The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210925 Ver 1_Tabernacle Rd No Archaeological Survey_20210623 Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 1 of 5 19-01-0024 NO NATIONAL REGISTE R O F 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: Structure 400584 County: Guilford WBS No: 17BP.7.R.138 Document: State MCC F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE (not specified) Project Description: NCDOT’s Division 7 proposes to replace Bridge No. 584 on Tabernacle Church Road (SR 3412) over Big Alamance Creek in Guilford County. Bridge No. 584 was built in 1968 and has been chosen to be replaced. The existing cross-section consists of two travel lanes with no shoulders. The proposed cross-section is to consist of two 11-foot travel lanes with 6-foot shoulders, 4 feet of which is to be paved. Bridge No. 584 is to be replaced on existing alignment with an off -site detour. Existing ROW is depicted as about 60 feet. Although a Study Area has been developed, discussions have led to an Area of Potential Effects (APE) being generated in order to facilitate environmental planning purposes at this stage. The APE is centered on the bridge location and measures about 150 feet off centerline and 500 feet from either end of the bridge, encompassing about 6.81 acres, inclusive of the existing roadway and any modern development. 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. Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: This project was accepted on Thursday, February 7, 2019. A map review and site file search at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was conducted on Wednesday, January 30, 2019. An archaeological survey has been conducted nearby (see OSA Biblio #2898 [Hargrove 1991]), and two (2) archaeological sites have been recorded within one (1) mile of the proposed project. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (Climax Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Monday, February 18, 2019. There is one (1) known historic architectural resource (GF1955 – the Sidney Grover Joyner House) located within or adjacent to the APE; however, intact archaeological deposits Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 2 of 5 19-01-0024 associate with this resource would not be anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the APE. As stated in the Survey Required Form, “This is a state funded project for which a Federal permit is anticipated. Permanent/temporary easements will not be necessary, but the need for additional ROW was not conveyed as part of the request. However, the size and shape of the APE have been drawn in a way to capture any possible ground-disturbing activities associated with this project beyond NCDOT’s existing ROW. At this time, we are in compliance wit h NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register-listed) archaeological resources located within the project’s APE that would require our attention. From an environmental perspective, the APE consists of the rolling and undulating terrain of the North Carolina Piedmont and is composed of Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 -10% slopes, eroded (MhC2) and Coronaca clay loam, 2-6% slopes (CrB). Although most of the APE is made up of eroded soils (i.e. MhC2), there are two (2) undisturbed pockets of gently sloping, well-drained soils (i.e. CrB) that ha ve not been subjected to archaeological survey/review work. Based on site locational data from Hargrove (1991), large-scale surveys in Alamance County, including sections along Big and Little Alamance Creeks, have recorded over 100 prehistoric components in areas geographically and culturally similar to the proposed APE. Therefore, such an area would be considered to have a medium to high potential for archaeological deposits to be present, thus requiring formal archaeological investigations. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed a few projects within the vicinity of the APE for environmental compliance, including a borrow pit (ER 11-0345), an interchange project (ER 96-8032 [TIP# R-2612]), a sewer line along Big Alamance Creek (ER 94-7155), and a risk assessment site (ER 16-0705). An archaeological survey was conducted for the sewer line, but no archaeological sites were recorded along the east side of the creek. No archaeological surveys were conducted for the borrow pit location (citing a low probability as well as the presence of eroded soils) and the areas to be impacted by NCDOT’s proposed interchange project and the risk assessment location, stating a low probability for intact NRHP-eligible archaeological sites to be present. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT’s Archaeology Group has reviewed at least twenty (20) transportation-related projects for environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), one of which is located within one (1) mile of the proposed project. An archaeological survey was recommended for three (3) of thes e projects (PAs 14-09-0008, 14-12-0012, and 15-02-0047), based on the presence of favorable topography and soil conditions. Unfortunately, no archaeological sites were documented as a result of those surveys. Based on similar topographical and soil conditions, however, an archaeological survey is recommended. Therefore, a visual inspection of the entire APE should be conducted, followed then by systematic archaeological excavations within areas of moderate to high archaeological probability, focusing on areas of moderately well-drained to well-drained soils that have not been impacted by development and on known historic resources (if present ) to determine if an archaeological component is also present. All cemeter ies (if any) should also be properly recorded and delineated if any occur within or adjacent to the APE. None of the property within the Study Area that requires further investigation is owned by the State of North Carolina so a State Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit should not be necessary. Should the description of this project change or design plans be made available prior to construction, additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required.” Field investigations for the proposed project occurred on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, and were comprised of an intensive pedestrian survey to locate and assess potentially significant archaeological resources that could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project as described above. The entire extent of the APE was visually inspected in order to determine the need for excavations. Based on the surrounding topography, soil conditions, and development, the western terminus of the APE on either side of Tabernacle Church Road (SR 3412) was shovel tested. Two (2) shovel tests were excavated on the north Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 3 of 5 19-01-0024 side of the road while two (2) additional shovel tests were excavated on the south side of the road. In total, only four (4) shovel tests were required. All four (4) shovel tests encountered Coronaca clay loam soils. STPs 1 and 2 were positioned on the north side of the road in the front yard area of the house at 2765 Tabernacle Church Road. STPs 3 and 4 were positioned roughly opposite STPs 1 and 2 on the south side of the road in a wooded area . Based on aerial imagery from 1937 and 1966, this area was originally farmland. Stratigraphy within STPs 3 and 4 revealed that soil erosion has been more extensive that ha s been mapped for the area based on the presence of clay subsoil direct ly beneath the root mat. Stratigraphy within STPs 1 and 2 was consistent with the typical profile for Coronaca soils (dark reddish brown clay loam overlying subsoil of dark red clay/clay loam, followed by red silty clay loam). No archaeological materials were recovered from within the APE. Shovel Tests: STP 1: 0-40cmbs, 2.5YR 3/4, silty clay loam; 40-45cmbs, 2.5YR 5/6, clay loam; no cultural material STP 2: 0-28cmbs, 2.5YR 3/4, silty clay loam; no cultural material (front yard of a house) STP 3: 0-14cmbs, 2.5YR 3/4, clay; subsoil right below root mat; hea vy erosion; no cultural material STP 4: 0-14cmbs, 2.5YR 3/4, clay; subsoil right below root mat; heavy erosion; no cultural material SUMMARY As a result of these investigations, no newly identified archaeological sites were documented within the APE. It is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to significant archaeological resources. Additional fieldwork within the APE is unlikely to provide any significant or substantial amounts of archaeological data. Therefore, it is recommended that additional archaeological work should not be required. Based on the recommendations put forth (see above), a finding of “No NRHP-Eligible or - Listed Archaeological Sites Present” within the APE is considered appropriate for the proposed project. However, should the description of this project or design plans change prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology may be required. If archaeological materials are uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set forth for “unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Group. **This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized Tribe(s) has expressed an interest: Catawba Indian Nation. It is recommended that you contact each federal agency, if involved with your project, to determine their Section 106 Tribal consultation requirements. Please know that the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, a State-recognized tribe, has expressed interest in activities within this county. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence Signed: May 3, 2019 NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 5 19-01-0024 Figure 1: Climax, NC (USGS 1970 [PR82]). Figure 2: Study Area, APE, and Shovel Test Locations overlaid on 1937 Aerial Imagery. RED = APE BLUE = Study Area Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 5 of 5 19-01-0024 Figure 3: Study Area, APE, and Shovel Test Locations overlaid on 1965 Aerial Imagery. Photo 1: View of the Western Terminus of the APE, looking East (STPs 1 and 2 were located in the yard area while STPs 3 and 4 were positioned within the woods on the other side of the road). !?!? !?!? 4 3 21 Sidney Grover Joyner House Big Ala mance Creek (Alamance Creek) MhC2CrB EnB EnB MhB2 MhB2 T A B E R N A C L E C H U R C H R DTARPON RD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community PA 19-01-0024Replacement of Bridge No. 584 onSR 3412 (Tabernacle Church Rd) over Big Alamance Creek in Guilford County, NC !?Negative STPs Area of Potential Effects (APE) Study Area Named_streams HYARUT mapfldhazar NCHPOpoints Local_District_Boundaries NCHPO_NR_SL_DOE_Boundaries GF Cemetery Streets Soils_All Guilford_2014Parcels ¹ 0 60 120 180 24030Feet