20201784 Ver 1_Bridge #99 No Survey Archaeology_20201221

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 9
16-12-0011

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: Bridge No. 99 County: Orange
WBS No: 17BP.7.R.111 Document: Minimum Criteria
F.A. No: na Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP# 3 or 14

Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 99 on SR 1723 (New Hope Church Road) over New
Hope Creek in Orange County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is
defined as an approximate 600-foot (182.88 m) long corridor running roughly 300 feet (91.44 m)
northeast and 300 feet southwest along New Hope Church Road from center of Bridge No. 99. The
corridor is approximately 150 feet (45.72 m) wide extending 75 feet (22.86 m) on either side of the road
from its present center.

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 present
within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 9
16-12-0011
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 99 is located north of Chapel Hill and south of Hillsborough in the southern half of Orange
County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted at the southeastern edge of the Hillsborough USGS
7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).

A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on December
13, 2016. No previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the APE, but four sites
(31OR189, 31OR191, 31OR224, and 31OR299) are within a mile of bridge. According to the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2016), there are no known
historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
Topographic maps, USDA soil survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), historic maps (North
Carolina maps website), and Google Street View application were also examined for information on
environmental and cultural variables that may have contributed to prehistoric or historic settlement within
the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance. An archaeological survey was conducted
on January 31, 2017 to further assess the project area.

Bridge 99 and New Hope Church Road cross New Hope Creek from the northeast to southwest. New
Hope Creek drains east and south into Everett Jordon Lake. These waterways are part of the Cape Fear
drainage basin. The APE is situated along a small floodplain with gently sloping stream terraces at either
end (Figure 2). The area is mostly forested with one residential property in the southeast quadrant
(Figures 3–6). All other residential properties are open and outside of the APE to the southwest. The
forested property in the northeast quadrant contains a picnic pavilion with facilities, which has been used
by the Girl Scouts of Orange County in the past (Figures 7 and 8). Generally, ground disturbance is
minimal with exceptions in the southeast and southwest quadrants. The terraces in these areas are heavily
eroded from a lack of ground cover and yielded subsoil and gravel at the surface. The landform in the
southwest also appears to have been graded with the terrace sloping smoothly in the floodplain (see
Figure 6). Although soil erosion is heavy south of the road, a small intact potion of the terrace was
located in the southeast quadrant between the front yard of the residential property and the floodplain.
Other ground disturbance activities include buried utilities and the road being elevated on an earthen
embankment within the floodplain.

The review of the USDA soil survey map shows the APE composed of Chewacla loam (Ch), Tatum silt
loam (TaD), and Georgeville silt loam (GeB; GeC) (see Figure 2). The floodplain on either side of the
creek consists of the Chewacla series. This soil is nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. It is
unlikely for significant archaeological sites to be found on this series due to persistent wetness and as a
result did not require subsurface testing. The adjacent stream terraces are made up of Tatum soils
followed by Georgeville. Both are well drained with slope along Tatum soils at 6 to 10 percent and
Georgeville soils at less than 10 percent. Soil erosion is reported in the soil survey as light to moderate.
Based upon these characteristic, subsurface testing was deemed necessary since the soils and landforms
appeared well suited for early settlement activities. However, soil erosion south of New Hope Church
Road was discovered during the investigation to be more severe than expected.

The site file at OSA identified a limited number of archaeological investigations in the nearby area. The
largest was an investigation for I-40 corridor along selective high probability landforms. This consisted
of a surface inspection of open fields with a small number of subsurface test pits. The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill has also carried out some testing on known historic sites in the region as
well. In all, a total of four archaeological sites (31OR189, 31OR191, 31OR224, and 31OR299) have
been previously recorded within a mile of Bridge 99. Sites 31OR191 and 31OR299 are historic
residential house sites that date to the 19th century, while sites 31OR189 and 31OR224 have yielded
prehistoric material. Although all the sites are reported along ridges, three (31OR189, 31OR191, and
31OR224) are situated on the Georgeville soil series. This supported the idea that the Georgeville series
might yield archaeological sites if disturbance was minimal.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 9
16-12-0011

A historic map review was also conducted prior to the field investigation. Most maps of Orange County
prior to the 20th century provide few details illustrating just major routes and settlements. The earliest
map in which an approximate location for the project area could be determined is on George Tate and
T.W. Moore’s 1891 Map of Orange County (Figure 9). This map shows no road or features in the
vicinity of the current crossing. However, it is not likely all roads and households are illustrated on this
map. The 1918 Soil Map for Orange County provides a much clearer picture with a road similar to New
Hope Church Road and a bridge at or near the current crossing (Figure 4). All other structures are well
outside the APE. Subsequent historic map display no further useful information and suggest that no
significant historic features within the project limits.

The archaeological field investigation at Bridge No. 99 included the excavation of five shovel test
placements (STPs) and a surface inspection (see Figure 2). Two STPs each were placed on the stream
terrace in the northeast (STPs 1 and 2) and northwest (STPs 4 and 5) quadrants. An additional STP (3)
was also excavated in the southeast quadrant in an area that appeared to have minimal disturbance. No
STPs were plotted in areas were soil erosion was obvious with subsoil at the surface but, these areas were
visually inspectional since patches of bare earth were present. No artifacts were observed. Soil
stratigraphy is fairly consistent except at STP 1. The typical upper soil layer is a dark yellowish brown
(10YR 3/6) or strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) loam that is approximate 15 to 20 cm (ca. 6 to 8 in) thick. This
is a plowzone mix of the original surface layer and subsoil. The second layer is yellowish red (5YR 5/8)
clay subsoil. The exception at STP 1 yields a 5 cm (ca. 2 in) thick upper layer of very dark grayish brown
(10YR 3/2) loam followed by yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) gravelly sandy clay loam. This appears to be
an area of fill. No cultural resources were identified in any of the STPs.

The archaeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 99 failed to record any
archaeological resources within the APE. The results of the survey and the presence of eroded soil
suggest it is unlikely for any significant sites to be effect by the project. No further archaeological work
is required for replacement of Bridge No. 99 in Orange County. However, additional work might be
required should design plans change to encompass property outside of the currently defined APE.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Signed:

2/3/17
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 9
16-12-0011
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, 2013 National Geographic Society, icubed
topographic map.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 9
16-12-0011
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development, landforms, soils, and STPs within and
near the project area.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 9
16-12-0011
Figure 3. General View of the terrace in the northeast quadrant looking southwest.

Figure 4. General View of the terrace and front yard in the southeast quadrant looking southwest.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 9
16-12-0011
Figure 5. General View of eroded and possibly graded terrace in the southwest quadrant looking
northeast.

Figure 6. General View of the terrace in the northwest quadrant looking northeast.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 9
16-12-0011

Figure 7. View of the picnic pavilion and facilities in the northeast quadrant looking northwest.

Figure 8. Plaque acknowledging the pavilion as a gift to the Girl Scouts.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 9
16-12-0011
Figure 9. The 1891 George Tate and T.W. Moore’s Map of Orange County showing the location of the
project area.

Figure 10. The 1918 Soil Map for Orange County showing the location of the project area.