DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeology Predictive Model Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeology Predictive Model Report REVISED TERRESTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT KINSTON BYPASS LENOIR, JONES, AND CRAVEN COUNTIES NORTH CAROLINA STIP PROJECT R-2553 WBS No. 34460.1.2 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUGUST 2013 REVISED DECEMBER 2014 REVISED OCTOBER 2017 R-2553 Kinston Bypass Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Study Area ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Setting ............................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Purpose of Predictive Model ....................................................................................... 3 2.0 Archaeological Predictive Models Background ............................................................... 4 2.1 Predictive Models Introduction .................................................................................... 4 2.2 Types of Archaeological Predictive Models ................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Descriptive Models .............................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Behavioral Models .............................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Statistical Models ................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Past Archaeologocal Predictive Models in North Carolina .......................................... 5 3.0 Archaeological Predictive Model Methodology ................................................................ 9 3.1 Type of Archaeological Predictive Model .................................................................... 9 3.2 Variables Used For Archaeological Predictive Model .................................................10 3.2.1 Soil Drainage .....................................................................................................10 3.2.2 Proximity to Water ..............................................................................................12 3.2.3 Topographic Setting ...........................................................................................13 3.2.4 Proximity to Historic Roads ................................................................................14 3.2.5 Previously Recorded Civil War Historic Resources ............................................22 3.2.6 Disturbed/Developed Areas ...............................................................................22 3.2.7 In-River Archaeological Resources ....................................................................23 3.3 Geographic Information Systems Methodology ..........................................................23 3.3.1 Geographic Information Systems Introduction ....................................................23 3.3.2 Data Layer Creation ...........................................................................................23 3.3.2.1 Soil Drainage ..................................................................................................23 3.3.2.2 Proximity to Water ...........................................................................................23 3.3.2.3 Topographic Setting ........................................................................................24 3.3.2.4 Proximity to Historic Roads .............................................................................24 3.3.2.5 Previously Recorded Civil War Historic Resources .........................................24 3.3.2.6 Disturbed/Developed Areas ............................................................................25 3.3.3 Variable Weighting .............................................................................................25 3.3.4 Archaeological Potential Generation ..................................................................25 4.0 Terrestrial Archaeological Predictive Model Results ......................................................27 4.1 Segments, Draft Preliminary Corridors, and Detailed Study Alternatives ...................27 4.2 Results of Individual Variables for Archaeological Predictive Model ...........................27 4.3 Results of Comprehensive Archaeological Predictive Model for Project Study Area ..34 4.4 Results of Comprehensive Archaeological Predictive Model For DSA Corridors ........38 5.0 Summary of Recommendations.....................................................................................41 6.0 November 2014 Update ................................................................................................42 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................42 6.2 Results of 2014 Functional Design Analysis ..............................................................42 7.0 October 2017 Update ....................................................................................................50 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................50 7.2 Results of 2017 Functional Design Analysis ..............................................................50 7.3 Comparison of 2014 and 2017 Results ......................................................................50 7.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................59 8.0 References ....................................................................................................................60 Revised Archaeological Predictive Model i October 2017 R-2553 Kinston Bypass List of Tables Table 1. Highly Sensitive Soil Types and Drainage for Kinston Bypass Study Area ..................11 Table 2. Low Sensitivity Soil Types and Drainage for Kinston Bypass Study Area ....................12 Table 3. Archaeological Probability for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors .....................................38 Table 4. Archaeological Probability for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors as of November 2014 ..43 Table 5. Archaeological Probability for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors as of October 2017 ......52 Table 6. Comparative Calculations for 2014 to 2017 Changes. .................................................59 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Study Area ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Circa 1862 Sketch Map of Greene and Lenoir Counties .............................................15 Figure 3. 1900 Soil Map, Lenoir Sheet ......................................................................................16 Figure 4. 1938 Lenoir County Road Map...................................................................................17 Figure 5. 1868 Map of Jones County ........................................................................................18 Figure 6. 1903 Soil Map, Craven Sheet ....................................................................................19 Figure 7. 1938 Jones County Road Map ...................................................................................20 Figure 8. Historic Roads in Study Area .....................................................................................21 Figure 9. Soil Drainage Classifications ......................................................................................28 Figure 10. Proximity to Water Classifications ............................................................................29 Figure 11. Topographic Setting Classifications..........................................................................30 Figure 12. Proximity to Historic Road Classifications ................................................................31 Figure 13. Civil War Sites ..........................................................................................................32 Figure 14. Disturbed/Developed Areas .....................................................................................33 Figure 15. Prehistoric Archaeological Sensitivity Results ..........................................................35 Figure 16. Historic Archaeological Sensitivity Results ...............................................................36 Figure 17. Composite of Archaeological Predictive Model Results ............................................37 Figure 18. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors...................................39 Figure 19. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 1UE and 1UESB .......44 Figure 20. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 11 and 12 ..................45 Figure 21. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 31 and 32 ..................46 Figure 22. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 35 and 36 ..................47 Figure 23. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 51 and 52 ..................48 Figure 24. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 63 and 65 ..................49 Figure 25. Comparison of 2014 Design and 2017 Right of Way for Kinston Bypass. .................51 Figure 26. Archaeological Sensitivity for Kinston Bypass DSA Corridors 1UE and 1UESB (October 2017 design) .......................................................................................................53
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology
    i BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NORTH CAROLINA UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY Compiled by Barbara Lynn Brooks, Ann M. Merriman, Madeline P. Spencer, and Mark Wilde-Ramsing Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives and History April 2009 ii FOREWARD In the forty-five years since the salvage of the Modern Greece, an event that marks the beginning of underwater archaeology in North Carolina, there has been a steady growth in efforts to document the state’s maritime history through underwater research. Nearly two dozen professionals and technicians are now employed at the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch (N.C. UAB), the North Carolina Maritime Museum (NCMM), the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and East Carolina University’s (ECU) Program in Maritime Studies. Several North Carolina companies are currently involved in conducting underwater archaeological surveys, site assessments, and excavations for environmental review purposes and a number of individuals and groups are conducting ship search and recovery operations under the UAB permit system. The results of these activities can be found in the pages that follow. They contain report references for all projects involving the location and documentation of physical remains pertaining to cultural activities within North Carolina waters. Each reference is organized by the location within which the reported investigation took place. The Bibliography is divided into two geographical sections: Region and Body of Water. The Region section encompasses studies that are non-specific and cover broad areas or areas lying outside the state's three-mile limit, for example Cape Hatteras Area. The Body of Water section contains references organized by defined geographic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Version of This Report
    Tier 1 Preliminary Evaluation of Pollutant Sources to the Impounded Reaches of Five Dams in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina December 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Tier 1 Preliminary Evaluation of Pollutant Sources to the Impounded Reaches of Five Dams in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina Executive Summary: Impounded reaches behind dams can trap and accumulate sediments through time. In some cases, those sediments can accumulate contaminants, and at high concentrations those contaminants can have adverse toxicological effects in-place as well as upon movement downstream. We used the framework of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers technical guidance manual on disposal of dredged material in inland waters to evaluate the potential for sediment contamination within the impoundments created by five small dams on the Neuse River and tributaries in Wake, Wayne, Wilson, and Lenoir Counties, North Carolina. A tier 1 review of existing information on pollutant sources and sinks, similar to an initial environmental audit, was conducted. This report presents the methods, results, and recommendations from the tier 1 assessment. Review of existing information (State and federal databases on pollutant sources, previous environmental assessments, and limited analytical chemistry data for Neuse River and Crabtree Creek, Little River, Contentnea Creek and Southwest Creek) indicated no known significant organic or inorganic pollutant problems in a one-mile assessment area surrounding the impounded reaches of each dam. Much of the assessment area for the dams on Little River, Contentnea Creek and Southwest Creek remains in an undeveloped rural character (forestry and small farms).
    [Show full text]
  • 36Th & 51St VA Infantry Engagements with Civil War Chronology, 1860
    Grossclose Brothers in Arms: 36th and 51st Virginia Infantry Engagements with a Chronology of the American Civil War, 1860-1865 Engagements 36th VA Infantry 51st VA Infantry (HC Grossclose, Co G-2nd) (AD & JAT Grossclose, Co F) Civil War Chronology November 1860 6 Lincoln elected. December 1860 20 South Carolina secedes. 26 Garrison transferred from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. January 1861 9 Mississippi secedes; Star of the West fired upon 10 Florida Secedes 11 Alabama secedes. 19 Georgia secedes. 21 Withdrawal of five Southern members of the U.S.Senate: Yulee and Mallory of Florida, Clay and Fitzpatrick of Alabama, and Davis of Mississippi. 26 Louisiana secedes. 29 Kansas admitted to the Union as a free state. February 1861 1 Texas convention votes for secession. 4 lst Session, Provisional Confederate Congress, convenes as a convention. 9 Jefferson Davis elected provisional Confederate president. 18 Jefferson Davis inaugurated. 23 Texas voters approve secession. March 1861 4 Lincoln inaugurated; Special Senate Session of 37th Congress convenes. 16 lst Session, Provisional Confederate Congress, adjourns. 28-Special Senate Session of 37th Congress adjourns. April 1861 12 Bombardment of Fort Sumter begins. 13 Fort Sumter surrenders to Southern forces. 17 Virginia secedes. 19 6th Massachusetts attacked by Baltimore mob; Lincoln declares blockade of Southern coast. 20 Norfolk, Virginia, Navy Yard evacuated. 29 2nd Session, Provisional Confederate Congress, convenes; Maryland rejects secession. May 1861 6 Arkansas secedes; Tennessee legislature calls for popular vote on secession. 10 Union forces capture Camp Jackson, and a riot follows in St. Louis. 13 Baltimore occupied by U.S. troops. 20 North Carolina secedes.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT Cultural Resource Investigations for the Milburnie Dam
    FINAL REPORT Cultural Resource Investigations for the Milburnie Dam Mitigation Bank Project Wake County, North Carolina North Carolina Environmental Review (ER) #06-3114 Lead Federal Agency - US Army Corps of Engineers Action ID SAW-2010-0020 Prepared for: Restoration Systems LLC 1101 Haynes Street Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604 Prepared by: Deborah Joy, MA, RPA Legacy Research Associates 3333 Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard Suite A-100 Durham, NC 27707 September 15, 2014 Cultural Resource Investigations for the Milburnie Dam Mitigation Bank Project Wake County, North Carolina North Carolina Environmental Review (ER) #06-3114 US Army Corps of Engineers Action ID SAW-2010-0020 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................................................................... viii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................................................ix Archaeological Site 31WA1625/1625** - Milburnie East ....................................................... ix Archaeological Site 31WA1872/1872** - Milburnie West ....................................................... x Archaeological Site 31WA1873** .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Archaeology, Vol. 48
    North Carolina Archaeology Volume 48 1999 1 North Carolina Archaeology (formerly Southern Indian Studies) Published jointly by The North Carolina Archaeological Society, Inc. 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601-2807 and The Research Laboratories of Archaeology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120 R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Editor Officers of the North Carolina Archaeological Society President: Robert V. Graham, 2140 Woodland Ave., Burlington, NC 27215. Vice President: Michelle Vacca, 125 N. Elm Street, Statesville, NC 28677. Secretary: Linda Carnes-McNaughton, Historic Sites Section, N.C. Division of Archives and History, 4621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4621. Treasurer: E. William Conen, 804 Kingswood Dr., Cary, NC 27513. Editor: R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, Alumni Building, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. Associate Editor (Newsletter): Dee Nelms, Office of State Archaeology, N.C. Division of Archives and History, 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4619. At-Large Members: Thomas Beaman, Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. Danny Bell, 903 Greenwood Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. Wayne Boyko, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center, Environmental Projects, Fort Bragg NC, 23807-5000 Jane Brown, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723. Randy Daniel, Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. Rick Langley, M.D., N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, Raleigh, NC. Information for Subscribers North Carolina Archaeology is published once a year in October. Subscription is by membership in the North Carolina Archaeological Society, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuse River Basin Roundtable
    Neuse River Basin Roundtable August 24, 2017 North Carolina Emergency Management Major Contributors to Neuse Watershed At Smithfield 1,220 Sq. Miles Swift Creek 13% 160 Sq. Miles Increase Middle Creek 9% 130 Sq. Miles Increase Above Goldsboro 2,090 Sq. Miles Little River 15% 320 Sq. Miles Increase Above Contentnea Cr 2,590 Sq. Miles North Carolina Emergency Management North Carolina Emergency Management North Carolina Emergency Management Matthew Floyd 1% Annual Chance Flood (100-year flood) Fran North Carolina Emergency Management Hurricane Matthew - Major Contributors to Neuse At Smithfield 1,220 Sq. Miles Swift Creek 160 Sq. Miles Middle Creek 130 Sq. Miles Above Goldsboro 2,090 Sq. Miles Little River 320 Sq. Miles Above Contentnea Cr 2,590 Sq. Miles North Carolina Emergency Management Neuse River Basins - Topography North Carolina Emergency Management NCFMP Neuse River Flood Studies North Carolina Emergency Management NCFMP Neuse River Flood Studies . Hydraulics . HEC-RAS hydraulic models for the entire river in 5 segments downstream of Falls of Neuse (2003-2013) . 10, 25, 50, 100 and 500-year storm events and Hurricane Floyd in model runs . Hydrology . Falls of Neuse Reservoir discharges provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers . Regression analysis and gage analyses used to determine downstream discharges in models North Carolina Emergency Management NCFMP FIMAN Library Models . Hydraulics . HEC-RAS hydraulic models for: . Neuse River at Clayton . Neuse River at Smithfield . Neuse River at Goldsboro . Neuse River at Kinston . Extend
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Surveyneuse River WQ Report
    CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Neuse River Water Quality Sampling Final Report June 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary Neuse River Water Quality Sampling ES.1 Study Summary........................................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.2 Study Overview ........................................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.3 Key Results ................................................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.4 Recommendations for Future Work ............................................................................................... ES-3 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Study Objectives and Report Format ............................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Constituents of Interest in the Neuse River ................................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 Water Quality of the Neuse River 2.1 NCDENR Data ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1 DO and Chlorophyll Exceedances .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Raleigh Greenway
    PARKING TRAIL GRID ID MILEAGE SURFACE FEATURES AND AMENITIES DESCRIPTION PARK FACILITIES For Your Safety And AREAS youtube.com/raleighparksandrec The Safety Of Others • Great Blue Heron habitat Follows Abbotts Creek from the Neuse River Trail to Simms Branch Trail near Abbotts Creek • Connects to Falls River Shopping Center 2, 3, 4, 53, P-8 2.9 Paved the intersection of Durant Road and Cub Trail. The trail is connected by sidewalk • Be alert Trail 54, 83 • Connects to North Wake Landfill District Park, Neuse River Trail, along two sections of Falls River Avenue and along Durant Road. instagram.com/raleighparks • Patrons should be aware of their Simms Branch Trail, and Durant Nature Preserve Discover surroundings on the trail Baileywick Trail H-8 0.6 Paved • Connects to Baileywick Park and Baileywick Elementary School Connects from Strickland Rd to Baileywick Road by passing through Baileywick Park. 73 Our Parks At • Obey signs A natural surface trail located adjacent to Beaver Dam Creek between Wade Beaver Dam maps.raleighnc. pinterest.com/raleighparks H-20 0.8 Unpaved • Connects to Hymettus Woods Park and Windemere Beaver Dam Park Avenue and Devonshire Drive that passes through Windemere Beaver Dam Park. 29 • Wear appropriate safety equipment Trail including helmets, kneepads, elbow pads, The trail is connected by a sidewalk along Dixie Trail. gov/parklocator Birch Ridge A wide sidewalk that connects Poole Road to the Walnut Creek Softball Complex wrist pads, etc Q-26 0.3 Paved • Connects to Walnut Creek Softball Complex Connector (Walnut Creek North Park). — twitter.com/raleighparks • The use of headphones is discouraged— Abbotts Creek Park (Q-8) Centennial • Connects to North Carolina Farmers Market and NC State University headphones impair your ability to hear A multi-purpose path adjacent to Centennial Parkway on the NC State University Anderson Point Park (U-25) Bikeway H-25 2.3 Paved Centennial Campus — your surroundings Centennial Campus.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment of the Neuse River Lowgrounds and Mill Creek Watersheds in Johnston County
    Conservation Assessment of the Neuse River Lowgrounds and Mill Creek Watersheds in Johnston County Prepared by Leigh Ann Cienek and Jon Scott Triangle Land Conservancy Funding provided by the NC Attorney General’s Office Environmental Enhancement Grant July 30th, 2010 Introduction In the late 1990’s Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) began focusing efforts to protect land within the Neuse River Lowgrounds in Johnston County. Although development pressure in the Lowgrounds has lagged behind other portions of the Triangle, this vast wilderness with many unique natural features faces other pressures such as logging, agriculture and mining which threaten water quality and the natural integrity of the area. During the past 10 years, development pressure in Johnston County has risen dramatically with a population increase of 40% for the County. Completion of the US-70 Clayton Bypass has also reduced the commute times to central portion of Johnston County including Smithfield, further drawing residents who commute to jobs in RTP and points west. In 2000, TLC with support from the Conservation Trust for North Carolina and funding from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, completed the “Riparian Corridor Design for the Neuse River: From I-95 to Ferry Bridge Road in Johnston and Wayne Counties, North Carolina”. The design was limited to an evaluation of parcels along the Neuse River corridor and identified priorities for both restoration and preservation. As part of a renewed effort to protect this significant natural area, TLC applied to the NC Attorney General’s Office for an Environmental Enhancement Grant in 2008 to update the 2000 plan and expand the focus area to include the entire Neuse Lowgrounds watershed as well as the Mill Creek watershed, which includes Hannah Creek and several other important riparian corridors, farm and forest land, and cultural resources such as the Bentonville Battleground.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Grant Awards
    2009 ABPP Project Grant Awards Announcement HPS American Battlefield Protection Program 2009 Grant Awards The American Battlefield Protection Program announces the awarding of 33 grants totaling $1,360,000 to assist in the preservation and protection of America’s historic battlefield lands. This year's grants provide funding at endangered battlefields from the King Philip's War (1675-1676), Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Second Seminole War, Mexican-American War, Civil War, World War II and various Indian Wars. The funds will support a variety of projects at battle sites in 23 states or territories. Funded projects include battlefield surveys, site mapping, National Register of Historic Places nominations, preservation and management plans, cultural landscape inventories, educational materials, archeological surveys, and interpretation. The American Battlefield Protection Program funds projects conducted by federal, state, local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. The ABPP’s mission is to safeguard and preserve significant American battlefield lands for present and future generations as symbols of individual sacrifice and national heritage. Since 1990, the ABPP and its partners have helped to protect and enhance more than 100 battlefields by co-sponsoring 412 projects in 41 states and territories. Brief descriptions of each grant project follow, listed by grant recipient. (Note: states/territories are location of grant project, not of grant recipient.) Brown County Historical Society Minnesota $33,008 This project will identify the boundaries of Dakota War battlefields at Milford and New Ulm through analysis of extant landscape features, historic maps, oral histories and archeological investigation. Mapping of cultural resources and delineation of battlefield boundaries will aid in the completion of National Register of Historic Places nominations for each site.
    [Show full text]
  • Cliffs of the Neuse State Park Master Plan / Prepared By
    Foreword Cliffs of the Neuse State Park has served the people of North Carolina since 1945. Since its establishment, the facilities there have been gradually expanded in response to increasing park use; however, this use has now increased to such an extent that the facilities, land, and the main park feature itself — the cliff — are in danger of permanent damage. The capacity of the land to absorb recreation use and remain protected from degradation has been reached. This Master Plan addresses these problems, analyzes them, and suggests both short-term and long-term development and management practices. The plan also recommends expansion of the recreation opportunities to reduce impact on the existing use areas. Designed for implementation in phases, the plan allows for uninterrupted park use and logical expansion of recreation facilities. The timing of development and construction is con- tingent upon the availability of funds and the establishment of biennial statewide priorities. This Master Plan has been developed in depth and is an ef- fort to provide a balance between recreation and natural ele- ments. Therefore, future decisions which will affect Cliffs of the Neuse State Park must continue to reflect the principles and spirit of the State Park System. CLIFFS OF THE NEUSE STATE PARK MASTER PLAN Prepared by: The State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Connmunity Development Division of Parks and Recreation Master Planning Unit December, 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD Inside Front Cover DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Neuse River Basin Timeline
    The Neuse is Named The Neuse River is named by English Explorer Ar- thur Barlowe after the Neusiok people, one of several Native American nations that settled along the Neuse in present day Raleigh. Neuse means “peace”. The Tuscarora tribe call this riv- er the “gotano” which means “pine in water.” (Today the Coharie Nation, a state-recognized nation, are decedents of the Neusiok people) The Tuscarora War A war between European settlers and the Tus- carora and other Native American Nations erupts on the banks of the Neuse River after years of growing trade tensions. Ultimately, the Tuscarora are defeated in a battle at Fort Neo- heroka where 950 Native Americans die. Many survivors migrate north to rejoin the Iroquois League, while others migrate to South Carolina to fight in the Yamasee War. Smithfield Becomes a Town Smithfield becomes the “first” town in Johnston County, settled mostly by subsistence farmers. Smith’s Ferry route on the Neuse River becomes one of the state’s first sites for receiving and stor- ing tobacco to be shipped downriver, more than a century before tobacco becomes a booming industry. The Plight of the Longleaf Pine The Longleaf pine, North Carolina’s state tree, is an important resource cultivated for its wood and resin, used to make tar, pitch, and turpen- tine for European naval ships. These products are sent downstream on the Cape Fear and Neuse rivers to the Atlantic. Fire suppression and livestock grazing prevent the longleaf from con- tinuing to reproduce in its historic range. (After 2 centuries of harvesting this tree, less than 3% of its original acreage re- main.) The Rise of the Lumber Industry New Bern, North Carolina’s first state capitol, be- comes one of the largest lumber centers in the South, with 16 operational lumber mills at its peak.
    [Show full text]