HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210925 Ver 1_Tabernacle Rd No Archaeological Survey_20211028 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