear point. Fiber tempered ceramics appear in the southern Coast and Coastal Plain, although a few sherds have been found as far north as the Tar River drainages (Ward and Davis 1999). These ceramics are related to early pottery found in South Carolina and Georgia. Sand tempered Thoms Creek wares are also found in the southern Coastal region, but tend to be limited to Brunswick and New Hanover counties (Ward and Davis 1999). I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 9 Pender County, North Carolina Woodland Period (1,000 BC - 1584 AD) Early Woodland (1,500 - 200 BC). Along the North Carolina coast, Early Woodland sites consist of shell middens near tidal marshes and ceramic and/or lithic scatters in different environmental zones. Site type categories established by Trinkley (1990) for this portion of the state include seasonal camps located in upland settings at springs or stream confluences, small seasonal campsites located on swamp edges, and large semipermanent camps on swamp edges. Site location patterns suggest a dispersed, highly mobile lifeway that continued from the Late Archaic into the Woodland. Two ceramic types are associated with the Early Woodland along the southern coast of North Carolina. New River ceramics are coarse sand tempered and exhibit surface treatments that are dominated by cord marking, but also include fabric impressing, net impressing, and simple stamping (Loftfield 1975; Mathis 1999; Ward and Davis 1999). Hamps Landing ceramics are characterized by limestone or marl temper and have plain, faint thong marked, cord marked, fabric impressed, and simple stamped surfaces (Ward and Davis 1999). Middle Woodland (200 BC - AD 1000). Sites dating to this period include small single house shell middens, more significant shell middens, and shell -less sites in the interior that vary in size and artifact density. Trinkley (1990) notes that the site types from Early Woodland continue into the Middle Woodland but with the addition of sand burial mounds. The low, sand burial mounds have been identified at several archaeological sites in the region. Estuarine resources made a significant contribution to the subsistence of Middle Woodland peoples (Drucker and Jackson 1984; Espenshade and Brockington 1989; Trinkley 1976, 1980). The two ceramic series associated with the Middle Woodland in the southern coastal plain are the grog tempered Hanover wares and the sand tempered Cape Fear wares. Hanover wares are typically cord marked or fabric impressed (Ward and Davis 1999). Cape Fear have similar decorations, although South (1976) observed rare net impressing on these wares (Ward and Davis 1999). Late Woodland (AD 1000 - 1584). Sand burials continued to be used during the Late Woodland with burials generally being secondary and bundled. Cremations or charred remains are common (Jones et al. 1997). House structures include both circular and rectangular outlines but it is unclear whether the two house styles indicate seasonal differences or the presence of Algonquin speakers in the area (Loftfield 1990; Mathis 1995). The Late Woodland in the southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina is characterized by the White Oak Phase. South (1976), working in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, described the "Oak Island" series as being shell tempered pottery that included cord marked, net impressed, fabric impressed, and plain surface treatments. Working near the White Oak River, South (1962) identified shell tempered fabric impressed sherds which he defined as White Oak fabric impressed. Loftfield (1976) expanded the definition of White Oak to include simple stamped and smoothed surfaces based on work conducted in Onslow and Carteret County. Few researchers, today, distinguish between South's "Oak Island" and Loftfield's "White Oak" ceramic series (Ward and Davis 1999). However, it is believed by some that many of the shell tempered Oak Island sherds identified by South (1976) are actually limestone tempered and part of the Early Woodland Hamps Landing series, and that the term White Oak should be used to define the shell tempered Oak Island ceramics (Ward and Davis 1999). Brief Historic Context of Pender County Pender County was established in 1875 from the northern portion of New Hanover County (Corbitt 2000) in response to dissatisfaction with the corruption in Wilmington (Pender County Government 2017). Burgaw was chartered as the county seat in 1879 (Corbitt 2000). In the early twentieth century, agricultural production was key to the county's economy. Cotton and corn were the main crops, with peanuts also playing an important role. Tobacco was grown in small quantities. The railways provided excellent transportation for locally grown truck crops, with Baltimore, Washington D.C., New York, and Philadelphia beine kev market areas. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 10 Pender County, North Carolina The population of Pender County was 15,471 residents in 1910. There were 1,938 farms in Pender County in 1910, with the average farm size being 134.6 acres (54.5 ha). At this time, 85 percent (1,637) of the farms were operated by their owners. While most of the remainder of the farms were operated under the tenant farmer system. Farm labor was mostly African American, but two factors made farm labor scarce. First, laborers were moving to cities for factory jobs. Second, many laborers were working in the booming timber industry, where wages were greater than that from farming During the Great Depression, one of the New Deal programs involved the resettlement of farmers who were unable to support themselves on what had become severely eroded and nutrient poor land. This resettlement was intended to create self-sufficient rural communities and to provide poor and unemployed farmers with housing and cultivatable land. The Penderlea Homestead was established in northwestern Pender County. Driven by Hugh McRae, who was a wealthy Wilmington developer at the time, the Penderlea colony consisted of a community center with a school, library, and workshop, and a series of 10 acre (4.0 ha) farm plots suitable for truck farming. Each of these plots were to include a house with electricity and running water, a barn, poultry and hog houses, a corn crib, and a smokehouse. By 1934, 1,500 acres (607.0 ha) had been cleared and 10 of these homesteads had been built. The homesteaders were provided with livestock and feed, seed, and fertilizer in exchange for payments. The project put over 2,000 people to work during construction, many of whom were farmers who hired others to work their 10 -acre (4.0 ha) plots. In 1938, construction of the planned community came to an end, throwing many out of work. However, by that time, the local hosiery mill, which was owned by the homesteaders, was in full operation and it became the primary employer in the Penderlea vicinity. With the coming of World War II, hosiery was replaced by parachutes. By 1949, the Federal government had withdrawn its support from the Penderlea community. Many of the 10 -acre (4.0 -ha) plots were subsequently consolidated and the houses moved to allow for larger farms, which were then auctioned off. The community had transitioned from a cooperative project to an independent community (Conkin 1959; Cottle 2006). The outbreak of World War II and the establishment of Camp Lejeune in neighboring Onslow County brought about the most important change in Pender and surrounding counties during the twentieth century. Camp Lejeune became operational in 1941. The construction of the base changed the demographics of the county as increasing numbers of single men and young families moved into the area. Camp Lejeune grew to be the largest Marine Corps training base in the country, covering 151,000 acres (61,107.5 ha) in Onslow County. Today, Pender County has over 52,000 residents. It encompasses 933 square miles, with about 7 percent being open water. The county's economy is driven largely by farming and manufacturing, as well as tourism. Topsail Island is one of the state's most popular beach destinations, and the various rivers and the Intracoastal Waterway attract visitors to the area (Pender County Government 2017). I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 11 Pender County, North Carolina Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation Background Research Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. No previously recorded sites are present in the project tract (Figure 3.1). A total of five previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within a 1.6 -kilometer (1 -mile) radius of the project area (Table 3.1). ��R D Wyndwater - Phase 6 Survey Wyndwater- Phase 6 Development Area Q Project APE 1. One -Mile Radius Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites r 0 260 520 780 1,040 r Meters Figure 3.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) radius of the APE. Table 3.1. Previouslv Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1.6 Kilometer (1 mile) of Survev Area. Archaeolo ical Site Description IF NRNP Eligibility 31PD158 Unknown Prehistoric IF Unassessed 31PD159 Unknown Prehistoric Unassessed 31PD230 Unknown Prehistoric Unassessed 31PD231 Unknown Prehistoric Unassessed 31PD301 Holly Shelter East site, Middle Woodland Period shell midden associated with Hanover Series ceramic sherds, stone tools and debita e Unassessed jrtc Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina 12 The Office of Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB) shows no recorded historic resources within a 1.6 -kilometer (1 -mile) radius of the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A review of historic aerial photographs shows that the project area was wooded since 1969 prior to recent deforestation in 2017 for the Wyndwater — Phase 6 residential development. Review of historic maps including the 1942 1:24,000 topographic map, the 1912 Soil Map of Pender County (Figure 3.2), North Carolina (Hearn et al.), and 1938 Pender County Highway Map (NCSHPWC 1938; Figure 3.3) also indicate that there were no developments within the project area. Figure 3.2. 1912 Soil Map of Pender County showing project area (Hearn et al.). 4 � • *� VISTA WOODSIDE • + 1 � - SLOOP P Wyndwater - Phase 6 Wetland Impact Area dist Wyntlrva[ee-Ppese 6 �evelopmerit Asea LS '", � pf' 1 �'' '• � Nsi z OD i F'r NS! J 51O 01 j N P1 Wyndwater-Ph-8 ' f r Nf Wetland Impact Area Nryndrveter- Ppese 6 Development Area \` Q Project APE (LVetlend ImpeclAreej !(q�� , o s00 600 s0a E290 Figure 3.2. 1912 Soil Map of Pender County showing project area (Hearn et al.). 4 � • *� VISTA WOODSIDE • + Figure 3.3 1938 Pender County Highway Map showing project area (NCSHPWC 1938). I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 13 Pender County, North Carolina SLOOP P Wyndwater - Phase 6 Wetland Impact Area Wyntlrva[ee-Ppese 6 �evelopmerit Asea Q Protect APE Iweoene Impact Aren) d 300 600 900 E299w�` Meters Figure 3.3 1938 Pender County Highway Map showing project area (NCSHPWC 1938). I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 13 Pender County, North Carolina Archaeological Survey Results The archaeological survey APE, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a 2.4 -acre (1.0 -ha) area located in the southeast half of the Wyndwater - Phase 6 development tract. The APE is partially wooded with recent deforestation related to the Wyndwater - Phase 6 development (Figure 3.4). A 30 - meter (98.4 -ft) grid of 24 shovel tests was established within the APE (Figure 3.5; Table 3.2). Three shovel test locations were submerged at the surface and were not excavated. Several of the remaining shovel tests were hydric or encountered the water table at shallow depths (Figure 3.6). The shovel tests located along the southeastern boundary of the APE contained the most well drained soils (Figure 3.7). In general, the excavated soil profiles tended to be more poorly drained than those described in the USDA soil survey for the area (USDA 2017). All shovel tests were negative for artifacts and cultural features. Recommendations The archaeological survey of the Wyndwater - Phase 6 APE identified no previously recorded or new archaeological resources. No further archaeological investigation is recommended. Figure 3.4. General view of APE facing southwest. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 14 Pender County, North Carolina A n Wyndwater - Phase 6 Survey Wyndwater - Phase 6 Development Area Project APE • Negative ST ST Not Excavated 6 30 60 90 1201 L Meters s Figure 3.5. Shovel test grid in the project APE. 7 r Table 3.2. Summary of Shovel Testing Results Shovel Tes F Stratigraphy Condition Results 1 Level 1: 0-40 cm (0-15.7 in) dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy loam Negative Level 2: 40-50 cm 15.7- 19.7 in grayish brown 10YR5/2 sandy loam 2 Level 1: 0-40 cm (0-15.7 in) dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy loam Negative Level 2: 40-50 cm 15.7- 19.7 in grayish brown 10YR5/2 sandy loam 3 Level 1: 0-30 cm (0-11.8 in) grayish brown (10YR5/2) sandy loam Level 2: 30-40 cm (11.8- 15.7 in) yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy Negative loam 4 N/A; Water on Surface Submerged Not Excavated 5 Level 1: 0-20 cm (0-7.9 in) dark gray (10YR4/1) silty sand Hydric Negative Level 2: 20-30 cm 7.9- 11.8 in light gray (IOYR7/1)silty sand 6 Level 1: 0-20 cm (0-7.9 in) dark gray (10YR4/1) silty sand Hydric Negative Level 2: 20-30 cm 7.9- 11.8 in light gray (I0YR7/1 silty sand 7 Level 1: 0-20 cm (0-7.9 in) dark gray (10YR4/1) silty sand Hydric Negative Level 2: 20-30 cm 7.9- 11.8 in light gray (I0YR7/1 silty sand Level 1: 0-30 cm (0-11.8 in) very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty 8 clay Negative Level 2: 30 cm+ (11.8 in+) dark brown (10YR3/3) silty clay mottled with very dark gray (I0YR3/1 silty clay 9 Level 1: 0-25 cm (0-9.8 in) dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) silty clay Negative Level 2: 25-30 cm 9.8- 15.7 in dark a 10YR4/1 siltyclayHydric 10 Level 1: 0-50 cm (0-19.7 in) black (10YR2/1) sandy loam Negative Level 2: 50-60cm 19.7- 23.6 in grayish brown 10YR5/2 sand loam 11 N/A; Water on Surface Submerged Not Excavated 12 N/A; Water on Surface Submerged Not Excavate 13 Level 1: 0-50 cm (0-19.7 in) black (10YR2/1) sandy loam Negative Level 2: 50-60cm 19.7- 23.6 in grayish brown 10YR5/2 sand loam 14 Level 1: 0-20 cm 0-7.9 in very dark grayish brown 10YR3/2 sil cla Hydric Negative 15 N/A; Water on Surface Submerged Not Excavate 16 Level 1: 0-25 cm (0-9.8 in) very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty clay Hydric Negative 17 Level 1: 0-50 cm (0-19.7 in) black (10YR2/1) sandy loam Hydric Negative Level 2: 50-60cm 19.7- 23.6 in grayish brown 10YR5/2 sandy loam 18 Level 1: 0-10 cm (0-3.9 in) brown (7.5YR5/2) sandy loam Hydric Negative Water: 10 cm+ 3.9 in+ 19 Level 1: 0-30 cm (0-11.8 in) grayish brown (10YR5/2) sandy loam Negative Level 2: 30-40 cm 11.8- 15.7 inyellowish brown 10YR5/6 sandy loam Level l: 0-10 cm (0-9.8 in) gray (10YR6/1) silty sand 20 Level 2: 10-50 cm (9.8-19.7 in) yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sand Negative Level 3: 50 cm+ 19.7 in+ light yellowish brown 10YR6/4 sand Level 1: 0-10 cm (0-3.9 in) gray (10YR6/1) silty sand 21 Level 2: 10-50 cm (3.9-5.9 in) brown (10YR5/3) silty sand Negative Level 3: 15-50 cm (5.9-19.7 in) yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sand Level 4: 50 cm+ 19.7 in+yellow 10YR8/6 sand Level 1: 0-10 cm (0-3.9 in) gray (10YR6/1) silty sand 22 Level 2: 10-50 cm (3.9-5.9 in) brown (10YR5/3) silty sand Negative Level 3: 15-50 cm (5.9-19.7 in) yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sand Level 4: 50 cm+ 19.7 in+yellow 10YR8/6 sand Level 1: 0-10 cm (0-3.9 in) gray (10YR6/1) silty sand 23 Level 2: 10-20 cm (3.9-7.8 in) brown (10YR5/3) sand Negative Level 3: 20 cm+ 7.8 in+ strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy clay Level l: 0-10 cm (0-3.9 in) gray (10YR6/1) silty sand 24 Level 2: 10-15 cm (3.9-5.9 in) brown (10YR5/3) silty sand Negative Level 3: 15-50 cm (5.9-19.7 in) yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sand Level 4: 50 cm+ 19.7 in+yellow 10YR8/6 sand I r►c. Wyndwater - Phase 6 Development Tract 16 Pender County, North Carolina Figure 3.6. Shovel Test 5 soil profile, looking north. Figure 3.7 Shovel Test 24 soil profile, looking south. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 17 Pender County, North Carolina a QIA -46 W+ . Figure 3.7 Shovel Test 24 soil profile, looking south. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 17 Pender County, North Carolina References Cited Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286. Anderson, D. G. and J. W. Joseph 1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA. Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper 2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual: Ceramics. Electronic Document. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/, accessed December 8, 2016. Barnhill, William L. 1990 Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun and J.G. Brown 1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period Subsistence -Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100. The University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological Studies 9. Columbia. Brown, Ann R. 1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principal Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series, 15. Delaware Department of Transportation. Coe, Joffre L. 1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5). Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H. Newman, and Richard R. Pardi 1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States. In Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144- 150. Conkin, Paul Keith 1959 Tomorrow A New World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Corbitt, David Leroy 2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. (Originally published 1950.) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 18 Pender County, North Carolina Cottle, Ann Southerland 2006 The Roots of Penderlea: A Memory of a New Deal Homestead Community. University of North Carolina, Publishing Laboratory, Wilmington. Delcourt, Hazel R. 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280. Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt 1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. G. Holloway. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation. 1987 Long -Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer -Verlag, New York. Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy II, edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation. Dillehay, T. D., editor 1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Driver, J. C. 1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to 9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150. Drucker, Lesley M. and Susan Jackson 1984 Shell in Motion: An Archaeological Study of Minim Island National register Site, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Carolina Archaeological Services Resources Studies Series 73, Columbia, SC. Espenshade, Christopher T. and Paul E. Brockington, Jr. (compilers) 1989 An Archaeological Study of the Minim Island Site: Early Woodland Dynamics in Coastal South Carolina. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Feldhues, William J. 1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Munice, IN. Florida Museum of Natural History 2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic Document. www.flmnh.ufl.edu/Histarch/Gallery— Types., accessed January 1, 2017. Gardner, William 1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 19 Pender County, North Carolina Gardner, William, continued 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia. Goodyear, Albert C. 1982 The Chronological Position of the American Antiquity 47:382-395. Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. 2005 The Allendale -Brier Creek Clovis Complex: A Clovis Center in the Middle Savannah River Valley. Paper presented at the 62' Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, SC. Goodyear, Albert C., III, James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles 1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 19-52. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies 9, Columbia. Griffin, James B. 1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by J. B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Hearn, Edward W., Lewis A. Hurst, R.B. Hardison, L.L. Brinkley, and So.O. Perkins 1912 Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Julius Bien Co., New York, NY. Herbert, Joseph Miner 2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little 1997 Cosmogenic 36CI Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:73-94. Jones, David C., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Linda Kennedy 1997 Archaeological Investigations at 31ON190, Cape Island, Onslow County, North Carolina. Submitted to Island Development Group, Inc. by Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kuchler, A. W. 1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical Society Special Publication, Vol. 36. Loftfield, Thomas C. 1975 Archaeological and Ethno-Historical Data Bearing on the Southern Boundary of Algonkian Indian Occupation. In Papers of the Sixth Algonquian Conference, 1974, edited by W. Cowan, pp. 100-111. Canadian Ethnology Paper #23, National Museum of Canada Mercury Series. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 20 Pender County, North Carolina Loftiield, Thomas C., continued 1976 A Brief and True Report: An Archaeological Interpretation of the Southern Coast of North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1990 Ossuary Interments and Algonquian Expansion on the North Carolina Coast. Southeastern Archaeology 9(2):116-123. Mathis, Mark A. 1995 The Carolina Algonkians: comments from the Fringe (the Southern Frontier). Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Algonquian Conference, Chapel Hill, NC. 1999 Oak Island: A Retiring Series. North Carolina Archaeology 48:18-36. Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O'Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, New York, NY. Meltzer, David J. 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:1-53. Meltzer, David J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincause, C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez, and D. Stanford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):172-179. Michie, James L. 1977 Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of South Carolina. Senior Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Morell, V. 1998 Kennewick Man: More Bones to Pick. Science 279:25-26. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC) 1938 Pender County, North Carolina Map. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission. United States Public Roads Administration, Raleigh, NC. Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Oliver, Billy 1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University, AL. O'Steen, Lisa D., R. Jerald Ledbetter, Daniel T. Elliott, and William W. Barker 1986 PaleoIndian Sites of the Inner Piedmont of Georgia: Observations of Settlement in the Oconee Watershed. Early Georgia 13:1-63. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 21 Pender County, North Carolina Peck, Rodney 1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately Printed. Pender County Government 2017 Electronic document. http://www.pendercountync.gov/, accessed November 2017. Perkinson, Phil H. 1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number One. Southern Indian Studies 23:3-40. 1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two. Southern Indian Studies 25:3-60. Phelps, David Sutton 1964 The Final Phases of the Eastern Archaic. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University., New Orleans, LA. 1981 The Archaeology of Colington Island. East Carolina University Archaeology Research Report 3, Greenville, NC.. 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory ofNorth Carolina, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Preston, D. 1997 The Lost Man. New Yorker 16 June:70-81. Plummer, Gayther L. 1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 33:1- 19. Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever 1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological Monographs 32:167-185. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2002 Woodland Ceramic Beginnings. In The Woodland Southeast. Kenneth E. Sassaman and Robert C. Jr. Mainfort, eds. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson 1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Sheldon, Elizabeth S. 1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 22 Pender County, North Carolina Slayman, A. L. 1997 A Battle Over Bones: Lawyers Contest the Fate of an 8400 -Year -Old Skeleton from Washington State. Archaeology 50(1):16. South, Stanley 1962 An Archaeological Survey of Two Islands in the White Oak River near Swansboro, North Carolina." MS on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. The Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook 8:1-55. University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia. Stoltman, James B. 1965 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example From Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 19(4):703-746. Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl 1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Swedlund, A. and D. Anderson 1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New Interpretations and Protocols Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4): 569-576. Trinkley, Michael 1976 Paleoethnobotanical Remains from Archaic -Woodland Transitional Middens Along the South Carolina Coast. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19:64-67. 1980 Investigations of the Woodland Period Along the South Carolina Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, University Microfilms. 1990 An Archaeological Context for the South Carolina Woodland period. Chicora Foundation Research Series 22, Chicora Foundation, Inc., Columbia. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1997 Top Sail, NC USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle. Ward, H. Trawick 1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 1999 Time Before History, The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 23 Pender County, North Carolina Wharton, Charles H. 1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. I r►c. Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract 24 Pender County, North Carolina Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator �r►c Wyndwater — Phase 6 Development Tract Pender County, North Carolina M, , VATKNO A:7 D1117 Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. 121 E. First Street Clayton, NC 27520 Office (919) 553-9007 Fax (919) 553-9077 dawnreid@archcon.org EDUCATION B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992 M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development Vertebrate Faunal Analysis PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Southeastern Archaeological Conference Archaeological Society of South Carolina North Carolina Archaeological Society PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS President Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC President Heritage Partners, LLC., Clayton, NC Vice President Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA Society for American Archaeology Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists North Carolina Council of Professional Archaeologists 2008 — Present 2007 — Present 2003 —2008 1993— 2003 Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) • Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort Huger) Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G (Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and others Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department of Transportation (Columbia) Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts) Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) — Representative Examples • Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18"/early 19' century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A. Management, Charlotte, NC 18' century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club, Myrtle Beach, SC Experience at Military Facilities • Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Related Investigations • Georgia Power Company: Flint River Hydroelectric Project • Duke Energy: Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED* Reid, Dawn and Katherine Carter 2015 Archaeological Investigations at the Proposed Greensboro/Liberty Megasite Project Area, Randolph County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn, James Stewart, and April Montgomery 2014 Cultural Resources Study of the Canadys-St. George 230 kV Tie Line, Colleton and Dorchester Counties, South Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn 2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Hillsborough Jail Tract, Orange County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. O'Neal, Michael K., Rachel Tibbetts, and Dawn Reid 2011 Archaeological Survey of the Watson Hill II Analysis Area, Long Cane Ranger District, Sumter National Forest. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn 2010 Salem Church Cemetery Grave Delineation and Evaluation, Apex, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn and Kim Villemez 2009 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appomattox Heritage and Recreational Trail, Appomattox County, Virginia. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn 2006 Beyond Subsistence: Prehistoric Lifeways on the South Carolina Coast as Reflected by Zooarchaeological Analysis. South Carolina Antiquities 38(1&2):1-19. O'Neal Michael K. and Dawn Reid 2006 The History of Fort Huger. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. *A full listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request