20201981 Ver 1_Durham St. Archaeology No Survey_20210122

Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4
16-11-0022

NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED 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: B-5346 County: Alamance
WBS No: 46060.1.1.2 Document: Pce
F.A. No: BRZ-1529 Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: nw3 or nw14
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 0003 over Dry Creek on SR 1529 (Durham
Street Extension) in Alamance County, TIP # B-5346. This is a federally funded project and will require a
USACE permit. Therefore, this is a federal undertaking and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act applies for archaeological review.
Preliminary design was available for this review. As a replace in place project, the undertaking is spatially
confined though some limited new ROW or easements will be required according to the plans. The bridge
replacement will have an offsite detour. The Area of Potential Effects (APE), for purposes of this
archaeological review, is about 300 feet along SR 1529, centered on the bridge. The maximum width is
about 80 feet wide near the bridge which incorporates new ROW to account for additional fill and guardrail
installation, about 10 feet expansion on either side of the current 60-ft ROW.
Much of the APE has already been modified by the construction of the existing SR 1529 and bridge, several
utilities, drainage and other earth moving activities like private landscaping.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Preliminary design mapping shows a replace-in-place project on the same alignment. As such, the APE
includes expansion limited to about 10 feet to either side of the existing ROW near the bridge and creek.
USGS mapping (Lake Burlington) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The project
area along SR 1529 passes through mixed rural and residential landscape with some open lots adjacent to
the APE. The terrain is fairly level with no major hills, though there are visibly differences in elevations
near the project area. A residence north of the bridge is closest to the project and includes landscaping at
the bridge to facilitate drainage, including a reinforced ditch from the driveway and a retaining wall. Other
quadrants have ditches a short distance from the road.
Dry Creek here is narrow, as would be expected for the relatively small bridge. From the north, the soil is
described using an eroded notation, Helena loam (HcB2, 2-6 percent slopes). From the other side, the soil
is called a Mixed alluvial land, poorly drained (Mc, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded).
Virtual drive-by was available on Google Maps and Bing. No cemeteries were noted during the aerial
viewing or on the USGS mapping at the project location. The roadway was marked, likely resulting from
NCDOT survey work. Some utilitized are clearly flagged, like the gas line on the south of the roadway.
Several historic maps of Alamance County were examined, though nothing notable was observed that
would suggest an archaeological site would be present at this crossing, like a historic structure or industry.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited in November, 2016, to review archaeological mapping and to
reference any known archaeological surveys and sites. While no environmental review was noted on
mapping, one archaeological site, 31Am59, is mapped north of the bridge about 100 feet away. It was
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4
16-11-0022
recorded originally with the temporary site number 31Am41 and was part of an early environmental review
for archaeology. The report, The Archaeological Resources in the Alamance County Complex 201
Facilities Planning Area (Bib # 642. Woodall 1976), appears to have covered the many notable water and
sewage easements that traverse and pass by or through the APE. While unassessed in this report, site
31Am59 was recommended for additional work because of the stated possibility for buried deposits. The
40 x 30 meter site is mapped north of the bridge and is unlikely to be directly impacted by the bridge
replacement.
For this undertaking, the proposed bridge replacement of the existing transportation facility, Bridge No.
0003, the project footprint is limited. As much of the existing APE has been modified for the current
roadway, utilities and bridge, expectations are low for encountering newly discovered archaeological sites,
especially any that may be intact and significant.
As a result of this review, we conclude that the likelihood of encountering intact, NRHP-eligible resources
are low based on the limited new footprint of the undertaking, replacing the bridge at the existing location,
the road and bridge construction disturbances from the existing facility. Archaeological site 31Am59 is to
the north of the bridge but is unlikely to be affected within the APE of the project. The project should be
considered compliant with Section 106. No archaeological survey is recommended for this undertaking as
currently proposed.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The scale and nature of the project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge with a new structure at
the same location. Details on design mapping make clear the extent of disturbances close to the roadway
where the bridge will be replaced. Review of background archaeological information revealed a previous
archaeological survey in the area that identified a site mapped a short distance north of the bridge, though
it is unlikely to be impacted by the project. No archaeological survey is recommended. Therefore, this
federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant with Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
12/06/2016
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
Project Tracking No.: “No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 3 of 4 16-11-0022 Figure 1. Vicinity of PA # 16-11-0022, on USGS topographic mapping (Burlington Lake), showing the Bridge No. 0003 location (black circle with yellow APE) along SR 1529 (Durham Street Extension) over Dry Creek in Alamance County.
Project Tracking No.: “No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 4 16-11-0022 Figure 2. Aerial map of PA 16-11-0022, Br. No. 0003 replacement along SR 1529 over Dry Creek in Alamance County. The APE is shown in yellow.