HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190210 Ver 2_AR16-08-0010noeligiblesites_addendum_20201113Project 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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: A-0011 ADDENDUM 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 is an addendum to PA 16-08-0010 for TIP A-0011, which was previously examined in 2016
(Nelson 2017). The TIP A-0011 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 original (2016) archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project
included all three alternatives and was 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.
That APE also included several extensions for intersection improvements along adjacent streets that
ranged 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 varied but was 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 increased up to 350 feet (106.68 m) in
places due to cut/fill and bump outs for turning. In all, the original APE encompassed approximately 80
acres (32.37 hectares).
The 2019 Addendum APE added an additional 47.33 acres (19.15 hectares) to the previously defined
APE. These supplemental areas are located adjacent to the east and west boundaries of the previously
surveyed APE. Also included are additional extensions for intersection improvements along adjacent
streets (including areas along either side of NC 64), measuring up to approximately 950 feet (290 m)
from their intersection with NC 69.
This project is federally funded and will require federal permits. As a result, this archaeological review
was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed
the subject project and determined:
There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as
needed)
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.
RECOMMENDATION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted supplemental archaeological survey and evaluation for
improvements to NC 69 in Clay County (TIP A-0011). The fieldwork was carried out from September 16
to 23, 2019 and was directed by Kelsey Schmitz and Michael Nelson, with the assistance of field
technicians Chandra Wilson, Belinda Cox, and Emily Nisch. This work was a supplement to an earlier
survey conducted by TRC in 2016 (Nelson 2017) and examined an expanded project APE. The fieldwork
required approximately 25 person-days. The archaeological survey and evaluation were designed to
locate and identify cultural resources within the defined APE and to obtain sufficient information to make
recommendations regarding their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP).
The addendum fieldwork identified two new precontact archaeological sites (31CY454 and 31CY456),
one new site with both precontact and historic material (31CY455), and expanded the boundaries of two
previously known precontact sites (31CY399 and 31CY400), which were recorded during the 2016
investigations. The investigated portions of all five sites are recommended not eligible for the NRHP
under all four NRHP criteria (a–d). However, sites 31CY399, 31CY400, 31CY455, and 31CY456 may
extend outside of the currently defined APE. The uninvestigated portions of these sites outside of the
APE remain unassessed for the NRHP. If the APE changes, additional surveys of new locations and/or
site evaluation of the uninvestigated section for known sites will be necessary. No further archaeological
investigations are recommended for this project as currently defined. I concur with the results of this
investigation.
The previous “National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present” form
for A-0011 dated January 30, 2017 is still valid.
Please note, this project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Nation, Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the
Muscogee Creek Nation have expressed an interest. It is recommended that you contact each federal
agency involved with this project to determine their Section 106 Tribal consultation requirements.
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Other: Cultural Review
Signed
1/22/20
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.
4 of 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
TRC has completed additional archaeological survey and evaluation for the proposed widening of NC 69
in Clay County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This work is an addendum to PA 16-08-0010 for TIP A-0011,
which was previously examined in 2016 (Nelson 2017). The addendum survey examined an additional
47.33 acres (19.15 hectares) located adjacent to the east and west boundaries of the previously surveyed
APE. Also included are additional extensions for intersection improvements along adjacent streets,
including areas along either side of NC 64.
The addendum fieldwork identified three new archaeological sites (31CY454, 31CY455, and 31CY456)
and expanded the boundaries of two sites (31CY399 and 31CY400) identified during the earlier work
(Figures 2a–2g; Table 1). As expressed within the project APE, all five sites are recommended not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under all four NRHP criteria, but sites
31CY399, 31CY400, 31CY455, and 31CY456 may extend outside of the defined project limits. Any
uninvestigated potions of sites outside of the APE have not been evaluated. No further archaeological
investigations are recommended for the project as currently defined, but additional survey and/or site
evaluation will be necessary if the APE expands.
Table 1. Archaeological Sites Identified during the Supplemental NC 69 Survey.
Shovel Tests Artifacts
Site # Component(s) Total* Prec. Hist. Lith. Cer. Hist. Total Recommendation**
31CY399
Revisit
Precontact: Late
Woodland/
Mississippian/
Qualla phase
11 2 0 2 0 0 2 Not Eligible
31CY400
Revisit
Precontact: Non-
Diagnostic Lithic
10 2 0 2 0 0 2 Not Eligible
31CY454 Precontact: Non-
Diagnostic Lithic
6 1 0 1 0 0 1 Not Eligible
31CY455 Precontact: Non-
Diagnostic Lithic;
Historic: 19th to mid-
20th century
6 1 2 1 0 3 4 Not Eligible
31CY456 Precontact: Non-
Diagnostic Lithic
14 6 0 8 0 0 8 Not Eligible
* Includes all shovel tests within 15 m of positive tests
** Recommendation applies only to portion of site in APE
Background Research
Previously Identified Archaeological Sites and Surveys. A map review and site files search were
conducted by TRC at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh and supplemented a previous
NCDOT review. In addition, a Georgia Archaeological Site File search was conducted in 2017. Forty-
four sites are located within a mile radius of the project area: 35 sites (31CY1, 31CY3, 31CY6, 31CY45–
31CY47, 31CY76, 31CY77, 31CY80, 31CY84–31CY89, 31CY107, 31CY112, 31CY151, 31CY152,
31CY154, 31CY170, 31CY173–31CY176, 31CY291, and 31CY396–31CY404) in Clay County, North
Carolina, and nine sites (9TO63, 9TO131–9TO136, 9TO175, and 9TO212) in Towns County, Georgia
(Table 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.
5 of 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
Table 2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within one mile of NC 69 Project Area.
Site
Number Component(s) NRHP
Eligibility Reference
31CY1 Archaic to Qualla; Spikebuck Mound Listed on NRHP Brown and Rogers 1999
31CY3 Archaic to Qualla; Spikebuck Village Eligible Site Form
31CY6 Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Site Form 1963
31CY45 Prehistoric (Continuation of Spikebuck Site) Unassessed Site Form 1964
31CY46 Prehistoric (Continuation of Spikebuck Site) Unassessed Site Form 1964
31CY47 Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Site Form 1964
31CY76 Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY77 Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY80 Middle Archaic Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY84 Middle Archaic; Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY85 Woodland, Mississippian, Qualla Not Eligible Padgett 1999; Brady et al.
1999
31CY86 Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY87 Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY88 Middle/Late Archaic; Qualla Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY89 Prehistoric (Unknown Component) Unassessed Dorwin et al. 1975
31CY107 Middle/Late Woodland Unassessed Eblen 1977
31CY112 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Padgett 1981
31CY151 Middle/Late Archaic Not Eligible Thomas and Russo 1990
31CY152 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Unassessed Site Form 1990
31CY154 Unknown ? Site Form?
31CY170 Qualla; 19th-early 20th century house site Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
31CY173 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
31CY174 Middle Archaic; Early/Late Woodland; 20th century
farmstead Not Eligible
Adams and Messick 1999
31CY175 Late 19th-early 20th century farmstead Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
31CY176 Early Woodland Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
31CY291 Historic; Unicoi Turnpike Eligible Riggs and Greene 2006
31CY396 19th to 20th Century Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY397 19th to 20th Century Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY398 Unknown Prehistoric Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY399 Unknown Prehistoric Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY400 Unknown Prehistoric Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY401 19th to 20th Century Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY402 19th to 20th Century Not Eligible Nelson 2017
31CY403 Unknown Prehistoric Unassessed Nelson 2017
31CY404 Unknown Prehistoric Unassessed Nelson 2017
9TO63 Middle/Late Archaic; mid-late 19th-20th century house Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO131 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO132 Prehistoric Lithic/Ceramic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO133 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic) Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO134 Early/Late Archaic, Late Woodland, Mississippian, Qualla Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO135 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO136 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO175 Prehistoric Lithic (Non-diagnostic)Not Eligible Adams and Messick 1999
9TO212 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.
6 of 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
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), earlier NCDOT surveys (31CY112) (Padgett 1981, 1991), or for utility (31CY107)
(Eblen 1977) or development projects (31CY151) (Thomas and Russo 1990); nine sites were recorded by
the earlier TIP A-0011 survey (Nelson 2017). Site 31CY152 was recorded by an amateur, while a site
form for 31CY154 could not be located. 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 disturbed and eroded soils within that corridor and no
archaeological resources (Hamby et al. 2002).
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 as a non-diagnostic lithic surface scatter
located in the floodplain just north of Blair Creek on the east side of NC 69 and adjacent to the current
project APE (see Table 2). This site was recommended not eligible for the NRHP (Padgett 1981). That
area has since been developed, and the site has likely been destroyed.
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).
The 2016 survey of the A-0011 corridor recorded nine sites. These included three precontact isolated
finds (31CY398‒31CY400), two historic period isolated finds (31CY401 and 31CY402), and two historic
period sites (31CY396 and 31CY397). (Note that the use of the term “isolated find” has been
discontinued since completion of that report.) Additionally, two other sites located adjacent to or near the
APE were recorded, including a displaced petroglyph boulder (31CY403) and its possible original
location (31CY404). These sites were unassessed due to their location outside of the project APE. Three
of the identified resources were located within the boundaries of NRHP eligible McClure Farm
(31CY397) and the Cherry Farm (31CY401 and 31CY402), but the archaeological deposits identified did
not appear to contribute to the significance of the overall resources and were recommended not eligible
for the NRHP. The remaining sites located within the project APE (31CY396, 31CY398, 31CY399, and
31CY400) were recommended not eligible under all four NRHP criteria (Nelson 2017).
Besides those projects, an 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
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
Cherokees in the Upper Hiwassee River Valley. Prisoners detained at Fort Hembree were marched west
along the Unicoi Turnpike 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 3). 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 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 2020) identified three properties (CY26 [Orville
Lee Hill Farm], CY27 [Cherry Farm], and CY28 [McClure Farm]) that have been determined eligible for
the NRHP and are near the current APE (see Figures 1, 2a, 2c, and 2e). 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 (CY27) and the McClure Farm (CY28) remain
eligible for the NRHP. However, the primary historic structures on the Orville Lee Hill Farm (CY26),
which were located outside of the current APE along the east side of McDonald Road (Figure 2a), no
longer exist and therefore the property is no longer eligible for the NRHP.
The Cherry Farm (CY27), 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 (see Figure 2e). 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 2016 TRC survey are likely associated with the late 19th to 20th century occupation of
Cherry Farm (see below).
The McClure Farm (CY28) is located near the middle of the project corridor, east of NC 69 and south of
Cline McClure Road (see Figure 2c). 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, however, 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 3).
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 and 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.
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
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 Blair and Hyatt Mill creeks (Figure 4) (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 in
many places is located slightly farther east than the current roadway. This map depicts at least eight
structures within or adjacent to the combined NC 69 APEs, including structures associated with sites
31CY396 and 31CY397 (McClure Farm) (Figure 5) (Perkins 1935). However, this map lacks the
precision to identify structures associated specifically with the addendum APE. The 1935 Hayesville and
Hiawassee USGS quadrangles show the same configuration of NC 69, but a slightly different group of
structures; at least 14 structures are shown within or adjacent to the combined NC 69 APEs, including
those associated with sites 31CY396 and 31CY397 as well as a cemetery adjacent to the northern end of
the APE (Figure 6) (USGS 1935a and 1935b). This cemetery is still active and is associated with the
First United Methodist Church. Additionally, a structure likely associated with the Cherry Farm complex
(CY 27) is depicted west of the NC 69 project corridor.
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 7).
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 8) (NCSHPWC 1938). Both the 1953
and 1962 updated versions of the same map depict no structures along the road, which closely aligns with
the current NC 69 configuration (NCSHPWC 1953 and 1963).
On-line soils data show 16 soil types within the combined NC 69 APEs, 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 fine sandy loam, 8‒15% slopes
(FaC); 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, 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, FaC, 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 2019).
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field survey included shovel testing at 15-m intervals along appropriately spaced
transects within the APE, as well as visual inspection and walkover of the entire APE. Supplemental
shovel tests also were excavated across smaller 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 284 shovel tests (including delineation tests) were
excavated (see Figures 2a–2g) during the course of the addendum 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 9‒14). 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 for
residential and commercial development, including paved or graveled driveways or parking areas, cut
roadside banks, and areas of obvious fill.
During the course of the survey, three new archaeological resources were recorded, including two
precontact sites (31CY454 and 31CY456) and one multi-component precontact and historic period site
(31CY455) (see Table 1). Additionally, the boundaries of two sites (31CY399 and 31CY400) previously
identified from early investigations were expanded.
31CY399 (Revisit)
Component: Precontact: Late Woodland/Mississippian/Qualla phase
Site Dimensions: 20 m N-S 30 m E-W
UTMS (NAD 27): E242604 N3876870
Landform: First terrace
Elevation: ca. 1,955 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Tate loam, 2–8% slope, (ThB)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31CY399 is located along the west side of NC 69, north of Matheson Cove Road (SR
1116) along the edge of an open field (see Figures 1 and 2c; Figure 15 and 16). The site was first
identified in 2016 based on the recovery of a single chert flake from the Ap horizon of ST 139 (Nelson
2017). Four additional shovel tests were excavated at 31CY399 during the supplemental investigations,
bringing the site total to 11. The addendum archaeological investigations resulted in the expansion of the
site boundary to the west (see Figure 15). This expanded boundary includes a single positive shovel test
(ST 587) containing a small, fragmented Late Woodland/Mississippian/Qualla phase triangular chert
projectile point (Table 3).
Table 3. Site 31CY399 Revisit Artifact Inventory.
Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty.
26 ST 587 I 0–13 Triangular PPK Chert 1
Total 1
Project Tracking No.:
16-08-0010
Addendum
The revised site boundaries are defined by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the north, by one
negative shovel test and the proximity of a drainage system to the south, by the proximity of the roadside
ditch and shoulder to the east, and by the APE boundary to the west. Soils consisted of a 13‒20-cm thick
compact brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam Ap horizon atop a very compact strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy
clay to depths of up to 42 cmbs (Figure 17). It is possible given the shape of the landform that the site
extends west outside the existing APE.
This single recovered artifact is a small, fragmented Late Woodland/Mississippian triangular chert
projectile point (Figure 18).
Recommendations. Due to the low artifact density and lack of indication of intact deposits, 31CY399 as
currently defined continues 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 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 31CY399 for the project. However, the site may expand to the west, outside of the
current APE. This uninvestigated area remains unassessed. In the event that the APE boundaries change
in this location, additional survey and site evaluation will be needed to further investigate this resource.
31CY400 (Revisit)
Component: Precontact: non-diagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 10 m N-S 25 m E-W
UTMS (NAD 27): E242604 N3880280
Landform: Side slope
Elevation: ca. 1,873 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Fannin-Urban land complex, 2–15% slope, (FmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31CY400 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 (see Figures 1 and 2g; Figures 19 and 20), and was
identified in 2016 based on the recovery of a single quartzite flake from the Ap horizon of ST 226
(Nelson 2017). Six additional shovel tests were excavated at 31CY400 during the supplemental
investigations, resulting in the expansion of the site boundaries to the west. The expanded boundaries
include a single positive shovel test (ST 384) containing one small piece of quartz debitage (Table 4).
Soils consisted of a 10‒30-cm thick light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam atop a yellowish red
(5YR 5/6) clay loam to clay to depths of up to 40 cmbs (Figure 21). In some shovel tests a 2‒10-cm thick
Ao horizon was observed.
Table 4. Site 31CY400 Revisit Artifact Inventory.
Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty.
21 ST 384 I 0–20 Debitage Quartz 1
Total 1
Recommendations. Due to low artifact density, the limited testable area, and the disturbed nature of the
landform within the project area, 31CY400 as defined within the expanded APE continues 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 31CY400 for the current
project. However, the site may expand to the southwest, outside of the current APE. This uninvestigated
area remains unassessed. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and
site evaluation will be needed to further investigate this resource.
“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 45
Project Tracking No.:
16-08-0010
Addendum
31CY454
Component: Precontact: non-diagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 m N-S 10 m E-W
UTMS (NAD 27): E242063 N3877310
Landform: Second terrace
Elevation: ca. 1,940 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Tate loam, 2–8% slope, (ThB)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31CY454 is a low-density precontact site represented by a small quartzite flake
recovered from the Ap horizon of a single shovel test (ST 458) along the west side of NC 69, south of
Matheson Cove Road (SR 1116) along the edge of an open pasture (see Figures 1 and 2c; Figures 22 and
23). Six shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals; the site boundaries are defined by two
consecutive negative shovel tests to the north, south, and west, and by the proximity of the roadside ditch
and shoulder to the east. Soils consisted of a 23‒37-cm thick compact yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy
loam Ap horizon over a very compact strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam to depths of up to 47
cmbs (Figure 24). A single quartzite flake was recovered from one shovel test (ST 458) (Table 5).
Table 5. Site 31CY454 Artifact Inventory.
Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty.
22 ST 458 I 10–20 Debitage Quartzite 1
Total 1
Recommendation. Due to the low artifact density and lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, 31CY454
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 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 31CY454 for the current project.
31CY455
Component: Precontact: non-diagnostic lithic; Historic: mid-19th to mid-20th century
Site Dimensions: 30 m N-S × 10 m E-W
UTMS (NAD 27): E242150 N3876712
Landform: First terrace
Elevation: ca. 1,960 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Tate loam, 2–8% slope, (ThB)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31CY455 is a multi-component precontact and historic period site defined by two
positive shovel tests within a manicured lawn and open pasture situated along the east side of NC 69
across from Matheson Cove Road (SR 1116) and bisected by a residential driveway (see Figures 1 and
2b; Figures 25 and 26). The site boundaries are defined by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the
south and west, by the presence of an above-ground 20th century structure to the north, and by the APE
boundary to the east. It is possible that the site extends outside of the project APE to the east.
Shovel tests could not be excavated to the north of positive ST 585 due to the presence of an above-
ground structure, identified by the landowner as a spring house (Figure 27). The spring house measures
approximately 3.1 m × 1.9 m, oriented roughly east-west. According to the landowner, the spring house
has been on the property since the early 20th century and still provides water to the residents.
Soils across the site varied greatly and exhibited high levels of disturbance. Soils north of the residential
driveway consisted of a 60‒66-cm thick light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam over a light
“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 45
Project Tracking No.:
16-08-0010
Addendum
brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy clay to sand to depths of up to 75 cmbs. Both strata contained small
rocks and gravel inclusions. Soils south of the residential driveway consisted of a 10‒27-cm thick
compact brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam over a 10‒23-cm thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy
clay (Figure 28). Many of the shovel tests also contained a 20‒30-cm thick layer of mottled fill and
gravel between the two strata. The large amounts of fill and gravel observed throughout the site indicate
the area was at least partially altered, most likely during the construction of and/or improvements to NC
69 as well as the residential driveway that bisects the site.
Six shovel tests were excavated across the site, two of which produced a total of four artifacts. All
artifacts were found in the first stratum. The artifact assemblage consists of one piece of quartz debitage,
one unidentified colorless curved glass fragment, one unglazed historic period earthenware sherd, and one
salt glazed stoneware sherd (Figure 29) (Table 6). While the precontact artifact is non-diagnostic, the two
historic ceramic sherds suggest a date range between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.
Table 6. Site 31CY455 Artifact Inventory.
Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty.
23 ST 582 I 0–20 Ceramic Unglazed redware (2-piece refit) 1
24 ST 582 I 20–27 Debitage Quartz 1
24 ST 582 I 20–27 Glass Unidentified curved, colorless 1
25 ST 585 I 40–50 Ceramic Salt glazed stoneware 1
Total 4
Recommendation. Due to the low artifact density and lack of evidence of intact deposits, 31CY455 as
currently defined appears to lack the potential to yield further information about the prehistory or history
of the area. This site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, and also appears to
lack the characteristics that would make it eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. Consequently, no additional
work is recommended at 31CY455 for the current project. However, the site may expand to the east,
outside of the current APE. This uninvestigated area remains unassessed. In the event that the APE
boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site evaluation will be needed to further investigate
this resource.
31CY456
Component: Precontact: non-diagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 25 m N-S × 40 m E-W
UTMS (NAD 27): E242037 N3877188
Landform: First terrace
Elevation: ca. 1,930 ft. AMSL
Soil Type: Reddies loam, 0–2% slope, (RhA)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31CY456 is a low-density precontact site located in a manicured lawn at the
confluence of Coleman Creek and Hyatt Mill Creek, on the west side of NC 69 just north of American
Way (see Figures 1 and 2c; Figures 30 and 31). The site is bounded by Coleman Creek to the north, by
Hyatt Mill Creek and NC 69 to the east, by two consecutive negative shovel tests to the south, and by the
APE boundary to the west. It is possible that the site extends outside of the project APE to the west.
Fourteen shovel tests were excavated at 7.5-m intervals across the site, six of which produced a total of
eight artifacts (Table 7). Artifacts were found in all three identified strata, indicating site disturbance.
The artifact assemblage consists of eight small pieces of lithic debitage, including four chert, two
quartzite, one milky quartz, and one chalcedony.
“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 45
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
Soils across the site varied greatly (Figure 32). Some shovel tests consisted of a 17‒27-cm thick brown
(10YR 5/3) A horizon over a strong brown B horizon. Several shovel tests encountered hydric soils,
displaying an 18‒29-cm thick brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam A horizon over a 25-cm thick olive brown
(2.5Y 4/4) mottled sandy clay underlain by a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) hydric silty clay loam.
Charcoal flecking and rock inclusions were noted in the lower two strata, gravel inclusions were found in
the first stratum, and the water table was reached at 62 cmbs in one shovel test. Soils showed disturbance
throughout the site as indicated by the inconsistent stratigraphic distribution of artifacts and the fill-like
nature of several of the shovel tests. Disturbance was most likely a result of filling of low-lying areas.
Table 7. Site 31CY456 Artifact Inventory.
Bag Prov. Strat Depth Artifact Description Qty.
27 ST 597 III 44–62 Debitage Chert (possible jasper) 1
28 ST 601 II 12–28 Debitage Chert 1
29 ST 602 II 11–27 Debitage Quartzite 1
29 ST 602 II 11–27 Debitage Quartz 1
30 ST 603 I 0–20 Debitage Chert 1
31 ST 608 I 0–17 Debitage Chert 1
31 ST 608 I 0–17 Debitage Quartzite 1
32 ST 609 I 0–26 Debitage Chalcedony 1
Total 8
Recommendation. Due to the low artifact density, lack of indications of intact deposits, and lack of
temporally diagnostic artifacts, 31CY456 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 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 31CY456 for the current project.
However, the site may expand to the west, outside of the current APE. This uninvestigated area remains
unassessed. In the event that the APE boundaries change in this area, additional survey and site
evaluation will be needed to further investigate this resource.
Summary and Recommendations
The addendum archeological survey and evaluation for the improvements to NC 69 (TIP A-0011)
identified three new archaeological sites within the project APE (31CY454, 31CY455, and 31CY456) and
expanded the boundaries of two sites (31CY399 and 31CY400) identified during the previous
investigation.
Archaeological sites 31CY454, 31CY455, and 31CY456, as expressed within the defined APE, are
recommended not eligible for the NRHP under all four NRHP criteria. Additionally, sites 31CY399 and
31CY400 continue to be recommended not eligible for the NRHP despite their expansion as described.
No further archaeological investigations are recommended for this project as currently defined. However,
sites 31CY455, 31CY456, 31CY399, and 31CY400 may extend outside of the APE. In the event that the
APE changes, additional survey and/or site evaluation will be necessary in uninvestigated areas.
Sincerely,
Kelsey Schmitz
Archaeological Field Director, Asheville
TRC Environmental Corporation
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
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
2020 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Electronic document,
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed January, 2020.
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.
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)
2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey.
Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December, 2016.
Nelson, Michael
2017 No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present or Affected
Form, PA Project 16-09-0010 (TIP A-0011). TRC Environmental, Asheville, North Carolina. Submitted to
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
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 45
16-08-0010
Addendum
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 1a. Location of identified cultural resources along NC 69 (TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum) corridor (sheet 1 of 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.
17 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 1b. Location of identified cultural resources along NC 69 (TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum) corridor (sheet 2 of 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.
18 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2a. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 1 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2b. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 2 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2c. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 3 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2d. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 4 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2e. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 5 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2f. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 6 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 2g. Location of shovel tests and cultural resources along the TIP A-0011 and TIP A-0011
addendum corridors (sheet 7 of 7).
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 3. Portion of the US 1837–1838 U.S. Army map showing project vicnity.
Project Tracking No.:
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 4. Portions of 1906 Nantahala and 1903 Dahlonega topographic quadrangles showing the
approximate Project corridor and surrounding area.
“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 45
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 5. Portion of 1935 Clay County soil map showing the approximate Project corridor and
surrounding area.
Project Tracking No.:
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 6. Portions of 1935 Hayesville and Hiawasee topographic quadrangles showing the Project
corridor and surrounding area.
“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 45
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 7. Portions of 1966 Hayesville and Hiawasee topographic quadrangles the Project corridor and
surrounding 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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 8. Portion of 1938 NC State Highway and Public Works Commission map showing the Project
corridor and surrounding 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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 9. Cemetery at northern end of APE, facing south.
Figure 10. Residential area at northern end of APE, facing west.
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 11. Pasture east of NC 69 in middle section of APE, facing west.
Figure 12. 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.
33 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 13. Developed area across from Myers Chapel Road along west side of NC 69, facing north.
Figure 14. Area disturbed by landowner for vegetation removal, 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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 15. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY399.
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 16. Representative photograph of 31CY399, facing north.
Figure 17. Shovel test 587 profile at 31CY399.
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 18. Triangular projectile point from 31CY399. ST 587
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 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 19. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY400.
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.
38 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 20. Representative photograph of 31CY400, facing north.
Figure 21. Shovel test 384 profile at 31CY400.
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.
39 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 22. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY454.
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.
40 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 23. Representative photograph of 31CY454, facing south.
Figure 24. Shovel test 458 profile at 31CY454.
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.
41 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 25. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY455.
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.
42 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 26. Representative photograph of 31CY455, facing north.
Figure 27. Spring house adjacent to site 31CY455, facing west.
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.
43 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 28. Shovel test 582 profile at 31CY455.
Figure 29. Representative historic period artifacts from 31CY455. a: unglazed ceramic sherd, ST 582; b: salt
glazed stoneware sherd, ST 585.
a b
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.
44 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 30. Location of shovel tests and project APE at 31CY456.
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.
45 of 45
16-08-0010
addendum
Figure 31. Representative photograph of 31CY456, facing south.
Figure 32. Shovel test 601 profile at 31CY456.