20190317 Ver 1_Archaeology Survey Report FINAL 10-12-18_20190308

CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION — DO NOT RELEASE
r6,11 Piedmont
Natural Gas
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
ROBESON LNG PROJECT
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report
Prepared by
III
October 2018

CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION — DO NOT RELEASE
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
ROBESON LNG PROJECT
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report
Prepared for
Piedmont Natural Gas
Prepared by
Environmental Resources Management
3300 Breckinridge Boulevard
Suite 300
Duluth, GA 30096
William F. Stanyard, Principal Investigator
Report prepared by David M. Franz, Jeffrey L. Holland, and Larissa A. Thomas, Ph.D.
October 2018

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
ABSTRACT
In June 2018, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) conducted Phase I archaeological
investigations for the proposed the Piedmont Natural Gas Robeson LNG Project (Project) in
Robeson County, North Carolina. The Project will include construction and installation of a 1.6
billion cubic foot liquefied natural gas (LNG) peaking facility. The facility will have the capacity to
vaporize 260 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) of natural gas and liquefy 10 MMscfd.
The proposed Project encompasses a 687 -acre tract along NC -71 between Wakulla and Floral
College. The entire parcel was surveyed for archaeological resources except for a 15 -acre
exclusion zone between CR -1316 and Gum Swamp where no construction is planned. The
exclusion zone consists of wetlands with low archaeological site potential. The entire 672 -acre
survey area was subjected to visual inspection on pedestrian transects spaced 30-m apart.
Inspection was supplemented by shovel tests excavated at 30-m intervals along the transects.
Several cultural resources were known or suspected to be within the Project area at the time of
survey; these include three previously recorded archaeological sites (31 RB20, 31 RB41, and
31 RB123), as well as 12 historic farmstead sites suspected to be on the property based on historic
map research. All of these potential resources were investigated and assessed as part of the
investigations.
As a result of the survey, ERM recorded seven archaeological resources within the Project area,
and reassessed previously recorded sites 31 RB41 and 31 RB123. The nine resources in the
Project's Area of Potential Effects include one prehistoric site, five historic sites associated with
former farm locations, and three sites having both historic and prehistoric components. An
additional prehistoric site, 31 RB20, was not relocated, nor were several suspected historic
resources. These resources are assumed to have been destroyed or obscured by the clearing
and grubbing of the land, which has also severely impacted the identified sites.
Given their poor condition as a result of these disturbances, all ten sites (31 RB20, 31 RB41,
31 RB123, and 31 RB590-31 RB596) are recommended ineligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, and, in our opinion, construction of the Project should be allowed to begin without
further considerations of impacts to archaeological resources.
October 2018 i Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report — DO NOT RELEASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
1.1
OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................1
1.2
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................1
2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING..........................................................................................5
2.1
LAND USE............................................................................................................5
2.2
HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................................5
2.3
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY......................................................................5
2.4
SOILS....................................................................................................................8
2.5
CLIMATE............................................................................................................11
2.6
PALEOENVIRONMENT......................................................................................12
2.7
CONTEMPORARY FLORA AND FAUNA..........................................................14
3.0
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE..........................................................................................16
3.1
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT..................................................................................16
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P.)..........................................16
3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000-3000 B.P.)....................................................19
3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000-350 B.P.).....................................................24
3.2
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF EASTERN NORTH
CAROLINA AND
ROBESONCOUNTY..........................................................................................30
3.2.1 European Exploration and Colonization..................................................30
3.2.2 The Colonial Period and the Revolutionary War......................................32
3.2.3 From Independence through the Antebellum Period...............................33
3.2.4 Civil War and Reconstruction..................................................................35
3.2.5 Postbellum Life........................................................................................
36
3.2.6 Modernization in the Twentieth Century..................................................36
3.3
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES.................................38
4.0
METHODS......................................................................................................................43
4.1
LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH..........................................................43
4.2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS............................................................43
4.3
LABORATORY METHODS................................................................................45
4.3.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis.....................................................................45
4.3.2 Historic Artifact Analysis..........................................................................46
4.4
CURATION.........................................................................................................47
4.5
NRHP ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA...........................................................................47
5.0
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................49
5.1
FIELD CONDITIONS AND SURVEY COVERAGE............................................49
5.2
NEWLY RECORDED SITES..............................................................................49
31 RB590.............................................................................................................49
31 RB591.............................................................................................................54
31 RB592.............................................................................................................
59
31 RB593.............................................................................................................
64
October 2018 ii Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report - DO NOT RELEASE
31 RB594............................................................................................................. 67
31 RB595............................................................................................................. 73
31 RB596............................................................................................................. 76
5.3 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES IN THE PROJECT AREA ..........................79
31 RB20...............................................................................................................79
31 RB41...............................................................................................................82
31 RB 123 .............................................................................................................86
5.4 POTENTIAL SITE LOCI WHERE NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS WERE
FOUND................................................................................................................ 90
6.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................95
7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................96
APPENDIX A - RESUME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.2-1.
Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project area.................................................2
Table 2.4-1.
Soil Classifications and Descriptions within the Project Area................................10
...4
Table 3.1-1.
Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for the Project Region*........................................16
6
Table 3.3-1.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the One -Mile Buffer..................39
Table 5.2-1.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB590.......................................................................
52
Table 5.2-2.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB591.......................................................................
57
Table 5.2-3.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB592.......................................................................63
Table 5.2-4.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB593.......................................................................65
Table 5.2-5.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594.......................................................................
70
Table 5.3-1.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594.......................................................................85
Table 5.3-2.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB 123 .......................................................................90
50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1-1. General overview of the Project area (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS 1982]
October 2018 iii Piedmont Natural Gas
Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle).................................................3
Figure 1.2-1.
Current Google Earth imagery showing resources investigated in Project area.
...4
Figure 2.1-1.
View of a typical logged area in the Project tract, looking west along NC -71 .........
6
Figure 2.1-2.
View of Gum Swamp in the southwestern corner of the Project area....................6
Figure 2.1-3.
View of a Carolina bay overgrown with kudzu........................................................7
Figure 2.1-4.
View of typical irrigation ditch crossing Project area..............................................7
Figure 2.4-1.
USDA soil classifications within the Project area....................................................9
Figure 3.3-1.
Archaeological sites within one mile of the Project...............................................40
Figure 4.2-1.
Survey coverage of the Project area showing shovel test grid (USGS [1982]
Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle)...............................................44
Figure 5.2-1.
View of 31 RB590 showing typical surface disturbance (foreground) ...................
50
Figure 5.2-2.
View of 31 RB590 looing north towards Carolina bay (background)......................50
October 2018 iii Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report - DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-3. Site sketch, 31 RB590 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
October 2018 iv Piedmont Natural Gas
quadrangle)........................................................................................................
51
Figure 5.2-4.
Selected artifacts from 31 RB590: (a) unifacial rhyolite side scraper; (b) New
River cordmarked potsherd; (c) New River cordmarked (perpendicular)
potsherd; (d) Hanover I fabric -impressed potsherd; (e -f) Hanover II fabric -
impressedpotsherd...........................................................................................53
Figure 5.2-5.
General view of 31 RB591, looking west...............................................................55
Figure 5.2-6.
Site sketch, 31 RB591...........................................................................................56
Figure 5.2-7.
General view of 31 RB592, looking north..............................................................59
Figure 5.2-8.
General view of chimney base at 31 R13592, looking north...................................60
Figure 5.2-9.
General view of chimney fall at 31 R13592, looking west.......................................60
Figure 5.2-10.
General view of broken brick pier at 31 RB592, looking west .............................61
Figure 5.2-11.
Site sketch, 31 RB592 (USGS 1949 Wakulla' North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................
62
Figure 5.2-12.
General view of 31 R13593, looking east from bay rim to adjoining property .......
65
Figure 5.2-13.
Site sketch, 31 RB593.........................................................................................66
Figure 5.2-14.
General view of 31 RB594, looking northwest towards CR -1316 ........................67
Figure 5.2-15.
General view of brick scatter at 31 RB594, looking east.....................................68
Figure 5.2-16.
Site sketch, 31 RB594.........................................................................................69
Figure 5.2-17.
General view of 31 R13595, looking west along NC -71 ........................................73
Figure 5.2-18.
Loci 4 and 5 at 31 RB595, with septic tank in foreground. View is southeast
towardsNC-71...................................................................................................74
Figure 5.2-19.
Site sketch, 31 RB595 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................ 75
Figure 5.2-20.
General view of 31 R13596, looking north towards drainage...............................76
Figure 5.2-21.
View of block foundation at 31 RB596.................................................................77
Figure 5.2-22.
Site sketch, 31 RB596 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................ 78
Figure 5.3-1.
General view of location of 31 R1320, looking northwest from datum. Rim of
Carolina bay is discernable in background........................................................80
Figure 5.3-2.
Site sketch, 31 RB20.............................................................................................81
Figure 5.3-3.
General view of 31 RB41, looking north towards NC -71 .......................................83
Figure 5.3-4.
Detail of cut stone and brick scatter along the western side of 31 RB41...............83
Figure 5.3-5.
Site sketch, 31 RB41.............................................................................................
84
Figure 5.3-6.
General view of 31 RB 123, looking west along NC -71 ..........................................88
Figure 5.3-7.
View of 31 RB 123 looking west from Locus 6 .......................................................88
Figure 5.3-8.
Site sketch, 31 R131 23 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................
89
Figure 5.4-1.
View of Locus 1 area, looking north from farm road.............................................91
Figure 5.4-2.
Site sketch, Locus 1 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................
92
Figure 5.4-3.
General view of location of Locus 2, looking northeast........................................93
Figure 5.4-4.
Site sketch, Locus 2 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle)........................................................................................................ 94
October 2018 iv Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
This document presents the results of a June 2018 Phase I archaeological survey that
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) conducted for the proposed Piedmont Natural
Gas Robeson LNG Project (Project) in Robeson County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1-1). The
Project will include construction and installation of a 1.6 billion cubic foot liquefied natural gas
(LNG) peaking facility. The facility will have the capacity to vaporize 260 million standard cubic
feet per day (MMscfd) of natural gas and liquefy 10 MMscfd.
The Phase I archaeological survey was conducted as due diligence to identify and evaluate
historic properties that might be affected by the Project. The cultural resource investigations were
conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
Section 106 consultation seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic
properties deriving from undertakings sponsored or permitted by federal agencies (36 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800.1). The lead federal agency for this Project is anticipated to
be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which would have permitting authority under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, in the event that a wetland/waterbody permit is required for
the Project. The documentation and recommendations in this report will assist the USACE in
complying with the provisions of Section 106. A review of historic architectural resources within
the viewshed of the Project was conducted concurrently and will be reported by ERM under
separate cover.
1.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed Project encompasses a 687 -acre tract along NC -71 between Wakulla and Floral
College. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archaeological resources was considered to be
the entire parcel except for a 15 -acre exclusion zone between CR -1316 (Rev Bill Road) and Gum
Swamp where no construction is planned. The exclusion zone consists of wetlands with low
archaeological site potential. The entire 672 -acre survey area was subjected to visual inspection
on pedestrian transects spaced 30 -meters (m) apart. Inspection was supplemented by shovel
tests excavated at 30-m intervals along the transects.
According to records at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the
Office of Archives and History (OAH) in Raleigh, three previously recorded archaeological sites
(31 RB20, 31 RB41, and 31 RB123) are located within the Project area. In addition, based on
historic map research, 12 additional potential historic farmstead locations were expected to be
identified on the property.
As a result of the current investigations, ERM recorded seven archaeological resources within the
Project area, and reassessed previously recorded sites 31 RB41 and 31 RB123 (Figure 1.2-1,
Table 1.2-1). These nine resources include one prehistoric site, five historic sites associated with
former farm locations, and three sites having both historic and prehistoric components. An
additional prehistoric site, 31 RB20, was not relocated, nor were several suspected farmstead
sites. These resources are assumed to have been destroyed or obscured by the clearing and
grubbing of the land, which has also severely impacted the identified sites. Given their poor
condition as a result of these disturbances, all ten sites (31 RB20, 31 RB41, 31 RB213, and
31 RB590-31 RB596) are recommended ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places
October 2018 1 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
(NRHP), and, in our opinion, construction of the Project should be allowed to begin without further
considerations of impacts to archaeological resources.
Table 1.2-1.
Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project area
Site Number
Cultural Component(s)
Description
NRHP Recommendation
31 RB20
General Prehistoric
Not identified; likely same as 31 RB590
Ineligible
31 RB41
Woodland/General Prehistoric/
Artifact scatter disturbed by soil borrow
Ineligible
General Historic
31 RB123
Woodland/201h C.
Artifact scatter at farm site
Ineligible
31 RB590
Woodland
Low density, primarily surface scatter
Ineligible
31 RB591
20th c./General Prehistoric
Artifact scatter at farm site; (isolated
Ineligible
prehistoric find)
31 RB592
19`h -20`h C.
Chimney fall (dwelling)
Ineligible
31 RB593
20`h C.
Small scatter at outbuilding site
Ineligible
31 RB594
19`h -20`h C.
Artifact scatter at farm site
Ineligible
31 RB595
201h C.
Well house
Ineligible
31 RB596
20`h C.
Foundation, Possible smokehouse
Ineligible
October 2018 2 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Q
irene�aaau��a��I
IP
41
5
\ t M -y ty max} .L -�6� *• �,
lCherok
% �% da r. =
am
1 "
_ ■ ■
r • -
_ �l �■4� 6 .� .. �,� r +: � rte` �•'�•.
,F • aasa� __]JQ • a
�'�• - +l _�T�� � �: • lam(_ �_
�n • i ll
J,.
0L
t
• d —
_
L
r.
LST
plj rn+a etvmebhp b �..p�,�e�fer,b»a.pu�paeea may.
�Project Boundary General Overview
Robeson LNG
® Exclusion Zone Robeson County,
North Carolina
a i.aaa z,000 s.000 ERM
Feet 1:24.000
C�llsenlvneentmaeekV]oeumen [s•Camlm-as LNG.+-s8•peport Fig—%Repo Flpum 16181Carbinas Ft 1 L-afi-Map 10-10.18—d REVISE0:1WIWO18 I SCALE: 1:24,DDO OFiAWN 8Y: GIS
Figure 1.1-1. General overview of the Project area (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS 19821
Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle).
October 2018 3 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Project Boundary R IDa eM mercn,: i enwenmenlal ro bwpu pose: m
Exclusion Zone
Resources Investigated
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within Project Boundary in Project Area
Newly Recorded Archaeological Sites
Robeson LNG
O tches Robeson County,
Mdands North Carolina
0 500 1.000 1.500 2,000 ERM
Waterbodles Feel 1;16,000
C1A)-mWhmm1.meeeR0oeumeMviCam(n as tH 0 A-IMRepw Fg—rc R.pon Fgum 104 RC. rdh- Ng 1.2.1 Res—s Map I&18 m Nd I REVISED: I(VI I M 8 1 SCALE: 1:16.000
Figure 1.2-1. Current Google Earth imagery showing resources investigated in Project area.
October 2018 4 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 LAND USE
The Project runs through North Carolina's interior (or upper) Coastal Plain. A variety of land uses
were observed along the route. The Project area has been primarily agricultural in the past, but
also has been logged. Most of the Project area has been recently cleared; however, stands of
planted loblolly pine and mixed hardwoods remain. A number of small Carolina bays are located
within the tract; some of these have been overtaken by kudzu or other vegetation. Lowland swamp
is present along the western periphery of the Project area (Figures 2.1-1-2.1-4).
2.2 HYDROLOGY
A series of ditches and canals were constructed across the site in the past in order to improve
drainage. These drain the Project area into Gum Swamp (west) and Jordan Swamp (east), which
flow along either side of the tract. Jordan swamp flows into Gum Swamp approximately 1.5 miles
south of the Project, and continues 5 miles south into the Lumber River at Red Banks. The Lumber
River originates near the Scotland -Hoke County Line and meanders south/southeast into the Little
Pee Dee River at Mullins, South Carolina. The Little Pee Dee River in turn which flows into the
main channel of the Pee Dee River. The Great Pee Dee River empties to the Atlantic Ocean at
Winyah Bay.
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The Coastal Plain extends from the Atlantic Ocean west to the Fall Line, a low escarpment
ca. 300-400 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), which formed where the more resistant rocks of
the Piedmont interface with softer sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated marine deposits. The
terrain of the Carolina Coastal Plain consists of a series of broad, relatively flat terraces of
primarily unconsolidated sediments and carbonate rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to
Quaternary, which were deposited in shallow marine environments and by rivers draining the Blue
Ridge and Piedmont provinces. The accumulation of sediments over 100 million years paired with
continuous uplifting of the interior has gradually expanded the Coastal Plain seaward and gives
the region a wedge-like cross section, with the thickest and youngest deposits occurring along
the coast and the thinnest and oldest deposits exposed in the upper Coastal Plain (Clark and
Miller 1912; Roberson and Stewart 2007:4; Rogers 2006).
The western margin of the Coastal Plain is underlain by sediments that have been carried from
the eroding Appalachian Mountains to the west and includes layers of Jurassic and Cretaceous
clays, sands and gravels. Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary deposits form roughly parallel
belts that follow the southwest to northeast trend of the coastline. The low relief of the Coastal
Plain is broken by a series of low terraces from former shore lines, dating to portions of the
Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras when the region was submerged. The most recent period during
which the Coastal Plain of North Carolina was inundated was during the Pliocene and Early
Pleistocene. Concurrently with this series of sea level fluctuations, tectonic processes affected
the elevation of the land mass, which determined the location of the shoreline at any given point
in time, the character of landforms in different areas, and the types of sediments deposited and/or
reworked. In general, elevation gradually increases from the coast to the Piedmont (Abbott et al.
2011:2-2-2-3; Beyer 1991; Brown et al. 1972; Roberson and Stewart 2007:3; Rogers 2006; Ward
et al. 1991:274).
October 2018 5 Piedmont Natural Gas

mom"
ow
L 7171;-17: -
�k!,4 vo�Z7
_lZr
al
IE
�44

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Specifically, the Project area itself straddles two geological units as defined by the North Carolina
Geological Survey (Rhodes et al. 1985). Most of the Project, as mapped, is underlain by rocks of
the Black Creek Formation. This unit is comprised of gray to black, lignitic clay with thin beds and
laminae of fine-grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross -bedded sand. Glauconitic,
fossiliferous clayey sand lenses are common in in upper strata. The southeastern edge of the
Project falls in the Middendorf Formation, which is comprised of sand, sandstone, and mudstone
with clay balls and iron -cemented concretions common. The beds are laterally discontinuous, with
cross -bedding common.
Although archaeologists have generally regarded the Coastal Plain as a region with few high
quality lithic raw materials, chert, metavolcanics, and quartz are available in certain incised
valleys—especially at points of geological unconformity—along major rivers like the Roanoke,
Neuse, and Cape Fear. Some of the older and higher coastwise terraces near the Fall Zone are
mantled with near -surface, areally extensive gravel facies containing usable lithic raw materials
that were deposited as rivers and coastal zones responded to climatic, sea level, and/or tectonic
events. Sizable cobbles eroded from crystalline bedrock moved downstream as a result of high-
energy—sometimes flood-driven—water flows, and they were transported downstream where
they accumulated in thalwegs (channel floors), active bars, and swash-zone beaches. Such
gravel deposits were subsequently exposed in active river banks. Upland areas also contain lithic
source areas, including patches of outcrops with concentrations of gravel -sized clasts, particularly
in areas close to the Fall Zone (Abbott et al. 2011).
In addition to raw materials available within the Coastal Plain itself, sources of Piedmont chert
existed a short distance from of the Project. For example, a prehistoric chert quarry has been
identified in Lee County, approximately 50 miles north of the Project (Lautzenheiser et al. 1996).
Likewise, metavolcanics from the Uwharrie Mountains were available approximately 50 miles
northwest of the Project near the headwaters of the Lumber River (Daniel 1996). Indeed, Phelps
(1983:21) noted that Paleoindian artifacts found in the Coastal Plain are made of a wide variety
of potentially local as well as non -local materials from the Piedmont and beyond, including quartz,
quartzite, slate, rhyolite, jasper, and chert, illustrating the geographic range of population
movements and/or exchange connections at that time. As an example, Paleoindian materials from
the Pasquotank site northwest of Elizabeth City included a high-quality rhyolitic tuff likely from the
Williamson quarries at the Fall Line of southern Virginia 90 miles northwest of the site, several
varieties of chert and jasper also likely from the area of the Williamson quarries, and two types of
rhyolite likely from the Uwharrie Mountains 225 miles southwest of the site (Daniel et al. 2007:74).
In analyzing diagnostic artifacts from the North Carolina Coastal Plain through the prehistoric
period, McReynolds (2005:24) noted an increase in quartz use relative to metavolcanics and
chert, likely reflecting increased use of locally available quartz riverbed cobbles. Many have
argued that through the prehistoric period, as group territories were reduced, people increasingly
relied on local raw material sources—namely river cobbles in the Coastal Plain (e.g., Daniel 1996;
Cable et al. 1998:327; Daniel et al. 2008; Tippett 1992). Nonetheless, non -local materials
continued to play some role in Coastal Plain toolkits to varying degrees throughout the prehistoric
period.
2.4 SOILS
The soils in the survey area are largely marine terrace and/or Carolina bays formations (Figure
2.4-1; Table 2.4-1) (McCachren 1978).
October 2018 8 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
Phase I Archaeological Survev Re
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
— DO NOT RELEASE
rO
I �. 31R859LaB
3 RB591
n FEt91
)GoA GO
NOA
3l R 620
WaB M,
Lae Loa I
3 RB59
Woe: POB I
1
Ik
i
31Rf3593 �.�
37 85
jWaB
WaB
` 7
1RB1• ] .}
PAC
Pue
POB
d
YMBOL NAME ACRES PERCENT
GoA Galdsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain 7.1 1.00%
T Johnston soils 30.3 4.40%
LaB Lakeland sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 17.3 2.50%
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 11.3 1.60%
Mc McColl loam 221.3 32.20%
NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 222 32.30%
NGB Norfolk loamy Sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes 9.3 1-30%
POB Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 67.7 9.90%
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 11.4 1-70%
aB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 89.3 13.00%
of a I s 686.9 100.00%
Project Boundary N *. s . o.. -era.+ s.e.envmnnlenrarrr:e. c:.•sovscn:�
Exclusion Zane
USDA Soil Classifications
7-11 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within Project Boundary
Newly Recorded Archaeological Siler in Project Area
—Waterbodies Robeson LNG
filches Robeson County,
WellandsNorth Carolina �J
0 621) 1.241) t aro 2.480 SRM
$oil Types Feet 1;19,755
aalmacIMDo mmblC—k—LNG 4-18111m—1 FNv %Rffu Fig, 70.7 CIGarN... F92-4-1 Shca Map 10-19—d I REVISED: 10777 a078 I SCALE: 1-19.758 nRAYN'16Y: Gf5
Figure 2.4-1. USDA soil classifications within the Project area.
October 2018 9 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Cooperative Soil Survey,
approximately one third (33.9 percent; 232.7 acres) of the Project area is considered to be part of
a Carolina bay formation. These lowly -lying and poorly drained areas are largely formed of clayey
marine deposits of the McColl loam association. McColl soils are moderately deep (approximately
190-200 cm [75-80 inches]) over bedrock; however, the overlying fragipan may be found as
shallow as 30 cm (12 inches). Twelve of these McColl loam depressions are mapped across the
site. An additional Carolina bay located in the northern tip of the Project area is also classified as
October 2018 10 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 2.4-1.
Soil Classifications and Descriptions within the Project Area
Drainage
Archaeological
Map Unit Name
Acres %
Landform
Parent Material
Class
Site Probability
GoA
Goldsboro loamy
7.10 1.00
Flats on marine terraces,
Loamy marine
Moderately
High (level, dry)
sand, 0 to 2
broad interstream divides
deposits
well drained
percent slopes,
on marine terraces
Southern Coastal
Plain
JT
Johnston soils
30.30 4.40
Flood plains
Sandy and
Very poorly
Low (wet)
loamy alluvium
drained
LaB
Lakeland sand, 0
17.30 2.50
Ridges on marine
Sandy marine
Excessively
High (level, dry)
to 6 percent
terraces
deposits and/or
drained
slopes
eolian sands
Ly
Lynchburg sandy
11.30 1.60
Flats on marine terraces,
Loamy marine
Somewhat
Low (wet)
loam, 0 to 2
broad interstream divides
deposits
poorly
percent slopes
on marine terraces
drained
Mc
McColl loam
221.30 32.20
Carolina bays
Clayey marine
Poorly
Low (wet)
deposits
drained
NoA
Norfolk loamy
222.00 32.30
Flats on marine terraces,
Loamy marine
Well drained
High (level, dry)
sand, 0 to 2
broad interstream divides
deposits
percent slopes
on marine terraces
NoB
Norfolk loamy
9.30 1.30
Flats on marine terraces,
Loamy marine
Well drained
High (level, dry)
sand, 2 to 6
broad interstream divides
deposits
percent slopes
on marine terraces
PoB
Pocalla loamy
67.70 9.90
Ridges on marine
Loamy and
Well drained
High (level, dry)
sand, 0 to 3
terraces, flats on marine
sandy marine
percent slopes
terraces
deposits
Ra
Rains sandy
11.40 1.70
Carolina bays on marine
Loamy marine
Poorly
Low (wet)
loam, 0 to 2
terraces, flats on marine
deposits
drained
percent slopes
terraces, broad
interstream divides on
marine terraces
WaB
Wagram loamy
89.30 13.00
Ridges on marine
Loamy marine
Well drained
High (level, dry)
sand, 0 to 6
terraces, broad
deposits
percent slopes
interstream divides on
marine terraces
TOTAL
687.0 100.0
Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Cooperative Soil Survey,
approximately one third (33.9 percent; 232.7 acres) of the Project area is considered to be part of
a Carolina bay formation. These lowly -lying and poorly drained areas are largely formed of clayey
marine deposits of the McColl loam association. McColl soils are moderately deep (approximately
190-200 cm [75-80 inches]) over bedrock; however, the overlying fragipan may be found as
shallow as 30 cm (12 inches). Twelve of these McColl loam depressions are mapped across the
site. An additional Carolina bay located in the northern tip of the Project area is also classified as
October 2018 10 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Rains soils are similar to McColl soils, but loamier and
without the fragic soil strata.
Although these poorly drained wetlands are generally not amendable to human habitation,
adjacent well -drained areas with immediate access to wetland resources were often heavily
utilized as base camps for resource extraction in the prehistoric era. Well -drained ridges adjacent
to Carolina bays account for approximately one-quarter (25.4 percent; 174.3 acres) of the Project
area. The ridges are typically formed of sandy (Lakeland sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes) or loamy
(Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes or Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes) marine
deposits formed on the southeastern edge of the bay formation. However, the loamier formations
can also be found surrounding the Gum Swamp floodplain along the southwestern end of the
Project area and surrounding significant portions of the adjacent bays.
The other primary soil type across the Project area is Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes,
which accounts for approximately one third (33.6 percent; 231.3 acres) of the Project area. Norfolk
loams, comprising marine terrace flats and broad interstream divides account for the majority of
the Project area, stretching between the various Carolina bay formations. These soils are very
deep (approximately 200-255 cm [80 to 100 inches]) and comprised of nearly level loamy upland
sediments derived from marine deposits. Within the Project area, soils in this complex are all less
than 6 percent in slope and found on smooth plains (NoA) and side slopes (NoB) of the ridges.
Two comparable, but sandier, formations—Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
Southern Coastal Plain and Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes—account for an
additional 18.4 acres (2.6 percent) of the Project area and are located between the more closely
spaced bays.
The remaining area of the Project tract (30.3 acres; 4.4 percent) is composed of Johnston soils
associated with the floodplain of Gum Swamp along the western perimeter of the Project.
Johnston soils are composed of sandy or loamy alluvium. These soils are very deep, typically
over 2 m (80+ inches) above bedrock; however, the entire solum is comprised of muck averaging
approximately 75 cm (30 inches). These soils are all nearly level (less than 2 percent slopes) and
very poorly drained. Notably, the entire unsurveyed exclusion zone within the Project area is
composed of Johnston soils.
2.5 CLIMATE
The most important single influence contributing to the variability of North Carolina's climate is
altitude. The low elevations within the Coastal Plain ensure moderate winter temperatures, but
warmer summers than in the Piedmont and Mountains; interior portions of the Coastal Plain see
higher summer temperatures than locations on the coast where the ocean has a cooling effect on
air currents. In the summer when the air is dry enough to keep cloudiness at a minimum for several
consecutive days, temperatures may occasionally reach 100° F or higher elevations in the interior.
Ordinarily, however, summer cloudiness develops to limit the sun's heating, keeping high
temperatures in the 90 -degree range. In the winter, eastern North Carolina receives some
protection from its western mountain ranges that block cold air coming from the central States.
Such weather systems are often forced southward all the way to the Gulf of Mexico if they lack
the strength and depth to traverse the heights of the Appalachian Range. Minor snowfalls typically
occur once or twice a year in the Coastal Plain. Precipitation is evenly distributed through the
year, but is slightly higher in the summer when thunderstorms are common. Hurricanes often
influence the state's weather. While these large tropical storms can cause extreme, localized
October 2018 11 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
conditions involving wind, storm surge, and rainfall, they only cause major damage within the
state one in every 10 years on average (State Climate Office of North Carolina n.d.).
The Atlantic Ocean and its warm Gulf Stream current have a major effect on precipitation patterns
in the region. Winter storms generally track from west to east; but when they approach the east
coast, they move northeastward, paralleling the coastline and the Gulf Stream. This shift in storm
track results in part from the tendency of storms to follow the boundary between the cold land and
the warm Gulf Stream waters. Hugging the coast, these storms grow rapidly, carrying moisture -
laden air as they move northeastward (Hayden and Michaels 2000; Woodward and Hoffman
1991). The Gulf Stream also has a direct effect on North Carolina temperatures, especially in
locations close to the coast. Although the Gulf Stream lies some 50 miles offshore, warm water
eddies spin off from it and moderate winter air temperatures along the Outer Banks. Coastal fronts
are common during the winter months, and they can push inland, bringing unusually warm
temperatures to coastal areas. However, the southern reaches of the cold Labrador Current pass
between the Gulf Stream and the North Carolina coast, offsetting most of the general warming
effect the Gulf Stream might otherwise provide to coastal areas. The meeting of the two opposing
currents often generates rough weather in the vicinity of the Outer Banks. Strong low-pressure
systems originating there can develop into major storms, capable of producing significant rainfall
along the North Carolina coast and over states to the north (State Climate Office of North Carolina
n.d.).
2.6 PALEOENVIRONMENT
A number of important environmental changes, beginning in the Pleistocene, yielded the modern
landscape of the Coastal Plain. For example, the Sand Hills were formed in the Pleistocene as
dunes from Piedmont and Blue Ridge sediments washed into the Coastal Plain. A sea level
highstand followed by a rapid retreat created the Fall Line escarpment through what is now
Scotland, Hoke, and Cumberland counties and the city of Fayetteville. Around 1.7 million years
ago, a sequence of glacial episodes began in which massive continental glaciers formed, causing
sea level to fall and exposing the Coastal Plain. Several periods of glaciation and melting followed,
with corresponding falls and rises in sea level, evidenced in a series of escarpments representing
former shorelines that can now be seen at various points on the Coastal Plain (Beyer 1991).
Because human occupation of the North American continent began near the end of the
Pleistocene, and because human/environmental interaction has been shown to be critical to an
overall understanding of cultural adaptations, it is necessary to consider changes that occurred in
climatic and ecological conditions during this time. The occupation of the New World is known to
have occurred from the latter part of the Pleistocene (glacial) epoch into the Holocene (recent)
epoch, spanning at least 12,000 years. The transition between these epochs itself is particularly
important, because it is at this temporal threshold that some of the most dramatic changes in
environmental and ecological conditions occurred. These changes played a key role influencing
culture change among Paleoindian populations and eliciting the technological and socioeconomic
responses that came to characterize the Archaic period.
Late Pleistocene climatic conditions created a different biotic environment in North Carolina than
that known in the historic period. Boreal forests and woodlands dominated by spruce and jack
pine covered much of the state, including the Coastal Plain, slowly transitioning to a mixed conifer -
northern hardwoods vegetation over the next several millennia as the glacial ice retreated
northward. Mesic hardwood forests of beech, hickory, oak, birch, sugar maple, black walnut,
hazelnut and elm became established towards the end of the Pleistocene, with modern forest
October 2018 12 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
communities in place around 9,000 B.P. (Beyer 1991; Boyd 2003; Christensen 2000; Delcourt and
Delcourt 1981, 1983, 1993; Watts 1980; Wesler et al. 1981; Whitehead 1973; Wright 1981). It is
probable that overall regional plant and animal communities were more complex and
"disharmonious" during the Pleistocene than at present and were less homogeneous than the
modern eastern woodlands, with a combination of modern and currently extinct species in patchy
microenvironments (Graham and Lundelius 1984; Kelly and Todd 1988:232). The individual
character of local floral communities would have depended on drainage, soils, and elevation,
among other factors. The climate was probably characterized by significantly less seasonal
variation in temperatures, relatively cool summers and mild winters, and overall cooler and drier
conditions than are evident in the region today. The cooler conditions resulted in decreased
evaporation and, in areas where drainage was restricted by topography, could have resulted in
the development of wetlands in settings where they are currently not found (Delcourt and Delcourt
1981, 1993; Whitehead 1973; Wright 1981).
At 12,000 B.P., North Carolina's coastline was 15-60 miles offshore from its present location.
During the Late Pleistocene, the coast was characterized by cliff -banked beaches, poorly
developed salt marshes and mud flats, and estuaries that were shorter but broader than in later
times. Inland valleys were broad and featured spruce parkland vegetation, whereas interior
uplands in the Coastal Plain contained more pine. As the glaciers melted and sea levels rose, the
shoreline moved towards its modern position. The rate of sea level rise decreased substantially
at around 5,000 B.P., and by 3,500 B.P., the shoreline approached its current location, although
sea level has risen a small amount gradually since then. With sea level rise, the lower courses of
Coastal Plain river valleys were drowned, creating estuaries within the tidewater zone. A complex
series of relict river channels has been identified offshore in North Carolina, providing evidence
of North Carolina's Pleistocene geography, which included an expanded Coastal Plain (Barber
1979:117-142; Boss et al. 2002; Browder and McNinch 2006; Christensen 2000:399; Clark and
Miller 1912:27).
The ecological changes of the Pleistocene -Holocene transition also contributed to the extinction
of numerous species, including many species of megafauna. Meltzer and Mead (1983) suggest
that by 10,000 B.P., as many as 35 different genera of mammals may have already vanished from
North America. Other environmental changes also were affecting animal populations. For
example, with sea level rise, there was an increase in the number of poorly drained, swampy
environments, which were attractive to game animals such as white-tailed deer. The modern
faunal and floral communities of the region were becoming established as early as 12,500 B.P.
(Christensen 2000:399; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985; Dent 1995:131; Wright 1981). Once sea
level stabilized, anadromous fish arrived in the inner Coastal Plain in considerable numbers
around 3800 B.P. The rise in sea level eventually pushed the salinity cline further upstream, forcing
freshwater spawning fish to travel farther upstream to spawn, and fostering extensive seasonal
fish runs (Gardner 1982). Estuaries expanded, and oyster beds became established in the region
around 3200 B.P. Crabs and other species of shellfish also became more abundant around the
region during the Late Archaic cultural period (ca. 5000-3000 B.P.) as the shoreline stabilized
(Blanton et al. 2004:70; Gardner 1976, 1982; Potter 1982).
A climatic event known as the Sub -Atlantic episode (beginning ca. 3000-2500 B.P.) roughly
coincided with the inception of the Early Woodland cultural period, bringing relatively stable and
moister conditions that have persisted into modern times. From this point, vegetational
communities known from the earliest historic period became established across North Carolina
(Elias and Mock 2013; Webb and Bryson 1972).
October 2018 13 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
2.7 CONTEMPORARY FLORA AND FAUNA
One prism through which to view the ecology of the Project region is provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency's ecoregion model, which takes into account aspects of
geology, soils, topography, climate, and biotic communities to characterize the varied
environmental geography of the United States in terms of regions defined to different scales of
local specificity. The Project falls within Atlantic Southern Loam Plains (651) Level IV ecoregion
(651) of the Southeastern Plains (65) Level III ecoregion, which lies between the Middle Atlantic
Coastal Plain (63) (east) and the Piedmont (45) (west) (Griffith et al. 2002a, 2002b). The boundary
on the west occurs in the transitional Fall Zone to the Piedmont. Relief, elevation, dissection, and
stream gradients are generally greater in the Southeastern Plains than in the flatwoods and
swamps of the outer Coastal Plain to the east, and soils tend to be better drained. The Atlantic
Southern Loam Plains has a slightly warmer and longer growing season than the Rolling Coastal
Plain (65m) ecoregion to the south, and it is a productive agricultural region and appears to be
biologically more diverse than the Rolling Coastal Plain (Griffith et al. 2002b). Crops include
soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, tobacco, and hay. Land uses also include pastureland, orchards,
and pine plantation as well as mixed forests, forested wetlands, and urban landscapes.
The Atlantic Southern Loam Plains ecoregion stretches from the Cape Fear River in North
Carolina south to Georgia. This ecoregion is relatively low, flat, and gently rolling, with fine -
textured soils. It is a major agricultural zone with deep, well -drained soils. The sediments in this
region are younger than those of the Sand Hills to the west and older and more dissected than
those on the flatter terraces of the Carolina Flatwoods to the east. The flora are varied due to the
variety of soil conditions. The region has a high concentration of Carolina bays—shallow, elliptical
depressions, often swampy or wet in the middle with dry sandy rims. As a rare natural community,
Carolina bays not drained for agriculture often contain threatened or endangered plant and animal
species (Griffith et al. 2002b). Natural vegetation includes Mesic pine flatwoods (longleaf pine,
loblolly pine, oaks, hickories, wiregrass); pine/scrub oak sandhill (longleaf pine, turkey oak,
blackjack oak, bluejack oak, wiregrass); oak -hickory forest (southern red oak, post oak, hickories,
pines); and some mesic mixed hardwood forest (beech, tulip poplar, maple, white oak, red oak,
sweetgum).
There are many levels of analysis when characterizing the biotic communities of an area. At a
gross level, the Coastal Plain has been assigned to the Oak -Hickory -Pine region (e.g., Braun
1950). However, a number of different plant communities—prior to modern land use changes—
once occupied the various microenvironments in the region associated with unique combinations
of soil, slope, moisture, hydrology, and temperature regimes. The potential natural vegetation of
such microenvironments can be classified and described at a more refined scale than provided
by the EPA's Level IV ecoregions, as has been done by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (Shafale and Weakley 1990; Shafale 2012). In general the Project area is one where
historically one could find mesic pine flatwoods dominated by longleaf pine (Shafale and Weakley
1990:126-157). Fire -maintained forests and woodlands dominated by longleaf pine were likely
prevalent through much of the interior Coastal Plain uplands prior to European settlement, but
they have mostly been harvested and replaced by agricultural land, secondary forests, loblolly
pine plantations, or land in various stages of succession (Christensen 2000:410-412; Creighton
et al. 2014; Frost 1995; Wells 1928).
A discussion of the specific faunas associated with North Carolina's interior Coastal Plain
ecosystems is beyond the scope of this report. In general, the region once was teeming with land
mammals, including white-tailed deer, opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, river otter, beaver,
October 2018 14 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
eastern cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit, muskrat, eastern gray squirrel, southern flying squirrel,
marsh rice rat, meadow vole, little brown bat, big brown bat, red fox, black bear, and bobcat. Land
use changes—particularly related to agricultural conversion, monoculture forestry, and urban and
suburban development—have resulted in extensive habitat loss, and many of these species are
seldom seen today. North Carolina's Coastal Plain also is home to a wide array of avian species—
some year-round and some migratory visitors, including waterfowl, wading birds, raptors, song
birds, and important game species like the wild turkey. A number of turtles, snakes, frogs, and
salamanders are found in various settings across the Coastal Plain. A wide range of fish species
once were common, as were mollusks (Beane and Braswell 2011; Beane et al. 2010; Dorcas
2004; Dorcas et al. 2007; North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation n.d.a, n.d.b; North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission n.d.a, n.d.b, n.d.c, n.d.d, n.d.e; Palmer and Braswell
1995). In the case of anadromous fish, which travel inland to spawn, the northern Coastal Plain
north of the Neuse River supported those species more so than rivers to the south, as the
embayed area to the north provided extensive coastal estuary habitats that facilitated the
transition of large runs of fish between salt and fresh water (Gunn 2002).
October 2018 15 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
3.0 CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
3.1 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT
The prehistory of North Carolina begins sometime before 11,000 B.P. and traditionally ends at
A.D. 1600 (350 B.P.), around the time of first permanent European settlement. A summary of the
archaeological sequence in the southern Coastal Plain is presented in Table 3.1-1. The Coastal
Plain within North Carolina is divided by archaeologists at the Neuse River, reflecting different
cultural developments in which people of the northern part of the state displayed affinities to those
in Tidewater Virginia, and those to the south displayed affinities with the northern Coastal Plain
of South Carolina (Gunn 2002; Herbert and Mathis 1996; Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis
1999:194-195). The division corresponds to the divergent environments of the embayed sections
of the Coastal Plain to the north versus the unembayed sections to the south (Gunn 2002). This
chapter summarizes the technological, economic, social, and political changes that occurred
during that time span.
* After Ward and Davis (1999:24-25) and Daniel and Moore (2011:3-18)
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P.)
The Paleoindian period marks the beginning of human occupation in the New World. Exactly when
the first human populations permanently settled the western hemisphere is uncertain; most
October 2018 16 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 3.1-1.
Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for the Project Region*
Time Period
Archaeological Sequence
Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1600)
Hanover II
Hanoverl
Middle Woodland (500 B.C.—A.D. 800)
Cape Fear
New River
New River
Early Woodland (1000-500 B.C.)
Hamp's Landing
Thom's Creek
Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.)
Stallings Island
Savannah River -Thelma
Guilford -Halifax
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 B.C.)
Stanly- Morrow Mountain
Kirk Stemmed
St. Albans
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C.)
Palmer- Kirk Corner -notched
Hardaway Side -notched
Hardaway -Dalton
Paleoindian (10,000-8000 B.C.)
Cumberland -Suwannee -Redstone -Simpson
Clovis
* After Ward and Davis (1999:24-25) and Daniel and Moore (2011:3-18)
3.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P.)
The Paleoindian period marks the beginning of human occupation in the New World. Exactly when
the first human populations permanently settled the western hemisphere is uncertain; most
October 2018 16 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
Americanist archaeologists believe it was sometime between 20,000 and 14,000 years ago,
during the last stages of the Pleistocene glaciation. The earliest securely dated Paleoindian site
is in Monte Verde, Chile, where dates as early as ca. 13,800 B.P. have been obtained, predating
Clovis sites in North America that were long believed to be the earliest occupations on the
continent (Dillehay 1989). However, investigations at the Cactus Hill site in Sussex County,
Virginia, and the Topper site near Allendale, South Carolina, suggest that humans also may have
been in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States prior to the advent of Clovis culture—
around 18,000 years ago in the case of Cactus Hill (Goodyear 1999; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Although some archaeologists continue to view Clovis as the earliest confirmed cultural tradition
in the United States, recent work at those sites and others have led some to call for a prehistoric
cultural chronology that includes a pre -Clovis classification (e.g., Goodyear 1999).
The Paleoindian lithic tool kit was based on a highly refined flake and blade technology. Examples
of Paleoindian lithic tool types include unspecialized flake tools, formal side and end scrapers,
gravers, denticulates, specialized hafted unifacial knives, large bifacial knives, and specialized
lanceolate projectile points, which were sometimes "fluted." The best known of these is the Clovis
point, the earliest recognized projectile point type in the western hemisphere (dating 11,800-
11,000 B.P.). Clovis variants have been found from Canada to the southern tip of South America.
Formal variation in projectile point morphology began to emerge in regions of the Southeast by
about 11,000 B.P., probably due to restricted movement within regions and the formation of loosely
defined social networks tied to habitual use areas (Anderson 1995; Anderson et al. 1992). These
new regionalized projectile point forms include the Redstone, with a more tapered distal end
creating a triangular shape, Cumberland, Suwannee, and Simpson types—all of which are
narrowed at the base, as well as the Dalton and Hardaway types from the Late Paleoindian period
with fluting reduced to thinning and grinding. Among the middle Paleoindian point types, Redstone
appears to be the most common in the Coastal Plain (Anderson et al. 1990; Daniel and Moore
2011:3-17; Justice 1987:17-43; McAvoy 1979, 1992:38).
A significant wood, bone, and antler technology was likely present as well. These organic items
do not preserve well and are rarely found in archaeological contexts. However, at submerged
sites where they have been preserved, primarily in Florida, it is clear that organic media were very
important. These materials were manufactured into projectile points, foreshafts, leisters, awls,
and needles, to name just a few tool categories (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980: Figures 3, 5, and
6).
Original views of the Paleoindian subsistence economy were based on observations from a series
of sites in the western United States where Paleoindian artifacts, particularly large, lanceolate,
fluted points, were recovered in direct association with the remains of several species of now
extinct Pleistocene megafauna. Initial interpretations of Paleoindian subsistence suggested that
these early inhabitants focused primarily on hunting large mammals such as mammoth,
mastodon, bison, ground sloth, and other game. Paleoindian artifacts have been found in direct
association with Pleistocene fauna at a number of sites in the Southeast, such as the Coats -Hines
site in Tennessee, where mastodon remains were found in association with Paleoindian artifacts
(Breitburg et al. 1996; Deter -Wolf et al. 2011), and the Alexon site in Florida, where a Bison
antiquus skull was discovered with a projectile point embedded in the forehead (Webb et al. 1984).
A large number of worked mammoth and mastodon bones also have been recovered from
underwater contexts in Florida sinkholes (Dunbar and Webb 1996). However, for Paleoindian
groups in the East, large game animals probably were exploited as part of a broad-based
subsistence economy. At the Kimmswick rockshelter site in eastern Missouri, where faunal
remains were well preserved, Clovis points and lithic debitage were documented in direct
October 2018 17 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
association with mastodon, as well as a variety of other species, including white-tailed deer,
various small mammals, amphibians, and turtles (Graham et al. 1981). Likewise, Paleoindian
contexts at sites like Meadowcroft Rockshelter in western Pennsylvania, Big Eddy in southwest
Missouri, and Dust Cave in northwest Alabama have yielded archaeobotanical remains including
a variety of leafy plants, seeds, nuts, and berries exploited as part of a broad spectrum hunting
and gathering adaptation (Cushman 1982; Lopinot et al. 2000; Walker et al. 2001). The stratified
Shawnee Minisink site in the Upper Delaware River Valley of eastern Pennsylvania had hearths
associated with the Paleoindian component radiocarbon dated to 10,590±300 and 10,750±600
B.P. (McNett 1985:6). The Paleoindian component also yielded more than 76 seeds from at least
10 different plant species as well as fish bones (Dent and Kauffman 1985:67, 73). There is now
little doubt that Paleoindians utilized a diverse array of faunal and floral resources.
Several models of early Paleoindian settlement patterning have been proposed (see Anderson et
al. 1992 for an overview). Some are concerned with Paleoindians in general (Anderson 1990;
Kelly and Todd 1988; Martin 1973), and others with regional trends (Anderson 1995; Gardner
1983; Morse and Morse 1983). Most are mechanistic models that portray specific economic
strategies as primary reasons for how Paleoindians settled upon and utilized the landscape. Each
is slightly different in its focus, with primacy placed on one of three major influences: (1) the need
to maintain access to prominent, high-quality raw material sources (e.g., Gardner 1983); (2) a
preference for exploiting specific habitual use zones and staging areas (e.g., Anderson 1995); or
(3) a nomadic or seminomadic existence dictated to a large degree by the movements and
availability of large game (e.g., Kelly and Todd 1988). The models share a number of assumptions
about Paleoindian lifeways. The general consensus among archaeologists is that Paleoindian
bands were composed of four or five extended families and numbered 25-50 individuals.
Marriage was almost certainly exogamous and residence was likely extralocal. Primary social
groups very likely met at predetermined locations with other groups at specific times of the year
to cooperate in large-scale food acquisition (nut harvesting, fishing, shellfish gathering, etc.)
and/or lithic resource extraction, as well as to exchange information, renew or create alliances,
fulfill social obligations, find mates, and perform rituals. Some large Paleoindian sites in New
England and Nova Scotia have been interpreted as aggregation sites and/or locations repeatedly
visited based on the presence of several concentrated artifact loci. Bull Brook in Massachusetts
is perhaps the best known of such sites. It consisted of a circular pattern of 36 loci that may have
derived from multiple groups gathering at the site seasonally (Byers 1954; Robinson et al. 2009).
For most of the year, however, primary Paleoindian bands appear to have dispersed into loosely
defined habitual use areas. They probably exploited a wide variety of economic resources, moving
often to take advantage of seasonal resources. It is also possible that they periodically established
logistical base camps and used them as staging areas for special activity forays. Based on sites
like Thunderbird and Fifty in the Flint Run Complex of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, which were
situated in an area where good lithic raw material was available, Gardner (1977) advanced the
"Flint Run Lithic Deterministic" model of Paleoindian settlement, where the movements of small
groups of Native Americans across the landscape were made to take advantage of important lithic
sources (Anderson and Sassaman 1996). The Flint Run Complex included quarries, reduction
sites, base camps, and maintenance camps.
In North Carolina, evidence for Paleoindian occupation primarily comes from isolated surface
finds (Daniel and Moore 2011:3-1; Perkinson 1971, 1973, Ward and Davis 1999:29). This pattern
is borne out in the Project region, where only one fluted point has been found in Robeson County.
At one point in the recent past, only 60 fluted points had been reported for the entire Coastal Plain
in North Carolina (Daniel and Moore 2011:3-2). Concentrations of projectile points suggest a more
October 2018 18 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
intensive occupation of the northern Piedmont in North Carolina than other parts of the state
(Ward and Davis 1999:31). By way of comparison, North Carolina's Coastal Plain region has
yielded 9.77 points per 10,000 km2 compared with 28.88 points per 10,000 km2 for the Piedmont
(Daniel and Moore 2011:3-3).
Even a site like Pasquotank, located in the vicinity of the Great Dismal Swamp, which has yielded
a relatively dense Paleoindian assemblage, consists of a surface scatter intermingled with
materials from later components (Daniel et al. 2007). The Pasquotank site has provided valuable
information about Paleoindian population movements with respect to lithic raw material sources.
Specifically, Paleoinidian artifacts documented the use of a fine-grained rhyolitic tuff, whose
nearest source was either the Eastern Slate Belt approximately 90 miles to the west or more likely
the Carolina Slate Belt at least 125 miles away, and chert likely from the Williamson site in Virginia,
some 90 miles to the northwest (Daniel and Moore 2011:3-4; Daniel et al. 2007:74-76). Despite
the dearth of stratigraphically intact Paleoindian sites in North Carolina, such remains have been
recovered from locations in nearby regions; examples include the Thunderbird, Williamson, Fifty,
and Topper sites (Gardner 1974, 1977; Goodyear and Steffy 2003; McAvoy and McAvoy 2003;
McCary 1975). The Williamson site in Dinwiddie County in southern Virginia displayed evidence
of intensive use, producing over 175 fluted points and over 2,000 side- and end scrapers (McAvoy
1992; McCary 1975). The Thunderbird site near Front Royal in northern Virginia is noteworthy for
the discovery of postmolds defining some type of structure dating to the middle of the Paleoindian
period (Gardner 1983). The Topper site, located on the South Carolina side of the Savannah
River near an Allendale Coastal Plain chert source, exposed an intact Clovis level dated to
13,200±1300 cal B.P. (Goodyear and Steffy 2003; Waters et al. 2009). The integrity of the buried
Clovis component has been documented through spatial analysis and refit studies (Miller 2007).
The large block excavations at the site have produced bifaces, fluted -point preforms, fluted points,
an extensive unifacial tool collection with macroblades, denticulates, and scrapers, and large
quantities of debitage. The in situ assemblage of lithic reduction debris has helped shed light on
Clovis biface manufacturing technology (Smallwood 2010).
One intact site in North Carolina dates to the terminal Paleoindian period. The Hardaway site is
located in the Piedmont in Stanly County, on the Yadkin River (Coe 1964:56). The type site for
the Hardaway point contained a sealed component with numerous examples of the transitional
Hardaway and Hardaway -Dalton points, whose morphology displayed basal thinning in lieu of
earlier fluting. The appearance of side notching in some specimens anticipates the proliferation
of notched forms in the Archaic period (Coe 1964:59-68). The change in lithic technology used
by terminal Paleoindian groups has been interpreted as a response to the changing environment
and resources available at the beginning of the Holocene. The end of the Paleoindian period is
associated with the end of the Wisconsin glacial stage, when new settlement and subsistence
patterns emerged with new regional technologies geared towards coping with the new conditions.
These trends are associated with the subsequent Archaic culture period.
3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 10,000-3000 B.P.)
The transition from Paleoindian to Archaic in North Carolina is estimated to have taken place
around 10,000 B.P. This was a time of rapid changes in environmental conditions that were
nearing completion by 8000 B.P. The environmental changes coincided with the extinction of
Pleistocene megafauna. With sea level rise, there was an increase in the number of poorly
drained, swampy environments, which were attractive to game animals such as white-tailed deer,
and thus to human hunters as well (Christensen 2000:399; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985; Ward
and Davis 1999:2; Wright 1981). Changes were made to utilitarian technology in response to the
October 2018 19 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
new environmental conditions. New forms of material culture, a landscape filling with larger
numbers of people more tied to local geographies, and new and diverse forms of social
organization distinguish the Archaic experience in North Carolina's Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983).
A tripartite scheme dividing the Archaic period into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods is
traditionally used to demarcate some of the important developments of this time. It should be
emphasized, however, that these subdivisions are heuristic devices; changes were gradual and
non-uniform from one area to the next.
The only known stratified site with Archaic deposits in North Carolina's Coastal Plain is the Barber
Creek site on the Tar River in Pitt County (Daniel 2002). Deposition of aeolian and some fluvial
sediments throughout Holocene sealed stratified deposits associated with an Early Archaic, a
Middle/Late Archaic, and a Woodland occupation. Artifacts from the site represent much of the
prehistoric sequence. From the Archaic components, Kirk corner notched and St. Albans side
notched points date to the Early Archaic, Kirk stemmed and Morrow Mountain points date to the
Middle Archaic, and Small Savannah River and Thelma points date to the Late Archaic. From the
Woodland components, a heavily reworked unidentified stemmed point and a small eared
triangular point were recovered, along with a large number of Deep Creek and Hanover ceramic
sherds dating to the Early and Middle Woodland and unidentified specimens with possible shell
temper that would represent a Late Woodland presence (Daniel 2002; Daniel and Moore 2011:3-
6-3-11; Daniel et al. 2008). Sites like Barber Creek with datable deposits hold out the potential
for refining what is known about Archaic period chronology and potential diversity in local
developments. As it stands, knowledge about the Archaic period in North Carolina's Coastal Plain
leans heavily on inferences derived from neighboring regions.
Early Archaic (ca. 10,000-8000 B.P.). The Early Archaic period is marked by the end of
Pleistocene climatic conditions and follows the extinction of numerous large animals. Regional
population densities on the Atlantic Slope were concentrated along major river systems like the
Neuse and Roanoke rivers (Sassaman and Anderson 1994:171-175); the greatest
concentrations were generally at or near the Fall Line, rather than on the Coastal Plain. Very few
Early Archaic sites have been recorded in the Coastal Plain, which may be a result of the
inundation of coastal and riverine sites during the onset of the Holocene period (Phelps 1983). In
the interior Coastal Plain, however, Carolina Bays were a focus of human settlement during the
Early Archaic (Brooks et al. 1996; Eberhard et al. 1994). They appear to have supported base
camps, just as riverine settings did, and are associated with numerous small upland sites
representing logistical forays to hunt or collect certain resources (Cabak et al. 1998:35; Daniel
2001:257).
During the Early Archaic, low regional population densities with a high degree of group mobility
are inferred (Claggett and Cable 1982). Characteristics observed for Early Archaic sites across
the Southeast include a notable increase in site size and frequency and tremendous variation in
site size, content, and function. Ward (1983:65) has interpreted this diversity as evidence of an
ever-increasing adaptive radiation and specialization in a varied post -Pleistocene environment.
The Early Archaic lifeway is represented by social, settlement, and subsistence strategies
designed to take advantage of the biotic diversity of the early Holocene environment, and also to
cope with movement restrictions placed upon some Early Archaic populations because of
increased population. Environmental conditions were approaching those that the first Europeans
encountered in the sixteenth century. Hardwood primary forests and extensive palustrine swamps
provided large and small game as well as a variety of plants for medicine, subsistence, clothing,
and shelter. Rivers were used as travel corridors and provided fresh water, fish, and shellfish. The
October 2018 20 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
only areas of low productivity would have been the pine stands that began to emerge in the
uplands by about 6000 B.P. (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985). At sites like Shawnee Minisink in
Pennsylvania, comparing the Paleoindian component with the subsequent Archaic occupation
reveals continuity in human adaptations, with gradual intensification of local resource use and
broadening of diet breadth over time (McNett 1985). Few Archaic -period plant remains are
preserved in the sandy, acidic soils of North Carolina's Coastal Plain; but at the Barber Creek
site, hickory nutshell in the Early Archaic (Kirk) component was radiocarbon dated 8940±70 B.P.
(Daniel 2002:10).
Adaptations to the new Holocene environmental conditions include a toolkit with new projectile
point forms as well as a variety of other tools. Given the dearth of sealed, datable Archaic contexts
in the Coastal Plain, the Early Archaic chronology presented here draws on the Piedmont
sequence defined by Coe (1964). Diagnostic artifacts of the first phase of the Early Archaic period
(ca. 10,000-9000 B.P.) include Palmer, Kirk corner notched and later stemmed points, and hafted
endscrapers (Coe 1964). Another Early Archaic period point form in the region that dates to the
early part of the period is Big Sandy side notched (Tuck 1974:75). Kirk phase settlement is
characterized by numerous small sites in all environmental zones and suggests an extremely
mobile population and a broad spectrum adaptive strategy (Purrington 1983:113). The later Early
Archaic tradition (ca. 9000-8000 B.P.) includes bifurcate forms such as LeCroy, St. Albans, and
Kanawha types (Claggett and Cable 1982; Oliver 1985). Some researchers (e.g., Chapman 1985;
Egloff and McAvoy 1990) see bifurcate projectile points like St. Albans and Kanawha as roughly
contemporaneous with Kirk Stemmed points in the latter portion of the Early Archaic. Ground
cobbles and manos have been found in Early Archaic contexts (Claggett and Cable 1982:37),
suggesting processing of plant foods with material culture that would be more difficult to transport
than a biface. Such finds in Early Archaic contexts remain rare (Daniel 1996), but hint at a more
settled lifestyle. Despite the proliferation of discrete projectile point forms, compared with the small
number of widely shared forms in the Paleoindian period, Early Archaic projectile point types such
as the Palmer -Kirk series and bifurcate styles were widely distributed across large geographies
in the Southeast and Mid -Atlantic. This suggests that territories were relatively large and/or that
the exchange of information, ideas, and material culture took place frequently and over great
distances.
Although continuity is observed in lifeways from the Paleoindian period, the Early Archaic is
characterized by an increase in the number and diversity of archaeological sites (Anderson and
Sassaman 1996; Custer 1990). As population apparently increased dramatically, the social
landscape became more complex. Several models of Early Archaic social organization have been
proposed for the Southeast (Anderson et al. 1992: Part ll; Anderson and Hanson 1988). One
model hypothesizes that Early Archaic societies in eastern sections of the Mid -Atlantic and
Southeast were organized into band -sized communities (population 25-50) whose main territory
surrounded a segment of a major river (Anderson and Hanson 1988). These bands are postulated
to have been organized into larger "macrobands" that gathered on special occasions for
community food harvesting, rituals, and the exchange of mates and information. These activities
probably took place at or near the heads of rivers or at the mouth of the rivers on the coast. The
similarity in certain tool forms throughout and across drainages—projectile points, for example—
and the apparent movement of raw materials over long distances are cited to support this
argument.
Daniel (1996, 1998, 2001) counters that lithic source areas—not river basins—were key elements
determining the seasonal movements of Early Archaic populations. For example, rhyolites from
the Uwharrie Mountains of North Carolina's southern Piedmont are found among Early Archaic
October 2018 21 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
assemblages across the Piedmont and interior Coastal Plain, spanning drainage divides, and
suggesting large group territories involved in seasonal movements that were not restricted to
individual river valleys (Daniel 2001:240-248). The Hardaway site played an important role in
Early Archaic lithic procurement, serving as a quarry -related base camp along the Yadkin River,
occupied by people exploiting the Uwharrie Mountain quarries (Daniel 1998, 2001:249). Daniel
(2001:252-253) argues that a single Early Archaic social group occupied the central portion of
North Carolina and northern South Carolina, and that they interacted with another social group in
southern South Carolina and the northern portion of Georgia's Coastal Plain, exchanging rhyolite
from the Uwharrie Mountains and Allendale chert from sources along the Savannah River. Daniel
argues that these groups moved between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain in response to
seasonal availability of key resources under early Holocene conditions of greater seasonal climate
extremes. He suggests that base camps were established in the interior Coastal Plain to target
aggregated deer populations in the late fall and winter, while greater mobility and more temporary
camps were employed through the rest of the year (Daniel 2001:254).
The lack of well-preserved remains limits our understanding of social and ritual practices, but the
rare discovery of a cremation burial with a St. Albans bifurcate projectile point at the Slade site on
the Nottoway River in Virginia, provides an early glimpse of mortuary practices in the region (Egloff
and McAvoy 1990:70).
Middle Archaic (ca. 8000-5000 B.P.). The Middle Archaic can be distinguished from the Early
Archaic by the more frequent recovery of groundstone artifacts and a less diverse chipped stone
tool kit. Diagnostic bifaces that were made during this period include Stanly, Morrow Mountain,
Guilford, and Halifax types (Coe 1964; Blanton and Sassaman 1989; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997;
Phelps 1983). The Middle Archaic period is poorly understood in the Coastal Plain. It is assumed
that population density increased during this period, but small hunting and gathering bands
probably still formed the primary social and economic units. Larger sites tend to occur near major
drainages, at least in the Piedmont (Coe 1964); but occupations also appear near upland
watercourses (Gunn and Foss 1992), and numerous small, dispersed upland scatters are also
characteristic of this time period. Utilizing Morrow Mountain point frequencies in South Carolina
as a population indicator, Sassaman and Anderson (1994:176) found that the greatest Middle
Archaic concentration of population was in the Piedmont region, while the Coastal Plain was
virtually abandoned. Other researchers have found that Middle Archaic points, and Morrow
Mountain points in particular, outnumber other Archaic types in the northern and southern parts
of North Carolina's coastal region (Daniel and Davis 1996).
Across the Mid -Atlantic, as the warmer, wetter, and more seasonal climate of the Middle Holocene
interval became established, subsistence practices shifted towards a more diversified and
seasonally targeted strategy that focused on exploitation of white-tailed deer, as well as small
mammals, turkey, waterfowl, fish, shellfish, and nuts, which appear to have become a more
important part of the diet (Custer 1989; Egloff and McAvoy 1990). Middle Archaic occupations
represent significant changes in Early Holocene adaptations, involving exploitation of a wider
range of environments and resources and new additions to tool kits such as drills and groundstone
items. For example, the use of netsinkers and fish hooks indicates the more intensive use of
riverine environments for fishing. Grinding stones and nutting stones reflect greater involvement
in collecting and processing plant foods like seeds and nuts. Celts and adzes indicate the growing
importance of woodworking, and atlatl weights signify new projectile technology. In the case of
Middle Archaic chipped stone tools ---including hafted bifaces--the majority were produced from
locally available stone rather than high-quality cryptocrystalline materials as had been the case in
October 2018 22 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Paleoindian and Early Archaic times, perhaps suggesting increased population circumscription
(Blanton and Robinson 1990; Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Custer 1990; Sassaman 1993;
Stevens 1991).
In terms of social organization, small hunting and gathering bands of 25-50 people probably still
formed the primary social and economic units. Residences were moved frequently, and social
groups likely consisted of small, coresidential units. Long-term investments and social obligations
were probably kept to a minimum, insuring that there were very few restrictions on group
movement or fissioning (Custer 1989; Sassaman 1993).
Late Archaic (ca. 5000-3000 B.P.). The advent of the Late Archaic period is traditionally defined
by the introduction of large, stemmed hafted bifaces that were produced by groups living
throughout the eastern United States. In North Carolina, broad -bladed, square -stemmed
Savannah River points are representative of this period (Coe 1964). Smaller stemmed projectile
points appear later in the Late Archaic in the Coastal Plain with types like Thelma (Daniel and
Moore 2011:3-19). Some suggest that Savannah River points were more like portable cores from
which tools with a variety of functional uses could be manufactured, including spear points
(Sassaman et al. 1990:320). This notion is consistent with the viewpoint that Late Archaic
populations, being less mobile and more circumscribed by surrounding groups, needed to extend
the use lives of stone tools (Parry and Kelly 1987). Other Late Archaic artifacts, most often seen
at sites near the Fall Line and to the west, include sherds from soapstone bowls and grooved
polished stone axes (e.g., Coe 1964:113-114).
In addition to stemmed projectile points, another diagnostic artifact appears during the Late
Archaic on the coast, representing a revolutionary innovation in prehistoric technology. Although
not yet dated in North Carolina, Stallings Island fiber -tempered pottery appeared in South Carolina
at approximately 2500 B.C. and persisted to at least 1100 B.C. (Herbert 2002:295-296, 2011;
Phelps 1983; Sassaman 1993). Some dates from the southern coast of North Carolina suggest
that this region may have been one of the early locations for the adoption of ceramics technology
(Jones et al. 1997; Sanborn and Abbott 1999:15). On the North Carolina coast, any ceramics
displaying voids in the paste from the oxidation of fiber (presumably Spanish moss) are
considered to be fiber -tempered and are classified as Stallings Island. Although a wide variety of
drag -and -jab punctuate decorative patterns characterize classic period Stallings styles in the
Savannah River Valley and along the central South Carolina coast, contemporary fiber -tempered
ceramics in North Carolina are most often plain with smoothed surfaces. Stallings Island is the
earliest occurring pottery north of the Rio Grande, and it is found from the Altamaha River in south
Georgia to the Chowan River in North Carolina. Stallings Island pottery is found as far inland as
the Sandhills (Culpepper et al. 2000; Herbert 1999:43, 2002:295-296, 2011; Ward and Davis
1999:199). Despite this vast geographic range, the frequency of Stallings Island in North Carolina
is relatively low, and the distribution drops off with distance from the core area in the middle
Savannah River valley of South Carolina (Herbert 2009:116, 148-150, 2011:4-1; Phelps
1983:26-28, Figure 1.4).
Late Archaic populations continued the broad spectrum hunting and gathering that had
characterized the previous 5,000 years of Archaic subsistence. In the Midcontinent, the first
archaeological evidence of plant domestication emerges in the Late Archaic with cultigens such
as goosefoot or lambsquarter (Chenopodium spp.), sumpweed or marshelder (Iva annua),
sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and native squash or gourd (Curcurbita pepo) documented for the
period (Fritz 1990; Smith and Yarnell 2009). No comparable evidence has been recovered in the
North Carolina Coastal Plain. Preservation issues limit archaeobotanical recovery at many sites,
October 2018 23 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
so it is unclear when the beginnings of horticulture took place on the Coast. However, the
appearance of pottery suggests a possible shift in subsistence practices, with ceramic vessels
offering a more convenient means of boiling or simmering certain cooking foods.
Coastal groups during the Late Archaic are thought to have been fairly sedentary (DePratter 1979;
Trinkley 1980). There appears to have been an intensified emphasis on riverine resources,
especially anadromous fish (Sassaman et al. 1990; Stevens 1991). Base camps were often
situated on terraces of major rivers in order to exploit the resources found there. These sites also
may have been occupied for longer periods of time than in earlier eras, possibly because the
climate had become more temperate and resource availability more predictable. Late Archaic
populations maintained permanent residences in the littoral zone and made forays into estuarine
and interior settings for specific needs. The permanent settlements on the Coast include shell
rings and amorphous shell mounds thought to represent base camps. Interior sites on the Coastal
Plain likely served short-term specialized functions. These occupations were generally small and
ephemeral; the cultural deposits reflect the specific nature of the occupation, such as a hunting
camp (Phelps 1983; Trinkley 1980). Late Archaic sites in the North Carolina Piedmont are as
abundant in the uplands as in floodplain locations, although upland sites may be more visible
archaeologically due to erosion and plowing. Some evidence suggests that upland sites do not
possess the range of artifact classes present in river floodplain sites, meaning that activities that
occurred in upland locations were a subset of a larger range of activities that occurred in floodplain
locations. Large Late Archaic sites in river floodplains, such as the Doerschuk, and Lowder's Ferry
sites in the Pee Dee River basin, have characteristics of intensive occupations in the form of
occupational middens, high feature density, and circular pit hearths (Coe 1964:119).
After the earliest appearance of Stallings Island pottery around 2500 B.C., Thom's Creek sand -
tempered ware with reed -punctate and plain surface treatments appeared around 2000 B.C. in
South Carolina and spread north to the Neuse River, but not beyond (Anderson et al. 1982: 263-
264; Cable et al. 1998; DePratter 1979; Herbert 1999:43, 2002:296, 2011:4-2; Phelps 1968;
Trinkley 1980; Waring and Holder 1968). The fine sand -tempered or temperless Thom's Creek
wares are thought to have emerged from Stallings Island, as the punctate varieties appear to
represent a continuation of Stallings Island decorative styles. The series displays an innovation
over the slab -built Stallings Island wares: it was coil built and features thin-walled conical -based
vessels that apparently were used as cooking vessels, placed over direct heat. Thom's Creek
persisted up to 1200 B.C. and is restricted to the coastal margin, rarely further north than Onslow
County (Herbert 2002:296, 2009:19, 155-157, 2011:4-2).
3.1.3 Woodland Period (ca. 3000-350 B.P.)
The Woodland period for the Southeast and Mid -Atlantic has traditionally been defined by the
appearance of ceramics in the archaeological record, which has been dated around 1000 B.C. in
most interior areas. The discovery of ceramic production on the coast from Georgia to North
Carolina, beginning with Stallings Island around 2500 B.C., complicated the archaeological picture
and highlighted the differences in prehistoric developments from one region to the next. Joseph
Herbert (e.g., 2009:1-2) places the Early Woodland at 2200 B.C., with the appearance of Stallings
Island ceramics in North Carolina, on the basis of the original conception of the Woodland period
being defined by ceramic technology. Many other researchers consider the innovation of Stallings
Island pottery on the Atlantic Coast to be a unique, early regional development within the Late
Archaic period, defined as a temporal span in which most people across the Southeast had not
yet adopted ceramic technology. Labels are somewhat arbitrary and depend on the degree to
which one privileges chronology, cultural patterns, and regional variability, and one's scale of
October 2018 24 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
analysis. Maintaining relatively consistent temporal periods in neighboring regions facilitates
comparison of contemporary prehistoric lifeways in different locations. For the purposes of this
report, the chronology accepted by scholars across the broader region is retained, and Stallings
Island is viewed as a Late Archaic development rather than a precocious Woodland development
within a cultural landscape in which contemporary interior groups held on to Late Archaic
lifestyles.
Whereas early ceramics were thick-walled and of slab construction, coil building using paddles
and anvils was adopted in the Early Woodland, facilitating the creation of stronger, thin-walled
vessels, fired at higher temperatures and fashioned into a wider range of shapes, including
conoidal pots that became the common vessel form for cooking directly over heat. Whereas the
first generation of ceramics was made with fiber temper (probably Spanish moss), the second
generation was made with quartz sand as temper (Herbert 2009:2).
In the Midcontinent, a dramatic increase in the number of starchy and oily seed domesticates has
been documented for Woodland (post -1050 B.C.) contexts (Cowan et al. 1981; Fritz 1990;
Gremillion 1996; Smith and Yarnell 2009). Increasing dependence on horticulture is then seen
over the course of the Woodland period. Unfortunately, plant remains are seldom preserved in
the acid, sandy soils of eastern North Carolina. Even pit features, post holes, hearths, burials,
and other features often are not recognized because of the poor preservation of organic material;
exceptions include shell midden sites where the calcium salts from the shell raise the pH of the
associated soil matrix (Abbott 1993; Abbott et al. 1999; Cable et al. 1998; Gunn and Wilson 1993;
Herbert 2009:7). Therefore, it is difficult to speculate on when horticulture became a part of the
subsistence regimen, which plants were cultivated when, and how quickly cultigens grew in
importance relative to other resources. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that horticulture was
adopted as part of a mixed economy that continued to prioritize the collection of wild plant and
animal foods, with greater investment in agriculture emerging during the Late Woodland, a time
of dramatic population growth and sociopolitical transformation. One subsistence model proposed
for Woodland cultures in the Wilmington -New River area posits episodic retreats to the coast to
collect shellfish during periods of poor agricultural productivity (Loftfield 1988). Such regional
movement and flexibility in subsistence strategies has been argued as a means for prehistoric
groups in the region to adjust to short-term drought cycles as well as longer-term environmental
changes tied to climate patterns (Gunn 2002).
As is the case for the Archaic period, the Woodland period is traditionally divided into three
subperiods. Developments associated with each of those eras are discussed below.
Early Woodland (3000-2450 B.P.). Early Woodland lithic technology is characterized by a reduced
preference for large, percussion -flaked tools like Savannah River hafted bifaces. The large
Savannah River stemmed points of the Late Archaic evolved into the Small Savannah River
stemmed type of the Early Woodland, which was followed by Gypsy Stemmed, which was even
smaller and made of a wider range of raw materials. Large Badin triangular points evolved into
smaller forms through the Woodland period. The Yadkin triangular and Yadkin Eared forms, for
instance, appear late in the Early Woodland and continue into later times (Herbert 2002:300-301;
Oliver 1985:204).
In terms of diagnostic ceramics in the Early Woodland, in the southern portion of North Carolina's
coast, the Thom's Creek series is followed by the sand -tempered Refuge series, which emerged
around 700 B.C. in the Middle Savannah drainage and persisted until around 400 B.C. On the
North Carolina coast, Refuge pottery most often occurs as Refuge Punctuate variety Allendale.
October 2018 25 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
This type is decorated with random punctations and is not found inland from the coastal zone. It
occurs in the same geographic area where Thom's Creek is found (no farther north than the
Neuse River), suggesting a cultural connection between these types (Barse et al. 2001; Herbert
2011:4-2-4-3).
Another Early Woodland ceramic type in the southern portion of the coastal zone is Hamp's
Landing, a limestone- or marl -tempered series found on coastal sites from northern South
Carolina up to the Tar -Pamlico valley. The distribution of this series coincides with the location of
limestone and marl deposits (Hargrove 1993; Hargrove and Eastman 1997; Herbert and Mathis
1996; Herbert 1999:43, 2002:296-298, 2009:2, 2011:4-3-4-4; Mathis 1999). Limestone- and
marl -tempered wares were originally mistaken as shell -tempered pottery, as the voids left from
leached marl (which contains fossilized shell) sometimes resemble the thin, lenticular voids
characteristic of leached shell temper (Mathis 1999:27-28). At the type site, Hamp's Landing
ceramics were found stratigraphically above Late Archaic Thom's Creek and below Middle
Woodland Hanover sherds (Hargrove and Eastman 1997; Herbert 2002:296-297). Subsequent
radiocarbon dates suggest the possibility that Hamp's Landing wares may overlap in date with
Late Archaic Thom's Creek and/or that it extends into the Middle Woodland (e.g., Abbott et al.
1999; Jones et al. 1997; Mathis 1999:30), but additional dates are needed to clarify the sequence
(Herbert 2002:297). Hamp's Landing wares include simple -stamped, cordmarked, smoothed over
cordmarked, fabric impressed, plain, and net -impressed varieties (Mathis 1999:27-29).
In the southern portion of the Coastal Plain, from the coast west to the Sandhills and south into
South Carolina, Early Woodland assemblages contain New River series pottery. New River
ceramics are identical to wares described as Deep Creek or Lenoir series in the north by
researchers working independently in different drainages. Likewise, New River appears to equate
with Deptford to the south. New River ceramics are characterized by coarse quartz sand temper
in high proportion and homogeneous compact paste, with net -impressed, cordmarked, fabric -
impressed, simple -stamped, and plain (smoothed) surface treatments (Crawford 1966:43;
Herbert 2002:299; Herbert and Mathis 1996; Loftfield 1976:149; Phelps 1983:29). The paste
characteristics provide the key criteria in identifying the series. Radiocarbon dates associated with
New River pottery range from 1865-130 B.C. (Abbott et al. 1999; Herbert 2002:298, 2008, 2009,
2011:4-5-4-6; Sanborn and Abbott 1999).
Base camps continued to be found in the same riverine settings preferred by Late Archaic people
in the region. For example, the Riegelwood site (31 C131 14) on the Cape Fear River in Columbus
County provided evidence of an Early Woodland occupation with hearths, cremation burials, and
New River and Hamp's Landing series pottery (Sanborn and Abbott 1999). In spite of the higher
archaeological visibility of base camp sites, the range of site types and locations suggests that
Early Woodland groups in the Coastal Plain retained a highly mobile settlement and subsistence
strategy driven by the availability of resources targeted in a fishing, gathering, and hunting
economy. There is no firm evidence of gardening in North Carolina in the Early Woodland,
although examples exist from surrounding states (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999:3). It has
been argued that the availability of diverse and abundant marine resources precluded the need
for coastal groups to invest the effort into horticulture as a source of staple foods (Yesner 1980).
Middle Woodland (2450-1150 B.P.). The Middle Woodland in much of the Southeast and Mid -
Atlantic is generally characterized as a time when the archaeological record provides evidence of
increased sedentism, regionalization, expansion of exchange networks, incipient social
stratification, and a diversified economy with gradually increasing involvement in horticulture.
However, on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, these patterns are not manifest. Instead, it
October 2018 26 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
appears that a dispersed settlement pattern underpinned by high residential mobility was the
norm; and although subsistence data are rare from sites in the region, it seems that people in the
interior Coastal Plain were exploiting resources in a manner similar to their forebears in the Early
Woodland and Late Archaic periods. Elsewhere in the Southeast and Mid -Atlantic, steady
population growth is evidenced in the archaeological record for the Middle Woodland; while that
is not generally apparent in North Carolina's Coastal Plain, site density in the Sandhills seems to
reflect increased population (Herbert 2002:302, 306). Closer to the coast, Phelps (1983:33) notes
a concentration of sites along major trunk streams and coastal estuaries during the Middle
Woodland, with smaller drainages being abandoned. At this time, large shell middens appear in
the archaeological record (Loftfield and Littleton 1981). This shift in settlement focus has been
interpreted as a reflection of a subsistence economy in which estuarine resources became central
in the diet (Loftfield 1987). The same pattern has been observed to the north in Tidewater Virginia,
where intensified shellfish exploitation by Middle Woodland groups (visible archaeologically as
large shell middens) is thought to have come about due to the expansion of estuaries at that time,
which allowed oyster beds to reach their historically known extent (Blanton et al. 2004:70, 75-78;
Blanton and Wolf 2001; Egloff et al. 1988; Geier and Barber 1983; McFaden 1996; Potter 1993:73;
Reinhart 1978). Changes in subsistence practices may be reflected in the ceramics made at the
time; Middle Woodland vessels generally have conical bases and straight walls, which has been
interpreted as a reflection of greater use as cooking vessels placed directly over a heat source
(Herbert 2009:3).
As was the case during the Early Woodland, different ceramic traditions were found in the northern
and southern portions of the Coastal Plain and in the Piedmont and Fall Line region. In the Project
region, the Yadkin series is generally a Piedmont ceramic type that developed from the Badin
series, but it also occurs in the Sandhills and occasionally in the interior Coastal Plain. Yadkin
ceramics are characterized by the inclusion of large amounts of angular quartz or other rock
fragments. They display cordmarked, fabric -impressed, or net -impressed surfaces, as well as
three new surface treatments for the region created with a carved wooden paddle: simple
stamping, check stamping, and linear check stamping. These surface treatments suggest an
exchange of ideas with people to the south who made sand -tempered Deptford wares (Herbert
2002:299, 2011:4-9; Ward and Davis 1999:83-84). Ceramics with crushed stone temper are very
rare east of the Sandhills (Herbert 2002:299).
For much of the southern Coastal Plain region during the early Middle Woodland, cordmarked,
pebbly sand -tempered New River ceramics were the dominant ceramic ware (Sanborn and Abbott
1999). Another sand -tempered Middle Woodland ware is Cape Fear, defined by South (1960,
1976:18) for the southern coast of North Carolina; but this type also is found in assemblages
throughout the North Carolina Coastal Plain, including the Sandhills. The Cape Fear series was
defined as a sand -tempered ware with cordmarked, fabric -impressed, and net -impressed types.
It is distinguished from the sand -tempered New River series, in that New River paste contains a
higher proportion of sand. Cape Fear ceramics generally date to 300 B.C.—A.D. 300 (Herbert
2002:306, 2011:4-13-4-16). However, a sequence of three phases has been defined for Cape
Fear, based on data from the northern coast of South Carolina (Cable et al. 1998:322-324). Each
phase is associated with ceramics displaying slightly different paste characteristics and
proportions of surface treatments. Cape Fear 1 (600-200 B.C.), is seen as equivalent to early
Deptford to the south and coeval with Deep Creek 11 to the north; it is characterized by very hard
paste and abundant medium and coarse sand, with primarily cordmarked (50 percent) surfaces
and lesser amounts of fabric -impressed (23 percent), and check-, simple-, or complicated -
stamped surfaces (27 percent). Cape Fear 11 (200 B.C.—A.D. 200), is equivalent to upper Deptford
October 2018 27 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
and coeval with Deep Creek III and is characterized by ceramics with compact paste containing
moderately abundant medium -sand temper, with cordmarked (56 percent), fabric -impressed
(22 percent), and check-, simple-, or complicated -stamped surfaces (22 percent). Cape Fear III
(A.D. 200-800), which is coeval with Hanover I, has soft to compact paste with sparse, fine -sand
temper, and cordmarked (47 percent), fabric -impressed (39 percent), and check-, simple-, or
complicated -stamped surfaces (14 percent) (Cable et al. 1998:286-297, Table 91; Herbert
1999:44).
A more widespread regional type with sand temper also occurs in small numbers at early Middle
Woodland sites in the southern region: Deptford sand -tempered, check -stamped ceramics are
found at sites dating from 600 B.C.—A.D. 200 (Caldwell and Waring 1939; Herbert 1999:44; South
1976). Check -stamped wares are not limited to the coast. Coe (1964:32) identified a linear check -
stamped minority type in the Piedmont Yadkin series at the Doerschuk site (31 MG22) and noted
both check -stamped and simple -stamped surfaces among the Yadkin wares at the Town Creek
mound site (Coe 1995:154). The Middle Woodland Yadkin series differs from Deptford in that the
paste is tempered with large amounts of crushed quartz as opposed to sand, but the shared
surface treatment suggests some type of cultural relationship.
Some potters in the southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina and Sandhills in the Middle
Woodland were experimenting with new tempering agents. The Hanover series appears in the
southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina in the late Early Woodland -early Middle Woodland
perhaps as early as 200 B.C. Once thought to be a primarily Middle Woodland ware, with more
dated samples it is becoming clear that Hanover ceramics were being produced well into the Late
Woodland (Herbert 2002:306, 2011:4-26). The Hanover series has been broken down into two
temporal phases: Hanover I from A.D. 400-800, in which the paste contains sand and a small
amount of grog, and Hanover II from A.D. 800-1500, in which the paste mainly contains grog with
a small amount of sand (Herbert 2002:307). Hanover pottery was defined for the lower Cape Fear
River (South 1960:16-17, 1976), while the same ceramics in the New River basin were labeled
Carteret series (Loftfield 1976:154-157) and ones in the Neuse were originally labeled the Grifton
series (Crawford 1966); these ceramics share some stylistic similarities to Deptford and feature
fabric -impressed, cordmarked, and smoothed or plain surfaces. They appear to represent the
same ceramic tradition (Herbert 2002:304, 2011:4-12-4-13).
In terms of diagnostic projectile points, Eared Yadkin points were predominant in the early Middle
Woodland, along with Badin points—both of which are stemless triangular forms (Herbert
2002:293). Around A.D. 200, Wakefield points appeared from the north. They appear to be related
to Piscataway points in Virginia (Gunn 2002).
In the southern Coastal Plain, a set of mortuary practices emerged during the Middle Woodland
that involved the construction of burial mounds. Around 18 sand burial mound sites are known
from North Carolina's Coastal Plain, and they are concentrated on the Cape Fear Arch. The
northernmost documented sand burial mound is near Vanceboro in Craven County (Phelps 1983).
Many have been destroyed. One cluster of sand mounds has been identified near the Cape Fear
River channel on Rockfish Creek, southwest of Fayetteville (Irwin et al. 1999:61). Another
significant site near Fayetteville is the McLean sand burial mound (MacCord 1966). Other interior
sites include the Buie and Parham mounds in Robeson County (Wetmore 1969, 1978). Closer to
the coast are the McFayden Mound (31 BW67) in Brunswick County (South 1966) and the Cold
Morning site in New Hanover County (Ward and Wilson 1980). Interments are often secondary
and multiple, indicating mobile populations returning to traditional burying grounds—which were
separate from villages—for final disposition of the dead. Grave goods include engraved stone
October 2018 28 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
pipes, some of which were platform pipes made in the style of the Ohio Valley Middle Woodland
Hopewell tradition, stone and antler arrow points, shell gorgets, shell and bone beads, copper,
mica, pigments, and abrading stones (Culpepper et al. 2000; Gunn 2002; Herbert 2002:302-303;
Irwin et al. 1999; Keel 1970, MacCord 1966; Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999: 206-210;
Wetmore 1978). Because of the acidic, highly permeable sandy soils, skeletal remains in such
contexts are typically very fragmentary (Herbert 2009:7). Radiocarbon dates from the McLean
Mound near the Cape Fear River in Cumberland County place this mortuary tradition in the late
Middle and early Late Woodland periods around A.D. 700-1000, which is consistent with
diagnostic grave goods, such as projectile points, pipes, and beads (Herbert 2002:303; Irwin et
al. 1999:79).
By the end of the Middle Woodland period, each of North Carolina's physiographic provinces had
developed into a distinct culture area (Herbert 2009; Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999:4).
Late Woodland (1150-350 B.P.). In the southern portion of the Coastal Plain and Sandhills, the
settlement pattern is characterized by small, broadly scattered sites, suggesting that a high
degree of residential mobility persisted into late prehistoric times. In the Sandhills in particular,
not a single Late Woodland village site has been found, likely reflecting the fact that the poor soils
of the long leaf-wireg rass environments there were unsuited to maize agriculture (Culpepper et al.
2000; Herbert 2002:311, 314-315). Elsewhere, Late Woodland societies appear to have
experienced a number of changes, involving increased sedentism, investment in agriculture,
territoriality, tribalization, regional exchange, and ceremonial expression (Herbert 2002:293, 311,
2009:3-4; Phelps 1983:39). Although people of the Coastal Plain interacted with Mississippian
groups to the west and south in the context of exchange and other relations, they never fully
adopted the cultural practices and sociopolitical structure of neighboring chiefdom -based
Mississippian societies (Irwin et al. 1999:59; Ward and Davis 1999:210). Common grave goods
found in burials in North Carolina's Coastal Plain include marine shell beads and tobacco pipes
(Herbert 2002:295).
A major technological advance in the Late Woodland involved the spread of the bow and arrow,
which made hunting more efficient. Evidence of the bow and arrow in the archaeological record
comes from small triangular projectile points known by the types Uwharrie, Roanoke, Clarksville,
and Caraway. Given their size, these types are understood to be arrow points and are diagnostic
of Late Woodland occupations (Herbert 2002:295; Oliver 1985).
Late Woodland ceramic assemblages in the southern portion of North Carolina's Coastal Plain
and Sandhills are dominated by Hanover II pottery, which dates from A.D. 800-1500, and is
characterized by wares with a paste containing grog and a small amount of sand. Surface
treatments include fabric -impressed, cordmarked, and smoothed or plain surfaces, but occasional
net -impressed. check -stamped, or simple -stamped sherds are seen as well (Herbert 2002:304,
307, 2011:4-12-4-13). Some view the Late Woodland Hanover II series of the southern Coastal
Plain of North Carolina as a variant of the Wilmington series of the Georgia and South Carolina
coast (DePratter 1979; Waring and Holder 1968). Shell -tempered pottery is generally absent in
the southern Coastal Plain. The originally defined Oak Island series, once thought to contain shell
temper (South 1976), has been reinterpreted as limestone- and marl -tempered Hamp's Landing,
and the Oak Island type name has fallen out of use (Herbert and Mathis 1996; Mathis 1999).
The end of the Late Woodland period is referred to as the Protohistoric period, which began in
the sixteenth century with initial European contact and exploration, followed by attempts to
establish permanent settlements. On the northern section of the coast, the first contact took place
October 2018 29 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
in 1584, when an expedition led by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe arrived off the Outer Banks
along with the artist John White and the scientist Thomas Harriot, whose writings and drawings
provide the first documentary evidence of the local inhabitants in the region. Algonkian-speaking
peoples endured the effects of early interaction with British explorers and colonists on Roanoke
Island before retreating in the face of larger -scale settlement activities around Albemarle Sound,
beginning in the 1650s (Powell 1989:15-16). In the interior, the Nottoway and Meherrin were in
regular contact with English settlers by 1650 and became recruited into the fur trade (Egloff and
Woodward 1992:58-59). In the southern portion of North Carolina's coast, Siouan speakers
referred to as the Cape Fear Indians first encountered European explorers Lucas Vasques de
Ayllon and Giovanni da Verrazona in the 1520s. They were still residing in the area when the first
short-lived settlement, known as Charles Towne, was established at the mouth of the Cape Fear
River from 1661-1667. However, the Cape Fear Indians had disappeared by 1725 when British
colonists from South Carolina established the first permanent settlement in the Cape Fear region.
Like many other Native Americans elsewhere in North Carolina, the Southeast, and North
America generally, they suffered the effects of newly introduced diseases, became engaged in
conflicts with Europeans, experienced geographic displacement, and either joined other groups
or died out entirely as their numbers thinned (Dobyns 1985; Mintz et al. 2011). Cultural patterns
observed in the Late Woodland archaeological record continued into the Protohistoric period, with
the addition of European trade goods in the material assemblage. Based on historic -period
accounts, it is known that native groups in the Project region were organized as ranked, kin -based
societies; they lived in semi-permanent villages, where they maintained garden plots as well as
fishing, hunting, and collecting a variety of wild foods. Chiefly descent was reckoned through
matrilineage, and polygyny was practiced (Swanton 1946). These cultural patterns began to
change as a product of engagement with European colonists.
3.2 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA AND ROBESON
COUNTY
3.2.1 European Exploration and Colonization
In the mid -sixteenth century, more than 100,000 Native Americans are thought to have lived in
present-day North Carolina, with the Tuscarora, Catawba, and Cherokee being the largest tribes.
Many of the Tuscarora lived in the Coastal Plain region, while the Catawba lived in the Piedmont,
and the Cherokee in the mountain region to the west (Claggett 1995).
English, Italian, and Spanish explorers visited North Carolina in the sixteenth century. The
expansion of Spanish exploration in the Caribbean brought their ships to the North Carolina coast
beginning in the 1520s. A Spanish official stationed in Hispaniola commissioned three
expeditions. The first in 1521 explored a location called Chicora near the present-day border
between North and South Carolina, and the Spanish sailors called the Siouan Native Americans
whom they encountered Chicoreans. These were the antecedents of the Cheraw and Lumbee
tribes that later settled along the Lumbee River and Drowning Creek in Robeson County (Powell
1989:30-31; Utley and Washburn 2002:12). Some of the natives were captured and transported
to Santo Domingo to be sold as slaves, contributing to the tribe's disappearance by the end of the
seventeenth century (Utley and Washburn 2002:11-12). In 1526, another expedition attempted
to establish a settlement at the Cape Fear River (which they called the River Jordan), but illness
and starvation soon caused its survivors to return to Santo Domingo (Powell 1988:10-11). In
1566, an expedition headed by Pedro de Coronas bound to establish a mission station at the
Chesapeake Bay was driven ashore by a storm at the northern end of the Outer Banks; the group
explored the Currituck Sound and claimed the land for the king of Spain before they continued
October 2018 30 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
their journey (Powell 1988:11-12). During the 1560s, some Spanish ships returning from Florida
followed the Gulf Stream as far north as Kill Devil Hills before turning east across the Atlantic;
Native American tribes on the North Carolina coast were found to have iron tools recovered from
shipwrecks in that vicinity (Powell 1989:32).
Giovanni de Verrazano arrived near present-day Cape Fear in 1524, having been commissioned
by a group of Florentine and Portuguese merchants in France to locate a new trade route to the
Orient. The Native Americans Verrazano's party encountered treated the Spanish sailors gently
and courteously, and their friendliness was noted by later European explorers (Powell 1989:29-
30).
England's claim to North America was based on the exploration of John Cabot in the late fifteenth
century. Settlement came much later. In 1584, Queen Elizabeth granted a charter to Sir Walter
Raleigh to establish a colony in North America. Raleigh's 1584 survey expedition explored from
a base at Roanoke Island (named for the nearby Algonquin Roanoac tribe) in present-day Dare
County's section of the Outer Banks (National Park Service 2015; Powell 1988:13-14). They
returned to England with two young Native American men, who contributed to the popular interest
in the new land that was named Virginia for Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. Twice the colonies at
Roanoke were found abandoned when new vessels arrived from England (Powell 1988:15-19;
Wolfe 2011). The mysterious disappearance of the colonists created speculation that they may
have relocated to the village of Croatoan (present-day Hatteras) and integrated with the tribe
(Powell 1989:18-19). Subsequently, the Virginia Company of London created a settlement at
Jamestown, Virginia, in the Chesapeake Bay.
In 1629, the region of North Carolina was part of a grant by England's King Charles I to Robert
Heath, the Attorney General for England and Wales and a member of the council of the Virginia
Company. Called Carolana from the Latin form of the king's name, the grant included territory
between 31St and 36th degrees latitudes, covering the area from Spanish Florida to the southern
side of Albemarle Sound in North Carolina. The charter stated that Heath was "about to lead
thither a Colony of men, large and plentiful, professing the true religion, sedulously and
industriously applying themselves to the culture of the said lands and to merchandizing." But
during England's Civil War (1642-1651), Heath was stripped of all his possessions and fled to
France, and Charles I was executed. Interest in the Province of the Carolinas faded, and the
territory was considered unsettled (Lewis 2007a).
During the Interregnum, the 11 -year period between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II when
Oliver Cromwell ruled England as a commonwealth before becoming its Lord Protector, a number
of settlers made their way into Carolina from Virginia, but none as far south as the Lumber River
basin of Robeson County (Powell 1988:4, 21). In 1660, the English monarchy was restored under
King Charles II. To reward the noblemen who had remained loyal and aided him during his exile,
the king made grants for a number of proprietary colonies in North America, including the
Carolinas in 1663 (Joyner 2006). In exchange for settling the territory with British subjects at the
proprietors' expense, they had the authority to collect quitrents from the settlers who purchased
land in the colony (Dictionary of American History 2003). Virginia Governor William Berkeley was
among the eight who were named as the Lords Proprietors of Carolina in 1663 (Walbert 2015a).
The following year the territory was divided into Albemarle, Clarendon, and Craven counties. In
1665, the Lords Proprietors asked the King for an additional grant of the "southern plantation"
territory at the North Carolina -Virginia border (Powell 1988:22).
October 2018 31 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Settlers who had arrived in the Carolina territory prior to 1663 and had acquired their land from
the Native Americans were often resentful of the Lords Proprietors and their intent to establish a
hierarchy of noblemen in the colony. After Virginia restricted the shipping of Albemarle tobacco
through its ports, and the Lords Proprietors directed their governor to prevent Carolina farmers
from the use of extralegal coastal traders to get their tobacco to European markets without paying
British taxes on them (under the Navigation Acts), the 1677 Culpepper's Rebellion jailed the
appointed governor and elected an assembly to develop a fair and consistent system for the
collection of taxes and the operation of government. The Lords Proprietors came to recognize
that they would not be able to control the residents of Albemarle, and that the settlement of
Charles Town, established in 1670 at the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper rivers, had a better
harbor; thus they selected present-day Charleston, South Carolina as the seat of the colony in
1691 (Powell 1988:26-29).
The Iroquoian Tuscarora were the most populous and powerful tribe in eastern North Carolina
during the seventeenth century, with settlements located along Coastal Plain rivers (Bishir and
Southern 1996:8). The Tuscaroras' experience with many Euro -American traders had been
negative; Virginia's Governor Alexander Spotswood described it as "...the Clandestine Trade
carreyed on by some ill men", who dealt unfairly in trade with the Native Americans or killed them
to obtain goods, in some cases capturing the natives and selling them as slaves (Hofstra 2004:59;
Utley and Washburn 2002:71). As a result, many of the surviving Tuscarora moved north to New
York to join the Iroquois Confederacy, becoming the sixth nation of the former Five Nations
confederacy. Those that remained moved to other areas of North Carolina. The present-day
Tuscarora tribal members remaining in North Carolina are centered primarily in Robeson County
(Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina 2013). The Lumbee tribe, comprised of descendants of the
Siouan Cheraws who fought against the Tuscarora, is also centered in Robeson County, with
their economic, cultural and political center at Pembroke. A school for the Lumbee became
Pembroke State College in 1949 (Lewis 2018a; Lumbee Tribe 2015).
3.2.2 The Colonial Period and the Revolutionary War
While many of those settling in the northern areas of the Carolinas during the seventeenth century
became small tobacco planters with only a few slaves, the southern part of the colony around
Charles Town developed extensive rice plantations with large enslaved work forces to supply the
sugar plantations in the West Indies (Independence Hall Association 2014). In 1712, North and
South Carolina were divided, and in 1719 the land in South Carolina—with more resources and
more potential for taxation—was acquired by Britain's King George I from seven of the Lords
Proprietors, and it was reorganized as a royal colony (Walbert 2015b). In 1729, North Carolina
also became a royal colony (Powell 1988:35).
Euro -American settlers in North Carolina developed a system of plantation agriculture that used
enslaved labor to cultivate wheat, corn, peas, and tobacco, as well as apples and peaches for
brandy. Timber and forest products from North Carolina's pine forests including shingles, planks,
barrel staves and heads were produced, as were the commodities of turpentine, tar, and pitch
used by the Royal Navy (Griffin 1976; North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 2014;
Powell 1988:42-43). From about 1720 to 1870, North Carolina led the world in the production of
naval stores (Lefler and Newsome 1973:97).
Settlers from the Scottish Highlands arrived in North Carolina beginning in 1732, with many
settling in the Cape Fear River valley of southeastern North Carolina. Those settling in the
Lumbee basin found remnants of a number of Native American tribes living in the area, along with
October 2018 32 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
freed and runaway slaves. One of the earliest settlements was Red Springs, founded in 1775 by
Hector McNeill (Lewis 2018a). When emigrating from Scotland after their defeat in the Jacobite
Rising in 1745, some Scots settlers had taken an oath to never again oppose the British crown,
and they therefore were Loyalists during the American Revolution (Powell 1988:39). The exiled
North Carolina Governor Martin, in coordination with Lord Charles Cornwallis and British General
Henry Clinton, assembled a force of 800 Highland Scots who were to join British regulars in
occupying North Carolina to suppress the rebellion in Virginia and South Carolina (Powell
1988:62-63). But the Continental Patriots defeated the Highlanders in the Battle of Moore's Creek
Bridge in Pender County in February 1776. The battle was later called the "Lexington and Concord
of the South" and was considered a significant Patriot victory (Martin 2015). Loyalist support
subsequently diminished, with approximately 400 of the Scottish immigrants taking an oath of
allegiance to the Continental forces in Cumberland County in 1778 (Clifton 1991; Johnson 2015).
In late 1776, the Fifth Provincial Congress assembled in Halifax to draft and approve North
Carolina's first state constitution and appoint its first non -royal governor.
Much of the action against the British forces in the first three years of the Revolutionary War was
in the Mid -Atlantic colonies to the north (Heinemann et al. 2007:129). In the area between the
Cape Fear and the Pee -Dee Rivers, an almost equal division of loyalty between the British and
the Continental causes resulted in frequent changes of control of the local government. The local
militia, whose officers and corps changed frequently, were more like partisan bands than a
regimented military organization (McKinnon 2003:11). Attacks focused on the Southern colonies
began in 1778 with British Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell's attack on Savannah and the
capture of Charleston in May 1780. Royal governments were re-established in Georgia and South
Carolina. Lord Cornwallis' attempts to rally Loyalist support in the backcountry were a failure, and
in April he led his troops to Virginia, expecting to return to North Carolina after taking Virginia.
However, his troops were cut off on the Yorktown peninsula in October 1781 and surrendered.
Meanwhile, in August 1781, Colonel John Slingsby led a British raid on the Cumberland County
Courthouse at Cross Creek (near present Fayetteville) and was holding prisoners at
Elizabethtown in Bladen County. Col. Thomas Robeson of the Continental Army, who resided
between Cross Creek and Elizabethtown, organized a small force of recently paroled patriots and
attacked Slingsby at the Battle of Tory Hole, inflicting severe losses and liberating the prisoners
(Lewis 2018b). The last British troops were removed from North Carolina in November, but
following Cornwallis' departure, armed Patriot and Loyalist bands continued the violence in North
Carolina for another two years, with Loyalist David Fanning capturing North Carolina's governor
and most of the General Assembly in Hillsborough (Howard 2010; Powell 1988:76-80).
The 1783 Treaty of Paris formally ended the Revolutionary War. Also in that year, an Act of
Pardon and Oblivion was passed at Hillsborough by the North Carolina General Assembly
allowing most Loyalists to return home and regain their confiscated property (Troxler 2006).
However many returning Loyalists found themselves ostracized, and some left North Carolina
(Powell 1988:82).
3.2.3 From Independence through the Antebellum Period
In 1787, Robeson County was created from Bladen County and named for the hero of the Battle
of Tory Hole. In 1788, Lumberton, an as yet unnamed village, was designated the county seat.
The town of Pembroke, originally called Campbell's Mills was settled the following year (Lewis
2018a). At the first census of the United States in 1790, Robeson County had 5,326 residents.
That number grew slowly but steadily, reaching 10,000 by 1840 (Forstall 1996).
October 2018 33 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
North Carolina's climate is in the northern range for the cultivation of cotton and rice and the
southern limit for tobacco (Bishir and Southern 1996:11). Following the development of the cotton
gin in 1793, cotton replaced tobacco and indigo as the South's main cash crop (Hatfield 2014). In
North Carolina, cotton exports grew from one and a half million to five million pounds by 1795,
and by 1801 the South produced 48 million pounds of cotton, compared to two million pounds a
decade earlier (Hatfield 2014; Powell 1988:103). The demand for new agricultural land increased,
as did the demand for enslaved labor to cultivate and harvest the cotton (Powell 1988:103).
Timberland that had supplied lumber, turpentine and naval stores was converted into fields for
cotton (Lassiter and Lassiter 2004:71).
North Carolina lagged behind other southern states in benefitting from the cotton economy
because of reluctance to invest in transportation infrastructure. Few navigable rivers and little
road building placed the state and its residents at a serious disadvantage (North Carolina
Business History 2007a). Because of geography and the locations of major ports, much of North
Carolina's trade went through Virginia or South Carolina (North Carolina Business History 2007a;
Powell 1988:8). In addition, North Carolina cotton farmers began feeling the impact of competition
from new cotton fields in the Gulf Coast states, which also led to many slaves being sold westward
to meet the demand (Crow et al. 2006).
For years, the state's role in transportation was limited to granting charters to private companies
to operate toll bridges, canals, and navigation projects. State legislator Archibald Murphey made
proposals between 1815 and 1818 for providing North Carolina with an extensive network of
canals and navigable rivers linked by good roads, and in 1819, a Board of Internal Improvements
was established (Norris and Watson 2006). In 1818, Joseph Seawell of Fayetteville was granted
a monopoly for his steamship company on the Cape Fear River between Fayetteville and
Wilmington, and he created the Cape Fear Steam Boat Company partnership in 1822. Located
at the head of navigation on the Cape Fear River, Fayetteville was an active port for steamboats
traveling to Wilmington and thence to national and international markets (Horn 2004). Others soon
followed, and more than 100 merchant steamboats plied North Carolina rivers and sounds
between 1812 and 1860 (North Carolina Business History 2007b).
North Carolina also lagged behind neighboring Virginia and South Carolina in the development of
railroads. The first railroad company in North Carolina, the Wilmington & Raleigh (with a station
at Weldon), was founded in 1833, followed by the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad in 1835 (Norris and
Watson 2006). The first rail connection in Robeson County was the Wilmington, Charlotte and
Rutherford Railroad (WC&R), which reached Lumberton in 1860 and was completed to
Rockingham in 1861 (Lassiter and Kennedy 2006). While the railroads were under construction,
a number of wooden plank roads or "farmers' railroads" were also being built in the late 1840s
and 1850s (Horn 2004; Mattson 1987:49).
Prior to the Civil War, Robeson County farmers and producers relied on the Lumbee River to ship
their products downstream to Georgetown, South Carolina. The county produced a respectable
2,300 bales of cotton in 1850, but less than 17 percent of the county's farm acreage was improved
(DeBow 1853), indicating a continued emphasis on timber products. Livestock played a more
important role in Robeson County agriculture than did grains or tobacco. The county ranked third
in the state in the number of swine (47,100), sheep (16,237), and milk cows (5,246). The hogs
were likely allowed to forage on the unimproved land. By 1860, Robeson County farmers shifted
away from livestock to cotton as prices rose during the decade prior to the Civil War. Although
the percentage of improved acres had increased by only two points, cotton production increased
50 percent to 3,467 bales. Livestock remained a major part of the agricultural regime, but the
October 2018 34 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
numbers of animals had decreased in all categories (Kennedy 1864). In the decade prior to the
Civil War, the value of Robeson County farms increased from $1.1 million to $2.35 million. The
population in 1860 was 15,489, over one-third of whom (35 percent) were slaves. The county also
had a large free black population of 1,230, many of whom likely worked in the turpentine or lumber
industries (Walker 1872a).
3.2.4 Civil War and Reconstruction
During the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered a blockade of all southern ports to prevent the
export of cotton and the smuggling of war materiel into the Confederacy. In response to
Confederate blockade running into and out of the state's ports, Union forces under General
Benjamin Butler and Commodore Silas Stringham converged at Hatteras Inlet in late August 1861
and successfully captured Forts Clark and Hatteras, closing the inlet to blockade running. In order
to completely control the waters of northeastern North Carolina, the Union organized the Burnside
Expedition. Ajoint army -navy operation, the Burnside Expedition lasted from late January through
late April 1862 and resulted in the occupation of much of eastern North Carolina as a base of
future operations. The U.S. Navy also destroyed North Carolina's small, fledgling navy,
nicknamed the Mosquito Fleet. By late April 1862, the Union thoroughly controlled the coast of
North Carolina from the Virginia border to the White Oak River. Beaufort became a coaling station
for the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, thereby making it less difficult for the Union to conduct
interior raids, refuel the blockading force, and supply troops. General Ambrose Burnside also
captured the state's former capital of New Bern, which became the military and political center for
the Union in North Carolina (North Carolina Historic Sites 2015).
While there were numerous small skirmishes in eastern North Carolina during 1862 and 1863, no
major Union military assaults took place until the end of 1864. General William T. Sherman
completed his March to the Sea through Georgia in late December and turned northward to the
Carolinas. The Union high command also turned its attention to the Cape Fear region, particularly
Fort Fisher and Wilmington. By capturing Wilmington, the main source of supplies for the Army of
Northern Virginia, which was entrenched around Petersburg and Richmond, Virginia would be cut
off. Simultaneously, General Sherman marched into North Carolina from the south. He had given
orders to cease the "scorched earth" destruction enacted in Georgia and South Carolina; but as
they proceeded through North Carolina, the soldiers stole or destroyed stores and supplies,
personal valuables, and buildings, and burned cotton and other crops (McKinnon 2003:15).
Raleigh was surrendered to Union forces on April 13. Generals Sherman and Johnston met in
April at a farm near Durham Station to work out the details of Johnston's surrender. This
agreement was finalized on April 26, 1865, thus officially ending the Civil War in North Carolina
(North Carolina Historic Sites 2015).
Although no major battles were fought in Robeson County, residents faced a daunting task in
recovering from the war. Resources and facilities had been damaged or destroyed during the war,
currency issued by the Confederacy was worthless, there were few sources for credit, and
agricultural production could no longer depend on the former enslaved workforce. Families had
lost fathers and sons and were reduced to poverty, and emancipated slaves lacked opportunities
for employment. A tenant farming system developed, redefining agricultural practices and
transforming the landscape (Bishir and Southern 1996:33). Legal and political processes were
developed to "reconstruct" the former Confederate states and return them to the Union. Initially
under the control of military districts administered by the U.S. army, Northern financial and
industrial interests soon sought business opportunities in the South, creating what came to be
known as the "New South" (North Carolina Historic Sites 2015).
October 2018 35 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
The railroads' recovery after the war occurred relatively rapidly with the assistance of the federal
government, which sold off captured rolling stock on easy terms, and repairs were made by the
Union army. Some of the older rail lines were abandoned (Ready 2005:271). From 1865 to 1875
North Carolina's government issued almost $18 million in bonds to 13 different railroads. But due
to inept administration, most of the funds were lost to corruption and extravagant spending. The
WC&R Railroad, which had ceased construction during the war, was revived in 1870, but failed
twice before re-emerging in 1876 as the Carolina Central Railroad Company (CCRC). The line
was eventually completed to Rutherfordton and became part of the Seaboard Air Line System.
The Alma & Little Rock Railroad constructed a short line railroad from Alma south to Plainview in
1883. This line was extended into South Carolina by 1891. Also in 1883, the Cape Fear and
Yadkin Valley Railroad (CF&YV) was completed between Fayetteville and Bennettsville, South
Carolina, through Shoe Hill (renamed Maxton in 1887) in the western part of Robeson County.
The Wilmington & Weldon acquired the CR&YV in 1898, and both lines became a part of the
Atlantic Coast Line system in 1900 (Colton & Company 1891; Lassiter and Kennedy 2006; Lewis
2018c, 2018d).
3.2.5 Postbellum Life
After the Civil War, eastern North Carolina remained overwhelmingly agricultural, and as late as
the mid -twentieth century, most people in the region lived on farms. However, farming in the
region shifted away from the old diversity of crops toward a single cash crop—first cotton and
then tobacco (Bishir and Southern 1996:35). By late 1865, cotton had again become one of the
state's principal crops, and it remained the state's number one cash crop until 1920, when tobacco
overtook it (Mattson 1987:51). The renovation of older mills and the construction of numerous
new cotton mills in the North Carolina Piedmont contributed to the state's economic recovery
through the end of the nineteenth century (Powell 1988:165; Ready 2005:261).
In Robeson County, however, cotton production fell sharply after the Civil War. Only 2,109 bales
were produced in 1870. Livestock remained a cornerstone of the county's agricultural regime. The
number of swine ranked it fifteenth in the state, and it was the ninth largest producer of wool.
Surprisingly, the county ranked fifth in the state in rice production, owing more perhaps to the
decline of rice production along the coast due to the neglect and destruction of fields during the
war. The value of the county's forest products was over $100,000, ranking it fifth in the state
(Walker 1872b).
In North Carolina's forests, the coming of the railroads and emergence of new markets resulted
in extensive logging beginning in the 1890s. By 1916, only the western part of the state retained
a few pockets of the virgin forest (Ready 2005:274-276). The cleared lands in eastern North
Carolina were converted to fields, greatly increasing the amount of improved farmland. The
availability of commercial fertilizers in the late nineteenth century, along with high cotton prices
encouraged many farmers in areas of the state that were not previously well-suited to cotton to
increase their cotton acreage. This included Robeson County, where in 1900, over 26,000 bales
were produced on about 52,500 acres. The greatest amount of acreage was devoted to corn, at
74,000 acres, but cotton had become a major cash crop (U.S. Census Bureau 1902).
3.2.6 Modernization in the Twentieth Century
The expansion of the cotton economy after the Civil War led to a degree of industrialization, as
northern capitalists invested in textile mills in the South in hopes of cutting transportation and
labor costs associated with shipping cotton to mills in New England. Most of these mills were
October 2018 36 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
located along the Fall Line where rivers dropped from the Piedmont into the Coastal Plain
providing the power necessary for the factories. As steam engines began to replace hydroelectric
power, mills could be built anywhere cotton was grown. The National Cotton Mills in Lumberton
opened in the early twentieth century, and three mills were in operation in the St. Pauls district
before 1920. The St. Pauls mills faltered during the Great Depression of the 1930s and were
purchased in 1943 by the Burlington Mills Corporation, but eventually closed as the textile industry
moved overseas (Mackie 2018).
Although many farmers benefitted from the growing cotton economy in North Carolina during the
first quarter of the twentieth century, the rewards were much more likely to fall to white farmers
than African Americans, and the tenant system that was established after the Civil War to restrict
land ownership among blacks eventually led to many white farmers losing ownership of their
farms, as well. In 1900, just over half of Roberson County farmers owned their farms. By 1930,
less than 25 percent of farmers were full owners of their land. White farmers were still more likely
to be owners (38.1 percent) compared to black farmers (13.8 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau
1932).
In 1930, three-fourths of North Carolinians lived outside cities and towns, half of them residing on
working farms. The state had the second highest number of farms in the nation in 1925, but many
of the farms were small and inefficient, producing tobacco, cotton, and corn through family labor
and a small number of tenants. In Robeson County, the number of farms in the county had grown
from 4,848 in 1900 to 7,686 in 1920, but average farm size had decreased from 102.8 acres to
just 44.5 acres. Over 20 percent of farms were less than 20 acres in size. The vast majority of
cropland was devoted to cotton in 1930. The nearly 100,000 acres of cotton was greater than that
of tobacco and corn combined. Although late to the production of tobacco compared to other
eastern North Carolina counties, by 1930, Robeson County devoted 24,292 acres to the crop,
and over the next half century it would continue to increase in importance (U.S. Census Bureau
1932).
Farmers were hit hardest by the Great Depression, with farm incomes falling to one-third of their
1928 level (Ready 2005:324). The federal government's Agricultural Adjustment Administration
(AAA), a crop control program that essentially paid farmers a modest amount to grow less
tobacco, enabled tobacco prices and farm income to rise. However, reduced production meant
that fewer tenant farmers and sharecroppers were needed to raise the crop; their ironic
displacement by the AAA increased the economic problems of the 1930s. Driven from their land,
some farmers moved to cities, and there, many survived on government relief. Of the federal
government's programs, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which provided employment to
young men, enjoyed the greatest public support in the state (Abrams 2015).
Although electric generation began in North Carolina in the 1880s, for most of the next 50 years
electric service was primarily available only in the state's cities and towns. In 1935, when the
General Assembly created the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority (NCREA), roughly
three percent of North Carolina farmers had electricity. The New Deal's Rural Electrification
Authority (REA) provided funding for the extension of electric lines to rural areas. The NCREA
sent power through its first distribution line in May 1936. By 1940 about 24 percent, or 70,000 of
the state's 278,000 farms, had electricity. Only 15 years later, in the mid-1950s, more than
95 percent of North Carolina's farms were electrified (Hunt 2006).
As a result of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1956, a national system of highways was
constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Work began in 1956 on Interstate 95 around Lumberton in
October 2018 37 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Robeson County, following the path of U.S. Route 301 at the transition between North Carolina's
Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Sections of the highway opened in the 1960s, and it was completed
in 1980 (Wood 2015). As a major artery for traffic along the East Coast, rapid development took
place at the communities and interchanges along the route.
Agriculture became more diversified in eastern North Carolina after World War II, and the area
attracted new businesses and industries. In addition to tobacco, Robeson County farmers raised
significant quantities of soybeans, vegetables, poultry, and beef. Major manufactured products
include transformers, water pipes and valves, wood products, and manufactured homes
(Mazzocchi 2006).
In the United States, domestic production of tobacco was at its peak in 1954. It began to decline
in the second half of the twentieth century, with domestic and foreign buyers turning to non -U.S.
suppliers (Huntrods 2012; Internal Revenue Service 2011). Prices for the product grew as excise
taxes were imposed, making tobacco one of the most heavily taxed agricultural commodities. As
demand dropped, the agricultural quota allotments consequently declined, which further limited
production. In addition, concerns about tobacco's effects on health began to surface in the 1950s,
and opportunities for public smoking became increasingly restricted (Huntrods 2012). As late as
the 1980s, however, about 17,000 acres of tobacco were grown in Robeson County, bringing in
about $60 million a year (Davis 2009). In 1998, the Attorneys General of 46 states signed the
Master Settlement Agreement with the four largest tobacco companies in the United States to
settle state suits to recover billions of dollars in costs associated with treating smoking-related
illnesses. North Carolina's share of the settlement was estimated at $4.6 billion (North Carolina
Health & Wellness Trust Fund 2015).
Part of the Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004,
commonly referred to as the "tobacco quota buyout." Beginning in 2005, it ended federal
restrictions on where and how much tobacco can be produced as well as federal price supports
and quotas. To ease the farmers' transition to the free market, the buyout bill also provided
approximately 10 billion dollars to eligible quota owners and producers, funded through
assessments of tobacco product manufacturers and importers (Internal Revenue Service 2011).
Without the quotas and price supports, tobacco production has decreased in the county to just
2,000 acres in 2015 (Tester 2018).
3.3 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
A literature review of previously recorded sites was conducted prior to the initiation of fieldwork.
That was accomplished by accessing the files of recorded resources maintained by the SHPO
and the OAH in Raleigh. A total of 20 archaeological sites are documented within one mile of the
Project (Figure 3.3-1; Table 3.3-1); there are no documented historic architectural resources in
this study area. Most (75 percent; n = 15) of these sites have been found to be ineligible for the
NRHP; the remainder have not been formally assessed for NRHP eligibility and require additional
study. In addition, a historic map review of the property was conducted prior to fieldwork. During
this study, 12 additional former farmstead locations were identified on the property that were
expected to be identified in the field as archaeological resources.
October 2018 38 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Site
Number
31RB116
31RB117
31RB118
31RB119
31 RB 120
31 RB 121
31 RB122
31 RB123
31 RB126
31 RB132
31 RB133
31 RB134
31 RB 135
31 RB 136
31 RB 137
31 RB20
31 RB21
31 RB41
31 RB42
31 RB429
TOTAL SITES
Table 3.3-1.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the One -Mile Buffer
In APE? Chronology
Woodland/General Historic
Middle -Late Archaic/Woodland/General Historic
Archaic/Woodland
Early Archaic/Woodland/General Historic
General Prehistoric/General Historic
General Prehistoric/General Historic
Woodland/20 `h C.
Woodland/20 `h C.
Middle Archaic/General Historic
Middle Archaic/General Historic
Woodland/191h c
General Prehistoric/191h C.
Middle -Late Archaic/Woodland/General Historic
Woodland/201h C.
Woodland/General Historic
General Prehistoric
General Prehistoric
Woodland
Woodland/Modern
Woodland
Site Type
Limited Activity/Domestic
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Limited Activity
Limited Activity
Limited Activity/Domestic
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Limited Activity
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Limited Activity/Domestic
Limited Activity/Domestic
Limited Activity/
Cemetery/Domestic
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Limited Activity/Domestic
Lithic Workshop/Domestic
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Lithic Workshop
NRHP Eligibility Status
Not eligible
Unassassed
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Not eligible
Unassassed
Unassassed
Unassassed
Unassassed
Not eligible
20
Most of the archaeological sites in the vicinity (80 percent; n = 16) including all of the NRHP-
ineligible ones, were recorded as part of the Robeson Trails Archaeological Survey conducted by
the Native American Resource Center at Pembroke State University (Knick 1988). A single site
along the east side of Jordan Swamp, 31 R131 17, remains unassessed. This site is described as
a lithic workshop with Early Archaic and Woodland components, although the listed projectile
points (Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Savannah River) date to the Middle and Late Archaic
period. The recovered pottery was fabric -impressed and cordmarked. Most of the other sites
found (56 percent; n = 9) are classified as ephemeral, "limited activity" sites with little research
potential; the remainder are also considered lithic workshops. Regardless of the limited research
potential of these sites, all but three (31 RB120, 31 RB121, and 31 RB134) haven been assigned
to a specific prehistoric period or subperiod.
Although the Pembroke State University reconnaissance survey targeted prehistoric sites, most
(75 percent; n = 12) of Knick's (1988) sites have historic components as well, including 31 B123,
which is located within the current Project area. The site, mapped as a datum point alone, is
located northeast of the intersection of NC -17 and CR -1316. It is reported to be a limited activity
October 2018 39 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
D31 R6122
31RB721 Q 31RB117
31RB12O p
31RB119 El
31 R8429 ❑
(�631RBII
a 31RB123
31RB132 -- _ 31RB118".-,�+" J --
31R841
{ i
!1 — ---„_ _ —
cop} right:2013 National Geographic Saol ;-t-cubed
N m� nm�mnrnn u ra en.cpnmeplerrenaw P�pp�>: pe1y.
Project Boundary Archaeological Sites Within
® Exclusion Zone One Mile of Project Area
r I one Mile Buffer Robeson LNG
Previously Recorded ArchaeotogioaI Sites Robeson County,
North Carolina
G 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,D00 5,000 F.iZ vi
Feet 1:40,000
C:'.11 sersrm pent macek'-0ocumen ls'•Ca mlm as LNG d-10%Rw.n RV—s'Rrpw Fy.ris Fig 3-5-1Pmv Sips Map 10,18—d I REVISED 10+10/2018 I SCALE. 1'!0.000 DRAWN BY: GIS
Figure 3.3-1. Archaeological sites within one mile of the Project.
October 2018 40 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
site featuring cordmarked Woodland pottery, steatite fragments, and twentieth-century ceramics.
A potential historic farmstead is located in the general vicinity.
The four remaining prehistoric archaeological sites are unassessed and appear to have been
recorded by students from the Native American Resource Center at Pembroke State University
in the 1970s. Two of these sites, 31 RB20 and 31 RB41, are located in the current Project area,
and very little information is available for them. Site 31 RB20 is plotted as datum within a Carolina
bay along CR -1316. It is presumed to be inaccurately georeferenced based on the 1979 sketch
(see Chapter 6.3). Site 31 RB41, located along Gum Swamp south of NC -71, is the only resource
in the survey area for which boundaries were ascribed. It was generally described as a Woodland
period site based on the identification of pottery.
In addition to these archaeological sites, ERM identified 12 farmsteads or structures formerly
located within the study area that could possibly be identified within the study area as historic
archaeological sites (Figure 3.3-2). During the field studies, many of these were able to be ground-
truthed.
A late nineteenth century county map (McDuffie 1884) shows one farm likely within the Project
area; this, the Smith residence is shown along Gum Swamp just north of a precursor to NC -71,
near what is later called McNeill's Pond. A second farm just to the north along Gum Swamp (Arch
McLean) also may be within the Project area. These farms may correspond with 31 RB123 (Smith)
and 31 RB594 (McLean), however it is difficult to establish based on the map quality.
An early twentieth century soil map (Hearn 1908) shows what is now CR -1316 and NC -71 as well
as approximation of the main access roads. McNeill's Pond appears to essentially encompass
the Project exclusion zone. Three farms are shown on this map in the study area. These
correspond to what have now been recorded as 31 RIB 123, 31 RB594, and 31 RB596. Additional
farms are shown opposite CR -1316 from 31 RB594 on NC -71. Two farms east and west of CR -
1316, and one south of NC -71, appear to have been in the Project area, but were not found.
However, two additional areas, Locus 1, along the main access road in the center of the Project
area, and Locus 2, south of NC -71, were investigated based on the presence of push -piles and
refuse, but no historic evidence was found. Of note, Locus 2 appears south of NC -71 on the earlier
soil survey map (Hearn 1908); the road appears to have been straightened and realigned to the
south prior to 1949.
The remaining farmsteads are based on the 1949 and 1982 Wakulla, North Carolina USGS 7.5 -
minute quadrangle maps. The 1949 version of this map, shows more detail (see Figure 3.3-2).
Two outbuildings, for example, are shown south of 31 RB20, and numerous structures are shown
surrounding the Locus 2 area. In addition, another site lies west of CR -1316, north of 31 RB594,
and one is south of CR -71 near 31 RB595.
During the current investigations, attempts were made to relocate and assess all 12 of these
potential farmsteads in addition to targeting the previously recorded SHPO sites (31 RB20,
31 RB41, and 31 RB123) in the Project area.
October 2018 41 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
r� `tib �:!z. r►�r
�_ �� -- J .Nti T � �.� a� �r ■r1 �. c
213
■ a r +
f I - �f► —
_N r r
31RB696 spa Ltit 721T ld 114
-� — Ir r � �`' lw ►4
Ii!
rr ,,
IdentiTied it Locus 1 r . _ h '` ''• % sile
31RBb81 It
31R13694 u ■ �¢r ii
_ q I►
--_ - 4r 1 ►1 �
rr
��.- _ - -� it � �1t• !t Ir
Not.l entified 4t 0 �� irr
_
Ilk p rr
LIS -
1 rr !1
_ R8693 37RB582 rr 11
If
-dL- s, Locus 2 fir f
` 31RB723 • a 11.x81RB696
=- 21D I! Nt
alp, " ... I ° 1� • I! 11
���� ►� Hot tdentifled
,. + 11u T
o ■
So
}I 11
`,�� ,111 . � 4 rrr 11L
Project Boundary Farm Sites in
® Exclusion Zone Project Area
Farm Sites Robeson LNG
Robeson, North Carolina
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2,500 SRM
Feet 1:18,000
C'(J1 WInpenlm*oek)DMfflenI3%Q8 MW LNO4A 91ReW Flq M'Pepod FIpm l p•1$1E*rNina% Pig –F—F1 b"10 -18—d I REVISED 10111 aOla I SCALE: 118.000 DRAWN BY: GIS
Figure 3.3-2. Twelve potential historic farm locations show in relation to survey results (1949
Wakulla, North Carolina, 7.5 -minute USGS quadrangle).
October 2018 42 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
4.0 METHODS
4.1 LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH
ERM has completed a literature and records search as part of the original scope of work by
reviewing files maintained by the SHPO and the OAH in Raleigh. The goal was to determine the
number, nature, and location of known archaeological sites and historic resources that occur
within 1 mile of the Project and to collect information on previous investigations in the Project
vicinity. The results of that research are presented in Chapter 5.
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS
The entire surveyed area was subjected to visual inspection during a pedestrian survey. In
addition to pedestrian coverage and surface inspection wherever possible, shovel testing was
carried out according to the following approach. Where surface visibility was less than 50 percent,
shovel tests were placed at 30-m intervals along transects spaced 30 m apart. At this interval, a
potential 2,756 shovel tests locations were examined. The survey grid is depicted in Figure 4.2-
1; additional details are provided in Chapter 5.
Per Office of State Archaeology (OSA) (2017) guidelines, cultivated fields and any areas with
greater than 50 percent surface visibility were visually inspected for the presence of cultural
material along transects spaced at 10-m intervals. Shovel tests in those places were excavated
at the discretion of the field supervisor, with the goal of obtaining information on soil conditions
and determining the likelihood that subsurface deposits occur in areas where no cultural material
is visible on the surface.
There are several stream flood plains/terraces surrounded by slopes. Shovel tests were conducted
at those locations, but the 30-m interval did not apply in some cases because of the inundated
area. Judgmental shovel tests were used in those cases. Areas where slopes are greater than
20 percent also were not shovel tested, as they are unlikely to have supported habitation.
The shovel tests were 50 cm in diameter and excavated until subsoil was reached. All soils
recovered from shovel tests were screened through '/4 -inch wire mesh. When artifacts were
located, even if they occur in cultivated fields or other areas with good surface visibility, additional
shovel tests were typically excavated 15-m intervals or less to delineate site boundaries within
the Project area. OSA guidelines recommend that surface defined sites minimally be shovel
tested with at least four tests per acre (the equivalent of a testing within a 30-m grid). All artifacts
from subsurface contexts were collected. Surface artifact scatters were sampled at the discretion
of the field supervisor; however, all diagnostic prehistoric artifacts, including typed projectile points
and pottery sherds, were retained for further analysis. In addition to notes entered into a field
book, a sketch map and site form was completed for each archaeological resource encountered
during the survey.
A hand-held Global Positioning System unit was used to navigate within the Project area. It was
also used to track progress and record site boundaries. Archaeological sites and general field
conditions were photographed and documented with digital media.
October 2018 43 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
Phase I Archaeoloqical Su
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Report - DO NOT RELEASE
J - p
0Goo
1' °0000 -� �� _4' -
000000 til
000000.0 tl
f �'-- °00000°°0
0 c❑ 0 0 0 0
° 00000000 _
0 ° 0 000000000 00 0
00 °0 a0 0 0 0
0.000 a 0000000
0 0
000000000. 3 88596 9 0 a0 0
0 000000000 0 -0000000
000
o000000000000 DO.❑Do.0o000000
o0 0, 0o❑000000
000 00000...00❑.0a 0o0o°oovOD0�0D°D000
D00000,10
ooDooaOOOO000000000 00O0O0p,
000
a0❑000 00 0
oo0
O❑
000 D❑ OD0D0 O❑p DO aD 00 D D
vD0000D0000 o
000000a0ooo.0 Dpp0O.0pO 00000
00OODOOpp O0Do0pD.❑...aODOO 00000
00000000 O00000
OD,.O.D °00000D000pa0 ooOa00...0000
.°
0 00 0.❑O00000.DCoco DO0_�
D❑000000 xOODO 000"0 .0 °.0.-00 DOD Oppp
0000 D . oD000 D0 000000°D OD0.00000❑OO
OO ODOpp 0° 0000000.pp ° 0O0000 00.pO❑❑O
°O
`Oaoo D°a0o.0 00O.00 a ❑❑❑ D0000 D DO DO D o00DO 000000000 000p00.. O O O OO 0000000. op❑pD0Do 0.0❑00 00 318659100000.00..000000a00..0000.0a0°OOOo00ooGO ..."0010 a O
e❑
o-
0
0DO.."aa000o 0000DODO 00000oaoo00o0.o°oDoo.o°DovOpvO°vDD°Ova
.
.a0oao00.o0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 00 00 000000° 0 000000 "89u0OD000000000000DO00op.0oo0oo0DODa
0
0,
.000000 31 0000 a0o0000000000. 0000000000o0000D000000,00000ao9❑.vO0Ooo.o0.0o.00000000000000°00°00 °p0Q0a0DDo0000000000°O°Op 0o 000❑❑a0o0°°°0°0°0 o ,.
00004o-.--
❑000000°p0o0ooD0.op00000000000.0 a
00
.oOO 00..0°°0..0°°0DOpop-oo00a000°Op0000000000 000000 Do 00 Do 00000000000000 00000 00000000000 00000°0.0000°oao❑D°00°0° ooa 0y0°00o0000000 .a°o°v°000000ao 00000Do0.°0000.❑❑❑o0 00000000000D0000a000po.0000000000 00 31 RB200000000a0000ooo000o0opO.
0
pp°v0v0❑v0,00a0o00
RLL
_h
000000000 O 00 0D. 0 0 0oo0
°00000000o0
0000.0oa p00❑0o0o00�0�000
-00
0880
500950000000000 000000000.aOD000.O0 00.0aO
op0o00' o0
0
a
aDo
000000000000 000000000 Do a0opoopaoo0Doo00O
00
.- a
q/
4r
d
QAIfi
I.
0000000000.°O° 0°000°0 DO 000°000OOOOp ,°°°000000 0000000000000 °po0 00000000000.o
0000000aop0DDOpO.00D.Op000000000000000043000
OpD.po.00 3188 000
apooppoopooapp000Dp.oOoo
00000000 5oDoa000000000000
00000o0°pOpO000000 .1r -
D020oD0.ODOaa0.°00❑000o00DOOo-oo
o---
000 0---0 OORO.. ,D 0°o❑O00000000❑ODO.Op 0.."..0200
..O2° Oo0°0❑aD a
oooao000oa-�00..0000000°ooDODooa.0000 OD a o00,0jooo.°aoo°0°°00000000000
OOD 00000000..00OODOOoaO000Op0o000❑009000000000
o006000oo°DDDoo3,1o8000 3188593
000oooRr
cDODoao.0D000000❑0oDpoa000aaoOoDoaGoo
0.00000000poD
a.aoo0a0o..D0a„00000000000
00000p°.- 00
000000 .00. 000o .00,0000 0.00000
o0t0 0oo0,00e n
0000000000 .0..0000°000000031D
0
r 67 00 314'3000000003
FfE'000000
000 .
00a0.0000❑❑0. aO°o❑°0
006000000 000p
DO ,
`
_3
-0000 00 0000 0 �-
00000000000
0000°00000
.0000000
000000 •-
000
LJProject Boundary ins, Wr-mr- u w ow -rd? mmw pvwwz wJY
® Exclusion Zone
Waterb❑dies Survey Coverage of
Ditches IF
I Project Area
Wetlands
Robeson LNG
Previously Recorded A rchaeolog ica I Sites within Project Boundary Robeson. North Carolina
Newly Recorded Archaeologica I Sites n 5000 1.000 1.50(l 2,000
D Shovel Tests 1E3K31ZZZZZ31111MffZ= Feet 1:16,000 ERM
CWO+-rslAeppr pipmSYtapprl NNW Ia1 scatolrlas Fip 0-2•1 survey coverage Map 1p-ss.mxd I REVISED! IOn 1*018 1 SCALE! tate-O00 DRAWN BY: GIS
Figure 4.2-1. Survey coverage of the Project area showing shovel test grid (USGS [1982]
Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle).
October 2018 44 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
4.3 LABORATORY METHODS
All collected artifacts were returned to the ERM archaeological laboratory in Atlanta for analysis
and temporary curation. The first step in the analysis involved inventory control measures such
as updating bag lists, correlating level forms with the bag lists, and cross-checking artifact and
feature proveniences.
The artifacts were then examined and sorted into categories. Artifact analysis forms
corresponding to specific proveniences and bag numbers reflect the provenience, bag number,
quantity, artifact raw material in the case of lithic artifacts, surface treatment, temper and vessel
portion for ceramic sherds, and, in some cases, the total weight of each artifact type, as well as
artifact descriptions and classifications. The analysis was geared to focus on identifying
temporally diagnostic items to refine the occupational history of the sites, by using established
lithic and ceramic types known in the region. The analysis also sought to determine the function
or range of functions carried out each the site through time.
4.3.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis
The analysis of prehistoric sherds began with a basic characterization of the entire assemblage.
Sherds smaller than 2 x 2 cm were counted, weighed, and examined to determine if any clear
surface treatments or rims were present that could prove useful in the analysis. If not, they
received no further attention. All larger sherds were classified by surface treatment, paste, and
temper, and placed into their proper typological category whenever possible.
For the lithics recovered, analysis focused on identifying assemblages and/or technological
attributes diagnostic of particular temporal and geographical cultural trends. The artifacts were
identified according to established regional types or styles when possible. The following
categories were used in the lithic analysis.
Biface Thinning Flakes. Biface thinning flakes are relatively thin and flat to slightly curved in
cross section. Secondary flake scars are frequently present on the dorsal surface. The platform
may be faceted and may exhibit a distinct lip, and the bulb of percussion is usually diffuse. These
features are characteristic of soft -hammer percussion, and flakes of this type are most often
the result of late stage biface reduction and maintenance.
Blades and Bladelike Flakes. These flakes approach or exceed a length -to -width ratio of 2:1.
Blades and bladelike flakes frequently have a ridge along the dorsal surface. They are typically
manufactured for a specific purpose, such as replacing edges in cutting or grating implements.
Bipolar Flakes. Bipolar flakes exhibit a bulb of percussion on the ventral surface of both the
distal and proximal ends. They are often curved in cross section. These flakes are manufactured
by placing the raw material on a hard surface, such as an anvil stone, and striking its superior
surface with a hard implement.
Unspecialized Flakes. These flakes are relatively thick and wide, with little or no indication of a
particular function or stage of manufacture.
Flake Fragments. This category includes those flakes that have only nondiagnostic medial or
distal portions. Any flake lacking a proximal end was placed in this category.
October 2018 45 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Shatter. Shatter is debitage that is angular and blocky. Specimens in this category cannot be
oriented in relation to their proximal or distal end.
Hafted Bifaces. Hafted bifaces are bifacially worked artifacts that have a hafting element (i.e.,
stem and notches). They are often described as projectile points or knives and may conform to
established type names.
Preforms. Tools in this category are unfinished hafted bifaces. They exhibit rudimentary hafting
elements and lateral blade margins.
Bifaces. This category consists of artifacts that are bifacially worked and do not have haft
elements.
Formal Unifacial Tools. These are tools that have been unifacially worked into specific forms
that repeatedly occur in lithic assemblages. Examples include end scrapers, side scrapers,
and perforators.
Retouched, Used, or Modified (RUM) Flakes. The category of RUM flakes includes all flakes
that have been retouched into an informal unifacial tool, exhibit use -wear, or have been modified
by undetermined means.
Cobble Tools. Cobble tools are altered or unaltered cobbles used as hammerstones, nutting
stones, anvils, and other similar tools.
Cores. Cores are remnants of stone tool manufacture. They are usually blocky or discoidal rocks
that exhibit flake scars on at least one face.
Manuports. Manuports are unaltered pieces of stone that are not indigenous to the area and
obviously have been transported to the site by humans.
Fire -Cracked Rock. Although fire -cracked rock is not a tool per se, these are rocks that exhibit
evidence of having been in or near a fire, often associated with human activity. Alteration in
color and/or luster, angular fractures, and potlidded surfaces are diagnostic of fire -cracked rock.
4.3.2 Historic Artifact Analysis
Laboratory analysis focused on dating recovered artifacts and assigning functional ascriptions.
All of the historic artifacts recovered from this Project were categorized by material class with the
assistance of relevant sources, such as Jones and Sullivan (1985) in the case of bottle glass,
Nelson (1968) in the case of nails, and a variety of reference materials for historic ceramics (e.g.,
Godden 1964; Lehner 1988, Miller 1991; Noel Hume 1970; 2001; South 1977).
The dating of historic sites was based on the total assemblage recovered from a site, although
specific artifacts including glass, ceramics, and nails assisted in developing an approximate date
range for sites.
October 2018 46 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
4.4 CURATION
The artifacts, field notes, maps, photographs, and other technical materials generated as a result
of this survey will be stored at the ERM office in Atlanta. The artifacts will be returned to the
property owner upon completion of the Project.
4.5 NRHP ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Sufficient information was collected to make recommendations regarding potential eligibility for
listing on the NRHP for each archaeological resource addressed during this study. According to
36 CFR 60.4 (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002), cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP are
defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts that have "integrity" and that meet one
or more of the criteria outlined below. Criterion D is typically relevant to archaeological sites.
Criteria A and B may be relevant in the case of historic -period archaeological sites. Criterion C is
typically applicable to architectural resources but also may be relevant in the case of cemeteries,
which have elements of landscape architecture as well as in -ground archaeological deposits.
Criterion A (Event). Association with one or more events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history.
Criterion B (Person). Association with the lives of persons significant in the past.
Criterion C (Design/Construction). Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction; or representation of the work of a master; or possession of high
artistic values; or representation of a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion D (Information Potential). Properties that yield, or are likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most often (but not exclusively) associated
with archaeological resources. To be considered eligible under Criterion D, sites must be
associated with specific or general patterns in the development of the region. Therefore,
sites become significant when they are seen within the larger framework of local or
regional development.
"Integrity" is perhaps the paramount qualification of NRHP eligibility, and can be related to any or
all of the following (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002):
Location: the place where the historic property (or properties) was/were constructed or where
the historic event(s) occurred;
Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of
a property (or properties);
Setting: the physical environment of the historic property (or properties);
Materials: the physical elements that were combined to create the property (or properties)
during the associated period of significance;
Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory;
October 2018 47 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Feeling: the property's (or properties') expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the
period of significance; and
Association: the direct link between the important historic event(s) or person(s) and the historic
property (or properties).
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original
locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and
properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible
for the NRHP (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). However, such properties will qualify if they are
integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
• Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or
artistic distinction or historical importance; or
• Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is
significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most
importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
• Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there
is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or
• Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons
of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association
with historic events; or
• Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and
when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or
• Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
• Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of
exceptional importance.
Each identified resource was evaluated in relation to these criteria and considerations.
October 2018 48 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
5.0 RESULTS
Descriptions and recommendations regarding the identified archaeological resources are
provided in the sections below.
5.1 FIELD CONDITIONS AND SURVEY COVERAGE
Shovel tests were conducted in areas where the slope is 20 percent or less, and in places of less
than 50 percent surface visibility. Although a significant portion of the area had been recently
cleared of trees at the time of survey, most of the Project area was strewn with branches and leaf
litter, or reclaimed by vegetation, and had less than 50 percent surface visibility. However, surface
inspection at no greater than 10-m intervals was conducted around all known or potential
archaeological sites regardless of surface visibility. The Project area is relatively flat with uplands
consisting of slight ridges along the rims of Carolina bays, typically no greater than 6 percent
slope. Non -cultivated landforms in the Project area are generally low terraces or floodplains of
Gum Swamp. Most of the Gum Swamp floodplain is within an exclusion zone that was not
included as part of the survey area. Floodplain areas are classified as very poorly drained
Johnston soils, accounting for approximately 4 percent of the Project area (30 acres) along the
western margin of the property (see Figure 2.4-1; Table 2.4-1). They were generally inundated or
saturated during survey in June 2018. Survey coverage is depicted in Figure 4.2-1.
Additional tests were excavated where cultural materials were found, including previously
recorded sites (31 RB20, 31 RB41, and 31 RB123), and also in areas suspected to contain historic
farmsteads. Each of the resources located in the APE are described below. Methods are
discussed in Chapter 4. Typical shovel test soil profiles are presented in Appendix A.
5.2 NEWLY RECORDED SITES
One newly identified prehistoric archaeological site (31 R13590) and six historic sites predicted by
historic map research (31 RB591 through 31 RB596) were recorded (see Figure 1.2-1; Table 1.2-
1). All seven sites are recommended ineligible for the NRHP, and ERM recommends that
construction be allowed to begin in those locations without further archaeological considerations.
31 RB590
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982 NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657353E 3851991 N Estimated size: 180 x 50 m
Total shovel tests: 85 Landform: Carolina bay rim
Positive shovel tests: 11 Ground cover: Cleared, grubbed
Maximum artifact depth: 60 cm Prehistoric artifacts: 37
Cultural affiliation: Woodland Historic artifacts: 0
Site type: Lithic scatter Total artifacts: 37
Site 31 RB590 is a large, but sparse surface scatter of prehistoric lithics and pottery situated on
the southeastern rim of a Carolina bay (Figures 5.2-1 through 5.2-3). The bay is approximately
450 m long parallel to Gum Swamp, which is 350 m to the southwest. The site area lies within a
recently cleared stand of planted pine. At the time of the survey, surface visibility averaged
40 percent, with areas obscured by leaf litter and branches. In total, the artifact scatter stretches
almost 200 m around the southeastern rim of the bay.
October 2018 49 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-1. View of 31 RB590 showing typical surface disturbance (foreground).
Figure 5.2-2. View of 31 RB590 looing north towards Carolina bay (background).
October 2018 50 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
O O p
O O D
0 0
0 D ❑ 0 ❑ 0
0 0 0
0 0 ► �► O O
1 �
1 �
❑ D 0 0 D 0
1
1 ❑
0 ❑ ; .
p o
1 �
1
1 1
0 ° 0 ❑ o ❑ ! • b ❑
' O
r �
❑ 0 p■ 0 0 0
O O O 0 01+� ❑ 0 p 0 ❑
� ■ 1
� ■ 1
O O +■■ 0 O 0 p O 0
b
O + �
+
.Q■+ p 0 0 0 0 ❑ 1 p ❑ D
O
❑ a, -'o
0 0 O O ❑ ❑
0 0 0
° 0 O
0 0 0
0
❑ ❑
0
0 0 O
O
N Tnn ni scan,: iu envronnenrerrcvrwa�rnoaea en::
0 Shovel Test - Negative Site 31 RB590
• Shovel Test - Positive
- Surface Collection Point Robeson LNG
_ _ 1
Site Boundary Robeson County,
1
North Carolina
0 50 100 Iso 200
Feet 1:1.566 ERM
C'•Ilselflrn[en[ma[�k'Oc[umenis'Cam[nsv LNG-0.58•Regetl FigulesRepeM1 Figuttf l0.19•.Carolinas Fq 31R959D map 10.18 mrd I REVISED if'1D.2(1:9I SCALE 1.1.569 DPALNN 8Y GIS
Figure 5.2-3. Site sketch, 31 RB590 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 51 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
The site was identified as a low-density surface scatter with additional materials recovered across
five survey transects spaced at 30-m intervals. Some artifacts were recovered as deep as 60 cm
below surface, but the vast majority of the material encountered in shovel tests was within the
upper 25 or 30 cm, corresponding to the plowzone. In total, 85 shovel test locations were
examined to delineate the site, 11 of which contained artifacts. Additional material was collected
from the surface.
In total 37 artifacts were collected from 31 RB590 (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-4); approximately half
(51 percent; n = 19) were collected from the ground surface. Twenty-five potsherds were
collected, most of which could be typed to specific periods, including 11 New River sherds from
October 2018 52 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-1.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB590
Depth
Raw Material/
Provenience Stratum
Description
Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
General
Surface
0
Fire -cracked rock
Quartz
1
Collection
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked
Sand
New River
5
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked-
Sand
New River
1
Perpendicular
Prehistoric Ceramic, fabric
Sand and Grog
Hanoverl
1
impressed
Prehistoric Ceramic, fabric
Grog and Sand
Hanover II
3
impressed
Prehistoric Ceramic, residual
4
Tertiary Flake
Quartz
1
Tertiary Flake
Rhyolite
2
Unifacial Side Scraper
Rhyolite
1
Total
19
N470 E440 1
0-22
Prehistoric Ceramic, residual
1
Tertiary Flake
Chert
1
Total
2
N485 E425 1
0-30
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked
Sand
New River
1
Total
1
N485 E440 1
0-25
Prehistoric Ceramic, Eroded
Sand
New River
1
Total
1
N500 E500 1
0-25
Tertiary Flake
Rhyolite
1
11
25-60
Tertiary Flake
Rhyolite
2
Total
3
N515 E40 1
0-10
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked
Sand
New River
1
Total
1
N515 E485 1
0-30
Prehistoric Ceramic, residual
2
Total
2
October 2018 52 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-4. Selected artifacts from 31 RB590: (a) unifacial rhyolite side scraper; (b) New River
cordmarked potsherd; (c) New River cordmarked (perpendicular) potsherd; (d) Hanover I fabric -
impressed potsherd; (e -f) Hanover II fabric -impressed potsherd.
October 2018 53 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-1.
Artifacts Recovered from 31
RB590
Depth
Raw Material/
Provenience Stratum
Description
Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
N530 E485 1
0-30
Tertiary Flake
Rhyolite
1
Total
1
N530 E515 1
0-24
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked
Sand
New River
1
Total
1
N560 E515 1
0-25
Tertiary Flake
Rhyolite
1
Total
1
N575 E515 1
0-32
Hafted Biface
Chert
Distal fragment
1
Prehistoric Ceramic, cordmarked
Sand
New River
1
Prehistoric Ceramic, residual
2
Total
4
N605 E515 1
10-20
Prehistoric Ceramic, residual
1
Total
1
SITE TOTAL
37
Figure 5.2-4. Selected artifacts from 31 RB590: (a) unifacial rhyolite side scraper; (b) New River
cordmarked potsherd; (c) New River cordmarked (perpendicular) potsherd; (d) Hanover I fabric -
impressed potsherd; (e -f) Hanover II fabric -impressed potsherd.
October 2018 53 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
the Early to Middle Woodland; aside from one sherd with an eroded surface, these are all
cordmarked. Two fabric -impressed sherds are identified as Hanover I (Middle -Late Woodland)
and Hanover II (Late Woodland). Ten other sherds are too decayed to make a type identification.
Twelve lithic artifacts include two tools, an untyped distal fragment of a hafted chert biface and a
rhyolite sidescraper. Nine pieces of debitage are all tertiary flakes (7 rhyolite, 1 chert, and 1
quartz). Also collected was fire -cracked piece of quartz.
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils on this landform closest to the bay are largely classified as Lakeland sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes (LaB); Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (NoB), comprise the flats behind. The
typical soil profiles of the shovel tests had two strata comparable to the defined Lakeland soil
series. Where undisturbed, Stratum I was a brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam plowzone from 0-
25 cm below the surface. This A horizon topsoil was underlain by a pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand
subsoil (C horizon). However, most of the landform exhibited disturbed or mixed and
unconsolidated soils to a depth of up to 40 cm, compromising the integrity of both the topsoil and
upper subsoil strata.
Site 31 RB590 represents a relatively low-density Woodland period artifact scatter, which appears
to have been disturbed and dispersed via episodes of logging and clearing on the parcel. Based
on the diagnostic potsherds finds that may span all Woodland periods, this locus may have served
as a resource procurement base camp by groups utilizing the adjoining wetlands. However,
shovel test profiles indicate that the silvicultural disturbances extend well into the subsoil. It is
unlikely that significant undisturbed cultural strata exist. Materials likely have been heavily
displaced both vertically and horizontally by logging, making it impossible to discern distinct
cultural horizons, activity areas, or features. Despite the presence of a few artifacts in possibly
undisturbed strata 40-60 cm below the surface, the majority of artifacts are out of context and do
not possess significant information potential about the prehistoric past. For these reasons, ERM
recommends the site as not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and no further work is
recommended.
31 RB591
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657791 E 3852603N
Estimated size: 60 x 25 m
Total shovel tests: 46
Landform: Carolina bay rim
Positive shovel tests: 8
Ground cover: Brush
Maximum artifact depth: 70 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 1
Cultural affiliation: 20th c./General Prehistoric
Historic artifacts: 90
Site type: Artifact scatter
Total artifacts: 91
Site 31 RB591 was first identified as a single shovel test (0-40 cm) containing glass and metal
along the north side of the main access road for the Project area (Figure 5.2-5 and 5.2-6). The
find spot is located between two mapped historic buildings, georeferenced approximately 30 m to
the west and 80 m to the east along a historic tree line. The historic USGS quadrangles show the
eastern structure as an open square, suggesting that it was likely an outbuilding associated with
the western structure, a dwelling. An unimproved road separates the two buildings on the older
1949 map. This road is no longer evident on the 1982 quadrangle; however, the road trace is still
discernable in the field.
October 2018 54 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-5. General view of 31 RB591, looking west.
As these two mapped structures appear to be associated with the same farmstead, they were
treated as the same site in the current investigation, and close -interval shovel testing and
delineation extended from the find spot to cover both locations in an attempt to find additional
evidence of the farm. Only seven of these additional shovel tests contained cultural material,
largely in the area of the dwelling. Although the close -interval testing was extended approximately
100 m to the east, specifically looking for evidence of the outbuilding, this area was found to be
heavily disturbed, with several push piles located along a small bay to the east.
All artifacts are historic and were found from the ground surface to a maximum depth of 70 cm
below surface. The entire area was also subject to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although
surface visibility averaged approximately 20 percent across the entire site, given the dense
understory of brush and vines. No structural remains were identified and have been likely razed
and removed off-site during recent clearing.
In total, 91 artifacts were collected from 31 RB591 (Table 5.2-2), including a single prehistoric
isolate, a piece of rhyolite debitage comingled with twentieth century materials. The collected
material is largely glass (83.5 percent; n = 76), and based on seams and other diagnostic features,
mostly appear to be machine -made containers (typically bottles) dating to the twentieth century.
Only a single piece is flat window pane glass. The only ceramics are three undecorated pieces of
whiteware, not attributable to any specific period. Six metal fragments are generally oxidized and
unidentified, aside from two wire nails. Pieces of coal and brick also were sampled.
October 2018 55 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
o ❑
❑ a o
a o a
a a a 0
0
° o a
0 ❑
0
0
° 0 0
'
0 0 Zoe 0 a
rrrrll��� p
a 0
o ❑ ❑ ❑
----
■ q a ❑ n
■ ` o a ❑
� f
❑ o
a
L1? ❑
a
a o
"MUZ
a o a o
210 0
0
o a
v
a o1%6F
0
a ❑
a a
Q
H n�a r,m,�rb� �s i em.cnmenler renewnv+wles
a Shovel Test - Negative Site 31 RB591
• Shovel Test - Positive Robeson LNG
Surface Collection Point Robeson County,
' site Boundary North Carolina
o so 100 Iso 200 ERM
Feet 11.5515
C^A7NriWncem.macekl➢ocumunlltiCamina WGJ-1g)RFpud FipumORwpon Fpum 10-191CaMinas Fq 31 RONI map 10 -1 1 REVISE: 16' 10201! 1 SCALE: 1:1568 DRAWN BY: GIS
Figure 5.2-6. Site sketch, 31 R13591.
October 2018 56 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
October 2018 57 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-2.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB591
Depth
Raw Material/
Provenience Stratum
Description
Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
General
Surface
0
Glass, Container base
Amber
1
Collection
Total
1
N500 E455 1
0-10
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Total
1
N500 E470 1
0-20
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Total
1
N500 E485 1
0-20
Glass, Container body
Colorless
20
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
2
Glass, Container body
Green
1
Glass, Container double ring finish
Amber
1
Indeterminate
Metal
2
fragment
Window glass
2
Total
28
N500 E500 1/11
0-70
Brick
Fragment
1
Coal
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
2
Glass, Container body
Amber
2
Total
6
N515 E455 1
0-23
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Tertiary flake Rhyolite
1
Total
2
Fragment
N515 E470 1
0-30
Brick
(uncollected)
Glass, Container base
Colorless
1
Glass Container body
Colorless
12
Colorless,
Glass, Container body
1
gadrooned
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware base
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
3
Rolled Metal
Indeterminate
1
Total
20
October 2018 57 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB591 are classified as McColl loam (Mc) within the bay and Pocalla loamy sand,
0 to 3 percent slopes (PoB) comprising the southeastern rim. Stratum I was a dark gray
(10YR 4/1) loamy sand plowzone from 0-30 cm below the surface. This Apt horizon topsoil was
underlain by brown (10YR 5/3) loamy sand (Ap2 horizon) with unconsolidated inclusions of the
upper Ap horizon that extends to approximately 70 cm below the surface. This stratum appears
to be mixed and redeposited Bt horizon soils. The underlying soil is light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
coarse sand, which based on the Pocalla type description, appears to be the E horizon, which
underlies the Bt horizon subsoil.
No intact structural remains associated with the location of a house or other outbuildings were
identified in this area. Given the depth of the disturbed strata, this is not surprising. Although
material such whiteware and wire nails first originated in the nineteenth century, none of the
artifacts recovered at 31 RB591 can be confidently dated to earlier than the twentieth century. This
is consistent with the historic map data, which shows the farm at this location appearing sometime
between 1908 and 1949. The extensive shovel testing conducted in the vicinity failed to obtain
additional information about the nature or layout of the associated farm. For these reasons, ERM
recommends that the site is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
October 2018 58 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-2.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB591
Depth
Raw Material/
Provenience Stratum
Description
Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
N515 E485 1 0-50
Glass, Container beaded finish
Light green
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
14
Light blue milk
Glass, Container body
1
glass
Glass, Container body
Yellow, beveled
1
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Wire Nail
2
Total
21
N515 E515 1 0-30
Glass, Container body
Colorless
7
Indeterminate
Metal
1
fragment
Total
8
SITE TOTAL
91
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB591 are classified as McColl loam (Mc) within the bay and Pocalla loamy sand,
0 to 3 percent slopes (PoB) comprising the southeastern rim. Stratum I was a dark gray
(10YR 4/1) loamy sand plowzone from 0-30 cm below the surface. This Apt horizon topsoil was
underlain by brown (10YR 5/3) loamy sand (Ap2 horizon) with unconsolidated inclusions of the
upper Ap horizon that extends to approximately 70 cm below the surface. This stratum appears
to be mixed and redeposited Bt horizon soils. The underlying soil is light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
coarse sand, which based on the Pocalla type description, appears to be the E horizon, which
underlies the Bt horizon subsoil.
No intact structural remains associated with the location of a house or other outbuildings were
identified in this area. Given the depth of the disturbed strata, this is not surprising. Although
material such whiteware and wire nails first originated in the nineteenth century, none of the
artifacts recovered at 31 RB591 can be confidently dated to earlier than the twentieth century. This
is consistent with the historic map data, which shows the farm at this location appearing sometime
between 1908 and 1949. The extensive shovel testing conducted in the vicinity failed to obtain
additional information about the nature or layout of the associated farm. For these reasons, ERM
recommends that the site is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
October 2018 58 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
31 RB592
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657998E 3851716N
Estimated size: 60 x 40 m
Total shovel tests: 37
Landform: Carolina bay rim
Positive shovel tests: 8
Ground cover: Brush
Maximum artifact depth: 30 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: 19th -20th C.
Historic artifacts: 33
Site type: Dwelling foundations
Total artifacts: 33
Site 31 RB592 was first identified as three consecutive shovel tests containing glass and metal at
depths from 0-15 cm along the southeastern boundary of the Project area (Figures 5.2-7 through
5.2-11). The find spot corresponds with the georeferenced location of a mapped farmstead. This
site appears to be located on the 1908 Hearn soil map. The 1949 USGS map shows a dwelling
with one outbuilding at 31 RB592 with access roads approaching from either side.
At the time of the current survey, the site area had been recently cleared of pine trees, but a dense
area of brush remains, with a new farm road passing through the north end of the site along the
southern end of a nearby Carolina bay. A search of this area identified both a chimney base and
chimney fall feature, as well as six brick piers, all made of machine -extruded brick. Aside from
parts of the chimney base, which are articulated, these brick features are all broken and scattered
as a result of clearing of the property. Based on the locations of the piers and chimneys, the
dwelling appears to have been approximately 30 x 30 feet.
Figure 5.2-7. General view of 31 RB592, looking north.
October 2018 59 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-10. General view of broken brick pier at 31 RB592, looking west.
The find spot was shovel tested at 15-m intervals in an attempt to find additional evidence of the
farm. Only five of these additional shovel tests contained any cultural material. All artifacts are
historic and extend from the ground surface to a maximum depth of 30 cm. The entire area was
also subject to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged
approximately 5 percent across the entire site, given the dense understory of brush and vines.
In total, 33 artifacts were collected from 31 RB592 (Table 5.2-3). Approximately half of this material
(51.5 percent; n = 17) is glass, and based on seams and other diagnostic features, most appear
to be from machine -made containers (typically bottles) dating to the twentieth century. Also of
note is a fragment of a Boyd's "porcelain" (milk glass) Mason jar cap. Although these were
patented in 1869, they were manufactured by Boyd through the 1950s, and are difficult to date,
particularly since this is a small fragment. The only ceramics are nine undecorated pieces of
whiteware, and isolated pieces of Albany and American Blue and Gray stoneware. All these
ceramic wares have long production periods not diagnostic to a specific historic period. Five metal
fragments are generally oxidized and unidentified. These include both wire nails and square nails.
Square nails were available since ca. 1790 and were gradually phased out of use over the
nineteenth century.
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB592 are classified as Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Where
undisturbed, the soil profile is comparable to this soil series. Stratum I was a dark brown
(10YR 3/3) loamy sand plowzone from 0-40 cm below the surface. This Ap horizon topsoil was
October 2018 61 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
I
[:
❑
0
U
N
Project Boundary
Ana nw. Vo-:r>ix vu.avms-Y
❑ -shovel Test - Negative
■ Shovel Test - Positive
Site 31 RB592
Surface Collection Point Robeson LNG
- Brick Pier Robeson County, `
Chimney North Carolina 1�cJ►
_ -site Boundary a 40 so 12C 160
F.�t 1:1.2001 ERIN4
C:1Vw wnwm.m mk1Dmumm WC -Atlas M 4-1SWepw FquhalRapua Fipums 10-1 Mardinas Fg 31 RU692 map $0-8-4 1 REVISED: 1 WIIW8 t SCALE: 1:1200 DRAM 0Y: GIS
Figure 5.2-11. Site sketch, 31 RB592 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 62 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
October 2018 63 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-3.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB592
Provenience
Stratum Depth (cm)
Description
Comments
Frequency
N470 E500
1 5-15
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Glass, Container body
Light blue
1
Glass, Container body
Light orange, beveled
1
Total
3
N485 E500
1 0-22
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, stoneware rim
Buff paste with Albany slip
1
Total
3
N485 E515
1 0-10
Square Nail
1
Total
1
N500 E500
1 5-15
Iron Bracket, nails
1
Total
1
N500 E515
1 0-16
Flat Metal
Iron
1
Glass, Container body
Amethyst
1
Glass, Container body
Aqua
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Wire Nail
1
Total
5
N515 E485
1 0-28
Glass, Container base
Amethyst
1
Glass, Container body
Amethyst
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
3
Total
6
N515 E500
1 0-30
Glass, Container body
Amber
1
Glass, Container body
Aqua
2
Glass, Container body
Colorless
2
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
2
Historic Ceramic, stoneware rim
Annular blue and gray
1
Square Nail
1
Total
9
N530 E500
1 0-10
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Total
1
N515 E515
1 0-30
Glass, Container lid
Boyd's Mason jar cap
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware base
Undecorated
2
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Total
4
SITE TOTAL
33
October 2018 63 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
underlain by pale brown (10YR 6/3) loamy sand (E horizon) that extends to approximately 85 cm
below the surface. The underlying soil is light yellowish brown (10YR 6/5) sandy clay (Bt horizon).
Beyond the brush surrounding the brick features, these horizons are mixed and redeposited to a
depth of up to 40 cm.
Although foundation elements of a farmhouse were identified in this area, these architectural
features are all in poor condition and clearing has disturbed most of the site. The artifact remains
at 31 RB592 represent only a very small scatter of twentieth century materials, with a few items,
such as the square nails, which likely date to the nineteenth century. This is consistent with the
historic map evidence, which shows a structure in this location as early as 1908. The extensive
shovel testing failed to uncover additional information about the nature or layout of the associated
farm. For these reasons, ERM recommends that the site is not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D. No further work is recommended.
31 RB593
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982 NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 658230E 3851746N Estimated size: <20 x 20 m
Total shovel tests: 15 Landform: Carolina bay rim
Positive shovel tests: 1 Ground cover: Brush, vines
Maximum artifact depth: 40 cm Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: 20th C. Historic artifacts: 6
Site type: Artifact scatter Total artifacts: 6
Site 31 RB593 was first identified as a single shovel test containing glass, brick and whiteware in
the southeastern corner of the Project area (Figures 5.2-12 and 5.2-13). The find spot
corresponds to the georeferenced farm location plotted based on the 1982 Wakulla, North
Carolina USGS quadrangle. The older 1949 map shows the building at this location as an open
square, suggesting it to be an outbuilding associated with 31 RB592 or one of the farms along NC -
71. Several ditches appear in the vicinity surrounding the building, but are no longer extant.
The find spot was shovel tested at 15-m intervals in an attempt to find additional evidence of
historic dwellings in the area. None of 14 these additional shovel tests contained any cultural
material. The entire area was also subject to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface
visibility averaged approximately 10 percent across the entire site given the dense understory of
brush and vines.
Six artifacts were collected from 31 RB593 (Table 5.2-4). These included two historic ceramic
sherds: undecorated whiteware and Albany -slipped stoneware. Two pieces of container glass, a
window pane shard and a brick fragment, also were collected.
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB593 are classified as Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Ly) and
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes (WoB) lying along the southeastern rim of a Carolina
bay. Stratum I was a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy plowzone from 0-50 cm below the
surface. This Ap horizon topsoil was underlain by yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy E horizon
that extends to approximately 70 cm below the surface. The underlying Bt horizon subsoil is
yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay.
October 2018 64 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-12. General view of 31 R13593, looking east from bay rim to adjoining property.
Table 5.2-4.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB593
Provenience Stratum Depth (cm) Description
Comments
Frequency
N500 E500 1 0-40 Brick
Fragment
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Glass, Container body
Light blue
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, stoneware rim
Buff paste with Albany slip
1
Window Glass
1
Total
6
SITE TOTAL
6
Although an outbuilding is mapped in this area, the remains at 31 RB593 represent only a very
small scatter of likely twentieth century artifacts. No intact structural remains were found to
indicate the location of a house or other outbuildings in this area. The extensive shovel testing
conducted failed obtain any additional information about the associated farm. Therefore, ERM
recommends 31 RB593 not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
October 2018 65 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
° o ❑
❑ °
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
c o
❑ °
❑
o °
o ❑
o ° ❑
0 0
❑ o
Project Boundary
c.
K
T
Tn-M—f-a for —mn-W—p.y —oNr
❑ Shovel Test - !Negative
■ Shovel Test - Positive Site 31 RB593
Surface Collection Point Robeson LNG
Site Boundary Robeson County,
North Carolina
o 50 100 ISO 20D ERM
1:3,566
C.lllsenbNeeMmaeeL^dleestmenrilCam5nas LR6 4•1Petepn Fig.— Repcn F.Qw a I(I.I MaWnaf Fig 31 RINS93 map 311.111—d I N�.VISpO. 10)10fjC 18 I SCA e! 1:1,569 0f�1iiR� BY. GIS
Figure 5.2-13. Site sketch, 31 RB593 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 66 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
31 RB594
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657055E 3852475N
Estimated size: 85 x 45 m
Total shovel tests: 45
Landform: Carolina bay rim
Positive shovel tests: 9
Ground cover: Brush
Maximum artifact depth: 40 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: 19th -20th C.
Historic artifacts: 236
Site type: Dwelling foundations
Total artifacts: 236
Site 31 RB594 was first identified as three consecutive shovel tests containing glass and metal at
depths from 0-25 cm along CR -1316 (Figures 5.2-14 through 5.2-16). The find spot corresponds
with the georeferenced location of a farm represented on historic maps. The 1949 USGS map
shows a dwelling with one outbuilding at 31 RB594 along an access road to CR -1316. The locus
is along a slight ridge between small Carolina bays east and west of CR -1316. This site also
appears on the 1908 Hearn soil map.
At the time of the current survey, the area had been recently cleared of trees, but a dense area
of brush remains. The new farm road passing south of the site from CR -1316 has been well
maintained compared to others appearing on the historic maps. A search of this area identified a
brick and concrete block chimney base, brick pillars, along with several piles of architectural
debris and concentrations of historic twentieth century refuse. The brick observed was all
machine -extruded; however, these brick features have been razed and disarticulated, creating an
approximate 25 x 20-m scatter surrounding the chimney fall.
Figure 5.2-14. General view of 31 RB594, looking northwest towards CR -1316.
October 2018 67 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-15. General view of brick scatter at 31 RB594, looking east.
The find spot was shovel tested at 15-m intervals in an attempt to find additional evidence of the
farm. A total of nine shovel tests at the site contained cultural material. All artifacts are historic
and extend from the ground surface to a maximum depth of 40 cm. The entire area also was
subject to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged approximately
10 percent across the entire site, given the dense understory of brush and vines.
A total of 236 historic artifacts were collected from the site delineation (Table 5.2-5). As with other
historic sites in the Project area, most (82.6 percent; n = 195) of the artifacts are glass shards.
These are primary from machine -made containers such as bottles where mold seams and
diagnostic design elements are present. Only four pieces of glass are identifiable as pane glass,
indicating a former structure in the area. Other architectural materials include a single brick
fragment and 13 nails (2 square and 11 wire). Other iron objects include a food canister, can
parts, washer, saw blade, a cog or gear, a fitting, a master cylinder from a car, and a horseshoe,
as well as oxidized and unidentifiable iron fragments and slag. Ceramics include eight pieces of
whiteware, and a possible pearlware sherd. The whiteware includes gilded wares, which likely
date to the twentieth century. However, a single transfer -printed sherd, as well as the pearlware
more likely date to the nineteenth century, although these may represent curated or heirloom
pieces, contemporary with a later occupation. A few personal items include a glass marble, a
porcelain figurine, and an iron "Blue Bell" clothing button. Blue Bell is a former (1919-1943)
incarnation of Wrangler jeans that made overalls in Greensboro, North Carolina.
October 2018 68 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
0
° 0 0
0
c o
v
0
on op 0 0 0
a ° Q
0
0 0 0
0
to 0
0
0 ❑ ❑ 0 ° v
■ 0
0 e �.
E ■ 0 0
1 �
■
0 • o • ^9- o
■
0 11
0 s ■■
❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑
❑ o _
o °
0 0
o
0 0 0 ❑
0 0
7
❑
Q 0 ❑ ❑
❑ °211114 1 O
N i+ra niamuKn+s rw emranmenlar.exyw pyryws mry
❑ Shovel Test - Negative
• Shovel Test - Positive Site 31 RB594
- Surface Collection Paint Robeson LNG
®
Bricks Robeson County,
Chimney North Carolina ra
1 E Site Boundary 0 -50 100 150 200 ERM
Feel 1:1 565
C wsem--ce n1 mace t'Aocumen h Camlm ae LNG 4-18'AeW Fig—'Repos Fig. res r0-sBr-Ca rd -n a s Fy 31 R6595 map 10-19 mxa I REY MED 10"1020191 SCALE 11566 DRAWN BI': 615
Figure 5.2-16. Site sketch, 31 RB594 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 69 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
October 2018 70 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.2-5.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594
Provenience
Stratum Depth (cm)
Description
Comments
Frequency
General
Surface 0
Cog/gear
1
Collection
Glass Marble
1
Washer
1
Total
3
N485 E470
1 0-20
Glass, Container base
Amber
2
Glass, Container body
Amber
6
Glass, Container threaded finish
Amber
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
1
Slag
1
Total
12
N485 E485
1 0-30
Glass, Container base
Colorless
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
2
Glass, Container body
Colorless, decal
1
Glass, Container crown cap
Colorless
1
Glass, Container rim
Colorless
2
Glass, Container rim
Colorless, decal
1
Window Glass
1
Total
9
N485 E500
1 0-30
Glass, Container base
Amber
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
4
Glass, Container body
Colorless, decal
1
Plastic
Burned
1
Total
7
N485 E500
1 0-20
Glass, Container crown cap
Green
1
Total
1
N500 E500
1 0-35
Glass, Container body
Aqua
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
11
Glass, Container body
Colorless,eroded
4
Glass, Container body
Green
1
Metal
Indeterminate fragment
2
Wire Nail
2
Total
21
N500 E530
1 0-20
Glass, Container base
Amethyst
1
Horseshoe
1
Metal
Indeterminate fragment
1
Total
3
October 2018 70 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Table 5.2-5.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594
Provenience Stratum Depth (cm)
Description
Comments
Frequency
N515 E470 1 0-20
Glass, Container body
Colorless, burned
69
Square Nail
1
Wire Nail
3
Total
73
N515 E500 1 0-35
Glass, Container base
Colorless
1
Glass, Container body
Amber; Anheuser Bush logo
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
10
Glass, Container body
Colorless, burned
1
Glass, Container body
Light green
3
Glass, Container body
Olive
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Total
18
N530 E470 1 0-40
Brick
Fragment
1
Glass, bottle
Colorless, makers mark
1
Glass, Container base
Colorless, decal
1
Glass, Container base
Colorless, makers mark
1
Glass, Container base
Colorless
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless, decal
3
Glass, Container body
Colorless, decal
2
Glass, Container body
Colorless, gadrooned
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless, embossed
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
21
Glass, Container body
Yellow, gadrooned
1
Glass, Container body
Light green
1
Glass, Container body
Amber
2
Glass, Container body
Amber, Anheuser Busch
1
logo
Glass, Container body
Amber, burned
1
Glass, Container crown cap
Colorless
1
Glass, Container crown cap
Amber, Anheuser Busch
1
logo
Glass, Container crown cap
Amber
1
Glass, Container neck
Colorless, rippled
1
Glass, Container neck
Colorless
1
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
2
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, pearlware body
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware rim
Undecorated
1
October 2018 71 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Table 5.2-5.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594
Provenience Stratum Depth (cm) Description
Comments
Frequency
Historic Ceramic, whiteware rim
Gilt, floral design
2
Iron Container
Square food container
1
Iron Fitting
1
Master cylinder
1
Porcelain Figurine
1
Saw blade
1
Square Nail
1
Tin Can
1
Window Glass
2
Wire Nail
4
Total
64
N530 E470 1 0-25 Glass, Container body
Colorless
8
Historic Ceramic, whiteware base
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware rim
Undecorated
1
Iron Button
Loop shank, embossed
1
"BLUE/ BELL"
Pig Tooth
1
Window Glass
1
Wire Nail
1
Total
15
N530 E500 1 0-35 Glass, Container body
Colorless
5
Glass, Container body
Light green
1
Glass, Container body
Amethyst
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware rim
Transfer print floral design
1
Metal
Indeterminate fragment
1
Wire Nail
1
Total
10
SITE TOTAL
236
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB594 are classified as Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes (WaB). Where
undisturbed, the soil profile is comparable to this soil series. Stratum I was a grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) sandy loam plowzone from 0-35 cm below the surface. This Ap horizon topsoil was
underlain by mottled very pale brown (10YR 8/3) and yellow (10YR 7/6) coarse sandy clay (Bt
horizon).
October 2018 72 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Although foundation elements of a farmhouse were identified in this area, these are all in poor
condition and clearing has disturbed most of the site. The artifact remains at 31 RB594 represent
only a very small scatter of nineteenth to mid -twentieth century materials. The depth of
disturbance, with auto parts and modern bottles recovered from up to 40 cm below the surface,
indicates that earthmoving impacts around the site have been recent and significant. The
extensive shovel testing conducted failed to produce additional information about the associated
farm. For these reasons, ERM recommends that the site is not eligible for the NRHP. No further
work is recommended.
31 RB595
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657908E 3851426N
Estimated size: 60 x 30 m
Total shovel tests: 25
Landform: Carolina bay
Positive shovel tests: 0
Ground cover: Cleared/grubbed
Maximum artifact depth: 0 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: 20"' C.
Historic artifacts: 0
Site type: Outbuilding
Total artifacts: 0
Site 31 RB595 was first identified as the remains of a concrete block well house in the
southeastern corner of the Project area (Figures 5.2-17 through 5.2-19). This outbuilding is
approximately 60 m east of a georeferenced farm location shown directly across a ditch or canal
from another structure. These loci were plotted based on the 1982 Wakulla, North Carolina USGS
Figure 5.2-17. General view of 31 RB595, looking west along NC -71.
October 2018 73 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-18. Loci 4 and 5 at 31 RB595, with septic tank in foreground. View is southeast
towards NC -71.
quadrangle. Although the ditch appears, these structures are not shown on the 1949 USGS map.
The area is within a Carolina bay, which accounts for the ditches; it also appears that fill was
introduced to promote drainage, and perhaps to elevate a building site.
Other than the 1 x 0.5-m well house structure that stands 1.5 m tall, no other features or artifacts
were noted, except the exposed opening to a septic tank approximately 40 m to the northeast.
Given the suspected dwellings in the area, an approximately 150 x 60-m area extending between
the well house and the eastern and southern edges of the Project area was shovel tested at
15-m intervals in an attempt to find additional evidence of historic dwellings. None of these 25
shovel tests contained cultural material. The entire area also was subject to surface inspection at
5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged approximately 10 percent across the entire site,
given the leaf litter and branches.
Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey,
the soils at 31 RB595 are classified as McColl loam (Mc) within the bay. The observed shovel test
soil profile had two strata, comparable to hydric McColl loam soils. Shovel tests exhibited mixed
and unconsolidated topsoil (dark gray [2.5Y 4/1] loam) and subsoil (olive yellow [2.5Y 6/6] clay),
confirming disturbance deeper than 20 cm.
The remains at 31 RB595 represent a relatively modern (post -1949) small outbuilding and septic
system. No other structural remains associated with a house or other outbuildings have been
preserved in this area. The extensive shovel testing conducted failed to identify a substantial,
October 2018 74 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
9.>_
Ex
0
0
0
0
0
o ❑ A%*�iqTank
r
r
r �
Well House G .'
❑ ❑ �. 0
0
r..
Project Boundary
0 7
� . n.s nlumrrun �s � • envunnme.vel reeiewpa,mpses carry.
0 shovel Test - Negative Site 31 RB595
site BoundaryRobeson LNG
Robeson County,
North Carolina c�
0 50 100 150 200 ERM
Feet 1:7,586
C7U—Ivi—nt —WD— Ji— LNG 6-$61R%..t Fig—'Rep. rt Fig.— 10-1 ST.Mi— Fig 31 RB595 map 10-18 —d i REVlSED: IWI012D 18 I SCALE: 5:1-566 orrnwr': ei' G1$
Figure 5.2-19. Site sketch, 31 RB595 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 75 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
undisturbed subsurface component to this site. No historic artifacts were found that could offer
additional information about the overall site. Given the site's lack of further research potential,
ERM recommends 31 RB595 not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
31 RB596
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657536E 3853065N
Estimated size: 40 x 20 m
Total shovel tests: 15
Landform: Carolina bay
Positive shovel tests: 0
Ground cover: Dense underbrush
Maximum artifact depth: 0 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: 20"' C.
Historic artifacts: 0
Site type: Outbuilding
Total artifacts: 0
Site 31 RB596 was first identified as a roughly square 5-x-5 m concrete block foundation and
machine -made brick scatter located along a drainage ditch on the main property access road
(Figures 5.2-20 through 5.2-22). A dwelling and three outbuildings are depicted near this locus on
the 1949 USGS map. Site 31 RB596 was identified during the current survey near a georeferenced
farm location after no evidence of a farm in this location was identified during the 30-m transect
survey. The foundation appears to represent one of the small outbuildings shown adjacent to a
ditch. A few corrugated metal roofing fragments, and a galvanized metal flue, located within the
Figure 5.2-20. General view of 31 RB596, looking north towards drainage.
October 2018 76 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.2-21. View of block foundation at 31 RB596.
foundation were the only other cultural materials identified. None of these surface materials were
collected. The site is along the southeastern rim of a Carolina bay, and the ditch is intended to
improve the drainage from the wetland just to the northwest.
A series of 15 shovel tests at 15-m intervals were excavated around the find spot. None of these
shovel tests contained any cultural material. The entire area was also subject to surface
inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged approximately 10 percent across
the entire site given the dense understory. No additional surface materials where identified.
Based on the surface conditions and evidence from the shovel test profiles, the logging of the
property appears to have disturbed the upper strata to an average depth of 25 cm, comprising
almost the entire topsoil stratum. The soil profile observed at 31 RB596 also appears shallow
compared to elsewhere in the Project area; this is likely the result of additional grading and
disturbance associated with improvements to the access road intersection to the south. Based on
data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey, the soils
at 31 RB596 are classified as McColl loam (Mc) within the bay, and Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to
3 percent slopes (PoB) comprising the southeastern rim. The observed shovel test soil profile had
two strata, comparable to hydric McColl loam soils. Stratum I was a gray (10YR 5/1) loamy sand
plowzone from 0-25 cm below the surface. This Ap horizon topsoil was underlain by very dark
gray (10YR 3/1) sandy clay loam subsoil (Btg horizon).
The remains at 31 RB596 represent an isolated small outbuilding, possibly a smokehouse or
tobacco barn. No intact structural remains indicate the location of a house or other outbuildings
in the immediate area. The extensive shovel testing conducted failed to indicate the presence of
October 2018 77 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
0
a o 0
0
0 p o
❑ 0 0 ❑
D ❑
I. D
■ 0 D
♦
0 tO ♦ O
I
1 + `t o
D O♦ ♦ D 1
0 ❑
0 G
D 0 D 0 Ile
D 0 0 D
0 0
❑ D ,�
0
D -f'
❑ O ❑
O
Thu ml Ann ra Wenvmn—ter review parpneee Defy.
0 Shovel Test - Negative Site 31 RB596
+ Foundation Robeson LNG
` Site BoundaryRobeson County,
��..� fYr
North Carolina
0 50 100 150 200 r� �,�
Feet 1A,566
C'iUseWs inten: mace k•.Dn—enWCamrnaa LNG 4.IO.Repnn Figures' Repan =q—e10-13- a•th— Fig is RB596 map 111 -ISMO I REVISED' 1D1tQr418 SCALE 115c DRAWN BY GIS
Figure 5.2-22. Site sketch, 31 RB596 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 78 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
substantial, undisturbed subsurface deposits. The remains of the outbuilding contributes little
information important to our understanding of twentieth century agricultural practices in the area.
Therefore, ERM recommends 31 RB596 not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further
work is recommended.
5.3 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES IN THE PROJECT AREA
OAH had records of three archaeological sites within the Project area (31 RB20, 31 RB41, and
31 RB123) prior to the current investigations. All three site areas were investigated as a part of
the Phase I survey in order to delineate and assess these resources. Only two of those sites,
31 RB41 and 31 RB 123, were relocated.
31 RB20
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657080E 3852000N
Estimated size: Unknown
Total shovel tests: 9
Landform: Carolina bay
Positive shovel tests: 0
Ground cover: Brush
Maximum artifact depth: 0 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: General Prehistoric
Historic artifacts: 0
Site type: Unknown
Total artifacts: 0
Site 31 RB20 appears to have been identified by Jeffery Gordon, a Pembroke State University
professor of geography, inferring from the limited documentation available. Based on information
for other sites in the area, 31 RB20 appears to have been discovered by Gordon earlier (ca. 1972),
and entered into the OAH database in 1979. The sketch map on the archaeological short form
presents a general location of the site along the east side of CR -1316. The updated OAH form
presents datum coordinates that plots the site within a Carolina bay within a 100-m margin of
error. The site is noted as prehistoric with no additional locational information or details as to
specific finds.
During the current survey, no prehistoric materials were found in the 100-m radius of 31 RB20
during the 30-m transect survey. To more closely inspect the recorded site location, the plotted
datum was relocated in the field with GPS, and found to lie within a Carolina bay east of CR -1316
(Figures 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). Although vegetated, the underlying ground surface had some surface
visibility, generally less than 50 percent, and was inspected for surface material at close intervals.
An approximately 45-m area surrounding the datum point also was shovel tested at 15-m
intervals. Soils were comparable to the mapped McColl loam. Although the OAH datum point has
a margin of error roughly twice this radius, it was considered unlikely that the site is located within
the poorly drained area. ERM assumes that the site was mismapped.
An additional five shovel tests were excavated along the adjacent rim of the bay, considered the
most likely location for the site. The rim in this area also was closely inspected for prehistoric
material on the eroded and exposed surface. This rim is approximately 80-85 m north of the OAH
datum, and within the limit of the margin of error. Soils in this area were comparable to the
expected Norfolk loamy sand profile, but deflated, with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy loam
at or near the ground surface. No cultural material was found in this locus.
October 2018 79 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.3-1. General view of location of 31 RB20, looking northwest from datum. Rim of
Carolina bay is discernable in background.
Site 31 RB20 may have been obscured by modern clearing and grubbing since it was originally
identified by Gordon in the 1970s. Assuming the site actually is located within 100 m of the plotted
datum, it can be considered small and ephemeral at best, as it was not identified during 30-m
transect survey or targeted 15-m interval testing. Given the limited documentation available for
this site, it is possible that the site was mismapped and actually corresponds to the newly recorded
31 RB590, which is along the southeast rim of the same bay; however, given that the newly defined
site is approximately 350 m southeast of 31 RB20, they were assumed to be separate.
Regardless, given the lack of significant, identifiable archaeological remains in the vicinity of the
recorded datum, 31 RB20 is recommended ineligible for the NRHP.
October 2018 80 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
� rnn mrmneean b rorenurw�menrerrevnwpufpeaer o:•.
Site 31 RB20
0 Shovel Test - Negative Robeson LNG
y _ _ site Boundary Robeson County,
North Carolina
0 50 100 150 200
11�FW t:,, 6 ERM
.RVaaMxlnpfA.maDahlDxtlmMlla'CaipXAal Lf1G/-161RWd FlgvvMWnfl 5gum 104FGamRm Fq 01AS20 map 10-1e.mxa 3 REVISE0: J011W201S 1 SCALE:1!1.586 DRAWN BY GIS
Figure 5.3-2. Site sketch, 31 RB20 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle).
October 2018 81 Piedmont Natural Gas
6
0 0 °
O
D
o
o
❑ ❑
o
0
fil
O
❑
❑
+ 0
■•
O~ p1
o
+
r
o
I
i+
�
,
•
■� ❑
❑
❑
�•
fl
■
■
O
7 p
■0
■
—
0
r
■ °
❑
O
!
1
O
■ °
e
❑
O
1
❑ ❑
O
o
�
F
t O
❑
p
❑ ❑
❑
! O
f
! p
�
■
■
■
■
■
�
�
�%
r
o
r
r
o
■■•.
�
v
v
0
a
❑
O
O
O
O ❑
❑
O
� rnn mrmneean b rorenurw�menrerrevnwpufpeaer o:•.
Site 31 RB20
0 Shovel Test - Negative Robeson LNG
y _ _ site Boundary Robeson County,
North Carolina
0 50 100 150 200
11�FW t:,, 6 ERM
.RVaaMxlnpfA.maDahlDxtlmMlla'CaipXAal Lf1G/-161RWd FlgvvMWnfl 5gum 104FGamRm Fq 01AS20 map 10-1e.mxa 3 REVISE0: J011W201S 1 SCALE:1!1.586 DRAWN BY GIS
Figure 5.3-2. Site sketch, 31 RB20 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute quadrangle).
October 2018 81 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
31 RB41
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982 NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657369E 3851248N Estimated size: 170 x 45 m
Total shovel tests: 50 Landform: Stream terrace
Positive shovel tests: 3 Ground cover: Cleared/grubbed
Maximum artifact depth: 60 cm Prehistoric artifacts: 3
Cultural affiliation: Woodland/General Prehistoric/General Historic Historic artifacts: 22
Site type: Artifact scatter Total artifacts: 25
Site 31 RB41 appears to have been identified by Jeffery Gordon of Pembroke State University in
1972 and entered into the OAH database in 1979. The sketch map on the archaeological short
form presents a general location of the site along the southeast side of the intersection of CR -
1316 and NC -71 along Gum Swamp. The site is located along the terrace just above Gum
Swamp; the area has been heavily disturbed, notably by a borrow pit, and has been heavily used
as a dumping area in recent history. The site form notes 34 artifacts, including 18 pieces of lithic
debitage (2 quartz and 16 rhyolite), 10 untyped potsherds and "2 stones;" the meaning of the
latter being unclear. The site was attributed to the Woodland period based on the presence of
pottery.
Site 31 RB41 was first re-identified via two shovel tests spaced 60 m apart containing a small
amount of lithic debitage at a depth of 30-60 cm, along the southeastern edge of a borrow pit
near Gum Swamp (Figures 5.3-3 through 5.3-5). These tests fell near the boundaries of 31 RB41,
as did a scatter of cut stone blocks (possibly the stones described by Gordon) and bricks on the
northwest side of the borrow pit. Both of these areas were delineated at 15-m intervals, but only
one of these 50 tests produced additional, historic material from the surface. The entire landform
was also subjected to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged
approximately 10 percent across the entire site given the leaf litter.
The three pieces of debitage identified during the 30 -m -interval survey, all tertiary rhyolite flakes,
were the only prehistoric artifacts found at 31 RB41. The remaining 22 artifacts are historic
materials collected from the surface of the site (Table 5.3-1). These include seven transfer -printed
whiteware pieces, and one piece of transfer printed ironstone with a maker's mark. The ironstone
pattern is identified as the Green Field line from Homer Laughlin's "Best China" made in Newell,
West Virginia. This pattern was first manufactured in 1972. Collected glass includes two pieces
of milk glass tableware and a candlestick holder. Other glass (n = 12) was sampled for pieces
with diagnostic features or maker's marks. Dated trademarks include the Maryland Glass
Corporation (1916-1956), Diamond Glass Company (1924-1982) (on a Listerine bottle), Owens-
Illinois (1958) (on a small condiment bottle), Hazel -Atlas Glass Co. (1902-1964) (on a Jergens
bottle), and Charles W. Phillips Chemical Company (1930s -1950s) (Milk of Magnesia).
Based on the surface conditions and evidence from shovel test profiles, the logging of the property
appears to have disturbed deposits across much of the site area to an average depth of 30-
40 cm, comprising almost the entire topsoil stratum. Based on data provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's National Cooperative Soil Survey, the soils at 31 RB41 are classified
as Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (PoB) along the terrace, with Wagram loamy sand,
0 to 6 percent slopes (WaB) comprising the overall interfluvial plain. Where undisturbed, the
observed shovel test soil profile had three strata, comparable to that of the Pocalla soil series.
Stratum I was a brown (10YR 4/3) sandy silt plowzone from 0-20 cm below the surface. This Ap
horizon topsoil was underlain by a pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy E horizon that extends to
October 2018 82 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.3-3. General view of 31 RB41, looking north towards NC -71.
Figure 5.3-4. Detail of cut stone and brick scatter along the western side of 31 RB41.
October 2018 83 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d ❑ 0
o=
0 O ❑ ❑ ❑ O a
O O ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
O
O _❑
rr p ❑ 0 O O' o
♦ � Q �• p O
I
■ ❑0
■ �•
O `
d
o ° ° ° o
kStonelbrick concentration ° ❑ o
° O
q
a
a O •
a �
O a
a O ❑ o
to ° ° O Oti
a �
•
O • O �
•Lk
O r❑
S aaa ❑ ° ° rr
a• o ❑ r
o as %& o .ter
•
o
.�. �.r 0 ❑
I� 0 ❑ ❑
mrlml fv is w vnvvonmenlar V -4w oaryas $ only
o Shovel Test - Negative
• Shovel Test - Positive Site 31 RI341
Surface Collection Point Robeson LNG
Site Boundary Robeson County,
North Carolina
o 100 zoo X0 EIZ�
Feel 1:2.000
CLNG 3.18 RepM Figvres+Repon F Bares 10.18•.Ca ramal Fig 31RB41 map 10•Tg.mxC I REwSED 10110.2018 1 SCALE 1'2000 DRAWN
Figure 5.3-5. Site sketch, 31 R1341.
October 2018 84 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
October 2018 85 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.3-1.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594
Depth
Raw Material/
Provenience Stratum
Description
Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
Bottle (Whole)
Colorless round bottle;
1
General
embossed: "LISTERINE/
Surface 0
Collection
LAMBERT/ PHARMACEUTICAL
CO." and makers mark
Bottle (Whole)
Colorless, round and fluted;
1
embossed makers mark
Glass Container, base
Colorless; embossed makers
1
mark
Glass Container, base
Colorless square base, raised
1
rib design; embossed makes
mark
Glass Container, base
Amethyst; square bottle base
1
with makers mark
Glass Container, base
Light green; embossed makers
1
mark
Glass Container, body
Orange reflective
1
Glass Container, body
Light green; grooved
1
Glass Container, body
Cobalt; embossed: "CH/
1
MICHAL/ ENBROOK"
Glass Container, neck
Light blue canning jar
1
Glass Tableware, base
Colorless; round candlestick
1
base with radiating pattern from
center
Glass Tableware, base
Milk glass with green coated
1
interior
Glass Tableware, body
Milk glass
1
Historic Ceramic,
Transfer print, "Green Field"
1
Ironstone base/rim
pattern
Historic Ceramic,
Transfer print, floral design
1
whiteware base
Historic Ceramic,
Transfer print, floral design
2
whiteware body
Historic Ceramic,
Transfer print, floral design
2
whiteware rim
Total
19
N485 E515 Surface 0
Glass, Container body
Colorless
2
Historic Ceramic,
Transfer print, floral design
1
whiteware body
Total
3
October 2018 85 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report – DO NOT RELEASE
approximately 70 cm below the surface. The underlying Bt horizon subsoil is light yellowish brown
(10YR 6/5) sandy clay. Soils west of the borrow pit were generally loamier and more yellow,
comparable to the Wagram series.
The remains at 31 RB41 represent mix of historic and prehistoric finds from a plowed and disturbed
surface context. In addition to the silvicultural impacts to the site, a borrow pit in the center has
additionally compromised a large portion of the site deposits. No intact structural remains were
found and no structure is represented in this area on any of the historic maps consulted. All of the
historic material dates to the twentieth century, and is likely the result of off-site dumping along
the edge of the swamp by the farms in the area. Although the seemingly more significant surface
finds reported by Gordon were not evidenced in the recent survey, in part due to the brush and
leaf litter left from recent clearing, the extensive shovel testing conducted failed to identify a
substantial, undisturbed subsurface component to this site. The few artifacts found—both
prehistoric and historic—are out of context and do not possess significant information potential
about the either the prehistoric or historic past. Therefore, ERM recommends the site as not
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and no further work is recommended.
31 RB123
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
Table 5.3-1.
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657200E 385126ON
Estimated size: 90 x 60 m
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB594
Landform: Stream terrace
Depth
Raw Material/
Maximum artifact depth: 25 cm
Provenience Stratum
Description Comments
Frequency
(cm)
Temper
N500 E470 II 30-60
Tertiary Flake Rhyolite
2
Total 2
N500 E530 II 30-50
Tertiary Flake Rhyolite
1
Total 1
SITE TOTAL
25
approximately 70 cm below the surface. The underlying Bt horizon subsoil is light yellowish brown
(10YR 6/5) sandy clay. Soils west of the borrow pit were generally loamier and more yellow,
comparable to the Wagram series.
The remains at 31 RB41 represent mix of historic and prehistoric finds from a plowed and disturbed
surface context. In addition to the silvicultural impacts to the site, a borrow pit in the center has
additionally compromised a large portion of the site deposits. No intact structural remains were
found and no structure is represented in this area on any of the historic maps consulted. All of the
historic material dates to the twentieth century, and is likely the result of off-site dumping along
the edge of the swamp by the farms in the area. Although the seemingly more significant surface
finds reported by Gordon were not evidenced in the recent survey, in part due to the brush and
leaf litter left from recent clearing, the extensive shovel testing conducted failed to identify a
substantial, undisturbed subsurface component to this site. The few artifacts found—both
prehistoric and historic—are out of context and do not possess significant information potential
about the either the prehistoric or historic past. Therefore, ERM recommends the site as not
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and no further work is recommended.
31 RB123
USGS quadrangle: Wakulla, NC, 1982
NRHP eligibility: Ineligible
UTM coordinates: Zone 17, 657200E 385126ON
Estimated size: 90 x 60 m
Total shovel tests: 39
Landform: Stream terrace
Positive shovel tests: 4
Ground cover: Cleared/grubbed
Maximum artifact depth: 25 cm
Prehistoric artifacts: 0
Cultural affiliation: Woodland/20"' C.
Historic artifacts: 47
Site type: Limited activity/Domestic
Total artifacts: 47
Site 31 RB123 was identified by Stanley Knick in 1988 on the northeast side of the intersection of
CR -1316 and NC -71 along Gum Swamp. The site form reported the presence of secondary
debitage, steatite, and cordmarked pottery, along with a piece of whiteware, dating it to an
unknown Woodland period as well as the twentieth century. Knick (1988) recommended the site
as not eligible for the NRHP. A historic farmstead is plotted approximately 60 m northeast of the
31 RB123, and is assumed to represent the same twentieth century occupation. The 1949 USGS
quadrangle depicts a dwelling in this location, with an outbuilding closer to the intersection.
October 2018 86 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Site 31 RB123 was first re-identified via a shovel test located near the intersection, which
contained glass and whiteware in the upper stratum (Figure 5.3-6 through 5.3-8). This area was
recently cleared but has been overtaken by brush and immature hardwoods. As the find spot was
located between the datum for 31 RB123 and the historic farm, delineation at 15-m intervals was
extended past both to make sure the entire area was covered. Only three of these 39 delineation
tests contained additional glass, whiteware, and nails from the upper stratum. The entire area
was also subjected to surface inspection at 5-m intervals, although surface visibility averaged
approximately 10 percent across the entire site given the leaf litter and branches. The limited
prehistoric component reported by Knick was not identified.
In total, 47 artifacts were collected from 31 RB123 (Table 5.3-2); approximately 85 percent of this
material (n = 40) is glass, and based on seams and other diagnostic features, most appears to
be from machine -made containers (typically bottles) dating to the twentieth century. One of these
shards is from a window pane. The only ceramics are five pieces of whiteware; one has a light
blue/gray geometric and floral design. This piece has a backstamp from a Dura -Print line by
Homer Laughlin, manufactured in the 1950s. A glass marble and an oxidized nail also were
collected.
Based on the surface conditions and evidence from shovel test profiles, the logging of the property
appears to have disturbed the upper stratum to an average depth of 25 cm, comprising almost
the entire topsoil stratum. The profile also appears truncated compared to that seen elsewhere;
this is likely the result of additional grading and disturbance associated with improvements to the
intersection. Based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
Cooperative Soil Survey, the soils at 31 RB123 are classified as Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
6 percent slopes (WaB) comprising the overall interfluvial plain between Gum and Jordan
swamps. Where undisturbed, the observed shovel test soil profile had three strata, comparable
to the Wagram soil series. Stratum I was a brown (10YR 4/3) loamy sand plowzone from 0-15 cm
below the surface. This Ap horizon topsoil was underlain by a pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy
E horizon that extends to approximately 25 cm below the surface. The underlying Bt horizon
subsoil is light yellowish brown (10YR 6/5) sandy clay.
The remains at 31 RB123 represent a mix of historic and prehistoric finds from a logged and
disturbed context. No intact structural remains associated with a house or outbuildings are
preserved in this area. The extensive shovel testing conducted failed to identify a substantial,
undisturbed subsurface component to this site. The few historic artifacts found are refuse or
casual discards from a former farmstead in this location, and do not possess significant
information potential. Furthermore, no additional information was garnered about the previously
reported ephemeral prehistoric component. Because 31 RB123 is unlikely to yield information
important to our understanding of local history or prehistory, ERM concurs with Knick's (1988)
assessment that the site is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is
recommended.
October 2018 87 Piedmont Natural Gas

� 1
OwIr}.+t
"YM f . ',g j'{ .fit•-. r� ` ,fit 'Lx'ti.o,.
� A+' ,t - �a ''� Via- .� { '•�, i �` � _
YV
r.•.'
I
d 3 - a
Yr
-

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
O O
6
O ❑
❑ O
❑ O
° ❑
O
❑
o ❑
❑ °
0
O
° o
❑ o °
❑ O o ❑
o °
a
❑ ❑ '• • • O •
❑ o 0
r ,
r� • ❑ °
° o
❑ ❑ p ❑
°
0
❑ ❑
❑ O O
O
° °
❑ ❑ ° 0
or ° O
114r...s rrrmar,c� .s ra• em:rom,:e.�:eire.e,.v�•x ses ecr;
❑ Shovel Test - Negative
• Shovel Test - Positive Site 31 RB1 23 (Lochs 6)
-- Surface collection Point
Robeson LNG
site Boundary
- - Robeson County,
North Carolina
0 50 100 Iso 200 ERM
��
Feat 1;1.588
C'•VseyWn[en[mICO-On"menWraMI-As LNG 4 -IVR epM FiguY s%RepeN Fig. res 10-1910 a[e—% Fig 31 RU 123 mop 10-19 mad I REVI$EO 11 10:2019 SCALE 115M DRAWN BY GIS
Figure 5.3-8. Site sketch, 31 RB123 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 89 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
5.4 POTENTIAL SITE LOCI WHERE NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS WERE FOUND
In addition to the seven newly recorded sites and three previously recorded sites, additional
shovel tests were excavated in two areas (Locus 1 and Locus 2) where push piles and modern
debris corresponded to mapped farm sites; however, no structural debris or historic -age artifacts
were ultimately identified in either area. These areas are described here as a matter of course.
October 2018 90 Piedmont Natural Gas
Table 5.3-2.
Artifacts Recovered from 31 RB123
Provenience Stratum
Depth (cm)
Description
Comments
Frequency
General
Surface
0
Glass, Container body
Cobalt
1
Collection
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Transfer print with Homer
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
1
Laughlin maker's mark
Total
3
N485 E500 1
0-20
Glass, Container body
Amethyst
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
6
Glass, Container beaded finish
Colorless
1
Glass, Container threaded finish
Colorless
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
1
Nail
Indeterminate
1
Total
11
N500 E500 1
0-15
Glass, Container body
Amber
2
Glass, Container body
Colorless
5
Glass, Container body
Light green
1
Historic Ceramic, whiteware body
Undecorated
2
Glass Marble
Fragment
1
Total
11
N500 E515 1
0-15
Glass, Container body
Amber, embossed
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
11
Glass, Container base
Green
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Window Glass
1
Total
14
N500 E545 1
0-25
Glass, Container body
Colorless
5
Glass, Container body
Colorless, embossed
1
Glass, Container body
Colorless
1
Glass, Container neck
Cobalt, ridged
1
Total
8
SITE TOTAL
33
5.4 POTENTIAL SITE LOCI WHERE NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS WERE FOUND
In addition to the seven newly recorded sites and three previously recorded sites, additional
shovel tests were excavated in two areas (Locus 1 and Locus 2) where push piles and modern
debris corresponded to mapped farm sites; however, no structural debris or historic -age artifacts
were ultimately identified in either area. These areas are described here as a matter of course.
October 2018 90 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Three additional farmsteads for which no evidence was found during the survey, are all very close
to CR -1316 and NC -17, and have presumably been destroyed and/or obscured by infrastructure
improvements since the mid twentieth century.
Locus 1. The location of Locus 1 was based on the 1982 Wakulla, North Carolina quadrangle
map, which shows a dwelling on the main road approximately 350 m west of 31 RB591 at an
intersection branching to 31 RB596 (north) and 31 RB590 (south). The 1949 USGS map shows an
outbuilding just inside the northeast corner of the intersection and a dwelling just east of it. The
area has been extensively cleared and grubbed, and evidence of an artifact scatter or foundation
elements are not apparent, however pushipiles mark the location. This intersection was shovel
tested at 15-m intervals (Figure 5.4-1 and 5.4-2). This area has been used for modern dumping
of both trash and brush from the recent clearing, but no historic age materials were identified.
Locus 2. An additional potential historic site was identified on the 1982 Wakulla, North Carolina
USGS topographic map, but was not identified in the field. The potential site location is on the
west side of the main property access road, just 50 m north of NC -71. On the 1982 quadrangle
map, Locus 2 shows up as an open square, suggesting it to be an outbuilding. On the 1949 USGS
map, a dwelling is shown east of the road along a spur leading to 31 RB592; another outbuilding
is shown to the north between these two buildings, and a third is in the field to the west. Nothing
is shown on the early soil map (Hearn 1908) in the location of Locus 2. During the current survey,
a 120 m x 120-m area surrounding this intersection was tested at 15-m intervals, supplementing
the 30-m survey grid conducted earlier (Figure 5.4-3 and 5.4-4). This area was found to be highly
disturbed, with several push piles and refuse (see Figure 5.4-4). All this material appears to
Figure 5.4-1. View of Locus 1 area, looking north from farm road.
October 2018 91 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
❑ 0 0 O
0 0
r - - ---- "— —❑ -———-�0
1 !
! 1
1 1
! 1
1 0 0 10 ❑
❑ 1
1 1
! 1
! 0 0 10
! 1
! 1
0 1
0 01 0
0 1
1 1
r s1.
� 1
O 10 ❑ 1
1 0 ❑ 1
! g 0
1
! 1
O 0
-1. , 0 0 ❑
o
0 ❑
0 0
O
n
n
0
11
0
0
N ,.,u �� aro-s� ev�w�mev.ar,rnewnu.aoses Dory
Locus 1
❑ Shovel Test - Negative Robeson LNG
Site Boundary Robeson County,
1 i
North Carolina
0 sa 100 150 200 EIZNi
Feet 1:1.6661
Cil—WInmnl.—k0awmmWCam wLNG 4-iMapm FgumsWeport Fgu m 10.1SC—lin- Fig Lneus l mopmxd I REVISED- 14tH 2018 I SCALE: 1:1,'.86 DRAM BY-- GIS
Figure 5.4-2. Site sketch, Locus 1 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 92 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Figure 5.4-3. General view of location of Locus 2, looking northeast.
represent modern dumping on the property. No historic -age materials or features were noted in
the area of Locus 2, and evidence of a farm in this location is assumed to have been destroyed
or obscured by the modern disturbance.
October 2018 93 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
❑
D O 0 °
0
0 0 ❑
❑
O ❑ ° 0 °
0 0 0
0
O 4 ° 0 °
❑ D
O p
r---------------------------�----� ----------b------
io
o �
O O q
� D p �
O
� O O 0 O �
0
O O D
0 O 0❑
O
' 0 0 '
� ❑ O 0 1
D 0 O 0
O o0 O
O
q
0
0 O0 0 O-
O .O 0
❑
0 D D 0 0
p o D
a
a
N mn nfa—w n M. r�vronmenle m•,ewn:xse: ,•.;
LOCUS 2
0 Shovel Test - Negative Robeson LNG
Site Boundary Robeson County,
i
North Carolina
0 70 140 2$0 28Fee, 1:2.000 �.It17
C•Use•--cenl m—k'•Cvcumen[r 3M1inas LNG =-sg Rrp.n Fgu---s RevonF-p— 10A g•Cualinas Fp iow s 2 may -41 RE VI S EC 10+ 11,7016150 ALE 12.000 DRAWN BY'GI$
Figure 5.4-4. Site sketch, Locus 2 (USGS 1949 Wakulla, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
quadrangle).
October 2018 94 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
6.0 CONCLUSION
In June 2018, ERM conducted Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed Piedmont
Natural Gas Robeson LNG Project. Survey was conducted within a 672 -acre tract, which will
encompass the construction and installation of a 1.6 billion cubic foot LNG peaking facility.
Surveys were initiated as due diligence in expectation that individual USACE wetland permits
would be required for the undertaking. This report is submitted to support the Section 106
compliance requirements under General Condition 20.
Seven newly identified (31 RB590-31 RB596) and three previously recorded (31 RB20, 31 RB41,
and 31 RB123) archaeological sites were investigated within the survey area. They include two
prehistoric sites, six historic sites, and two sites with both historic and prehistoric components. All
ten sites are low-density surface scatters of artifacts, or scattered foundation elements that have
been impacted by previous clearing and grubbing of the land. Further investigations in these areas
are not expected to produce significant information on the past lifeways of Robeson County or
the Lumber River watershed. All ten sites are recommended ineligible for the NRHP, and in our
opinion, construction should be allowed to begin in those areas without further consideration of
archaeological resources.
October 2018 95 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
7.0 REFERENCES
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1993 Spring Lake Bypass, NCDOT TIP No. R-2629, Archaeological, Historical and
Architectural Historical Consulting Services/Cultural Resource Survey: Spring Lake
Bypass, Cumberland County, North Carolina. New South Associates, Stone Mountain,
Georgia. Technical Report No. 209. Report submitted to McGuire and Associates,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr., Kathleen M. Farrell, John G. Nickerson, and Norman K. Gay
2011 Lithic Resources of the North Carolina Coastal Plain: Prehistoric Acquisition and
Utilization Patterns. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological
Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.,
pp. 2-1-2-51. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.
Abbott, Lawrence E., Erica E. Sanborn, Leslie E. Raymer, Lisa D. O'Steen, William J. Cleary,
and G. Craig Turner
1999 Data Recovery at 31CB114, Columbus County, North Carolina: Prehistoric
Settlement and Subsistence Practices within the Lower Cape Fear River Valley. New
South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Technical Report No. 618. Report submitted
to International Paper Company, Inc., Riegelwood Operations, Riegelwood, North
Carolina.
Abrams, Douglas C.
2015 New Deal. Published online by NCpedia.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/31/entry. Site accessed April 9, 2016.
Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States. Early Paleolndian Economies of Eastern North America,
edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley, pp. 163-216. Journal of Economic
Anthropology Supplement 5.
1995 Paleoindian Interaction Networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In Native American
Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited
by Michael S. Nassaney and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3-26. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Anderson, David G., Charles E. Cantley, and A. Lee Novick (compilers)
1982 The Mattassee Lake Sites: Archeological Investigations along the Lower Santee
River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Special Bulletin 1. Interagency Archeological
Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
October 2018 96 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa D. O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research
Design Paper No. 6. University of Georgia, Athens.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Modeling Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Historical
Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G.
Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 16-28. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher Judge (editors)
1992 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South
Carolina Perspective. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists in
conjunction with Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Andrus, Patrick W. (and edited by Rebecca H. Shrimpton)
2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C.
Located online at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrbl5/. Accessed April
17, 2014.
Barber, Russell
1979 A Summary Analysis of Cultural Resource Information on the Continental Shelf
from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, Volume 11 — Archaeology and Paleontology.
Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Barse, William P., Marvin A. Brown, and Jennifer Marston
2001 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Site 31 NH707, Wilmington Bypass,
Center Alternative, New Hanover County, North Carolina. URS Corporation, Raleigh.
Report submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Raleigh. TIP No. R -2633-C
Beane, J. C., and A. L. Braswell
2011 Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of North Carolina.
http://naturalsciences.org/research-collections/research-specialties/amphibiansreptiles.
Site accessed March 25, 2015.
Beane, J. C., A. L. Braswell, J. C. Mitchell, W. M. Palmer, and J. R. Harrison III
2010 Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, 2nd Edition, Revised and
Updated. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Beyer, Fred
1991 North Carolina: The Years Before Man, a Geologic History. Carolina Academic
Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Bishir, Catherine W., and Michael T. Southern
1996 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Eastern North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
October 2018 97 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Blanton, Dennis B., and Stevan C. Pullins with contributions by Grace Brush, William Hilgartner,
and Lisa Kealhofer
2004 Middle Woodland Settlement and Environment in the Chisel Run/Powhatan Creek
Drainage: Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites 44JC127 and 44JC850 Associated with
the Route 199 Project, James City County, Virginia. VDOT Project: 0199-047-F03,
PE 103, C501 PPMS: 2038. Report prepared by William and Mary Center for
Archaeological Research for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Gary G. Robinson
1990 Phase 111 Data Recovery of Site 44PW308, Interstate 95 HOV Lane, Prince George
County, Virginia. Technical Report Series No. 10. Archaeological Project Center,
Department of Anthropology, the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Ken E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic of South Carolina. Studies in South
Carolina Archaeology in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson. Albert C. Goodyear, editor.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Ted Wolf
2001 Archaeological Salvage Excavations of Site 44JC30 at the Former Camp Wallace
Army Training Base, Kingsmill on the James, James City County, Virginia. James River
Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia. Submitted to Busch Properties, Inc.,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Boss, S.K., C.W. Hoffman, and B. Cooper
2002 Influence of Fluvial Processes on the Quaternary Geologic Framework of the
Continental Shelf, North Carolina, USA. Marine Geology 183(1-4):45-65.
Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr.
2003 Paleoindian Research in Virginia and Beyond. Quarterly Bulletin of the
Archeological Society of Virginia 58:58-93.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Breitburg, Emmanuel; Broster, John B.; Reesman, Arthur L.; Streams
1996 The Coats -Hines Site: Tennessee's First Paleoindian-Mastodon Association.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 13:6-8.
Brooks, Mark J., Barbara E. Taylor, and John A. Grant
1996 Carolina Bay Geoarchaeology and Holocene Landscape Evolution on the Upper
Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 11:481-504.
Browder, A.G., and J.E. McNinch
2006 Linking Framework Geology and Nearshore Morphology: Correlation of Paleo-
channels with Shore -oblique Sandbars and Gravel Outcrops. Marine Geology 231(1-
4):141-162.
October 2018 98 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Brown, P.M., Miller, J.A., and Swain, F.M.
1972 Structural and Stratigraphic Framework and Spatial Distribution of the Permeability
of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 796.
Byers, Douglas S.
1954 Bull Brook — A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. American Antiquity
19:343-351.
Cabak, Melanie A., Kenneth A. Sassaman, and J. Christopher Gillam
1998 Distributional Archaeology in the Southeast: An Early Archaic Example from the
Aiken Plateau, South Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 17:22-38.
Cable, John S., Kenneth F. Styer, and Charles E. Cantley
1998 Data Recovery Excavations at the Maple Swamp (38HR309) and Big Jones
(38HR315) Sites on the Conway Bypass, Horry County, South Carolina: Prehistoric
Sequence and Settlement on the North Coastal Plain of South Carolina. New South
Associates Technical Report 385, Stone Mountain.
Caldwell, Joseph R., and Antonio J. Waring, Jr.
1939 Some Chatham County Pottery Types and Their Sequence. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Newsletter 2:6-7.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Christensen, Norman L.
2000 Vegetation of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In North American Terrestrial
Vegetation, edited by Michael G. Barbour and William Dwight Billings, pp.397-448.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Claggett, Stephen R.
1995 First Immigrants: Native American Settlement of North Carolina. Tar Heel Junior
Historian 34:1-5. North Carolina Museum of History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Report
submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Clark, William B., and Benjamin L. Miller
1912 The Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Volume III, North Carolina Geological and
Economic Survey, Raleigh.
Clifton, James M.
1991 MacDonald, Donald. Published online by NCpedia.
http://ncpedia.org/biography/macdonald-donald. Site accessed March 31, 2015.
Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
October 2018 99 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54. Philadelphia.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Colton & Company
1891 Special Edition of Colton's Map of North and South Carolina and Parts of
Tennessee and Georgia Showing the Route and Connections of the Cape Fear &
Cincinnati Railway Co.'s System. G. W. and C. B. Colton & Company, New York.
Cowan, C. Wesley., H. Edwin Jackson, Katherine Moore, Andrew Nickelhoff, and Tristine L.
Smart
1981 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:60-76.
Crawford, Robert Guy Hodges
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina. M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Creighton, Jerre, Dean Cumbia, Harvey Darden, Brian van Eerden, Rick Myers, and Phil
Sheridan
2014 From the Brink: The Effort to Restore Virginia's Native Longleaf Pine. Virginia
Department of Forestry 2014 Status Report, Charlottesville.
Crow, Jeffrey J., Amelia Dees-Killette, and Diane Huff
2006 Slavery. Published online by NCpedia. http://ncpedia.org/slavery. Site accessed
April 6, 2015. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Culpepper, Stacy, Charles L. Heath, Jeffrey D. Irwin, and Joseph M. Herbert
2000 From Drowning Creek to Sicily. Archaeological Investigations at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina. Research Report No. 2. Cultural Resources Management Series. Fort Bragg
Cultural Resources Management Program, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Cushman, Kathleen A.
1982 Floral Remains from Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County, Southwestern
Pennsylvania. In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft
Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage, edited by Ronald C. Carlisle and James M.
Adovasio, pp. 207-220. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
Custer, Jay F.
1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study.
University of Delaware Press, Newark.
1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In
Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and
M. E. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
October 2018 100 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1996 Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. In The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E.
Sassaman, pp.84-91. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2000 Paleoindian Points in North Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 17:14-
16.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 66:237-265.
2002 Stratified Early -Middle Holocene Remains in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. In
The Archaeology of Native North Carolina: Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, edited by
Jane M. Eastman, Christopher B. Rodning, and Edmond A. Boudreaux, III, pp. 6-11.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special Publication 7.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1996 Projectile Point Classification Project: The Classification of Projectile Points in
Existing Archaeological Collections from North Carolina (Phase II). Report submitted to
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Christopher R. Moore
2011 Current Research into the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia,
edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 3-1-3-
24. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., William H. Moore and James Pritchard
2007 Analysis of a Paleoindian Stone Tool Assemblage from the Pasquotank Site
(31 PK1) in Northeastern North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 26:73-90.
Daniel, I. Randolph Jr., Keith C. Seramur, Tara L. Potts, and Matthew W. Jorgenson
2008 Searching a Sand Dune: Shovel Testing the Barber Creek Site. North Carolina
Archaeology 57:50-77.
Davis, Everett
2009 Tobacco's roots deep in Robeson County. The Robesonian.
https://www. robesonian.com/archive/49908/view-full_story-4560023-article-
tobaccos_roots_deep_in_robeson_county. Accessed June 8, 2018.
DeBow, J. D. B.
1853 The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. Robert Armstrong, Public Printer,
Washington, D.C.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel A. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present.
Geobotany ll, edited by R.C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.
October 2018 101 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
1983 Late -Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered.
Quaternary Research 19:265-271.
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States.
In Pollen Records of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant,
Jr., and R. G. Holloway, pp. 1-37. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists
Foundation.
1993 Paleoclimates, Paleovegetation, and Paleofloras during the Late Quaternary. In
Flora of North America, Volume 1, edited by the Flora of North America Editorial
Committee, pp. 71-94. Oxford University Press, New York.
Dent, Richard J., Jr.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.
Dent, Richard J., and Barbara E. Kauffman
1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Site Ecology as Interpreted from Microfloral and Faunal
Remains. In Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian—Archaic Site in the Upper
Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, edited by Charles W. McNett, pp. 55-79. Academic
Press, Orlando.
DePratter, Chester B.
1979 Ceramics. In The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island, The Refuge -Deptford
Mortuary Complex, edited by D.H. Thomas and C.S. Larsen, pp. 109-132.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 56(1).
Deter -Wolf, Aaron, Jesse W. Tune, and John B. Broster
2011 Excavations and Dating of Late Pleistocene and Paleoindian Deposits at the Coats -
Hines Site, Williamson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(2):142-156.
Dictionary of American History
2003 Proprietary Colonies. Published online by Encylopedia.com.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Proprietary_colonies.aspx. Site accessed March 27,
2015.
Dillehay, T. C.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Press,
Washington, D.C.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1985 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern
North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Dorcas, M.E.
2004 A Guide to the Snakes of North Carolina. Davidson College, Davidson, North
Carolina.
Dorcas, M. E., S. J. Price, J. C. Beane, and S. C. Owen
2007 The Frogs and Toads of North Carolina: Field Guide and Recorded Calls. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
October 2018 102 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Dunbar, James S., and S. David Webb
1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian sites in Florida. In The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E.
Sassaman, pp. 331-353. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Eberhard, K., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Mark J. Brooks
1994 Crosby Bay (38AK682): Paleoindian and Early Archaic Occupations at a Carolina
Bay in Aiken County, South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities 26:33-46.
Egloff, Keith T., Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Jay F. Custer, Keith R. Doms, and Leslie E. McFaden
1988 Archaeological Investigations at Croaker Landing, 44JC70 and 44JC71. Research
Report Series 4. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks. Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources, Richmond.
Egloff, Keith T., and Joseph M. McAvoy
1990 Chronology of Virginia's Early and Middle Archaic Periods. In Early and Middle
Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary
Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 61-79. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication 22.
Egloff, Keith T., and Deborah Woodward
1992 First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. The University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Elias, Scott A., and Cary J. Mock
2013 Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Second Edition. Elsevier/Newnes, Oxford.
Fritz, Gayle J.
1990 Multiple Pathways to Farming in Precontact Eastern North America. Journal of
World Prehistory 4:387-435.
Forstall, Richard L. (compiler)
1996 Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 to 1990, from the
Twenty-one Decennial Censuses. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
Frost, C.C.
1995 Presettlement Fire Regimes in Southeastern Marshes, Peatlands, and Swamps. In
Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19, edited by S. I.
Cerulean and R. T. Engstrom, pp. 39-60. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process during the Paleoindian to Early
Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-1973
Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1, pp. 5-47. Archaeology Laboratory, Department of
Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
1976 Excavation at Three Sites near Piscataway Creek, Maryland: 18PR141, 18PR142,
and 18PR143. Ms. On file, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University,
Washington, D.C.
October 2018 103 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
1977 Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and Its Implications for Eastern North Prehistory.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:257-263.
1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing
Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by Roger W. Moeller,
pp. 53-86. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Occasional Paper 3, Washington,
Connecticut.
1983 Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before: The Flint Run Paleolndian Complex
Revisited. Archaeology of Northeastern North America. 11:49-59.
Geier, Clarence R., and Michael Barber
1983 The Skiffes Creek Site (NN7): A Multicomponent Middle Woodland Base Camp in
York County, Virginia. Department of Anthropology, James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, Virginia. Submitted to Hampton -Newport News Regional Redevelopment
and Housing Authority.
Godden, Geoffrey A.
1964 Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Barrie & Jenkins, London.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: A
Geoarchaeological Summary. In Ice Age Peoples of North America, edited by Robson
Bonnichsen and Karen L. Turnmire, pp. 432-481. Corvallis: Center for the Study of the
First Americans.
Goodyear, Albert C., and Kenn Steffy
2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County,
South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23-25.
Graham, Russell W., C. Vance Haynes, Donald L. Johnson, and Marvin Kay
1981 Kimmswick: A Clovis -Mastodon Association in Eastern Missouri. Science
213:1115-1117.
Graham, R. W., and E. L. Lundelius, Jr.
1984 Coevolutionary Disequilibrium and Pleistocene Extinctions. In Quaternary
Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 223-249.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Gremillion, Kristen J.
1996 Early Agricultural Diet in Eastern North America: Evidence from Two Kentucky
Rockshelters. American Antiquity 61:520-536.
Griffin, Hazel
1976 Northampton History. Published in Footprints in Northampton 1741-1776-1976.
Northampton County Bicentennial Committee, Jackson, North Carolina.
October 2018 104 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Griffith, Glenn E., James M. Omernik, Jeffrey A. Comstock, Michael P. Schafale, W. Henry
McNab, David R. Lenat, Trish F. MacPherson, James B. Glover, and Victor B. Shelburne
2002a Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Color poster with map,
descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs (map scale 1:1,500,000). U.S.
Geological Survey Reston, Virginia.
Griffith, Glenn, James Omernik, and Jeffrey Comstock
2002b Ecoregions of North Carolina: Regional Descriptions. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. Published online: https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-4#pane-31. Site accessed May 30, 2017.
Gunn, Joel D.
2002 Steep Shore, Deadly Environment: A Case for a Cultural Anvil Along the
Unembayed Atlantic Coast. North Carolina Archaeology 51:1-33.
Gunn, Joel D., and John Foss
1992 Copperhead Hollow (38CT58): Middle Holocene Upland Conditions on the
Piedmont -Coastal Plain Margin. South Carolina Antiquities 24(1 &2):1-17.
Gunn, Joel D., and Kathy J. Wilson
1993 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Sites 38CT54 and 38CT58 along the
SC -151 Jefferson Bypass, Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Garrow and Associates,
Atlanta, Georgia. Report submitted to the South Carolina Department of Highways and
Public Transportation.
Hargrove, Thomas H.
1993 Archaeological Excavations at 31 NH142, Hamp's Landing, River Road Park, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. Report
submitted to New Hanover County Department of Parks and Recreation, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
Hargrove, Thomas H., and Jane M. Eastman
1997 Limestone- or Marl -Tempered Ceramics from the Lower Cape Fear River Region,
New Hanover County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 46:91-108.
Hatfield, Edward A.
2014 Eli Whitney in Georgia. Published online by New Georgia Encyclopedia.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/eli-whitney-georgia. Site
accessed April 3, 2015.
Hayden, Bruce P., and Patrick J. Michaels
2000 Virginia's Climate. http://climate.virginia.edu/description.htm. Site accessed March
2, 2015. University of Virginia Climatology Office, Department of Environmental Sciences.
Hearn, W. Edward
1908 Robeson County, North Carolina Soil Map. Bureau of Soils, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
October 2018 105 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Heinemann, Ronald, John Kolp, Anthony Parent, and William Shade
2007 Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607-2007. University of
Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Herbert, Joseph M.
1999 Prehistoric Pottery Taxonomy and Sequence on the Southern Coast of North
Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 48:37-58.
2002 A Woodland Period Prehistory of Coastal North Carolina. In The Woodland
Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 292-317. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2008 The History and Practice of Shell Tempering in the Middle Atlantic: A Useful
Balance. Southeastern Archaeology 27(2):265-285.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2011 Recent Woodland Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. In The Archaeology of
North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R.
Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 4-1-4-58. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication Number 30.
Herbert, Joseph M., and Mark A. Mathis
1996 An Appraisal and Re-evaluation of the Prehistoric Pottery Sequence of the
Southern Coastal North Carolina. In Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from
the March 1994 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony, edited by David Anderson, pp.
136-189. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.
Hofstra, Warren
2004 The Planting of New Virginia. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Horn, Patrick E.
2004 Railroads in North Carolina. Published online by Documenting the American South.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/highlights/ncraiIroads.html. Site accessed April 3, 2015.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Howard, Joshua.
2010 North Carolina in the US Revolution. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/overview. Accessed
June 8, 2018.
Hunt, James L.
2006 Rural Electrification. Published online by NCpedia. http://ncpedia.org/rural-
electrification. Site accessed April 9, 2015. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
October 2018 106 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Huntrods, Diane
2012 Tobacco profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities_products/specialty_crops/tobacco-profile/. Accessed
June 8, 2018.
Independence Hall Association
2014 Creating the Carolinas. http://www.ushistory.org/us/5c.asp. Site accessed March
30, 2015.
Internal Revenue Service
2011 Farmers (ATG) Chapter Ten — Tobacco. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
utl/farmers_atg_chapter_10.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2018.
Irwin, Jeffrey D., Wayne C. J. Boyko, Joseph M. Herbert, and Chad Braley
1999 Woodland Burial Mounds in the North Carolina Sandhills and Southern Coastal
Plain. North Carolina Archaeology 48:59-86.
Johnson, Lloyd
2015 Highland Scots. Published online by North Carolina History Project.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/l10/entry. Site accessed March 31,
2015.
Jones, David C., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Linda Kennedy
1997 Archaeological Investigation at 31ON190, Cape Island, Onslow County, North
Carolina. Garrow and Associates, Atlanta. Report submitted to the Island Development
Group, Inc., Ringgold, Virginia. Manuscript on file at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh.
Jones, Olive R., and Catherine Sullivan
1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian
Parks Service, Environment Canada. Revised edition (originally published 1985).
Joyner, Whitmel M.
2006 Lords Proprietors. Published online by NCpedia. http://ncpedia.org/lords-
proprietors. Site accessed March 27, 2015. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Keel, Bennie C.
1970 Excavations at the Red Springs Mound RB14, Robeson County 1971. Southern
Indian Studies 22:16-22.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleolndian Hunting and Mobility. American
Antiquity 53:231-244.
October 2018 107 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Kennedy, Joseph C. G.
1864 Agriculture of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the
Eighth Census. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Knick, Stanley
1988 Robeson Trails Archaeological Survey. Reconnaissance in Robeson County. Native
American Resource Center, Pembroke State University, Pembroke, North Carolina.
Lassiter, Wingate, and George A. Kennedy
2006 Carolina Central Railway. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. https://www.ncpedia.org/carolina-central-railway. Accessed
June 6, 2018.
Lassiter, Thomas J., and T. Wingate Lassiter
2004 Johnston County: Its History Since 1746. Hometown Heritage Publishing,
Smithfield, North Carolina.
Lautzenheiser, Loretta, Jane M. Eastman, and Mary A. Holm
1996 Identification of a Piedmont Chert Quarry. Southern Indian Studies 45:38-56.
Lefler, Hugh T., and Albert R. Newsome
1973 The History of a Southern State: North Carolina. Third edition. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lehner, Lois
1988 Complete Book of American Kitchen and Dinner Wares. Wallace -Homestead Book
Company, Des Moines, Iowa.
Lewis, J.D.
2007a Sir Robert Heath. Published online by Carolana.com.
http://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Proprietors/sirrobertheath.html. Site accessed March
27, 2015.
2018a Robeson County, North Carolina.
http://www.carolana.com/NC/Counties/robeson_county_nc.html. Accessed June 6, 2018.
2018b The American Revolution in North Carolina — Tory Hole.
http://www.carolana.com/NC/Revolution/revolution_tory_hole.html. Accessed June 7,
2018.
2018c North Carolina Railroads — Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Railway #2.
http://www.carolana.com/NC/Transportation/railroads/nc_rrs_cape_fear_yadkin_valley_ra
ilway_2.html. Accessed June 7, 2018.
2018d North Carolina Railroads — Alma & Little Rock Railroad.
http://www.carolana.com/NC/Transportation/railroads/nc—rrs—alma—southbound.html.
Accessed June 7, 2018.
October 2018 108 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Loftfield, Thomas C.
1976 A Brief and True Report...: An Archaeological Interpretation of the Southern North
Carolina Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1987 Archaeological Data Recovery and Osteological Analysis at 31 On309, Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. University of North Carolina -Wilmington.
Report submitted to the National Park Service, Atlanta.
1988 Prehistoric Oystermen of the Central North Carolina Coast. In Sea & Land: Cultural
and Biological Adaptations in the Southern Coastal Plain, edited by J. Peacock and J.
Sabella, pp. 106-121. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings 21. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens.
Loftfield, Thomas C., and Tucker Littleton
1981 Archaeological and Historical Survey of U.S.M.C. Base Camp Lejeune. University
of North Carolina -Wilmington.
Lopinot, Neal H., Jack H. Ray, and Michael D. Conner
2000 The 1999 Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426). Center for Archaeological
Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Special Publication No. 3, Springfield.
Lumbee Tribe
2015 Lumbee tribe — History and Culture. http://www.lumbeetribe.com/history--culture.
Accessed June 8, 2018.
MacCord, Howard A., Sr.
1966 The McLean Mound, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
18:3-45.
Mackie, Duncan
2018 Visit St Pauls. The North Carolina Visitors Center.
http://ncvisitorcenter.com/St—Pauls_NC.html. Accessed June 7, 2018.
Martin, Jonathan
2015 Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge. North Carolina History Project.
http://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/713/entry. Accessed June 8, 2018.
Martin, Paul S.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974.
Mathis, Mark A.
1999 Oak Island: A Retiring Series. North Carolina Archaeology 48:18-36.
Mattson, Richard L.
1987 The History and Architecture of Nash County, North Carolina. Nash County
Planning Department, Nashville, North Carolina.
October 2018 109 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Mazzocchi, Jay
2006 Robeson County. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. https://www.ncpedia.org/geography/robeson. Accessed June 8, 2018.
McAvoy, Joseph M.
1979 The Point -of -Rocks Paleoindian Site. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society
of Virginia 34:93-111.
1992 Nottoway River Survey: Part I: Clovis Settlement Patterns: The 30 Year Study of a
Late Ice Age Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia.
Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication Number 28. Dietz Press, Richmond.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigation of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report No. 8, Richmond.
2003 The Williamson Clovis Site, 44DW1, Dinwiddie County, Virginia: An Analysis of
Research Potential in Threatened Areas. Research Report Series No. 13. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources Richmond.
McCachren, Clifford
1978 Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station.
McCary, Ben C.
1975 The Williamson Paleo-Indian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean
13:48-131.
McDuffie, John
1884 Map of Robeson County, NC. Ms. on file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
McFaden, Leslie
1996 An Archaeological Evaluation of Site CG19 (44JC659) at Carter's Grove Plantation,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
McKinnon, Henry A., Jr.
2003 Our Heritage: Robeson County, North Carolina. Robeson County Heritage Book
Committee and County Heritage, Inc., Waynesville, North Carolina
McNett, Charles
1985 Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware
Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic Press, Orlando.
McReynolds, Theresa E.
2005 Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile
Points. North Carolina Archaeology 54:1-33.
October 2018 110 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Meltzer, David J., and J. I. Mead
1983 The Timing of Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America.
Quaternary Research 19:130-135.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Miller, D. Shane
2007 Site Formation Processes in an Upland Paleoindian Site: The 2005-2007 Topper
Firebreak Excavations. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Miller, George L.
1991 The Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. In Approaches
to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, G. L. Miller, O. R. Jones, L.A.
Ross, and T. Majewski, compilers, pp. 37-58. Society for Historical Archaeology, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Mintz, John J., Thomas E. Beaman, Jr., and Paul J. Mohler
2011 "...They in Respect of Troubling Our Inhabiting and Planting, are not to be Feared:"
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Coastal Populations Before and after European
Contact. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited
by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 8-1-8-9. North
Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.
Morse, D. F., and Phyllis A. Morse
1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.
National Park Service
2015 Fort Raleigh, The Roanoke Tribe.
http://www.nps.gov/fora/learn/historyculture/theroanoketribe.htm. Site accessed March
26, 2015.
Nelson, L.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Technical Leaflet 48. American
Association for State and Local History, Nashville.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Colonial Artifacts of America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
2001 If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2000 Years of British Household Pottery.
Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee.
Norris, David A., and Alan D. Watson
2006 Internal Improvements. Published online by NCpedia. http://ncpedia.org/internal-
improvements-0. Site accessed April 6, 2015. Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
October 2018 111 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
North Carolina Business History
2007a 18th -19th Century Canals in North Carolina. http://www.historync.org/canals.htm
Site accessed April 3, 2015.
2007b North Carolina Steamboat Lines. http://www.historync.org/steamboatlines.htm. Site
accessed April 3, 2015.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR)
2014 Historic Halifax: The River and the Valley.
http://www.nchistoricsites.org/halifax/river-valley.htm. Accessed June 8, 2018.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
n.d.a Mammals of North Carolina: Their Distribution and Abundance.
http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/accounts.php. Site accessed March 25, 2015.
n.d.b Birds of North Carolina: Their Distribution and Abundance.
http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/ncbirds/accounts.php. Site accessed March 25, 2015.
North Carolina Health & Wellness Trust Fund
2015 Brief Overview of the Tobacco Settlement.
http://www.hwtfc.org/pdffiles/hwOverviewTobaccoSettlement.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2018.
North Carolina Historic Sites
2015 Civil War and Reconstruction. University of North Carolina, School of Education,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/civil-war-and-reconstruction.
Accessed June 8, 2018.
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines for Background Research,
Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office, Office of Archives and History, Raleigh.
http://www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/ resource/crmguide.htm. Site accessed May 31,
2017.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
n.d.a North Carolina Species: Mammals.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx#5528104-mammals. Site accessed
March 25, 2015.
n.d.b North Carolina Species: Birds.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx#5528111-birds. Site accessed March 25,
2015.
n.d.c North Carolina Species: Fish.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx#5528105-fish. Site accessed March 25,
2015.
n.d.d North Carolina Species: Reptiles.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx#5528112-reptiles. Site accessed March
25, 2015.
October 2018 112 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
n.d.e North Carolina Species: Mollusks.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx#5528115-mollusks. Site accessed March
25, 2015.
Oliver, Billy L.
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, Tuscaloosa.
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell
1995 Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Parry, W.J., and R.L. Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core
Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted 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 S.
1968 Thom's Creek Ceramics in the Central Savannah River Locality. The Florida
Anthropologist 21(1):17-30.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archeological Symposium, edited by
M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Potter, Stephen R,
1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. Dissertation on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the
Potomac Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Powell, William S.
1988 North Carolina: A History. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
October 2018 113 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Archeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ready, Milton
2005 The Tar Heel State: A History of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia, South Carolina.
Reinhart, Theodore R.
1978 Plow Zone Archaeology on College Creek, James City County, Virginia. Quarterly
Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 32(4).
Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G.
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Scale 1:500,000. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the North
Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Roberson, Mary -Russell, and Kevin G. Stewart
2007 The Geologic Story of the Carolinas: A Field Guide to Favorite Places from
Chimney Rock to Charleston. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Robinson, Brian S., Jennifer C. Ort, William A. Eldridge, Adrian L. Burke., and Bertrand G.
Pelletier
2009 Paleoindian Aggregation and Social Context at Bull Brook. American Antiquity
24:427-429.
Rogers, John J. W.
2006 The Carolina Slate Belt. In Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt,
edited by Vincas P. Steponaitis, Jeffrey D. Irwin, Theresa E. McReynolds, and
Christopher R. Moore, pp. 10-15. Research Report No. 25, Research Laboratories of
Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sanborn, Erica E., and Lawrence E. Abbott, Jr.
1999 Early Ceramic Traditions on the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina:
Radiocarbon Data from 31 CB 114. North Carolina Archaeology 48:3-17.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
1994 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for
Research and Resource Management. Council of South Carolina Professional
Archaeologists, Columbia.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of
Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties,
South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1, Occasional Papers
of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
October 2018 114 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Shafale, M.P.
2012 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley
1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Smallwood, Ashley M.
2010 Clovis Biface Technology at the Topper site, South Carolina: Evidence for Variation
and Technological Flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2413-2425.
Smith, Bruce D., and Richard A. Yarnell
2009 Initial Formation of an Indigenous Crop Complex in Eastern North America at 3800
B. P. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(16):6561-6566.
South, Stanley A.
1960 An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. Ms. on file,
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1966 Exploratory Excavation of the McFayden Mound, Brunswick County. Southern
Indian Studies 18:59-61.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York.
State Climate Office of North Carolina
n.d. Overview. http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/ncclimate.html. Site accessed
May 30, 2017.
Stevens, J. Sanderson
1991 A Story of Plants, Fire, and People: the Paleoecology and Subsistence of the Late
Archaic and Early Woodland in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp.
185-220. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication 23, Richmond.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Tester, Brandon
2018 Up in smoke: Tobacco's decline. The Robesonian.
https://www.robesonian.com/news/109907/109907. Accessed June 8, 2018.
Tippett, Joseph L.
1992 The Spatial Distribution of Lithic Materials: Implications for Early and Middle Archaic
Hunter -Gatherer Mobility in South Carolina. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
October 2018 115 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Trinkley, Michael B.
1980 Investigation of the Woodland Period along the South Carolina Coast. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina.
Troxler, Carole W.
2006 Act of Pardon and Oblivion. Published online by NCpedia. http://ncpedia.org/act-
pardon-and-oblivion. Site accessed April 1, 2015. Encyclopedia of North Carolina.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Tuck, J.A.
1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 2(1):72-80.
Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina
2013 History. http://www.tuscaroranationnc.com/history. Site accessed March 30, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau
1902 Twelfth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1900, Volume VI,
Agriculture: Part 2, Crops and Irrigation. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1932 Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930; Agriculture, Vol. II, Part 2—The
Southern States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1949 Wakulla, North Carolina quadrangle map, 7.5 -minute series. USGS, Washington,
D.C.
1982 Wakulla, North Carolina quadrangle map, 7.5 -minute series. USGS, Washington,
D.C.
Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn
2002 Indian Wars. Mariner/American Heritage Books, New York.
Walbert, David
2015a A Little Kingdom in Carolina. Published online by LearnNC.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1665. Site accessed March 27, 2015.
UNC School of Education, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
2015b A Royal Colony. Published online by LeamNC-
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-coloniaI/1973. Site accessed March 30, 2015.
UNC School of Education, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Walker, Francis A.
1872a Statistics of the United States ... Compiled from the Original Returns of the Ninth
Census (June 1, 1870) under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1872b The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States, Embracing the
Tables of Wealth, Taxation, and Public Indebtedness; of Agriculture; Manufactures;
Mining; and the Fisheries. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
October 2018 116 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Walker, Renee B., Kandance R. Detwiler, Scott C. Meeks, and Boyce N. Driskell
2001 Berries, Bones, and Blades: Reconstructing Late Paleoindian Subsistence
Economy at Dust Cave, Alabama. Midcontinental Journal of Archeology 26: 169-197.
Ward, Trawick H.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis
and J.J. Crow, pp. 53-80. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History. The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Ward, H. Trawick, and Jack H. Wilson
1980 Archaeological Excavations at the Cold Morning Site. Southern Indian Studies
32:5-40.
Ward, Lauck W., Richard H. Bailey, and Joseph G. Carter
1991 Pliocene and Early Pleistocene Stratigraphy, Depositional History, and Molluscan
Paleobiogeography of the Coastal Plain. In The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina
Geological Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, edited by J. Wright Horton and Victor A.
Zullo, pp. 274-289. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder
1968 The Deptford Ceramic Complex. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of
Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen J. Williams, pp. 135-151. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Waters, Michael R., Steven L. Forman, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., and John Foss
2009 Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree Sites, Allendale
County, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1300-1311.
Watts, W. A.
1980 Late -Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Quaternary Research 13:187-199.
Webb, David S., Jerald T. Milanich, Roger Alexon, and James S. Dunbar
1984 A Bison antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American
Antiquity 49:384-92.
Webb, Thompson III, and Reid A. Bryson
1972 Late- and Post -Glacial Climate Change in the Northern Midwest, USA: Quantitative
Estimates Derived from Fossil Pollen Spectra by Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
Quaternary Research 2:70-115.
Wells, B.W.
1928 Plant Communities of the North Carolina Coastal Plain and their Successional
Relations. Ecology 9(2):230-242.
October 2018 117 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report — DO NOT RELEASE
Wesler, Kit, Gordon J. Fine, Dennis J. Pogue, Patricia Sternheimer, Aileen F. Button, E. Glyn
Furguson, and Alvin H. Luckenbach
1981 M/DOT Archaeological Resources Survey, Volume 1: Eastern Shore. Maryland
Historical Trust Manuscript Series No. 5. Annapolis.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1969 Report on Preliminary Investigations at the Parham Mound, Robeson County, North
Carolina. Ms. on file, Department of Social Sciences, St. Andrews College, Laurinburg,
North Carolina.
1978 Report on Excavations at the Buie Mound, Robeson County, North Carolina. In The
Institute of Archeology and Anthropology Notebook 8, edited by Robert L. Stephenson
and Kenn Pinson, pp. 30-71. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1973 Late -Wisconsin Vegetation Changes in Unglaciated North America. Quaternary
Research 3:621-631.
Wolfe, Brendan
2011 First Anglo -Powhatan War (1609-1614). Published online by Encyclopedia Virginia.
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/first—anglo-powhatan_war_1609-1614. Site accessed
March 27, 2015. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Wood, Debra L.
2015 Interstate 95: The Eastern Seaboard.
http://southeast.construction.com/features/archive/0607—Feature6.asp. Site accessed
April 9, 2015.
Woodward, S.L. and R.L. Hoffman
1991 The Nature of Virginia. In Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a
Symposium, edited by J.N. McDonald and T. Skware, pp. 23-50. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Co., Blacksburg, Virginia.
Wright, H. E., Jr.
1981 Vegetation East of the Rocky Mountains 18,000 Years Ago. Quaternary Research
15:113-125.
Yesner, David R.
1980 Maritime Hunter -Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 21:727-
735.
October 2018 118 Piedmont Natural Gas

Robeson LNG Project
Phase I Archaeoloqical Survev Re
CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
— DO NOT RELEASE
APPENDIX A — RESUME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
October 2018 Piedmont Natural Gas

William Stanyard
Senior Archaeologist and
Director of Cultural Resources Field Services
1r. Stanyard has been working in the environmental industry since 1987 and as a
enior archaeologist since 1991. William has extensive experience working as the
rincipal Investigator and Cultural Resources Task Manager on large, complex
rojects that include intra and interstate pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and
)servoirs. In addition to his long-standing supervisory experience with Phase I
ultural resource surveys, Phase II testing, and Phase III Data Recovery investigations
ssociated with those projects, William regularly participates in the consultation
rocess and has worked with a wide range of state and federal agencies.
Experience: 28 years of experience in the field of
Cultural Resource Management.
Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/in/william-stanyard-
174638a9/1
Email: [e-mail]
Professional Affiliations & Registrations
■ Register of Professional Archaeologists
■ Society for American Archaeology
■ Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Fields of Competence
Languages
■ English, native speaker
Key Industry Sectors
■ Power generation and transmission
■ Oil and gas
■ Public and private land development
Publications
■ 2009 Bearsfoot and Deer Legs: Archaeobotanical
and Zooarchaeological Evidence of a Special-
■ Hunter -Gatherer social complexity in the Southeast Purpose Encampment at the Sandy Site, Roanoke,
■ Cultural Resource Management Virginia. Journal of Ethnobiology 29(1):129-148.
■ GPS, GIS, Computer-aided mapping, database With Amber VanDerwarker.
management, statistical analysis
■ Archaeological survey, testing, and data recovery ■ 2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of Northern
■ Cultural resource regulatory compliance Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of
■ Project management and coordination Archaeology Series Report No. 38 and Georgia
Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 13.
Education
■ M.S., Quaternary Studies, Specialty in Archaeology,
University of Maine, Maine, 1993
■ B.A., Anthropology, Temple University, Pennsylvania,
1989
The business of sustainability
_.
ERM

William Stanyard
Key Projects
Enbridge Environmental Review for Future Expansion
Considerations
Environmental assessment for possible petroleum
pipeline expansion for a 396 mile -long corridor in
Wisconsin and Illinois. Principal Investigator, Cultural
Resources Task Manager, and Environmental Survey
Coordinator responsible for overseeing the Phase I
cultural resources survey (including archaeological and
historic structure investigations) and coordinating all
environmental studies.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project
600 -mile -long natural gas pipeline extending from West
Virginia to North Carolina. Principal Investigator and
Cultural Resources Task Manager responsible for
overseeing the Phase I cultural resources surveys,
Phase II archaeological investigations, data recovery
investigations, and historic structures surveys and
assessment of effects. Responsibilities also include
consultations with the FERC and SHPO.
Calcasieu Pass Project
Global Venture LNG facility on a 910 acre tract and 42
miles of natural gas pipeline corridor in Cameron Parish,
Louisiana. Principal Investigator and Cultural Resources
Task Manager responsible for overseeing the Phase I
cultural resources surveys. Served as the senior report
author for all technical reports. Work also included FERC
and SHPO consultations.
Mt. Storm Wind Force Project
A 72 turbine wind project in West Virginia, Principal
Investigator and Cultural Resources Task Manager
responsible for overseeing the Phase I archaeological
survey and historic structures survey and assessment of
effects. Responsibilities also included consultations with
the West Virginia Public Service Commission and SHPO
www.erm.com
Key Projects before Joining ERM
Enbridge Line 78 Project.
75 -mile crude oil pipeline in Illinois and Indiana: Principal
Investigator, Cultural Resources Task Manager, and
Environmental Survey Coordinator responsible for
overseeing the Phase I cultural resources survey
(including archaeological and historic structure
investigations) and coordinating all environmental
studies. Work also included SHPO, Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, and Illinois Department of Transportation
consultations.
Spectra Energy Southeast Supply Header Project
270 -mile natural gas pipeline in Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama: Principal Investigator and Cultural
Resources Task Manager responsible for Phase I
archaeological and historic structures surveys and Phase
II archaeological testing. Also served as the senior
report author for all technical reports and addenda and
supervised and participated in FERC, SHPO, and Native
American consultations.
Kinder Morgan Parkway Pipeline Project
141 -mile refined petroleum pipeline in Mississippi and
Louisiana: Principal Investigator and Cultural Resources
Task Manager a Phase I cultural resources survey
(including archaeological and historic structure
investigations). Served as the senior report author for all
technical reports and addenda. Work also included
ACOE and SHPO consultation.
Energy Transfer Tiger Pipeline Project
175 -mile natural gas pipeline in Texas and Louisiana:
Principal Investigator and Cultural Resources Task
Manager responsible for overseeing the Phase I cultural
resources survey (including archaeological and historic
structure investigations) and Phase II testing. Served as
the senior report author for all technical reports and
addenda. Work also included Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), SHPO, and Native
American consultation.