Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201576 Ver 2_Macon County - B79 - Archaeology_20210108 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 11 18-01-0002 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 79 County: Macon WBS No: 17BP.14.R.211 Document: Minimum Creteria F.A. No: na Funding: State Federal Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: Possible NWP# 3 and/or 14 Project Description: The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 79 on SR 1359 (Tellico Road) over the Tellico Creek in Macon County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as a 1,000 foot (304.80 m) long corridor running 500 feet (152.40 m) north and south along Tellico Road from the center of Bridge No. 79. The corridor is approximately 200 feet (60.96 m) wide extending 100 feet (30.48 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 11 18-01-0002 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: NC DOT has conducted an archaeological investigation for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 79 in Macon County, North Carolina. The project area is located northwest of Franklin and plotted in the southern eastern corner of the Wesser USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). Background Research A map review and site files search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on January 23, 2018. No previously recorded archaeological sites are identified within or adjacent to the APE, but 11 sites (31MA160, 31MA294, 31MA348, 31MA349, 31MA352, 31MA669, 31MA680, 31MA681, 31MA682, 31MA761, and 31MA762) are within a mile. Most previous archaeological investigations in the region have been carried out for the US Forest Service (Benson 2006; Webb 1999). This work has been conducted at higher elevations on ridge tops and finger ridges. Work within the valleys has been limited to a transmission line survey (Southerlin et al. 1991), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s 1964 Cherokee Archaeological Project, and a reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations properties (Riggs 1988). All have a prehistoric or Historic Cherokee (31MA761 and 31MA762) component with 31MA669 also yielding a 19th and/or 20th century stone wall. None of the nearby known sites are recommended as eligible for the National Register, but four (31MA160, 31MA669, 31MA761, and 31MA762) have yet to be fully assessed. It is very likely that a number of unrecorded sites are in the region due to a lack of investigations on lower landforms. According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2018), the project area is within the Tellico Valley Rural Historic District (MA 593), which has been determined eligible for the National Register under Criteria A, C, and D. However, the current investigation could not find any contributing archaeological resources within the project limits that would contribute to the district’s eligibility. Several county and regional maps were inspected as well during the background review. It was expected that the earliest map to depict the project area would be the 1837–1838 US Army survey map produced under the guidance of Major W.G. Williams in preparation for the removal of the Cherokee Indians. However, the Tellico Creek valley is omitted, and the stream is only identified as being “6 to 8 miles long.” The much later 1906 USGS Nantahala topographic map is one of the first to show a road following of the current road alignment with a crossing at or near the current bridge (Figure 2). In addition, no structures are illustrated within or near the project area. The circa 1910 US Post Office map is the next to be examined (Figure 3). It shows a similar road alignment and crossing with a house just to the southwest. The remains of a house site, which includes a rebuilt chimney and outbuildings, were identified just outside the APE at this location (Figure 4). It is not expected that the Bridge No. 79 replacement project will affect this historic site. As a result, the possible site was not investigated any further, and an archaeological site number was not acquired. The subsequent 1933 Soil Map for Macon County depicts no major changes in the vicinity of the project (Figure 5). From this review, it is not likely for any significant historic features to be encountered. According to the USDA soil survey map for Macon County, the APE is made up of mostly of Dellwood gravelly fine sandy loam (DgB) (Figure 6) (Thomas 1996). This is a moderately well drained soil found in floodplains that is subject to frequent flooding. Although it is depicted as covering a wide area, it is actually much narrower with steep side slopes immediately adjacent to the road and creek. These soils are the neighboring Soco-Stecoah complex (SoE) to the east and the Brasstown-Junaluska complex (BsD) to the west. These are both well drained with a slope in excess of 15 percent. These two soil types are not typically tested, since slope is greater than 15 percent. However, the landforms were inspected for rock shelters. 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 11 18-01-0002 Fieldwork Results The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey was carried out on January 30, 2018. This included judgmental shovel testing and a surface inspection. No shovel testing occurred in areas with steep slope of 15 percent or more, obvious disturbance such as fill or grading, on water logged (hydric) soils, or along impervious surfaces such a pavement or at existing structures. Two shovel tests (STs) were excavated: one within the APE and another just outside (see Figure 6). Due to the limited level surface area, the second ST in the south was placed on the nearest bench to the APE (Figure 7). Both STs were negative for cultural material, and the surface inspection failed to identify any archaeological resources. The proposed project area is situated north to south (see Figure 6). The area is mostly forested with the creek running adjacent to the road. Tellico Creek flows to the northeast and is a tributary to the Little Tennessee River. The few residential properties are in the northwest portion of the project area with some open spaces surrounding the structures. The landforms adjacent to the creek and road consist of steep hillside slopes and a very narrow floodplain/bench of recently deposited alluvial soil (Figures 8 and 9). The floodplain widens west of Tellico Creek at the northwestern end of the APE and just outside the APE to the south. The hillsides are also dissected by private drives on the westside of the road. The soil stratigraphy consists of two strata. The upper layer is a dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand that is between 25 to 35 cm (ca. 10 to 14 in) thick. It is followed by a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand that extends at least 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the surface. Below this, a rock layer was encountered, which prevented further excavation to a greater depth. Although no archaeological resources are within the APE, a likely 20th century house sites was found on a terrace above the floodplain outside the APE to the south (see Figure 4). The site consists of a reconstructed stone chimney (using man-made bricks for added support) and several outbuildings including a hillside cellar and sheds. It was not recorded as an archaeological resource, since it was outside the APE and would not be affected. Summary and Recommendations The archeological reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 79 in Macon County did not identify any significant archaeological resources with the APE or any contributing resources to the Tellico Valley Rural Historic District. Most of the landforms with the APE are unsuited for archaeological sites due to steep slopes or recently deposited soils adjacent to the creek. As a result, no further archaeological work is recommended for this bridge project. However, if design plans change to impact areas outside of the APE, then further archaeological work will be required. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence Signed: 2/6/18 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 11 18-01-0002 REFERENCES CITED Benson, Robert 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Timber Stands, Wildlife Food Plots and Roads in the Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Macon County, North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia. Submitted to US Forest Service, Asheville, North Carolina. Devereux, Robert, William Davis, and Eugene Goldston 1933 Soil Map for Macon County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Argiculture, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. On file at North Carolina Collections, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. HPOWEB 2018 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. http://gisNCDCR.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed January 25, 2018. Riggs, Brett 1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in Macon, Swain, and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Submitted to North Carolina Division of Archives and History. Southerlin, B.G., Linda Allan, Marion Roberts, and Christopher Espenshade 1991 An Archaeological Survey of the Nantahala to Oak Grove Transmission Corridor, Macon County, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Submitted to Duke Power, Charlotte, North Carolina. Thomas, Douglas 1996 Soil Survey of Macon County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service; North Carolina Department Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; North Carolina Agricultural Research Service; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service; Macon Soil and Water Conservation District, and Macon County Board of Commissioners. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1906 Nantahala, North Carolina-South Carolina, 30 minute quadrangle map. Reprinted in 1924. 1961 Wesser, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map. Photoinspected 1987. United States Post Office c. 1910 Rural Delivery Routes for Macon County, North Carolina. U.S. Post Office Department, Washington D.C. On file at North Carolina Collections, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Webb, Robert 1990 Cultural Resources Survey Younce Creek Timber Sale, Compartments 33, 34, 35, and 48, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Macon County, North Carolina. Webb Diversified Consulting, Jasper, Georgia. Submitted to US Forest Service, Asheville, North Carolina. 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 11 18-01-0002 William, W.G. 1838 Map of Part of the Cherokee Territory Situated Among the Mountains of N. Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. Map on file, Record Group 49, US National Archives Cartographic Division, Suitland, Maryland. 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 11 18-01-0002 Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Wesser (1961; photoinspected 1987), NC, USGS 7.5′ Topographic Quadrangle. 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 11 18-01-0002 Figure 2. 1906 USGS Nantahala topographic map showing the project area. Figure 3. The circa 1910 US Post Office map showing 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. 8 of 11 18-01-0002 Figure 4. General View of the house site located outside the APE, looking north. Figure 5. The 1933 Soil Map for Macon County showing 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. 9 of 11 18-01-0002 Figure 6. Aerial View of the Project Area showing landforms, soils, and ST placement. 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. 10 of 11 18-01-0002 Figure 7. General View of the level bench where the second ST was placed outside of the APE. Figure 8. General View of the southern half of the APE showing slope along the road, looking north. 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. 11 of 11 18-01-0002 Figure 9. General View of the northern half of the APE showing slope and the narrow floodplain/bench along the road, looking north.