20190653 Ver 1_B5389_NEPA_CE_20191104

DocuSign Envelope ID:0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No. B-5389
WBS Element 46104.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A
A. Project Description: The proposed project will replace the existing two-lane bridge (Bridge No. 105)
that carries the U.S. 421 northbound lanes over the Yadkin River overflow, with another two-lane
bridge in the same location. The proposed replacement structure will be a multi-span structure that is
approximately 0.087 mile (455 feet) in length, with a 38-foot wide clear deck width. The project's total
length is 0.343 mile (1,812 feet). The existing northbound lane bridge will be replaced with a new
structure at the existing location. Traffic on the northbound lanes will be maintained during
construction with an on-site detour located north of the existing bridge location. The project is not
included in the 2018-2027 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). However, the project is in the NCDOT Structures
Management Unit Bridge Program. Refer to Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) and project plan sheets at the
end of this form.
B. Description of Need and Purpose: The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a functionally
obsolete bridge. Bridge No. 105 was built in 1958. NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate
Bridge No. 105 currently has a sufficiency rating of 75.82 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
Maintenance has been performed on Bridge No. 105 to address insufficiencies. Since these repairs
are considered temporary, the bridge still requires replacement.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
❑X TYPEIA ❑ TYPEIIA
❑ TYPEIB ❑ TYPEIIB
D. Proposed Improvements — The proposed improvements fall under Category 28. "Bridge
rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace
existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e) (1-6)".
E. Special Project Information:
Project Location — Bridge No. 105 on the US 421 northbound lanes over the Yadkin River overflow
channel in unincorporated Yadkin County, in NCDOT Division 11.
Costs — The construction estimate for the project $3,600,000.
Alternative Analysis — One alternative was considered for this project, to replace 'in- place' the
existing bridge with a temporary on-site detour. The temporary on-site detour would be located to
the north of the existing bridge.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations - Bridge No. 105 is not located on a designated
bicycle or pedestrian route nor is there an indication of substantial bike or pedestrian usage.
No special considerations for bicyclists or pedestrians are recommended or required for this
project.
Environmental Commitments - Project commitments are listed at the end of this checklist.
Public Involvement— Letters were sent to landowners on March 2, 2015 to inform them of the
project. No newsletters or other forms of project advisement were sent out and no public
comments were received regarding the project.
1 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID:0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) - A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2018, indicates
no known occurrences of the NLEB within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The nearest hibernacula
record is 72 miles southwest of the project study area. There are no known NLEB roost trees within
150 feet of the project area. NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require
separate consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final Section
4(d) Rule. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best available information and
consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB.
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife ❑ ❑x
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and ❑ ❑x
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any ❑ ❑x
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to ❑ ❑x
low-income and/or minority populations?
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a ❑
substantial amount of right of way acquisition?
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ❑
T 11
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic ❑ ❑x
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
Does the project result in a finding of"may affect not likely to adversely affect"
8 for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the ❑ ❑x
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ❑ ❑x
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10 (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, ❑ ❑x
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated ❑ ❑x
mountain trout streams?
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual ❑
Section 404 Permit?
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory ❑ ❑x
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination ❑ ❑
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains?
2 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID:0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? ❑ 0
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
16 regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) ❑
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and ❑ 0
17 substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ❑ 0
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a ❑
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ❑ 0
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), ❑
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? ❑ 0
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or ❑ x
community cohesiveness?
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ❑ X
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
25 Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where ❑
applicable)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
26 Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley ElZ
Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the property?
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ❑
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ❑ 0
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ❑ X
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by n x
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that n x
affected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Response to Question 16—The project does not exist with a regulatory floodway but does exist
with a 100-year floodplain. The project will result in a maximum decrease of 0.1-foot, thus it
qualifies to be covered by a Type 1 Memorandum of Agreement.
3 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSi.n Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Commitments
Yadkin County
Bridge No. 105 on US 421 over Yadkin River Overflow Channel
WBS No. 46104.1.1
TIP No. B-5389.
• NCDOT Division 11 Construction
o In order to avoid potential impacts to cliff swallow nests or birds during the nesting
season, demolition of the existing bridge should occur after August 31st and before
April 1st of any given year.
• NCDOT Division 11/SMU/Hydraulics Unit
o This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-
year floodplain, but not floodway and were built as shown in the construction plans,
both horizontally and vertically.
o The Division/Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping
Program (FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of
NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
o Archaeological Site 31YD1 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
All construction and staging efforts will not impact the NRHP eligible archaeological
site 31YD1 at the eastern end of the project limits. If archaeological artifacts and/or
human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase of this project,
NCDOT will notify the Catawba Indian Nation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
Prepared By:
9/12/19
Date
Prepared For:
Reviewed By:
9/17/2019
B-5389
46104.1.1
N/A
Bill Rice, AICP, CEP, North Carolina Environmental Planning Lead
A. Morton Thomas And Associates, Inc. (AMT)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSigned by:
PLitiir Niawts 111
8C1643F6874A457_.
Date Philip Harris III, PE, Environmental Analysis Unit Head
North Carolina Department of Transportation
❑ Approved
Certified
9/17/2019
Date
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered "no," NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered "yes," NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
°Cear4A,
'-ED19A18D98EC496...
Kevin Fischer, PE, Assistant State Structures Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
5 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
zeotateetiffirAil
A'
VICINITY MAP
Bridge No. 105 over Yadkin River Overflow
On US 421 Northbound Lanes
YADKIN COUNTY
TIP PROJECTB•5389
County
YADKIN
IN: 11
11PIB-5389
WBS: 46104.1.1
Date: FEBRUARY 2015
Figure
1
6
Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9405A06F-7350-4D67-BB5D-7D097D2893D2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
c
P
a
N
o_
CC
CO
M
Bl
CO
0
0
N
-u
0
0
0_
0'
0'
CO
COCO
0
0
0
03
Ih
If)
03
0
0
m
0
0
I-
0
0
U
Z
CO
CO
L „
g0
L0
cD�j N
Lox
tDX'-
DETAIL 4
DECK DRAIN DISSIPATOR PAD
N Scale)
>!. ! ! S!1.1, 1. bl !.±`
1
5 A.
DISSIPATOR MAN VIFW
PAD
'NOTE: CENTER PAD DIRECTLY BELOW DECK DRAINS
GROUND
T
GEOTEXTILE
pROFIIF VIFW
L=358 S. p Type of Liner=90 TONSGeotexti aR"z8$ sy
FROM STA. 18+77 TO STA. 19+05 -LNB- RT
FROM STA. 19+21 TO STA. 22+51 -LNB- RT
-LNB- PC Sta.7+87.29/4
1
DETAIL 3
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
(Not to Scale)
Type of Liner= 13 TONS,CL I Rip -Rap
Geotexole= 20 sy
STA.19+55 -LNB- LT
DETAIL 1
LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
(Not to Scale)
`When 8 is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class B Rip -Rap
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Max. d=1.5 H.
B=2.0 H.
B=5.0 H.
Slope
FROM STA.15+00 TO STA.19+55 -LNB- LT
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-5389
-LNB- STA. 12 + 62.50
BEGIN 3" OVERLAY
-LNB- CS Sta. 12+88.32
EXISTING R/W
-� 42/NBL 24'Bsr
3 t �_-
MTL r--'T--I
I r _ - 1
CAT 1LLL _ L 1
s MTL _rin 5
T__-L___s- s z z
15"
REPLACE 2GI CP III
_ --L- REMOVE & REPLACE 1iEMOVE ANU
US 42/sBL 35'BSr ------ --I�
_- Flu,
BILLBOARD
-LNB-
PI Sto 10+37.97 Pls Sta /3+88.33
= 5° 02' 10.8" (LT) es = P 30' 28.0°
D = P 00' 18.7° Ls = 300.00'
L = 50/.03' LT = 200.0/'
T = 250.68' ST = 100.0/'
R = 5.700.00'
SE = SEE PLANS
SEE SHEETS S-1 THRU S-37
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
1 WILLIAM STEVEN CLODFELTER
AND WIFE
JESSIE J. CLODFELTER
DB 291 PG 341
-LNB- ST Sta. 15+88.32
LATERAL 2' BASE
DITCH vd CL B RIPRAP
EST. 255 TON
EST. 691 SY GFD
SEE DETAIL 1
O1 GREU TL-3 '^a
L F°�-r f1 n-.� TO BE REMOVED
BEGIN GRADE
-LNB- STA. 16 + 00.00
END 3" OVERLAY
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
BM°2 ELEVATION 708.96
N 861147 E 1552258 _
RR SPIKE SET IN= 18. SYCAMORE
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
BM.] ELEVATION • 719.23
N 861043 E 1551007
RR SPIKE SET IN 13. TREE..
ii
//
BY-5 // // Q
RI/ / / GOSS o
,/ ml l
/ 2
N
r___1____r___r.__�____ l
lm MTL METAL 7LUME Th ' EI METAL FLUME
GRAVEL
BST I
/ F T •
SIGN0
BST CL 'B' P RAP
EST. 2 TONS
EST. 7 5Y GF
ELLEN PARIISH JACKSON AND
W. LOGAN JACKSON, JR.
DB 964 PG 129
S g4°22'39 F.
g42.86'
LEGEND
PAVED SHOULDER
( GRAVEL
MTL 3-METAL FLUME oI,._RETAIN
EXISTING R/W
BEGIN BRIDGE
-LNB- STA. 18 + 34.54
+80.0
155.00'0 LT
EXISTING R/W
SBG FROM STA.
7+94 -LNB- TO
APP. SLAB LT & RT
+50.00
180.00' LT
155.00' LT
B-5389
4
RAN SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENINEER°
0c".-
SEAL
...4 ✓perd?655*"
iC r RA A' 019
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
WTI
IIII Ib/O
��N CAROB
� ESSi yy
'a SEAL
Gi �P6>A>%zo19
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
A 1 "--F9r, �r� ' ae�ss".
annerenomEeamacoIN
A. MOR IV, Drawls ANo Assam--L, In','.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
NCBELS LICENSE # F-1049
SEE SHEET 8 FOR PROFILE VIEW
JEFFREY W. DOUB AND SPOUSE
_ m MELISSA B. DOUB AND
DARRELL DOUB AND SPOUSE
LEANN M. DOUB
DB 891 PG 129 V/
5
E
+00.00
155. n LT
140.00' LT
95.00' LT
LNB S .1•+85
EXISTING BRIDGE
TO BE REMOVED
WOODS
sVOW . Agamoo ;A_ „It MIEfiff/AVEINEEMBENBLEMI
NAM ;MIEN
I 1l liiiiNNE/
u'V•
o ,II I(III,
1111•' •'• °I"1'1`11'I'RIII'- Y•\'YY
w 50:1�2 F` Ili iil.- ..
ii �uul�
100' TAPER LT & RT
DARRELL DOUB AND WIFE
LEANN M. DOUB
DB 1139 PG 533
SKETCH
BEGIN BRIDGE
SHOWING BRIDGE/PAVEMENT
/
A /- /i
RELATIONSHIP
END BRIDGE
ci
B-77
�T
50aT
-LNB-
T
STA.
25'
18+34.54
V TYPE B-77
-LNB- STA. 22+96.46
TYPE
TYP. ow
50:1T T
jj
i� 1
i 81 i
c'
Y ml
I -LNB-
/
v
N��
o•
) �i
S 70*53'48.2"E
o•
1 150:11 11 TYP
BEGIN APP SLAB
77
s /1
- / I
//yam,
J
1��
T
'v
TYPE B-77
END APP SLAB
11
d
150.1 ��
-LNB- STA. 18+10.54
-LNB- STA. 23+20.46
-LNB- 21 + 00.00
LLI
LU
N
LLI
W
W
Z

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9405A06F-7350-4D67-BB5D-7D097D2893D2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
0,
z
0
ce
01
In
5
15
COCC
CO
0_
i
0
-a
CC
00--
m
COCO
0
0'
21 +00.00
LLJ
LLJ
2
V)
W
W
Z
E
155.00LT
140.00' LT
+65.00
115.00' LT
95.00' LT
ISTING R
EXISTIN
TO BE
10' SOIL RD
E
TIE 2'
BASE DITCH
TO EX. DITCH
DDE = 122 CY
DECK DRAIN
DICCIPATQR PAD
SEE DETAIL 4
E
END BRIDGE
—LNB— STA. 22 + 96.46
+40.00
135.00' LT
115.00' LT
LAT. 2' BASE DITCH
EST 127 CY DDE
SEE DETAIL 2
END WOVEN WIRE FENCE o- PD
LNB STA. 24+63.50
WOODS
+70.00 E
135.00' LT
115.00' LT
95.00' LT
E
BEGIN WOVEN WIRE FENCE
LNB STA. 24+68.50
S 70' 53' 48.2" E
CL '6' RIP RAP
EST. 2 TONS
EST. 7 5Y GF
RETAIN
-
r
III
E
-LNB-
LEGEND
E
OJEFFREY W. DOUB AND SPOUSE
MELISSA B. DOUB AND
DARRELL DOUB AND SPOUSE
LEANN M. DOUB
DB 891 PG 129
WOODS
E
E
END WOVEN WIRE FENCE
LNB STA. 29+48.50
155.00' LT
+50.00
95.00' LT
WOODS
a
REMOVE NND REPLACE
—64' TAP
FXISTING—GIA808AIL
DARRELL DOUB AND WIFE
LEANN M. DOUB
DB 1139 PG 533
PAVED SHOULDER
WOODS
DETAIL 2
LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
( Naito Scale)
Ncoural
Groaad 2;L —, IG\
w
Min. D=2.0 R.
B=2.0 Ff.
b=5.0 Ft.
Fill
Slope
FROM STA. 21+75 TO STA. 24+58 —LNB— LT
END GRADE
-LNB- STA. 30 + 00.00
BEGIN 3" OVERLAY
TIE TO EXISTING
GUARDRAIL RT_
B-5389
SHEET NO.
5
RAY SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENNMER,
e oc+..�o Ess o 1�9':
SEAL
e.-Drus =.40655
CktRA6i9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
A• 'r.rF,,==, aks."
A. Moarov Drawls ANo A ssoa'rni as, IV't'.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
NCBELS LICENSE p F-1049
SEE SHEET 8 FOR PROFILE VIEW
SEE SHEETS S-1 THRU S-37
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
-LNB- POT Sta. 34+00.00
END TIP PROJECT B-5389
-LNB- STA. 33 + 00.00
END 3" OVERLAY
+55 00
EXRW
_______
TL
ENC PaED DITCH
48'
64' TAPER LT
TO LEWISVILLE
0
EIP
TIE TO EXISTING
GUARDRAIL (LT)
US 42/ NBL 24.5' BST
U5 42/ SBL
BL-4
.A;
25' BST
'C`
BEGIN BRIDGE
SKETCH
SHOWING BRIDGE/PAVEMENT
41END
,
o
/ i 1�
1 ( y
RELATIONSHIP
BRIDGE
o
B 77 PVT
,4TYP.
501 T
-LNB- STA.
25'
18+34.54
TYB-77
'
-LNB- STA. 22+96.46
TYPE
T 50:1 ToI
-
c'�
/3PE
I i
%
� �1
S2
I
m'
1 -LNB-
o'
�.
�o'
o•
y
(��
S 70'S3'48.2°E
1
/o•
N'�
L "soil �A
BEGIN APP
1YP
SLAB
77
4- q
v / 1
I
` J
1�
v
TYPE B-•7
END APP SLAB
•
A 1
1so:1 ��
-LNB- STA. 18+10.54
-LNB- STA. 23+20.46

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
AFFECTED 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: B-5389
WBS No: 46104.1.1
F.A. No:
County: Yadkin
Document: CE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge 105 on the northbound lane of US 421 over the Yadkin
River Overflow in Yadkin County, North Carolina. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE)
for the project is defined as a 2, 500 foot (762m) long corridor running 1,250 feet (381 m) from each
bridge end point. The corridor is approximately 400 feet (121.92m) wide. An on -site detour will be
utilized during construction.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
Previously documented archaeological site 31YD1 was identified prior to field survey while conducting
project background research at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA). The resource constitutes a large
prehistoric site dating to the Woodland period. The site had produced a high number of human burials and
features in the sections that were previously excavated in 1957 during the initial construction of US 421.
An archaeological survey was conducted by New South Associates (NSA) in order to determine if any
unknown archaeological sites or if any portions of 31YD1 extend into the currently defined APE.
NSA did not identify any new resources but did confirm that 31YD1 advances into the very eastern
portion of the project APE. Two artifact concentrations were identified through shovel testing and surface
collecting and were located on opposite sides of the roadway. Locus 2, on the northern side of the road,
produced 113 lithic artifacts and 122 prehistoric ceramics. Two test units were excavated within Locus 2
with one of the units producing 606 artifacts including 423 lithics, 130 ceramic sherds and 17 non -human
bone fragments. The second test unit recovered 467 artifacts including 239 lithics, 184 ceramic sherds and
four non -human bone fragments. All subsurface testing indicates that the site contains a high density of
prehistoric lithic, ceramic, and faunal remains from the second, undisturbed stratum. Artifact diversity,
frequency, and depth all indicate substantial intact deposits. It is likely that additional burials and cultural
features are present in the newly identified portions of the site. Past research has already yielded
significant information. The site has the potential to yield important information about late prehistoric
village lifeways in the Piedmont. For these reasons, site 31YD1 is recommended eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D.
Since 31YD1 is considered eligible for NRHP listing, the project report/Programmatic Agreement form
was sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review. In a letter dated 12/10/2015, SHPO
concurs with the recommendation that 31YD1 is eligible for the NRHP and recommends that if the
resource cannot be avoided that measures to minimize or mitigate the potential adverse effect of the
bridge replacement project should occur.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201 Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
Following receival of the SHPO letter confirming that 31YD1 is eligible for NRHP listing, the NCDOT
Archaeology Team took the site boundaries to the Project Manager and project engineers in hopes of
avoidance or minimization. Because only a small portion of 31YD1 lay in the very eastern APE, the
Project Manager and engineers decided that avoidance was the best alternative. The 31YD1 site
boundaries were given to the Project Manager in order to make slight alterations in the bridge
replacement engineering design plans to avoid the cultural resource. Attached at the end of this form are
three maps detailing archaeological site 31YD1 and its location on the engineering design plan. These
maps illustrate clearly that no construction impacts are to occur within the site boundaries of 31YD1.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation has expressed an
interest: Yadkin County. It is recommended that you contact each federal agency involved with your
project to determine their Section 106 Tribal consultation requirements.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
❑ There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 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:
The project's APE along Bridge No. 105 on the northbound lane of U.S. 421 over the Yadkin River
Overflow in Yadkin County was subjected to an intensive archaeological survey (Figure 1). In August
2015, New South Associates, Inc. completed shovel testing within the project APE at 30-meter
intervals to survey for potential archaeological resources. The purpose of the fieldwork was to
investigate the possibility of unknown archaeological resources that might be impacted by the proposed
undertaking. The APE for this study measured approximately 2,500 feet (762 m) long running 1,250
feet (381 m) from each bridge end point. The corridor is 400 feet (121.92 m) wide and extends 200 feet
(60.96 m) on either side of the U.S. 52 north bound centerline. The project area covers 109,935 square
meters or 27 acres in size and is characterized by agricultural fields, pasture, and heavily disturbed
areas associated with the highway, exit ramps, and overpass construction. Figures 2-4 show the general
landscape within the project area.
The USDA soil survey map shows 11 soil types within the APE. The soils east of the bridge consist of
Dan River and Comus soils (DmA), which is well -drained with 0-4 percent slopes, Ronda loamy sand
(RnB), which is occasionally flooded, and Codorus loam (CrA), which is somewhat poorly drained.
The soils to the west of the bridge were eroded and shallower. The main types were Tomlin clay loam
(ToB3), which is severely eroded and features 2-10 percent slopes, Clifford sandy loam (CcB2),
which features 2-6 percent slopes and is moderately eroded, Danripple fine sandy loam (DaC2), which
features 8-10 percent slopes and is moderately eroded, and Fairview clay loam (FeC3), which features
6-10 percent slopes and is severely eroded (Soil Survey Staff 2015).
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201 Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
The examination of NRHP, State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD), Determined Eligible
(DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources available on the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) website determined that no historic structural resources with
potential archaeological deposits were situated within the boundaries of the APE or proximal.
Historic maps of Surry County showed no structures or historic features in the APE. An
archaeological background search found one site, 31YD1, had the potential to be relocated in the
eastern end of the project area. The site was truncated by the U.S. 421 right-of-way. The Research
Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill excavated it in
November and December 1957. The site contained 28 human burials, two dog burials, and 42
subsurface features from areas now covered by the northbound lane of U.S. 421.
The intensive archaeological survey consisted of 112 shovel test locations placed at 30-meter intervals
(98.43 ft) along eight transects, located on either side of the existing northbound lane working east and
west from the bridge within the APE. Two transects were placed along each side of the U.S. 421
northbound centerline. The transect that was closest to the road was placed approximately 15-20 meters
from the centerline. A second transect was placed parallel approximately 30 meters over to cover the
APE. A total of 53 shovel tests were not excavated due to heavy ground disturbance (Figures 4 and 5).
Most of the unexcavated shovel tests fell on the U.S. 421 southbound and northbound lanes road berm
or within the greatly disturbed area to the west around the interchange. All shovel tests measured 40
centimeters (12 in) in diameter and were excavated to at least 10 centimeters (4 in) into sterile subsoil.
All excavated soils and sediments were screened through mesh screen (0.64-cm, 0.25-in) and all shovel
tests were backfilled. A visual inspection of the surface was also done in conjunction with subsurface
testing.
Transects 1 and 2 were placed in the northwestern quadrant of the APE. There were 26 shovel tests
placed. Of those, 10 on the western end were not excavated because they were located in the
disturbed exit ramp and U.S. 421 berms (see Figure 2a). Transects 3 and 4 were placed in the
southwestern quadrant. Transect 3 was placed approximately 15-20 meters from the U.S. 421
northbound lane and was located within the southbound lane and berm for the whole transect. No
shovel tests were excavated on Transect 3. Transect 4 was primarily located along the edge of an
agricultural field. Of the 13 shovel tests that comprised Transect 4, nine were not excavated due to
ground disturbance such as drainage ditches, a paved parking lot, and overpass and entrance ramp
berms (see Figures 2b, 3a, 3b, and 4a). Transects 5 and 6 were excavated in the southeastern
quadrant. Because of the length of the bridge from the actual bank, these transects were extended by
three additional shovel tests to ensure adequate coverage of the floodplain. Transect 5 was unable to
be excavated because of the U.S. 421 southbound lane and associated berm. Transect 6 was placed
along the edge of an agricultural field. Of the 15 shovel tests for Transect 6, three were not excavated
due to ground disturbance. Transects 7 and 8 were excavated in the northeast quadrant of the APE.
Like those in the southeastern quadrant, transects were extended by three additional shovel tests to
ensure adequate coverage between the bank and the edge of the bridge structure. Transects 7 and 8
were started approximately 35 meters from the bank edge due to hydric ground and an overburden of
reed covering the ground surface (see Figure 4b). Thirty shovel tests were placed for Transects 7 and
8. Of those, three were not excavated due to ground disturbance (see Figure 4b). Figure 5 shows all
of the survey shovel tests recorded during this investigation.
Two shovel tests (6-14 and 6-15) were found to contain prehistoric artifacts in Transect 6. During
delineation this site was denoted as FS-1. On Transects 7 and 8, four shovel tests were found to
contain prehistoric artifacts (7-14, 7-15, 8-14, and 8-15). During delineation, this artifact
concentration was denoted as FS-2. Both field sites are part of previously recorded site 31YD1. They
are discussed later in more detail.
The soils varied within the project area. On the west side of the bridge soils were generally shallow
and consisted of two strata. Stratum I was strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay loam up to 15 centimeters
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201 Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
below surface (cmbs). The second stratum was brownish -yellow (10YR 6/8) clay. The eastern side
of the bridge saw shovel tests reaching up to one meter deep towards the eastern end of the project
APE. These soils typically had up to three strata including brown (10YR 5/3) to dark brown (10YR
3/4) silty loam ranging in depth anywhere from 25-100 cmbs. When present, Stratum II was pale
brown (10YR 6/3) to yellowish -brown (10YR 5/8) silty loam ranging from 25-100 cmbs.
An auger was used to inspect soil down to 200 cmbs in two shovel tests on the eastern side of the
project APE. Shovel Test 6-14 had a soil profile of two strata. The first was brown (10YR 5/3) silty
loam to 50 cmbs. This was followed by yellowish -brown (10YR 6/3) silty loam to 200 cmbs. Shovel
Test 7-14 had a soil profile of brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam to 100 cmbs. This was followed by pale
brown (10YR 6/3) silty loam to 170 cmbs. Stratum III consisted of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) silty
loam to 200 cmbs.
Archaeological investigation of the APE included both pedestrian walkover and systematic shovel
testing. Surface visibility was zero percent in the western half of the project APE. Due to the
agricultural field, surface visibility was near 100 percent along Transects 6, 7, and 8.
31YD1 Relocated
The newly identified portions of 31YD1 were given the field names FS-1 and FS-2 (Figure 6), which
for the purposes of this report, are referred to as Locus 1 and Locus 2, respectively. The first to be
identified was Locus 1, which is located just south of the southbound lane of U.S. 421 in a tobacco
field (Figure 7a). Two shovel tests along Transect 6 (6-14 and 6-15) were positive for prehistoric
artifacts. This shovel test was delineated to the east and west on a 15-meter grid. The northern
delineations were shortened to 10-meters because the road berm was in the way. Further delineation
was prohibited because of the edge of the project APE. One additional shovel test (500N/545E) was
found to contain prehistoric artifacts. The soils at FS-1 were deep and consisted of brown (10YR 5/3)
to dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam up to 50 cmbs followed by yellowish -brown (10YR 6/3) to
brown (10YR 5/3) silt to at least 100 cmbs. An auger was used on Shovel Test 6-14, which showed a
continuation of yellowish -brown (10YR 6/3) to at least 200 cmbs.
Artifacts recovered from Locus 1 (FS-1) include one rhyolite biface, one rhyolite flake fragment, one
Dan River Cord Marked sherd with a scraped interior, one Haw River Plain sherd with cord -marked
and smoothed exterior treatments, one untyped sand -tempered net -impressed sherd with a scraped
interior surface, one sand -tempered eroded decorated sherd, and one residual sherd (Figure 8). All of
the artifacts were recovered in Stratum II between 35-60 cmbs.
The second artifact concentration identified was FS-2 (Locus 2), which is located north of U.S. 421
and consists of 14 positive shovel tests and two lxl-meter test units. The site setting consists of a
tobacco field and a narrow grassy strip between the tobacco field and road berm. During the initial
survey, four shovel tests were found to contain prehistoric artifacts (7-14, 7-15, 8-14, and 8-15).
Delineation on a 15-meter grid identified an additional ten positive shovel tests. A general site view
can be seen in Figure 7b.
Soils within this portion (FS-2) were similar to those in FS-1. Shovel Test 7-14 had a soil profile of
brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam to 100 cmbs. This was followed by pale brown (10YR 6/3) silty loam to
170 cmbs. Stratum III consisted of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) silty loam to 200 cmbs. In shovel tests
N515/E500 and N515/E530, a possible buried A horizon was identified beneath Stratum II. In these
shovel tests, it was approximately 30 cmbs and 10 centimeters in thickness. This possible buried A
horizon saw an increase in artifacts while shovel testing within Locus 2.
Artifacts recovered during shovel testing and surface collecting in Locus 2 include 113 lithics, two
pieces of fire -cracked rock, and 122 sherds. Three unidentified faunal remains were recovered from
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4of24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
the ground surface (n=2) and between 70-90 cmbs in Stratum II (n=1). Lithics include angular debris
(n=5), rhyolite biface fragments (n=2) and complete bifaces (n=1), flake fragments (n=12), flakes
(n=90), one retouched rhyolite flake, one rhyolite Yadkin Triangular Projectile Point/Knife (PPK),
and one indeterminate rhyolite PPK fragment (Figure 9). Lithic raw materials consisted of rhyolite
(n=101), quartz (n=7), unidentified chert (n=3), and unidentified metavolcanic (n=2). Artifacts were
recovered from the ground surface (n=62), Stratum I (n=28), and Stratum II (n=25).
Shovel testing 'and surface collecting in Locus 2 produced 122 sherds. Diagnostic sherds included
Badin Cord Marked (n=1), Dan River Cord Marked (n=7), Dan River Net Impressed (n=4), Dan River
Plain (n=1), Haw River Brushed (n=6), Haw River Net Impressed (n=8), Haw River Plain (n=1), Pee
Dee Curvilinear Complicated Stamped (n=1), Uwharrie Cord Marked (n=1), and Uwharrie Net
Impressed (n=1). Non -diagnostic sand -tempered sherds include brushed (n=2), eroded and eroded
decorated (n=21), incised (n=3), incised and impressed (n=1), plain (n=14), punctated (n=1), scraped
(n=7), rectilinear complicated stamped (n=1), and unidentified decorated (n=6). Other pottery found
was six cord marked sherds with quartz granule temper and 29 residual sherds. Sherds were found on
the ground surface (n=47), Stratum I (n=35), and Stratum II (n=40).
Test Unit 1
Two test units were excavated within Locus 2 (see Figure 6). Test Unit 1 was excavated just northeast
of Shovel Test N500/E515 because of the presence of deeply buried faunal remains from that shovel
test. Test Unit 1 measured lx1-meter in size. The southwestern corner served as datum, which was
set at 10 centimeters above ground surface (cmags). Ten (10) levels were excavated within this test
unit, which reached a depth of 100 cmbs in the southwestern corner. Each level was approximately 10
centimeters in thickness. Excavation ceased at one sterile level and one meter below surface, for
safety reasons.
Three strata were present in the soil profile for Test Unit 1 (Figure 10). Stratum I was dark brown
(10YR 3/4) silty loam extending to a depth of up to 50 cmbs. This was followed by a second stratum
of very dark grayish -brown (10YR 3/2) silty sand, which has been interpreted as a possible buried A
soil horizon due to it having a high artifact density. This layer was approximately 20 centimeters in
thickness and may also represent a dense midden deposit. Following that was a transitional zone of
mottled dark grayish -brown (10YR 3/2) and dark yellowish -brown (10YR 4/4) sand extending to
approximately 80 cmbs. This transitional zone was about 10 centimeters in thickness and was in
between the potential buried A horizon and Stratum III, which was yellowish -brown (10YR 5/4) sand
extending to at least 100 cmbs. After completion of this test unit, an auger was used to investigate the
underlying soils. Soils were consistent with the final stratum of yellowish -brown (10YR 5/4) to about
190 cmbs. At this point, their consistency became slightly clayey but with the same color. The only
noted disturbance to the test unit was in Level 5, Stratum I, and consisted of plow scars. The plow
scars were running east to west and were the same color as the potential buried A horizon that lay
below Stratum I.
A total of 606 artifacts were recovered from Test Unit 1. These included 423 lithics, 130 ceramic
sherds, one steatite sherd, one historic clear glass fragment, 17 bone fragments, one piece of charcoal,
and 33 unmodified stones (Tables 1 and 2). Artifacts were primarily found in levels 6 and 7, which
corresponded to the potential buried A horizon found between approximately 50 and 70 cmbs. This
test unit was found to contain good vertical and horizontal integrity. The potential buried A horizon
showed a marked increase in artifacts followed by a dramatic decrease in the artifact count.
Lithics consisted of angular debris (n=9), bifaces (n=3), fire -cracked rock (n=2), flakes and flake
fragments (n=405), one Pee Dee PPK, one Pee Dee/Caraway PPK, and two PPK fragments (see
Figure 9). All of the projectile points were made of rhyolite. A table showing lithic totals and types by
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201 Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
level and depth can be seen in Table 1. Raw materials consisted of unidentified chert (n=24), crystal
quartz (n=4), quartz (n=5), quartzite (n=12), and rhyolite (n=421). The two pieces of fire -cracked
rock were not typed.
Table 1. Lithic Types and Totals by Level and Depth in Test Unit 1
Level (cmbd
SW corner
TU1)
Lithic Types
Level
Total
Angular
Debris
Biface
FCR
Flakes/Flake
Fragments
Pee Dee
PPK
Pee Dee/
Caraway PPK
PPK
Fragment
1 (7-17)
2
2
2 (17-27)
1
14
15
3 (27-37)
3
20
23
4 (37-47)
2
1
18
21
5 (47-57)
35
1
36
6(57-67)
3
137
1
141
7 (67-77)
2
2
135
1
140
8 (77-87)
42
1
43
9 (87-97)
2
2
Type Total
9
3
2
405
1
1
2
423
Table 2 shows the diagnostic and non -diagnostic sherds found in Test Unit 1. Diagnostic sherds
consisted of Badin (n=1), Dan River Cord Marked (n=9), Haw River Brushed (n=11), Haw River Net
Impressed (n=5), Uwharrie Plain (n=1), and Yadkin Fabric Impressed (n=1). Other sherds with
Table 2. Diagnostic and Non -Diagnostic Sherds by Level and Depth in Test Unit 1
Level
(cmbd SW
corner
TU1)
Diagnostic Sherds
Non -Diagnostic Sherds
Level
Total
Badin Fabric
Impressed
Dan River
Cord Marked
Haw River
Brushed
Haw River
Net
Impressed
Uwharrie
Plain
Yadkin
Fabric
Impressed
Brushed
Incised
❑
Scraped
Smoothed
Q
3
Residuals
Steatite Sherd
1 (7-17)
1
I
2
2 (17-27)
3
3
1
7
3 (27-37)
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
4 (37-47)
1
5
6
5 (47-57)
1
1
1
3
6
5
17
6 (57-67)
4
10
1
4
15
20
54
7 (67-77)
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
10
7
29
8 (77-87)
1
7
8
Type Total
1
9
11
5
1
1
1
1
13
6
1
38
42
1
131
various surface treatments were not able to be typed 'ncluding brushed (n=1), incised (n=1), plain
(n=13), scraped (n=6), smoothed (n=1), and one steatite sherd. The remaining sherds were unable to
be typed and included those that were too eroded or weathered (n=38) as well as residuals (n=42).
Faunal remains recovered from Test Unit 1 included 17 unidentified non -human bone fragments.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Progrannnatic Agreement.
6 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
Levels 6 and 7 produced the most (n=6 and n=7, respectively). Three bone fragments were found in
Level 8, and one in Level 5. One charcoal piece (0.08 g) was found in Level 2.
Test Unit 2
Test Unit 2 was excavated between Shovel Tests N515/E530 and N515/E545 because those two tests
contained the possible buried A horizon. Test Unit 2 measured lxl-meter in size. The southwestern
corner served as datum, which was set at 10 cmags. Ten levels were excavated within this test unit,
which reached a depth of 99 cmbs in the southwestern corner. Each level was approximately 10
centimeters in thickness. This test unit was located inside the tobacco field, which contained furrows.
One furrow cut across the unit at a height of about 25 centimeters and a width of about 55 centimeters.
The furrow was excavated in one level since it contained artifacts out of context. This unit was dug
well past the occupation levels in order to examine the deeper stratigraphy. Excavation ceased after
five sterile levels.
Four strata were present in the soil profile for Test Unit 2 (Figure 11). Stratum I was dark brown (7.5
YR 3/2) silty loam extending to a depth of up to 29 cmbs. This was followed by a second stratum of
very dark grayish -brown (10YR 3/2) silty sand, which is consistent with the possible buried A soil
horizon found in Test Unit 1. This layer was approximately 10-15 centimeters in thickness. The third
stratum consisted of dark yellowish -brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam extending up to 70 cmbs. The first
level in this stratum was a mottled transitional soil layer between the above potential buried A horizon
and the dark yellowish -brown. Stratum IV was dark yellowish -brown (10YR 4/6) slightly clayey silty
loam with thin lamella of dark brown (10YR 4/4) silt. After completion of this test unit, an auger was
used to investigate the underlying soils. Soils were consistent with the final stratum of dark
yellowish -brown (10YR 4/6) to about 200 cmbs. The only noted disturbance to the test unit was in
Stratum I, Level 3, and consisted of plow scars. The plow scars were running east to west and were
the same color as the potential buried A horizon that lay below Stratum I.
A total of 467 resources were recovered from Test Unit 2. These included 239 lithics, 184 sherds,
four bone fragments, one piece of charcoal, and 39 unmodified stones (Tables 3 and 4). Artifacts
were primarily found in Levels 4 and 5, which corresponded to the potential buried A horizon found
between approximately 29 and 39 cmbs. A high concentration of artifacts was also found in Level 2,
which showed a slight increase after Level 1 then a slight decrease before the potential buried A.
Nine fragments of fire -cracked rock (FCR) were found in the southwest corner of Level 4 and may
have been part of a feature, which was not recognized as such until the stone had already been
removed from the test unit. The largest sherds and FCR recovered from Level 4 were found in that
corner. No artifacts were recovered after 64 cmbd.
Table 3. Lithic Types and Totals by Level and Depth in Test Unit 2
Level
(cmbd SW
corner
TU2)
Lithic Types
Level
Total
Angular
Debris
Biface
Core
FCR
Flakes/Flake
Fragments
Hammerstone
Pee Dee
PPK
UID Ground
Tool
furrow
4
1
53
58
1 (10-19)
1
27
1
1
30
2 (19-29)
4
44
48
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
3 (29-39)
1
29
30
4 (39-49)
1
9
47
1
58
5 (49-64)
15
15
Type Total
9
2
1
9
215
1
1
1
239
A total of 239 lithics were found in Test Units 2 (Table 3). Lithic types consisted of angular debris
(n=9), bifaces (n=2), one core, FCR (n=9), flakes and flake fragments (n=215), one hammerstone, one
unidentified ground tool, and one Pee Dee triangular PPK. A table showing lithic totals and types by
level and depth can be seen in Table 1. Raw materials consisted of unidentified chert (n=14), crystal
quartz (n=2), diabase (n=1), quartz (n=18), quartzite (n=7), and rhyolite (n=197). The nine pieces of
FCR were not typed.
Table 4 shows the diagnostic and non -diagnostic sherds found in Test Unit 2. Diagnostic sherds
consisted of Dan River Cord Marked (n=11), Dan River Net Impressed (n=1), and Dan River Brushed
(n=14). Other sherds with various surface treatments could not be typed including brushed (n=1), cord
marked (n=1), cord marked with oblique overlap (n=1), fabric impressed (n=3), incised (n=4), plain
(n=54), punctated (n=1), simple stamped with oblique overlap (n=1), parallel simple stamped (n=2),
and one piece of fired clay. The remaining sherds were unable to be typed and included those that
were too eroded or weathered (n=68) and residuals (n=21).
Table 4. Diagnostic and Non -Diagnostic Sherds by Level and Depth in Test Unit 2.
Level
(ctnbd SW
corner
TU1)
Diagnostic Sherds
Non -Diagnostic Sherds
Level
Total
Dan River
Cord Marked
Dan River
Net
Impressed
Haw River
Brushed
Brushed
Cord Marked
Cord Marked
with Oblique
Overlap
Fabric
Impressed
0
-
c0
a
Punctated
Simple
Stamped with
Oblique
Overlap
Parallel
Simple
Stamped
ip
2 ° a
W3
Residuals
5
U
�
°'
i�
Furrow
1
1
18
I
17
5
43
1 (10-19)
1
1
1
1
9
2
6
21
2 (19-29)
1
5
1
12
15
3
37
3 (29-39)
1
11
8
5
25
4 (39-49)
9
7
1
1
2
2
1
22
8
1
54
5 (49-64)
1
1
2
4
Type Total
11
1
14
1
1
1
3
4
54
1
I
2
68
21
1
184
Faunal remains recovered from Test Unit 2 included four unidentified non -human bone fragments
from Level 4. One charcoal piece (0.05 g) was found in Level 4.
Several diagnostic artifacts were recovered during the shovel testing, surface collecting, and test unit
excavation at these two loci. The earliest component was the two Badin sherds, which date to
approximately 500 B.C. (Early Woodland). The Yadkin sherds and PPK date from 300 B.C.-A.D. 800
(Early Woodland/Middle Woodland). Artifacts from the Late Woodland Period include the Pee Dee
and Pee Dee/Caraway PPKs, the Uwharrie ceramics date to approximately A.D. 800-1200, the Haw
River ceramic series dates to A.D. 1000-1400, and the Dan River series dates to A.D. 1000-1450. The
Late Woodland Pee Dee Curvilinear Complicated Stamped type dates to approximately A.D. 1200-
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8of24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
1450. This series is normally confined to the Town Creek area, which was part of the South
Appalachian Mississippian culture. Its presence may suggest contact between the two regions.
Site 31YD1 is a large prehistoric site dating to the Woodland period. The current extension of the site
is bisected by the current berm and right-of-way for U.S. 421. The two sections were delineated as
separate field sites but should both be considered part of 31YD1. All subsurface testing indicates the
site contains a high density of prehistoric lithics, ceramics, and faunal remains within the first stratum
and within the undisturbed second stratum. The site has previously produced a high number of human
burials and features in the sections that were previously excavated in 1957 during the initial
construction of U.S. 421 and during the construction of the southbound lane in the early 1970s.
Artifact diversity, frequency, and depth all indicate substantial intact deposits. It is likely that
additional burials and features are present in these newly identified portions of the site. Past research
has already yielded significant information. The site has the potential to yield important information
about late prehistoric village lifeways in the Piedmont. For these reasons, site 31YD1 is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
potential adverse effects will need to be considered.
Tracy Martin
Archaeologist
New South Associates, Inc.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 1. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING THE PROJECT APE AND THE ORIGINAL SITE 31YD1 BOUNDARY
J
ftio
um Site 31YD1-Revisit
Site 31YD1
APE (Bridge No. 105)
0 0.375 0.75
I t I
1 1 I 1 1 1
t I I
1.5 Kilometers
0 0.175 0.35 0.7 Miles
Source: USGS Farmington, North Carolina 7.5' Quadrangle
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 2A. VIEW OF PROJECT APE FACING WEST FROM SHOVEL TEST 2-1.
FIGURE 2B. VIEW OF PROJECT APE FACING EAST FROM SHOVEL TEST 4-8.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
11 of24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 3A. VIEW OF PROJECT APE SHOWING OVERPASS AND ROAD BERM.
FIGURE 3B. VIEW OF PROJECT APE SHOWING ROAD BERM AT SHOVEL TEST 4-11.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
12 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 4A. VIEW OF PROJECT APE SHOWING ROAD BERM AT SHOVEL TEST 4-12.
FIGURE 4B. VIEW OF PROJECT APE AROUND SHOVEL TEST 7-1.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
13 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 5. AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA SHOWING SHOVEL TEST RESULTS.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
14 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
Figure 6. Site Map Showing Relocated 31YD1 Site Boundary.
Y
O
O
1
O
i.
• % x—W
•,
z
v.
•
O
Negative Shovel Test
Not Excavated
Positive Shovel Test
O .
Y3
c
N
Revisit Datum
Edge of Road Berm
U
0
— 0
r - -
f0
7 • 0
O
m O d• 0 _
To
c _
O —
0 W N —
f) Q — O
0 ° ▪ —
0 — — 0
Source: ESRI Resource Data
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
15 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
FIGURE 7A. VIEW OF LOCUS 1 LOOKING WEST FROM SHOVEL TEST 6-14.
FIGURE 7B. VIEW OF LOCUS 2 FACING EAST FROM SHOVEL TEST 7-14.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
farm for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
16 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
A. Badin Cord Marked
E. Uwharrie Net Impressed
I. Dan River Net Impressed
B. Badin Fabric Impressed
F. Haw River Brushed
Y
C. Yadkin Fabric Impressed
G. Haw River Net Impressed
0
r-
1 Inch
1 0 1 2 centimeters
J. Dan River Cord Marked
D. Uwharrie Cord Marked
H. Haw River Net Impressed
K. Dan River Cord Marked
L. Pee Dee Curvilinear Complicated
Stamped
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
17 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
A. Yadkin Triangular, Rhyolite
C. Pee Dee, Rhyolite
1/2
0
'/2
B. Pee Dee, Rhyolite
D. Pee Dee Caraway, Rhyolite
1 inch
1
0
1
2 centimeters
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
18 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
Figure 10. Test Unit 1, North Wall Profile and Drawing.
Test Unit 1
North Wall Profile
Stratum I = 10 YR 3/4 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Stratum II = "Buried A" 10 YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish -Brown Silty
Sand Transitioning to 10 YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish -Brown Sand
Stratum III = 10 YR 5/4 Yellowish -Brown Sand
0 10 20 cm
I I I
• 3 Bridge Replacements PAZ
#4-78L
F S-Z
Tes+UM+1
North Profile 'gl
i BOE.t.e olaio s. sW. _ If
NSA kohs
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
19 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
Figure 11. Test Unit 2, South Wall Profile and Drawing.
Test Unit 2
South Wall Profile
Stratum I = 7.5 YR 3/2 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Stratum II = "Buried A" 10 YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish -Brown Silty Sand
Stratum III = 10 YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish -Brown Silty Loam
Stratum IV = 10 YR 4/6 Dark Yellowish -Brown Silty Loam with Clay
0 10 20 cm
I l 1
is �+78a.
F¶- L
{ of .',
BCE• 41..14 s�
rjse
k..45
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
20 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
21 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
06.6
iiitA
TIP# B-5389 (PA 15-03-0060)
Replace Bridge No. 105 on
US 421 (NB) over the
Yadkin River Overflow
Yadkin County, NC
O31uda Career
- aatu-2
b-105-sips
status
• negate
XNot EartAated
• Paaltt.e
DeiineationSTPs
status
• Negative
XNot Eatavated
• Paaltie
• TU-comers
Tecltlnrs
31YD1-ae9B4
31YD1-ReYst
bast
lone]
YaateLPartels
atreeta
�Na,-n!d}tINW
— HYARUT
I I
I
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
22 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA8157829201
Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
TIP# B 5389 (PA 15-03-0060)
Replace Bridge No. 105 on
US 421 (NB) over the
Yadkin River Overflow
Yadkin County, NC
O3tu0i Ccnsaar
b-105-sips
status
• Review
XNGe Excavated
• Po^.Ilbe
De1ineationSTPs
status
® ne,su,e
XNe1 Excavated
• Positive
7U-corners
Yeselhaa
31YD1-4gs84
31Y01•ReKst
n bnat
lone2
QYadketyreceh
+- 3lreets
st_ Named -seems
- HYARUT
•
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED Al CHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transpomation Projects as Qualified i t the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
23 of 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C8DEB9E-C7F6-440E-8083-CA81 57829201 Project Tracking No. 15-03-0060
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ❑ Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos nCorrespondence
Signed:
_4 &,,,z/J„
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
k-SZCI f
Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
24 of 24