20191453 Ver 1_AR15-02-0006nosurvey_20191021

Project Tracking No.:
L15-02-0006
aQ NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM A.
d
'I This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not f , L
aOtt;,� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. Q
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-4709
WBS No: 38484.1.2
F.A. No: BRZ-1932(4)
Federal Permit Required?
County: Beaufort
Document: PCE or CE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP 3 or 14
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932 (Durham Creek Road) over Tan
Swamp in Beaufort County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined
as a 1,200 foot (365.76 m) long corridor running 600 feet (182.88 m) north and 600 feet south along
Durham Creek Road from the center of Bridge No. 14. The corridor is approximately 200 feet (60.96 m)
wide extending 100 feet (30.48 m) on either side of the road from its present center.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 14 is located between the Pamlico River to the north and the community of Edward to the
south in the southern portion of Beaufort County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted in the
northwestern corner of the Aurora USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on February
9, 2015. No previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the APE, but two sites
(31BF171 and 31BF178) are reported within a mile of the bridge. According to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2014), there are no known historic architectural
resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits. Topographic maps, USDA soil
survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), and historic maps (North Carolina maps website) were
examined for information on environmental and cultural variables that may have contributed to
prehistoric or historic settlement within the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance.
Bridge No. 14 and Durham Creek Road cross Tan Swamp roughly north to south (Figure 2). The swamp
drains to the east and is a tributary to Durham Creek. These waterways are part of the Tar -Pamlico
drainage basin. The APE is situated along the Tan Swamp floodplain with moderately steep side slopes
at either end. The area is mostly forested with secondary growth. Although ground disturbance appears
minimal, there are reports of a heavy disturbance from former occupation in the southeast quadrant.
According to the USDA soil survey map, the APE encompasses only two soil types (Figure 3). The
floodplain is made up of Dorovan mucky peat (Do). This series is very poorly drained, nearly level, and
waterlogged. Persistent wetness and flooding make this series undesirable for settlement activities. No
subsurface testing is required for this series. The side slopes are composed of Winton fine sandy loam
(WeD). This series is moderately well drained with a slope of 12 to 25 percent. Typically, slope of 15
percent or more is not tested since it is unlikely to yield significant archaeological deposits.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of S

Project Tracking No.:
L 15-02-0006
A review of the site files show that few investigations have been carried out within the area with most to
the east of Durham Creek. The two previously known archaeological sites (31 BF 171 and 31 BF 178)
reported within a mile of the bridge are 20th century African -American cemeteries. They were recorded
in 1989 by East Carolina University during the Texas -Gulf Survey. The National Register's eligibility for
these two sites has yet to be assessed. Although no surveys have been conducted in the project area, it
was reviewed by OSA (ER 09-2687) in 2009 (Attachment 1). This review was for construction of a
docking facility. Due to reported ground disturbance and unlikeliness of encountering a significant site,
an archaeological survey was not recommended.
A historic map review was also conducted. Most early maps from the 18th and 19th centuries provide
only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads, settlements, and drainages such as
John Lawson's 1709 map of North Carolina, which identifies Durham Creek but little else within the
vicinity (Figure 3). However, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey of 1874 produced a highly detail map
of the Pamlico River and surrounding area (Figure 4). This map depicts a road/trail following the same
alignment as Durham Creek Road with a crossing over the swamp. No structures or farms are plotted in
the vicinity as the area is shown as forest. The 1908 Beaufort County Geological map and the later 1914
Post Office Map illustrate the same road with households along it, but all are well away from the project
area (Figure 5). By the 19030s, the bridge begins to appear on printed material such as on the 1938 North
Carolina State Highway map for Beaufort County (Figure 6). Subsequent 20th century maps provide no
further or useful information on development. This includes no structure in the area reviewed by OSA.
In general, the historic maps suggest that no former structures with new or important information were
once located within the APE, and no significant deposits should be encountered.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 14 is located along the Tan
Swamp floodplain and the neighboring side slopes. It is unlikely intact and significant archaeological
deposits will be present in this area. This is primarily due to persistently wet soils in the floodplain and
slope of 15 percent or more leading up to the ridges. The historic maps also suggest no significant
archaeological deposits from former historic structures are within or near the project limits. Finally, OSA
has previously reviewed the current APE for another development project, and recommended no
archaeological survey. As long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the defined APE, no further
archaeological work is recommended for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 in Beaufort County. If
construction should affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further archaeological consultation
might be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEYREQUIRED
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
❑ Photos El Correspondence
Other: Images from historic maps
02/19/15
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2of8

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
One Mife Radius (Shaded) 3o
Around Project Area '�
7
ti
A -A.
� I r
Bridge 14
APE (Red) .'
jy j J I
Y
f � z
Miles
M 1 000
Meters
111"WllI,+
;IT.
;?�Zorn��n
s a'Yr
IN
W E
S
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Aurora (1950; revised 1993), Edward (1950;
photorevised 1983), Blounts Bay (1953; revised 1993), and Bath (1951; revised 1993), NC, USGS 7.5'
Topographic Quadrangle.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED ' form for Minor Transportation Projects as Quaked in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 8

r
4��4� �dr�� f! f► � 1 t t i �
+ .sue dr '4 tD 11 I t It j
I i Lti1#�^•+�} 1i f i
It
J111,
' r►�r. 4�t `� . � �.r� y- ter` r� J 1 M
� 1 J
+~'�.� `'�'-.►� �y�� ram': -- �/ t
��.����� .� �.�r err^r frr� �,.•1 '4
rrr���+� "'►►err +�' .,� �� - � 1
�►*' w�.�� y r^r^max. 1
1
1 • �
1
1
1Nle^^�
t i
f.� �r.rrrr�'1 �t �ro+�rr�+r► ti
�: w.r
! � ii
�r r,►�,��
� �k 1 f �� s�r.L
1 1 O
tir
! f
L �#
j
^► �L L. t %
��rX
rtr��
��
~�����,
i ♦ 4�+C7�-r
♦ 1 ��r►rxr►r r�
`"`ti��
y `'�►��rr rra r '�
wrrr�.
i�
- -.
4
_ .-A

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
Pro e
,s 4z,r) &Z
A
9 ir
J`
i�
Figure 3. John Lawson's 1709 map of North Carolina showing the approximate location of the project
area.
• of •� • i• ♦.•s •Z • 1�'
Project Area •�"•
10.4
Y• • . `
Ti
04
00
Figure 4. The 1874 Pamlico River map by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey showing the location of
the project area.
'.J
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED "formfor Minor Transportation Projects as Quaked in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 8

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
Project Area
�Ulltlt'IiRY
S
i
Figurc 5. The 1908 Beaufort County Geological map showing the location of the project area.
Project. Are +
I
r
w��.
• BONNERTON
i
s33 �
Figure 6. The 1914 Post Office map showing the location of the project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEY REQUIRED " form for Mirror Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6of8
�A

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
i
t
•
a
•
o
0
Project Area
Figure 7. The 1938 North Carolina State Highway map for Beaufort County showing the location of the
project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED " form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7of8

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
Tracking A ER 09-2687 Other #'s
County: Beaufort
Applicant: Evett Properties, LLC Status:
Project: Construct 10 Slip Community Docking Facility,
Durham Creek Road & Stilley Town Road, Aurora
Initial IN. 11/2/2009 Current IN. 11/2/2009 Client: 10/30/2009 DUE: 11/9/2009 OUT: 11 /10/2009
Program: CAMA To: A/S
Info. Req.: By: Info Type: Received:
FLAG INFO Archaeologv Survey/Rest.
Survey Req: By: Report: Report.
Testing Req: By: Report: Report:
Mitigation: By: Report: Report:
❑ DoE
LINK Effect
Bib #: Sites: 0 Forms IN.
Quads: Aurora Acres: 23 Miles:
Notes: NC RWL, 11/6/09
IVI Project Area Map ❑ DoE NR Map Cleared Archaeology: 11 /5/2009
❑ Survey Area Map ❑ Microfiched
Cleared Survey: 11/10/2009
Reviewer(s): LEA/JBC
Comments
Arch Comments: 11/03/09: Redd CAMA application for review. To LEA. LFF
11/5/09: Reviewed the project and checked the quad map. No previously recorded sites noted within the
project area. The project is located on the west slope of the Suffolk Scarp. There are numerous sites in
the surrounding area associated with this ancient landform. All things being equal would recommend a
survey, but based on the project description provided by the DCM, it appears the upland area of the
project has already been subdivided into seven lots. Within the permit area there is an existing septic
system and old camp with unpaved road access. Based on this information the project area appears to
be relatively disturbed. It is unlikely that a NRHP eligible site will be impacted by the work proposed in
the application. An archaeological survey is not recommended. No Comment. LEA. Survey
Comments: 11-10-09 NC JBCHPO Comments:
Attachment 1. A copy of OSA assessment of the project area, ER 09-2687.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 8