HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220621 Ver 1_BP4-R014 Halifax No NRHP Archaeological Sites Present Form_20220428 Project Tracking No.:
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” FORM
1 of 5
21-02-0007
NO NATIONAL REGISTE R O F HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BP4-R014 County: Halifax
WBS No: BP4.R014.1 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description: NCDOT’s Division 4 proposes to replace Bridge No. 119 on SR 1003 (Moonlight
Road) over an Unnamed Tributary of Deep Creek. Bridge No. 119 was constructed in 1963 and may be
considered either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient; therefore, it has been scheduled to be
replaced. As submitted for review, there is an Existing ROW width of 60 feet. Easements will be
required, with a Proposed ROW width of 80 feet. Since Preliminary Design Plans are not yet available,
an Area of Potential of Effects (APE) has been developed in order to facilitate environmental planning
purposes at this stage. The APE encompasses 6.37 acres, inclusive of the existing roadway and bridge
structure, any possible easements, and any modern development.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present within the
project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources considered
eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This project was accepted for review on Friday, February 19, 2021. A review of the databases maintained
by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was also performed on Friday, February 19, 2021. It does not
appear as if any archaeological surveys have been conducted within the vicinity of Bridge No. 119, and
no archaeological sites have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. Digital
copies of HPO’s maps (Scotland Neck Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Monday, February 22, 2021. There are no known
historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to the APE for which intact archaeological
deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps,
historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and
Project Tracking No.:
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” FORM
2 of 5
21-02-0007
inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement
within the project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other
erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the APE.
As stated in the Survey Required Form, “This is a State-funded project for which a Federal permit is
required. Permanent/temporary easements will be necessary as well as additional ROW. Based on the
anticipated design, the size and shape of the APE have been drawn in a way to capture any possible
ground-disturbing activities associated with this project beyond NCDOT’s existing ROW. Despite
Federal involvement, we would be in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e.
National Register-listed) archaeological resources located within the project’s APE that would require our
attention. From an environmental perspective, the APE falls within a rural section of Halifax County,
consisting primarily of mixed hardwoods on either side of a drainage. Located in the Upper Coastal Plain
physiographic region of eastern North Carolina, the proposed project straddles the floodplain for an
unnamed tributary of Deep Creek. The APE consists of several soil types, some of which are categorized
as poorly drained (Chastain and Bibb soils, 0-1% slopes, frequently flooded [CbA] and Tomotley fine
sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, rarely flooded [TtA]). Such soil types would be considered to have a low
probability for intact archaeological resources to be present. However, an area of relatively level terrain
with well-drained soil characteristics is present within the APE and warrants some form of archaeological
investigation. This area consists of Gritney fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopes (GtB) and would be considered
to have a moderate probability for archaeological deposits to be found. The Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) has not reviewed any projects within the vicinity of the APE for environmental compliance; thus,
there is an overall lack of archaeological and environmental review data to infer anything for this section
of the county. In a similar fashion, within five (5) miles of the APE, NCDOT’s Archaeology Team has
reviewed only three (3) transportation-related projects for environmental compliance under the
department’s Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO). An
archaeological survey was not recommended for any of the three (3) projects, based primarily on poorly
drained soil conditions and the constricted nature of the area being reviewed (i.e. within existing ROW).
It should be noted that the replacement of Bridge No. 119 was previously reviewed under PA 12-06-0037.
At that time though, the reviewed area was limited to the actual floodplain being crossed. The APE has
since been expanded to include areas along the upper margins/terraces on either side of the floodplain.
Despite some of the information presented here, an archaeological survey is recommended based
primarily on the project’s environmental setting. Therefore, a visual inspection of the APE should be
conducted, followed then by systematic archaeological excavations within areas of moderate to high
archaeological probability. All cemeteries (if any) should also be properly recorded and delineated if any
occur within or adjacent to the APE. None of the property within the APE that would require further
investigation is owned by the State of North Carolina so a State Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA) permit should not be necessary. Should the description of this project change or design plans be
made available prior to construction, additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required.”
Field investigations for the proposed project occurred on Wednesday, April 14, 2021, and were comprised
of a pedestrian reconnaissance and intensive survey to locate and assess potentially significant
archaeological resources that could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project as described above.
The entire extent of the APE was visually inspected in order to determine the need for and placement of
any excavations. Based on the environmental setting and topography on either side of the tributary,
excavations took place within the upland settings in the Northeast and Southeast Quadrants along with
several exploratory test pits within the Northwest Quadrant, which was lower in elevation. Excavations
did not take place in the Southwest Quadrant because it was an active pasture for a bull. Archaeological
material was recovered from two (2) of the excavated shovel tests (STPs 2 and 4) in the Southeast
Quadrant (i.e. highest elevation within the APE). In addition, the dumping of relatively modern materials
(early to mid-20th century) was noted in the Northeast Quadrant; no items were kept. All shovel tests in
the Southeast Quadrant fall within an area mapped as consisting of Gritney fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
(GtB). The Southeast Quadrant appears to have been artificially terraced at some point in time, evidenced
Project Tracking No.:
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” FORM
3 of 5
21-02-0007
by current LiDAR data and a man-made barrier of fallen trees to prevent erosion. The field is currently
agricultural in nature (corn) but has been left fallow for this season. Topographically, the location of
positive STPs 2 and 4 is roughly 20 feet higher in elevation than the channel for the neighboring tributary.
In addition, a rather steep road embankment suggests the road was cut into this landform as it drops down
to Bridge No. 119.
Shovel Tests:
Northeast Quadrant
STP 1: 0-10cmbs (root mat), 10-17cmbs, 10YR 4/4, clay; 17-23cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6, clay; no cultural
material
Southeast Quadrant
STP 2: 0-15cmbs (plowzone), 10YR 5/6, silty loam; 15-27cmbs, 10YR 5/6, clay; quartz flake, quartz
shatter, metavolcanic flakes
STP 3: 0-13cmbs (plowzone), 10YR 5/6, silty loam; 13-28cmbs, mottled 10YR 5/6, silty loam and clay;
28-35cmbs, 10YR 5/6, clay; stratigraphic evidence of deep disking over the years, double A
battery on surface (not kept), no cultural material
STP 4: 0-8cmbs (plowzone), 10YR 4/4, loam; 8-18cmbs, 10YR 6/6, silt; 18-36cmbs, mottled 10YR
6/6 silt with 7.5YR 5/6 clay; 36-46cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6, clay; quartz flake, metavolcanic flake
STP 5: 0-10cmbs (plowzone), 10YR 4/4, loam; 10-28cmbs, 10YR 6/6, silt; 28-36cmbs, mottled 10YR
6/6 silt with 7.5YR 5/6 clay; 36-54cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6, clay; no cultural material
STP 6: 0-8cmbs, 10YR 4/4, silty loam; 8-18cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6, clay; no cultural material
STP 7: 0-8cmbs, 10YR 4/4, silty loam; 8-18cmbs, 10YR 6/6, clay loam; 18-28cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6, clay; no
cultural material
Northwest Quadrant
STP 8: 0-38cmbs, 10YR 4/4, silty loam; 38-44cmbs, 10YR 6/4, silt; stratigraphic evidence of percolated
soils, no cultural material
STP 9: 0-38cmbs, 10YR 4/4, silty loam; 38-44cmbs, 10YR 6/4, silt; stratigraphic evidence of percolated
soils, no cultural material
STP 10:NO DIG; wet, soils are moist, getting into the wet zone on edge of the tributary
Southwest Quadrant
NO DIG – Active pasture for a bull
A controlled pedestrian inspection of the landform did not add to the overall artifact count recovered from
STPs 2 and 4. Visibility of the surrounding area was roughly 75-95%. Radials, excavated at 30-m
around the two positive STPs, also did not recover any additional materials. This non-diagnostic lithic
scatter has been recorded as Site 31HX680 with the Office of State Archaeology (OSA). Based on the
degree of deep plowing and artificial terracing observed in the field, the integrity of this site has been
heavily impacted. In addition, there is no evidence of intact soil horizons, representative of a habitation
surface, present between the plowzone and what is perceived as subsoil. All soil horizons appear as
naturally occurring stratigraphy. Based on an overall lack of archaeological integrity as well as the fact
that very little information can be gleaned from the recovered materials, Site 31HX680 is recommended
as NOT ELIGIBLE for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) per Criteria A-D. No further
work is deemed necessary for this particular archaeological site.
SUMMARY
As a result of these investigations, one (1) newly identified archaeological site was documented within
and immediately adjacent to the APE. Based on an overall lack of integrity and paucity of material, Site
31HX680 is recommended NOT ELIGIBLE for the NRHP per Criteria A-D. Therefore, it is
recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed without any concerns for impacts to
significant archaeological resources.
Project Tracking No.:
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” FORM
4 of 5
21-02-0007
Additional fieldwork within the APE is unlikely to provide any significant or substantial amounts of
archaeological data. Therefore, it is recommended that additional archaeological work should not be
required. Based on the recommendations put forth (see above), a finding of “No NRHP-Eligible or -
Listed Archaeological Sites Present” within the APE is considered appropriate for the proposed project.
However, should the description of this project or design plans change prior to construction, then
additional consultation regarding archaeology may be required. If archaeological materials are uncovered
during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set forth for
“unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Team.
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes have
expressed an interest: 1) Catawba Indian Nation, 2) Tuscarora Nation. We recommend that you ensure
that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT
Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Signed:
April 29, 2021
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
Figure 1: Scotland Neck, NC (USGS 1962).
Area of Potential
Effects (APE)
Project Tracking No.:
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” FORM
5 of 5
21-02-0007
Photo 1: Southeast Quadrant, looking East-Northeast from STP 3 toward Site 31HX680.
Photo 2: Southeast Quadrant, looking West-Southwest from STP 5 toward Site 31HX680.
!?
!>
!?
!>
!?
!?!?
!?!?
D98
7 6
5
4
3
2
1
10
CbA
GtB
TtA
AyA
GtB
GtB
GrA
M o o n lig h tDeep CreekSource: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
BP4-R014 (PA 21-02-0007)Replace Bridge No. 119 onSR 1003 (Moonlight Road) overUT of Deep CreekHalifax County, NC
Results
!?Negative
D Not Excavated
!>Positive Prehistoric
Site 31HX680
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
HYARUT
Named_streams
Streets
mapfldhazar
Soils_All
Halifax_Parcels
¹
0 70 140 210 28035Feet
!?
!>
!?
!>
!?
!?!?
!?!?
D98
7 6
5
4
3
2
1
10
CbA
GtB
TtA
AyA
GtB
GtB
GrA
M o o n lig h tDeep CreekBP4-R014 (PA 21-02-0007)Replace Bridge No. 119 onSR 1003 (Moonlight Road) overUT of Deep CreekHalifax County, NC[LiDAR Imagery]
Results
!?Negative
D Not Excavated
!>Positive Prehistoric
Site 31HX680
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
HYARUT
Named_streams
Streets
Soils_All
Halifax_Parcels
¹
0 70 140 210 28035Feet