The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190210 Ver 2_AR16-08-0010noeligiblesites_20201113 Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 1 of 37 16-08-0010 NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR 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: A-0011 County: Clay WBS No: 32574.1 Document: CE F.A. No: ADP-16-1 Funding: State Federal Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP and TVA Project Description: This project represents three proposed alternatives (4-lane divided, 5-lane undivided, or a combination of 4 and 5 lane divided/undivided) for the widening of NC 69 in Clay County (TIP A-0011). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project includes all three alternatives and is defined as an approximately 3.7 mile (5.95 km) long corridor running from just north of US 64 (Hayesville Bypass) south to the North Carolina-Georgia state line. The APE also includes several extensions for intersection improvements along adjacent streets that range in length from 200 to 450 feet (60.96 to 137.16 m) from their intersection with NC 69. The corridor width along NC 69 varies, but is at least 120 feet (36.58 m) wide extending at least 60 feet (18.29 m) from either side of the proposed center line. The width increases up to 350 feet (106.68 m) in places due to cut/fill and bump outs for turning. The side street corridors are usually smaller at 80 to 100 feet (24.38 to 30.48 m) wide, extending 40 to 50 feet (12.19 to 15.24 m) from the center of the various roads. In all, the APE encompasses approximately 80 acres (32.37 hectares). 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 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project’s area of potential effects. No subsurface archaeological investigations are 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. There are no National Register Eligible or Listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed) Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 2 of 37 16-08-0010 Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted an archaeological survey and evaluation for improvements to NC 69 in Clay County. The fieldwork was carried out from December 7 to 29, 2016 and was directed by Michael Nelson, with the assistance of field technicians Rachael Denton, Melissa Emery, and Josh Stanley. During the course of the survey, seven previously unidentified cultural resources were identified within the project APE, including two sites (31CY396 and 31CY397) and five isolated finds (31CY398–31CY402). Additionally, two other unassessed sites located outside of the APE were recorded; a relocated boulder with petroglyphs (31CY403) located approximately 10 m east of the APE and the possible original location (31CY404) of that stone, approximately 1.7 km east of the APE at the edge of Lake Chatuge. Three of the identified resources (31CY397, 31CY401, and 31CY402) are within the boundaries of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible properties, the McClure Farm (CY 28, site 31CY397) and the Cherry Farm (CY 27, finds 31CY401 and 31CY402). The archaeological deposits identified at these locations do not appear to contribute to the significance of the overall resources and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP under all four NRHP criteria. Similarly, the remaining resources within the APE (31CY396, 31CY398, 31CY399, and 31CY400) are recommended not eligible under all four NRHP criteria. While the NRHP eligibility of sites 31CY403 and 31CY404 remain unassessed, both resources are outside the project APE and will not be impacted by the project. I concur with TRC recommendation. No further archaeological investigations are required for this project as currently defined. In the event that the APE changes, additional survey and/or site evaluation may be necessary. In addition, steps should be taken to ensure that the petroglyph boulder at site 31CY403 is protected from disturbance if cut and fill lines should shift to impact this archaeological features. Discussions with archaeologist at NC DOT, OSA, and other agencies will be required to mitigate this resource. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence Other: Cultural Review Signed 1/30/17 C. Damon Jones Date NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 3 of 37 16-08-0010 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: TRC has completed an intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for the proposed widening of NC 69 in Clay County, North Carolina (Figure 1). As specified by the NCDOT, the survey corridor (Area of Potential Effects [APE] for archaeology) is defined as a 3.7-mile (5.95-km) long corridor extending from the North Carolina-Georgia state line northward to just past US 64. The APE corridor varies from 120 feet (36.58 m) to 350 feet (106.68 m) in width, the wider areas for planned cut/fill and/or pullouts. Also included within the APE are intersection improvements with side streets that are 80 to 100 feet (24.38 to 30.48 m) wide. In total, the APE encompasses approximately 80 acres (32.37 hectares). During the course of the survey, seven previously unidentified cultural resources were identified within the project APE (Figures 2–6; Table 1), including two sites (31CY396 and 31CY397) and five isolated finds (31CY398–31CY402). Additionally, two other unassessed sites located outside of the APE were recorded; those are a relocated boulder with petroglyphs (31CY403) located approximately 10 m east of the APE and the possible original location (31CY404) of that stone, located approximately 1.7 km east of the APE at the edge of Lake Chatuge. Three of the identified resources (31CY397, 31CY401, and 31CY402) are within the boundaries of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible properties, the McClure Farm (CY 28, site 31CY397) and the Cherry Farm (CY 27, finds 31CY401 and 31CY402). The archaeological deposits identified at these locations do not appear to contribute to the significance of the overall resources and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Similarly, the remaining resources within the APE (31CY396, 31CY398, 31CY399, and 31CY400) are recommended not eligible under all four NRHP criteria. Finally, while the NRHP eligibility of sites 31CY403 and 31CY404 remain unassessed, both resources are outside the project APE and will not be impacted by the project. Consequently, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for this project as currently defined. If the APE altered, however, additional survey and/or site evaluation may be necessary. Background Research Previously Identified Archaeological Sites and Surveys. A map review and site files search was conducted by Hannah Smith of TRC at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh on November 3, 2016, and supplemented a previous NCDOT review. In addition, a Georgia Archaeological Site File search was conducted on January 3, 2017. Thirty-five sites are located within a mile radius of the project area: 26 sites (31CY1, 31CY3, 31CY6, 31CY45–31CY47, 31CY76, 31CY77, 31CY80, 31CY84– 31CY89, 31CY107, 31CY112, 31CY151, 31CY152, 31CY154, 31CY170, 31CY173–31CY176, and 31CY291) in Clay County, North Carolina, and nine sites (9TO63, 9TO131–9TO136, 9TO175, and 9TO212) in Towns County, Georgia (Table 2). Sites 31CY1 (mound) and 31CY3 (village), are part of the Historic Cherokee town of Spikebuck, and sites 31CY45 and 31CY46 likely represent continuations of that site; these sites have been revisited multiple times for compliance or research projects (e.g. Brown and Rogers 1999; Morse and Morse 2016; Padgett 1991). Spikebuck Mound and Village (31CY1 and 31CY3) are NRHP listed (31CY1) or eligible (31CY3), and although sites 31CY45 and 31CY46 are unassessed, they are likely eligible for the NRHP as well. Most other nearby North Carolina sites were recorded by the UNC-Chapel Hill Cherokee project (31CY6 and 31CY47) Western Carolina University’s Upper Hiwassee River Survey (31CY76, 31CY77, 31CY80, and 31CY84–31CY89) (Dorwin 1975), shoreline surveys (31CY170 and 31CY173–31CY176) (Joseph et al. 1999), NCDOT surveys (31CY112) (Padgett 1981; 1991), or for utility projects (31CY107) Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 37 16-08-0010 (Eblen 1977) or developments (31CY151) (Thomas and Russo 1990). Site 31CY152 was recorded by an amateur, while a site form for 31CY154 could not be located. Those sites are either considered unassessed or not eligible for the NRHP. Finally, site 31CY291 is the remnants of the Unicoi Turnpike between Hayesville, North Carolina and Tellico Plains, Tennessee and is recommended eligible for the NRHP due to its association with the Trail of Tears (Riggs and Greene 2006). Most of the nine sites in Georgia were recorded during a survey of Lake Chatuge (9TO131–9TO136 and 9TO175) (Adams and Messick 1999), while site 9TO63 was recorded by the Tennessee Valley Authority and site 9TO212 was recorded during a survey for a proposed industrial park (Keith 2002). Most of those sites have been recommended not eligible for the NRHP, although 9TO136 is considered unassessed (Adams and Messick 1999). An archaeological survey of SR 515 in Towns County, Georgia, the continuation of NC 69 south of the state line, found no archaeological resources and disturbed and eroded soils within that corridor (Hamby et al. 2002). No previously recorded sites are located within the project APE, and just one site, 31CY112, is located adjacent to the APE (Table 2). Site 31CY112 was a non-diagnostic lithic surface scatter located in the floodplain just north of Blair Creek on the east side of NC 69. It was recorded during a previous investigation by NCDOT for TIP A-0011 in 1981 and was recommended not eligible for the NRHP (Padgett 1981). That area has since been developed and the site has likely been destroyed. The 1981 TIP A-0011 survey was limited in scope and focused largely on the area around NC 69’s intersection with US 64. Subsurface testing was limited to only two areas, including a fairly flat area located along Hyatt Mill and Coleman Creeks south of Swaims Road (SR 1141) and a second small area east of NC 69 along Blair Creek. Site 31CY112 was identified along Blair Creek (Padgett 1981). In addition to the 1981 survey, a second version of the NC 69 corridor was surveyed in 2004 by New South Associates. That survey identified no archaeological sites, and no further work was recommended due to the eroded and disturbed soils along the corridor (Hayden et al. 2004). Besides those projects, a recent inventory of sites associated with the Trail of Tears in southwestern North Carolina (Riggs and Greene 2006) examined the locations of Fort Hembree and the Unicoi Turnpike (31CY291) in Hayesville. Fort Hembree was established in 1837 and served as the collection point for Cherokees in the Upper Hiwassee River Valley. Prisoners detained at Fort Hembree were marched along the Unicoi Turnpike west to other forts. The fort was abandoned in mid-1838 (Riggs and Greene 2006:27). As seen on the 1838 U.S. Army map, both Fort Hembree and Spikebuck Town House are shown along the Unicoi Turnpike, north of the current project area (Figure 7). Riggs and Green (2006:66) further state that evidence of the Unicoi Turnpike east of Fort Hembree has either been destroyed or is obscured by residential and commercial development until it crosses Blair Creek to the south. While the current project corridor also crosses Blair Creek, it appears that the Unicoi Turnpike crossed it farther east of NC 69. No evidence of the Unicoi turnpike was observed within the project corridor or in the immediate vicinity of the NC 69 and US 64 intersection. Previously Identified Historic Architectural Resources. A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) online data base (HPOWEB 2016) identified three properties (CY 27 [Cherry Farm], CY 28 [McClure Farm], and CY 29 [Orville Lee Hill Farm]) that have been determined eligible for the NRHP and are near the current APE (Figures 2, 4, and 5). These properties were initially identified and evaluated in 2005, and were reevaluated in 2016 (Husband 2016). As a result of the reevaluation, it was determined that the Cherry Farm (CY 27) and the McClure Farm (CY 28) remain eligible for the NRHP. However, the Orville Lee Hill Farm (CY 29), which was located outside of the Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 5 of 37 16-08-0010 current APE along the east side of McDonald Road, no longer exists and therefore no longer eligible for the NRHP. The Cherry Farm (CY 27), located at the northern end of the NC 69 corridor on the south side of Cherry Road (SR 1118), is a late 19th to 20th century farmstead (Figure 5). It is comprised of a main residence and four outbuildings, all south and west of the current APE. According to the recent reevaluation, one shed is no longer standing at the Cherry Farm, but the farm retains its eligibility (Husband 2016). Two isolated finds (31CY400 and 31CY401) recorded along the shoulder of Cherry Road during the recent TRC survey are likely associated with the late 19th to 20th century occupation of Cherry Farm (see below). The McClure Farm (CY 28) is located near the middle of the project corridor, east of NC 69 and south of Cline McClure Road. The McClure Farm consists of a number of buildings associated with a 20th century agricultural complex. Since the original historic architectural survey in 2005, the original ca. 1920 main house and two sheds have been destroyed. A 1967 brick ranch house and large dairy barns and other associated buildings remain and convey enough integrity for the McClure Farm to remain eligible for the NRHP (Husband 2016). None of the buildings are or were located within the current NC 69 project corridor. However, site 31CY397, located south of Cline McClure Road is likely associated with the original farmhouse. The still standing chimney is located approximately 15 m south of the APE. Historic Map Review. Topographic maps and other historic period maps were examined for information on previous structure locations or on natural or cultural variables that might have affected site locations. The earliest map depicting cultural detail in the Clay County area is an 1837–1838 U.S. Army survey map produced prior to the forced removal of the Cherokee Indians from western North Carolina (Figure 7). That map depicts Fort Hembree (Hembrie) along the Unicoi Turnpike (the forerunner of US 64 through the area) near the northern end of the survey area, along with multiple Cherokee homestead locations; the Spike Buck Town House is also shown to the west of Fort Hembree. A trail (Unaka Road) running southwest from Fort Hembree west of the Hiwassee River appears to be situated east of the present-day NC 69 corridor and may correspond to an earlier route of Myers Chapel Road (State Highway 287); no cultural information appears to be provided for the NC 69 corridor itself. The earliest USGS topographic maps of the area date to 1892 (USGS 1892a, 1892b) and show no detail in the project area. However, the subsequent 1906 Nantahala and 1903 Dahlonega maps depict a road following the general configuration as NC 69, crossing both Blair Creek and Hyatt Mill Creek (Figure 8) (USGS 1903, 1906). While the 1906 Nantahala quadrangle does not depict any structures along the road (and shows very few structures in general), the 1903 Dahlonega quadrangle depicts a structure along the west side of the road in the southern part of the project area, across from McClure Drive (SR 1144) at the head of a small unnamed drainage. The 1935 soil survey map for Clay County shows a configuration of NC 69 that has more curves and is many places is located slightly farther east than the current roadway. This map depicts eight structures within or adjacent to the APE, including structures associated with sites 31CY396 and 31CY397 (McClure Farm) (Figure 9) (Perkins 1935). The 1935 Hayesville and Hiawassee USGS quadrangles show the same configuration of NC 69, but a slightly different group of structures; at least nine structures are shown within or adjacent to the current APE, including those associated with sites 31CY396 and 31CY397, as well as additional structures near the APE (Figure 10) (USGS 1935a and 1935b). Additionally, a structure likely belonging to the Cherry Farm complex (CY 27) is depicted west of the NC 69 project corridor. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 6 of 37 16-08-0010 The 1938 Hayesville and 1942 Hiawassee USGS quadrangles also show the earlier configuration of NC 69, albeit with more structures depicted along the road (USGS 1938, 1942). The 1942 Hiawassee quadrangle is the first to show the newly constructed Chatuge Lake. The 1966 versions of both the Hayesville and Hiawassee quadrangle maps show the current, “smoother” alignment of NC 69 as well as a number of structures, both residential and commercial, within and along the current APE (USGS 1966a and 1966b). These maps also depict the likely barn structure associated with the Cherry Farm (31CY401), two structures in the approximate location as 31CY396, as well as numerous structures associated with the McClure Farm (31CY397) (Figure 11). On the 1938 North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC) Clay County map, a road following the earlier incarnation of NC 69 is shown but not labeled, with a number of structures along both the east and west sides of the road (Figure 12) (NCSHPWC 1938). Both the 1953 and 1962 updated versions of the same map depicts no structures along the road, which closely aligns with the current NC 69 configuration (NCSHPWC 1953 and 1963). On-line soils data show 15 soil types within the project area, including Arkaqua loam, 0–2% slopes (ArA); Dillard loam, 1–6% slopes (DrB); Evard-Cowee complex, 2–8% slopes (EvB), 8–15% slopes (EvC), 15–30% slopes (EvD) and 30–50% slopes (EvE); Fannin-Urban land complex, 2–15% slopes (FmC); Hayesville loam, 8–15% slopes (HaC) and clay loam, 2–8% slopes (HbB2), 8–15% slopes (HbC2), and 15–30% slopes (HbD2); Reddies loam, 0–3% slopes, (RhA); Tate loam, 2–8% slopes (ThB) and 8–15% slopes (ThC); and Udorthents loamy (UD). The well drained soils include Evard-Cowee, Fannin-Urban, Hayesville, Tate and Udorthents. The Dillard and Reddies soils are moderately well drained, while Arkaqua soils are somewhat poorly drained. Dillard soils are rarely flooded, while Arkaqua and Reddies soils are frequently flooded. Hayesville clay loams are classified as eroded. Most of the soil types (EvB, EvC, EvD, Eve, HaC, HbB2, HbC2, and HbD2) recorded within the APE are found on ridges and mountain slopes, while just two (ArA and RhA) are found along floodplains. The remaining soil types are found along stream terraces (DrB) and fans and coves (ThB and ThC) or are fill/spoil deposits (FmC and UD) (NRCS 2016). Fieldwork Results The archaeological field survey included shovel testing at 15-m intervals along two transects within the APE, one on either side of the existing road, as well as visual inspection and walkover of the entire APE. Supplemental shovel tests also were excavated across small landforms along side streets when warranted. No shovel testing occurred in areas with impervious surfaces, standing water, hydric soils, visible and severe ground disturbance, or 15% or greater slope. A total of 372 shovel tests (including delineation tests) were excavated (see Figures 2–6) during the course of the survey. When a site was encountered, additional shovel tests were excavated in a cruciform pattern at 7.5-m intervals that maximized coverage of the sites within the APE. The shovel tests measured 30 cm in diameter and were excavated to subsoil or bedrock or a minimum depth of 75 cm below surface (cmbs). All soils that were not obvious fill were dry-screened through ¼- inch mesh. Standard techniques were used to describe each shovel test in terms of depth, stratigraphy, and artifact recovery. The APE is situated west of Chatuge Lake and runs primarily north-south through residential and commercial properties, mixed with open pastures and some wooded areas (Figures 13 and 14). Several portions of the APE were not suitable for shovel testing due to steep slope, hydric soils, impervious surfaces, and disturbed/developed areas. Much of the area alongside the highway has been modified from Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 7 of 37 16-08-0010 residential and commercial development, including paved or graveled driveways or parking areas, cut roadside banks, and areas of obvious fill (Figures 15–18). During the course of the survey, seven new archaeological resources were recorded, including three prehistoric isolated finds (31CY398–31CY400), two historic period isolated finds, (31CY401 and 31CY402), and two historic period sites (31CY396 and 31CY397) (Table 1). Isolated middle to late 20th century historic/modern materials also were noted, but discarded after field delineation. In addition, a carved sandstone boulder was noted within a raised flower bed in a residential yard, approximately 10 m east of the APE boundary. This petroglyph boulder and the possible original location of the boulder were also given site numbers (31CY403 and 31CY404) and are briefly discussed below. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 8 of 37 16-08-0010 31CY396 (FS1) Component: Historic: early to late 20th century Site Dimensions: 25 m N-S  35 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242242 N3877920 Landform: Hill Elevation: ca. 2,030 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Hayesville clay loam, 2–8% slope, (HbB2) Recommendation: Not Eligible Site 31CY396 is a 20th century historic period site defined by five positive shovel tests around a small wooden shed. It is located on the east side of NC 69 on a low hill overlooking NC 69 and Barnard Road (SR 1143) (Figure 4). The site is bounded by negative shovel tests and the edge of the landform to the north and west, by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the east, and by negative shovel tests and the APE boundary to the south (Figure 19). It is possible that the site extends south outside of the project APE to the south. Soils across the site typically consisted of a 12–20-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clay loam A horizon over strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay loam to clay. Soils along the western edge of the site contained little to no topsoil, reaching subsoil within 5 cm and indicating the area was at least partially altered, most likely during the construction of and/or improvements to NC 69. In total, 12 shovel tests were excavated across the site, five of which produced a total of 32 artifacts (Table 3). All artifacts were found in the A horizon. Modern pieces of plastic were also found in a few shovel tests and were discarded. Most of the artifacts are architectural group (n=15) items, and include nine wire nails/nail fragments, one cut nail, and five pieces of window glass. Kitchen group artifacts (n=12) include five unidentified glass container fragments (four colorless and one amber), four undecorated whiteware sherds, one complete opaque white glass jar lid linear, a mostly complete zinc jar lid, and a rim fragment of a glass tumbler. The remaining five artifacts include two horseshoes, two unidentifiable metal fragments (a flat fragment and a rod-like piece), and three pieces of a single large mammal bone fragment that exhibits cut marks. Diagnostic artifacts include the cut nail (ca. 1805– 1900s), wire nails (ca. 1886 to present), whiteware (ca. 1820 to present), and the glass lid liner (1870 to ca. 1940s). The artifact assemblage is consistent with a late 19th through 20th century residential occupation. A structure is shown at this approximate location on the 1935, 1937, and 1938 Hayesville USGS quadrangle maps (Figure 10) (USGS 1935a, 1935b, 1937, 1938), and the 1966 Hayesville USGS map shows two buildings at the approximate location (Figure 11) (USGS 1966a, 1966b). It is not possible to tell if the earlier structure represents a residential structure or the existing shed, or if the more recent second structure represents the shed. However, the existing shed in the middle of the site appears to be a more recent construct, likely from the mid- to late 20th century (Figure 20). Site 31CY396 likely represents the remains of an early to late 20th century farm complex; a small shed located within the APE likely dates to the mid- to late 20th century. Artifacts collected from five shovel tests are representative of a late 19th to 20th century residence. Historic maps indicate at least one structure was present at this location as early as 1935 and by the mid-1960s two structures were present. Given the ubiquity of this site type, as well as the disturbed nature of the western edge of the site and the limited artifact recovery within the APE, site 31CY396, as defined within the APE, appears to lack the potential to yield further information about the 19th to 20th century occupation of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. The site also appears to lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY396 for the current project as designed. In the event that the APE boundaries Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 9 of 37 16-08-0010 change in this area, however, additional survey and site evaluation may be needed to further investigate this resource. 31CY397 (FS2) Component: Historic: early to mid-20th century Site Dimensions: 25 m N-S  35 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242188 N3877712 Landform: Ridge slope Elevation: ca. 1,975 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Hayesville clay loam, 2–8% slope, (HbB2) Recommendation: Not Eligible Site 31CY397 represents the archaeological remains of a portion of the McClure Farm (CY 28) and extends across the northern end of a horse pasture at the base of a sloped road bank (Figure 3). The site is bounded by negative shovel tests and Cline McClure Road (SR 1144) to the north and east, the edge of the landform to the west, and the APE boundary to the south (Figure 21). No buildings associated with the McClure Farm are located within the current APE; however, the chimney (Figure 22) of the original residence is located approximately 15 m south of the APE boundary. The site certainly extends outside the APE to the south to include the chimney and to the east to include the majority of the farm buildings. The McClure Farm (CY 28) was determined eligible for the NRHP as an example of a 20th century agricultural complex in 2005 when the original ca. 1920 farmhouse and two sheds were still standing; a recent reevaluation confirmed that the property is still eligible (Husband 2016). In addition to the original farmhouse, the complex included a large cattle barn, a 1967 brick ranch house, dairy barns, and numerous sheds, all of which are located well outside the current NC 69 APE. Soils encountered at the site varied across the small landform, suggesting some level of disturbance. Shovel tests along the southern edge of the site contained 16–24 cm of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy clay to sandy loam atop yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay loam to clay to depths of 45–53 cmbs. Soils at the northern end of the site consist of 20–54 cm of strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy loam Ap horizon over yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy loam to sand to depths of 45–65 cmbs at which point roots were often encountered. One shovel test (ST 353) contained a thin root mat of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam atop the strong brown plowzone and yielded artifacts from both Strata I and II. All other artifacts were recovered from the Ap horizon (plowzone) only to depths of up to 54 cmbs. In total, 16 shovel tests were excavated across the site, eight of which produced a total of 26 artifacts (Table 4). The artifact assemblage is typical of an early to mid-20th century residence and includes 13 architectural artifacts, 12 artifacts belonging to the kitchen group, and one artifact from the activities group. The assemblage contains eight fragments of unidentified container glass (six colorless, one aqua, and one amethyst tint), one rim of a bottle (colorless), six fragments of window glass, three wire nail fragments, two complete wire nails, one unidentified nail fragment, one washer, two undecorated green alkaline glazed stoneware sherds, one undecorated whiteware sherd, and one brick fragment that appears to be glazed. The artifacts date from the early to mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. The green alkaline glazed stoneware dates from 1815 to the 1940s, while the whiteware has a date range of 1820 to the present. Wire nails were in widespread use by 1885, and safety glass was introduced in ca. 1915. The amethyst tinted glass dates from 1880 to the 1920s. The 1935, 1937, and 1938 Hayesville USGS quadrangle maps and the 1935 Clay County soil map all show a residential structure in the approximate location as site 31CY397, although it was then located on the west side of NC 69 (Figures 9 and 10). The 1966 Hayesville USGS map shows a structure on the east Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 10 of 37 16-08-0010 side of the current NC 69 configuration as well as other buildings associated with the McClure Farm complex (Figure 11). Site 31CY397 represents early to mid-20th century archaeological deposits associated with the McClure Farm (CY 28), an early to mid-20th century farm complex that has been determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. The original ca. 1920 farmhouse is no longer standing, but its chimney is approximately 15 m south of the current APE, and related archaeological deposits likely continue south and east to encompass much if not all of the previously identified NRHP boundary. While the McClure Farm complex as a whole is considered eligible for the NRHP (Husband 2016), the archaeological site associated with the farm as defined within the current APE does not appear to contribute to the property’s significance. Given the disturbed nature of the site, the low artifact density and type of materials recovered, and the limited nature of the landform within the APE, it is highly unlikely that additional investigations within the APE would yield additional information about the 19th to 20th century occupation of the area. Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY396 for the current project. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site evaluation may be needed to further investigate this resource. 31CY398 (IF1) Component: Prehistoric: non-diagnostic lithic Site Dimensions: 5 m N-S × 5 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242258 N3876542 Landform: Side slope Elevation: ca. 2,027 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Evard-Cowee, complex 8–15% slope, (EvC) Recommendation: Not Eligible Find 31CY398 is a prehistoric period isolated find represented by a small chert flake recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (Figure 3) (Table 5). The isolated find is located along the east side of NC 69, north of Myers Chapel Road (SR 1140) along the edge of an open field. A total of six delineating shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals in cardinal directions. The site boundaries are defined by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the north and south, a negative shovel test and the APE boundary to the east, and a negative shovel test and the edge of the landform to the west. Soils consisted of a 15-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy loam Ap horizon over yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam to clay to depths of up to 50 cmbs. It is highly likely given the shape of the landform that the site extends east outside the existing APE. However, due to the low artifact density and lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, 31CY398 as currently defined appears to lack the potential to yield further information about the prehistory of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. The find also appears to lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY398 for the current project. 31CY399 (IF2) Component: Prehistoric: non-diagnostic lithic Site Dimensions: 5 m N-S  5 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242090 N3877081 Landform: First terrace Elevation: ca. 1,955 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Tate loam, 2–8% slope, (ThB) Recommendation: Not Eligible Find 31CY399 is an isolated find of a single small chert flake recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (Figure 3) (Table 6). The isolated find is located along the west side of NC 69, north of Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 11 of 37 16-08-0010 Matheson Cove Road (SR 1116) along the edge of an open field. A total of seven delineating shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals in cardinal directions. The site boundaries are defined by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the north, south, and west. No shovel tests were excavated to the east due to the proximity of the roadside ditch and shoulder. Soils consisted of a 26-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy clay loam Ap horizon atop a 22-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam to clay to depths of up to 48 cmbs. It is possible given the shape of the landform that the site extends west outside the existing APE. However, due to the low artifact density and lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, 31CY399 as currently defined appears to lack the potential to yield further information about the prehistory of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the find also appears to lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY399 for the current project. 31CY400 (IF3) Component: Prehistoric: non-diagnostic lithic Site Dimensions: 5 m N-S  5 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242628 N3880485 Landform: Side slope Elevation: ca. 1,873 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Fannin-Urban land complex, 2–15% slope, (FmC) Recommendation: Not Eligible Find 31CY400 is a prehistoric period isolated find represented by a single quartzite flake recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (Figure 6) (Table 7). The find is located along the west side of NC 69 just south of the US highway 64 intersection, at the edge of a lightly wooded knoll. Due to the narrow nature of the APE in this area, four delineation shovel tests were excavated to the north and south at 7.5-m intervals. Shovel tests were not excavated to the west due to the APE boundary or the east due to the edge of the landform. Soils consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam root mat, approximately eight cm thick, atop a seven cm thick plowzone (Ap horizon) of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam. This was underlain by yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay loam to clay to depths of up to 35 cmbs. The single flake was recovered from the upper part of the root mat. Due to low artifact density, limited testable area, and disturbed nature of the landform within the project area, 31CY400 as defined within the APE lacks the potential to yield further information about the prehistory of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. The find also appears to lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY400 for the current project. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site evaluation may be needed to further investigate this resource. 31CY401 (IF4) Component: Historic: early to mid-20th century Site Dimensions: 5 m N-S  5 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E241863 N3879357 Landform: First terrace Elevation: ca. 1,879 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Evard-Cowee complex, 15–30% slope, (EvD) Recommendation: Not Eligible Find 31CY401 is a historic period isolated find represented by a single corroded cut nail recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (Figure 5) (Table 8). The find is situated along the south side of Cherry Road (SR 1118) at the edge of a terrace along the edge of a manicured lawn, just west of an existing barn. The barn is one of the many extant outbuildings associated with the NRHP-eligible Cherry Farm (CY 27). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 12 of 37 16-08-0010 Find 31CY401 is located at the western edge of the APE along Cherry Road. Due to the limited space within the APE, only three delineation shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals. Two consecutive negative shovel tests were excavated to the northeast and one was excavated to the southwest. No shovel tests were excavated to the west due to the sloped road side bank or to the east due to the APE boundary. It is likely that site 31CY401 continues outside the APE around the outbuildings. Soils consisted of a 15-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam Ap horizon over strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy clay to clay to depths of up to 48 cmbs. While the Cherry Farm as a whole is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C (Husband 2016), the archaeological find represented by 31CY401 does not appear to contribute to the property’s significance, as it is unlikely that further work at this location would yield additional information about the 19th to 20th century occupation of the area (Criterion D). Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY401 for the current project. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site evaluation may be needed to further investigate this resource. 31CY402 (IF5) Component: Historic: early to mid-20th century Site Dimensions: 5 m N-S  5 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E241943 N3879396 Landform: First terrace Elevation: ca. 1,883 ft. AMSL Soil Type: Udorthents, loamy Recommendation: Not Eligible Find 31CY402 is a historic period isolated find represented by one piece of glass and one small stoneware sherd, possibly Albany slipped, recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (Figure 5) (Table 9). The isolated find is located along the south side of Cherry Road (SR 1118) in the roadside ditch on the edge of a manicured yard and within the boundaries of the NRHP-eligible Cherry Farm (CY 27). Due to the limited space within the APE along the landform, just three delineation shovel tests were excavated at a 7.5-m interval to the northeast and southwest. Shovel tests were not excavated to the west due to the sloped road side bank or to the east due to the APE boundary. Soils in the area are classified as fill/disturbed (Udorthents). The soils encountered in shovel tests did not appear to be fill, and consisted of a 16-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) sandy clay loam Ap horizon atop dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam that became more clayey with depth. While the Cherry Farm as a whole is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C (Husband 2016), the archaeological find represented by 31CY402 does not appear to contribute to the property’s significance, as it is unlikely that further work at this location would yield additional information about the 19th to 20th century occupation of the area (Criterion D). Consequently, no additional work is recommended at 31CY402 for the current project. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site evaluation may be needed to further investigate this resource. 31CY403 (Chatuge Rock) Component: Prehistoric: unknown Site Dimensions: 2 m N-S  2 m E-W UTMS (NAD 83): E242189 N3875882 Landform: First terrace Elevation: ca. 2,030 ft. AMSL Soil Type: N/A Recommendation: Unassessed Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 13 of 37 16-08-0010 Site 31CY403 is a large sandstone boulder with petroglyphs situated in the front yard of Janice McClure’s property, along the east side of NC 69 at the southern end of the project corridor (Figure 2). The boulder is engraved with numerous carvings, including circles and lines (Figure 23), and is within a raised flower bed located approximately 20 ft from the eastern edge of the APE. The boulder was recorded as “Chatuge Rock” by both Scott Ashcraft and David Moore (1998) and Lori Hansen (2009) in their summaries of rock art in western North Carolina. Moore and Ashcraft (1998) describe the sandstone boulder as 1.7 m in diameter and deeply incised with lobed and segmented circular forms connected by grooved lines; its age and cultural affiliation have not been determined According to Mrs. McClure, the stone was moved from its original location sometime in the early 1970s by her husband and father-in-law as they cleared land along Chatuge Lake for development. Based on conversations with Mrs. McClure and her son, Barry McClure, the possible original location (31CY404) of the stone was speculated to be the last undeveloped lot along Chatuge Lake at McClure Estates (Figure 1). This location is tenuous at best as both individuals involved with the original discovery and relocation of the stone are deceased. The remaining family members believe the stone was moved from this location, but it is possible that the stone may have been moved at least once previously from an earlier location along the housing development prior to being situated to its present location. The NRHP eligibility of 31CY403 is considered unassessed; while the boulder has been removed from its original context, it is possible that it might still be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, C, or D. While further contextual research would be necessary to evaluate this resource, it is situated outside the project APE and will not be impacted by the project. In the event that construction plans change and there is potential to affect this resource, additional steps should be taken to ensure that it is protected from disturbance. The likely original location of the boulder has been recorded as site 31CY404, and a site form for that location has been provided to the Office of State Archaeology. Site 31CY404 is located approximately 1.7 km outside the APE and will not be affected by the NC 69 project. Summary and Recommendations The intensive archeological survey and evaluation for the improvements to NC 69 (TIP A-0011) identified seven new archaeological resources within the project APE, including two sites (31CY396 and 31CY397) and five isolated finds (31CY398–31CY402). Additionally, two other sites located adjacent to or near the APE were also recorded, including a displaced petroglyph boulder (31CY403) and its possible original location (31CY404). Three of the identified resources (31CY397, 31CY401, and 31CY402) are within the boundaries of NRHP-eligible properties, the McClure Farm (CY 28, site 31CY397) and the Cherry Farm (CY 27, finds 31CY401 and 31CY402). The archaeological deposits identified at these locations do not appear to contribute to the significance of the overall resources, and the archaeological resources are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Similarly, the remaining resources within the APE (31CY396, 31CY398, 31CY399, and 31CY400) are recommended not eligible under all four NRHP criteria. While the NRHP eligibility of sites 31CY403 and 31CY404 remains unassessed, both resources are outside the Project APE and will not be impacted by the project. Consequently, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for this project as currently defined. In the event that the APE changes, additional survey and/or site evaluation may be necessary. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 14 of 37 16-08-0010 Sincerely, Michael Nelson Archaeologist, Asheville TRC Environmental Corporation REFERENCES CITED Adams, N., and D. Messick 1999 Archaeological Survey of the Chatuge Reservoir Shoreline Management Zone and 603 Acres of Public Lands, Towns County, Georgia, and Clay County, North Carolina. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville. Ashcraft, A.S., and D.G. Moore 1998 Native American Rock Art in Western North Carolina. In Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Western North Carolina, edited by D.G. Moore and A.S. Ashcraft, Proceedings of the North Carolina Archaeological Society Conference, pp. 59–88. Cherokee, North Carolina. Brady, Ellen M., Susan Bamann, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 1999 Archaeological Investigation of the affected portion of site 31CY85, US 64 improvement project, Clay County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, North Carolina. Brown, Jane L., and Anne F. Rogers 1999 Archaeological Investigations for Light Pole Placement at Veterans Recreation Park, Clay County, North Carolina. Archaeology Laboratory, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. Dorwin, John (with contributions from Robert N. Tiger, III and E. Marian Bistline) 1975 Upper Hiwassee River Survey 1974–1975. Archaeology Laboratory, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. Eblen, Martha, J. 1977 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance: Hayesville-Clay County 201 Facilities Plan. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. Hansen, Lorie 2009 Rock Art in North Carolina. U.S. Forest Service. Hamby, Theresa M., Natalie Adams, and Denise Messick 2002 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Improvements to SR 515, Towns County, Georgia. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to Burns & McDonnell, Atlanta. Hayden, Michael J., Theresa M. Hamby, Natalie Adams, and Mary Beth Reed 2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Improvements to SR 69, Clay County, North Carolina. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to TDS, Inc., Atlanta. HPOWEB 2016 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Electronic document, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed December, 2016. Husband, Kate (North Carolina Department of Transportation, Historic Architecture Group) 2016 A-0011: Widen NC 69 from Georgia State Line to US 64 (Hayesville Bypass), McClure Farm (CY0028) Evaluation, WBS No. 32574.1.1, ER 05-2490, Clay County. Letter dated October 26, 2016, to Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. Joseph, J.W., Natalie P. Adams, and Denise Messick 2002 Archaeological Survey of the Chatuge Reservoir Shoreline Management Zone and 603 Acres of Public Lands, Towns County, Georgia, and Clay County, North Carolina. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 15 of 37 16-08-0010 Keith, Grace F. 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Industrial Park, Towns County, Georgia, and Clay County, North Carolina. Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., Ellerslie, Georgia. Submitted to Towns County Commissioner’s Office, Hiwassee, Georgia. Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse 2016 The Spike Buck Site (31CY1): Archaeology of the Cherokee Town of Quannassee, 1580–1724. Borgo Publishing, Tuscaloosa, Alabama National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2016 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December, 2016. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC) 1938 Map of Clay County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Electronic document, http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/463/rec/5. Accessed January, 2017. 1953 Map of Clay County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Available online at http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/7760/rec/7. Accessed January, 2017 1963 Map of Clay County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Available online at http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/6384/rec/9. Accessed January, 2017 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2016 Archaeological Survey Required Form, Project 16-08-0010 (TIP A-0011). . Padgett, Thomas J. 1981 Archaeological Study US 64-NC 69, from Georgia State Line to NC 175, Clay County. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh. 1991 Re-Evaluation of Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of Bridge 6 over the Hiwassee River, Highway US 64, Clay County. North Carolina. Department of Transportation, Raleigh. 1999 Archaeological Testing and Re-Evaluation at Site 31CY85, Clay County. North Carolina, US 64 Improvements. Department of Transportation, Raleigh. Perkins, S.O. 1935 Soil Survey of Clay County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/322. Riggs, Brett, and Lance Greene 2006 The Cherokee Trail of Tears in North Carolina: An Inventory of Trail Resources in Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, and Swain Counties. University of North Carolina, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill. Submitted to the National Park Service, Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Thomas, Brian W., and Paul A. Russo 1990 An Archaeological Survey of a Residential Construction Site in Hayesville, Clay County, North Carolina. Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston Salem, North Carolina. Submitted to Weaver Investment Company, Greensboro, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1892a Dahlonega, GA., topographic map (1:125,000). 1892b Nantahala, NC, topographic map (1:125,000). 1903 Dahlonega, GA., topographic map (1:125,000). 1906 Nantahala, NC, topographic map (1:125,000). 1935a Hayesville, NC, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1935b Hiawassee, NC, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1937 Hayesville, NC. NC, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1938 Hayesville, NC. NC, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1942 Hayesville, NC. NC, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1966a Hayesville, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). 1966b Hiawassee, G.A., N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 16 of 37 16-08-0010 Table 1. Archaeological Sites Identified during the NC 69 Survey. Shovel Tests Artifacts Site # Component(s) Total* Preh. Hist. Lithic Ceramic Historic Total Recommendation 31CY396 19th to 20th Century 16 0 5 0 0 32 32 Not Eligible 31CY397 19th to 20th Century 16 0 8 0 0 26 26 Not Eligible 31CY398 Unknown Prehistoric 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 Not Eligible 31CY399 Unknown Prehistoric 8 1 0 1 0 0 1 Not Eligible 31CY400 Unknown Prehistoric 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 Not Eligible 31CY401 19th to 20th Century 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 Not Eligible 31CY402 19th to 20th Century 4 0 1 0 0 2 2 Not Eligible 31CY403 Unknown Prehistoric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unassessed 31CY404 Unknown Prehistoric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unassessed * Includes all shovel tests within 15 m of positive tests Table 2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within one mile of NC 69 Project Area. Site Number Resource Type Component NRHP Eligibility Reference 31CY1 Site Archaic to Qualla; Spikebuck Mound Listed on NRHP Brown and Rogers 1999 31CY3 Site Archaic to Qualla; Spikebuck Village Eligible Site Form 31CY6 Site Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Site Form 1963 31CY45 Site Prehistoric (Continuation of Spikebuck Site) Unassessed Site Form 1964 31CY46 Site Prehistoric (Continuation of Spikebuck Site) Unassessed Site Form 1964 31CY47 Site Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Site Form 1964 31CY76 Site Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY77 Site Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY80 Site Middle Archaic Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY84 Site Middle Archaic; Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY85 Site Woodland, Mississippian, Qualla Not Eligible Padgett 1999; Brady et al. 1999 31CY86 Site Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY87 Site Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY88 Site Middle/Late Archaic; Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY89 Site Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975 31CY107 Site Middle/Late Woodland Unassessed Eblen 1977 31CY112 Site Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Padgett 1981 31CY151 Site Middle/Late Archaic Not Eligible Thomas and Russo 1990 31CY152 Site Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Unassessed Site Form 1990 31CY154 Unknown ? Site Form? 31CY170 Site Qualla; 19th-early 20th century house site Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 31CY173 Isolated Find Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 31CY174 Site Middle Archaic; Early/Late Woodland; 20th century farmstead Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 31CY175 Site Late 19th-early 20th century farmstead Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 31CY176 Isolated Find Early Woodland Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 31CY291 Site Historic; Unicoi Turnpike Eligible Riggs and Greene 2006 9TO63 Site Middle/Late Archaic; mid-late 19th-20th century house Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO131 Isolated Find Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO132 Isolated Find Prehistoric Lithic/Ceramic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO133 Site Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO134 Site Early/Late Archaic, Late Woodland, Mississippian, Qualla Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO135 Isolated Find Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO136 Isolated Find Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO175 Site Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999 9TO212 Site Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Keith 2002 Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 17 of 37 16-08-0010 Table 3. Site 31CY396 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Glass Unidentified container, amber 1 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Glass Window glass, aqua 1 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Ceramic Whiteware, undecorated 1 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Metal Nail, wire 4 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Metal Nail, cut 1 6 ST 285 I 0–32 Metal Unidentified flat fragment 1 7 ST 289 I 0–23 Glass Drinking glass rim fragment 1 7 ST 289 I 0–23 Ceramic Whiteware, undecorated 1 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Ceramic Whiteware, undecorated 1 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Glass Glass jar lid liner 1 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Glass Unidentified container, possible bowl/plate base 1 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Glass Unidentified container, one possible panel bottle 3 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Glass Window glass 4 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Metal Nail, wire 3 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Metal Horseshoe 2 8 ST 291 I 0–16 Metal Container, jar lid (3 piece refit) 1 9 ST 294 I 0–33 Ceramic Whiteware, undecorated rim 1 9 ST 294 I 0–33 Metal Nail, wire 1 9 ST 294 I 0–33 Metal Unidentified, possible rod fragment 1 9 ST 294 I 0–33 Faunal Large mammal bone (3 fragments of single bone) 1 10 ST 295 I 0–26 Metal Nail, wire 1 Total 32 Table 4. Site 31CY397 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 11 ST 341 I 0–16 Metal Wire nail 1 11 ST 341 I 0–16 Ceramic Green alkaline glazed stoneware rim 1 12 ST 345 I 0–10 Glass Unidentified container fragment (1 amethyst) 2 13 ST 346 I 0–51 Glass Window glass 1 14 ST 347 I 0–54 Glass Window glass 3 14 ST 347 I 0–12 Metal Wire nail 2 15 ST 348 I 0–20 Glass Unidentified container fragment 1 16 ST 350 I 0–33 Glass Bottle rim, colorless 1 16 ST 350 I 0–33 Glass Window glass 1 17 ST 353 I/II 0–24 Glass Unidentified container, colorless 1 17 ST 353 I/II 0–24 Ceramic Brick fragment, appears to be glazed 1 17 ST 353 I/II 0–24 Metal Wire nail 2 17 ST 353 I/II 0–24 Metal Washer 1 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Metal Nail, unidentified 1 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Ceramic Whiteware rim, undecorated 1 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Ceramic Green alkaline glazed stoneware rim 1 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Glass Unidentified container, colorless (1 may be tumbler fragment) 3 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Glass Window 1 18 ST 356 I 0–50 Glass Unidentified container, aqua 1 Total 26 Table 5. Site 31CY398 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 2 ST 64 I 0–15 Debitage Chert 1 Total 1 Table 6. Site 31CY399 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 3 ST 139 I 10–26 Debitage Chert 1 Total 1 Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 18 of 37 16-08-0010 Table 7. Site 31CY400 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 5 ST 226 I 0–8 Debitage Quartzite 1 Total 1 Table 8. Site 31CY401 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 19 ST 360 I 10–58 Metal Nail, cut 1 Total 1 Table 9. Site 31CY402 Artifact Inventory. Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty. 20 ST 367 I 0–16 Ceramic Possibly stoneware, with Albany slip 1 20 ST 367 I 0–16 Glass Unidentified container, green 1 Total 2 Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 19 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 1. Location of identified cultural resources along NC 69 (TIP A-0011) corridor. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 20 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 2. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the NC 69 corridor (1 of 5). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 21 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 3. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the NC 69 corridor (2 of 5). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 22 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 4. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the NC 69 corridor (3 of 5). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 23 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 5. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the NC 69 corridor (4 of 5). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 24 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 6. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the NC 69 corridor (5 of 5). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 25 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 7. Portion of the US 1837–1838 U.S. Army map showing project vicnity. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 26 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 8. Portions of 1906 Nantahala and 1903 Dahlonega topographic quadrangles showing project area. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 27 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 9. Portion of 1935 Clay County soil map showing project area. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 28 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 10. Portions of 1935 Hayesville and Hiawasee topographic quadrangles showing project area. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 29 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 11. Portions of 1966 Hayesville and Hiawasee topographic quadrangles showing project area. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 30 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 12. Portion of 1938 NC State Highway and Public Works Commission map showing project area. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 31 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 13. Pasture east of NC 69 in middle section of APE, facing northwest. Figure 14. Lightly wooded area west of NC 69 at northern end of APE, facing northeast. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 32 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 15. Altered drainage and development along the west side of NC 69, facing north. Figure 16. Cut road bank along west side of NC 69, facing northwest. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 33 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 17. Developed area across from Myers Chapel Road along west side of NC 69, facing north. Figure 18. Recently constructed utilities within the east side of the NC 69 project area, facing north. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 34 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 19. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY396. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 35 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 20. Shed at the center of 31CY396, facing east. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 36 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 21. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY397. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 37 of 37 16-08-0010 Figure 22. Overview of 31CY397, with chimney of original house (outside of APE), rest of McClure Farm complex in background, facing southeast. Figure 23. Sandstone boulder, site 31CY403 (Chatuge Rock), view to west.