20240633 Ver 1_U-4758 PCN Attachment Package-compressed_20240501

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
May 1, 2024
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
NCDOT Coordinator
J.R. "JOEY" HOPKfNs
SECRETARY
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Mr. Ryan Conchilla,
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, and Randleman Buffer Certification for the Proposed Widening of SR
1818 / SR 1850 (Johnson Street / Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road)
to Interstate 40 East in Guilford County, Division7, TIP No. U-4758, Debit $323 from
WBS 40251.1.1.
Dear Sirs:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1818 / SR 1850
(Johnson Street / Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to Interstate 40 East in Guilford
County. This proposed widening includes the construction of a four -lane bridge over the West Fork Deep
River on the location of the existing bridge and to the east. The existing bridge will be used for traffic during
construction of the new bridge.
The Federal Highway Administration is the lead federal agency for this project.
Impact Summary
As a result of the proposed project, there will be a total of 15 linear feet of permanent stream impacts due
to pipe placement within the West Fork Deep River, and 121 linear feet (0.03 ac) of temporary stream
impacts due to construction of temporary causeways for removal of existing bents and construction access
at multiple impact sites. There will also be 0.004 ac of temporary hand clearing within wetlands for
construction access.
Surface waters within the project area are protected by the Randleman Lake Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules. As proposed, this project would have Allowable Impacts totaling 11,326 square feet in Zone 1, and
9,793 in Zone 2. There would also be Mitigable Impacts totaling 1,057 square feet in Zone 1, and 9,765
square feet in Zone 2.
Impact Site I Sta 14+05 / 14+79
Site 1 involves the construction of a new lateral 4' base ditch on the west side of SR 1818. There will also
be a new system of reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) installed to accommodate the increased stormwater
drainage from the proposed widening.
Mailing Address: Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Telephone: [phone] BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RAEEiGHNC 27610
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RAEEiGHNC 27699-1598 Website: www.ncdot.gov

Impact Site 2 Sta 54+51 / 55 +9 7
Site 2 consists of the construction of a new four -lane bridge over the West Fork Deep River and associated
stormwater management structures. The proposed bridge will be built over the West Fork Deep River on
the location of the existing bridge and to the east to avoid impacts to the Johnson Street Sports Complex,
which is a Section 6(f) resource. Oak Hollow Park (another Section 6(f) resource) is located on both sides
of the proposed bridge.
These restrictions caused by the presence of these properties on both sides of the proposed structure limited
the space available for hydraulic drainage design. The 30" and 36" pipes that are proposed on northeast and
southeast sides of the crossing will have to be installed underneath the proposed fill slopes due to this lack
of space. The need for an adequate burial depth of these two pipes will then require them to be outlet at the
streambed elevation of the West Fork Deep River as shown on Permit Drawing Sheets 6 and 7.
A temporary causeway and other temporary impacts are shown for construction access and removal of the
existing piles that are currently located within the banks of the West Fork Deep River.
Impact Site 3 Sta 169+48 / 170+40
Site 3 consists of riparian buffer impacts due to roadway fill and stormwater BMP outlets associated with
the proposed widening. All impacts at Site 3 are Allowable Zone 2 impacts.
Impact Site 4 Sta 188+58 / 189+43
A standard 4' base ditch lined with riprap is being installed in conjunction with a new 36" RCP to route
stormwater away from SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) and SR 1916 (Rose Haven Road).
Impact Site 5 Sta 41 +89 to 48+22
The proposed road widening is resulting in expanded fill slope limits. These new fill slopes encroach into
Zones 1 and 2 of the riparian buffers of a protected surface water (Pond P4).
Section 7
Protected Species listed from IPaC as of the date of this application:
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Common Name
Survey Date(s)
Status
Present
Conclusion
Tricolored bat
Proposed
N/A
Yes
May Affect,
Endangered
Likely to Adversely Affect
Schweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
10/07/2021
Yes
No Effect
09/12/2023
Small whorled pogonia
Threatened
05/28/2019
Yes
No Effect
06/29/2023
Tricolored Bat
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a programmatic conference opinion (PCO) in conjunction
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and
NCDOT for the tricolored bat (TCB) (Perimyotis subflavus) in eastern North Carolina. The PCO covers
the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. NCDOT,
FHWA, and USACE have agreed to three conservation measures (listed in the PCO) which will
avoid/minimize take to TCBs. These conservation measures apply to all counties in Divisions 1-8. The
programmatic determination for TCB for the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.
Once the TCB is officially listed, the PCO will become the programmatic biological opinion (PBO) by
formal request from FHWA and USACE. The PBO will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act for approximately five years (effective through December 31, 2028) for all
NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Guilford County, where TIP U-
4758 is located.

Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia
Multiple pedestrian surveys have been performed for these two plant species. Both surveys were last
updated in 2023, with no individual plants of either species being observed.
In addition to the below -referenced documents, please find enclosed Pre -Construction Notification (PCN),
Stormwater Management Plan, and Permit Drawings.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Rob Crowther at
recrowther(ancdot.gov or [phone].
Attachments:
• NCDMS Mitigation Acceptance Letter
• No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present Form
• Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form
• Tribal Coordination Correspondence (Catawba Nation)
• Type III Categorical Exclusion Form (Signed 11/14/2018)
Sincerely,
�e Michael A. Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
cc: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List

Mitigation

ROY COOPER
Govemor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Dfrector
Mr. Jamie Lancaster, P.E.
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mail Service Center 1598
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
NORTH CAROLINA
Envtronmento[ Quality
April 12, 2024
Subject: Mitigation Acceptance Letter: TIP U-4758, SR 1818 (Johnson Street) / SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) Improvements from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to South of I-40
in High Point, Guilford County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) will provide
the mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on April 12, 2024, the
impacts are located in CU 03030003 of the Cape Fear River basin as follows:
Stream
and
Wetlands
River
Basin
Cu
Location
Eco-
Region
g
Stream
Wetlands
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non-
Coastal
Riparian
Marsh
Impacts
Cape Fear
03030003
CP
0
0
15.000
0
0
0
*Some of the impacts may be proposed to be mitigated at various ratios. See permit application for details.
DMS will provide the amount of stream and wetland mitigation included in the environmental permits.
All buffer mitigation requests and approvals are administrated through the Riparian Restoration Buffer
Fund. The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that appropriate compensation for the buffer mitigation will be
provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon receipt of the NCDWR's Buffer Authorization
Certification, DMS will transfer funds from the NCDOT Stream and Wetland Mitigation Fund into the Riparian
Restoration Buffer Fund. Upon completion of transfer payment, NCDOT will have completed its riparian buffer
mitigation responsibility for TIP U-4758. Subsequently, DMS will conduct a review of current NCDOT ILF
Program mitigation projects in the river basin to determine if available buffer mitigation credits exist. If there
are buffer mitigation credits available, then the Riparian Restoration Buffer Fund will purchase the appropriate
amount of buffer mitigation credits from NCDOT ILF Program.
North Carolina t]cpartment of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 11652 Mail Servict Center I Ralrigh, North Carolitra 27699-1652
� • R
n� 919.70T.8976

Mr. Lancaster
April 12, 2024
Page Two
NCDOT TIP U-4758
Buffer
River Basin
CU
Eco-
g ion
Buffer ImpactsRe
Zone 1
Zone 2
TOTAL
Impacts
Cape Fear
03030003
CP
1,057.000
9,765.000
10,822.000
DMS commits to implementing sufficient compensatory mitigation credits to offset the impacts
associated with this project as determined by the regulatory agencies in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation
acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from NCDEQ-
DMS.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Beth Harmon at 919-707-8420.
Sincerely,
/eZ4_�At-
Elizabeth A. Harmon
DMS NCDOT ILF Coordinator
cc: Mr. Monte Matthews, USACE — Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Ms. Amy Chapman, NCDWR
Mr. Brad Chilton, NCDOT
File: U-4758
North Carolina Department of fnvlronwntai Quality I Division of Mlrlgat Ion Services
217 West Jones 5lreel 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Permit
Drawings

liihWa
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
'
WBS Element: 40251.1.1
TIP/Prof No: U-4758 County(ies): Guilford Page 1 of 3
mom General Project Information
WBS Element:
40251.1.1 ITIP Number: U-4758 Project Type: Roadway Widening I Date: 3/27/2024
NCDOT Contact:
Bryan Key
Contractor 1 Designer:
Josh Dalton
Address:
1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610 (Delivery)
1582 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1582 (Mail)
Address:
905 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone:
[phone]
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
I bcke ncdot. ov
Email:
dalton ncdot. ov
City/Town:
High Point
County(ies):
Guilford
River Basin(s):
Cape Fear
CAMACounty?
I No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
Yes
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
4.492 miles Surrounding Land Use: Residential & Commercial
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
67.0 lac.
23.0 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Four 12' lanes (2 lanes in each direction) with 4' bike lanes each direction, raised median,
and 5' sidewalks each side.
Two 11' lanes with grass shoulder.
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hrlday):
Design/Future: 37,100 Year: 2041
Existing: 24,400 Year: 2021
General Project Narrative: NCDOT in coordination with the City of High Point proposes the widening of SR 1818 / SR 1850 (Johnson Street / Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) in City
(Description of Minimization of Water of High Point to Interstate 40 (1-40 East) in Guilford County. Grass lined channels were used where possible and riprap outlet channels were utilized at project outfalls, if needed.
Quality Impacts) Three dry detention basins have been designed along the project cooridorto provide nurtient reduction and peak flow attenuation.

Hi9;hwav North Carolina Department of Transportation a
5to-rill, Vater
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 40251.1.1 TIP/Prof No.: U-4758 County(ies): Guilford Page 2 of 3
General Project Information
IL Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1): 1 West Fork Deep River (Oak Hollow Reservoir)
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
17-3-(0.7)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply IV (WS-IV)
Supplemental Classification:
CA
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: Randleman Lake
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
iYes Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? INo
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? I N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body? INo (If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (2): West Fork Deep River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
17-3-(0.3)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply IV S-IV
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Fish Community
Benthos
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: Randleman Lake
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
INo Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? I N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body? I N/A (If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body 3 : East Fork Deep River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
17-2- 0.3
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply IV (WS-IV)
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Benthos
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: Randleman Lake
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? I N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
I N/A
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) I

E ijjl\� �i�
wo 'Alm
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 40251.1.1 TIP/Prof No.: U-4758 County(ies): Guilford Page 3 of 3
Other Toolbox Best Management Practices
Sheet
No.
Line
Station
Location
(LT,RT,CL)
Latitude
Longitude
Surface Water Body
BMP Type
Drainage Area
(ac)
New Built -Upon
Area
(ac)
Volume Treated
(ac-ft)
Precipitation Depth
Treated over NBUA
(in)
BMP Associated
w/ Buffer Rules?
8
L
59+05
RT
36.04683
-80.01313
(1)West Fork Deep River
(Oak Hollow Reservoir)
Dry Detention Basin
3.3
2.9
0.2
0.87
No
16
L
170+83
LT
36.07367
-79.99906
(1)West Fork Deep River
(Oak Hollow Reservoir)
Dry Detention Basin
6.1
4.3
0.19
0.56
Yes
22
Y29
33+00
LT
36.08767
-79.99583
(1)West Fork Deep River
(Oak Hollow Reservoir)
Dry Detention Basin
5.3
1.6
0.276
2.18
No
Additional Comments

W
O
ti
H
See Sheet to For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 98 For Conventionol Symbols
PROJE
U-4758
0
p
ca Skee Club Rd
r
BEGIN /
PROJECT
u -4758
=Im D
VICINITY MAP
SITE 2
SITE1 �—d PONDHAVEN DR.
CO \\ P
BEGIN BRIDGE -
-L- STA. 54+57.38
�Q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
LOCATION: SR 1818 (JOHNSON STREET) /SR 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD) FROM
SR 1820 (SKEET CLUB ROAD) TO SOUTH OF I-40 IN HIGH POINT
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, WIDENING, RESURFACING, SIGNALS,
AND STRUCTURE
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
Y4-
SR 1966
(CEDAR
-Y3-
SPRING DR.)
OTZEET SPRS
COMPLEX
S1
— END BRIDGE
-L- STA. 55+90.63
WEST FORK DEEP
RIVER
de
Y5-
SR 1850
(SANDY RIDGE RD.)
-Y9-
ROSEMONT
-Y6-
DR.
-Y10-
THE
-Y7-
SR 1854
LINKS
JOHN
(GAME RD.)
AVE.
KNOX DR.
4;
"" 1
3
14`
-Y11-
SIR 877
v
-L-
SR 1850
RIDGE RD-)
(SANDY
-Y30- r FL 26 NRD -Y12
)OMINGTON N SR 1853
TR. ii (SANDY CAMP RD.)
-Y31-
WESTMOTT PL. Y8
SR 1834
(KENDALE RD.)
BEGIN TIP PROJECT U-4758
-L- STA 13+41.52
��( Eq5¶NG SIGNAL
PROPOSED SIGNAL
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HIGH POINT.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD 77 .
U-4758
40251.1.1
0710025/0710041
PE
40251.2.1
0710041
RNl
40251.2.2
0710041
UTILITIES
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 9
DATE: 5/1 /2024
END TIP PROJECT U-4758
-L1- STA 21+18.29
SR 1849
(NORCROSS -RPB-
RD.) �� (1-40)
-Y27-
��
��^�
SR 1956
�21
(ENDICOTT RD.)
v
-Y29-
!� -RPC-
SR 1849
CL^ (I 40)
(NORCRO,�k&aRP.) Y24-
-Y21-
SR 1851
SR 1956
(TYN�R LP.)
(� (ENDICOTT RD.)
9-
SR51
a (TYNEP, LP.)
A -L- STA 238+71.37 =
SR 1916
-1-1- STA 10+60.00
V�
(RSE HAVEN RD.)
-Y23-
1
19
PIEDMONT TRIAD
FARMERS MARKET
-L- SR 1850
(SAIpY RIDGE RD.) 20
-Y20-
Y13-
SR 1845
SR 1837
(TYNER RD.)
(CLINARD
-Y15-
-Y16- -Y18-
FARMS RD.)
SR 1556
DAIRY SR 1978
(GALLIMORE
POINT DR. (PARTRIDGE RD.)
DAIRY RD.)
-Y17-
SR 1844
(NATIONAL
SERVICE RD.)
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prepared in the Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
A-T[K�JS IIiE -IT Da....OK ROAD, SUITE 160 SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ADT 2021 = 24,400 3ALEL0R, nODTR NIOLLDA s7RH MOp�
50 25 0 50 100 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT U-4758 = 4.467 MILES (91s) 8As-s888 DCBEES kF-032s
ADT 2041 = 37,100 m �g
[Ift� K - 11 % LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJECT U�758 = 0.025 MILES zms STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS D = 60°/D TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT U-4758 = 4.492 MILES PE A
o
100 25 0 50 100 = SIGNATURE: �a
T 9%* RIGHT OF WAY DATE. CLINTON J. MORGAN, P.E q
V = 50 MPH DECEMBER 17, 2021 PROJECT ENGINEER ROADWAY DESIGN o
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) *TTST =4% DUAL=5% ENGINEER
10 5 0 10 20 FUNC CLASS = LETTING DATE. BRUCE B. PAYNE, P.E
URBAN ARTERIAL NCDOT CONTACT. • LAURA SUTTON, P.E DECEMBER 19, 2023 PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
PROFILE (VERTICAL) REGIONAL TIER PE.
SIGNATURE:

A " I I 1 PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
_ 50' 25' 0 50' 100'
U-4758 4
r 8" C&G L-w\ RNJ SHEET NO.
672J� I IIII II II I we — \ SCALE: 1"=100/L 01
ROADWAY ENGINEER ENGINEER
n I 11 I DWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
�r II IIII \I \II I RIP
RAP
DETAIL 4-1
SPEC LAT V DITCH - II� v5_�I I I ,�i^ v - - - - - -_ 03Sg, / �i ,� .� S, INCOMP�L�E° �E IlC'�L.S\I�.�
INOT TO SCALE) 15'A I I m, I� m �/ ; 26 F � 2�j� DO NOT USE FOR fW ACQUISITION
III I C
NATU—Win. D=1.0 Ft. �' /� I III`C
GROUND
I 1 I
�ll� W /• ^ 11 II 111 �
`
4' � `� "v Mi
FROM STA. 20+75 TO STA. 23+GO -L- RT / I� 11 R aFiEs N I It / ,�� F �� \ I 47 4L /0
DETAIL 4-2 III I 111 " // ,� �� y/� DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
LATERAL BASE DITCH MM UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
INotm Scnlel `i,' / ( ,�/ `� `� wH � �� �l
1fi1g EAST NI LL BAOOK I111, SMITE III
0 f 1 I �/ `� AALEIGH. NOATH cAAoLE" 27fio9
n ����
Nmnrol FTI III I III `�' I / '�' �� IsIsI eTe-sees rmeEEs nF-Dees
c,o.na 4:' Dslope
d z I�I 11\ �� / ����H,N——— SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
GEOTEMILE— g / / I 1 _ "IZ FIE. H. uIANSE No cxeo
Min. D=L5 H. 1 E ✓ ,>`
Max. d=1.5 Ft. / `W III I m `�/ `�
'When B is s0' 1=4.0 Ft. `W F
Type Af LI---Glass B Rip-Rop b=5.0 Ft. auNw xros
WILL)JiM G. CURLIN
FROM STA. 15+00 TO STA. 16+DO -L- LT BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
- �+ L
DIOCESE/OF CHARLOTTE, N.C. wooDs �E���T D1�R/'1���G
LAT 4'BASE DITCH
5+L_Ra�6+,DD,D SHEET 2 OF 9
EST 1TONs Ti'�T WOODS -_ a
N
f S''�
^- hill 1 sl DAYLIGHW' ST 324 SY GFD
c
9 M
DITCH DETAIL EE AIL 4-2 DATE. 5/1 /2024
AE
IX
? T,_
65T l'�ETAP
I15I HC
q��II���
TIE TO TIP SECT U-36/5B�`e.Aa111� RN
Q 1 A �, Lv rs AREA D/c� LEOTERRA JOHNSON STREET LLC
£3 L 1 I� V / N � S i 09-20-23
I1
/ RETAIN aN-n N \ IA I NI DU — —DUE 6 �� AREA U/C
G
DI ,a,5 RCP m �c• E E—� - \ o9-zo-zs
E \ o F A
' I ETA J F
RETAIN l 4B ,��`` \ m �p L L�
15" RCP � I \ FrT y [n�o o�M /— NAIL 15" RCP � C
LT M RETAIN-
1B w/MH I DTl O�NAIL 60d NAIL W
• 15 E� ROENgeoow/ METAL TFPNSMI6 ASE RETACg —E l I 1 \ vl V,� m� NW S CONC WOODS Lu
pEE00No:ENG POLE W/GONG _ o MT O p 20'
L- POT Sla. 10+00.00 — ----_ -BL- 3 oNc 48' w FL G DlsBe RCP -iv O
7 z
E PUE DISK-1, s SIG — I P I
CONCB DISK 1515tING R/w 'J ,POLE _%_ A v,
— —_—_— — — T 2 —
- - — a WOODS
_ REF s1A RtF11ED
ONC DISmz R P W/LT R RETAIN l CULVERTS 51 - N P
IN _
�Fkin/Nc Ripy o ,E,,, W DISK REF SPUE nWv I w - - - - - - - - - OHNSO -- -- —
t�} I RETAI
_ CP _
18" RCP I I c $- _
MOVE CB w V..1 � I►
lip 'a-36i5H W/LT IS1iNG R/W ' _
OVER�—RANMOVE i5'rDIES. --- ��V
SR l8/B J N Sr VARTBST�"RCP IV DI sii — DI —DI _---- �OVEDI Q_---- '°D W/FE "RC0 PE Z�_PL- cB 15' RCPLI� PoL6 IS" RC -
_
--- --- - 1 I V C - E ExISTwc R/W
RETAIN v GU EIP
/ I 15" R IV CB _
SR 1818 JONNSON S7 VAR BST dN Cs MT B ti
_ ss al MTL PK E WG ww WOODS C y T 1
ss 9VC s _ 1 sIG POL /r.r NAIL o �"' _ — _ --_ e,VC 9 II DISK 4r� IF vim' T7 b o '�"'�i;:^.:/' 2c 2 1
C&G_=TD'LQNC NC l T� I C �R\ P 1 P V Q EM VE PUE PIiE E P)EMOVE DI \ E
CONC --- —_-- 4R^GONG CAB) T \ 15" PEA
w f�-7 4a°come -- rxlslNc Riw DISK L - - -LEIV 1 PUE UE
EIP. —�,— w= ISK CB SIG \ II of Q S5 5s" 5 15 PU m
EIP 1 & q58 E II II RETAIN
DISK I,� POLE I y FM15 E R E PERMIT DRA"NG I m WOODS
° I ��� -L- PC Sta. 18+85.65
CB.m \ ONE aI Rw —� � SHEET 4 OF 9
0
I I�
Q I�\ TAIN , m 2A' N, 5"RCP I 11 �,� 60 LF OF FORTLARGEM�ENT
p RETAIN I I-_ WOODS
�g 1\ ` WOODS H S T O R f IPE I I �I 15" RCP I I WOODS
i 1 ° PROPERTY �I ��RETAIN
2a" PIPE IRE�,N Re� m LEE VARRICK MOORE, JR.CHRISTOPHER SAMPSON5F CBl' H ROBIN MICHELLE LONG 12 g K3 SPEC T V DITCH
I �-L WELL 20+75 TO 23+00
Z J RETAIN l II m I I [ _ TDE CONC / I� SEE DETAIL 4-1
1 i CBI I�ETA)
_ HOWARD L. REGAN AND
WELL I �� Ip� I 1�'� R P IIiE _ coNc��� II TAMARA K. REGAN
s
A,1 CONC AD _ RETAIN I I 1 z - n VAR. HT
RAMPS 0 0 24" PIPE m 1 I I I I mm WD WALL I
1 1 I BEGIN TIP PROJECT U-4758I'RET�IN III o�, SITE 1 ml
LTI I ICB II I I z v 2SFD
• �— AKRE -L- st0.I3f41.52 CON
ED
A III II IIII✓ 0
HAND CLEARING
r — I TEMPORARY SURFACE WAT R IMPACTS
m
621.62' 3b / 1
a �� �� I I fIRCP r✓� I - �� EXISTING SIGNAL
I ! NOTE. SEE SHEET 28 FOR —L— PROFILE
�� -BY- 10/

m PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
so' 25' o so' ioo,
8 &G �I 1 1y I \FM RNJ SHEET NO.
SCALE: 1 = 1 60' ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
1\ PIP
) l 0
DETAIL 4-1 [NC®NgPLE FE PLAN�
DO NOT USE FOR f
SPEC LAT V DITCH I� �4�
INOT TO SCALE) _ W ACQUISITE
N
�GROUNDNATU—
Min. D=1.0 Ft. n I`J�/
"V — FROM STA. 20+75 TO STA. 23+00 -L- RT / I a aFiE N ` l t / ,� F 4-
� `\ 7 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
DETAIL 4-2 / / / I� ( I 1 Iq1 1 111 \ 1\1�� l \ � UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
LATERAL BASE DITCH
C 1 a 9 1fi16 EAST NI LLBAOOK AOAE, SMITE III
(919) 8 NOBTM cAAou NA vBDs
Nmerol F.II �, �, -v4L I eTe-sees IIGEEEs nF-Gees
eo�na d D b,� r:�I. slope 1 '' �� / `� `� %�
f �� e,M --- SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
GEOTEMILE— 8 /
- . d=L5 If, [ `� J
'When 6 is 60 0 (- —✓
C F
Max. d=1.5 Ft. v 1 I 1 1 m i 11 I f ,V / aD auNs xros
- ' B=4.0 Ft. J ( LO ( I 111 1 1 m I( D ' Type of Linar=GlassB Rip-Rop b=5.0 Ft. / �I� �5 CP ENO Hann ucENSE No. c�so
WILLI M G. CD LIN
FROM STA.15+00 TO STA.I6+00 -L- LT BISHOP OF E ROMA,/nN, CATf'IOL C rI C �/� TeL ie el cs4na3
��DIOCES CHAROTTE, .C.� 1 ;�( V -�/ �m� PERMIT D1A/'111INV
/o i �" TI�/� SHEET 3 OF 9
// / III I 1 \I IN r III IN 15h 4' BAS-DF H
l `�� WOG
� 4L ,GzBn
DATE: 5/1 /2024
, e e / / 1 I m �1 �ET�a�,� �II I I .0 '
� ; I+'S� �, III H
,3,1LTA /
m f
CT U-3 /5-AR n ui� I� 0 t�Y��
RRAJ HN S L
RAW/ zxz-"° .5, cP I DU ° �tiT� A / A9.zo8
� TAI� 1 %T
0 5" R P
II�EwAIN�
LT B
• p Ht / /T '"a I�I _ TS u ' _ e w
�\5ExEtxRxc ,x %wua / MrcT AL ICON M15BASE CB
-
_POT S /oTu f.u0�
SI
�oN
DIS�I,
RETAIN RETAI I�EM VO _—_
ISK auE 6� I.BNC DIS 15 // RN 18" RCP CULVERTSI SI _ _5� SR l8/8 joHIJ50N S7 V BST \ EV 4 eJ m W n
� RETAIN 1 A — —-- — -REMOVE' 15" P NSg� N
C� RE AIN _RCS DI s
i _
_— _ _ E — — _
o�_ PPVEO OVER�� _ __ _
a4'RETAIN�C � DI � E i � �r DI LE,/� �
wiL � 'fit cow _ c2:c— �� _� _ ���
�DI I
_ — —
.= C9 __ < Sft IBi NN50N 57 ,✓AR _ __
LI �v Fc woowc m J
BST
C
r i� 1 SIG POL C PK E WG w!N m C 7'
_ — �� AI �� V v
�/ EM UE I� PMOVE
CONC�`_yTM1'C �� AB I T KC TS \ y Q 5 E� pUE RFw ols —
EI —99 595� DISK IS CBSI Q S �i IJ,, 0 `� 1 °� O'y00D?�
EIP As %�s _ FMO E F IP�RITW
RETt�ll 6- �� H T�
�c' \� ISRCP TAIN I r -. 0��/ �6 LFOFO&&T �`y
`15� RCP , P 0 E)R �EE �VAR�ICK 00 �, �.
,' 1 6�l I N II B I L\
C Il RO IN MIGHEI�LE L0 G vim' £3 SP C T V ITCH
a m I \ 1 1 I I I \ WAB IKI20�C �T 23+00
�I I I °'^\ \ E EE ETAIL`4-1 \
%OWA��. GA AND
O
i I Vvim' WELLTAM A. EG N l
\_ L 1 - EoN� \ I
( 1 1 �' I' `6q� ` I I 1 �� E` VAR. HT 1 I� 1
i �f RAM° a i PII����� ��i� I N�L SITE 1 m� /�
WD WpL
�� a GIN rl ��o E r 44 �v � 8� � aT�'N � - � � z� � L I I I I I Q� �zsFD
Sg 6 —L-1 Stogy �f 142
ED
3
��� / � ��'V�I�I�I���I� �� ���of ��� ' HAND CLEARING
TEMPORARY SURFACE WAT R IMPACTS
N 5e 62 11
EXISTING SIGNAL
�� I I� �— 28 FOR —L— PROFILE
71BY- /Oi NOTEa SEE SHEET

C \ TS P
\ z V�
77- C
\ CD CD
\
C
� O
C C N
2
0 0
O
CD
o �
-
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
L1-4758
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
DO NOT USE FOR
f W ACOUIS]VION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 4 OF 9
DATE: 5/l /2024
CC"CCCO ��--
\ RETAI REMOVE C B fC D
CULVERTS CI
rAl N
- REMOVE ,1_ Dr—
v
HANDI C
TEMP
\ REMOVE
CB I I I I _—
ARING
RY SURFACE
SITE 1 I
ATER IMPACT
1
c
�
�—fi
iC c�
CB
0 I CI CCC
CCR CC �
15"
C:p—IyDuil
r "IC C
C��IV
11C
I I
I I
II
1 P— V11%4�
__
TS -
15" RC
D9
REM(
15" P
PU E
REMO E
10' 5' 0 10' 20'
C F 15 \� C
71 SCALE: 1"= 20'

DII
1�2
r
4
DI"
0
�mX
-4m8
Orn
m
01
C
� 0\
/ M
/ W
0
o Pueuc wc�ow p°
WOODS
EPSE3gNPN qg
o
\ C63
wr F
\
\
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
50' 25' 0 50' 100,
SCALE: 1"=100'
TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS
! \
\
NOTE: ALL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN
THIS SHADED AREA ARE OF
UNKNOWN JURISDICTION AND
SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION
EIP
ACTIVITIES.
/
CL B RIPRAP
TOE PROTECTION
/ 1
50+50 TO 54+59 _
EST 1111 TONS 1
EST 523 SY GFD
JI�
SEE DETAIL 7WboJS
I
/
WOODS l
WOODS
I g /
END RET. V�ALLaOT
E II RIPRAP p -'*'
EL=815.3' @ 1.S:i
V�'I STA 58+30 -L- LT
3
WOODS
1
19 ate/
s
4:
ISTING. RIDGE �
E CAVATE TO
EL V=807.0' \
1
O BE RE OVED
CITY OF HIGH POINT
PG
—�—E
—\� MEADOW CREEK SUBDIVISION
EXCAVATET
ELEV=808.0'
m
I
DB 1750 137
PB 71 PG 50
j
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
DB 5086 PG 1900
CL II RIRAP
'" ,,, EST 130 TONS
EST 140 SY GF
�
0
PB 1138 G 81
PB 139 PG 48
CL II RIP TO "o
EL=8151^,;PC�.2:1 TS
N
JOODS
z �` 7
x
CL II RIPRAP TO
q8
STA 54+34 TO
0 DS EL=815.3' (�1.5:1
0
54+72 -L- LT
STA 55+78 TO
56+19 -L- LT
_ _
1P'
FL
CITY LIMITS (IN)__
5'ELEREF PB 39 PGE48EMENT
_ e�
�,_ _
�I
G—H —POINT
CZJ
U o�
'WA
,I EG
Y FF CL II RIPRAP LL TI I AT
E�A
a ado
a
°
N
v L=815 3@ 1.5:1
6° DI 4
6+19
— - -
�s^�1' `>1" '" - ` 0
0 0 DILAPIDATED WW FENCE EIP
N
— — _ D ET
�f
x
X�X-4+.k-, XW.rz.v'-zv' X�)'
N
�,
TB
/ CB .. .,. .. �.. ..,
\Y,W
JE
/
S 79° 28' 2
Mom\
�� � CT• F
m
_ REMOVE
18" CMP
SPEC LAT 2'BASE DITCH
46+00 TO 47+50
SEE DETAIL 7-2
\—W/ 2GI-A =`Y�
FS u.l
DUE
DU�_DUE PDE
E
SPEC LAT 2'
BASE DITCH
48150 TO 51133
SEE DETAIL 7-2
ALANNA ALEXANDER ZAMBRANO
ROBERT BRANDWOOD
DB 7881 PG 1053
PB 77 PG 55
o
30" yWELBOWS
Romeo
PDE E F
E
SEE PERMIT DRAW
G
SHEET 7 OF 9
FOR ENLARGEM
T
e
CL II RIPRAP TO
,°,
f
STA 54+47 T
54+72 -L- RT
rE
36" w/ELBOV
PDE DE 2P TO�2:1
STA 55+78 TO
56+01 -L- RT
r� \)
WOODS
1B
PDE
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
U-4758
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
DO NOT USE FOR
SHEET NO.
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ACOUIS]VION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
//�\\UNL��E/(JSS� ��\\A��" SIGNATURES COMPLETED
L/ U�IJ U�IJ V� (919)C........ CCFAOIGBEES7 AF-C326
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
WOODS "Al-H. 111TH �a�D T....._' SE No.�^"�0 3aE
18 PERMIT DRAWING
CITY OF HI SHEET 5 OF 9
DB 5095
PB 92 DATE: 5/1 /202
CL B RIPRAP
TOE PROTECTION
58+50 TO 60+50
EST 92 TONS
EST 266 SY GFD
SEE DETAIL 7-1
WOODS
11141
1� 2
r
Nei r
Dr"
C/N
orn
+ C/N
Om
STRUCTURE ��
T DETAIL 1 C3:1
(TVP.I
DRY DET
BASIN 8.1
EST. 1385 CY CUT
EST. 234 CY FILL
m
OD
1 WIDE ACCESS J� 20 y4 19 � MAINTENANCE BERMM
'L
CITY OF HIGH POINT//
9
DB 1750 PG 137
_ PB 71 PG 50 B2
B1 2 B
21
By 1
DETAIL 7-1 / l2
0
TOE PROTECTION
( Nof to Saalel _ — —
ti,
Ground b �d
IN
n= io Fr%
T of Liner= GL B Ri Ra pe p- p DETAIL 7-3
FROM STA. 50+50 TO STA. 54+59 -L- LT FALSE SUMP
DETAIL 7-2 o ��-
FROM STA. 58+50 TO STA. 60+50 -L- LT (Nor to Smlo)
Outside Ditch Iz O.I
Traffi Flow ,off 20:J 'I I`
w SPECIAL LAT 2' BASE DITCH cl
( Nat to Scale)
S=Ditch Slope ¢ Proposed Ditch /
Natural < —rro�t
D a> a oncn STA. 51+44 -L- RT
� CB�J Mn. � Mi.. D=slops / PAVEMENT REMOVAL
B=].0 F
20.00' It Ft. l\\X
It \jS
lip(
FROM STA46+00 TO STA.47+50 RT Po/la Ea SEE SHEET 29 FOR —L— PROFILE
SEE SHEET 45 FOR —DWAYI — PROFILE

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS aot 25' o -50' ioo, g�z°.P°.
U-4758 7
h7tMRW SHEET NO.
\�( SCALE: 1"-100' ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
]E PLANS
/IN ACOILILSI1'ION
y�
NOTE: ALL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN I / EIP
THIS SHADED AREA ARE OF �
UNKNOWN JURISDICTION AND
SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION I UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EIP ACTIVITIES. I
//n\\ ��1/`� " E EH NILLB AOOK AOA�, SMITE 1A0
CL B RIPRAP _ __ / s C^ `fJc 1 1 // \\��� I\V ,1 AALEIGH, NOAiH CFAOLI NA 27fiD9
T PROTE 10 Y `J\ [l UIJ IJU IJ VCJ (B19) B7A-6888 PICBEES AF-E32A
�D�+$ aST I N I� 1 — —� A \ \ I SUNGATE DESIGN GROUPI P.A.
\ \ \ \ C \\ \TE23 SY FD JI 11 ! I / �- 2 i r ( W SE DETAll�7lWb y4 71(�f� ' ` \ I I / �- \ I 1 1 bODS aD
— I \ - auNA
2-1
WOODS1115-43
McENSENoI
woods'�
0 39
-9�3 �ND RET. L #1
PERMIT DRAWING
0�CITY 0
DBP'E@
S��5L_LT JD > �5+3D2 SHEET 6 OF 9
\ V > J E CAVATE TO 19 ��� DATE: 5/1 /202
ISTING. IVED EL =807.0' �
BE RE VED CITY OF HIGH POINT
/ I / / \ �XCAyATE \ m 1 DPB771 PG 0137 J 1 / L 8 84DT Pub
�_ I u/ N) CL IIRIRAP �� �i=.ti� �E92 S +5
SZ Mf(A OW ELE 808. � �, / / 8 T I N
W E AS OCIATIO IN EST 130 TONS "' °� 1� `
/o c c^ D P6088 PC 19Q0 CL II RIP TO z 7 EST 140 SY GF 7 g7 �0 �J T IL 1 7
�S N o' _EST 2 GFk7
PB 48 i P EL,I�eI -', CL II RIPRAP TO
�I,\STA 54�+3f TOI JOODs x �.. o EL=815.3' @1.5:1
8
/ p SJ1+�2 �L- L % +8 STA 55+78 TO
,(j / M3 e' vm ,IPS F 56+19 -L- LT/ �/ 0 m�/ �£'OM /
�N� -2 _ 0 _ WOODS
ELFCT IC d� IlY Ens E o /
H c_H _
/ BEG RET ALL #1 M _
� � B 39 Q,I
�
� f
�- Zb _ -- a DIL PIDAi D FENCE EI isrw ww +14 DL- LT r _
C—
�
-48 � � � mZB�-
P prn
- L OR + %n
�De 2G D P F N 0-1 \ �I ee-P o�Gs„
g2
OD4I H -SET36' w LBOWS /le oorn 1 E �p E r
E yS'4�� 1—�� egg \\� �, ����1 1� �1 T 0 9 SITE ��� A �\
m +, / �� \ V� V� a %7 �6+ \\� �em� A/s WRA D
Jm CL II RIPRAP TO I \ 1 \\
CL II RIPRAP TO EL-815.3' (�2:1
\ tom/ \ = fs�''p\e \\� /L=815.32:1 \ ) 5TA 55+78 TO'� SIN T/
/%mac N N S 4 572 TO 56+O1 -L- PIT �- / \ Bl - BP3A8 C
1���� \ \ L
S`Z JBd'HIVO `\ \ 0-'�2
/ mm J A gA�NBJANCE BERM 20
\
P�-553�
(� SPEC LAT 2' BASE DITCH CITY OF HIGH POINT
N DB 1750 PG 137
REmvpVE 48 50 TO 51 33 _ PB 71 PG 50
I8`"-C MP SEE DETAIL 7-2
B7 2 B
21
ey 1
SPEC LAT 2'BASE DITCH _
46+00 TO 47+50 DETAIL 7-1 eti2
SEE DETAIL 7-2
TOE PROTECTION
( Nof to Seolel _ _ —
ti,
Natural
Ground b d
6= 2Fi.
CC ofSeer= aB wP-RoP DETAIL 7 �g1.ti>y
FROM STA. 50+50 TO STA. 54+50 -L- LT FALSE SUMP ��-
o FROM 5TA. 58+50 TO STA. 60+50 -L- LT - (Not to Scala)
Outside Ditch Iz O.
DETAIL I _
Traffi Flow ,O\ 20:J 'I I`
A ASE
a w SPECIAL LAT 2' BASE DITCH cl
(Nat to Scale)
S=Ditch Slope ¢ Proposed Ditch /
Natural -r.o�t
a> e oncn STA. 51+44 -L- RT
0 F\�si slope
a 8 Min. 13=1.5 Ft. jS 1\Nl == PAVEMENT REMOVAL
T= 11=2.0 Ft.
lip(
IP FROM STA.46+00 TO STA.47+50 RT Po/la l Ea SEE SHEET 29 FOR —L— PROFILE
�j� SEE SHEET 45 FOR —DWAYI — PROFILE

UE�`,�
DPROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
DUE U-4 R58
W
Q1�' ROADWAY SIGN EET NO. HYDRAULICS
�'
I NOTE: ALL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THIS I ti ENGINEER ENGINEER
SHADED AREA ARE OF UNKNOWN �o
JURISDICTION AND SHALL REMAIN J U L E PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR f W ACQUISITION
O O O O UNDISTURBED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES. oho o io' 20'
'ALL
oDo oDo o� - A E: 1"=20'
o O DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
O 4: UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
-o- Lo � PERMIT DRAWING
Mo 0 �ooO 000�_ ooO�-� SHEET 7 OF 9
M T L o �� 0 0 0 0 o DATE: 5/l /2024
LEI
o 0 0
o i O i M
o � o
o �
O O o
a
---- s o 0 0- L� O O � O
0�-----0
00 00 c
0o cn �O �^
o
TEMPORARY N o O
Oo
CAUSEWAY N o0 0
CB74
o o TS
i
11*0
00 I
O�
o
Oo
000 �
Oo S
o 0 00 0
30" WELBOWS a���
- 00
S SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
EPD
TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SITE 2
0 15"
�oo
00
00
O CB
0�
0
0
oa 0
0�
0
�Og 36" w/ELBOWS
PDE

PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 8 OF 9
PROJECT NO
SHE29N0.
J44758E
890
_�
ADWAY DE
RO ENGINEERSIGN
HYDRAULICS
DATE: 5/1 /2024
880
EL
83.0/'
K
96
P = 4
_
+70.
0
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
V =
K = 112
20'
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
1fi1fi EAST ULLEHOO NA[), SMITE 1-
CAAONG.E,
�uU�u
860
-L
Sla.40+8.70
\\ In ` III\vnI \�
a U '.1GE78 NEEEB kFF9132E
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
-%-
E
oNE Fa ���ro�
.E<<F�R,a��E�sE
oat �a�N�kr� lN1.°1a
f -J3,
524
, t
)0.65
0%
-
-
(-JO
RO
SE
PI =
5/+/
.00
BEG
DITC�
----
-
-
/-
%
---
-
-
----
-
-
_
--�
-
J�2�
RAD
VC -
365
8,40
P/ S7
ELE
A 41
=85
50
.6
L -
RT
a
%
_
-840
+�
END
D CH
E
lSTI
G
_
0%
E
Pl
TA
+5
-L-
RT
11
�RIO 6W
BEG
D
CH
`\
POD
ELE
=837.00
` '
-
29/
)0.9
7
o�RIM
*N
Lon
°p
EDDCH
P
STA
5/+
-L
RT
810
a
W
V=
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 4400 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 814.2 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 4900 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 814.9 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 1/000 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= 500+ YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 820L FT
= FT
DATE OF SURVEY = 9-23-2019
WS.ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 802.8 FT
870
860
grio
840
EN
ST
UCT
RE
Pl
E
- 5
= 8
+45.
9.75'
0
840
BEGIN
S
RUC
UR
UR
EL
V.
823.
9
-L
Sta.54+
1930
EL
V. =
24.6
K
= ll
Rio
t-777
E
T�3
ISTIN
BE
BRIDG
MOVEE
PR
GRADF
POS
D
�-
W SIDE
�
�-
�
�
-a�
�
PIPE HYDRAULIC DATA
-
24" PIPE Sto. 6/+30 -L990
f-J09974,
t+1
0
END
DIT01
DRAINAGE AREA = 3.3 AC
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
_
1.51 N
ERM
_
--
�—
--
—�
--
— _
CLASS
TO
1.5:1
II RIP
TOP O
NORM
RAP
BERM
EX
GR
STIN
DE
IT
l ST
63
DO
LEV
L-
825.
T
5
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 12 CFS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 820.8 FT
810
ELEV
a=
080
1
—
- �.
1�
P/STr
6l
50
LEV
L-
8l9
L
l00 YEAR DISCHARGE = 13 CFS
/00 YEAR HW ELEVATION = 820.9 FT
1
1
1
1
1
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= 500+ YRS
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 29 CFS
800
WSE
9-23-
-8
ON
015
2 8
NW
=803.
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = .l FT
780
1
Ln
780
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS URFA E WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
14+08 / 14+47 -L- LT
Existing Culvert
< 0.01
< 0.01
28
14+05 / 14+30 -L- RT
Existing Culvert
< 0.01
10
2
55+07 / 55+46 -L- RT
Bridge
< 0.01
0.02
15
83
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.03
15
121
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
Revised 2018 Feb

W
O
ti
H
See Sheet to For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 98 For Conventionol Symbols
PROJE
U-4758
0
p
ca Skee Club Rd
r
BEGIN /
PROJECT
u 4758
=Im D
VICINITY MAP
SITE 1
SITE 5
PONDHAVEN DR.
-Y3-
JOHNS
STREET S�
COMP
BEGIN BRIDGE -
-L- STA. 54+57.38
�Q
STATE OF NORTIH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
LOCATION: SR 1818 (JOHNSON STREET) /SR 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD) FROM
SR 1820 (SKEET CLUB ROAD) TO SOUTH OF I-40 IN HIGH POINT
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, WIDENING, RESURFACING, SIGNALS,
AND STRUCTURE
BUFFER
IMPACTS PERMIT
Y5_ SITE 3
SITE 2
SR 1850
(SANDY RIDGE RD.) -Y9-
ROSEMONT
-Y6- DR.
-Y10-
THE -Y7-
SR 185
-Y4-
LINKS JOHN
t'
(BAME RD
SR 1966
AVE. KNOX DR.
SPRING DR.),..
1 3 14'
-Y11-
SR 1877
`
(JOE DR. DR.)
TS
-L- SR 1850
(SANDY RIDGE RD-)
Y26-
1
�NSONO��
BLOOMINGTON
FLYNT RD SR 1853
11
TR.
(SANDY CAMP
RD.)
SR181a1�O
-Y31-
WESTMOTT PL.
Y8
END BRIDGE
SR 1834
(KENDALE RD.)
_Y13_
SR 1837
L- STA. 55+90.63
(CLINARD -Y15-
FARMS RD.) SR 1556
( RE
WEST FORK DEEP
DAIRY
DRY RD.)
RIVER
BEGIN TIP PROJECT U-4758
-L- STA 13+41.52
��( Eq5¶NG SIGNAL
PROPOSED SIGNAL
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HIGH POINT.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD 77 .
U-4758
40251.1.1
0710025/0710041
PE
40251.2.1
0710041
RNl
40251.2.2
0710041
UTILITIES
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 11
DATE: 3/27/2024
SITE 4
END TIP PROJECT U-4758
-L1- STA 21+18.29
SR 1849
(NO RCROSS -RPB-
RD.) Qa (1-40)
Y27-
SR 1956
(ENDICOTT
v
-Y29- -RPC-
SR 1849 !L^ (I 40)
(NORCROSS RD.) Y24-
-Y21-
SR 1851 SR 1956
(TYNER LP.) S (� (ENDICOTT RD.)
-Y 19-
SR 1851 �
(TYNER LP.) r -L- STA 238+71.37 =
-Y14- �� -1-1- STA 10+60.00
SR 1916 \�
(RISE HAVEN RD.) -Y23-
PIEDMONT TRIAD
1 9 FARMERS MARKET
1850
(SANDY RIDGE RD.) 20 -Y20-
SR 1845
Y16- (TYNER RD.)
-Y18-
DAIRY SR 1978
POINT DR. (PARTRIDGE RD.)
-Y 17-
SR 1844
(NATIONAL
SERVICE RD.)
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prepared in the Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
A-T[K�JS IIiE -IT Da....OK ROAD, SUITE 160 SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
ADT 2021 = 24,400 RALELOR, nODTR NIOLLDA s7RH MOp�
50 25 0 50 100 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT U-4758 = 4.467 MILES (91s) 8is-s888 DCBFFS kF-0326 �a�D F_ n=• 0
ADT 2041 = 37,100 m �g
[Ift� K — 11 % LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJECT U�758 = 0.025 MILES zms STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS D = 60°/D TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT U-4758 = 4.492 MILES PE A
o
100 25 0 50 100 = SIGNATURE: �a
T 9%* RIGHT OF WAY DATE. CLINTON J. MORGAN, P.E q
V = 50 MPH DECEMBER 17, 2021 PROJECT ENGINEER ROADWAY DESIGN o
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) *TTST =4% DUAL=5% ENGINEER
10 5 0 10 20 FUNC CLASS = LETTING DATE. BRUCE B. PAYNE, P.E
URBAN ARTERIAL NCDOT CONTACT. • LAURA SUTTON, P.E DECEMBER 19, 2023 PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
PROFILE (VERTICAL) REGIONAL TIER PE.
SIGNATURE:

" I I 1 PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
_ 50' 25' 0 50' 100'
672
�'== E �1 "gRDa F U-4758 4
r 8" C&G L-w\ RNJ SHEET NO.
\ J� I 1111 \1 11 \ e _ \ 01
SCALE: 1"=�00/ ENGINEER ENGINEER
n I 11 I ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
II 11 \ RIRAP
P
DETAIL 4-1 �I m I „1
SPEC LAT V DITCH AK, II� / I I I �� T - - /ice /j INCOMP LEE ]E PLANS
INOT TO SCALE) \�11 m .�/ ; \ \ ��/ DO NOT USE FOR f W ACQUISITION
GRNATU­OUND
Min. D=1.0 Ft. Ilc�i 4 IZ
Q. ll� zpI
{j,}l 'C �m� M
FROM STA. 20+75 TO STA. 23+00 -L- RT / I� 11 a "C' N I It / ,�`a F �\ \ I � \0
DETAIL 4-2 ,� DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
LATERAL BASE DITCH MM £v UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
INOIm Scnlel `i,' ` A ( � 4L
�' 1fi16 EFSi NI LL BAOOK AOAL, SMITE 160
W AALEIBF, nGeTR CAIOLlnn veos
n ���,
Nmnrol.j_/ `� �� �/ ��L��CJ [phone] [IIGBEEs AF-o949
G,...d a:� Qslope
d z I�1 1 �\ �I, ' V_ A, — — — SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
GEOTEMILE— g 1 4- _ ENc, FlannucENSE No cxeo
Min. D=L5 FI. 1 E ✓ ,>`
Max. d=1.5 `�
'When B 6 so' 1=4.0 Ft. `W F
Type of LI---Glass B Rip-Rop b=5.0 � �L�N�a+-os
WILLIJiM G. CURLIN
FROM STA. 15+00 TO STA. 16+00 -L- LT BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
F----�� L
DIOCESFVOF CHARLOTTE, N.C. 1 1 \� ``>-' m� LAT 4• BASE DITCH WOODS BUFFER DRAWING
�_ 5+L - R.E;6+DD SHEET 2 OF 11
/ off` t I I III �\ ` y EST TONS WOODS
a
N +
f S''�
T. 11111 �1 DAVLIGHW' ST 324 SY GFD --
c
0 11 o=��� DITCH DETAIL 4_2 a DATE: 3/27/2024
i� EE
85t 1A' P 11 ETA 1 \ T,)
P�EQE _ 1 i
G 1 I TA
�� WOODS 2
TIE TO TIP QECT U 6/5B�`e.KaI��I s RCP� 4�
A 1 - ` ��y �'� Rs _ARIA a/c�4, LEOTERRA JOHNSON STREET LLC
m 09-20-23 �
a a N n \ \ p p �g E DUE / RETAIN 1 \ DU AREA D/C /
DI RCP �B PD E i Ov� G� E—�E oa-zo 23
o
vim' R TAIN L�
1 RCP 1 \ FrT y m [n� o DUI ) — NAIL 15" RCP C
LT M RETIN IS I V o f - -
UTJ Q�NpIL 60d NAIL
1B H W
• �S E� ,A,,,,"
A o,U/ METAL iR PNSM16 A5E RETAIN �� Y �' c,o l'I 1 1 1 \ v� m� _ - -
a 0 �` CONC WD
pEE No. POLE W/GONG MT O/'' p 20' HW Q WOODS -
L— POT Sta. 10+00.00 olsK� s se — _ --- —BL— 3 WTL ZZ
auc p _
D6K Fxls}8Po RCP IV
o POLE 1 WOODS � Q
ace sTA.E KwY olSm, e:IsnNc a w _ - - - - - -- - -
CONC g DISK 151' R P /LT RCP �� D I 4" PL - - - - _-_-_- -
�ex�nNc DISK aEF siniE nwv / 18" RCER SI _ _ <- S I l8/B OHNSO _ _—_— —
5 z$- - - - - - J N S7 V B A 16" DI
EVER�TS -- �r�-,� J
� RE AIN 1 RETAIN` � ��MOVE CB 2 r
-� - N w FiP 'u-365H W/LT ISIiNc R/w CONC �- _ T8 GI � /I►�
30 C&G 4 PL D RETAIN -�R�ADN 1 MOCg\ DIE DI IOT1FZR- W/FE RCP (�` V
� � L � 15" P D
24" RCP 1V
aP ARETAIN- 6 D I L • 5 RC n D E Exlslwc giw MOVE DI
_4^PL_ o� '---- w- C E -� C `g 15"RCP-IV CB 15"RC61� POLE IP R_C 12' PE ��'►
� _ R DI D _
r
1 \ EMOVE- CB
5R / 18 JONNSON S7 VAR BST dN Ci MT V CB ti IL - —
�, --_ n 55 SIG POL AK E ING
o
9"VC -
woos
_ i I N b o w (�
BVG s Cl \ DISK ' F - o 2 _
_ 30"C&G_—___=_-TD'2�NC ��\ \ C �R1 p EMOVE EEMOVE DI \ E
I`ONCONC — -- —4R^GONG CABI T 1jPIP
E� F PUE �
P
_ — EXIs Nc a/w DISK L - - L �"� 1 / �. UE
1� w, ISK Cg slc �� s 5 " PUE 4i' fv m W000s
DISK DI 5 POLE 1 1 II ur E OP E SITE 1 I I
EIP I _ A F Tejo p� N _ —L— PC Sta. 18+85.65
\ RETAIN p'
coNc I I ow
5 RCP� � `��, RETAIN 2 `W I I � �_ - --WOODS
TAIN ) \ 24 I H' 60 LF OF --
�g \ WOODS H I S T O R f IPE 1 \ pp �I 15" RCP I( O I WOODS - �Pgj,
� �� PROPERTY m 1 ��RETAw �
-31 �{` �� ,�;., I 1 24PIPE \ RE N \ o LEE VARRICK MOORE, JR.
\ f3`' CHRISTOPHER SAMPSON 1 1� �5CP ROBIN MICHELLE LONG vim' 12, BLK3 SPEC�T V DITCH
I� A wall �wFLL zo+�5 To 23+QQ
J \ 1 RETAIN 1 11 F 7DE CONC SEE DETAIL 4-1
} 1 i CB 7 E7• RIP HOWARD L. REGAN AND
j WELL 1� TAMARA K. REGAN
_ v �� SEE PERMIT DRAWING
CONC NO RETAIN -
RAMPS E3 0 24" PIPE ^>\9 II 1
�I 1 SHEET 3 OF 11� ° wo wA�L
r BEGIN TIP PROJECT U-4758 ` RET�INI - FOR ENLARGEMENT'
LT \ I 1CB II I II I z 2SFD
• SEKD —L— Sta.I3-t41.5z a III �I III I "I
ICI �� IIII Rt 0
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
o \\ <lzi ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZON� 2
3b _
fIRCP EXISTING SIGNAL
� 1
—BY— 10/
III I I ! �"�� NOTE. SEE SHEET 28 FOR —L— PROFILE

� I �o ii 1i II
� TA II � I h � � ° z �j✓���`�J� �qo
I II III I� �
III
V
I I R IN
N
0000' 15 CPII
36/5B =III v W �
I 1 I _I � � \ � � ° `� �M� AREA ULc
09-20-2J
vs
�� G DUE
RETAIN z � ° - — =P I\_ DU
n � - RCP EB PD Q o o
DI �� 5
I ETA N
RETAIN N T C T Y
15 RCP % I I \ 71m 1 (In �---- H ftN
TAIN 116 I \ u� 0CD
/MH ° �" I z — o UT)
NAIL
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
L1-4758
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
INCOMPL1E
FE
PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR
f W
ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 3 OF 11
DATE: 3/27/2024
cCD
—E �P 20' UC UW _ _
V --
&SK4 S SIG — - _ _ — — — — — —
R/T10,
POLE 5`� r) —
RETAIN \ RETAI Go'C REMOVE CB 4" PL — — _ — — — —
R 18" RCP V CULVERTS 512 _ _ �� W SR /8/8 JOHNSON ST V H I
�9 OEM RETAIN I RETAIN _� �— — — — _OVE 15 PIP_E_— 24" RCP —IV DI (Si ln
15 RCP C D� _ — �' _ — 15 DI
REMOVE — ���—DI DI RCP—IVDI _
CB — —
�G" DI L, \ GUY
CB CB ECG 15" RCP�I� POLE
•
� I H" IV 15" RCP —IV CB
��c� /
1818 JOMTL CB
C HNSOOST VAR BST I CD
� \
ss � DI
— I \ SiG POC
DSK
C X �A / / REMOVE — — —
\� NC \\I A ° _ V �� 15_' PIPE — —
CAD ET — UE — IL \ PUE 7
isK log �'\\Disi� CB siG / � � � �' Q ��� �� PUE
POLE v_ Iv �� zo< �5 E E SITE 1
�� o� o
I \\ CONc _ o �
UW
15' RCP I� -0 °O � � ALL ABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
M
�DC RETAIN
m� C = — h N ° z O 60 LF OF
I _ I mw o
15" RCP LOZA LE IMPACTS ZONE 2
co
0 C)
° I RETAIN I
24 PIPE I ��I "IN IN ° RE �I rn RRI K R R
o LEE VA C M00 E, J�RE
15C `�'�
I� I C P I ROBIN MICHELLE LONG
I AP)
I I O I
RETAINI c
° I I�
o CB �I EAI I T TDE _
=I „ z
h IIR P °
-
I° IIIII I I I V o 20' 10' 0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1"= 40'

MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
/ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
DII
m2
r
C/4
DI"
U)
ern X
�mD
+c)
orn
m
01
woods
PUEascewgnii wpY
\ PEF PO 13 PrG�40
p
SITE 5 � � 0
\\ 0 N
0
pF0peE39ca 0
15 ELECE=iF
ui Pf)INT CITY LIMITS (IN1
C C �wr Frrwr^tir^F0`
I CB
DUE
X S 48' 28' 31.1" E
=�S 79° 28' 28.2" E
+20.00\
M 115.00�T \
�� � LT•
Wes/
_ REMOVE
18" CMP
SPEC LAT 2'BASE DITCH
46+00 TO 47+50
SEE DETAIL 7-2
lu
DUE DU
E-- ESE
SPEC LAT 2'
BASE DITCH
48150 TO 51133
SEE DETAIL 7-2
EiP
CL B RIPRAP
TOE PROTECTION
50+50 To 54+59
EST 81 TONS
1
EST 523 SY GRID
J
SEE DETAIL 7Wb,y
I
,3
WOODS
WOODS
1 /' " lO BE REI,AOVEE
EXCAVATE T m
MEADOW CREEK SUBDIVISION ELEV-80I
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
A
CL II RIP TO z
E1=815,fX�2:1
STA 54+34 TO � M I I Vy00DS � A
54+72 —L— LT
>EMENT �/ to
2GI-A Y�F—
—DUE PDE
ALANNA ALEXANDER ZAMBRANO
ROBERT BRANDWOOD
MTL
30" WSELBOWS
'PDE PDE F
o'r SITE 2
z�
o'
CL II RIPRAP TO N N
STA 54+47 TO
54+72 —L— RT
50' 25' 0 50' 100,
tM
SCALE:1"=100'
ti
w-
Wo
IET
I
�I
I
Y �
L I
CL II RIPRAP
EL=815.3' 1. Y— — U
STA 58+30 —L— LT \ i
E CAVATE TO S
EL V=807.0'
,m CL II RIRAP
EST 130 TONS
-' EST 140 SY GF
CL II RIPRAP TO
ODDS EL=815.3' gl.5:1
STA 55+18 TO
56+19 -L- LT
FL //,, WOODS
E�W�j FF CL II RIPRAP PROTBEG RET. WALL � GATE
�f �,.,VAL�EL=B15.3'Pit OT.
I
5" RCP -IV
WOODS
1B
PDE PL 4FL- r �DE F PDE PDE
II
I
CL II RIPRAP TO
STA 55+78 TO
56+01 —L— RT
/
I
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
g
U-4758
7
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
2 m
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
/
U ryp
/
DO NOT U8E FOR
FE PLANS
f W ACOUIB]'ll'ION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UN CEEJJSS ALL ( SIGNATURES COMPLETED
�� K� [phone] �F�[IGBEES' F-C3ps�n
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
woods EN'F;,.L­ NSEN..o 3aE
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 5 OF 11
DATE: 3/27/20 4
CL 8 RIPRAP
TOE PROTECTION
58+50 TO 60+50
EST 92 TONS
EST 266 SY GFD
SEE DETAIL 7-1
WOODS I D
'� _
Ym
A� C/N
°_ rmn
o uT 1rIEs ,,��—�— p
GR 01:
STRUCTURE
E DETAIL 1
(TYP.)
DRY DET
BASIN 8.1
EST.1385 CY CUT
EST. 234 CY FILL
10' WIDE ACCESS & J
MAINTENANCE BERM
0
Om
00
7
/911
DETAIL 7-1 lti
e
TOE PROTECTION
( Nof to Seolel _ _ —
ti,
Natural
Ground b y, d IN
d= 1.0 Ft.
b= 2.0 Ft. Gcetoeile i
T of Liner= CL B Ri Ra pe p- p DETAIL 7-3
FROM STA. 50+50 TO STA. 54+59 —L— LT FALSE SUMP o ��-
FROM STA. 58+50 TO STA. 60+50 —L— LT )Not to Smlo)
Outside Ditch Iz p.l
Traffi Fill ow ,0� 20:1 'I I`
DETAIL 7-2
SPECIAL LAT 2' BASE DITCH cl
(Nat to Scole)
S=Ditch Slope ¢ Proposed Ditch /
Notuml //
a> e< on n STA. 51+44 -L- RT
P°�e slope / pgVEMENT REMOVAL
L�J B=ltS Ft.
20 Ft.
jS l\N
FROM STA.46+00 TO STA.47+50 RT Po/la Ea SEE SHEET 29 FOR —L— PROFILE
SEE SHEET 45 FOR —DWAYI — PROFILE

a' 'T `z 10' WIDE ACCESS &
TIE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BERM PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
-YlI - POT Sta. 16+83.58 I I DITc E.S 3 SEE PERMIT_ RAV�%�
DITC LIN r DETAIL 16-1 DETAIL 16-4 SHEET 7 OF 11 RW SHEET NO.
n( SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH ET
END CONSTRUCTION I I 96 N°r r° sr°I°1 mr° sr°I°1 FOR ENLARGEMENT CONTRO AZ 3: ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
-YII- Sto. 16 00.00'TER
JJS STRUCTURE ? Typ,1 I ENGINEER ENGINEER
+ I I o TERRY W. FRAZIER °i No °< siege I CL I RIPRAP SEE DETAIL 1
95 I a~ N°r°'°I -F'll R des EST 7 TONS 6
"d c;7 D Eo s� si°pe �.°°"a 4:7 D E SITE 3 EjT 17 S GFD 55 27 I
I o_ �N�®N��1L1E° ]E' �1L.4�Iv�
a I DO NOT USE FOR f W ACQUISITION
350 SOUTH LAND HOLDING, LLC -
Geae.ale -
u Mi".0= 1.0 Fr. Mi". Q=to D,
j' Type Of Liner=Gloss A Rip-R p M- d=1.0 F.
DAYLIGHT ``{ FROM STA. 11+50 TO STA. 12+50 -Y12- LT
m1 DITCH FROM STA. 11+00 TO STA. 15+00 -Yll- LT FROM STA. 15+OD TO STA. 15+65 -Y11- LT se•"'mom_ .� II I rM. 350 SOUTH LAND HOLDING LLC
wY l- PT Sta.DETAIL 16-2 DETAIL 16-5 I 62
'F
A
IY SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH SPEC LAT V DITCH I
WOODS f N°n° s°nl°1 (NOT To scALE1 BZ 1- o-
ONATURAL nw. D=1.5 Ft. TS)01 2 \ yJJ DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
cR�uND L I RIPRAP ` 11 UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
_ -L- PT Sta. 7+05.43 EST VV
Goo°"d 2;7 slope 4,.7 ,K EST 12 Cp- .1fi16 EnST NILLOAOOK ROAD, SMITE 160
FJ T 2o'uT v EASEMeNT Q A 0. v ' //\\�I;< �IIT\II� AAL EIOH NORTH CAROLINA 27609
HOWARD JOSEPH HOL YOAK t w �' o eEv ae s°e cc 4 �X EIP �"'-v�� _ E�V / R �� U U LI V LI CI 9s2e
"' Mi ❑- 1.D Fr. FROM STA. 169+OD TO STA. 180+00 L- IT HL V
\ - - c / ���/' SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP P.A.
' � FROM STA. 12+00 TO STA 13+00-Y12-RT ITd p IQ --`^� ?
SPEC LAT V DITCH m I X 9H X WOODS QVE 1 T.r' css� �L1N,s �,os
ICI A RIPRAP a DETAIL 16� _ _
ionEs can". N aUA
50 TO 15�65 TOE PROTECTION 5 SANDY RIDGE U _ %� / ��
T 28 TONS I i A/W t f - Z I N I METHODIST CHURCHI E a4 / �FRMLCENSENo �..a
es 11 GFD Wo X X QV F / �p ISFBUS Te"j/
SEE TAIL es
\ 6�
D.° b y 1`F�\5 N S� VAR NT RCP-N
LS9 AI d A9 �D +j BLK WALL Qy ^1/ / W� c R �� -�-N'"
O d= 1.0 Fr. \ / i / J / �/C
SPEC LAT V DITCH I b- 2.0 F. �°°r°Al°LIG 0'
SEE DETAIL 16-1 I 97 Tvpe of Liner= CL 8 Rip -RAP \ 3 \3 /' aEEyse c� SOPS \ i /B� jj CB / / QQ / N
7 FROM STA.169+85 TO STA. 172+50 -L- LT ONDUSF- ISFD
RETAIN DI lV SANDY RIDGE
& 1z"RCP �3 METHODIST CHURCH _
E e �- —TD A
\ 0114� Z
•; au�A � Tv DlrcH
P r Cti� F, �1 f.TP /-6 2 �/ yy 1 + 0 TO 180+00
� ��V
S "Ana 16-5
� °L
�oH
C&S PROPERTIES, INC. � � �2w o'� / / w 1�
/ \ REMOVE s i �� m �-Y12- POT��Sta.'7+19.70 , �. � � BUFFER DRAWING
�Sta. 16 6 .65
a—L—PCSta.161+48.12 w�- �I N >=z48LNL_- SHEET 6 1F 10
OR VARJIMMY C. FLOWER
o �/ - - _ , . oos BECKY T. FLOWER
A
�.-`'- 72X Wo
�_= I DATE: 3/27/2024
o
—�ZL
FL GR
O \� TB 2GI / / c�
\ � �/ /5 �oR�P St . /6 1.63 101
i i� eR M�SOU III
zo um Tv n wn do E3 MARK ALLEN BAKER
REF Pa P� s 43. 48" CHL � �� F / � � E � / / � � Popo�---"""WWW_��� I I I � IVY RAYLE BAKER
ISBLK� Gee i
SHED I \ Q- �i RETAIN
12" CMP SANDY RIDGE _ — — — — — — — _ R,
iF METHODIST CHURCH I vAR.ck
72 G�C ICI I - - - - - - - ` GR •
'\ a
H
w EWSOA� REMOVE
12" RCPce
b
WE�� PNOPt \ I \\ 8' 65T I III
MARK ALLEN BAKEp,
G 9 RETAIN 15" RCP-aV Y.5
15" RCP �I IVY RAYLE BAKER
REMOVE 12" RCP
-Yll- POT Sto.IO+O0.j4= METERY c6
Sto. /60+8,�,43E7 —
`N WIONUMEN
MON�'EN� _ 72 WBT T------------ B ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
72' WD /GAT E� \ 00
z W LS 15" RA.ti 1V U I III
1CHL
X EIP Z,J ❑�' CL B RIPRAP
GAI - SPEC LAT V DITCH EST 2 TONS
02 EST 7 SY GFD sEe �erno 1� zoo ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
48' CHL
SPEC LAT
E X. V i WANDA DEAN V DITCH
TO
ERIC N. HUTCHENS +5
12+50 SEE
W
3 BEACH SOUTH PROPERTIES, LLC _ DETAIL 16-1 V- I I I
r w -BY9- 112
WD v Ii I - RETAIN
ARI I 1 0 12" RCP
1 J -Y12- Stall+ .00 I RETAIN DI
TEPHEN TOP E Ql 'PR CI RETAIN & 12" HDPE
-��� w
If{ za-uTiLrt EnsErrtEN-r E� ��
�� E RE B i23 PC 80
P
- 4
o.00 J
xl m 15ETAIN RCP _ _ Oi RAI=/
e
x ,r�, ��II R �MARSHALL PETER HURLEY
L0 � 0 0 0 0 WD RAR � SANDRA B. HURLEY
yI �� .
-Y12- POT 1000.W QD wB RCP WALL
E BEACH SOUTH PROPERTIES, LLC - r�, -
a _ � c°j
- _ - - - - - - - 9' � PROPOSED SIGNAL
r� 50' 25' 0 50' 100' wo
jz �� - BDLLARD �I ow A16TE�.'; EET 33 FOR -L- PR FILE
SCALE: SEE SHEET 39 FOR -YII- & YI2- PROFILE
I
��

=-J
O
O
CD
SITE 3
CONTROL
STRUCTURE
CL I RIPRAP SEE DETAIL 1
EST 7TONS
iT 17 SY'.GFD �c
L I RIP
EST C
EST 12 C
i
c v�
Q
Q
a
r�
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
12i5'6.25' 0 12.5' 25'
SCALE: V=25' _
0
N
Q
Z
O `N�N.J
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
L1-4758
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
dN�®Ng�LE ]E PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR f W ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 7 OF 11
DATE: 3/27/2024

— — — — — PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
SEE PERMIT DRAWING SITE 4
SHEET 9 of » ° I j �o BUSHEET
FFERTD��RAWI1N1G -4�58 .a
FOR EN EMENT SceaSV H EE 1 V OF 1 1 ROADWAY DESIGN RW SHEET NO. ENGINEERS
N I�� on
DATE: 3/27/2024 LE FE PLANS
BASE DITCH � �g DO NOT USE FOR f W ACQUISITION
GLOR RIGUE
VARASVARAS \ w/CL I RIPRAP F L5 NE
Tg60 LF CID 4.0%
T 03 S TONS ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZO
EST 83 SV GFD �+
EST 1 0 Cy
DDE C�
\ Fo\ \ SEE D TAIL 181 8 I I II
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZON (� 2
DETAIL 18-9 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
FALSE SUMP, I \e FRANCISCO BATZIN q \ I UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
N°I to srole ESLY LOPEZ �n2
Offs Fic eFDifWh lQ I 2 o Q Ol I \\ I I II GOE 3\U23�O1 I^C �II\VI X` 1919)fiB'fiICIC N6000BCAROLINEE 27609032fio0
U U SSUNJGVATTJE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
I GI I I _
3 t5— o _;; III II „aR � � ��BTH�A�NN�z
S-Ditch Slope rE Proposed Ditch BRADLEY . PEN '2,._ 1 \ = _ OaDD FIRM Lg-'N^s
STA. 15+38 vl - RE f+F Q- ANGELA REN NNY'\-'"i 00 F
x SPEC LAT 4'BAS ENO Nit aE ENo.as-ssa
DITCH w 11- I RIPRAP G W F a zu pc 9
Te. 10+00 TO 10+so a +s
100 0 7 1 EST 163 TON
O 1 Q �� e EST 293 SY GF _
\ Z000 \G411�Y B00yy��� `^�r.'0 3m c EST
DETAIL IB \ H\N GR
KEITH FRAZIER MIA . BOOH`ER `W p �-� gg �+ A A ESP 1
\� RANCISCO BATZIN /�vPR'/ W°, ° 1DE f
\ ESLY LOPEZ °- 05 waP A �"
RQ °+ L G. DILLON III i
�2�`' �N�S Gg A Q Wo ° E E E B. DILLON \�1 O QQ
SPEC LAT V DITCH\ +'p �'
184+DO TO 18a+77 sf \ vT °y \�, �IiFO 122 T E UNDER THE \ wEPP zu Pce ��
mj v/ '��� r' BILLY .N11LLON AND Nor. aEFLs°�Ne aiw
X� SEE DETAIL 18-2 �'��, A + `Z o'' 0•°Oto JEANET E B. DILLON 15" RCP-V A ��3X23 v Ex
m� _ ABLE TRUST oV i_
a A Q G s c LAr v DIrcH ONG
PUE P°'s S,E z ID+n TO 11
UE
F X P ` s \ F SE DETAIL 18� -�
Q PUE { �� n \ - - - PUE
WPUE D E C \ N
N + alRrrFrse F a �"'a �`_`�g ' Z��
� � �
R=5" RCP-♦V e/ ° °�\ L ice c
Q CB I ., l9 _ \ CB °P
Lu 6^ p _ _ _ / / W
_ + � � BiVPRIEi � IG
_ EI _ �� A _
" PUII`il WCI7
ZN REMOVE GR — �� R i �mow—* P
—R€MOVE 15" RCP 6" ° J
—I — 12" RCP--REMQYE 12" RCP -� _ _ EIP _ ��� 185G SPN a/w _ �IPRNS W
��'�� CR
EST 2 TONS
CON,
V �7 S
T�?GFRCP-IVY GPAFDTRI A •L.A.Aq`�$AS
L N v DC1
,E1
P A DITCH
143 +z5
�[
PDE 9 +192 t125 0
FO — a // VALVE SEE TAIL 18-2
ee^wowiLr �,,, 1� \ 1'1 0 23 so. NARK MONfC
`, -�- /P � e I \ 1 14, 21A USLIM 1 �m� CC NG ipNQ
/ A M NITY I I �3 RRY C. ROBERSON 2 o "Zld �Nc
° aw000s V 1 % OP=
CL B RIPRA�/ / o�/ / V CENTER, INCOwEL 121 i X
EST57 SYTOGFD v / �� / QW 0GP/
109 � C,
CGNC
.A' �B. OUTHER \ V eP - V A P�eNZER Iseko .-r"'l °� �� �� / �j. ae• w0 - S \\
TRAVIS R. NICKELSTON 1 I �� lac �
�, / NITYI Ql� UTHos
GR�� i� �� STEVEN G. THAGGARD
LYNN THAGGARD
No`jG \ V A HOUSE
X;.j' SPED/ LAT V DITCO
I1 0 TO 13+0�
+ FEE o �` = DETAIL 18-3 Dernu 1a� °
°/so SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH GR_ �y \
o/ � o�O`P
MICH AEL B.BUTNER \ °1 TIE PROPOSED
NA— Gatural —FII ( 6
Y R. GRIFFIN round a.� a�'�o s` singe DITCH TO DETAIL 18-7
\ \ �- �e // / /� Qe- ❑ F EXISTING \ �° n / / / �sy\ ZZZ,,, SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
Mm. ❑= LD D.
Q
FROM STA. 14+00 TO STA. 15+00 —Y15— LT � � / / /" POLARIS HOLDING , LL Nn,ural � yG° —FII
3E E� J OgE
VIENGNAKHONE MIXAYKHAM
G
6Qe r
a
m�6
FROM STA. 10+00 TO STA. 11+00 —Y13— LT
RETAIN / 0
DETAIL 18-8
/ SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
N.,,o S'ale1
TRIAD MDSLIM /
COMMUNITY
\ CENTER, INC. a /
/,rSPEC LAT V DITCH croUnd
pi i —00 TO 18�15+00 ?� D E�° siope
FROM STA. 10+00 TO STA. 10+80 —V14— PIT \ % / SE TAIL
SPEC LAT V DITCH DETAIL 18-2 DETAIL 18-5 DETAIL 18-6 ��/ Min. D= 1.0 F1.
o- 112 r \\ 10+50 TO 14+50 SPEC LAT V DITCH SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH STANDARD BASE DITCH
\\ SEE DETAIL 18-5 INni,n scnln) INo,m scale) II /I� FROM STA. 10+17 TO 11+50 STA. —YI4— LT
INOT TO SCALE
NATURAL 3 \ �GR=UND —Min . D=1.0 F . ° NoNrnl Ground II Io 3 Gn,urnl B.� —FII d D
// SUSAN CHU g.7 A.� bond a.� D Frsiope Geo,�ne a Min. D=z.D H.
MICHAEL CHU �(,, RETAIN 50' 25' 0 50' 100,
PJbRY Max. d=1.5 F. _ q 24" RCP
h SPEC LAT V DITCH VWuhan a Is < a.a' � = / 10+00 TO 11+00 Min. D=I.D Ft. B=a.O H.
_ FROM STA. 184+00 TO STA. 184+77 —L— LT
/ SEE DETAIL 18-7 T of Liner=Class I Ri R
FROM STA. 190+43 TO STA. 192+25 -L- RT FROM $TA. 1D+50 TO STA. I4+SO -Y13- RT vice °P II do looi I -;, SCALE: 1-100'
IL -FROM STA. 11+00 TO STA. 13-00 -Y15- LT STA. 9+50 -V74- LT

ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
D 4' BASE DITCH
ENRIQUE VARAS w/CL I RIPRAP
0 LF @ 4 0°/
GLORIA VARAS EST 323 TONS
EST 83 SY GFD
EST 1 0 CY DDE
SEE D TAIL 18-6
Qo 0 FRANCISCO BATZIN
e9s ESLY LOPEZ
\o
o°
-o
SPEC LAT 4' BAS
DITCH w/CL I RIPRAP `
17 � o_ 10+00 TO 10+80
aq EST 163 TON
EST 293 SY GF
,B00*PD
BOO R
A
�m `112, SEE DETAIL 18- \ oo
RANCISCO BATZIN
ESLY LOPEZ +
7:���
s�
PUE PUE Q
PUE \
o`D
G
O
C.
2
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
BUFFER DRAWING U-4758
SHEET 9 OF 11 RNS SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
DATE: 3/27/2024
DO NOT USE FOR f
SITE 4
BRADLEY PEN
L ANGELA RENENNY
WOOD`
�z
cp
S C LAT V DITC
10+17 TO 11+5(
SPED E ETAI L 18-8
SHEET NO.
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PLANS
ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
///�\\UNL��E/(JSS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
TE
U U�IJ V�IJ V�(91B)GBfiN6800Bop�ICBEESJbF9�32fion C
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
oa\oI A 4,H,
RM EsEo: ° -as ,
N
O11
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
[L[tm
SCALE: 1"=50'

RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACTS
BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT
Site Station Structure ROAD PARALLEL
No. (From/To) Size / Type CROSSING IMPACT BRIDGE ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2
(ft2) (ft2) (ft2) (ft2) (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1
14+29 / 14+82 -L- LT
Existing Culvert
x
331
488
819
14+27 / 14+79 -L- RT
x
476
757
1233
2
54+51 / 55+97 -L-
Roadway Fill
x
1247
1247
Bridge
x
9215
3869
13084
3
169+48 / 170+40 -L- LT
Roadway Fill
x
32
2255
2287
4
188+58 / 189+43 -L- LT
Outlet Channel
x
1272
1177
2449
5
41+89 to 48+22 -L-LT
Roadway Fill
x
1057
9765
10822
TOTALS*:
11326
9793
1 21119
1057
1 9765 1
10822
0
0
NOTES:
Revised 2018 Feb
Rev.Jan 2009

WETLANDS IN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLANDS IN
BUFFERS
SITE STATION ZONE 1 ZONE 2
NO. (FROM/TO) (ft) (ft)
1 14+29/14+47 -L- LT 99
(TOTAL: 1 99 1 0 1
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
3-27-2024
GUILFORD COUNTY
U-4758
45021.1.1
Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 11 OF 11
Rev.Jan 2009

Archaeology

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
ao This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORMi
4p._., $;
9 o! valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the 6
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group...
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-4758
WBS No: 40251.1.1
F.A. No: Unknown
Federal Permit Required?
County:
Document:
Guilford
Federal PCE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (Not Specified)
Project Description: NCDOT is proposing to widen and realign SR 1818 (Johnson Street)/SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to I40 in Guilford County. Currently, Johnston
Street/Sandy Ridge Road is a 2-lane, undivided facility. As proposed, the corridor will consist of a 4- to
5- lane divided facility with sidewalks and bike lanes. Project length measures about 4.40 miles. Based
on Preliminary Design Plans, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) will equate to the extent of the Proposed
ROW and any construction easements along the corridor. The realignment of several Y-lines (i.e. major
intersecting roads) will also be included as a component of this project. Overall, the APE will encompass
about 105.8 acres, inclusive of all existing roadways and development.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEYREQUIRED
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This project was accepted on Monday, February 12, 2018. A map review and site file search was
conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Tuesday, February 13, 2018. No large-scale
archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area, and only one (1) archaeological site has been
recorded within one mile of the corridor for the proposed project. In addition, this project was initially
submitted to SHPO/OSA for review in Jun 2012, to which they replied, "with regard to archaeological
resources, we have reviewed our maps and files and one recorded archaeological site, 31GF436**, may
be located within your study area. We have no information regarding this historic archaeological site
except for its location. We have contacted the site recorder and requested specific information, which we
will forward to you. Additional, as yet unrecorded, archaeological resources may be present within the
study area. Please forward more specific project information as it developed so we may assess the
potential for effects to archaeological resources" (SHPO memo dated 28 Jun 2012).
Digital copies of HPO's maps (Kernersville and Guilford Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS
Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Tuesday, February 20, 2018. As a result of
an historic architecture survey conducted in 2014 for this project when it was initially submitted for
review, numerous architectural resources were identified within or adjacent to the APE; however, intact
archaeological deposits associated with these resources are not 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
archaeological APE.
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED"form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
This is a Federally funded project for which a Federal permit will be required. In addition, temporary
and/or permanent construction easements will be necessary. Although not specified, it is anticipated that
additional ROW along the corridor will be needed as well based on preliminary design plans. The size
and shape of the APE have been drawn in a way to capture any areas that may be impacted beyond the
NCDOT's existing ROW along all associated roadways. At this time, we are in compliance with 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. Based on the description of the project and the size of
the APE, activities will take place beyond NCDOT's existing 60-foot ROW. From an environmental
perspective, the APE can be classified as mixed residential and agricultural, consisting primarily of the
SR 1818 (Johnson Street)/SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) corridor (and its intersecting roadways) and the
immediately adjacent property. Various soil types are present throughout the APE, with roughly half of
the corridor composed of soils (eroded or somewhat poorly drained) considered not favorable for intact
archaeological sites/resources to be present. Preservation of archaeological materials within these soil
type areas is likely to be poor. Nevertheless, intact pockets of undeveloped land and buffers adjacent to
streams/rivers are present along the corridor. Sections of well -drained soils (e.g. Appling, Cecil,
Coronaca, Enon, Madison, and Vance series) and relatively level terrain are present throughout the
overall APE. Some areas consisting of these soil types have not been disturbed by development and have
not been subjected to previous archaeological survey/review work. Such areas may be deemed favorable
for containing intact archaeological deposits and will require formal archaeological investigations. The
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed various projects within the vicinity of the proposed APE
for environmental compliance, including utility improvements (ERs 09-0483, 95-7921, 95-7918, and 99-
7257), transportation improvements (ERs 04-3272, 02-7193, 02-7213, 06-0276, and 00-7310), stream
restoration projects (ERs 03-1575 and 01-9215), a borrow pit (ER 06-0421), recreational development
(ER 04-0912), and residential development (ER 00-10034). Remarkably, OSA did not recommend an
archaeological survey for any of these projects based on each project's low probability of impacting
significant archaeological sites. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT's Archaeology Group
has reviewed several transportation -related projects for environmental compliance under the
Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), most of which
consist of small bridge replacement projects or various signal system upgrades throughout High Point.
An interchange upgrade project at I40 with Sandy Ridge Road (PA 16-10-0037 [TIP# I-5712]) has also
been reviewed. Based on the limited nature and scope of these surrounding projects, no archaeological
surveys were recommended. Despite the lack of recommendations for archaeological surveys in the
vicinity of the APE, an archaeological survey is recommended for the proposed project based on the
favorable soil conditions and topographical settings that will be impacted by the project. A visual
inspection of the entire corridor 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 cemeteries should
also be properly recorded and delineated if said cemeteries are located within the APE. None of the
property within the APE 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.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED"form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST — SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT ARCHAEOL
T
PROPOSED FIELDWORK COMPLETION DATE
February 22, 2018
Date
August 22, 2018
'?
Figure 1: LEFT-Kernersville, NC (USGS 1969 [PR87]) and RIGHT -Guilford, NC (USGS 1951
[PR68]).
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUR VEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3

Y
A 1 1 1 1 Widening of SR 1818 (Johnson St)l•• � Tom'
•I -� 1
ast Fork Deep River
RidgeSR 1850 (Sandy Rd) from All
SR 1 • • to 41�
•'I House
Guilford County,
�� Hose douse i
4l - Potentiala of Effects • ♦ House
Hewse
1� • • • _ � f� r :. - House/ 1 �
- • • �ai'J� r Hou*6 '
Local —District —Boundaries •ZOn Hill Methodist Church
'9 House
-House Ilve
Named streams House ` • House. - •
HYARUT Is
" • • 1 �� �L 4� House
rl
•Ibuse
Cemetery
+ House and Barns House
Streets
House
0
_ • • 1 . • _ Howse •
• Sandy Ridge Community Center
.. �� House
Hous6 House
• House House
• • House
House
HouseV. •
��• House.
• _�� Equipment SheBarn
an
a _. :�y \• House
Sa dy Ridge United Methodist ChurchH2pse
Huse Hous
ti HouseH •se ttolHouse • ��
•'�d rous*House
Colonel aacj� eson House Horse BarnHosse •
House gI9ouse j
�,.
soft
Bic
—lit 0
� , .,ram i � `� •ci
` � ■• fir, . n � -
�Ax 0''''� 'fir+rll�sn��ti� i� .� . •
k
p
,..-
u sue.
r11111!! HouseAM
se ��- • House
Lindsay-Ogburn-Reynolds House ► Farm outbuildings—
• { sOf,
w OUR.
50
i'i-IJdi•L9w��1���'�, it • �Y �''�xA:l� "`'� •z.� � �~', '�
��.�( �� �• �;y� t 1 ' Parrish House (Gone?)
►
were i.
i aF ^lap MFlouse
r
-
i •
Farm ComplexOak
, f �� #.�, �.s ram{. ►`_- ,,� ��.
Elihu Mendenhall House (Mendenhall -Blair House)LIN
jMCA
•
II• i��Y�� ••ili �lrJre:y�IJ��•i'f 1�
_—_

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oo ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
r-
0 a This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not 4- W
-'' valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No
II : _INO]
F.A. No
U-4758
40251.1.1
Unknown
Federal Permit Required?
County: Guilford
Document: Federal PCE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (Not Specified)
Project Description: NCDOT is proposing to widen and realign SR 1818 (Johnson Street)/SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to I-40 in Guilford County. Currently, Johnston
Street/Sandy Ridge Road is a two-lane, undivided facility. As proposed, the corridor will consist of a four -
to five- lane divided facility with sidewalks and bike lanes. Project length measures about 4.40 miles.
Based on Preliminary Design Plans, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) will equate to the extent of the
Proposed ROW and any construction easements along the corridor. The realignment of several Y-lines
(i.e. major intersecting roads) will also be included as a component of this project. Overall, the APE will
encompass about 105.8 acres, inclusive of all existing roadways and 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:
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Tuesday,
February 13, 2018. No large-scale archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area, and only one
(1) archaeological site has been recorded within one mile of the corridor for the proposed project. OSA
has no information regarding site 31 GF436* *, except for its location (Figure 1).
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Digital copies of HPO's maps (Kernersville and Guilford Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS
Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Tuesday, February 20, 2018. As a result of
a historic architecture survey conducted in 2014 for this project, when it was initially submitted for
review, numerous architectural resources were identified within or adjacent to the APE; however, intact
archaeological deposits associated with these resources are not 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
archaeological APE.
New South Associates, Inc. (New South) conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the U-4758
Area of Potential Effects (APE) between April 10 and April 17, 2018 (Figures 2 and 3). This survey
sought to identify and evaluate archaeological sites for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility according to criteria outlined in 36 CFR §60.4. The survey included a visual inspection of the
entire APE and systematically shovel -tested survey areas that were defined by NCDOT as having a
moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological sites (Figure 4). These areas consisted of
moderately well -drained and well -drained soils that were not impacted by modern development. New
South also recorded and evaluated three cemeteries located within or adjacent to the APE during the
survey. The cemetery evaluations relied upon non-invasive data collection (e.g., photography and sketch
mapping) and limited ground -penetrating radar (GPR) survey in one case.
Shovel testing of the designated survey areas utilized pre -plotted 30-meter interval shovel test locations.
Field technicians visited all test locations during the survey. They did not excavate test locations within
discernible disturbances or near buried utility lines. Excavated tests measured 30-centimeters in diameter
and were excavated to sterile subsoil, the water table, or impenetrable substrate. Shovel test results
(including soil color, texture, depths, and the presence/absence of cultural material) were recorded using
smartphones equipped with a Memento data collection application. The field director collected sub -meter
Global Positioning System (GPS) data for selected shovel tests, cemetery boundaries, and site locations.
All artifacts were returned to New South's laboratory in Stone Mountain, Georgia where they were
washed and identified. Analysts identified the type, material, age, affiliation, and metrics of the collected
artifacts according to standard techniques/typologies for both pre -contact and historic material. Raw
materials for pre -contact lithic artifacts were classified according to procedures established by the
NCDOT for the Carolina Slate Belt.
SURVEY AREA 1
Survey Area 1 was located to the southeast of the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Tyner Road
(Figure 4). Planted white pines covered this upland area (Figure 5). The investigation identified a City of
High Point sewer line along the northern edge of Survey Area 1, and a large push pile at the eastern edge
of Sandy Ridge Road. Their presence indicates that road- and sewer -related disturbances have impacted
this survey area. Eleven shovel test positions were excavated in this area. The excavated tests
encountered five centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam overlaying 15 centimeters of red
(2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 6). Shovel testing and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological resources in Survey Area 1.
SURVEY AREA 2
Survey Area 2 was located on the eastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, extending northeast from the
Partridge Road intersection (see Figure 4). This upland survey area included a zone of scrub vegetation, a
natural gas transmission line, and the grassed yard of a single residence (Figure 7). There were four
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
shovel test positions investigated in this area, three of which were excavated and one test located near the
natural gas line was not excavated. These tests uncovered 19 centimeters of brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam
overlaying 10 centimeters of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay subsoil. The field investigation
did not locate any archaeological resources in Survey Area 2.
SURVEY AREA 3
Survey Area 3 encompassed a segment of upland located between Sandy Ridge Road and Shields Road
(see Figure 4). During the survey, a fallow agricultural field covered this landform (Figure 8). There
were 12 shovel test positions investigated in this area. Of these, 11 were excavated, and one test was not
excavated. The excavated tests indicate the survey area soils are limited to 20 centimeters of red (2.5YR
4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 9). These tests and visual inspection did not locate any archaeological remains
in Survey Area 3.
SURVEY AREA 4
Survey Area 4 was located along the southeastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, south of the Shields Road
intersection (Figure 10). This upland setting included a fallow agricultural field and a thin hardwood
copse (Figure 11). There were six shovel test positions investigated in this area, five of which were
excavated. None yielded cultural material. These tests typically encountered 30 centimeters of very dark
brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) sandy loam overlaying 23 centimeters of very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sand (Figure
12). A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil was uncovered 53 centimeters below ground surface.
Shovel testing was suspended when the landowner informed the field crew that the survey area
encompassed an area where he had added 80 truckloads of topsoil and subsequently raised the ground
surface approximately 50 centimeters. He also stated that the underlying ground surface was low-lying
and used for cultivation. Given the shovel testing results and past land use in this survey area, this
unexcavated shovel test location was unlikely to contain any undisturbed soil strata.
SURVEY AREA 5
Survey Area 5 was located on the west side of Sandy Ridge Road, opposite the Dairy Point Drive
intersection (see Figure 10). A grassy yard and a fallow agricultural field covered the survey area (Figure
13). The field crew excavated six shovel test positions in this area. None yielded cultural material.
These tests uncovered 34 centimeters of brown (7.5YR 5/4) clay sand overlaying 11 centimeters of
yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure 14). No archaeological resources were identified in Survey
Area 5 during the field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 6
Survey Area 6 was located on the north side of Gallimore Dairy Road, 60 meters southeast of the Sandy
Ridge Road intersection (see Figure 10). A recently constructed commercial structure was erected in this
survey area. This structure was screened from the road by scrub vegetation and does not appear on recent
aerial photography (Figure 15). Three shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 6. These tests
typically encountered 23 centimeters of reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) sandy clay overlaying nine centimeters
of red (2.5YR 4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 16). These tests and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological resources in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 7
Survey Area 7 was located opposite Survey Area 6, on the south side of Gallimore Dairy Road (see
Figure 10). A low-lying grassy yard extended across this side of the road (Figure 17). Three shovel test
positions typically identified 28 centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/4) clay sand overlaying 10
centimeters of yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure 18). These tests and visual inspection of the
survey area did not locate any archaeological resources.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 8
Survey Area 8 was located east of Clinard Farms Road (Figure 19). The local setting included a narrow
band of woods and a newly constructed building and parking lot (Figure 20). Field technicians examined
five shovel test positions in this area. Although the field crew was able to excavate three tests,
disturbances prevented the excavation of the two remaining test locations in Survey Area 8. The
excavated tests were negative for archaeological remains and typically uncovered 25 centimeters of
yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay subsoil (Figure 21). The field investigation did not locate any
archaeological resources in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 9
Survey Area 9 extended across an open field on the south side of Sandy Ridge Road, halfway between
Clinard Farms Road and Sandy Camp Road (see Figure 19, Figure 22). Four shovel test positions were
excavated in Survey Area 9. These tests typically encountered 30 centimeters of reddish brown (2.5YR
4/3) clay and did not produce cultural material (Figure 23). Visual inspection of the survey area also did
not locate any archaeological resources.
SURVEY AREA 10
Survey Area 10 extends from the Clinard Farms Road intersection to a point 70 meters northeast of the
Sandy Camp Road intersection, on the northwest side of Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 19). This area
included fallow agricultural fields and grassy front yards (Figure 24). Technicians examined 15 shovel
test positions in this area, 13 of which were excavated. The excavated tests revealed 25 centimeters of
reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay overlaying light red (2.5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 25). None of the
excavated tests produced artifacts. Two test locations were left unexcavated due to heavy disturbance
related to driveway construction. The field investigation did not locate any archaeological resources in
Survey Area 10.
SURVEY AREA 11
Survey Area 11 was located east of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with Joe Drive (Figure 26). The
local setting includes grassy lawn of the Sandy Ridge Road Methodist Church (Figure 27). Three
negative shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 11. These tests typically uncovered 10
centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy clay loam overlaying 23 centimeters of yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) sandy clay (Figure 28). A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil was uncovered 33
centimeters below ground surface. No archaeological resources were identified in Survey Area 11 during
this field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 12
Survey Area 12 follows the west side of Sandy Camp Road, south from the intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road (see Figure 26). The local setting includes the grassy lawn of a single residence and the Sandy
Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery (Figure 29). Five shovel test positions were examined in this area.
The field crew excavated three shovel tests and left two unexcavated due to their proximity to an area
with high potential for the presence of unmarked graves. The excavated tests uncovered 10 centimeters
of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy clay loam overlying 13 centimeters of yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) sandy clay. A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil was encountered 23 centimeters
below ground surface. Shovel testing and visual inspection of the survey area did not locate any artifacts.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 13
Survey Area 13 was located on the southeastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, across from the Bame Road
intersection (see Figure 26). The local setting included a fallow agricultural field covered by raspberries
and tall grass (Figure 30). Of the nine shovel test positions investigated in Survey Area 13, eight were
excavated. The presence of pavement prevented excavation of the final test location. The excavated tests
typically encountered 25 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay loam and light red
(2.5YR 6/8) clay subsoil. These tests and visual inspection did not locate any artifacts in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 14
Survey Area 14 extends along the northwestern side of Sandy Ridge Road from the Presbyterian Homes
parking lot southwest for 200 meters (Figure 31). The presence of three -meter -high earthen mounds and
a berm, covered by grass, indicated that mechanical excavation heavily disturbed this area (Figure 32).
All seven shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 14. These tests revealed 28 centimeters of
reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay sand overlaying red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 33). None yielded
cultural material.
SURVEY AREA 15
Survey Area 15 was located 340 meters southwest of the Kendale Road intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road, on the western edge of Kendale Road (see Figure 31). During the survey, this upland area included
a fallow agricultural field and the grassy front yard of a single residence (Figure 34). Six shovel test
positions were excavated in Survey Area 15. These tests typically encountered 34 centimeters of brown
(7.5YR 5/4) sandy clay overlaying reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) clay subsoil (Figure 35). Shovel testing
and visual inspection of Survey Area 15 did not locate any artifacts.
SURVEY AREA 16
Survey Area 16 includes a ridgetop covered by a fallow agricultural field located between Kendale Road
and Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 31, Figure 36). The field crew investigated 28 shovel test positions in
this area. This includes 22 pre -plotted tests and four 7.5-meter interval radials. Technicians excavated all
of the pre -plotted tests and three radial tests (Figure 62). Demolition of a twentieth century house site
heavily disturbed the final test location. The general soil uncovered in Survey Area 16 includes 20
centimeters of brown (7.5YR 4/3) sandy clay overlying 13 centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/3) clay
(Figure 37). Subsoil, a reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay, was revealed 23 centimeters below ground
surface. While subsurface artifact deposits were not identified in the survey area, one historic surface find
was collected at Shovel Test 109. This find, designated as site 31GF569, is discussed below.
SURVEY AREA 17
Survey Area 17 extends northeast from the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Johnson Street (Figure
38). A fallow agricultural field extends across this upland area (Figure 39). The field crew excavated 13
out of 14 tests plotted in the survey area. The final test location was not excavated due to large ruts from
land clearing. The excavated tests identified 28 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand
overlying reddish brown (5YR 4/4) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 40). Visual inspection and shovel testing
did not locate any artifacts in Survey Area 17.
SURVEY AREA 18
Survey Area 18 was located at the southwestern corner of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Johnson Street (see Figures 38 and 43). The survey area contains a fallow agricultural field currently
under development (Figure 41). All 23 shovel test positions in Survey Area 18 were excavated. None
yielded cultural material. These tests commonly contained 30 centimeters of dark yellowish brown
(10YR 4/6) silty clay overlaying 10 centimeters of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay (Figure 42).
Shovel testing and visual inspection of Survey Area 18 did not locate any archaeological sites.
SURVEY AREA 19
Survey Area 19 was located on the east side of Johnson Street, across from the Cedar Spring Drive
intersection (Figures 43 and 46). The local setting includes wooded residential lots and a transmission
line corridor (Figure 44). Technicians examined 18 shovel test positions in this area, 14 of which were
excavated. Three test locations were not excavated due to heavy disturbance, and the final unexcavated
test location was not shovel tested due to subsoil surface exposure. The excavated tests uncovered five
centimeters of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) silty loam and 15 centimeters of light reddish brown (2.5YR
6/3) silty clay (Figure 45). Shovel tests exposed a reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil 20 centimeters
below ground surface. None of the test locations produced cultural material. Visual inspection and
shovel testing did not locate any archaeological sites in Survey Area 19.
SURVEY AREA 20
Survey Area 20 was located on the east side of Johnson Street, opposite the entrance to the Johnson Street
Sports Complex (see Figure 46). This sideslope survey area contained young pines and scrub vegetation
(Figure 47). The field crew excavated four of the five shovel test positions. These negative tests
uncovered 20 centimeters of reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) silty clay overlying light red (2.5YR 6/8) clay
subsoil (Figure 48). The unexcavated test location was too disturbed to warrant subsurface testing.
Visual inspection of this area and shovel testing did not identify any artifacts in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 21
Survey Area 21 was located near the northeastern side of the West Fork Deep River (see Figure 46). The
survey area contains a pine- and hardwood -covered ridgetoe overlooking a narrow section of floodplain
(Figure 49). Twenty-one survey and radial shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 21
(Figure 60). These tests typically encountered 16 centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam
overlying red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 50). A single bucket auger test (Test A) was excavated
between the boundary of Survey Area 21 and the stream. This test exposed 10 centimeters of dark
yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) silty clay and 50 centimeters of yellowish red (5YR 5/8) compact silty clay.
These soils indicate that alluviation did not deeply bury any A -horizon soils in the APE. A metavolcanic
flake was recovered from Shovel Test 178 (Figure 46). A description of this archaeological resource,
designated as site 31GF568, is provided below.
SURVEY AREA 22
Survey Area 22 was located on the southwestern side of the West Fork Deep River (Figure 51). The
survey area includes a narrow floodplain and sideslope covered by hardwoods (Figure 52). Two shovel
test positions were excavated in this area, both of which encountered 15 centimeters of dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam overlaying 35 centimeters of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay
and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) silty clay subsoil. Neither test yielded artifacts. A bucket auger test (Test
B) exposed 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam before encountering the water table.
This profile and those recorded during shovel testing indicate that alluvial processes have not deposited
soils in this area. Shovel testing results, bucket augering, and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological remains or deeply -buried deposits in Survey Area 22.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 23
Survey Area 23 was located on the northeastern side of Johnson Street, beginning at the intersection of
Johnson Street and Pondhaven Drive (see Figures 51 and 57). The local setting included residential lots
and a small agricultural field covered by grass (Figure 53). The field crew examined 12 shovel test
positions in this area. Eleven tests were excavated. One test location was too disturbed by driveway
construction to merit subsurface testing. The general soil profile in Survey Area 23 includes 20
centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/3) sand overlying 12 centimeters of very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2)
loam and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 54). Pedestrian survey and shovel testing did not
locate any archaeological sites in Survey Area 23.
SURVEY AREA 24
Survey Area 24 was located across from Pondhaven Drive (see Figures 51 and 57). The local terrain
includes a sideslope covered by hardwoods, fenceline cedars, and grasses and periwinkle ground cover
(Figure 55). Survey Area 24 contained 35 shovel test positions. Field technicians excavated 29 of these
tests, none of which yielded cultural material. Tests typically revealed 17 centimeters of very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam overlying six centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) silty clay
and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 56). The five remaining test locations were not
suitable for subsurface testing due to the presence of road -related push piles and heavy disturbances. No
archaeological sites were identified in Survey Area 24 during this field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 25
Survey Area 25 was located on the west side of Johnson Street, 180 meters north of its intersection with
Skeet Club Road (see Figure 57). The survey area includes sideslope covered by a narrow band of woods
and an abandoned agricultural field (Figure 58). Four shovel test positions were excavated in Survey
Area 25. None yielded cultural material. These tests typically encountered 10 centimeters of dark brown
(7.5YR 3/2) silt and reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay subsoil. New South did not identify any
archaeological sites in Survey Area 25.
IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE 31GF568
New South collected a single metavolcanic flake from Shovel Test 178, in Survey Area 21 (see Figure
46). During the site visit, hardwood trees and light density scrub vegetation covered this landform
(Figure 59). The positive shovel test was excavated on a ridge toe overlooking the West Fork Deep River
floodplain. Shovel Test 178 produced a temporally non -diagnostic precontact flake between 0-30
centimeters below ground surface. Technicians excavated a cruciform of 11 15-meter- and 7.5-meter-
interval delineation shovel tests around the positive test location (Figure 60). These tests revealed 20
centimeters of dark brown (IOYR 3/3) silty loam overlying red (2.5YR 5/8) silty clay subsoil (Figure 61).
No additional artifacts were recovered from site 31GF568.
A single non -diagnostic lithic artifact was collected from site 31GF568. The artifact cannot be associated
with any significant people or broad patterns of history. It does not convey any significance related to the
works of a master craftsperson or embody any high design ideals. Shovel testing also shows that the site
does not contain any significant artifact deposits or intact features and has a low potential to benefit future
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
research. For these reasons, New South recommends site 31GF568 not eligible for the NRHP under
Criteria A, B, C, and D. No further work is recommended.
SITE 31GF569
A single fragment of nineteenth- or twentieth-century milk glass (Miller et al. 2000) was collected from
the Survey Area 16 ground surface, at Shovel Test 109 (see Figure 31). This site was located on a
ridgetop overlooking the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Kendale Road. The surface find was
collected from the edge of an overgrown fence line that separated the survey area from an abandoned
twentieth-century farmhouse complex, located 20 meters to the south. This complex was located outside
of the APE and was undergoing demolition at the time of the field investigation.
Field technicians excavated four shovel tests during the site delineation (Figure 62). This included two
15-meter interval shovel tests to the north, east, and west of Shovel Test 109. The farmhouse complex
was extensively disturbed, and no shovel tests were placed in this area. These tests and visual inspection
of surrounding ground surface exposures did not locate any additional artifacts. Shovel testing revealed
25 centimeters of brown (7.5YR 4/2) loamy sand overlaying yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure
63). Given the fallow field setting, the upper soil horizon likely resulted from agricultural activity.
Site 31GF569 contains a twentieth-century surface find that is presumably associated with the demolished
farmhouse complex because of its proximity (Figure 64). The mechanical removal of these structures
heavily reduced the potential for the area to contain intact subsurface artifact deposits or features. The
site cannot be associated with any broad patterns of history or significant people. It does not convey any
significance related to the works of a master craftsperson or embody any high design ideals. The
disturbed site did not yield any subsurface artifacts, and the surface find lacks integrity. Therefore, New
South recommends site 31GF569 not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D. No further
work is recommended for the site.
SITE 31GF570, ZION HILL METHODIST CEMETERY
The Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery is located northwest of the Tyner Loop intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road (Figure 65). The 60x40-meter (0.5-acre) cemetery is immediately west of the Zion Hill Methodist
Church and is covered by a patchy grass lawn. The cemetery contains 12 loosely aligned north -south
rows of headstones facing east made from concrete, marble, and granite (Figure 66). Several headstones
bear evidence of displacement. The grave plots appear to be individually decorated and tended, the best
example of which are Harriet and J.B. Lindsay's graves. The graves share a granite headstone and are
covered by rows of small stones aligned parallel to the graves' long axes. These stones are embedded in a
concrete ledger with the entire covering painted white. This treatment is representative of traditional
African American burial practices (Vlach 1977). Though most of the headstones were legible, several
pressed concrete markers were too eroded to read. One depression located near the southwestern corner
of the cemetery suggests the presence of additional unmarked graves.
The earliest headstone identified at the Zion Hill Methodist cemetery dates from the 1880s (exact date
illegible). Little background information is available for the Zion Hill Methodist Church. A 1920 soil
map places a church at the current Zion Hill church building location. Cursory background research
indicates that the names memorialized in the cemetery belong to tenant farmers with African American
and European American backgrounds. According to her headstone, Harriet Lindsay, one of the African
Americans interred in the cemetery, was born in 1854. This birthdate opens the possibility that Harriet
and others buried in the cemetery were formerly enslaved.
Site 31GF570 encompasses the late nineteenth- and twentieth-century Zion Hill Methodist Church
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
cemetery. Background research did not identify any significant events associated with the cemetery. The
cemetery does not convey any associations with broad patterns of history or contain the burials of notable
individuals. The grave markers are representative of typical styles used during the late nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. They do not convey any elements of high design or represent the works of a master
craftsperson. Although the interments could provide biological data and funerary remains contained
within the cemetery could be a rich source of historical information that could provide insight into the
lifeways of lower-class society and marginalized ethnicities in the late nineteenth and twentieth century,
the data obtained from their examination are unlikely to provide insights not already available through
documentary analysis. New South recommends site 31GF570, the Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery, not
eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
Although the cemetery is recommended not eligible for the NRHP, New South recommends avoidance of
this resource in accordance with North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North
Carolina General Statute, Chapter 70. If avoidance is not possible, it will be necessary to comply with
these statutes after consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the way any burials are to be
removed and relocated.
SITE 31GF571, SMITH GROVE BAPTIST CEMETERY
The Smith Grove Baptist Church cemetery is located at the southwestern corner of the Tyner Loop Road
intersection with Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 65). A well -maintained grassy lawn covers this 75x55-
meter (0.71-acre) cemetery. The interments are organized into 16 rows aligned north -south (Figure 67).
The graves are oriented east -west, with the headstones facing east. The oldest headstone dates to 1905.
Given the dates of death listed on cemetery markers, the cemetery was a focus of burial activity for most
of the early twentieth century and continues to be used in the present day. Standing headstones were
manufactured from marble, granite, and concrete.
Background research did not identify any significant events associated with the cemetery. The cemetery
does not convey any associations with broad patterns of history or contain the burials of notable
individuals. The cemetery does not meet eligibility Criteria A or B of the NRHP. The grave markers are
representative of typical styles used during the twentieth century. They do not convey any elements of
high design or represent the works of a master craftsperson. Thus, the cemetery does not meet NRHP
Criterion C eligibility requirements. While the interments could provide biological data for studies of
twentieth century lifeways, the data obtained from their examination is unlikely to provide significant
insights that are not already addressed by available documentary evidence. Because the cemetery is
unlikely to provide significant contributions to research, site 31GF571 does not meet NRHP Criterion D
eligibility requirements. New South recommends site 31GF571, the Smith Grove Baptist Cemetery, not
eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
New South also recommends avoidance of the cemetery. North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65,
Article 12 and North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 70 provide additional protections for this
cemetery. If avoidance is not possible, it will be necessary to comply with these statutes after
consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the manner in which any burials are to be removed
and relocated.
SITE 31GF572, SANDY RIDGE METHODIST CEMETERY
The Sandy Ridge Methodist cemetery is located southeast of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with
Sandy Camp Road (see Figures 26 and 69). The Sandy Ridge Methodist Church is currently located
northwest of the cemetery, directly across Sandy Ridge Road. The cemetery extends from the
intersection southwest across a knoll covered by a well -manicured lawn, oak trees, and large holly trees
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
(Figure 68). It measures 105x155 meters (2.8 acres) and has not been previously recorded or evaluated for
NRHP eligibility.
The interments located within the cemetery are organized in 30 rows aligned north -south. Grave markers
were made from marble, granite, concrete, and fieldstone. While most of the headstones are legible, the
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century headstones are eroded or obscured by lichen. Though most
headstones are east -facing, several west -facing examples are also present. The headstones located closest
to the Sandy Ridge Road and Sandy Camp Road intersection bear the oldest inscriptions in the cemetery.
Dating to 1856, the headstone of Martha Penix is the earliest legible marker in the cemetery. Ms. Penix's
murder in 1856 was a locally notorious event that involved several members of the local community
(Browning 2007; 2010a; 2010b). Though her headstone was identified in the cemetery, it was disturbed
and found lying on the ground. Several depressions located near this marker demonstrate the presence of
unmarked interments in this area. These headstones and unmarked graves suggest the portion of the APE
located between the headstones and Sandy Camp Road contains additional unmarked graves.
The historical connection with the Methodist congregation prior to 1964, when the church moved to its
current location, is unclear. The 1920 Soil Map of Guilford County shows a Sandy Ridge Church at the
intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Sandy Camp Road (Jurney et al. 1920). However, the official
history for the congregation insists the church operated on land belonging to Ira Idol until land for the
current church building was donated by Mr. and Mrs. Joe W Frazier, Sr. (Sandy Ridge United Methodist
Church 2014). The presence of markers pre -dating the Methodist church's move likely relates to this
earlier house of worship.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
The geophysical survey was conducted by Sarah Lowry and Maeve Herrick on May 10, 2018. The goal
of the geophysical survey was to identify unmarked graves on the easternmost edge of Sandy Ridge
Methodist Church Cemetery, where the cemetery is adjacent to Sandy Camp Road. The GPR survey area
was approximately 0.44 acre, including 0.2 acre located within the right of way (ROW) of Sandy Camp
Road (Figure 70).
For the GPR data collection, two grids were established using metric measuring tapes. Grid corners were
placed to cover a total survey area of 0.44 acre (1802 sq m) (Figure 70) (Table 1). Survey flags were used
to indicate each grid corner. Grid corners and surface features, including grave markers, utility indicators,
and a single tree, were mapped using an RTK GPS with one- to two -centimeter accuracy.
Table 1. Geophysical Grids
Acres
Square Meters
Grid 1 0.25
1020
Grid 2 0.19
782
Total 0.44
1802
All spatial data were downloaded from the GPS and then imported into ArcMap 10, ESRI's geographic
information system (GIS) program. Separate shapefiles were then created for the surface features and
GPR grids. The advantage of this method is that each grid corner has associated coordinates and can be
relocated.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
GROUND -PENETRATING RADAR (GPR)
Ground -penetrating radar is a remote sensing technique frequently used by archaeologists to investigate a
wide range of research questions. In archaeological applications, GPR is typically used to prospect for
potential subsurface cultural features. Because GPR is a remote sensing technique, it is noninvasive, non-
destructive, relatively quick, efficient, and highly accurate when used in appropriate situations. In
cemeteries, GPR is commonly used to identify anomalies consistent with the expectations for human
graves (Jones 2008; King et al. 1993).
Ground -penetrating radar data are acquired by transmitting pulses of radar energy into the ground from a
surface antenna, reflecting the energy off buried objects, features, or bedding contacts, and then detecting
the reflected waves back at the ground surface with a receiving antenna (Conyers 2004a). When
collecting radar reflection data, surface radar antennas are moved along the ground in transects, typically
within a survey grid, and a large number of subsurface reflections are collected along each line. As radar
energy moves through various materials, the velocity of the waves will change depending on the physical
and chemical properties of the material through which they are traveling (Conyers and Lucius 1996). The
greater the contrast in electrical and magnetic properties between two materials at an interface, the
stronger the reflected signal and, therefore, the greater the amplitude of reflected waves (Conyers 2004b).
When travel times of energy pulses are measured, and their velocity through the ground is known,
distance (or depth in the ground) can be accurately measured (Conyers and Lucius 1996). Each time a
radar pulse traverses a material with a different composition or water saturation, the velocity will change
and a portion of the radar energy will reflect back to the surface and be recorded. The remaining energy
will continue to pass into the ground to be further reflected, until it finally dissipates with depth.
The depths to which radar energy can penetrate, and the amount of resolution that can be expected in the
subsurface, are partially controlled by the frequency (and therefore the wavelength) of the radar energy
transmitted (Conyers 2004b). Standard GPR antennas emit radar energy varying from about 10 to 1,000
megahertz (MHz) in frequency. Low frequency antennas (10-120 MHz) generate long wavelength radar
energy that can penetrate up to 50 meters in certain conditions but resolve only very large buried features.
In contrast, the maximum depth of penetration of a 900 MHz antenna is about one meter or less in typical
materials, but its generated reflections can resolve features with a maximum dimension of a few
centimeters. Thus, a trade-off exists between depth of penetration and subsurface resolution.
The success of GPR surveys in archaeology is largely dependent on soil and sediment mineralogy, ground
moisture, subsurface material moisture retention, the depth of buried features, feature preservation, and
surface topography and vegetation. Electrically conductive or highly magnetic materials will quickly
attenuate radar energy and prevent its transmission to depth. Depth penetration varies considerably
depending on local conditions. Subsurface materials that absorb and retain large amounts of water can
affect GPR depth penetration because of their low relative dielectric permittivity (RDP). In practical
applications, this generally results in shallower than normal depth penetration because the radar signal is
absorbed (attenuated) by the materials regardless of antenna frequency (Conyers 2004a; 2012; Conyers
and Lucius 1996). Differential water retention can also positively affect data when a feature of interest
retains more water than the surrounding soils and, therefore, presents a greater contrast.
The basic configuration for a GPR survey consists of an antenna (with both a transmitter and receiver), a
harness or cart, and a wheel for calibrating distance. The operator then pulls or pushes the antenna across
the ground surface systematically (a grid) collecting data along transects. These data are then stored by
the receiver and available for processing.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
11 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
The "time window" within which data were gathered was 50 nanoseconds (ns). This is the time during
which the system is "listening" for returning reflections from within the ground. The greater the time
window, the deeper the system can potentially record reflections. To convert time in nanoseconds to
depth, it is necessary to determine the elapsed time it takes the radar energy to be transmitted, reflected,
and recorded back at the surface by doing a velocity test. Hyperbolas were found on reflection profiles
and measured to yield a relative dielectric permittivity (RDP), which is a way to calculate velocity. The
shape of hyperbolas generated in programs is a function of the speed at which electromagnetic energy
moves in the ground, and can therefore be used to calculate velocity (Conyers and Lucius 1996). The
RDP for soils in the survey area was approximately 12.6, which, when converted to one-way travel time,
(the time it takes the energy to reach a reflection source), is approximately 8.4 centimeters/nanosecond.
All profiles and processed maps were converted from time in nanoseconds to depth in centimeters using
this average velocity.
The first step was to calibrate the antenna to local conditions by walking the survey area and adjusting the
instrument's gain settings. This method allows the user to get an average set of readings based on subtle
changes in the RDP (Conyers 2004b). Field calibration was repeated as necessary to account for changes
in soil and/or moisture conditions (Conyers 2004a). Effective depth penetration was approximately 1.75
meters (5.74 ft.). This is an adequate depth penetration for a 400 MHz antenna. Slight signal attenuation
occurred at the bottom of the profile.
The field survey was conducted using a GSSI SIR-3000 using a 400 MHz antenna. Total survey area was
approximately 0.44-acre (0.2-acre within the ROW). It is generally standard practice to orient transects
perpendicular to the long axis of suspected features. The marked graves in the Sandy Ridge Road
Methodist Church Cemetery were oriented west -east, so data were collected roughly north to south so that
transects were perpendicular to graves. Transect spacing was 50 centimeters, an interval that has been
demonstrated to generate the best resolution possible while still maintaining field efficiency (Pomfret
2005). Transects were collected in a zig-zag pattern, alternating starting direction, and started in the
northeast grid corners.
All data were downloaded from the control unit to a laptop computer for post -processing. Radar signals
are initially recorded by their strength and the elapsed time between their transmission and receipt by the
antenna. Therefore, the first task in the data processing was to set "time zero", which tells the software
where in the profile the true ground surface was. This is critical to getting accurate results when elapsed
time is converted to target depth. A background filter was applied to the data, which removes the
horizontal banding that can result from antenna energy "ringing" and outside frequencies such as cell
phones and radio towers. Background noise can make it difficult to visually interpret reflections. Range
gains were also applied to the data to amplify weaker reflections from later in the time window.
The next data processing step involved the generation of amplitude slice -maps (Conyers 2004b).
Amplitude slice -maps are a three-dimensional tool for viewing differences in reflected amplitudes across
a given surface at various depths. Reflected radar amplitudes are of interest because they measure the
degree of physical and chemical differences in the buried materials. Strong, or high amplitude reflections
often indicate denser (or different) buried materials. Amplitude slice -maps are generated through
comparison of reflected amplitudes between the reflections recorded in vertical profiles. Amplitude
variations, recorded as digital values, are analyzed at each location in a grid of many profiles where there
is a reflection recorded. The amplitudes of all reflection traces are compared to the amplitudes of all
nearby traces along each profile. This database can then be "sliced" horizontally and displayed to show
the variation in reflection amplitudes at a sequence of depths in the ground. The result is a map that
shows amplitudes in plan view, but also with depth.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
12 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Slicing of the data was done using the mapping program Surfer 8. Slice maps are a series of x,y,z values,
with x (east) and y (north) representing the horizontal location on the surface within each grid and z
representing the amplitude of the reflected waves. All data were interpolated using the Kriging method
and then image maps were generated from the resulting files.
From the original .dzt files (raw reflection data), a series of image files was created for cross-referencing
to the amplitude slice maps that were produced. Two-dimensional reflection profiles were also analyzed
to determine the nature of the features identified on the amplitude slice maps. The reflection profiles
show the geometry of the reflections, which can lend insight into whether the radar energy is reflecting
from a flat layer (seen as a distinct band on profile) or a single object (seen as a hyperbola in profile).
Individual profile analysis was used in conjunction with amplitude slice maps to provide stronger
interpretations about possible features. Processing and slicing parameters were recorded.
The final step in the data processing is to integrate the depth slices with other spatial data. This was done
using ArcGIS, which can display and manipulate all forms of spatial data created for this project,
including GPR results, features, grid data, and base graphics such as aerial photography and topographic
maps. The resulting anomalies were digitized as individual features and referenced to the coordinate
system.
GEOPHYSICS IN CEMETERIES
Several factors influence the overall effectiveness of geophysics for detecting anomalies consistent with
individual graves. Contrast between the remains, grave shaft, coffin, or casket and the surrounding soils
is the most important variable. Remains that have a chemical or physical contrast from the subsurface
materials surrounding them will cause GPR reflections of electromagnetic energy. Age of the graves is
critical to this contrast. Older graves typically have less contrast and are more difficult to detect because
they have had more time to decompose and are less likely to have intact coffins or caskets.
The burial "container" that the physical remains may have been placed in is also important and includes
simple linen or cloth shrouds, pine boxes or wooden coffins, lead or other metal caskets, and burial vaults.
In certain cases, hardware such as nails, hinges, and handles may be present, but not necessarily all the
time. Although there is a high degree of variation in specific container types among different
geographical regions, each of these tends to have been used at certain times throughout history and
correlates with the presumed age of the grave. For example, burial shrouds were common throughout the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries before being replaced by wooden coffins. It must also be
noted that cultural trends and patterns tended to persist much longer in rural and/or economically
depressed areas than in urban centers.
The section of the Sandy Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery surveyed for this project has both modern,
marked graves and a large area with no marked graves where local informants and vegetation variation
indicate that there are unmarked graves. The modern, marked graves should all have coffins or caskets.
The unmarked section is thought to be an older section of the cemetery and field stone markers have been
purportedly removed. These graves are likely older and may be in less formal burial containers, such as
pine boxes, which would present less of a contrast with the surrounding soils.
GPR RESULTS
GPR results were based on analysis of the 400 MHz data, including individual reflection profiles and
amplitude slice maps (Figures 71-77). The anomalies were identified in the GPR results and represent a
contrast with their surrounding soils. The GPR results identified 106 probable graves within the Study
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
13 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Area, 24 of which are marked by 16 headstones and 82 are unmarked (Appendix B). There were 27
probable graves either completely or partially within the project APE along Sandy Camp Road (Table 2).
Only three of these graves were associated with markers. All of the markers identified and mapped in the
survey area had associated GPR anomalies, and there were no markers located within the APE. Two
double markers were associated with just one probable grave (anomalies 8 and 19), but it is likely that, in
these cases, the double marker has been commissioned in advance of the second interment.
Table 1. Count of Possible Graves
Probable Grave Location
Unmarked Graves
Marked Graves
Total
Probable Graves within the
Survey Area
82
24
106
Probable Graves within the APE
24
3
27
Many factors influence the overall effectiveness of geophysics for detecting anomalies consistent with
graves, including soil type and acidity, moisture and precipitation, magnetic properties of soil, age of
possible graves, likely grave depth, and burial container (e.g., shroud, wood coffin, metal casket, concrete
vault). The probable graves in the survey area were identified based on their size, shape, depth,
orientation, and overall characteristics in plan and profile view. New South takes a conservative approach
to the identification of graves detected with geophysical data and, in general, if an anomaly has any of the
attributes listed above, it is marked as a potential grave. Because of this, it is likely that some of the
probable graves are false positives and were misidentified. It is impossible to conclusively ascertain the
presence of graves without excavation, and caution is used in all interpretations made with GPR.
The survey area has one mature tree, and the tree's associated root system was visible in the GPR results.
Every effort was made to filter out the tree roots and interpret only possible graves in the GPR results, but
it is probable that, in some cases, anomalies identified as possible graves are tree roots, or that possible
graves located very near the tree roots have been missed.
PROBABLE GRAVES
There were 106 probable graves (anomalies 1-106) identified in both of the GPR grids. There is a
concentration of probable graves in the southern portion of the survey area, with 60 (63.83%) graves
located in Grid 1. The only marked graves are located in Grid 1, and there are comparable counts of
unmarked probable graves between the two grids (N=36 in Grid 1 and N=34 in Grid 2) (Figures 71 and
72). Within the project APE, there are 27 possible graves. Twelve graves straddle the APE, including
three marked and nine unmarked. The remaining 15 probable graves in the APE are unmarked.
Graves were typically identified as a series of point -source reflections in profile (Figures 78 and 79).
These reflections are typically produced by the grave shaft, casket, or void spaces created through
interment (Conyers 2006:154). Reflections were identified as probable graves when they have the
geometry of grave features in plan and profile view.
The GPR survey of the Sandy Ridge Church Cemetery identified 82 unmarked probable graves. A
number of graves were identified outside the known extent of the cemetery, and the cemetery boundary
should be adjusted to include those graves (Figure 80). It is likely that the unmarked probable graves are
older graves within the cemetery where markers have been removed. The church pastor, Donna Freddle,
indicated that, among parishioners, this area has been well known to contain unmarked graves and that the
church has stopped using this area to inter individuals out of concern for disturbing graves (personal
communication, May 10, 2018).
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
14 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
The Sandy Ridge Methodist cemetery contains approximately 720 identifiable mid -nineteenth through
twenty -first -century interments and is still active. The cemetery was a burying ground for the nearby
community for almost 100 years prior to the construction of the Sandy Ridge Methodist church. Criterion
A of the NRBP requires that the cemetery is associated with events that have made significant
contributions to broad patterns of history. This cemetery does not convey any associations to notable
events. Under Criterion B, more archival work is needed to determine if any of the individuals interred in
the cemetery were locally significant. The variety of headstones in the cemetery reflect several
generations of headstone production, but are not considered representative of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represent the work of a master. While studies of biological data and funerary remains
from this cemetery may provide information on the overall health of the nearby population during the
mid -nineteenth through twenty-first centuries, their study is unlikely to provide data not already addressed
by available documentary evidence. New South recommends the site not eligible for the NRBP under
Criteria A, B, C, and D.
New South recommends that the 106 geophysical anomalies identified as probable graves should be
treated as such. Additionally, care should be taken if any ground is to be disturbed within the entire
cemetery to avoid damaging any burials that might be present but were not detected because of poor
preservation and ground conditions. Caution should also be used when disturbances are planned
adiacent to the cemetery boundary, and extreme care should be taken if any ground disturbance is
planned west of Sandy Camp Road. There are probable graves within approximately four meters
of the road, and the presence of additional graves cannot be ruled out.
CONCLUSIONS
New South conducted an intensive survey of the U-4758 APE along Sandy Ridge Road and Johnson
Street from April 10 to April 17, 2018. Two archaeological sites (31GF568 and 31GF569) were
identified and evaluated for NRHP eligibility during the field investigation. Three cemeteries (31GF570,
31GF571, and 31GF572) were also documented and evaluated for the NRHP. Both sites and all three
cemeteries are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. There is a high potential for the presence of
unmarked graves within the project APE at cemetery 31GF572. GPR survey of a portion of the Sandy
Ridge Methodist Cemetery identified the presence of three marked graves and 24 unmarked probable
graves (n=27 total) in the APE. All three cemeteries should be avoided by proposed construction
activities. North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North Carolina General Statute,
Chapter 70, provide additional protections for this cemetery. If avoidance is not possible, it will be
necessary to comply with these statutes after consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the
method any burials are to be removed and relocated.
Based on these results, no additional archaeological work is recommended in conjunction with this
project. I concur with the recommendations put forth by our consultant. If the project expands and
impacts subsurface areas beyond the study area or if design plans change prior to construction, further
archaeological consultation will be necessary.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
15 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Figure List:
Figure 1. Map of Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Study Area
Figure 2. Survey Areas Shown on Historic Topography Maps
Figure 3. Survey Areas Overlaid on Recent Aerial Photography
Figure 4. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 1, 2, and 3
Figure 5. View of Survey Area 1
Figure 6. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 1
Figure 7. View of Survey Area 2
Figure 8. View of Survey Area 3
Figure 9. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 3
Figure 10. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 4, 5, 6, and 7
Figure 11. View of Survey Area 4
Figure 12. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 4
Figure 13. View of Survey Area 5
Figure 14. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 5
Figure 15. View of Survey Area 6
Figure 16. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 6
Figure 17. View of Survey Area 7
Figure 18. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 7
Figure 19. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 8, 9, and 10
Figure 20. View of Survey Area 8
Figure 21. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 8
Figure 22. View of Survey Area 9
Figure 23. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 9
Figure 24. View of Survey Area 10
Figure 25. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 10
Figure 26. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 11, 12, and 13
Figure 27. View of Survey Area 11
Figure 28. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 11
Figure 29. View of Survey Area 12
Figure 30. View of Survey Area 13
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
16 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Figure 31. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 14, 15, and 16
Figure 32. View of Survey Area 14
Figure 33. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 14
Figure 34. View of Survey Area 15
Figure 35. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 15
Figure 36. View of Survey Area 16
Figure 37. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 16
Figure 38. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 17 and Northern Portion of Survey Area 18
Figure 39. View of Survey Area 17
Figure 40. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 17
Figure 41. View of Survey Area 18
Figure 42. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 18
Figure 43. Shovel Test Locations in the Southern Portion of Survey Area 18 and the Northern
Portion of Survey Area 19
Figure 44. View of Survey Area 19
Figure 45. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 19
Figure 46. Shovel Test Locations in the Southern Portion of Survey Area 19 and Survey Areas
20 and 21
Figure 47. View of Survey Area 20
Figure 48. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 20
Figure 49. View of Survey Area 21
Figure 50. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 21
Figure 51. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 22 and Portions of Survey Areas 23 and 24
Figure 52. View of Survey Area 22
Figure 53. View of Survey Area 23
Figure 54. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 23
Figure 55. View of Survey Area 24
Figure 56. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 24
Figure 57. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 25 and the Western Portions of Survey
Areas 23 and 24
Figure 58. View of Survey Area 25
Figure 59. View of Site 31GF568, Facing East
Figure 60. Map of Site 31 GF568
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
17 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Figure 61. Typical Shovel Test Profile at Site 31 GF568
Figure 62. Map of Site 31 GF5689
Figure 63. Typical Shovel Test Profile at Site 31 GF5689
Figure 64. View of Site 31GF5689, Facing South
Figure 65. Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery and Smith Grove Baptist Church Cemetery Locations
Figure 66. View of Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery
Figure 67. View of Smith Grove Baptist Church Cemetery
Figure 68. View of Sandy Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery
Figure 69. Map of GPR Survey Location
Figure 70. Map of GPR Grids
Figure 71. GPR Interpretations, 1 of 2
Figure 72. GPR Interpretations, 2 of 2
Figure 73. Slice Map of Grids 1 and 2, 0-30 cmbs
Figure 74. Slice Map of Grids 1 and 2, 30-60 cmbs
Figure 75. Slice Map of Grids 1 and 2, 60-90 cmbs
Figure 76. Slice Map of Grids 1 and 2, 90-120 cmbs
Figure 77. Slice Map of Grids 1 and 2, 120-150 cmbs
Figure 78. Example of Probable Graves in Profile, 1 of 2
Figure 79. Example of Probable Graves in Profile, 2 of 2
Figure 80. Map of the Amended Cemetery Extent with GPR Results and Markers
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos El Correspondence
Signed:
June 15, 2018
NCDOT AIKVHAEOLOGIST Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
18 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
References Cited
Browning, Mary
2007 Murder shocked Deep River in 1856. Greensboro News & Record. Electronic document,
www.greensboro.com/murder-shocked-deep-river-in/article-3d7801 ad-2b36-563a-aOcf-
8lc26al4cd7a.html, accessed April 23, 2018.
2010a Confession in 1856 Penix murder. Greensboro News & Record. Electronic document,
www.greensboro.com/news/community/confession-in-penix-murder/article-7al 93484-
ff92-5d4f-a079-2a706bfcc4al.html, accessed April 23, 2018.
2010b Murder Confession 20 Years in the Making. Greensboro News & Record. Electronic
document, www.greensboro.com/news/community/murder-confession-years-in-the-
making/article-3f66e10a-9480-5ba9-b5f4-29968fe9cl96.htm1, accessed April 23, 2018.
Conyers, Lawrence
2004a Moisture and Soil Differences as Related to the Spatial Accuracy of GPR Amplitude
Maps at Two Archaeological Test Sites. presented at the Tenth International Conference
on Ground Penetrating Radar, The Netherlands.
2004b Ground -Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. A1taMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
2006 Ground -Penetrating Radar. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North
American Perspective, pp. 131-159. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
2012 Interpreting Ground -Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,
California.
Conyers, Lawrence and Jeffery Lucius
1996 Velocity Analysis in Archaeological Ground Penetrating Radar Studies. Archaeological
Prospection 3(1):25-38.
Jones, Geoffrey
2008 Geophysical Mapping of Historic Cemeteries presented at the Conference on Historical
and Underwater Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Jurney, Robert Campbell, Samuel Oscar Perkins, William Anderson Davis, and William Daniel Lee
1920 Soil Map, North Carolina, Guilford County Sheet. United States Government Printing
Office, Washingthon, D.C.
King, Julia A., Bruce W. Bevan, and Robert J. Hurry
1993 The Reliability of Geophysical Surveys in Historic -Period Cemeteries: An Example from
the Plains Cemetery, Mechanicsville, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 27(3):4-16.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
19 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29(1):1-22.
Pomfret, James E.
2005 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey at Andersonville National Historic Site. Report
available from the Georgia Department of Transportation. Atlanta, Georgia.
Sandy Ridge United Methodist Church
2014 Sandy Ridge UMC - History. Sandy Ridge United Methodist Church. August. Electronic
document, http://www.sandyridgeumc.org/history.html, accessed August 14, 2014.
Vlach, John M.
1977 Graveyards and Afro-American Art. Southern Exposure 5:161-165.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
20 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Appendix A: Shovel Test Loe
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
21 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
1
Negative
I
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-20 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
2
Negative
I
0-18 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
18-25 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
3
Negative
I
0-10 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
10-30 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown
4
Negative
I
0-20 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
Negative
II
20-25 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
5
Negative
I
0-25 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
Negative
II
25-28 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
6
Negative
I
0-10 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
Negative
II
-28 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
7
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Silty Clay
8
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Clay
9
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR7/6 Light Red Clay
10
Negative
I
0-25 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
25-30 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
11
Negative
I
0-25 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
25-30 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
12
Negative
I
0-13 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
13-21 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Silty Clay
13
Negative
I
0-19 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
19-29 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
14
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
15
Not Excavated
16
Not Excavated
17
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
18
Negative
I
0-23 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
19
Negative
I
0-25 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
25-33 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
20
Negative
I
0-26 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
26-41 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
21
Negative
I
0-23 7.5YR4/4 Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
23-31 7.5YR7/8 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay
22
Negative
I
0-20 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
23
Negative
I
0-17 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
24
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
25
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
26
Negative
I
0-16 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
27
Negative
I
0-18 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
28
Negative
I
0-30 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
30-53 10YR7/4 Very Pale Brown Sand
Negative
III
53-60 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
29
Negative
I
0-33 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Sandy Loam
30
Negative
I
0-33 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
33-40 7.5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
31
Negative
I
0-52 7.5YR4/4 Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
52-62 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Sandy Clay
32
Negative
I
0-25 7.5YR4/3 Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
25-42 5YR5/1 Gray Sand
33
Not Excavated
34
Negative
I
0-13 7.5YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Sand
Negative
II
13-19 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
Negative
III
19-28 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Clay
35
Negative
p
0-37 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
36
Negative
11
0-34 7.5YR5/4 Brown Clay Sand
Page 1 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
22 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
Negative
II
34-45 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
37
Negative
I
0-18 7.5YR4/3 Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
18-27 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
38
Negative
I
0-24 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
24-32 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
39
Negative
I
0-30 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sand
Negative
II
30-40 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
40
Negative
I
0-34 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sand
Negative
II
34-43 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
41
Negative
I
0-23 5YR7/6 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay
Negative
II
23-32 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
42
Negative
I
0-27 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Clay
43
Negative
I
0-28 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
28-38 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
44
Negative
I
0-35 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sand
Negative
II
35-43 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
45
Negative
I
0-20 7.5YR2.5/2 Very Dark Brown Loam
Negative
II
20-39 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
46
Negative
I
0-27 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
47
Negative
I
0-25 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Clay
48
Not Excavated
49
Not Excavated
50
Negative
I
0-18 7.5YR4/4 Brown Loam
Negative
II
18-30 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
51
Negative
I
0-10 10YR4/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
10-21 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
21-34 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
52
Negative
I
0-20 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
53
Not Excavated
54
Negative
I
0-30 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loar
Negative
II
30-43 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay
55
Negative
I
0-33 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
33-41 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
56
Not Excavated
57
Negative
I
0-23 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
23-35 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay
58
Negative
I
0-28 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Clay
59
Negative
I
0-28 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Clay
60
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
25-35 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
61
Negative
I
0-30 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
30-35 2.5YR6/6 Light Red Sandy Clay
62
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
Negative
II
25-30 2.5YR6/6 Light Red Clay
63
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Clad
Negative
II
10-45 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
Negative
III
45-50 10YR7/3 Very Pale Brown Clay
64
Negative
I
0-8 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
8-21 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
21-30 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
IV
30-35 2.5YR7/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
65
Negative
11
0-25 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
111
25-35 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Page 2 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
23 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
66
Negative
I
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
II
5-20 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
20-30 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
67
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loar
Negative
II
10-20 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
20-25 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
68
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
II
10-33 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
33-45 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
69
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Lc
Negative
II
10-25 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
25-30 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
70
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Lo
Negative
II
10-23 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
23-40 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
71
Not Excavated
72
Not Excavated
73
Negative
I
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
5-8 5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
8-22 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
IV
22-30 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
74
Not Excavated
75
Negative
I
0-17 2.5YR7/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
17-28 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Sandy Clay
76
Negative
I
0-8 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
8-20 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
77
Negative
I
0-6 10YR5/2 Grayish Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
6-20 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Clay Sand
Negative
III
20-25 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
78
Negative
I
0-8 10YR4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
8-28 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Clay Sand
Negative
III
28-33 2.5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
79
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
II
25-30 2.5YR7/6 Light Red Sandy Clay
80
Negative
I
0-25 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
II
25-30 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
81
Negative
I
0-10 10YR5/3 Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
10-25 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
25-35 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Clay
82
Negative
I
0-10 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
10-25 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Clay
83
Negative
I
0-20 5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
Negative
II
20-29 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
84
Negative
I
0-28 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
28-36 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
85
Negative
I
0-24 7.5YR4/4 Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
24-33 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sand
Negative
III
33-38 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
86
Negative
I
0-10 10YR5/2 Grayish Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
II
10-25 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Clay Sand
Negative
III
25-32 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
87
Negative
I
0-23 7.5YR4/4 Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
23-27 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
Negative
III
27-35 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
88
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR6/6 Light Red Clay
Negative
II
10-25 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
Page 3 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
24 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
89
Negative
1
0-27 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
90
Negative
1
0-34 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
91
Negative
1
0-33 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
92
Negative
1
0-34 7.5YR5/4 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
34-42 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
93
Negative
1
0-35 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
35-47 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
94
Negative
1
0-32 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
32-40 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
95
Negative
1
0-11 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
11-28 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
96
Negative
1
0-19 7.5YR5/2 Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
19-32 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sand
Negative
111
32-40 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
97
Negative
1
0-30 7.5YR5/4 Brown Loamy Sand
'Negative
11
30-42 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sand
Negative
111
42-51 5YR6/8 Reddish Yellow Clay
98
Negative
1
0-25 7.5YR5/2 Brown Loamy Sand
Negative
11
25-38 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
Negative
111
38-47 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
99
Negative
1
0-15 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
15-30 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
100
Negative
1
0-28 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay Sand
Negative
11
28-48 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Clay Sand
Negative
111
48-58 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
101
Negative
1
0-31 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
31-38 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Clay Sand
Negative
111
38-47 7.5YR7/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
102
Negative
1
0-30 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
'Negative
11
30-38 5YR6/8 Reddish Yellow Clay
103
Negative
1
0-27 7.5YR5/3 Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
27-32 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
111
32-40 5YR6/8 Reddish Yellow Clay
104
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR4/3 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
20-33 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Clay
Negative
111
33-43 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
105
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
20-34 7.5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
106
Negative
1
0-22 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
22-29 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
107
Negative
1
0-22 7.5YR4/4 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
22-32 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
108
Negative
1
0-17 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
'Negative
II
17-30 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay
Negative
111
30-39 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
109
Historic Surface Find
1
0-20 7.5YR4/3 Brown Sand
Negative
11
20-30 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
111
30-42 7.5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
110
Negative
1
0-24 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sand
'Negative
11
24-33 2.5YR5/2 Weak Red Clay
111
Negative
1
0-18 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
'Negative
11
18-29 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
112
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR4/4 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
20-30 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
113
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR4/4 Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
11
20-30 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
Page 4 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
25 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
114
Negative
1
0-20 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sand
'Negative
11
20-30 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
115
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR4/2 Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
20-35 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
116
Negative
1
0-27 7.5YR5/2 Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
27-36 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
117
Negative
1
0-25 7.5YR4/3 Brown Silty Clay
'Negative
11
25-35 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
118
Negative
1
0-17 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
119
Ne ative
1
0-15 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
120
Negative
1
0-20 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Clay Sand
Negative
11
20-32 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
121
Negative
1
0-28 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Loamy Sand
'Negative
11
28-36 5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
122
Negative
1
0-28 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Loamy Sand
'Negative
11
28-34 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
123
Negative
1
0-37 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Loamy Sand
Negative
11
37-45 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Sand
124
Negative
1
0-22 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
11
22-33 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Sandy Clay
125
Negative
1
0-28 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Sandy Clay Loam
'Negative
11
28-35 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
126
Negative
1
0-30 5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
30-35 5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
127
Negative
1
0-15 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay Loam
'Negative
11
15-30 5YR5/8 Yellowish Red Sandy Clay
128
Negative
1
0-25 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
11
25-30 5YR5/8 Yellowish Red Clay
129
Negative
1
0-30 5YR6/8 Reddish Yellow Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
11
30-35 5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
130
Negative
1
0-20 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
131
Not Excavated
132
Negative
1
0-25 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay Loam
'Negative
11
25-35 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
133
Negative
1
0-30 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay Loam
'Negative
11
30-40 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
134
Negative
1
0-14 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
135
Negative
1
0-42 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
136
Negative
1
0-23 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
137
Ne ative
1
0-14 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
138
Negative
1
0-15 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
139
Negative
1
0-17 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
140
Negative
1
0-12 7.5YR4/4 Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
11
12-27 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
141
Negative
1
0-8 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam
'Negative
11
8-26 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
111
26-33 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
142
Negative
1
0-34 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
34-43 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
143
Negative
1
0-30 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
'Negative
11
30-40 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Sandy Clay
144
Negative
1
0-40 5YR5/8 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
145
Negative
1
0-43 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy ClayLc
Negative
11
43-52 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sand
146
Negative
I
0-38 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown SiltyClay Low
Negative
111
38-46 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
Page 5 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
26 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
147
Negative
I
0-9 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
9-20 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
III
20-28 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
148
Negative
I
0-32 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loar
Negative
II
32-38 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
149
Negative
I
0-18 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
18-30 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
150
Negative
I
0-35 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
35-46 10YR6/8 Brownish Yellow Sandy Clay
151
Negative
I
0-9 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
9-30 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
Negative
III
30-34 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
152
Negative
I
0-18 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
153
Negative
I
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
5-35 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
III
35-45 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
154
Negative
I
0-17 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
155
Negative
I
0-20 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
20-25 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
156
Negative
I
0-35 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
35-40 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
157
Negative
I
0-28 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
28-34 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
158
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
25-30 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
159
Negative
I
0-20 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Silty Clay
160
Not Excavated
161
Negative
I
0-5 10YR5/2 Grayish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-20 2.5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
III
20-30 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
162
Negative
I
0-25 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Silty Clay
163
Negative
I
0-20 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
20-25 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
164
Negative
I
0-10 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Clay Loam
Negative
II
10-25 2.5YR6/6 Light Red Clay
165
Negative
I
0-15 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay
Negative
II
15-20 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
166
Not Excavated
167
Negative
I
0-20 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
20-25 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
168
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Clay
169
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
170
Not Excavated
171
Not Excavated
172
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
173
Negative
I
0-26 2.5YR4/6 Red Silty Clay
Negative
II
26-34 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
174
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Clay
Negative
II
10-25 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
175
Not Excavated
176
Negative
I
0-22 2.5YR5/8 Red Silty Clay
Negative
II
22-30 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
177
Negative
I
0-20 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
20-25 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
Page 6 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
27 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
178
Positive Prehistoric
I
0-30 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
Positive Prehistoric
II
30-44 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Loamy Clay
Negative
III
44-52 2.5YR4/8 Red Clay
179
Negative
I
0-10 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
10-30 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
III
30-35 2.5YR6/3 Light Reddish Brown Clay
180
Negative
I
0-5 10YR4/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-25 2.5YR2.5/4 Dark Reddish Brown Clay
181
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Clay
182
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
183
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
184
Negative
I
0-5 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-20 5YR6/8 Reddish Yellow Clay
185
Negative
I
0-15 2.5YR5/6 Red Clay
186
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR6/8 Light Red Clay
187
Negative
I
0-10 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
188
Negative
I
0-15 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
15-50 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
III
50-65 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Silty Clay
189
Negative
I
0-60 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
60-90 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Sandy Loam
190
Negative
I
0-21 7.5YR2.5/2 Very Dark Brown Silt
Negative
II
21-37 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
191
Negative
I
0-36 7.5YR2.5/2 Very Dark Brown Silt
Negative
II
36-47 5YR5/1 Gray Silty Clay
192
Negative
I
0-21 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silt
Negative
II
21-33 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Sandy Clay
193
Negative
I
0-23 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Silt
Negative
II
23-32 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
194
Negative
I
0-20 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sand
Negative
II
20-32 7.5YR2.5/2 Very Dark Brown Loam
Negative
III
32-43 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
195
Negative
I
0-23 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
23-26 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Clay
196
Not Excavated
197
Negative
I
0-37 7.5YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
37-48 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Sandy Loam
Negative
III
48-55 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Loamy Clay
198
Negative
I
0-37 7.5YR4/4 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
37-56 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Clay Loam
Negative
III
56-63 5YR6/6 Reddish Yellow Clay
199
Negative
I
0-35 7.5YR3/4 Dark Brown Clay Sand
Negative
II
35-44 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Loamy Clay
Negative
III
44-55 2.5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
200
Negative
I
0-28 10YR3/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Clay Silt
Negative
II
28-38 7.5YR7/6 Reddish Yellow Loamy Clay
Negative
III
38-47 2.5YR7/6 Light Red Clay
201
Negative
I
0-27 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
27-36 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
202
Negative
I
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
II
5-20 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
203
Negative
I
0-20 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
204
Negative
I
0-5 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-20 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
205
Negative
I
0-18 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silt
Ne ative
II
18-32 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
Page 7 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
28 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STP ID
Results
Stratum
Description
206
Negative
1
0-10 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
'Negative
11
10-30 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Clay
207
Negative
1
0-10 7.5YR4/2 Brown Silt
'Negative
11
10-23 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Silty Clay
Negative
111
23-34 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
208
Negative
1
0-5 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay Loam
'Negative
11
5-25 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
209
Negative
1
0-8 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silt
'Negative
11
8-26 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
210
Negative
1
0-20 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
211
Negative
1
0-30 7.5YR6/4 Light Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
30-42 7.5YR4/2 Brown Sand
Negative
111
42-50 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Sandy Clay
212
Negative
1
0-30 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
30-45 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Clay Loam
213
Negative
1
0-17 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
17-23 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
111
23-31 2.5YR3/1 Gark Reddish Gray Clay
214
Negative
1
0-17 7.5YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Silt
Negative
11
17-31 5YR5/6 Yellowish Red Sandy Loam
Negative
111
31-39 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
215
Negative
1
0-18 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
'Negative
11
18-30 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Silty Clay
216
Negative
1
0-13 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silt
Negative
11
13-26 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
217
Negative
1
0-17 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
17-29 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
218
Negative
1
0-15 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Clay Loam
Negative
11
15-25 5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
219
Negative
1
0-11 7.5YR2.5/2 Very Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
11-32 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
220
Not Excavated
221
Negative
1
0-25 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
25-37 5Y4/2 Olive Gray Sandy Clay
222
Negative
1
0-30 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
11
30-45 10YR5/2 Grayish Brown Clay Loam
223
Negative
1
0-23 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silty Clay
'Negative
11
23-35 5Y4/2 Olive Gray Sandy Clay
224
Negative
1
0-15 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Clay Loam
225
Ne ative
1
0-14 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silty Clay
Negative
11
14-24 2.5YR4/4 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
111
24-32 5Y5/6 Olive Clay
226
Negative
1
0-15 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
15-25 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Clay Loam
227
Negative
1
0-16 7.5YR4/3 Brown Sand
Negative
11
16-30 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Clay Sand
Negative
111
30-41 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
228
Negative
1
0-5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Clay Loam
Negative
11
5-20 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Clay Loam
229
Negative
1
0-10 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silt
Negative
11
10-24 7.5YR6/3 Light Brown Sandy Clay
Negative
111
24-33 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
230
Not Excavated
231
Negative
1
0-30 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
11
30-50 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Clay Loam
2321
Not Excavated
Page 8 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
formfir Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
29 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
STIR ID
Results
Stratum
Description
233
Not Excavated
234
Not Excavated
235
Negative
I
0-5 10YR5/3 Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
5-35 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Clay
236
Negative
I
0-8 7.5YR2.5/3 Very Dark Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
8-25 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
237
Negative
I
0-10 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silt
Negative
II
10-20 2.5YR5/3 Reddish Brown Clay
238
Negative
I
0-10 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
10-19 10R4/6 Red Clay
239
Negative
I
0-14 7.5YR4/3 Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
14-23 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
240
Negative
I
0-26 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
241
Negative
I
0-27 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay Loam
242
Negative
I
0-30 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay
243
Negative
I
0-25 5YR7/8 Reddish Yellow Clay
Negative
II
25-32 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
5272-1 N470E500
Negative
I
0-16 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
16-28 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N485E500
Negative
I
0-26 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
26-44 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Loamy Clay
Negative
III
44-53 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N492E500
Negative
I
0-25 7.5YR3/4 Dark Brown Loamy Silt
Negative
II
25-33 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown Clay
5272-1 N500E470
Negative
I
0-18 heavily disturbed soil
5272-1 N500E482
Negative
I
0-21 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
21-36 2.5YR5/8 Red Silty Clay
5272-1 N500E485
Negative
I
0-16 7.5YR4/3 Brown Loamy Silt
Negative
II
16-25 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N500E507
Negative
I
0-30 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
30-40 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N500E515
Negative
I
0-17 7.5YR3/2 Dark Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
17-26 5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Loamy Clay
Negative
III
26-35 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N500E530
Negative
I
0-20 10YR3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Loam
Negative
II
20-30 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N507E500
Negative
I
0-24 7.5YR4/2 Brown Loamy Silt
Negative
II
24-30 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-1 N515E500
Negative
I
0-21 heavily disturbed soil
5272-2N485E500
Not Excavated
5272-2N492E500
Negative
I
0-17 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Sandy Clay Loam
Negative
II
17-27 2.5YR5/8 Red Clay
5272-2N500E485
Negative
I
0-26 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Loamy Sand
Negative
II
26-35 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Sandy Clay
5272-2N500E515
Negative
I
0-21 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Clay Loam
Negative
II
21-28 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
5272-2N515E500
Negative
I
0-25 7.5YR4/2 Brown Loamy Sand
Negative
II
25-36 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Clay
CI judgemental 1
Negative
I
0-16 2.5YR4/3 Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Negative
II
16-29 2.5YR7/4 Light Reddish Brown Clay
Negative
Jill
29-37 2.5YR4/6 Red Clay
Page 9 of 9
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
30 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Appendix B: GPR Anomalies
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
31 of36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Anomaly ID
Label
Depth
Marked
Northing
Easting
Within
ROW?
Probable
3992409.675
1
grave
10-55 curbs
Yes
8
590048.3227
Probable
3992386.305
2
grave
10-80 curbs
Yes
6
590052.6570
Probable
3992386.588
3
grave
15-70 curbs
Yes
0
590048.0747
Probable
3992387.863
4
grave
25-55 cmbs
Yes
5
590048.1906
Probable
3992384.875
5
grave
25-85 curbs
Yes
3
590052.7598
Probable
3992391.749
6
grave
40-85 curbs
Yes
1
590048.0167
Probable
3992393.013
7
grave
20-80 curbs
Yes
6
590048.1275
Probable
3992394.089
8
grave
25-115 cmbs
Yes
7
590052.1596
Probable
3992396.416
9
grave
20-60 curbs
Yes
2
590051.9396
Probable
3992397.860
10
grave
25-90 curbs
Yes
5
590052.1691
Probable
3992399.233
11
grave
35-65 curbs
Yes
0
590052.2173
Probable
3992402.123
12
grave
35-70 curbs
Yes
7
590051.0245
Probable
3992401.496
13
grave
20-140 cmbs
Yes
2
590047.2192
Probable
3992400.231
14
grave
10-75 curbs
Yes
3
590048.1276
Probable
3992399.006
15
grave
30-80 curbs
Yes
1
590048.0187
Probable
3992397.489
16
grave
25-65 curbs
Yes
0
590047.1498
Probable
3992408.357
17
grave
15-50 curbs
Yes
0
590056.0219
x
Probable
3992409.518
18
grave
20-50 curbs
Yes
3
590055.9418
x
Probable
3992411.954
19
grave
30-70 curbs
Yes
9
590056.2278
x
Probable
3992410.380
20
grave
20-60 curbs
Yes
6
590053.1551
Probable
3992408.916
21
grave
25-50 cmbs
Yes
7
590053.0834
Probable
3992407.973
22
grave
15-120 cmbs
Yes
2
590052.8887
Probable
3992411.208
23
grave
10-95 curbs
Yes
9
590048.3390
Probable
3992416.111
24
grave
20-95 cmbs
Yes
1
590048.6014
Probable
3992395.111
25
grave
25-70 cmbs
No
2
590048.1041
26
Probable
20-130 cmbs
No
3992419.735
590051.5058
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
32 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Anomaly ID
Label
Depth
Marked
Northing
Easting
Within
ROW?
grave
1
Probable
3992416.947
27
grave
20-80 curbs
No
4
590056.3837
x
Probable
3992424.990
28
grave
20-80 curbs
No
9
590058.7035
x
Probable
3992450.280
29
grave
55-90 curbs
No
8
590054.0533
Probable
3992444.349
30
grave
50-95 curbs
No
6
590054.0897
Probable
3992440.692
31
grave
70-105 cmbs
No
8
590049.4659
Probable
3992466.026
32
grave
50-70 curbs
No
9
590061.6243
x
Probable
3992477.702
33
grave
50-85 curbs
No
0
590062.4045
x
Probable
3992413.419
34
grave
20-105 cmbs
No
9
590052.8901
Probable
3992401.092
35
grave
40-110 cmbs
No
3
590060.2658
x
Probable
3992426.436
36
grave
30-140 cmbs
No
9
590053.5268
Probable
3992421.983
37
grave
45-100 cmbs
No
6
590049.0384
Probable
3992420.227
38
grave
40-150 cmbs
No
4
590048.3618
Probable
3992419.015
39
grave
25-75 curbs
No
8
590057.6042
x
Probable
3992414.138
40
grave
10-90 curbs
No
8
590048.5305
Probable
3992432.162
41
grave
45-105 cmbs
No
4
590049.9386
Probable
3992429.915
42
grave
60-140 cmbs
No
5
590052.7267
Probable
3992434.686
43
grave
45-135 cmbs
No
9
590055.0021
Probable
3992431.131
44
grave
50-85 curbs
No
4
590049.9636
Probable
3992430.032
45
grave
25-110 cmbs
No
9
590049.4127
Probable
3992429.067
46
grave
25-160 cmbs
No
2
590049.4803
Probable
3992429.312
47
grave
40-115 cmbs
No
6
590047.6007
Probable
3992434.901
48
grave
35-75 curbs
No
0
590050.5019
Probable
3992424.097
49
grave
30-60 curbs
No
3
590049.1901
Probable
3992426.031
50
grave
40-90 curbs
No
4
590049.4080
Probable
3992433.737
51
grave
30-150 cmbs
No
0
590048.0824
52
Probable
30-125 cmbs
No
3992424.876
590053.0640
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
33 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Anomaly ID
Label
Depth
Marked
Northing
Easting
Within
ROW?
grave
1
Probable
3992419.615
53
grave
35-115 cmbs
No
8
590055.1305
Probable
3992422.214
54
grave
40-115 cmbs
No
9
590051.6396
Probable
3992423.705
55
grave
35-135 cmbs
No
8
590056.0693
x
Probable
3992437.364
56
grave
35-90 curbs
No
9
590053.0325
Probable
3992442.164
57
grave
35-100 cmbs
No
7
590051.3597
Probable
3992443.526
58
grave
30-145 cmbs
No
0
590050.2566
Probable
3992442.228
59
grave
20-130 cmbs
No
4
590048.5374
Probable
3992438.617
60
grave
35-70 curbs
No
5
590049.9676
Probable
3992439.627
61
grave
35-95 curbs
No
4
590049.6436
Probable
3992448.875
62
grave
25-160 cmbs
No
3
590054.8900
Probable
3992454.985
63
grave
40-145 cmbs
No
0
590050.7487
Probable
3992455.045
64
grave
40-130 cmbs
No
6
590056.7289
x
Probable
3992455.275
65
grave
35-150 cmbs
No
5
590053.8962
Probable
3992450.411
66
grave
35-145 cmbs
No
9
590050.0618
Probable
3992463.522
67
grave
45-125 cmbs
No
7
590061.0308
x
Probable
3992464.158
68
grave
15-70 curbs
No
7
590062.6304
x
Probable
3992467.430
69
grave
20-90 curbs
No
7
590051.9141
Probable
3992469.885
70
grave
35-115 cmbs
No
8
590054.2993
Probable
3992468.729
71
grave
20-100 cmbs
No
2
590053.9471
Probable
3992465.734
72
grave
30-90 curbs
No
4
590054.5960
Probable
3992440.241
73
grave
65-100 cmbs
No
2
590060.4390
x
Probable
3992444.911
74
grave
30-140 cmbs
No
0
590049.6851
Probable
3992441.900
75
grave
25-85 curbs
No
2
590053.8774
Probable
3992445.958
76
grave
30-85 curbs
No
4
590054.1088
Probable
3992437.089
77
grave
55-135 cmbs
No
5
590060.0904
x
78
Probable
15-140 cmbs
No
3992443.092
590053.8421
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
34 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Anomaly ID
Label
Depth
Marked
Northing
Easting
Within
ROW?
grave
6
Probable
3992433.548
79
grave
25-150 cmbs
No
6
590050.8423
Probable
3992392.588
80
grave
85-140 cmbs
No
2
590050.9241
Probable
3992392.764
81
grave
30-140 cmbs
No
7
590053.3379
Probable
3992385.321
82
grave
25-145 cmbs
No
1
590055.2061
x
Probable
3992456.267
83
grave
40-170 cmbs
No
7
590049.1856
Probable
3992448.369
84
grave
35-160 cmbs
No
2
590049.4278
Probable
3992446.135
85
grave
25-140 cmbs
No
0
590049.0730
Probable
3992466.128
86
grave
35-115 cmbs
No
0
590050.6702
Probable
3992417.796
87
grave
25-130 cmbs
No
2
590049.5092
Probable
3992423.462
88
grave
20-140 cmbs
No
8
590052.5823
Probable
3992428.003
89
grave
25-130 cmbs
No
8
590060.8172
x
Probable
3992471.970
90
grave
60-95 curbs
No
8
590061.4550
x
Probable
3992457.473
91
grave
25-100 cmbs
No
3
590061.4583
x
Probable
3992382.783
92
grave
40-120 cmbs
No
5
590051.9121
Probable
3992383.211
93
grave
40-100 cmbs
No
7
590048.5692
Probable
3992415.766
94
grave
50-100 cmbs
No
1
590056.6077
x
Probable
3992476.005
95
grave
50-70 curbs
No
0
590048.9449
Probable
3992453.485
96
grave
60-100 cmbs
No
7
590052.9957
Probable
3992452.449
97
grave
60-100 cmbs
No
3
590052.5106
Probable
3992439.416
98
grave
45-70 curbs
No
5
590060.0873
x
Probable
3992442.086
99
grave
40-65 curbs
No
3
590056.1698
x
Probable
3992439.523
100
grave
70-100 cmbs
No
6
590053.6045
Probable
3992460.598
101
grave
75-100 cmbs
No
8
590053.2933
Probable
3992468.801
102
grave
40-80 curbs
No
9
590056.1973
x
Probable
3992469.931
103
grave
40-80 curbs
No
3
590056.5489
x
104
Probable
40-80 curbs
No
3992467.704
590057.0212
x
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
35 of 36

Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Anomaly ID
Label
Depth
Marked
Northing
11
Easting
Within
ROW?
grave
5
Probable
3992450.086
105
grave
70-90 curbs
No
9
590059.0404
x
Probable
3992448.790
106
grave
45-75 curbs
No
9
590061.2281
x
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
36 of 36

Figure]. Map of Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Study Area
Rockingham — — '
Guilford
North Carolina
Randolph
31 GF8 / 31 GF21 �. " j� • y i 1..
31 GF9 � t , , � sr� , �i � • `'o
4
�It
// ��• ,1 .III i..
/ 40 1 ie
_r
C APE
Search Radius (One Mile)
O Previously Recorded Resource
Road
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I
0 0.5 1 1.5 Kilometers N
Sources: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps, Guilford and Kernersville, North Carolina (1979)

Figure 2. Survey Areas Shown on Historic Topography Maps
r ,
14 R _
A
r7
1
ems, � � •��. - 1'.,- - ; +:
18
19
20
21
22
24.
23- _9 APE
+ f 0 Survey Area �1
Road
25
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
r7-r-IT-1
4 0 0.3 0.6 Kilometers
Sources: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps, Guilford (1951) and Kernersville (1969), North Carolina

Figure 4. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 1, 2, and 3
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

Figure S. View of Survey Area I
r •_r. - - - fir, �s yI" -• J -.1�- •.c�.�
t e. �.
• r" � � or• _ �i!�:4 - }�"� , - �., _�. E'?-fir •mow',; f . .

Figure 6. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area I

Figure 8. View of Survey Area

Figure 9. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 3

33
32
33
•
31
•
dg 30
29 Al
0
�7
7-•
lpil75A
// -*y -,*
35
*A-
4 ry
•
qH
4F
ti
�42,
45 41
v
4 '�4
0
Gr

Figure 11. View of Survey Area 4
r �
l^
Cif
y
'
�
� � �
�•L � nee/:~ ��j;.Ti'.` `� �ery ..
,
M�r�_ .1�
r.:
C _

Figure 12. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 4

Figure 13. View of Survey Area S

Figure 14. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area S

Figure 1 S. View of Survey Area 6

Figure 16. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 6
W

r. bey 4-
i 1:•r
_ 7 l
•r pe• r�ti••'} a4j%, �1- .? :, }-- �yr.
+•yam, �,� 3'�.'•�,•rr .'.
J ' +• * L-}7�•'fS' r 4lrtr Yr..Y2"„f?}1Fr r_••,.? Y+� �+;'.
•�� :•�; }`_• .4.�'!�,.� •14+I.. �ay +��e:`},y}�4ri� yi7*,��� � �¢7i'��-• �
P. •� - 1 {�l �/. J't � �ti 11# ++• ;J;l S yv r • ++�ac� U.
i' +r
y .� a,,•fs ri �.''FFti' y 1; ..• '#''i {S•,Ir .. L ,, { '!' `1 _ ' •;.�5{- { ti v': M1• �: l
a R•W •r,lfi •eo-'t'`•K• -.s '� L��ti' -P�'4.r v..ti1 .:54 Iti � x'+� F fp. •R
rr a{:�r: 1 c� tL� 94��• I:_ ��•• i'F-' �• 4� �_1Lf5 II+.• L" }� �. _
yJ�. l•; f � _'+r �L�•¢-.k i �. �tir• �r+r: I � �'4 �;�I "d?I'� ,':.=+r r.� ,._}i� t�� F��, 5k y� = �;`' •yl��'3�!,�r: „'f+t�'. }iF r�yi�='t•1 `•.'Jr +4�`. �7Jr }" � ',.4r;i� � {�{'"E' r• _
-� 4:i+ ram• ,s' �y.�/1. �y'f' I W �'Y�,z IF •.�._rA' ''Y �•'•� �F.lC�3�,' 'Y-i �'rrr '��+y+.
W ��y�� ��� y• } � l � � �'I��4��•i •ry�r I �r � �`3.!44# T}`y r• y F �r+ • I
h� S �^$ sue, •� F- r J•.''l 5 r Y'i•,I.
L� }+• I }#-rr. < ,y•I.:.+�f} aSrS :,{•-r r+,,
lrr h'.�•.'!J .i, �4;,�4':�' ^�..''�� •_-.7f '� "--r tir � ��� �.b.: •'�. }�l3 2i ' "7Y +�• •
f'� ,?Vr-:rIV}-.,•. iPC4a,L'.'ti<�'•..-'�'liy o� ~'t�ite�. �4. +...i i__ �.1 .'�i �-F•zi 1. e -15-

Figure 18. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 7

Figure 19. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 8, 9, and 10
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

Figure 20. View of Survey Area 8

Figure 21. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 8

Figure 22. View of Survey Area 9

Figure 23. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 9
: 02i�I
i lop
! jL

Figure 24. View of Survey Area 10

Figure 25. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 10
r-

Figure 26. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Areas 11, 12, and 13
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

� 7 i�' • s
a
t
3MU

Figure 28. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 11

Figure 29. View of Survey Area 12

Figure 30. View of Survey Area 13

L�
•9
88 -
•
87
•
,
• 86 0
Z85 0
•
101
• 1
84
•� 100
:3
• :08
99
• 107
•
98
� • 106 1
• 113
~ 97 •
` ` • 105
•
96 •12 116
{ +i • 104 •
li 111
s
15
103 •117
i� - • 110 •
r • 114
102 •
109
' 95
94
131 • �
9
130
1a
128
•
90
'-• .
T

Figure 32. View of Survey Area 14

-04
Ar

Figure 34. View of Survey Area 15
OHM

Figure 35. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 15

Figure 36. View of Survey Area 16
t-

Figure 37. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 16

Figure 38. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 17 and the Northern Portion of Survey Area 18
13
� v
8
27
26
•
' 25
� 1
12.3
VA
I 12
•
121
120
•
154.
153 • 119
• 152 •
150 149 118
147--* "' � • 148 •
:46 1
145 !
•
144
•
143
APE
Survey Area
■ 1
�[
141 Road
Shovel
140
•Negative
O Not Excavated
13 • 100 200
•
138 0 25 50 Meters
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

Figure 39. View of Survey Area 17

Figure 40. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 17

Figure 41. View of Survey Area 18

Figure 42. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 18

Figure 43. Shovel Test Locations in the Southern Portion of Survey Area 18 and the Northern
Portion of Survey Area 19
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

WA
Iv a ��•� �:
' w
Ir y

Figure 45. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 19

Figure 46. Shovel Test Locations in the Southern Portion of Survey Area 19 and Survey Areas
20 and 21
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

7wP'
Vv
Aj
�� � ; - _ �'� af: >.,? •y ,�� `dyes .._ �;. T , . _ �.��_ _ �_
77 •� e I. i •: y.r
'X l i`+�-� a � i. � i � - •tom '�� *' .:�

Figure 48. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 20

§ IL
Af
LA

Figure 50. Typical Shovel Test in Survey Area 21
y • A M~ _7
NL
x ,
4
F
L
^Y
0
9 l
t

Figure 51. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 22 and Portions of Survey Areas 23 and 24
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

' Y. a �li7e •. C I 1r 'F�� - .k
- _ . by _ •'::� �:, �'' � �,
,ice, --- �; - '� _ � .. .�,•1 .;ti. ■ _

Figure 53. View of Survey Area 23

- f- TO f, �
9• .

Figure SS. View of Survey Area 24

40

Figure 57. Shovel Test Locations in Survey Area 25 and the Western Portions of Survey Areas
23 and 24
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

f
5ff

1 ,w V: .tr � 5:,3G',- • .6 � r�l .. ... - = -. _ .,.-.�+Laf[e,+s-r
'� �=' - '' •- '�''� - , ; � ram: -

00
I
5272-1 179
i N530 •
E500
52
5272-1 N
N515E
5272-1 • 500
• N515
E500a
5272-1
5272-1 5272-1 • N500
N507.5 • N500 E515
• E500 E507.5
iol'
i I j
5272-1 �..r'4' 5272
N500 • N492.5
E492.5 • E500
5272-1
N500
E485
r— W,
i
• N48
E500
5272-1
N470 •
E500
i
S

Figure 62. Map of Site 31 GF569
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

Figure 63. Typical Shovel Test Profile at Site 31 GF569
=r -
0
'sue.
7:1,11.1

Figure 64. View of Site 31 GF569, Facing South

Figure 65. Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery and Smith Grove Baptist Church Cemetery Locations
Source: ESRI World Imagery (2018)

.b4

i
I
x
Jj�
1
{
�.
_
��
_ �
�:. `�
.,
�.
��
r

Figure 68. View of Sandy Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery

1 1 ��'\
1
\r�rrrir�,
i
� !
III 1
1
,S ;
I
� } ,
1
i �
1 '
; � .�
1 1.
IIII �4 --
r
�.,�
■
� .. � �
E i
-
♦4♦
�� ���
,�` `
�3 . �
��.
:, �14 �. ����
, _�
.,
_
�
�
,�
k
:,r
;,
�v�
`
�,.' I,I
,��.
.' ,..
� � 1
J
�r,,I' �.
�
II' I�
.
• .�
. _ _ �f
_ � �
� * r
_ rII III
1 1 IIr uaIII
- ; 1 f r
� " _
1
y
r
' !
r
; III, ;-.�,�,s%
� �y II IIr� �
.. � IIII y; _
�
-
�
r.rixla
h�m�
� II II 1
� II �'
II L-�1
,II ,IY �i�' ''
...
_ , IIII III �
� ..�
��
� �� ` �
}
..
_— ��rrl III � �4
is
��
.. -�
-
�, �
. � t*
-
a
a �,
�:�,.. c
:�:,�
��. ��
�
1
� ,>�
r
I
��
r
�-� -
.. +.
.
_ � _

JAW
11
is

Figure 71. GPR Interpretations, I of 2
Extent of
51 48� ��3
4�79
R46
■
■
45z /42
Q ■
■ /
47 89
�
50i�nL.J6 on
52 i
49'M ■ 2.8
�37, 54,[:D
J C 1 \ 88 :' 55 '1
26 �■ /39
�87 53/
27
24
1340 �34 : $94
1/19
1 `
1 21 ■ 17
22 -------
3 e
111
10
6 / 25
J R81
7
6 \ 80
i4
933 0� � h
�92
■■■� APE
GPR Grid
GPR Intepretation
Marked Probable Grave
Unmarked Probable Grave
0 10 20 40 Feet
0 3 6 12 Meters
/35
Markers
�� Road
- Double Headstone Tree Canopy
- Headstone
• Fire Hydrant
- Footstone
• Property Corner
• Water Access
Edge of Road

Figure 72. GPR Interpretations, 2 of 2
GPR 2
GPR 1
Extent of Map
95
33
■
■
90
■
7 \ 0
71 rL�Jn ■3
i7102
'■
104
32
— 86 L� �1 72
i
6�8
■
■
4101 i
—
rI ■
i /91
■
�83 '
7'■
663 [: 5
•
96
■
�97
— �66 29� : 105
62' ■ 1106
1 ■
CU 84 '
■
■
85\ 76 '
■
�j 74 �
'I-7J`-1 ■
58 78 0
5� �■ 9
■
31 57 \ 75 73
614M '
60j 100 7798
56 : �
51 ti■■■j APE Markers
79 = GPR Grid - Double Headstone
41 GPR Intepretation - Headstone
45 44
Marked Probable Grave - Footstone
47
46 n Unmarked Probable Grave Tree Canopy
/ 50 0 5 10 20 Feet • Manhole Cover
52 Edge of Road
aQ, 0 2 4 8 Meters

a

�� n ter• 1
a
c -
r3+f � r•
;'sr� A

•
I'k
f.
03 CA
e
-AgLa
a- i , �.' "M , I; I AVI �
N
7Z:
v
9
oyet
'It

Figure 80. Map of the Amended Cemetery Extent with GPR Results and Markers
Image Source: USDA NAIP 2016

Historic
Architecture
and
Landscapes

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
18-01-0050
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
7 NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
v � This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
1141119 is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
U-4758
County:
Guilford
WBS No.:
40251.1.1
Document
PCE
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
unknown
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
USACE
Permits :
Type(s):
Proiect Description:
Widen Johnson Street -Sandy Ridge Road from
Skeet Club Road
to I-40 (approximately 4.4
miles in length).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB
2018), there is one historically significant resource within the APE for the project, the Elihu and
Abigail Mendenhall House (GF1544). This resource was determined eligible in 2001 and HPO
confirmed it's eligibility in response to a report prepared by New South and Associates for this
project. The design plans for the project show that any construction activities associated with the
project are 400 feet away from the boundary of the historic property.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect
area:
HPO GIS information, Guilford County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present.
Furthermore, in 2014 New South and Associates completed an evaluation of all resources within
the APE over fifty years of age project and confirmed that GF 1544 is the only eligible resource
within the APE. Since the design plans do not show construction activities that would directly or
indirectly impact the boundary of the historic property the project is not recommended for
survey. Compliance with Section 106 is complete..
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
b I
I
9'I
I �
{
Mav�
nRd
'way Rc =
N
Q Area cf Potential Effect
�-
anLe 3
Tr ��
N:
p v°uu pr
Ree lrrl+A tpon
C
Vlwy Rd
i
�e
4
n
C
n
�
0 a
�
Ro
C
Chese
a
�{
4�
s'Pumml Rd
S4ngle 4
4
�� aF Ave
c
a
5Keet Ctub Rq
4an
�
9
� a
s$oWsy
Iti�
$
C m
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 4

GF 1544
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 4

't ♦ rAr 4 141�
-- k 'Construction
rnits
- � }� LEE VARRII
/ "` ROBIN W
•�,, q� ti 1 DB 5
Da 7
�N
if,t
G, G A. BLAIR JR L/T, JAMES
ND ARON EDA" NOS LIVING
f§L E Hl I JAA[S AND SHARON 1 f
Ds DIVING TRUST SSHAK V0
\� ppBg 7639 15G 1357
r dB IF58 PG 28A2
oB 7566 PG 2424
P8 Sr PG 434 %A
4 y y
5
v
4l
-
t��
i
4r� r
CLAUDE EUG£NE LEWISG o �,
ANITA P. LEWIS
D11 4842 PG 459 e
Flo Sfl PG n W.Cr
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
Mary Pope Furr
NCDOT Architectural Historian
2/23/2018
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
October 16, 2014
Ellen Turco
New South Associates
408-B Blandwood Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27401
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
eturco e newsouthassoc.com
RE: Historic Structures Survey Report for Johnson Street Sandy Ridge Road, High Point,
U-4758, Guilford County, ER 12-0959
Dear Ms. Turco:
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2014, transmitting the above referenced report on a CD. We have
reviewed the report and concur that the Zion Hill Methodist Church (GF8660) and the Smith Grove
Baptist Church (GF8668) are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the
reasons outlined.
We concur that the Elihu Mendenhall House (GF1544) remains eligible for listing in the National
Register under Criterion B and C, with the house and the springhouse site as the two important historic
resources.
We would like to note that Property #33 is of some interest in that this type of resource, which appears to be a
low security prison work camp, seems to be a disappearing property. Given its location on the very edge of the
Area of Potential Effects, we do not feel that it is necessary to address it further, unless the project changes and
moves closer to the brick buildings.
As we cannot accept downloads for review and staff finds hardcopies of reports easier to review, we would
appreciate your providing us with a hard, color copy of the current report for our files. In the future one hard
copy and a CD will be appreciated.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
bn(Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT mfurr e,ncdot.gov

Tribal
Coordination

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
October 18, 2023
Attention: Colin Mellor
NC Department of Transportation
1582 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
Widening and re -alignment of SR 1818/SR 1850 from SR 1820 to 1-40 in Guilford CO.,
2023-193-256 STIP Project U-4758
Dear Mr. Mellor,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-7369, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

NEPA/SEPA
Document

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
U-4758
40251.1.1
Federal Project No. HPP-0710(25)(26)(27)(28)
A. Project Description:
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Johnson Street (SR
1818) and Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) from Skeet Club Road (SR 1820) to Interstate 40 (1-
40) in the City of High Point and Guilford County. The project is approximately 4.4 miles long.
Figure 1 shows the project location and project study area.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purposes of this project are to improve existing and projected traffic flow and capacity on
Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road, to provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists along
the corridor, and to provide a facility that conforms to NCDOT roadway design standards.
Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road are an important north -south transportation routes in
the area that experiences traffic congestion and delays due to capacity deficiencies. The
corridor is locally and regionally important as a connection between High Point and
Greensboro, including major destinations such as the Piedmont Triad International Airport
(PTIA) and Piedmont Triad Farmers Market. The existing roadways also lacks adequate
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, which limits mobility for these types of travelers.
Addressing the need to increase capacity for vehicles as well as providing enhanced mobility
for pedestrians and bicyclists are the main priorities of the proposed project. Another priority
that will be addressed is to improve existing and future traffic flow. Another desired outcome is
that the improved facility would serve as an alternative to NC 68 in accessing the PTIA.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III
D. Proposed Improvements
Roadway
Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road will be widened along the full project corridor to a four -
lane median divided facility. The typical section includes four 12-foot lanes, a 23-foot median,
4-foot bike lanes on each side, a 10-foot multi -use path on the west side (south of Gallimore
Dairy Road), and a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side (Figure 2). North of Gallimore Dairy Road,
the multi -use path will switch sides and be on the east side, with the sidewalk on the west side.
A "best fit" widening scenario is proposed as shown in Figure 3a-31, to avoid or minimize
impacts to adjacent natural and community resources.
Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Median breaks will be provided at ten signalized intersections and five non -signalized
intersections. Right -in / right -out access would be provided at seven locations. In addition, U-
turn bulbs will be provided at four locations.
Structures
A new four -lane bridge will be built over the West Fork Deep River on the location of the
existing bridge and to the east to avoid impacts to the Johnson Street Sports Complex, which is
a Section 6(f) resource. The existing bridge will be used for traffic during the construction of
half of the proposed bridge and then removed to build the other half. The bridge will have the
same typical section as the roadway (Figure 2).
Design Speed and Speed Limit
A 50 mile per hour (MPH) design speed is proposed for Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge
Road, and the posted speed limit will remain 45 MPH following construction.
Right -of -Way and Access Control
Right of way will be required along both sides of Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road to
accommodate the widening. Additional right of way will also be required along the side streets
to reconnect them to Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road:
Temporary construction easements will be required. Full control of access will be added at the
four (4) U-turn bulbouts.
The project will physically impact and require the relocation of ten (10) single-family dwellings
and two (2) businesses.
Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
Four -foot striped bike lanes will be provided in both directions. A ten -foot multi -use path and
five-foot sidewalk will also be provided on the opposite sides of the roadway.
Cost Estimates
Table 1— Cost Estimates
STIP (2018-2027)
Current Cost
Estimates
Date
Roadway Cost
$33.7 M
March 2018
Structure Cost
$2.2 M
March 2018
Utilities
$1.2 M
March 2018
TOTAL
$20.8 M
$35.9 M
R/W Cost
$5 M
$8.6 M
February 2018
TOTAL COST
$25.8 M
$44.5 M
2 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
E. Special Project Information: (Provide a description of relevant project information,
which may include: vicinity map, costs, alternative analysis (if any), traffic control and
staging, and resource agency/public involvement).
Relationship to Adjacent STIP Projects
STIP Project U-4758 is located in Guilford County in proximity to three other STIP projects
(Table 2).
Table 2 — Adjacent STIP Projects
STIP #
Project
Funding
Schedule
(2018 -2027)
1-40/US 421 — Sandy Ridge Road
ROW: 2018
1-5712
$16.1 M
Interchange Improvements
LET: 2020
US 421 — Widen to 6 Lanes from Future
ROW: 2025
U-6068
$110.9 M
1-74 in Kernersville to 1-40
LET: 2027
I-40 — Widen to 6 Lanes from 1-74/US 311
ROW: 2024
I-5981
$142.7 M
to US 421/Business 40
LET: 2026
Alternatives
Five (5) general system approaches or alternatives were considered in addition to the No Build
Alternative: New Location Alternative, Improve Existing Corridor Alternative, Transportation
Demand Management, Transportation System Management, and Mass Transit/Multi-Modal
Alternative were all evaluated.
An initial screening of the alternatives generally consisted of a "pass or fail" determination of
the alternative's ability to address transportation problems in meeting the purpose and need. If
the approach "passed" qualitatively all elements of the purpose and need, then it would be
retained for the next step in the alternatives screening process (Table 3).
No -Build Alternative
The No -Build Alternative serves as the baseline comparison for the design year (2040).
This alternative assumes that the transportation system for Guilford County would evolve as
currently planned in the High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2035 Long -
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in the project area.
Improve Existing Corridor Alternative
The Improve Existing Corridor Alternative would widen the roadway, improve intersections,
and address geometric deficiencies from Skeet Club Road to 1-40. This alternative also
would provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
New -Location Alternative
The Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Road Feasibility Study (October 2002) studied widening
options for the corridor and recommended additional study of a new -location alignment for
the northern section. The New -Location Alternative would involve construction of a new -
location option in the northern section of the project.
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative
TDM emphasizes regional means of reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as
well as increasing vehicle occupancy. It includes measures and activities that change
traveler behavior by expanding traveler options in terms of travel method, travel time, travel
route, travel costs, and travel quality/convenience. TDM measures usually do not involve
major capital improvements. The TDM Alternative can include employer -based measures
such as staggered work house or flex time and ridesharing (i.e. carpools/vanpools).
Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative
The TSM Alternative approach typically consists of low-cost, minor transportation
improvements to increase the efficiency of an existing facility without increasing the
capacity (e.g. number of through lanes). TSM improvements can be operational (i.e.
access control, turn prohibitions, speed restrictions, traffic signal timing optimization) or
physical (turn lanes, intersection realignment, improved warning and information signs, new
signals or stop signs, intersection geometric and signalization improvements).
Table 3 — Alternative Evaluation
Primary Elements of the Purpose and Need
Improve
Provides
Provides
Existing &
Facilities for
Facility that
Retain for
ALTERNATIVES
Projected
Pedestrians
Conforms to
Additional
Traffic Flow
and
Design
Study?
and Increases
Bicyclists
Standards
Capacity
No -Build
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
NO
Improve Existing Corridor (Alternative 1)
PASS
PASS
PASS
YES
New Location Alternative (Alternative 2)
PASS
PASS
PASS
YES
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
NO
Transportation System Management (TSM)
PASS
FAIL
PASS
NO
Mass Transit/Multi Modal
PASS
FAIL
FAIL
NO
4 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Based on this evaluation, two alternatives were developed: Alternative 1, consisting of widening
the existing corridor for the entire project; and Alternative 2, consisting of widening the existing
corridor for the southern section and constructing part on new location in the northernmost
section (north of Joe Drive).
Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration due to increased stream and wetland
impacts, higher right of way costs and impacts, and lack of local support. Alternative 1 was
retained as the alternative for detailed study and ultimately the build alternative. It consists of
widening Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road along the full project corridor to a four -lane
median divided facility with the "best fit" widening scenario to avoid or minimize impacts to
adjacent natural and community resources. At the northern end of the project where there are
closely spaced side streets and adjacent businesses between Tyner Road and I-40, various
design options were evaluated.
The selection of a northern option is complicated by several adjacent projects which are in the
project development stage and may impact the ramp locations and reconfigure the whole
roadway network in the area.
Other projects within the same area, which may impact both the 1-5712 and U-4758 projects,
are U-6068 and 1-5981 projects. U-6068 project is widening US 421 (Salem Parkway) to 6
lanes. The limits of the project include the connect to 1-40, which is just east of the Sandy
Ridge Road Interchange. 1-5981 project is the widening of 1-40 from 1-74 to US 421. Adding
any necessary additional lanes to these projects may impact the bridge structure of Sandy
Ridge Road over 1-40, which also may impact the configuration of the Sandy Ridge Road
Interchange.
As a result of the complexity of the adjacent projects, the interim solution for U-4758 is the
following configuration: Norcross Road would be a right-in/right-out on Sandy Ridge Road.
Because of the heavy truck traffic on Norcross Road, it was recommended to realign Norcross
Road south to intersect with the Piedmont Triad Farmers Market Entrance. Endicott Road
would intersect with the realigned Norcross Road.
Due to complexity and schedule of the adjacent projects (1-5712, U-6068, and 1-5981),
additional coordination will be necessary in order to finalize the roadway configurations of
Norcross Road, Endicott Road, and the Piedmont Triad Farmers Market entrance.
Public Involvement Summary
The project initially started out in 2012 as a City of High Point managed project under a Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) grant. Public outreach and involvement was a very important
component of the project and included a project logo contest with the local high school,
development of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and an Agency Steering Committee
(ASC), small group meetings, website, newsletters, and three (3) public workshops.
The ASC included local staff from planning, engineering, parks and recreation, PART
(Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation), the MPO, and others, as well as state and
federal agency representatives. The CAC members represent neighborhood's, business
leaders, and other property owners along the corridor.
5 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
A timeline of the public involvement activities used in the identification, development,
evaluation, and elimination of alternatives is provided below.
• January 2012 — River Landing Small Group Meeting
• February 2013 — Sandy Ridge United Methodist Church Meeting
• April 2013 - Public Workshop #1
• August 2013 - Design Alternatives Work Session - Joint meeting with Steering
Committees (ASC and CAC) for input on development of Build Alternative
Concepts
• February 2014 - Alternatives Review Meeting with City of High Point
• May 2014 - Design Review Meeting with City of High Point
• July 2014 - Design Alternatives Review Meeting with ASC and CAC
• September 2014 - Public Workshop #2
• November 2014 — Small Group Meeting with Northern Property Owners
• July 2015 - Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) Meeting with ASC and CAC
• March 2016 — Project Update Newsletter
• June 2016 — Project Status Meeting with Smith Grove Baptist Church, Zion Hill
Methodist Church, and Sandy Ridge United Methodist
• August 2016 — Preferred Alternative Meeting with ASC and CAC
• February 2018 — Wesleyan Academy Meeting
• March 2018 - Sandy Ridge United Methodist Church Meeting
• August 2018 — Public Workshop #3
6 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Agency Coordination
The NCDOT has continuously worked with the City of High Point, Guilford County, and other
governmental agencies throughout the planning process. In June of 2012, a scoping packet
was sent from the City of High Point to local, state, and federal agencies to solicit comments
and collect pertinent project information early in the project development process. Agencies
that comments were received from include:
• City of High Point Fire Department
• City of High Point Planning and Development Department
• City of High Point Parks and Recreation
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
• NC Department of Cultural Resources
• NCDOT
• NC Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management, and Geospatial and
Technology
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• Federal Highway Administration
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
In addition to the involvement of the Agency Steering Committee, the project development
team also met with the NEPA/404 Merger Team in November 2014 and gained formal
concurrence on Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need) and Concurrence Point 2 (Detailed
Study Alternatives to Carry Forward). Due to minimization and avoidance efforts during the
design, the Merger Team concurred in February 2017 with removing the project from the
Merger Process.
7 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type III Actions
Yes
No
If the proposed improvement is identified as a Type III Class of Action answer all questions.
• The Categorical Exclusion will require FHWA approval.
• If any questions are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those
question in Section G.
Does the project involve potential effects on species listed with the US
1
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries
❑X
❑
NMFS ?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald
❑
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition,
❑
for any reason, following appropriate ublic involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts
❑
relative to low-income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial
❑
displacements or right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)?
❑x
❑
7
Is a project -level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects
❑
required based on the NCDOT community studies screening tool?
8
Is a project level air quality Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis
❑
required?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
❑X
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource
10
Water (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed
❑
Critical Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the
❑
designated mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
❑
Individual Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic
14
Preservation Act (NHPA) effects determination other than a no effect,
❑
including archaeological remains? Are there project commitments
identified?
15
Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills?
0
❑
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a
16
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
0
❑
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988
and 23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
17
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
❑
❑x
Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
0
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to
❑
a designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
❑
resources?
Type III Actions (continued)
Yes
No
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. USFS, USFWS, etc.) or Tribal
❑
Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control?
❑
0
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic
❑
patterns or community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
0
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
25
Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
❑
0
where applicable ?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in
26
Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
❑
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or
special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public -use
money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency
27
(FEMA) buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
❑
0
HMGP ?
28
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
❑x
❑
29
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as
❑
defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA ?
30
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process
❑
that effected the project decision?
Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Response to Question #1 — Potential Effects on Listed Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and
NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The
PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and
activities. The programmatic determination for the northern long-eared bat for the NCDOT
program is "May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO provides incidental take coverage
for northern long-eared bats and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which
includes Guilford County.
Response to Question #6 — Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) is not applicable in this project due to "Joint Development'. The project and the
Regency Parkway to Interstate 40 Greenway, which extends across Johnson Street along the
West Fork Deep River, are essentially being jointly developed since planning for the greenway
has accounted for the future widening of Johnson Street and vice versa. Furthermore, the
proposed greenway was considered in the bridging decision due to High Point's preference that
the greenway be accommodated under the bridge. Finally, the new wider and higher bridge
and multi -use path or sidewalk proposed throughout the project would provide a betterment to
the resource by enhancing access and connectivity to the planned greenway and overall
greenway system.
On March 8th and 21st, 2017, the City of High Point concurred with the determination that the
greenway and future park component around the crossing are part of joint development and
Section 4(f) is not applicable. FHWA also agreed with this determination. Appendix A
includes the concurrence from the City of High Point.
Response to Question #8 — MSAT Analysis
The purpose of this project is to improve existing and projected traffic flow and capacity on
Johnson Street and Sandy Ridge Road, and to provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists
along the corridor by constructing a four -lane median divided roadway with bike lanes,
sidewalk, and multi -use path. This project has been determined to generate minimal air quality
impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special mobile
source air toxic (MSAT) concerns. As such, this project will not result in changes in traffic
volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any other factor that would cause a meaningful
increase in MSAT impacts of the project from that of the no -build alternative.
10 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Response to Question #10 - Waters
West Fork Deep River is classified as Class WS IV and Critical Supply Watershed. Class WS-
IV (Water Supply) waters are protected for uses such as drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes. Since the proposed project corridor is partially located in a Critical Area, Hazardous
Spill Basins will be required.
An identified Critical Area (CA) water associated with the West Fork Deep River (Oak Hollow
Reservoir, Index No. 17-3-[0.7]) is located within the project vicinity. West Fork Deep River is
also identified as impaired by the North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters due
to Fish Community Poor (Nar, AL, FW).
131 linear feet of streams and 368 square feet (0.008 acres) of wetlands will be permanently
impacted. These impacts will be assessed during final design and measures will be taken to
minimize impacts to the extent practicable. 93 linear feet of streams and 1,385 square feet of
ponds and wetlands will be temporarily impacted by the proposed construction easement. The
project is located within the Randleman Lake Watershed Riparian Buffer Protection Program,
and a total of 71,013 square feet (1.63 acres) of riparian buffers to streams and ponds will be
impacted from this project.
Due to total wetland and surface water impacts being less than one-half acre and permanent
impacts to any given stream are less than 300 linear feet, a Nationwide 14 permit for Linear
Transportation Projects or General Permit may be used. A NCDWR Water Quality Certification
No. 3886 would also be required. If the above -stated thresholds are exceeded, the project will
require Individual Section 404 and 401 permits. The USACE holds the final discretion as to
what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is
required, then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCWR will be needed
Response to Question #14 — Section 106
There is one Historic Architecture resource, the Elihu and Abigail Mendenhall House (GF1544),
within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE); however, the resource will not be impacted.
There are no National Register listed or eligible Archaeological Sites present within the APE.
Three cemeteries are located within the APE:
• Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery (Site 31GF5700)
• Smith Grove Baptist Cemetery (Site 31GF571)
• Sandy Ridge Methodist Cemetery (Site 31GF572)
During the archaeological survey, the Sandy Ridge Methodist Cemetery was identified as
having a high potential for the presence of unmarked graves. Ground penetrating radar survey
of a portion of the Sandy Ridge Methodist Cemetery identified the presence of three marked
graves and 24 unmarked probable graves.
All three cemeteries should be avoided by proposed construction activities. North Carolina
General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 70,
provide additional protections for the cemeteries. If avoidance is not possible, it will be
11 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
necessary to comply with these statutes after consultation with the State Archaeologist to
determine the method any burials are to be removed and relocated. Relevant historic resources
documents are attached in Appendix B. Due to the number of pages, the Archaeological
Form in the appendix is the report only. The complete document is located at
https:Hconnect. ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div07/U-
4758/Human%20Environment/U-
4758%20Guilford%20No%20N RH P%20Archaeological%20Sites%20Present%20Form. pdf
Response to Question #15 — Hazardous Waste
Two petroleum storage tanks are located within the project vicinity; one is located off of Sandy
Camp Road and the other is located at the Circle K on Norcross Road.
Three underground storage tanks incidents, two of which are ranked as a low risk and one
ranked as high risk, have occurred off of Norcross Road. Two other underground storage tank
incidents (one high risk and one low risk) occurred off of Sandy Camp Road.
No other hazardous waste sites are located near the project.
Response to Question #16 — Floodways and Floodplains
The project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway (Zone AE) that is associated with the West
Fork River, just south of the Johnson Street Sports Complex. Impacts to the floodway due to
the project will be further evaluated during final design.
Response to Question #26 — Section 6(f)
The project does require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the
Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCF). The project requires additional right of way from
Oak Hollow Park (LWCF Project # 37-00174) property along the east side of the roadway at the
West Fork Deep River Crossing in order to avoid the Johnson Street Sports Complex. A
temporary easement will also need to be acquired from the Johnson Street Sports Complex in
order to construct the widening of Johnson Street from two lanes to four lanes.
The proposed roadway and bridge improvements will require the conversion of use for
approximately 0.8 acre of right of way and 0.9 acre of temporary easement from the Oak
Hollow Park. The proposed non -conforming use for the temporary easement will require
approximately 0.12 acre from the Johnson Street Sports Complex to reconstruct the entrance
in its existing location. No replacement land will need to be acquired since the project will not
permanently convert park property to non -recreation use.
This process has been initiated by the City of High Point, Parks and Recreation Director.
Letters requesting the conversion of use and non -conforming use were submitted to the NC
Division of Parks and Recreation.
The NCDOT Project Management Unit will continue to coordinate and support the City with
these LWCF conversion of use and non -conforming use requests to ensure process
completion.
12 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Response to Question #28 — Traffic Noise
The source of this traffic noise information is from the "Traffic Noise Report — Johnson Street
Sandy Ridge Road Widening" (October 2018) completed by Atkins.
Summary
A traffic noise evaluation was performed that preliminarily identified three noise barriers
(NWSA, NWSB, and NW10) meet feasible and reasonable criteria found in the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Policy. A more detailed analysis will be completed during project final design. Noise
barriers found to be feasible and reasonable during the preliminary noise analysis may not be
found to be feasible and reasonable during the final design noise analysis due to changes in
proposed project alignment and other design considerations, surrounding land use
development, or utility conflicts, among other factors. Conversely, noise barriers that were not
considered feasible and reasonable may meet the established criteria and be recommended for
construction. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are not
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building
permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical Exclusion (CE).
Traffic Noise Impacts
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted
by future traffic noise is shown in Table 4. The table includes those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
Table 4 - Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative*
Alternative
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential
Places of Worship/Schools,
Businesses
Total
(NAC B)
Parks, etc. (NAC C & D)
(NAC E)
Build 1
41
2
0
43
*Per TNM 2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
13 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Noise Barriers
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise Model (TNM
2.5) software developed by the FHWA. Table 5 summarizes the results of the evaluation.
Table 5 - Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results
Square Feet per
Preliminarily
Alternative
Length /
Number of
Benefited Receptor
Feasible and
(Noise Barrier
Height
Square
Footage
Benefited
/ Allowable Square
Reasonable
Location)
(feet)
Receptors
Feet per Benefited
(Likely) for
Receptor
Construction'
NSA 5 / NW5A
351
3,149
4
1,050 / 2,000
Yes
NSA 5 / NW5B
338
2,880
2
1,440 / 2,000
Yes
NSA 10 / NW10
374
2,992
2
1,496 / 1,500
Yes
'The likelihood for barrier construction is preliminary and subject to change, pending
completion of final design and the public involvement process.
Response to Question #29 — Prime Farmland
Farmland soils eligible for protection under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) are
present within the project footprint. A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in
the project area has been completed (NRCS Form CPA-106, Part VI) and a total score of 46
out of 160 points was calculated for the U-4758 project site (See U-4758 Community
Characteristics Report, August 2012). Since the total site assessment score does not exceed
the 60-point threshold established by NRCS, farmland conversion impacts may be anticipated,
but are not considered notable.
14 Revised 4/25/17

Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
H. Project Commitments'
Guilford County
Johnson Street / Sandy Ridge Road Widening
Federal Project No. - HPP-0710(25)(26)(27)(28)
WBS No. — 40251.1.1
STIP No. — U-4758
NCDOT Project Management Unit
• Continue to coordinate and support the City with the LWCF conversion of use and
non -conforming use requests to ensure process completion.
• Due to complexity and schedule of the adjacent projects (1-5712, U-6068, and I-
5981), additional coordination will be necessary in order to finalize the roadway
configurations of Norcross Road, Endicott Road, and the Piedmont Triad Farmers
Market entrance.
• During final design, determine feasibility and reasonableness of installing noise
barriers NW5A, NW513, and NW10.
• Hazardous spill protection measures will be provided at stream crossings within'/
mile of the water supply watershed critical area for Oak Hollow Reservoir.
NCDOT Division 7
• Unmarked graves are possible at the Sandy Ridge Methodist Cemetery. North
Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North Carolina General
Statute, Chapter 70, provide protections for the cemeteries. If avoidance is not
possible, it will be necessary to comply with these statutes after consultation with
the State Archaeologist to determine the method any burials are to be removed and
relocated.
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division will submit sealed as -built construction plants to
the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit Upon completion of project construction, certifying the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment located within the 100-year
floodplain were built as shown in construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
• Due to total wetland and surface water impacts being less than one-half acre and
permanent impacts to any given stream are less than 300 linear feet, a Nationwide
14 permit for Linear Transportation Projects or General Permit may be used. A
NCDWR Water Quality Certification No. 3886 would also be required. If the above -
stated thresholds are exceeded, the project will require Individual Section 404 and
401 permits. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be
required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required then a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCWR will be needed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
Prepared By:
[�6bocuS,i¢gnedby:
11/14/2018 1/bbl1
U-4758
40251.1.1
H P P-0710(25)(26)(27)(28)
Date Robert Boot, Senior NEPA Planner / Project Manager
Atkins
Prepared For: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By:
�DocuSigned by:
11/14/2018 JbLvu ,�W'SbIA.
Date for Derrick Weaver, Environmental Policy Unit Head
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDOT certifies that the proposed action qualifies as a Type III Categorical
Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
11/19/2018
Date Laura Sutton, PE Project Management Team (Division 7,9,10) Lead
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approval:
11/7A/7n1R
Date
DocuSigned by:
�br) V 4 vawl(&
John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
16 Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
KernersuiIIUt
STOKES i ROCKINGHAM CASWELL
-------I--------------- i ------
I
FORSYTH GUILFORD
ins WKglrner wL
Burlington
Greens m Graha
High P ALAMANC
DAVIDSON I
RANDOLPH
gto
I
O= i v SanayR�OgeRa
V 0
LL
u_ -o
J
Rd
f
Rd
tD
M
CD
Rd
?1a
-Gallim0re Daliy Rd
iqh-Point
z
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
Proposed Mainline
Municipal Limits
PROJECT LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
o
z
Project Study Area
Greensboro
MAP
� � STIP PROJECT
NO. U-4758
Guilford County, NC
w
C�
w
Streams Water
High Point
Kernersville
FIGURE 1
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCOneMap

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
O
w�
W
V
O
cc
N
w�
W
CL
c F-
R
J
aJ
N U
1
Cal
L3 L �
.y
ca
.WAft
wM
W
Q.
3
E
J Z N
U 0 Lu
CL
w 0
0
W
U)
a
O
a
1
Cal
L3 L �
.y
ca
.WAft
wM
W
Q.
3
E
J Z N
U 0 Lu
CL
w 0
0
W
U)
a
O
a

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
3a \ 3b
3e
3c 3d 3g
3f
3h
SHEET KEY
'r
r r
tll �
mie
446
4k ALL
�06 \
Apl
# F�
°
41 `h
� ` \ N.
OIL
rCA
.a .
_
OF
/3k -
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
t STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
° Guilford County, North Carolina
II©*
0 100 200
Feet
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO„
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
MEMEL Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
rProposed
Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Q Future Park
Floodway
a�
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
N
J
MINES Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���0 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
.
Fire Station
Streams
Proposed Noise Barrier
up
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
♦
r.
t
r
I"
r
r
i
r
r
r
r
1
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3a

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
F,-
SHEET KEY
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
t STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
° Guilford County, North Carolina
II©*
0 100 200
Feet
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO„
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
L':F' *�
9&.y-
�
V
ti
G�
ti
f }
,yY
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
1111L___1L Future Greenway
1 _ _, _ _ �� Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Q Future Park
Floodway
a�
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
N
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
— —
— Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
.
Fire Station
Streams
Proposed Noise Barrier
up
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
Johnson St
Sports Complex
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3b

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Guilford County, North Carolina
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway
1, _ _ Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
II©**
r—
I
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
0 100 200
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
Feet
N
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO,
.
Fire Station
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
Streams
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3c

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
3h \ �i
SHEET KEY 3� �3k
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Guilford County, North Carolina
II©*
0 100 200
Feet
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO„
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway �� Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
r—
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
a�
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
N
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
.
Fire Station
Streams
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
rt-
M
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3d

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
~ `I
IL s
/ 1
•
'r r
x .I. o�.i
ft-q
ti `
Pbdomow
o,
A
yj Y YYYYYY } 4
_'J
Ir
IL
\ l Y } f
`�• ♦ � t w
Ak
IL
r
IL
� �'�•• __ �� - �� +'ti *� A ' •� ,� •art • � i
VL
P.
0
0
Ab
44
40
ac 3d
SHEET KEY
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
I1©�
a—
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
0 100 200
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
a STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Feet
Surce: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPQ
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
.
Fire Station
■mmm' 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
° Guilford County, North Carolina
NoCOneMap, Photography Date:01/01/2014
— — — Slopestake Lines
� Neighborhoods
Streams
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3e

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Guilford County, North Carolina
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
II©**
rProposed
I
Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
0 100 200
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
Feet
N
J
— Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO,
.
Fire Station
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 0110112014
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
Streams
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3f

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
l
ti
5 `-­ it -.I, .
> o 0
1 �
do
' #``
13a 3b
1 3e
3c 3d ,
3f
3h=
SHEET KEY
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
a STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
° Guilford County, North Carolina
°2,�ro ,anh�e
C
I
.4 + r
'1 � I�
'.­*JW *1
rl
~ M
' pfr
— u �
O
a
4 `
M1 "�
r•unn
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
II©** Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path Proposed Easement Construction
� Proposed Edge of Travel Lane � p g ® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
0 100 200 � Proposed Lane Lines Proposed Concrete Island
Feet N
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO, J — Proposed Roadway Bridge Proposed Lane Arrow
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
— — — Slopestake Lines Neighborhoods
Proposed Noise Barrier
'i
a
4111111,
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
County Parks
Major Lakes
Church
Future Park
Floodway
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
■���0 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
.
Fire Station
Historic Sites
Streams
Proposed Traffic Signal
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3g

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
.� ♦\
AMOK, x M1. G ♦\ -
` e ♦ # w
UAI%11N1S�1111C1N1'a-i ��414-2,
Ix
0 , d \ ♦`\
IL 440
■ Ar — — _ sue' ♦
J
tl ' N�wIN Al
``
L6x-� 3b-
3a
k
3
3f 3h
SHEET KEY 3� �3k
_ y
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway
1, _ _ Delineated Wetlands
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
II©♦
a
P roposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
0 100 200
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
_ Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
� STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Feet
urce: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPQ
SoCOM
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
.
Flre $tatlOn
■mmm' 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
FIGURE 3h
Guilford County, North Carolina
PhthDt
Nneap, Photography ae:01/01/2014
- - - Slopestake Lines
Nei hborhoods
g
Streams
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
r '� _-A
ti
ac 3d
3f
3h-
SHEET KEY
`- F- �*
31 �*+
z2i
3� �3k
rTt
1
0
oak
♦`�� '
t` ♦
~ � III !' � `� ♦ -
100
t
f"
�'
1
OW 14Y
1>#
N.
..�` � � '•,ram
74t
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
II©♦
rProposed
Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
0 100 200
�
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
t STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Feet
Surce: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPQ
J
� Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
.
Fire Station
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
° Guilford County, North Carolina
NoCOneMap, Photography Date:01/01/2014
— — — Slopestake Lines
� Neighborhoods
Streams
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites
�y
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3i

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
w 2' Pv�
3a \ 3b
'3e
3c 3d ,
3f
3h'
SHEET KEY
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
a STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
° Guilford County, North Carolina
g2,�ro ,anh�e
c t1F
.�♦♦ x�
40
ry.All
k
II©*
0 100 200
Feet
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO,
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 0110112014
Ilk71
•
IRS
T\ I
F I
} � '-"'.`_��— — — ` D 1 —�'Yt �ssv'a � � pry, "• �
,t
m� ,
dElIl01
.AL At
f ,
low
-
��. L #"i
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
rProposed
Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
a�
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
N
J
— Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
.
Fire Station
Streams
Proposed Noise Barrier
EP
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3j

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
` r 7�K� GJlll
° •'
5,14,� IhIJIAJ_Il%JU ,
AnwhL
iu._ R
a�
la
3a \ 3b
3e
3c 3d ,
3f
3h'
SHEET KEY
J
.I
r
� � ,,�� � �t. Yam. .•� .. -
.. I„ ice♦ \ �. y 00
♦� O e \
\ I
i;00 \ I
1wall,
* : �MW
.► Wr
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
t STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
° Guilford County, North Carolina
TL
r asfr r - . .
' 40
--Piedmont'Trla,d
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway
1, _ _ Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
II©**
r—
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
0 100 200 0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island *
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
Feet N
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
Source: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPO,
.
Fire Station
NCOneMap, Photography Date: 01/01/2014
— — — Slopestake Lines
Neighborhoods
Streams
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites
Proposed Traffic Signal
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 3k

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
Jr Ito '
Wx-
r a +
�r
i IYLCLLlS
Y , k yy�am,' �✓
I
r 4 1�
-\ •�
3a 3bJP
3e
3c 3d 3g aM
yN
ail
\ Q
� � D
SHEET KEY 3, �3k
Proposed Concrete Curb and Gutter ---- Proposed Right of Way
Cemetery
Future Greenway ® Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Sidewalk/ Multi -use Path
Proposed Easement Construction
County Parks
Major Lakes
JOHNSON ST I SANDY RIDGE RD
II©♦
r—
Proposed Edge of Travel Lane
® Proposed Ashpalt Removal
Church
Future Park
Floodway
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
0 100 200
0)
Proposed Lane Lines
Proposed Concrete Island
*
EMT
Parcels
100 Year Floodplain
t STIP PROJECT NO. U-4758
Feet
Surce: Guilford County, NCDOT, NCSHPQ
J
Proposed Roadway Bridge
Proposed Lane Arrow
.
Fire Station
■���� 303(d) Streams
State Owned Land
° Guilford County, North Carolina
NoCOneMap, Photography Date:01/01/2014
- - - Slopestake Lines
� Neighborhoods
Streams
Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Noise Barrier
Historic Sites
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
FIGURE 31

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
APPENDIX A
SECTION 4(F) CONCURRENCE
Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Boot, Robert A
From: LEE TILLERY <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:29 PM
To: Bereis, Kimberly D
Cc: MARK MCDONALD; Williams, John L
Subject: RE: NCDOT STIP No. U-4758 (JSSRR Widening) - Section 4(f Letter **Response
Requested**
I concur with the plan outlined below.
Thanks,
Lee
LEE TILLERY
CITY OF HIGH POINT
DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION
136 Northpoint Avenue I High Point, NC 27262
336.883.3473 1 fax: [phone]
From: Bereis, Kimberly D [mailto:Kimberly. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:20 AM
To: LEE TILLERY <[e-mail]>
Cc: MARK MCDONALD <[e-mail]>; Williams, John L <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NCDOT STIP No. U-4758 (JSSRR Widening) - Section 4(f) Letter **Response Requested**
Good morning, Lee.
John and I met with Felix Davila (FHWA) on Friday, and he agrees that Joint Development applies to the
resource and U-4758 project in this case. However, he has requested clarification for us to include it the NEPA
document. Please verify (with a response to this email) that your concurrence applies to the greenway
(Regency) proposed along the WFDR as well as the future open space park around the crossing. Essentially,
he just wants your concurrence that both the greenway and future park component apply, as the letter
emphasizes the greenway portion within the park and greenway system.
Thanks,
Kim Bereis, AICP
Senior Planner/Project Manager, Transportation NEPA
ATKINS
Find out more about what we do and how we do it — www.atkinsglobal.com
5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive, #500, Charlotte, NC, 28217 I Tel: [phone] Ext. 4294404 I Fax: [phone] I Direct: +1 (704) 665
4404 I Cell: [phone]
Email: kimberly.bereis(a atkinsglobal.com I Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica
From: LEE TILLERY[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:40 PM

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
To: Bereis, Kimberly D <[e-mail]>
Cc: MARK MCDONALD<[e-mail]>; Williams, John L <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NCDOT STIP No. U-4758 (JSSRR Widening) - Section 4(f) Letter "Response Requested"
Good afternoon Kimberly,
Thanks for the email. I agree with the position you guys presented in the letter and am in full agreement.
Thanks,
Lee
LEE TILLERY
CITY OF HIGH POINT
DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION
136 Northpoint Avenue I High Point, NC 27262
336.883.3473 1 fax: [phone]
From: Bereis, Kimberly D [mailto: Kimberly. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:37 PM
To: LEE TILLERY <[e-mail]>
Cc: MARK MCDONALD<[e-mail]>; Williams, John L <[e-mail]>
Subject: NCDOT STIP No. U-4758 (JSSRR Widening) - Section 4(f) Letter "Response Requested"
Good afternoon, Lee. Please find the attached, which Mark discussed with you this week. John and I are
meeting with FHWA this Friday, so if you can provide a response by then it would be greatly appreciated
(email response is sufficient).
Thank you!
Kim Bereis, AICP
Senior Planner/Project Manager, Transportation NEPA
ATKINS
Find out more about what we do and how we do it — www.atkinsglobal.com
5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive, #500, Charlotte, NC, 28217 1 Tel: [phone] Ext. 4294404 1 Fax: [phone] Direct: +1 (704) 665
4404 1 Cell: [phone]
Email: kimberly.bereise.atkinsalobal.com I Web: www.atkinsalobal.com/northamerica
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No. 1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom,
Surrey KT18 513W. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at
http://www.atkinsg lobal.com/site-services/group-company-reg istration-details
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-94lD39ED3F33
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
March 8, 2017
Mr. Lee Tillery
City of High Point Parks & Recreation Director
136 Northpoint Avenue
High Point, NC 27262
JAmEs H. TRomom III
SECRETARY
Subject: STIP Project U-4758 (Improvements to SR 1818 (Johnson Street)/SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge
Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to I-40), High Point, Guilford County
Section 4(f) Applicability and Compliance
Mr. Tillery,
As part of the project development activities for the subject project, NCDOT is required to review
potential impacts to publicly -owned parks and recreation areas. For federally -funded projects,
Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 provides certain protections to public parks (and other
resources). Federally -funded Project U-4758 will require replacement of the current bridge
carrying Johnson Street over the West Fork Deep River.
The City of High Point's Bikeway, Greenway, and Trails Master Plan (Adopted November 29,
2010) includes the Regency Parkway to Interstate 40 Greenway, which will extend across
Johnson Street along the West Fork Deep River. While the greenway is planned, it is our
understanding that no funds are currently allocated for this part of the greenway extension.
In addition to planning the greenway noted above, the City of High Point has actively planned and
advocated for the widening of Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Road. STIP Project No. U-4758 is
currently transitioning from a locally administered project (LAP) under development by the City of
High Point to NCDOT's management.
The FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2012) sets forth official FHWA policy on the applicability
of Section 4(f) to various types of land and resources, and other Section 4(f) related issues. Since
the greenway and the roadway widening are both in the planning phases, NCDOT believes Section
4(f) is not applicable in this case due to "Joint Development". STIP No. U-4758 and the greenway
are essentially being jointly developed since planning for the greenway has accounted for the future
widening of Johnson Street and vice versa. Furthermore, the proposed greenway was considered in
the bridging decision due to High Point's preference that the greenway be accommodated under the
bridge. Finally, the new wider and higher bridge and multi -use path or sidewalk proposed
throughout the project would provide a betterment to the resource by enhancing access and
connectivity to the planned greenway and overall greenway system.
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: [phone] BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH, NC 27610
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1548 Website: www.ncdot.gov

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
It is NCDOT's position that Section 4(f) does not apply to the pro*ect's crossing of this portion of
the proposed Regency Parkway to Interstate 40 Greenway because the greenway and STIP Project
No. U-4758 are being jointly planned/developed. As such, NCDOT plans to present this position to
FHWA, and is requesting your written agreement on this position.
Thank you for assistance. If you have any questions about this, you may contact me at (919) 707-
6178 or jlwilliams&ncdot.gov.
Sincerely,
John L. Williams, P.E.
NCDOT Project Planning Engineer
JLW/Atkins
cc: Felix Davila, P.E., FHWA

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
APPENDIX B
HISTORIC RESOURCES DOCUMENTS
Revised 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
18-01-0050
�� 6-3 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
-IS` This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
U-4758
County:
Guilford
WBS No.:
40251.1.1
Document
PCE
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
unknown
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
USACE
Permits :
Type(s):
Proiect Description:
Widen Johnson Street -Sandy Ridge Road from
Skeet Club Road
to I-40 (approximately 4.4
miles in length).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB
2018), there is one historically significant resource within the APE for the project, the Elihu and
Abigail Mendenhall House (GF1544). This resource was determined eligible in 2001 and HPO
confirmed it's eligibility in response to a report prepared by New South and Associates for this
project. The design plans for the project show that any construction activities associated with the
project are 400 feet away from the boundary of the historic property.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect
area:
HPO GIS information, Guilford County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present.
Furthermore, in 2014 New South and Associates completed an evaluation of all resources within
the APE over fifty years of age project and confirmed that GF 1544 is the only eligible resource
within the APE. Since the design plans do not show construction activities that would directly or
indirectly impact the boundary of the historic property the project is not recommended for
survey. Compliance with Section 106 is complete..
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-41328-13309-941 D39ED3F33
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
b I
I
I
I
R
r �
Mav�
nRd
I
ar I
I
V Bgrl,IphRb
I
u I
c
a
I
I
I
I y N
4 �
I
s
ny,e+ ld°t Cm a
I
1 d,sPpO b .
� sail 90.
IS
v
R r
I
I
�OYntLn
1
.-
I
I L�
yda' c
0
3
n-Rd 8. 1-ri Rrr
I
Q Area of Potential Effect
r ar
Y
itd +Y�1
:�. �te.Vna Rd � r. ''7unbnar
L�
ft-11 "t_ won
sia•K Irn t
0
c �¢
e
q DA'7 Rd
u'
e
m
rn i
n C �
n 0
a
y 3 'Po
a
aG, Alde brPok Or
C
b O
a ChJse VI
4� sks�nml Rd
S4ngls 4
d3 4
;o
�J a 5KMI Ctub Rq
n y.
� � a
15unten'rpOd '-' I+ms$oW sy $
3 a m
of n Ln C
Try
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941 D39ED3F33
rim
=mom Y�"+
TOR
r
+b�
ircaic9ia�= =iy. i s.. 1
GF 1544
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
.0
dip
.-nstruction
rnits
ti LEE YARR11
ROBIN Ail(
DB 5
a OB 7
eAl
FP
L M
D A. BLAIR JR L/T. JAMES
—� ND
ARON EbA1DNfl5 LIVING
4NA E Hl I JAVES AND SHARON
ti I ovtHG TRuSi (SHARE WP
:\r DB IF58 PG 28A2
DB 7566 Pc 2424 7
P8 56 PG 434 b t q
5 �
4l
i
4r�
CLAUDE EUG£NE LEWISG o �,
ANITA I}. LEWIS
DB 4842 PG 459 e
Flogo PG n V.Cr
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
Mary Pope Furr
NCDOT Architectural Historian
2/23/2018
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oo ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
'' PRESENT FORM
.
p.„i
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
II : _INO]
F.A. No
U-4758
40251.1.1
Unknown
Federal Permit Required?
County: Guilford
Document: Federal PCE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (Not Specified)
Project Description: NCDOT is proposing to widen and realign SR 1818 (Johnson Street)/SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) from SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) to I-40 in Guilford County. Currently, Johnston
Street/Sandy Ridge Road is a two-lane, undivided facility. As proposed, the corridor will consist of a four -
to five- lane divided facility with sidewalks and bike lanes. Project length measures about 4.40 miles.
Based on Preliminary Design Plans, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) will equate to the extent of the
Proposed ROW and any construction easements along the corridor. The realignment of several Y-lines
(i.e. major intersecting roads) will also be included as a component of this project. Overall, the APE will
encompass about 105.8 acres, inclusive of all existing roadways and 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:
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Tuesday,
February 13, 2018. No large-scale archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area, and only one
(1) archaeological site has been recorded within one mile of the corridor for the proposed project. OSA
has no information regarding site 31 GF436* *, except for its location (Figure 1).
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Digital copies of HPO's maps (Kernersville and Guilford Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS
Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Tuesday, February 20, 2018. As a result of
a historic architecture survey conducted in 2014 for this project, when it was initially submitted for
review, numerous architectural resources were identified within or adjacent to the APE; however, intact
archaeological deposits associated with these resources are not 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
archaeological APE.
New South Associates, Inc. (New South) conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the U-4758
Area of Potential Effects (APE) between April 10 and April 17, 2018 (Figures 2 and 3). This survey
sought to identify and evaluate archaeological sites for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility according to criteria outlined in 36 CFR §60.4. The survey included a visual inspection of the
entire APE and systematically shovel -tested survey areas that were defined by NCDOT as having a
moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological sites (Figure 4). These areas consisted of
moderately well -drained and well -drained soils that were not impacted by modern development. New
South also recorded and evaluated three cemeteries located within or adjacent to the APE during the
survey. The cemetery evaluations relied upon non-invasive data collection (e.g., photography and sketch
mapping) and limited ground -penetrating radar (GPR) survey in one case.
Shovel testing of the designated survey areas utilized pre -plotted 30-meter interval shovel test locations.
Field technicians visited all test locations during the survey. They did not excavate test locations within
discernible disturbances or near buried utility lines. Excavated tests measured 30-centimeters in diameter
and were excavated to sterile subsoil, the water table, or impenetrable substrate. Shovel test results
(including soil color, texture, depths, and the presence/absence of cultural material) were recorded using
smartphones equipped with a Memento data collection application. The field director collected sub -meter
Global Positioning System (GPS) data for selected shovel tests, cemetery boundaries, and site locations.
All artifacts were returned to New South's laboratory in Stone Mountain, Georgia where they were
washed and identified. Analysts identified the type, material, age, affiliation, and metrics of the collected
artifacts according to standard techniques/typologies for both pre -contact and historic material. Raw
materials for pre -contact lithic artifacts were classified according to procedures established by the
NCDOT for the Carolina Slate Belt.
SURVEY AREA 1
Survey Area 1 was located to the southeast of the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Tyner Road
(Figure 4). Planted white pines covered this upland area (Figure 5). The investigation identified a City of
High Point sewer line along the northern edge of Survey Area 1, and a large push pile at the eastern edge
of Sandy Ridge Road. Their presence indicates that road- and sewer -related disturbances have impacted
this survey area. Eleven shovel test positions were excavated in this area. The excavated tests
encountered five centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam overlaying 15 centimeters of red
(2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 6). Shovel testing and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological resources in Survey Area 1.
SURVEY AREA 2
Survey Area 2 was located on the eastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, extending northeast from the
Partridge Road intersection (see Figure 4). This upland survey area included a zone of scrub vegetation, a
natural gas transmission line, and the grassed yard of a single residence (Figure 7). There were four
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
shovel test positions investigated in this area, three of which were excavated and one test located near the
natural gas line was not excavated. These tests uncovered 19 centimeters of brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam
overlaying 10 centimeters of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay subsoil. The field investigation
did not locate any archaeological resources in Survey Area 2.
SURVEY AREA 3
Survey Area 3 encompassed a segment of upland located between Sandy Ridge Road and Shields Road
(see Figure 4). During the survey, a fallow agricultural field covered this landform (Figure 8). There
were 12 shovel test positions investigated in this area. Of these, 11 were excavated, and one test was not
excavated. The excavated tests indicate the survey area soils are limited to 20 centimeters of red (2.5YR
4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 9). These tests and visual inspection did not locate any archaeological remains
in Survey Area 3.
SURVEY AREA 4
Survey Area 4 was located along the southeastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, south of the Shields Road
intersection (Figure 10). This upland setting included a fallow agricultural field and a thin hardwood
copse (Figure 11). There were six shovel test positions investigated in this area, five of which were
excavated. None yielded cultural material. These tests typically encountered 30 centimeters of very dark
brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) sandy loam overlaying 23 centimeters of very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sand (Figure
12). A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil was uncovered 53 centimeters below ground surface.
Shovel testing was suspended when the landowner informed the field crew that the survey area
encompassed an area where he had added 80 truckloads of topsoil and subsequently raised the ground
surface approximately 50 centimeters. He also stated that the underlying ground surface was low-lying
and used for cultivation. Given the shovel testing results and past land use in this survey area, this
unexcavated shovel test location was unlikely to contain any undisturbed soil strata.
SURVEY AREA 5
Survey Area 5 was located on the west side of Sandy Ridge Road, opposite the Dairy Point Drive
intersection (see Figure 10). A grassy yard and a fallow agricultural field covered the survey area (Figure
13). The field crew excavated six shovel test positions in this area. None yielded cultural material.
These tests uncovered 34 centimeters of brown (7.5YR 5/4) clay sand overlaying 11 centimeters of
yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure 14). No archaeological resources were identified in Survey
Area 5 during the field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 6
Survey Area 6 was located on the north side of Gallimore Dairy Road, 60 meters southeast of the Sandy
Ridge Road intersection (see Figure 10). A recently constructed commercial structure was erected in this
survey area. This structure was screened from the road by scrub vegetation and does not appear on recent
aerial photography (Figure 15). Three shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 6. These tests
typically encountered 23 centimeters of reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) sandy clay overlaying nine centimeters
of red (2.5YR 4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 16). These tests and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological resources in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 7
Survey Area 7 was located opposite Survey Area 6, on the south side of Gallimore Dairy Road (see
Figure 10). A low-lying grassy yard extended across this side of the road (Figure 17). Three shovel test
positions typically identified 28 centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/4) clay sand overlaying 10
centimeters of yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure 18). These tests and visual inspection of the
survey area did not locate any archaeological resources.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 8
Survey Area 8 was located east of Clinard Farms Road (Figure 19). The local setting included a narrow
band of woods and a newly constructed building and parking lot (Figure 20). Field technicians examined
five shovel test positions in this area. Although the field crew was able to excavate three tests,
disturbances prevented the excavation of the two remaining test locations in Survey Area 8. The
excavated tests were negative for archaeological remains and typically uncovered 25 centimeters of
yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay subsoil (Figure 21). The field investigation did not locate any
archaeological resources in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 9
Survey Area 9 extended across an open field on the south side of Sandy Ridge Road, halfway between
Clinard Farms Road and Sandy Camp Road (see Figure 19, Figure 22). Four shovel test positions were
excavated in Survey Area 9. These tests typically encountered 30 centimeters of reddish brown (2.5YR
4/3) clay and did not produce cultural material (Figure 23). Visual inspection of the survey area also did
not locate any archaeological resources.
SURVEY AREA 10
Survey Area 10 extends from the Clinard Farms Road intersection to a point 70 meters northeast of the
Sandy Camp Road intersection, on the northwest side of Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 19). This area
included fallow agricultural fields and grassy front yards (Figure 24). Technicians examined 15 shovel
test positions in this area, 13 of which were excavated. The excavated tests revealed 25 centimeters of
reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay overlaying light red (2.5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 25). None of the
excavated tests produced artifacts. Two test locations were left unexcavated due to heavy disturbance
related to driveway construction. The field investigation did not locate any archaeological resources in
Survey Area 10.
SURVEY AREA 11
Survey Area 11 was located east of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with Joe Drive (Figure 26). The
local setting includes grassy lawn of the Sandy Ridge Road Methodist Church (Figure 27). Three
negative shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 11. These tests typically uncovered 10
centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy clay loam overlaying 23 centimeters of yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) sandy clay (Figure 28). A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil was uncovered 33
centimeters below ground surface. No archaeological resources were identified in Survey Area 11 during
this field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 12
Survey Area 12 follows the west side of Sandy Camp Road, south from the intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road (see Figure 26). The local setting includes the grassy lawn of a single residence and the Sandy
Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery (Figure 29). Five shovel test positions were examined in this area.
The field crew excavated three shovel tests and left two unexcavated due to their proximity to an area
with high potential for the presence of unmarked graves. The excavated tests uncovered 10 centimeters
of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy clay loam overlying 13 centimeters of yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) sandy clay. A reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil was encountered 23 centimeters
below ground surface. Shovel testing and visual inspection of the survey area did not locate any artifacts.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 13
Survey Area 13 was located on the southeastern side of Sandy Ridge Road, across from the Bame Road
intersection (see Figure 26). The local setting included a fallow agricultural field covered by raspberries
and tall grass (Figure 30). Of the nine shovel test positions investigated in Survey Area 13, eight were
excavated. The presence of pavement prevented excavation of the final test location. The excavated tests
typically encountered 25 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay loam and light red
(2.5YR 6/8) clay subsoil. These tests and visual inspection did not locate any artifacts in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 14
Survey Area 14 extends along the northwestern side of Sandy Ridge Road from the Presbyterian Homes
parking lot southwest for 200 meters (Figure 31). The presence of three -meter -high earthen mounds and
a berm, covered by grass, indicated that mechanical excavation heavily disturbed this area (Figure 32).
All seven shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 14. These tests revealed 28 centimeters of
reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay sand overlaying red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 33). None yielded
cultural material.
SURVEY AREA 15
Survey Area 15 was located 340 meters southwest of the Kendale Road intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road, on the western edge of Kendale Road (see Figure 31). During the survey, this upland area included
a fallow agricultural field and the grassy front yard of a single residence (Figure 34). Six shovel test
positions were excavated in Survey Area 15. These tests typically encountered 34 centimeters of brown
(7.5YR 5/4) sandy clay overlaying reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) clay subsoil (Figure 35). Shovel testing
and visual inspection of Survey Area 15 did not locate any artifacts.
SURVEY AREA 16
Survey Area 16 includes a ridgetop covered by a fallow agricultural field located between Kendale Road
and Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 31, Figure 36). The field crew investigated 28 shovel test positions in
this area. This includes 22 pre -plotted tests and four 7.5-meter interval radials. Technicians excavated all
of the pre -plotted tests and three radial tests (Figure 62). Demolition of a twentieth century house site
heavily disturbed the final test location. The general soil uncovered in Survey Area 16 includes 20
centimeters of brown (7.5YR 4/3) sandy clay overlying 13 centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/3) clay
(Figure 37). Subsoil, a reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay, was revealed 23 centimeters below ground
surface. While subsurface artifact deposits were not identified in the survey area, one historic surface find
was collected at Shovel Test 109. This find, designated as site 31GF569, is discussed below.
SURVEY AREA 17
Survey Area 17 extends northeast from the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Johnson Street (Figure
38). A fallow agricultural field extends across this upland area (Figure 39). The field crew excavated 13
out of 14 tests plotted in the survey area. The final test location was not excavated due to large ruts from
land clearing. The excavated tests identified 28 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand
overlying reddish brown (5YR 4/4) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 40). Visual inspection and shovel testing
did not locate any artifacts in Survey Area 17.
SURVEY AREA 18
Survey Area 18 was located at the southwestern corner of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Johnson Street (see Figures 38 and 43). The survey area contains a fallow agricultural field currently
under development (Figure 41). All 23 shovel test positions in Survey Area 18 were excavated. None
yielded cultural material. These tests commonly contained 30 centimeters of dark yellowish brown
(10YR 4/6) silty clay overlaying 10 centimeters of strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay (Figure 42).
Shovel testing and visual inspection of Survey Area 18 did not locate any archaeological sites.
SURVEY AREA 19
Survey Area 19 was located on the east side of Johnson Street, across from the Cedar Spring Drive
intersection (Figures 43 and 46). The local setting includes wooded residential lots and a transmission
line corridor (Figure 44). Technicians examined 18 shovel test positions in this area, 14 of which were
excavated. Three test locations were not excavated due to heavy disturbance, and the final unexcavated
test location was not shovel tested due to subsoil surface exposure. The excavated tests uncovered five
centimeters of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) silty loam and 15 centimeters of light reddish brown (2.5YR
6/3) silty clay (Figure 45). Shovel tests exposed a reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil 20 centimeters
below ground surface. None of the test locations produced cultural material. Visual inspection and
shovel testing did not locate any archaeological sites in Survey Area 19.
SURVEY AREA 20
Survey Area 20 was located on the east side of Johnson Street, opposite the entrance to the Johnson Street
Sports Complex (see Figure 46). This sideslope survey area contained young pines and scrub vegetation
(Figure 47). The field crew excavated four of the five shovel test positions. These negative tests
uncovered 20 centimeters of reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) silty clay overlying light red (2.5YR 6/8) clay
subsoil (Figure 48). The unexcavated test location was too disturbed to warrant subsurface testing.
Visual inspection of this area and shovel testing did not identify any artifacts in this survey area.
SURVEY AREA 21
Survey Area 21 was located near the northeastern side of the West Fork Deep River (see Figure 46). The
survey area contains a pine- and hardwood -covered ridgetoe overlooking a narrow section of floodplain
(Figure 49). Twenty-one survey and radial shovel test positions were excavated in Survey Area 21
(Figure 60). These tests typically encountered 16 centimeters of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam
overlying red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 50). A single bucket auger test (Test A) was excavated
between the boundary of Survey Area 21 and the stream. This test exposed 10 centimeters of dark
yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) silty clay and 50 centimeters of yellowish red (5YR 5/8) compact silty clay.
These soils indicate that alluviation did not deeply bury any A -horizon soils in the APE. A metavolcanic
flake was recovered from Shovel Test 178 (Figure 46). A description of this archaeological resource,
designated as site 31GF568, is provided below.
SURVEY AREA 22
Survey Area 22 was located on the southwestern side of the West Fork Deep River (Figure 51). The
survey area includes a narrow floodplain and sideslope covered by hardwoods (Figure 52). Two shovel
test positions were excavated in this area, both of which encountered 15 centimeters of dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) silty loam overlaying 35 centimeters of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay
and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) silty clay subsoil. Neither test yielded artifacts. A bucket auger test (Test
B) exposed 20 centimeters of dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam before encountering the water table.
This profile and those recorded during shovel testing indicate that alluvial processes have not deposited
soils in this area. Shovel testing results, bucket augering, and visual inspection did not locate any
archaeological remains or deeply -buried deposits in Survey Area 22.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
SURVEY AREA 23
Survey Area 23 was located on the northeastern side of Johnson Street, beginning at the intersection of
Johnson Street and Pondhaven Drive (see Figures 51 and 57). The local setting included residential lots
and a small agricultural field covered by grass (Figure 53). The field crew examined 12 shovel test
positions in this area. Eleven tests were excavated. One test location was too disturbed by driveway
construction to merit subsurface testing. The general soil profile in Survey Area 23 includes 20
centimeters of light brown (7.5YR 6/3) sand overlying 12 centimeters of very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2)
loam and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 54). Pedestrian survey and shovel testing did not
locate any archaeological sites in Survey Area 23.
SURVEY AREA 24
Survey Area 24 was located across from Pondhaven Drive (see Figures 51 and 57). The local terrain
includes a sideslope covered by hardwoods, fenceline cedars, and grasses and periwinkle ground cover
(Figure 55). Survey Area 24 contained 35 shovel test positions. Field technicians excavated 29 of these
tests, none of which yielded cultural material. Tests typically revealed 17 centimeters of very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam overlying six centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) silty clay
and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay subsoil (Figure 56). The five remaining test locations were not
suitable for subsurface testing due to the presence of road -related push piles and heavy disturbances. No
archaeological sites were identified in Survey Area 24 during this field investigation.
SURVEY AREA 25
Survey Area 25 was located on the west side of Johnson Street, 180 meters north of its intersection with
Skeet Club Road (see Figure 57). The survey area includes sideslope covered by a narrow band of woods
and an abandoned agricultural field (Figure 58). Four shovel test positions were excavated in Survey
Area 25. None yielded cultural material. These tests typically encountered 10 centimeters of dark brown
(7.5YR 3/2) silt and reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay subsoil. New South did not identify any
archaeological sites in Survey Area 25.
IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE 31GF568
New South collected a single metavolcanic flake from Shovel Test 178, in Survey Area 21 (see Figure
46). During the site visit, hardwood trees and light density scrub vegetation covered this landform
(Figure 59). The positive shovel test was excavated on a ridge toe overlooking the West Fork Deep River
floodplain. Shovel Test 178 produced a temporally non -diagnostic precontact flake between 0-30
centimeters below ground surface. Technicians excavated a cruciform of 11 15-meter- and 7.5-meter-
interval delineation shovel tests around the positive test location (Figure 60). These tests revealed 20
centimeters of dark brown (IOYR 3/3) silty loam overlying red (2.5YR 5/8) silty clay subsoil (Figure 61).
No additional artifacts were recovered from site 31GF568.
A single non -diagnostic lithic artifact was collected from site 31GF568. The artifact cannot be associated
with any significant people or broad patterns of history. It does not convey any significance related to the
works of a master craftsperson or embody any high design ideals. Shovel testing also shows that the site
does not contain any significant artifact deposits or intact features and has a low potential to benefit future
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
research. For these reasons, New South recommends site 31GF568 not eligible for the NRHP under
Criteria A, B, C, and D. No further work is recommended.
SITE 31GF569
A single fragment of nineteenth- or twentieth-century milk glass (Miller et al. 2000) was collected from
the Survey Area 16 ground surface, at Shovel Test 109 (see Figure 31). This site was located on a
ridgetop overlooking the intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Kendale Road. The surface find was
collected from the edge of an overgrown fence line that separated the survey area from an abandoned
twentieth-century farmhouse complex, located 20 meters to the south. This complex was located outside
of the APE and was undergoing demolition at the time of the field investigation.
Field technicians excavated four shovel tests during the site delineation (Figure 62). This included two
15-meter interval shovel tests to the north, east, and west of Shovel Test 109. The farmhouse complex
was extensively disturbed, and no shovel tests were placed in this area. These tests and visual inspection
of surrounding ground surface exposures did not locate any additional artifacts. Shovel testing revealed
25 centimeters of brown (7.5YR 4/2) loamy sand overlaying yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure
63). Given the fallow field setting, the upper soil horizon likely resulted from agricultural activity.
Site 31GF569 contains a twentieth-century surface find that is presumably associated with the demolished
farmhouse complex because of its proximity (Figure 64). The mechanical removal of these structures
heavily reduced the potential for the area to contain intact subsurface artifact deposits or features. The
site cannot be associated with any broad patterns of history or significant people. It does not convey any
significance related to the works of a master craftsperson or embody any high design ideals. The
disturbed site did not yield any subsurface artifacts, and the surface find lacks integrity. Therefore, New
South recommends site 31GF569 not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D. No further
work is recommended for the site.
SITE 31GF570, ZION HILL METHODIST CEMETERY
The Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery is located northwest of the Tyner Loop intersection with Sandy Ridge
Road (Figure 65). The 60x40-meter (0.5-acre) cemetery is immediately west of the Zion Hill Methodist
Church and is covered by a patchy grass lawn. The cemetery contains 12 loosely aligned north -south
rows of headstones facing east made from concrete, marble, and granite (Figure 66). Several headstones
bear evidence of displacement. The grave plots appear to be individually decorated and tended, the best
example of which are Harriet and J.B. Lindsay's graves. The graves share a granite headstone and are
covered by rows of small stones aligned parallel to the graves' long axes. These stones are embedded in a
concrete ledger with the entire covering painted white. This treatment is representative of traditional
African American burial practices (Vlach 1977). Though most of the headstones were legible, several
pressed concrete markers were too eroded to read. One depression located near the southwestern corner
of the cemetery suggests the presence of additional unmarked graves.
The earliest headstone identified at the Zion Hill Methodist cemetery dates from the 1880s (exact date
illegible). Little background information is available for the Zion Hill Methodist Church. A 1920 soil
map places a church at the current Zion Hill church building location. Cursory background research
indicates that the names memorialized in the cemetery belong to tenant farmers with African American
and European American backgrounds. According to her headstone, Harriet Lindsay, one of the African
Americans interred in the cemetery, was born in 1854. This birthdate opens the possibility that Harriet
and others buried in the cemetery were formerly enslaved.
Site 31GF570 encompasses the late nineteenth- and twentieth-century Zion Hill Methodist Church
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
cemetery. Background research did not identify any significant events associated with the cemetery. The
cemetery does not convey any associations with broad patterns of history or contain the burials of notable
individuals. The grave markers are representative of typical styles used during the late nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. They do not convey any elements of high design or represent the works of a master
craftsperson. Although the interments could provide biological data and funerary remains contained
within the cemetery could be a rich source of historical information that could provide insight into the
lifeways of lower-class society and marginalized ethnicities in the late nineteenth and twentieth century,
the data obtained from their examination are unlikely to provide insights not already available through
documentary analysis. New South recommends site 31GF570, the Zion Hill Methodist Cemetery, not
eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
Although the cemetery is recommended not eligible for the NRHP, New South recommends avoidance of
this resource in accordance with North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North
Carolina General Statute, Chapter 70. If avoidance is not possible, it will be necessary to comply with
these statutes after consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the way any burials are to be
removed and relocated.
SITE 31GF571, SMITH GROVE BAPTIST CEMETERY
The Smith Grove Baptist Church cemetery is located at the southwestern corner of the Tyner Loop Road
intersection with Sandy Ridge Road (see Figure 65). A well -maintained grassy lawn covers this 75x55-
meter (0.71-acre) cemetery. The interments are organized into 16 rows aligned north -south (Figure 67).
The graves are oriented east -west, with the headstones facing east. The oldest headstone dates to 1905.
Given the dates of death listed on cemetery markers, the cemetery was a focus of burial activity for most
of the early twentieth century and continues to be used in the present day. Standing headstones were
manufactured from marble, granite, and concrete.
Background research did not identify any significant events associated with the cemetery. The cemetery
does not convey any associations with broad patterns of history or contain the burials of notable
individuals. The cemetery does not meet eligibility Criteria A or B of the NRHP. The grave markers are
representative of typical styles used during the twentieth century. They do not convey any elements of
high design or represent the works of a master craftsperson. Thus, the cemetery does not meet NRHP
Criterion C eligibility requirements. While the interments could provide biological data for studies of
twentieth century lifeways, the data obtained from their examination is unlikely to provide significant
insights that are not already addressed by available documentary evidence. Because the cemetery is
unlikely to provide significant contributions to research, site 31GF571 does not meet NRHP Criterion D
eligibility requirements. New South recommends site 31GF571, the Smith Grove Baptist Cemetery, not
eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
New South also recommends avoidance of the cemetery. North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65,
Article 12 and North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 70 provide additional protections for this
cemetery. If avoidance is not possible, it will be necessary to comply with these statutes after
consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the manner in which any burials are to be removed
and relocated.
SITE 31GF572, SANDY RIDGE METHODIST CEMETERY
The Sandy Ridge Methodist cemetery is located southeast of the Sandy Ridge Road intersection with
Sandy Camp Road (see Figures 26 and 69). The Sandy Ridge Methodist Church is currently located
northwest of the cemetery, directly across Sandy Ridge Road. The cemetery extends from the
intersection southwest across a knoll covered by a well -manicured lawn, oak trees, and large holly trees
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
(Figure 68). It measures 105x155 meters (2.8 acres) and has not been previously recorded or evaluated for
NRHP eligibility.
The interments located within the cemetery are organized in 30 rows aligned north -south. Grave markers
were made from marble, granite, concrete, and fieldstone. While most of the headstones are legible, the
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century headstones are eroded or obscured by lichen. Though most
headstones are east -facing, several west -facing examples are also present. The headstones located closest
to the Sandy Ridge Road and Sandy Camp Road intersection bear the oldest inscriptions in the cemetery.
Dating to 1856, the headstone of Martha Penix is the earliest legible marker in the cemetery. Ms. Penix's
murder in 1856 was a locally notorious event that involved several members of the local community
(Browning 2007; 2010a; 2010b). Though her headstone was identified in the cemetery, it was disturbed
and found lying on the ground. Several depressions located near this marker demonstrate the presence of
unmarked interments in this area. These headstones and unmarked graves suggest the portion of the APE
located between the headstones and Sandy Camp Road contains additional unmarked graves.
The historical connection with the Methodist congregation prior to 1964, when the church moved to its
current location, is unclear. The 1920 Soil Map of Guilford County shows a Sandy Ridge Church at the
intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Sandy Camp Road (Jurney et al. 1920). However, the official
history for the congregation insists the church operated on land belonging to Ira Idol until land for the
current church building was donated by Mr. and Mrs. Joe W Frazier, Sr. (Sandy Ridge United Methodist
Church 2014). The presence of markers pre -dating the Methodist church's move likely relates to this
earlier house of worship.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
The geophysical survey was conducted by Sarah Lowry and Maeve Herrick on May 10, 2018. The goal
of the geophysical survey was to identify unmarked graves on the easternmost edge of Sandy Ridge
Methodist Church Cemetery, where the cemetery is adjacent to Sandy Camp Road. The GPR survey area
was approximately 0.44 acre, including 0.2 acre located within the right of way (ROW) of Sandy Camp
Road (Figure 70).
For the GPR data collection, two grids were established using metric measuring tapes. Grid corners were
placed to cover a total survey area of 0.44 acre (1802 sq m) (Figure 70) (Table 1). Survey flags were used
to indicate each grid corner. Grid corners and surface features, including grave markers, utility indicators,
and a single tree, were mapped using an RTK GPS with one- to two -centimeter accuracy.
Table 1. Geophysical Grids
Acres
Square Meters
Grid 1 0.25
1020
Grid 2 0.19
782
Total 0.44
1802
All spatial data were downloaded from the GPS and then imported into ArcMap 10, ESRI's geographic
information system (GIS) program. Separate shapefiles were then created for the surface features and
GPR grids. The advantage of this method is that each grid corner has associated coordinates and can be
relocated.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
GROUND -PENETRATING RADAR (GPR)
Ground -penetrating radar is a remote sensing technique frequently used by archaeologists to investigate a
wide range of research questions. In archaeological applications, GPR is typically used to prospect for
potential subsurface cultural features. Because GPR is a remote sensing technique, it is noninvasive, non-
destructive, relatively quick, efficient, and highly accurate when used in appropriate situations. In
cemeteries, GPR is commonly used to identify anomalies consistent with the expectations for human
graves (Jones 2008; King et al. 1993).
Ground -penetrating radar data are acquired by transmitting pulses of radar energy into the ground from a
surface antenna, reflecting the energy off buried objects, features, or bedding contacts, and then detecting
the reflected waves back at the ground surface with a receiving antenna (Conyers 2004a). When
collecting radar reflection data, surface radar antennas are moved along the ground in transects, typically
within a survey grid, and a large number of subsurface reflections are collected along each line. As radar
energy moves through various materials, the velocity of the waves will change depending on the physical
and chemical properties of the material through which they are traveling (Conyers and Lucius 1996). The
greater the contrast in electrical and magnetic properties between two materials at an interface, the
stronger the reflected signal and, therefore, the greater the amplitude of reflected waves (Conyers 2004b).
When travel times of energy pulses are measured, and their velocity through the ground is known,
distance (or depth in the ground) can be accurately measured (Conyers and Lucius 1996). Each time a
radar pulse traverses a material with a different composition or water saturation, the velocity will change
and a portion of the radar energy will reflect back to the surface and be recorded. The remaining energy
will continue to pass into the ground to be further reflected, until it finally dissipates with depth.
The depths to which radar energy can penetrate, and the amount of resolution that can be expected in the
subsurface, are partially controlled by the frequency (and therefore the wavelength) of the radar energy
transmitted (Conyers 2004b). Standard GPR antennas emit radar energy varying from about 10 to 1,000
megahertz (MHz) in frequency. Low frequency antennas (10-120 MHz) generate long wavelength radar
energy that can penetrate up to 50 meters in certain conditions but resolve only very large buried features.
In contrast, the maximum depth of penetration of a 900 MHz antenna is about one meter or less in typical
materials, but its generated reflections can resolve features with a maximum dimension of a few
centimeters. Thus, a trade-off exists between depth of penetration and subsurface resolution.
The success of GPR surveys in archaeology is largely dependent on soil and sediment mineralogy, ground
moisture, subsurface material moisture retention, the depth of buried features, feature preservation, and
surface topography and vegetation. Electrically conductive or highly magnetic materials will quickly
attenuate radar energy and prevent its transmission to depth. Depth penetration varies considerably
depending on local conditions. Subsurface materials that absorb and retain large amounts of water can
affect GPR depth penetration because of their low relative dielectric permittivity (RDP). In practical
applications, this generally results in shallower than normal depth penetration because the radar signal is
absorbed (attenuated) by the materials regardless of antenna frequency (Conyers 2004a; 2012; Conyers
and Lucius 1996). Differential water retention can also positively affect data when a feature of interest
retains more water than the surrounding soils and, therefore, presents a greater contrast.
The basic configuration for a GPR survey consists of an antenna (with both a transmitter and receiver), a
harness or cart, and a wheel for calibrating distance. The operator then pulls or pushes the antenna across
the ground surface systematically (a grid) collecting data along transects. These data are then stored by
the receiver and available for processing.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
11 of36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
The "time window" within which data were gathered was 50 nanoseconds (ns). This is the time during
which the system is "listening" for returning reflections from within the ground. The greater the time
window, the deeper the system can potentially record reflections. To convert time in nanoseconds to
depth, it is necessary to determine the elapsed time it takes the radar energy to be transmitted, reflected,
and recorded back at the surface by doing a velocity test. Hyperbolas were found on reflection profiles
and measured to yield a relative dielectric permittivity (RDP), which is a way to calculate velocity. The
shape of hyperbolas generated in programs is a function of the speed at which electromagnetic energy
moves in the ground, and can therefore be used to calculate velocity (Conyers and Lucius 1996). The
RDP for soils in the survey area was approximately 12.6, which, when converted to one-way travel time,
(the time it takes the energy to reach a reflection source), is approximately 8.4 centimeters/nanosecond.
All profiles and processed maps were converted from time in nanoseconds to depth in centimeters using
this average velocity.
The first step was to calibrate the antenna to local conditions by walking the survey area and adjusting the
instrument's gain settings. This method allows the user to get an average set of readings based on subtle
changes in the RDP (Conyers 2004b). Field calibration was repeated as necessary to account for changes
in soil and/or moisture conditions (Conyers 2004a). Effective depth penetration was approximately 1.75
meters (5.74 ft.). This is an adequate depth penetration for a 400 MHz antenna. Slight signal attenuation
occurred at the bottom of the profile.
The field survey was conducted using a GSSI SIR-3000 using a 400 MHz antenna. Total survey area was
approximately 0.44-acre (0.2-acre within the ROW). It is generally standard practice to orient transects
perpendicular to the long axis of suspected features. The marked graves in the Sandy Ridge Road
Methodist Church Cemetery were oriented west -east, so data were collected roughly north to south so that
transects were perpendicular to graves. Transect spacing was 50 centimeters, an interval that has been
demonstrated to generate the best resolution possible while still maintaining field efficiency (Pomfret
2005). Transects were collected in a zig-zag pattern, alternating starting direction, and started in the
northeast grid corners.
All data were downloaded from the control unit to a laptop computer for post -processing. Radar signals
are initially recorded by their strength and the elapsed time between their transmission and receipt by the
antenna. Therefore, the first task in the data processing was to set "time zero", which tells the software
where in the profile the true ground surface was. This is critical to getting accurate results when elapsed
time is converted to target depth. A background filter was applied to the data, which removes the
horizontal banding that can result from antenna energy "ringing" and outside frequencies such as cell
phones and radio towers. Background noise can make it difficult to visually interpret reflections. Range
gains were also applied to the data to amplify weaker reflections from later in the time window.
The next data processing step involved the generation of amplitude slice -maps (Conyers 2004b).
Amplitude slice -maps are a three-dimensional tool for viewing differences in reflected amplitudes across
a given surface at various depths. Reflected radar amplitudes are of interest because they measure the
degree of physical and chemical differences in the buried materials. Strong, or high amplitude reflections
often indicate denser (or different) buried materials. Amplitude slice -maps are generated through
comparison of reflected amplitudes between the reflections recorded in vertical profiles. Amplitude
variations, recorded as digital values, are analyzed at each location in a grid of many profiles where there
is a reflection recorded. The amplitudes of all reflection traces are compared to the amplitudes of all
nearby traces along each profile. This database can then be "sliced" horizontally and displayed to show
the variation in reflection amplitudes at a sequence of depths in the ground. The result is a map that
shows amplitudes in plan view, but also with depth.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
12 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Slicing of the data was done using the mapping program Surfer 8. Slice maps are a series of x,y,z values,
with x (east) and y (north) representing the horizontal location on the surface within each grid and z
representing the amplitude of the reflected waves. All data were interpolated using the Kriging method
and then image maps were generated from the resulting files.
From the original .dzt files (raw reflection data), a series of image files was created for cross-referencing
to the amplitude slice maps that were produced. Two-dimensional reflection profiles were also analyzed
to determine the nature of the features identified on the amplitude slice maps. The reflection profiles
show the geometry of the reflections, which can lend insight into whether the radar energy is reflecting
from a flat layer (seen as a distinct band on profile) or a single object (seen as a hyperbola in profile).
Individual profile analysis was used in conjunction with amplitude slice maps to provide stronger
interpretations about possible features. Processing and slicing parameters were recorded.
The final step in the data processing is to integrate the depth slices with other spatial data. This was done
using ArcGIS, which can display and manipulate all forms of spatial data created for this project,
including GPR results, features, grid data, and base graphics such as aerial photography and topographic
maps. The resulting anomalies were digitized as individual features and referenced to the coordinate
system.
GEOPHYSICS IN CEMETERIES
Several factors influence the overall effectiveness of geophysics for detecting anomalies consistent with
individual graves. Contrast between the remains, grave shaft, coffin, or casket and the surrounding soils
is the most important variable. Remains that have a chemical or physical contrast from the subsurface
materials surrounding them will cause GPR reflections of electromagnetic energy. Age of the graves is
critical to this contrast. Older graves typically have less contrast and are more difficult to detect because
they have had more time to decompose and are less likely to have intact coffins or caskets.
The burial "container" that the physical remains may have been placed in is also important and includes
simple linen or cloth shrouds, pine boxes or wooden coffins, lead or other metal caskets, and burial vaults.
In certain cases, hardware such as nails, hinges, and handles may be present, but not necessarily all the
time. Although there is a high degree of variation in specific container types among different
geographical regions, each of these tends to have been used at certain times throughout history and
correlates with the presumed age of the grave. For example, burial shrouds were common throughout the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries before being replaced by wooden coffins. It must also be
noted that cultural trends and patterns tended to persist much longer in rural and/or economically
depressed areas than in urban centers.
The section of the Sandy Ridge Methodist Church Cemetery surveyed for this project has both modern,
marked graves and a large area with no marked graves where local informants and vegetation variation
indicate that there are unmarked graves. The modern, marked graves should all have coffins or caskets.
The unmarked section is thought to be an older section of the cemetery and field stone markers have been
purportedly removed. These graves are likely older and may be in less formal burial containers, such as
pine boxes, which would present less of a contrast with the surrounding soils.
GPR RESULTS
GPR results were based on analysis of the 400 MHz data, including individual reflection profiles and
amplitude slice maps (Figures 71-77). The anomalies were identified in the GPR results and represent a
contrast with their surrounding soils. The GPR results identified 106 probable graves within the Study
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
13 of36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
Area, 24 of which are marked by 16 headstones and 82 are unmarked (Appendix B). There were 27
probable graves either completely or partially within the project APE along Sandy Camp Road (Table 2).
Only three of these graves were associated with markers. All of the markers identified and mapped in the
survey area had associated GPR anomalies, and there were no markers located within the APE. Two
double markers were associated with just one probable grave (anomalies 8 and 19), but it is likely that, in
these cases, the double marker has been commissioned in advance of the second interment.
Table 1. Count of Possible Graves
Probable Grave Location
Unmarked Graves
Marked Graves
Total
Probable Graves within the
Survey Area
82
24
106
Probable Graves within the APE
24
3
27
Many factors influence the overall effectiveness of geophysics for detecting anomalies consistent with
graves, including soil type and acidity, moisture and precipitation, magnetic properties of soil, age of
possible graves, likely grave depth, and burial container (e.g., shroud, wood coffin, metal casket, concrete
vault). The probable graves in the survey area were identified based on their size, shape, depth,
orientation, and overall characteristics in plan and profile view. New South takes a conservative approach
to the identification of graves detected with geophysical data and, in general, if an anomaly has any of the
attributes listed above, it is marked as a potential grave. Because of this, it is likely that some of the
probable graves are false positives and were misidentified. It is impossible to conclusively ascertain the
presence of graves without excavation, and caution is used in all interpretations made with GPR.
The survey area has one mature tree, and the tree's associated root system was visible in the GPR results.
Every effort was made to filter out the tree roots and interpret only possible graves in the GPR results, but
it is probable that, in some cases, anomalies identified as possible graves are tree roots, or that possible
graves located very near the tree roots have been missed.
PROBABLE GRAVES
There were 106 probable graves (anomalies 1-106) identified in both of the GPR grids. There is a
concentration of probable graves in the southern portion of the survey area, with 60 (63.83%) graves
located in Grid 1. The only marked graves are located in Grid 1, and there are comparable counts of
unmarked probable graves between the two grids (N=36 in Grid 1 and N=34 in Grid 2) (Figures 71 and
72). Within the project APE, there are 27 possible graves. Twelve graves straddle the APE, including
three marked and nine unmarked. The remaining 15 probable graves in the APE are unmarked.
Graves were typically identified as a series of point -source reflections in profile (Figures 78 and 79).
These reflections are typically produced by the grave shaft, casket, or void spaces created through
interment (Conyers 2006:154). Reflections were identified as probable graves when they have the
geometry of grave features in plan and profile view.
The GPR survey of the Sandy Ridge Church Cemetery identified 82 unmarked probable graves. A
number of graves were identified outside the known extent of the cemetery, and the cemetery boundary
should be adjusted to include those graves (Figure 80). It is likely that the unmarked probable graves are
older graves within the cemetery where markers have been removed. The church pastor, Donna Freddle,
indicated that, among parishioners, this area has been well known to contain unmarked graves and that the
church has stopped using this area to inter individuals out of concern for disturbing graves (personal
communication, May 10, 2018).
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
14 of 36

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F494D2-F525-4B28-B309-941D39ED3F33
Project Tracking No.:
18-01-0050
The Sandy Ridge Methodist cemetery contains approximately 720 identifiable mid -nineteenth through
twenty -first -century interments and is still active. The cemetery was a burying ground for the nearby
community for almost 100 years prior to the construction of the Sandy Ridge Methodist church. Criterion
A of the NRBP requires that the cemetery is associated with events that have made significant
contributions to broad patterns of history. This cemetery does not convey any associations to notable
events. Under Criterion B, more archival work is needed to determine if any of the individuals interred in
the cemetery were locally significant. The variety of headstones in the cemetery reflect several
generations of headstone production, but are not considered representative of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represent the work of a master. While studies of biological data and funerary remains
from this cemetery may provide information on the overall health of the nearby population during the
mid -nineteenth through twenty-first centuries, their study is unlikely to provide data not already addressed
by available documentary evidence. New South recommends the site not eligible for the NRBP under
Criteria A, B, C, and D.
New South recommends that the 106 geophysical anomalies identified as probable graves should be
treated as such. Additionally, care should be taken if any ground is to be disturbed within the entire
cemetery to avoid damaging any burials that might be present but were not detected because of poor
preservation and ground conditions. Caution should also be used when disturbances are planned
adiacent to the cemetery boundary, and extreme care should be taken if any ground disturbance is
planned west of Sandy Camp Road. There are probable graves within approximately four meters
of the road, and the presence of additional graves cannot be ruled out.
CONCLUSIONS
New South conducted an intensive survey of the U-4758 APE along Sandy Ridge Road and Johnson
Street from April 10 to April 17, 2018. Two archaeological sites (31GF568 and 31GF569) were
identified and evaluated for NRHP eligibility during the field investigation. Three cemeteries (31GF570,
31GF571, and 31GF572) were also documented and evaluated for the NRHP. Both sites and all three
cemeteries are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. There is a high potential for the presence of
unmarked graves within the project APE at cemetery 31GF572. GPR survey of a portion of the Sandy
Ridge Methodist Cemetery identified the presence of three marked graves and 24 unmarked probable
graves (n=27 total) in the APE. All three cemeteries should be avoided by proposed construction
activities. North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 65, Article 12 and North Carolina General Statute,
Chapter 70, provide additional protections for this cemetery. If avoidance is not possible, it will be
necessary to comply with these statutes after consultation with the State Archaeologist to determine the
method any burials are to be removed and relocated.
Based on these results, no additional archaeological work is recommended in conjunction with this
project. I concur with the recommendations put forth by our consultant. If the project expands and
impacts subsurface areas beyond the study area or if design plans change prior to construction, further
archaeological consultation will be necessary.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
15 of 36

Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: A3F494D2F5254B28B309941D39ED3F33
Subject: Please DocuSign: U-4758 Type III CE_1 1 142018.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 55 Signatures: 4
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0
AutoNav: Enabled
Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Record Tracking
Status: Original
11/14/2018 6:45:18 AM
Signer Events
Bob Boot
Robert. [e-mail]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 11/14/2018 7:17:54 AM
ID:a1e695b3-9431-4dd7-860b-c65c354755e4
John Jamison
[e-mail]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 11/26/2018 8:18:03 AM
ID: d16bc467-500b-4e04-83d3-aa048a9e953f
Laura Sutton
[e-mail]
Regional Team Lead - Divisions 7, 9 & 10
NCDOT Project Management Unit
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 11/15/2018 9:58:31 AM
ID:dd80f59a-6eea-4932-abdc-307351e7eOea
for, Felix Davila
[e-mail]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Holder: Ian Berdeau
[e-mail]
Signature
ED S g tl by:
4 �Obf
E1206F2898FD4D9 .
Signature Adoption: Pre -selected Style
Using IPAddress: 174.194.16.210
Signed using mobile
DocuSigned by:
E
6 L' , OA('Sbin,
89F83E75FD11458...
Signature Adoption: Pre -selected Style
Using IPAddress: 199.90.35.12
EDO-Sig-d by:
��_�
AE35E3E6727640E...
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IPAddress: 199.90.35.12
CDoc"Slg"ed by:
Ft4 Vawbt
C1DFE33365CC4CD...
Signature Adoption: Pre -selected Style
Using IPAddress: 169.135.89.74
docu5L�*v
M S E C U R E D
Status: Completed
Envelope Originator:
Ian Berdeau
1616 E Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27609
[e-mail]
IP Address: 74.218.172.54
Location: DocuSign
Timestamp
Sent: 11/14/2018 6:54:59 AM
Viewed: 11 /14/2018 7:17:54 AM
Signed: 11/14/2018 7:18:30 AM
Sent: 11/14/2018 7:18:32 AM
Viewed: 11/14/2018 11:21:00 AM
Signed: 11/14/2018 12:31:28 PM
Sent: 11/14/2018 12:31:31 PM
Viewed: 11/15/2018 9:58:31 AM
Signed: 11/19/2018 6:53:49 AM
Sent: 11/19/2018 6:53:51 AM
Resent: 11/29/2018 6:45:47 AM
Viewed: 11 /29/2018 6:47:46 AM
Signed: 11/29/2018 6:51:38 AM

Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Accepted: 11/29/2018 6:47:46 AM
ID:24e935b4-783f-4ef8-b539-e8b2fb7bb5cf
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
11/29/2018 6:45:47 AM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
11/29/2018 6:47:46 AM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
11/29/2018 6:51:38 AM
Completed
Security Checked
11/29/2018 6:51:38 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 5/30/2014 8:52:31 AM
Parties agreed to: Bob Boot, John Jamison, Laura Sutton, for, Felix Davila
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, Atkins (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain
written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you
such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) electronic
signing system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can
access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and
conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the `I agree' button at the bottom of this
document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send
to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after signing session and, if you
elect to create a DocuSign signer account, you may access them for a limited period of time
(usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to
send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a
$0.00 per -page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the
procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign `Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of a
DocuSign envelope instead of signing it. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your
consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer
be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from
us or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures

electronically from us.
How to contact Atkins:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: [e-mail]
To advise Atkins of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [e-mail]
and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail
address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc. to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in the DocuSign system.
To request paper copies from Atkins
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to [e-mail] and in
the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with Atkins
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign session, and on the subsequent
page, select the check -box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to [e-mail] and in the body of such request you
must state your e-mail, full name, US Postal Address, and telephone number. We do not
need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your
withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time
to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems:
Windows@ 2000, Windows@ XP, Windows
Vista@; Mac OS@ X
Browsers:
Final release versions of Internet Explorer@ 6.0
or above (Windows only); Mozilla Firefox 2.0
or above (Windows and Mac); SafariTM 3.0 or
above (Mac only)
PDF Reader:
Acrobat@ or similar software may be required
to view and print PDF files
Screen Resolution:
800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
Allow per session cookies
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, you will be
asked to re -accept the disclosure. Pre-release (e.g. beta) versions of operating systems and
browsers are not supported.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically

To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were
able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail
this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for
your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures
exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know
by clicking the `I agree' button below.
By checking the `I agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
Until or unless I notify Atkins as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively
through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and
other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by Atkins
during the course of my relationship with you.