20200233 Ver 1_PA 17-05-0062 No Archaeological Survey Req Form Br No 15 on NC 66 Stokes_20200212

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
oaflr.. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
a. 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.01
d
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
WBS No
WIMMO
Bridge No. 15 County: Stokes
17BP.9.R.98 Document: M C C
Federal Permit Required?
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: tbd
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace the circa 1935 Bridge No. 15 on NC 66 over Vade
Mecum Creek in Stokes County, west of Hanging Rock State Park. The project length provided is listed
as 0.10 miles (528 feet). The new proposed ROW is noted as 100-120 feet. No further information was
provided to inform this review regarding if the undertaking would be a replace -in -place project, a
realignment to one side or the other of the existing bridge, or would involve either a temporary onsite detour
or offsite (driving route) detour. There is little project information available on the NCDOT
SharePoint/Connect site, nor on the ProjectStore. General road mapping shows that a potential detour under
five miles using nearby Taylor Road (SR 1188) does potentially exist allowing for a simple replace -in -place
construction, but that is only an observation by this reviewing archaeologist. The crossing is at a tight bend
in the road which may also be a factor in proposed designs. For purposes of this investigation, there is an
assumption that a conceptual bridge design could be located adjacent to the existing bridge on either side,
allowing for a number of alternative options. Therefore, the Area of Potential Effects for the bridge project
is defined as the stated length of the project, 528 feet, with a total width of 200 feet, all centered on the
existing bridge.
This is federally permitted project, therefore, the undertaking falls under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for purposes of archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This undertaking involves constructing a new bridge with guardrails along NC 66, replacing the present
1930s bridge structure. The new bridge, for which a proposed cross section was provided, would widen
from the current 18 feet with 4 feet of unpaved shoulders to 22 feet with 7 feet shoulders, about seven feet
wider, and would include a gaurdrail. Much of the APE is already majorly altered by the construction of
the existing NC 66 roadway and the bridge.
USGS mapping (Hanging Rock) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The project
area along NC 66 is wooded with some agriculture fields adjacent on the south side. A small pond is visible
on certain aerials immediately southeast of the bridge, and becoming more visible in late 2008 when it may
have been under construction.
Soil types include Dan River and Comus soils (DaA, 0-4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded and well
drained) on the eastern half of the APE and Sauratown channery fine sandy loam (SaD, 15-25 percent
slopes) on the western half. The Dan River soils, being fairly level and well drained, are suitable for some
past human activities, though are subject to flooding. The Sauratown channery fine sandy loam soils are
generally considered too hilly for occupation.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
Virtual drive -by was available on Google Maps, but not Bing. This examination confirmed conditions that
were expected from topographic and aerial mapping, showing a short, narrow bridge over a ditch -sized
stream. However, the street -view does not show the presence of a pond at the APE in 2007, which further
suggests apparent earthmoving in seen in late 2008 aerial photography using Google Earth. The constructed
pond would have majorly altered the soils on the southeast quadrant.
Historic maps of Stokes County were examined. The 1934 soils map of Stokes County is detailed and
accurate, reliably showing road configurations, streams as they existed at the time, and structures.
Interestingly, the map shows a road present on the map, but shows the existing bridge as constructed in
1935, a year later. Apparently the map was not published until 1940. The 1940s Rural Delivery Routes
map (US Post Office Department Cm912-85 1943u) shows the same configuration and crossing of NC 66,
and importantly notes no structures nearby.
Little changed in road configuration and mapping from the midcentury. The 1964 USGS quadrangle
(Hanging Rock) shows the subject road, NC 66, with the nearby garage or shop a short distance to the east.
A small number of environmental reviews for archaeology are recorded with the NC Office of State
Archaeology near the project (ER 03-0430, others). Several archaeological sites are identified nearby on
varying landforms and included 31 Sk102, 31 Skl03, 31 Skl60, 31 Sk 161 and 31 Skl76, though they are
some distance away from the APE.
No indication of a cemetery at the project location was suggested from USGS mapping, historic soils
mapping, aerials, or driveby. Further, a GIS-based inventory of cemeteries does not show the presence of
a cemetery.
There are no known archaeological sites present at the APE. Recent construction of a pond has diminished
probability of intact, significant archaeological sites. As a result of this review, we conclude that the
likelihood of encountering intact, NRHP-eligible resources are low based on the nature (replacement of
existing facility) and scale of undertaking within a largely disturbed context. The project should be
considered compliant with Section 106. No archaeological survey is recommended for this undertaking as
currently proposed.
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 construction of an existing road, NC 66, the 1930s bridge, and a new retaining pond has disturbed
much of the APE's archaeological integrity. While realignment or an onsite temporary detour is possible,
the scale of the bridge and creek is fairly small. Expectations of impacts to any intact, significant
archaeological sites is low. Therefore, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant
with Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Y
LOGIST
❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
2/23/2018
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
S
F�
5�101 y a
h
SR 1481
S,
SI11189 SR1a$Z `•
SR 1175 N,P
�.�1
CO
ON
41,
�� . �•, -. 'ism`'" �t//�
o�t@i�lCcco-_ida��Ay t(�,`Q, �2c3ai ufvil9L $1,�4�
� SR.20e�o-.y-Q�i-�C�i9�' c�l'i�tGCCa'��Fff�Gfi'i�i3�,r �rtti:•` � �!� 1.
Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 17-05-0062, proposed Bridge No.15 replacement on NC 66 over Vade Mecum. The APE is overlaid on
an excerpt of USGS mapping (Hanging Rock) and shown in yellow, circled black.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of4

Project Tracking No.:
-]17-05-0062
Figure 2. Aerial map of the PA 17-05-0062 Bridge No.15 project area. The APE is shown in yellow. Contour lines, shown at 2-
ft intervals, show the terrain. This APE covers several possible designs. Note the pond southeast of the bridge.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 4