Addendum To an Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Neuse River / Perry Creek Sewer Interceptor Project, Wake County, North Carolina

In 1986, Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. (ARC) performed an archaeological reconnaissance survey of proposed sewer line routes along the Neuse River and several tributaries in the vicinity of Raleigh, North Carolina (Hargrove 1986). The City of Raleigh , through its consultants, is preparing an environmental impact statement for the City's proposed Neuse River/ Perry Creek Sewer Interceptor Project. The proposed sewer lines cross the Neuse River floodplain from Richland Creek in the north to Crabtree Creek in the south, as well as the floodplains of Simms Branch, Perry Creek, and Beaverdam Creek .

The primary contractor for the preparation of the environmental impact
statement is Camp Dresser & McKee, Engineers and Environmental Planners, of Raleigh. Camp Dresser & McKee contracted with ARC to perform an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the proposed sewer route. After a
consultation on April 28, 1986 with representatives of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, the Division of Environmental Management the City of Raleigh Utilities Department, and Camp Dresser & McKee, ARC proposed a survey plan based on a 25% sample of the routes along Perry Creek, Simms Branch, Beaverdam Creek, and the Neuse
River from Perry Creek to Crabtree Creek (the Neuse River section between Richland Creek and Perry Creek was added in August). Before the fieldwork, the Principal Investigator (Thomas Hargrove) began background research in the site files of the Archaeology Branch of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, in the State Archives, and in the North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In order to survey the heavily
vegetated floodplains, the ARC surveyors used shovel tests spaced at 40 meter intervals (about 120 feet) along selected sections of each of the proposed corridors. The soil from each shovel test was screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh. Instead of a 25% sample, the survey crews actually covered nearly 50% of most of the proposed routes. This greater coverage was partly due to the the predominance of poorly drained soils along many sections of the routes and a low return of sites in these areas. In addition to the ground survey, the Principal Investigator made two canoe trips to examine the entire length of the Neuse River route for signs of historic mills or bridges that might not have appeared on
historic maps of the area. The results of the earlier research and survey appear in an earlier report by Hargrove 1986).