North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

62 | Page

Appendix K – Section 106

FRA Designation Letter

Section 106 Cultural Resources Report

SHPO and THPO Consultation Letters 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

US Anny Corps of Engineers 

Mobile District 

P.O. BOX 2288 

Mobile, Alabama 

Attention: Mr. Munther N. Sahawneh 

Branch Chief 

Regulatory Division 

South Mississippi Branch 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

January 15, 2021 

Re: Invitation to accept NEPA Cooperating Agency status for the Federal Railroad Administration-led 

North Rail Connector Project 

Dear Mr. Sahawneh: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) a grant 

for the proposed North Rail Connector Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would connect 

rail owned by Mississippi Export Railroad (MSE) that crosses over the Escatawpa River just east of 

Highway 63 in Moss Point, Mississippi to an existing JCPA-owned rail line that crosses through the Moss 

Point Industrial and Technology Complex (MPITC). FRA anticipates that we will prepare an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the 

Proposed Project. The purpose of this letter is to invite the US Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE) to be 

a cooperating agency on the EA, as your agency may have an interest based on your jurisdiction by law, 

including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and special expe1tise. FRA also requests that you designate 

us as the lead federal agency for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation for the 

Proposed Project. 

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide additional railroad capacity and connectivity between 

existing infrastructure to support the growing needs of the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. 

Currently, freight trains that travel from the north on the MSE line must pass through downtown Moss 

Point and Pascagoula to the Pascagoula Interchange to join CSX rail. This operation regularly blocks 

vehicular traffic and creates delays at four major roadway intersections. Also, the curve between the 

existing MSE line that joins with the rail line that enters into the MPITC is too tight to allow unit trains to 

travel. The Proposed Project is needed remove operational conflicts between railroads, reduce 

congestion, and accommodate the proposed restoration of passenger rail service. 

Enclosed is a figure of the Proposed Project. The proposed rail line is located within JCPA owned land 

and several parcels are currently being assessed for purchase/right of way. The proposed rail line begins 

at approximate latitude/longitude 30.251207/-88.310005 on the north and extends to approximate 

latitude/longitude 30.4 l 3308/-88.508269 where it joins existing rail. The approximate center point of the 

proposed rail line is located at 30.415001 degrees latitude and -88.513679 degrees longitude. 

The proposed rail line would cross over estuarine wetlands and forested uplands, and join on the east with 

an existing JCPA rail line that connects to an interchange located within the MPITC. The length of the
proposed rail line through estuarine wetlands is approximately 3,659 total linear feet with approximately 

2,852 feet through marsh wetlands, and 807 through uplands. Most of the proposed rail would be elevated 

and fill will be used at the abutments to the pile structmes. One area of marsh wetlands will be filled with 

a length of approximately 413 feet and 45.5 feet width. The total impact to wetlands from fill is 

approximately 39,261 square feet (0.90 acres). There would be approximately 2,649 cubic yards of fill. 

Construction would be conducted either from uplands or from existing rail. A construction staging area 

would be established within the MPITC in an area that was recently used for the same purpose. The 

staging area would be approximately I-acre in size, and it is not located within a wetland. 

Construction of the North Rail Connector Project would result in permanent filling of 0.90 acres of 

regulated estuarine wetland. JCPA would identify exact mitigation measures and wetland compensation 

ratios in collaboration with your agency and other regulatory agencies during the subsequent preliminary 

design and permitting phase. At this time, JCPA anticipates that mitigation requirements would be 

satisfied through permittee responsible mitigation in which an upland area is converted into estuarine 

wetland. 

In accordance with 40 CFR § 1501.8, FRA requests USACE's assistance in the pat1icipation of our 

anticipated EA for proposed North Rail Connector Project as a cooperating agency. Further, we request 

that USACE designate FRA as the lead federal agency for Section 106 NHPA to streamline and fulfill 

collective Federal responsibilities under 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). Please provide your written concurrence 

with this invitation and our proposed EA schedule within 15 days from the date on this letter. Should you 

decline to accept our invitation to be a cooperating agency, we advise that you provide a copy of your 

response to CEQ as specified at 40 CFR § 1501 .8(c). We look forward to working cooperatively with you 

on this impm1ant project. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss our respective roles and responsibilities in more detail, 

please contact Ms. Amanda Murphy, FRA Environmental Protection Specialist at 202-339-7231 or 

Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL M 

JOHNSEN 

Michael Johnsen 

Digitally signed by MICHAEL M 

JOHNSEN 

Date: 2021.01.15 12:05:32 -05'00' 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

Cc: Rudolph C. Villarreal, Senior Project Manager, USACE Mobile - South Mississippi Branch 

Sandy Feathers, JCPA Assistant Port Director 

Enclosures: 

Proposed Project Figure

Proposed EA Schedule
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

MOBILE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P .0. BOX 2288 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36628-0001 REPLVTO 

ATTENTION OF: 

South Mississippi Branch 

Regulatory Division 

January 27, 2021 

SUBJECT: Participating Agency invitation to accept NEPA Cooperating Agency status 

For the Federal Railroad Administration-led North Rail Connector Project (SAM-2021-

00025-RCV) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Attention: Mr. Michael M. Johnsen 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

m ichael. joh nsen@dot.gov 

Mr. Johnsen: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Mobile District received your letter 

dated January 15, 2021, inviting the Mobile District to participate as a "Cooperating 

Agency" in the environmental evaluation process and development and preparation of 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed North Rail Connector Project as a 

cooperating agency. 

In accordance with CEQ regulations 40 CFR §1501 .8 for Lead and Cooperating 

Agencies, we accept your invitation to become a participating agency for the 

environmental evaluation process of this project. 

In order to maintain a high level of interagency cooperation, the Mobile District 

agrees to participate in agency coordination meetings, provided consultation on relevant 

technical studies when appropriate, and review project information and study results. 

Further, USAGE designates the Federal Railroad Administration as the lead federal 

agency for Section 106 NHPA to streamline and fulfill collective Federal responsibilities 

under 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). In addition, please see the attached revision to the schedule 

for the EA. The USAGE respectfully requests additional time for review of both the 

interested agency comment period, and the FRA and USAGE review of version 2 of the 

EA. 

Copies of this correspondence is being furnished via email to Ms. Amanda Murphy, 

FRA Environmental Protection Specialist@Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov.
The Mobile District's project manager and primary point of contact for this project will 

be Mr. Rudolph Villarreal. You can contact him at (251) 690-3246 or at 

rudolph.c.villarreal@usace .army.mil should you have any information or questions 

related to this project. 

enclosure 

Sincerely, 

SAHAWNEH MUNT: Digitallyslgnedby 

• f SAHAl'INEH.MUNTHERN.1230711 

HER.N.1230711898 Date: 2021.01.2812:07:49-06'00'

Munther N. Sahawneh 

Chief, South Mississippi Branch 

Regulatory Division

-2-
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the 

Proposed North Rail Connector Project 

Sections 20 and 29, T7S, RSW, 

Jackson County, Mississippi 

MDAH Project Log #'s 11-119-20 and 01-084-21 

Prepared by: 

Bradley Carlock, M.A., RPA 

jbc94@msstate.edu 

ofthe 

Cobb Institute of Archaeology 

Mississippi State University 

P.O. Box AR 

Mississippi State, MS 39762 

(662) 325-3826 

Prepared for: 

Jackson County Port Authority 

and 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Contracted by: 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

156 Nixon Street 

Biloxi, Mississippi 39530 

Contract #3826CI-358 

April 8, 2021
Table of Contents 

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii 

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v 

Management Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 

Background Research ......................................................................................................... 5 

Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 10 

Cultural and Historical Context ........................................................................................ 11 

Field Methods ................................................................................................................... 12 

Field Results ...................................................................................................................... 15 

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 22 

References Cited ............................................................................................................... 24 

Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 25 

11 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Location of the archaeological APE (red polygon), previous cultural resources 

surveys (yellow dots, lines, and polygons), and known archaeological sites 

(orange dots, lines, and polygons) within a one-mile radius (black ellipse) of 

the archaeological APE. Sections 20 and 29, T7S, R5W. Base Maps: Kreole 

and Pascagoula North, MS, U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangles, scale: 

1 :24,000 .......................................................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Location of the archaeological APE (red polygon) and MDAH-inventoried 

historic properties (purple dots) within a one-mile radius (black ellipse) of the 

archaeological APE. Sections 20 and 29, T7S, R5W. Base Maps: Kreole and 

Pascagoula North, MS, U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangles, scale: 

1 :24,000 .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 3. Enlarged detail of the 1927 Bureau of Soils Map of Jackson County ............................ 6 

Figure 4. Enlarged detail of the 1927 Bureau of Soils Map of Jackson County showing 

structures (black squares) within the archaeological APE (red polygon) ..................... 6 

Figure 5. Enlarged detail of the l 943 Pascagoula, MS l :62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic 

quadrangle ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 6. Enlarged detail of the 1943 Pascagoula, MS 1 :62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic 

quadrangle showing structures (black squares) within the archaeological APE 

(red polygon) .................................................................................................................. 7 

Figure 7. Enlarged detail of the 1955 Pascagoula, MS 1 :62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic 

quadrangle ...................................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 8. Enlarged detail of the 1955 Pascagoula, MS 1 :62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic 

quadrangle showing a structure (black square) within the archaeological APE 

(red polygon) .................................................................................................................. 8 

Figure 9. Enlarged detail of the 1982 Pascagoula North, MS 1 :24,000 U.S.G.S. 

topographic quadrangle .................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 10. Enlarged detail of the 1982 Pascagoula North, MS 1 :24,000 U.S.G.S. 

topographic quadrangle showing a structure (black square) within the 

archaeological APE (red polygon) ................................................................................ 9 

Figure 11. Detail of the Pascagoula North, MS, U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangle 

showing locations of shovel tests (red dots) and soil types (yellow polygons) in 

the archaeological APE ............................................................................................... l 0 

Figure 12. Aerial image showing locations of shovel tests (red dots) and soil types 

(yellow polygons) in the archaeological APE ............................................................. 11 

iii 
Figure 13. Aerial photograph showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots) and 

photographs (green dots) within the architectural (orange polygon) and 

archaeological (blue polygon) APE's .......................................................................... 13 

Figure 14. Aerial photograph showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots) and 

photographs (green dots) within the archaeological APE (blue polygon) ................... 14 

Figure 15. Detail of a project map showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots), 

photographs (green dots), wetlands (red polygons), and uplands (yellow 

polygons) within the archaeological APE ................................................................... 14 

Figure 16. Soil profile of St 15, view south ................................................................................. 15 

Figure 17. PhotographshowingjunkyarddebrisnearSt I, view east. (Photo 1) ....................... 16 

Figure 18. Photograph showing an overview of survey conditions and vegetation at St 2, 

view west. (Photo 2) .................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 19. Photograph showing washed up trash (foreground) and marsh grasses 

(background), view southeast. (Photo 3) .................................................................... 17 

Figure 20. Photograph showing the wetland marsh, view east. (Photo 4) .................................. 17 

Figure 21. Photograph showing a view of the junkyard's metal wall west of St 4, view 

west. (Photo 5) ............................................................................................................ 18 

Figure 22. Photograph showing a concrete house slab outside of the archaeological APE, 

view south. (Photo 6) .................................................................................................. 18 

Figure 23. Photograph showing an overview of survey conditions and vegetation from 

the bridge on Elder Street, view north. (Photo 7) ....................................................... 19 

Figure 24. Photograph showing a view of the wetland marsh, view west. (Photo 8) .................. 19 

Figure 25. Photograph showing the northeastern segment of22JA823, view southwest. 

(Photo 9) ....................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 26. Photograph showing the southwestern segment of22JA823, view northeast. 

(Photo 10) ..................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 27. Photograph showing an overview of Elder Street, view west. 22JA823 is on 

the left side of the photo. (Photo 11) ........................................................................... 21 

Figure 28. Photograph showing an overview of Elder Street, view east. 22JA823 is on 

the right side of the photo. (Photo 12) ......................................................................... 21 

Figure 29. Updated site card for 22JA823 ................................................................................... 26 

IV 
List of Tables 

Table I. Previous cultural resources surveys within a radius of one mile from the 

archaeological APE ........................................................................................................ 4 

Table 2. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the 

archaeological APE ........................................................................................................ 4 

Table 3. MDAH-inventoried historic properties within a one mile radius of the 

archaeological APE ........................................................................................................ 5 

V 
Management Summary 

On January 20, 2021, at the request of Compton Engineering, Inc. of Biloxi, Mississippi, 

on behalf of the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) and the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), personnel from the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, conducted 

a Phase I cultural resources survey of the proposed footprint of the North Rail Connector Project 

(the project) in Jackson County, Mississippi (Figures I and 2). The project is about 2,360 ft. (719.3 

m) long with varying width, for a total area covering approximately 3.81 acres (1.54 hectares). The 

FRA is providing the JCPA grant funds for the project, as such the project is a federal undertaking 

subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NI-IPA), as amended and its 

implementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800.The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers also has a Clean 

Water Act Section 404 permitting role in the project, and designated FRA as lead federal agency 

for Section I 06 compliance for the project. This cultural resource survey was prepared 111 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA to identify and assess effects to historic properties. 

A pre-survey search of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History's (MDAH) 

online records revealed that the southern portion of the archaeological APE (extant railroad) was 

previously surveyed (Figure I). This extant railroad was previously designated as an 

archaeological site, 22JA823 (Table 2). There are also eleven previous cultural resources surveys, 

six known archaeological sites, and seven MDAH-inventoried historic properties within a onemile radius of the archaeological APE (Figures I and 2; Tables 1-3). 

As stated in Baca and O'Neal (2014), the only historic attribute retained by 22JA823 is that 

its current orientation is consistent with its historic orientation. Based on their investigation, Baca 

and O'Neal determined 22JA823 was not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). As the project will not affect historic orientation, there will be no effects to 

22JA823. 

No additional cultural resources other than 22JA823 were discovered during this survey. 

Additionally, none of the inventoried historic prope1ties within a one-mile radius are within the 

area of potential effect (APE) of the project, therefore none of them will be affected. It is therefore 

recommended that the project has no effect to historic properties, and no further archaeological 

investigations are required. 

Introduction 

Fieldwork was completed in one day by Bradley Carlock and Nathan Shores of the Cobb 

Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. Secretary of Interior Qualified 

archaeologist Bradley Carlock also prepared the technical report of the findings (See appendix for 

CV). The project area is located in Sections 20 and 29, Township 7 South, Range 5 West as shown 

on the Pascagoula North, Miss. U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangle map (Figures I and 2).
Figure 1. Location of the archaeological APE (red polygon), previous cultural resources surveys 

(yellow dots, lines, and polygons), and known archaeological sites (orange dots, lines, and polygons) 

within a one-mile radius (black ellipse) of the archaeological APE . Sections 20 and 29, T7S, R5W Base 

Maps: Kreole and Pascagoula North, MS, US.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangles, scale: 1:24,000. 

2 
• ,. f 

.. •) ,.~P\UI•'"' 00 0

:._:' 0 0

Figure 2. Location of the archaeological APE (red polygon) and lvfDAH-inventoried historic properties 

(purple dots) within a one-mile radius (black ellipse) of the archaeological APE. Sections 20 and 29, 

T7S, R5W. Base Maps: Kreole and Pascagoula North, MS, US.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangles, 

scale: 1:24,000. 

3 
Table I. Previous cultural resources surveys within a radius of one mile from the archaeological APE. 

MDAH 

Report No. Project Author Year 

80-084 CRS of Gas Pipeline Replacement crossing Smith 

Lake off the Pascagoula River D. Crusoe 1980 

91-123 CRS of a proposed Barge Unloading Facility on the 

Escatawpa River, Jackson Co., MS C.B. Mann 1991 

93-212 CRS of a proposed wetland mitigation plan for the 

Highway 63 commercial corridor. C.B. Mann 1993 

97-001 CRS of Proposed Widening of Existing Boat slip 

and Maintenance Dredging B. Mann 1997 

08-857 MDA-06HA014925 6106 Orange Grove Road, 

Moss Point, MS R. Lackowicz 2008 

10-0197 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, MS 

Gasification Proiect, Jackson County, MS S.L. Perrault 2010 

11-0329 Phase I CRA of A Proposed Mississippi Export 

Railroad Spur Extension, Jackson Co, MS N.R. Stowe 2011 

12-0115 Phase I CRS SR611/SR63 Improvements corridor P. Stallings 2012 

12-0550 MDA 1 0NH09496 6831 Holley Ave Moss Point Ms R. Lackowicz 2012 

12-0670 MDA # J 0NH06549 survey Of 4824 I st Street. Moss 

Point, MS R. Lackowicz 2012 

Phase I CRS of Proposed Railways & Other Faculty, 

14-0105 Upgrade Areas Associated with the Bayou Casotte 

Harbor Wood Pellet Loading Terminal, Port of 

K. Baca, 

H. O'Neal 2014 

Pascagoula, Jackson Co., Ms 

Table 2. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the archaeological APE. 

State Trinomial CulturalPeriod Rccorde1· Date 

Recorded 

NRHP 

Eligibility

22JA543 Early-Late Woodland, 

Mississippian 

D. Marshall, 

T. Boudreaux 1972,2006 Unevaluated 

22JA544 Early Woodland D. Marshall, 

T. Boudreaux 1972,2007 Unevaluated 

22JA545 Early Woodland, Late 

Woodland, Archaic D. Marshall 1972 Unevaluated 

22JA787 Historic 

(late l 9th-20th century) A. Maass 2009 Ineligible 

22JA822 Historic 

( early 20th century - present) K. Baca 2014 Ineligible 

22JA823 Historic

(early 20thcentury) K. Baca 2014 Ineligible 

4 
Table 3. MD AH-inventoried historic properties within a one mile radius of the archaeological APE. 

Map ID# Inventm·y # Historic Name Common 

Name 

Date of 

Construction 

1 059-MOS-0404 n/a Fishmeal plant C. 1946 

2 059-MOS-5511 n/a House C. 1925 

3 059-MOS-0413 n/a House n/a 

4 n/a n/a House n/a 

5 059-MOS-5513 n/a Martin Gautier 

House C. 1900 

6 059-MOS-5517 n/a House 1913 

7 059-MOS-0405-X Southern Paper 

Company paper mill n/a n/a 

Background Research 

A pl'e-survey search of the MDAH's online records revealed that the southern portion of the 

archaeological APE (extant railroad) had been previously surveyed (Figure I). This extant railroad has 

been previously designated as an archaeological site, 22JA823 (Table 2). There are also eleven previous 

cultural resources surveys, six known archaeological sites, and seven MDAH-inventoried historic 

prope1ties within a one-mile radius of the archaeological APE (Figures 1 and 2; Tables 1-3). 

One of the previous surveys, MDAH Report #08-857, is immediately adjacent to the south-central 

portion of the archaeological APE (Figure 1 ). This was a survey done for the Mississippi Development 

Authority Project Elevation Grant and Small Rental Assistance Program. No cultural resources were 

recorded in the survey. Another of the previous surveys, MDAH Report # I 4-0 I 05, intersects with and 

crosses the southern portion of the archaeological APE (Figure 1). This was part of a survey done in 

association with rail line (existing and proposed) and other facility upgrade locations within and outside of 

the wood pellet loading terminal in Bayou Casotte Harbor, Port of Pascagoula, and in the city of Moss 

Point, Jackson County, Mississippi. No cultural resources were recorded in the survey other than two 

abandoned railroad spur segments, 22JA822 and 22JA823. 

One cultural resource, 22JA823, an old Mississippi Export Railroad segment, was previously 

recorded within the current archaeological APE in association with MDAH Repo1t # 14-0105 (see above). 

According to Baca and O'Neal (2014), this segment was constructed in the early 20th century to serve the 

International Paper Company mill. Based on their investigation, they determined that, although the railroad 

segment maintains its original orientation, it does not otherwise meet any of the criteria necessary for 

inclusion in the NRHP, and is therefore considered not eligible. 

A review was conducted ofhist01ic maps from the region. This included the 1828 and 1845 General 

Land Office (GLO) plat maps, the 1927 Bureau of Soils Map of Jackson County, and the 1953, 1957, 1963, 

and 1984 Mobile, Ala. (l:250,000), the 1982 Biloxi, Miss. (l:100,000), the 1943 and 1955 Pascagoula, 

Miss. (I :62,500), and the 1982 Pascagoula No1th, Miss. (1 :24,000) U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle maps. 

Three historic structures were shown north of Elder Street in the eastern portion of the 

archaeological APE in 1927 (Figures 3 and 4). Only two of these structures north of Elder Street in the 

eastern portion of the archaeological APE are shown in 1943 (Figures 5 and 6). In 1955, only one structure 

is still shown in the eastern p01tion of the archaeological APE, north of Elder Street; however, one structure 

appears just south of the western portion ofthe archaeological APE (Figures 7 and 8). In 1982, all ofthe 

structures north of Elder Street in the eastern portion of the archaeological APE have disappeared and the 

structure previously shown just south of the western portion of the archaeological APE now appears to be 

within the archaeological APE (Figures 9 and I 0). 

5 
Figure 3. Enlarged detail of the 1927 Bureau of Soils Map of Jackson County. 

Figure 4. Enlarged detail of the 1927 Bureau of Soils Map of Jackson County showing structures (black 

squares) within the archaeological APE (red polygon). 

6 
Figure 5. Enlarged detail of the 1943 Pascagoula, MS 1:62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle. 

Figure 6. Enlarged detail of the 1943 Pascagoula, MS 1:62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle 

showing structures (black squares) within the archaeological APE (red polygon). 

7 
Figure 7. Enlarged detail of the 1955 Pascagoula, MS 1:62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic qlladrangle. 

Figure 8. Enlarged detail of the 1955 Pascagoula, MS 1:62,500 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle 

showing a structure (black square) within the archaeological APE (red polygon). 

8 
Figure 9. Enlarged detail of the 1982 Pascagoula North, MS 1:24,000 U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle. 

Figure 10. Enlarged detail of the 1982 Pascagoula North, MS 1 :24, 000 U.S. G.S. topographic quadrangle 

showing a structure (black square) within the archaeological APE (red polygon). 

9 
Environmental Setting 

The project area, situated in the Coastal Zone physiographic region, is located within the 

city of Moss Point, Mississippi. Most of the area is marshland drained by the Escatawpa River, 

which flows about 0.75 miles (1.2 km) to the north. The majority of the archaeological APE has 

been previously impacted by the construction of Elder Street, the construction of the railroad, and 

urban development. Additionally, the area has been heavily impacted by countless coastal storms, 

floods, and hurricanes stretching back into prehistory. The archaeological APE is currently 

covered in mature hardwoods and pines on the first terraces and marsh grasses in the lowland 

marshes (Figures 17-28). 

Soils in the archaeological APE consist of Daleville silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (13), 

Smithton loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (26), Stough loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

(63), Axis mucky sandy clay loam, frequently flooded (95), and Bayou sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent 

slopes (226) (Figures 11 and 12). Daleville silt loam soils are poorly drained soils located on the 

tread of stream terraces, with a water table depth of 0-12 in. (0-30 cm). Smithton loam soils are 

poorly drained soils located on the tread and dip of terraces, with a water table depth of 0-12 in. 

(0-30 cm). Stough loam soils are somewhat poorly drained soils located on the shoulder, crest, and 

tread of terraces, with a water table depth of 12-18 in. (30-45 cm). Axis mucky sandy clay loam 

soils are very poorly drained soils located on the dip of depressions, with a water table depth of 0-

12 in. (0-30 cm). Bayou sandy loam soils are poorly drained soils located on the dip of depressions, 

with a water table depth of0-12 in. (0-30 cm) (Delaney 2006). 

Figure 11. Detail of the Pascagoula North, MS, U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing locations of shovel tests 

(red dots) and soil types (yellow polygons) in the archaeological APE. 
Figure 12. Aerial image showing locations of shovel tests (red dots) and soil types (yellow polygons) in 

the archaeological APE . 

Cultural and Historical Context 

The coastal areas of Mississippi have been continuously inhabited by human civilizations 

for the past 14,000 years. Pre-contact indigenous peoples inhabited the area from about 12,000 

B.C. until around A.D. 1500, when the first European explorers began to arrive. The pre-contact 

periods are divided into the Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian Periods, and 

further divided into Early, Middle, and Late sub-periods. The Paleoindian Period spanned from 

about 12,000 B.C. until around 8000 B.C. and was characterized by hunter-gathers who followed 

big-game mammals down the rivers and streams into what is now Mississippi. The Archaic 

Period spanned from about 8000 B.C. until 1500 B.C. This time period was characterized by 

hunter-gatherers who spread across the landscape hunting smaller game. The Woodland Period 

spanned from about 1500 B.C. until A.D. 1000 and was characterized by sedentary occupations 

and widespread new technology, such as wood-fired clay ceramics in the Early Woodland and 

the bow-and-arrow in the Late Woodland. The first widespread evidence of domesticates and 

agriculture occur during the Woodland Period also. The Mississippian Period spanned from 

about A.D. 1000 until European contact, which depending on location, occurred somewhere 

around A.D. 1500-1550. This period was characterized by fmther refining of wood-fired clay 

ceramics and projectile point technology, fortified mound centers, and widespread maize 

agriculture. European contact brought a relatively swift end to the pre-contact peoples' way of 

life due to disease, wars, and relocation. The post-contact period of the area was characterized by 

a rapid increase in European settlers followed by industrialization, which largely consisted of the 

timber and fishing industries along the coastal communities. 

11 
A more in-depth discussion of the various chronological periods can be found in sources 

such as Hudson (1978), Anderson and Sassaman (1996), Brown (1992), and Gums and Waselkov 

(2015). As this is a report of negative findings, they have not been discussed here in detail. 

Field Methods 

An APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) of the NHPA as "the geographic area or areas 

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of 

an unde1iaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking." The 

APE of the project was defined as having two distinct areas: an archaeological APE and an 

architectural APE. 

The archaeological APE is associated with the most direct effects on cultural resources, as 

it is the area that will have significant above-ground clearing as well as subsurface soil disturbance 

before and during construction. Although generally a construction buffer is included that 

encompasses areas outside of the proposed rail line footprint, in a comment letter dated December 

11, 2020 and sent to the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, MDAH states that "a cultural 

resource survey is needed only in areas of the APE where fill will be placed." This is most likely 

due to the fact that, although some elements of construction will take place outside of the rail line 

footprint, this will consist only of construction activities with practically no subsurface disturbance, 

e.g. movement of fill dirt. Therefore, the definition of the archaeological APE for the current 

project takes into account MDAH's comments and only includes the rail line's footprint (Figures 

I, 2, 14, and 15). 

The architectural APE is associated with indirect effects caused during both the construction 

phase as well as the operating phase of a project. This considers visual, audio, and other effects 

( e.g. vibration) that a project will have on surrounding properties, especially those that are greater 

than fifty years old and either are currently or have the potential to be considered eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP. Specifically, these prope1iies may fall under one of the criteria for inclusion 

in the NRHP by being associated with a historically significant event (Criterion A) or being 

associated with a historically significant person (Criterion B). Additionally, a historic property may 

contain historically significant architectural or engineering features (Criterion C). Historic 

properties could also hold the potential to yield historical or archaeological information (Criterion 

D), although Criterion D is mostly applied to archaeological sites. As the current project is 

anywhere from 0-950 ft. (0-290 111) from an already existing rail line, any nearby historic properties 

have already been subject to the current rail line's indirect effects, as defined earlier. Therefore, in 

consultation with MDAH, the architectural APE was defined as encompassing a 50 ft. buffer around 

the archaeological APE (Figure 13). The architectural APE buffer is only applied in the areas of 

proposed new construction. As the southernmost portion of the archaeological APE does not 

contain any proposed new construction, it is unnecessary to apply the 50 ft. architectural APE buffer 

in this area. All historic or potentially historic properties were evaluated that fell within the defined 

architectural APE. 

Field investigation consisted of pedestrian survey using shovel testing in areas of low 

ground surface visibility due to vegetation coverage and visual surface inspection of sparsely 

vegetated or bare ground. Low-lying areas subject to flooding, areas with greater than 15 percent 

12 
slope, and areas of obvious disturbance ( e.g. ditches) were inspected but excluded from subsurface 

investigation. 

Shovel testing was conducted by digging a 30 cm diameter hole every 30 meters along a 

single transect down the center of the archaeological APE (Figures 14 and 15). Additional shovel 

tests were placed between this interval in areas believed to have a higher probability of containing 

cultural resources. All shovel tests were excavated to the depth that either culturally sterile subsoil 

or the water table was encountered. All shovel-test fill was screened through 1⁄4" mesh. 

All survey records are curated at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State 

University. This facility meets or exceeds U.S. Department of the Interior standards (36 CFR Part 

79). 

Figure 13. Aerial photograph showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots) and photographs (green 

dots) within the architectural (orange polygon) and archaeological (blue polygon) AP E's. 

13 
Figure 14. Aerial photograph showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots) and photographs (green 

dots) within the archaeological APE (blue polygon). 

Figure 15. Detail of a project map showing the locations of shovel tests (red dots), photographs (green 

dots), wetlands (red polygons), and uplands (yellow polygons) within the archaeological APE. 

14 
Field Results 

No additional cultural resources were found during fieldwork other than 22JA823; all 

seventeen shovel tests that were dug were negative. Additionally, no evidence was found of the 

structures north of Elder Street in the eastern portion of the archaeological APE as shown on early 

maps of the area (Figures 3-8). The structure in the western portion of the archaeological APE 

appears to be correctly plotted on the 1955 Pascagoula, MS map (Figures 7 and 8) as opposed to 

its location as shown on the 1982 Pascagoula North, MS map (Figures 9 and 10). This is evidenced 

by the concrete house slab still located at the 1955 plotted location, outside of the archaeological 

APE (Figure 22). No historic properties (or any properties period) were located within the 

architectural APE, therefore there were no properties to evaluate. 

In the center of the western po1tion of the archaeological APE was a junkyard that was 

inaccessible for survey (Figures 17 and 21 ). Lots of large junkyard debris was encountered in this 

small area, but all of it was modern trash associated with the active junkyard, which did not warrant 

recordation as an archaeological site. A shovel test was placed as close as possible to the eastern 

and western limits of the junkyard (Figures 14, 17 and 21) to test for cultural materials not 

associated with the junkyard, but none was encountered. 

A representative soil profile was taken at shovel test 15 (St 15). It consisted of O to 36 cm 

of a very dark brown (1 OYR2/2) sandy clay E horizon and 36 to 53 cm of a yellowish brown 

( 1 OYR5/4) sandy clay B horizon (Figure 16). 

Figure 16. Soil profile of St 15, view south. 

15 
i 

I 

; ' 

; 

-·· rJ., , 

. . •: 

', 

Figure 17. Photograph showing junkyard debris near St 1, view east. (Photo 1) 

Figure 18. Photograph showing an overview of survey conditions and vegetation al St 2, view west. 

(Photo 2) 

16 
Figure 19. Photograph showing washed up trash (foreground) and marsh grasses (background), view 

southeast. (Photo 3) 

Figure 20. Photograph showing the wetland marsh, view east. (Photo 4) 

17 
Figure 21. Photograph showing a view of the junkyard's metal wall west of St 4, view west. (Photo 5) 

Figure 22. Photograph showing a concrete house slab outside of the archaeological APE, view south. 

(Photo 6) 

18 
Figure 23. Photograph showing an overview of survey conditions and vegetation from the bridge on Elder 

Street, view north. (Photo 7) 

Figure 24. Photograph showing a view of the wetland marsh, view west. (Photo 8) 

19 
Figure 25. Photograph showing the northeastern segment of 22JA823, view southwest. (Photo 9) 

Figure 26. Photograph showing the southwestern segment of 22JA823, view northeast. (Photo JO) 

20 
Figure 27. Photograph showing an overview of Elder Street, view west. 22JA823 is on the left side of the 

photo. (Photo 11) 

Figure 28. Photograph showing an overview of Elder Street, view east. 22JA823 is on the right side of 

the photo. (Photo 12) 

21 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

No archaeological materials were found by surface inspection nor by shovel testing within 

the archaeological APE other than 22JA823 Much of the archaeological APE was previously 

disturbed by urban development, flooding, erosion, and the construction of Elder Street and the 

railroad. No properties, historic or otherwise, were located within the architectural APE, and 

therefore there were no prope1ties to evaluate. 

The three structures shown on early maps in the eastern portion of the archaeological APE 

and north of Elder Street were not located during this investigation. As there was no physical 

evidence noted above or below ground in the area where they were plotted, it is assumed that the 

houses were either demolished or removed and the land thoroughly cleared after their 

demolition/removal. The one structure shown within the western portion of the archaeological APE 

in 1982 was incorrectly plotted, as evidence was noted ( concrete house slab) outside of the 

archaeological APE, in its 1955 correctly plotted location. As such, none of the structures shown 

in the archaeological APE on historic maps will be affected by the current project. 

As noted earlier, a segment of one cultural resource, 22JA823, was previously recorded 

within the current archaeological APE. Baca and O'Neal described 22JA823 (and 22JA822) in 

their 2014 rep01t, stating: 

Originally built in the early 20th century, these railways were peripherally 

associated with the (now-demolished) Southern Paper CO./International Paper mill 

in Moss Point, which was of some historical significance as one of the first mills to 

successfully utilize southern pine pulpwood for the manufacture of kraft paper 

(DeAngelo 1989; Fickle 2001:141; International Paper Co. n.d.; Rogers n.d.:9). 

However, these railways contain no notew01thy engineering or architectural 

features, and are indistinguishable in appearance from hundreds of miles of other 

railroad lines crisscrossing Mississippi. Moreover, local historical sources (Jackson 

County n.d.; Jackson County Genealogical Society 1989; Rogers n.d.; Works 

Progress Administration n.d.) make no mention of significant events or persons 

associated with these rail lines [Baca and O'Neal 2014:11]. 

Their investigations determined the site to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP under any 

criteria, stating: 

Specifically, the sites fails to meet criteria A and Bas they are not associated 

with any events related to "the broad patterns of our history" (Criterion A), and they 

are not associated with the life of a historically significant person or persons 

(Criterion B). Moreover, both sites' lack of significant architectural or engineering 

character prevents them from meeting Criterion C. Finally, pervasive ground 

disturbance caused by the original grading of the railroad rights-of-way, and the 

evident lack of prehistoric or pre-railroad historic cultural deposits within those 

rights-of-way, mean that the sites are unlikely to yield archaeological "information 

22 
important in prehistory or history," and as a result they fail to meet Criterion D [Baca 

and O'Neal 2014:1 I). 

Under current standards (Mississippi Department of Archives and History 2020), 22JA823 

would be considered to have an "undetermined" NRHP eligibility instead of"ineligible", as Baca 

and O'Neal did not investigate the rail line as a whole in 2014, but only a specific segment of it. 

The North Rail Connector project (subject of this cultural resources report) investigated an even 

smaller segment of what was investigated in 20 I 4. No further information was obtained in this 

investigation that would warrant an alternate NRHP eligibility determination from what Baca and 

O'Neal recommended in 2014. However, as similarly stated in Baca and O'Neal's 2014 report, 

since the North Rail Connector project is planning to use the affected portion of 22JA823 for its 

intended use as a rail line, it is this author's opinion that the project is helping to preserve the site 

rather than destroy its integrity. The proposed affected section of 22JA823 contains no features 

that would contribute to a future NRHP eligibility determination beyond the rails and grade present, 

which stretch for miles outside of the project area. 

Due to the degree of disturbance and lack of evidence of any archaeological deposits, it is 

the opinion of the author that no further archaeological investigations are warranted. Fu1ther, based 

on this cultural resource investigation, the author recommends that the project would have no effect 

on historic properties in the architectural or archaeological APE .. 

There remains the possibility that unrecorded cultural resources may be encountered during 

construction. Should this occur, work must cease and the Project Sponsor (JCPA) must 

immediately contact the FRA to consult with the SHPO and any Indian tribe that might attach 

religious and cultural significance to the affected property in compliance with 36 CFR 800.13. 

23 
References Cited 

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman 

1996 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. University of Alabama Press, 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

Baca, Keith and Helen O'Neal 

2014 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Railways and Other Facility 

Upgrade Areas Associated with the Bayou Casotte Harbor Wood Pellet Loading 

Terminal, Port of Pascagoula, Jackson County, Jvfississippi. Technical report 

submitted to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, 

Mississippi. MDAH Report No. 14-0105. 

Brown, Calvin S. 

1992 Archeology of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi. 

Gums, Bonnie L. and Gregory A. Waselkov 

2015 Archaeology at La Pointe-Krebs Plantation in Old Spanish Fort Park (22JA526), 

Pascagoula, Jackson County, Mississippi. Archaeological Repo1t 35. Mississippi 

Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi. 

Hudson, Charles M. 

1978 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Johnson, Delaney B. 

2006 Soil Survey of Jackson County, Mississippi. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Mississippi 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

2020 Mississippi Standards for Archaeological Practices. Developed by the Mississippi 

Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division, Archaeology 

and Historic Sites Section. Jackson, Mississippi. 

24 
Appendix 

Updated site card for site 22JA823. 

25 
Mississippi Department ol Archivesand History

SITENAME: Old Mississippi Export RailroadSegment SITENO: 22JA823 REVIST OTHER NOS: _______ 75 QUAD: Pascagoula North

COUNTY: J ockson SBC: ...l.QilL1WN: ___lL_RNO: 5W UTM DATA: zone 16 E N 

OWNERSHIP: private( J state ( I county I ] city(II federal I I 

NAME OF OWNER: City of Moss Point RECORDER Bradley Carlock DAm: 1/20/2021 

NATIONAL REGISTERPOTENTIAL: eligible I I ineligible unknown I I NATURAL SETTINGbluff [ I bluff shelterI J chenierI I dune I I 

floodplain firstterrace knoll on terraceI I upland (ridge)[ I estuaryI I naturalleveeI I backswampI I 

NEGETATION COVER: activecultivation I I fallow field I I pastureI I orchardI J pine forest I I hardwood forest denuded I I gardenI I other I 

ESTIMA 110N OFGROUND COVER: (estimate%)) DEGREE OF DISTURBANCE (estiimate%

TYPIJ OF DISTURBANCE: cultivation I I natural scientific excavation [ I 

unscientific excavationI I extensivelycollectedI I construction I I land levelled Ill buried site I 

redeposited site I I forestry I I periodic flooding I J indefinitelyflooded I I unknownI I other I 

SOIL TYPE: Dalevillesiltloam/smithten loom SOIL CODIJ: 13/26

ARTIFACT DENSITY: heavy [J medium [ J light [ ) single artifact [I 

INSTITUllON WHERE ARTIFACTS CURATED: n/o 

SURFACE AREA(sq.m.): 2046 maxlength 341m mu width ELEVATION(11): 10

deposit depth (m.): 4 CIIRONOLOOY: Paleo Indian [ ) 

Archaic I I early I I middle I I late I I Woodland I I early I I middle I 

late I I Miu. I I earlyI I middle I I late I I HistoricIndian I I 

Contact Indian I I UnknownAboriginal [ ] llinoric V) ea early 20th century __ 

REPORT REFERENCE:__________________ _ 

MDAII REPORT NO: _____ USB REVERSESIDB FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Mounds 22JA823 comments: 

#conical [ J 

pyramidal [ J Originally port of the Pascagoula Railroad then the Mississippi and Alabama #

Roilrood ond finally the Mississippi Export Railroad was incorporated In # indeterminate I Mississippi on November 10, 1922, for the purpose of creating and organizing a

roilrood extending from with the corporate limits of Pascagoula, Mississippi, too earthworks[ northern terminus at Luce Farms in George County, Mississippi. The company was 

officiolly organized on November 15, 1922. material identified: 

Modern steel roils, creosote wood crossties, crushed limestone Abandoned rail spur built to serve the International Poper Co. mill. Roilrood grade

ballast. metal pipe is 6m wide at base. The height of the grade is only about .4m above the flat, 

surrounding terrain. Other than the grade, the infroslructure is mlnlmol. The 

steel roils and wooden crossties have been removed over various parts of the 

line, but remain intact in others. 

Southwest end: E355066 N3365351 

Centroid: E355093 N3365358 

compopent diagnos1ics Northeast end: E355254 N3365378 

20th century steel roils, creosote wood 

crossties, crushed limestone 

ballast, metol pipe 

MDAH USE ONLY 

Phy1iognphlc Region: 

YB( I, LIi( I, FWI I, PR[ I, BP [ I, TH[ I, JP[ I, LLPB[ I, CPM[ ), NCIII I 

National RegisterStatus: NRL ( ), Date ________, criteria ____ _ 

006 ( ), date___, criteria ____ _ 

NHL [ ), date___, criteria ____ _ 

MississippiLandmark [ ), date ____ _ 

Figure 29. Updated site card for 22JA823. 

26 
March 24, 2021 

CURRICULUM VITAE 

Name: 

Bradley Carlock 

Address: 

P.O. Box 1327 

Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762 

Email: 

jbc94@msstate.edu 

Telephone: 

Office: (662) 325-7520 

Cell: (601)431-1374 

Education: 

M.A., Applied Anthropology, Mississippi State University, Fall 2015 

B.A., Anthropology, Mississippi State University, Fall 2006
Certificates: 

Geospatial and Remote Sensing Technologies Certificate 

-Completed all of the prescribed coursework for the certificate program in "Geospatial and 

Remote Sensing Technologies", June 2009 

Registrations: 

Registered Professional Archaeologist 43700349, 2017 - Present 

Field and Research Experience: 

Archaeologist - Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Spring 2018 - Present 

Full-time staff archaeologist. Supervised crews of two to twelve people. Responsible for all 

aspects of fieldwork, including but not limited to daily safety meetings, choosing daily work 

locations, recording field data using Trimble Geo7x, iPad, and BadElf OPS unit, recording 

site forms, field vehicle maintenance, correspondence with clients, etc. Prepared maps and 

documents needed for fieldwork. Responsible for technical report writing using Microsoft 

Office Word and Excel, ArcMap GIS, and Photoshop software packages. Submitted 

proposal bids for field projects. Kept track of office supplies/needs. Performed other work as 

necessary. 

Archaeological Technician - Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Summer 2015 - Spring 2018. 

Supervised field crews, conducted archaeological shovel test and open field survey, 

catalogued artifacts, performed curatorial duties, and any other duties as needed with the 

cultural resource management division of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology. 

2 
Archaeological Technician - Mergen!, Inc., Spring - Summer 2015 

Conducted archaeological shovel test and open field survey, catalogued artifacts, and any 

other duties as needed for linear projects in N01ih Dakota and Minnesota. 

Archaeological Technician/Crew Chief - Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Fall 2012 - Spring 2015. 

Conducted archaeological shovel test and open field survey, catalogued artifacts, performed 

curatorial duties, and any other duties as needed with the cultural resource management 

division of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology. Also supervised survey crew on projects when 

needed. 

Lab Technician - Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Spring 2013 

Performed analysis of archaeological and modern mussel and oyster shells using a Laser 

Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer in conjunction with the Mississippi 

State chemistry depatiment. 

Area Supervisor-Mississippi State Archaeological Field School, Summer 2011 and 

Summer 2012. Six weeks of excavation at Khirbet Summeily, a small biblical period 

village that is located in the northern part oflsrael's Negev Desert and dates to the 10th8th century BCE. 

Participant- Excavation at 22OKl 147, a Mississippian house site, Summer 2011 

Participant- Excavation at 22OKI076, an Early Archaic through Late Woodland site, 

Fall2010 

3 
Lab Supervisor- Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Summer 2009-Spring 2012. Supervised 

students while washing, cataloguing, and analyzing artifacts. 

Field Archaeologist, GS-5 -- Worked for Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko 

Ranger District in Elko, NV, October 2009. Archaeological detail consisted of survey of 

roads and nearby archaeological sites for the Travel Management program. 

Field Archaeologist, GS-5 - Worked for Tombigbee National Forest in Ackerman, MS, August 

2009-May 2010. Tasks included but were not limited to archaeological survey, site recording 

using paper forms, GPS, and GIS software, determining NRHP eligibility of sites, leading 

field crew on surveys, repo1t writing, GIS mapping of archaeological sites and of prescribed 

burn areas, and acted as main archaeologist when district archaeologist on leave. 

Field Assistant - Mississippi State Archaeological Field School, Summer 2009. Five 

weeks of controlled surface collection, open field, and shovel test survey in the 

Mississippi Delta and Starkville vicinity. Five weeks of excavation at Poverty Point, a 

Late Archaic site in nmtheast Louisiana. 

Research Assistant-Assisted Dr. Evan Peacock, Ph.D., with research involving mussel 

shell sourcing, Fall 2007-Spring 2009. Became proficient using a Laser AblationInductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer (LA-ICP-MS). 

Field Archaeologist, GS-5 - Worked for Tombigbee National Forest in Ackerman, MS, 

May-August 2007. Tasks included but were not limited to archaeological survey, site 

recording using paper forms, GPS, and GIS software, and determining NRHP eligibility of 

sites. 

4 
Field Assistant- Assisted Andrew Triplett with M.A. thesis fieldwork, including survey 

and excavation, in Oktibbeha County, MS, Spring/Summer 2007 

Field Assistant -Assisted Jeffrey Alvey, M.A., on CRM survey in Starkville vicinity, 

Fall 2006 

Field and Lab Assistant - Assisted Jeffrey Alvey, M.A., at Cobb Institute of Archaeology, 

Summer 2006 

Participant - Excavation at 22LI504, an Archaic mound, Spring 2006 

Participant - Excavation at 22OK 1079, a Protohistoric homestead, Spring 2006 

Field Assistant - Assisted Jeffrey Alvey, M.A., on Cultural Resources Management 

survey for OIL-DRI, Spring 2006 

Undergraduate Research - Excavation in plaza area at Lyon's Bluff (22OK520), Fall 

2005 

Lab worker - Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Fall 2005-Spring 2007 

Participant - Mississippi State Archaeological Field School, Summer 2005. Five weeks of open 

field and shovel test survey in Mississippi, and five weeks of excavation of small Woodland 

sites 

5 
Positions Held in Organizations: 

President- Mississippi Archaeological Association, 2018-Present 

Northern Vice-President - Mississippi Archaeological Association, 2016 - 2018 

Secretary/Treasurer - Mississippi State University Anthropology Club, Fall 2005 -

Spring 2008 

Member of Lambda Alpha, the National Collegiate Honors Society for Anthropology, 

2006 - Present 

Papers Delivered at Professional Meetings: 

Carlock, Bradley, and Jared Wilson 

2012 Is It Wo1ih It?: Comparing Tried and True Techniques to Cutting Edge Technology. 

Paper presented at the 2012 American Schools of Oriental Research Conference, Chicago, 

Illinois. 

Carlock, James Bradley, and Janet Rafferty 

2009 Spatially Extensive Examination of the Kinlock Site (22SU526) Using 

Controlled Surface Collection, Magnetometry, Excavation, and Soil Cores. Paper 

presented at the 66thSoutheastern Archaeological Conference, Mobile, Alabama. 

Carlock, Bradley 

2006 Location of a Plaza at Lyon's Bluff (22OK520). Paper presented at the annual meeting, 

Mississippi Archaeological Association, Starkville, Mississippi. 

6 
Invited Papers: 

William Parkinson, Evan Peacock, Ronald A. Palmer, Yunju Xia, and Bradley Carlock 

2009 LA-ICP-MS on Ceramic Incrustations Indicates Long-Term Cultural Continuity in the 

Prehistoric Carpathian Basin. 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for American 

Archaeology, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Evan Peacock, Ronald A. Palmer, Yunju Xia, Bradley Carlock, and Weston Bacon-Schulte 

2008 Establishing an Elemental Database for Sourcing Shell-Tempered Pottery via Laser 

Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. 73rdAnnual Meeting of the 

Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Publications: 

Carlock, Bradley 

In Press. Location ofa Plaza at Lyon's Bluff(22OK520). Mississippi Archaeology. 

Peacock, Evan, Ronald A. Palmer, Yunju Xia, Weston Bacon-Schulte, Bradley Carlock, and Jennifer 

Smith 

20 IO Chemical Sourcing of a Prehistoric Freshwater Shell A1tifact Using Laser 

Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Archaeology of 

Eastern North America 38:91-99. 

7 
Parkinson, William A., Evan Peacock, Ronald A. Palmer, Yunju Xia, Bradley Carlock, Attila 

Gyucha, Richard W. Yerkes, and Michael L. Galaty 

2010 LA-ICP-MS on Ceramic Incrustation Indicates Long-Tenn Cultural Continuity in the 

Prehistoric Carpathian Basin. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 

38/2:64-70. 

Selected Technical Reports: 

Each entry preceded by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History Report No. 

19-0332 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

Phase I CRS of a Ten-Acre Area Proposed for the Construction of Poultry House, 

SB, Tl2N, RJ3F, Neshoba County, Ms 

19-0342 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

A CRS of the Proposed Location for Construction of a Boat Ramp, pier & 

Bulkhead, Hancock Co. 

19-0343 Carlock, B 

Phase I CRS of the Proposed Williamson Road Bridge Replacement Project, Hinds 

Co, MS MDOT/State Aid Project No. LSBP-25(51) 

19-0357 Baca, K, Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of a Thirty-Acre Area Proposed for the 

Construction of Eight Poultry Houses, Sl9, TJ0N, RJOE, Neshoba County, Ms 

8 
20-0001 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Cynthia Road Emergency 

Bridge Replacement Project, Hinds County, MS(MDOT/State Aid Project No. 

ERBR-25-049(1) 

20-0002 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Midway Road Bridge 

Replacement Project, Hinds County, MS (MDOT Project No. STP-7266-

00(00l)LPA/108124-701000 

20-0005 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Kickapoo Road Emergency 

Bridge Replacement Project, Hinds County, MS (MDOT/State Aid Project no. 

ERBR-25-049(2) 

20-0023 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed County Road 705 Bridge 

Replacement Project for Tal/ashua Creek, Neshoba County, MS (MDOT/State Aid 

Project No. LSBP-50(14)) 

20-0028 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Tiplersville Cellular Tower 

Site, Tippah County, MS 

20-0029 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed County Road 405 Bridge 

Replacement Project at the Yalobusha River, Chickasaw County, MS 

9 
20-0030 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed County 410 Bridge 

Replacement Project, S15/22, Tl3S, R5E, Chickasaw County, 

20-0036 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Bay Springs Telephone Company Fiber 

Optic Cable Project along Morton-Marathon Road and Warrentown Road, 

Compartments 75, 78, and 254, Bienville National Forest, Scott county 

20-0039 Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed 4.5-Acre Borrow Pit on County 

Road 740 near Theo, Alcorn Co, MS 

20-0065 Baca, K. Carlock, B 

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed County Road 755 Bridge 

Replacement Project at the Hatchie River, Alcorn County, MS Stale Aid Project 

No. ERBR-02(01) 

20-0068 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of a 61-Acre Tract, N 112, NE 1/4, S6, TBS, 

R6E, Lee County, MS 

20-0068 Baca, K; Carlock, B 

A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of a 61-Acre Tract, N 1/2, NE 1/4, S6, TBS, 

R6E, Lee County, MS 

20-0 I 80 Carlock, B 

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Community Development Block Grant 

Water System Improvement Project for the Town of Glen, Alcorn County, MS
21-0010 Alvey, J., Baca, K., Carlock, B. 

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey o/6.92 Miles of Dozer Lines and Other 

Prescribed Burning Work on the Homochitto National Forest 

21-0015 Baca, K., Carlock, B. 

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed HickoryGrove Road Bridge 

Replacement Pro;ect at Ittobechi Creek; LSBP-53(14) 

21-0035 Carlock, B. 

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Royal Road Bridge 

Replacement Project over Gallagher Creek 

21-0045 Baca, K., Carlock, B. 

Workshops 

A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a 3.44 Acre Tract for the Proposed 

Expansion of an Existing Rubbish Facility, MDAH Log #10-053-20 

Proposal Writing for Cultural Resources Management Professionals - December 2015 

Workshop sponsored by the American Cultural Resources Association (ARCA). This 

intensive 2 hour class focused on the nuts-and-bolts of how to write a successful 

proposal, offered hands on information targeted at helping CRM professionals and 

students learn how to increase the success rate of their proposals, assured clarity in 

scoping of proposals, and provided a complete framework for the proposal writing 

process. 

11