Loading...
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