The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20170353 Ver 1_Bridge 133 Yancey archaeology_20170328NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM PROJECT INFORMATION Projec� No: Str. 990133 WBS No: F.A. No: 17BP.13.R.78 NA Federal (USACE) Permit Reguired? Project Descrrption: County: Document: Prajec( Tracking No. pnlerual Use) ii-o%-uoii Yancey Minimum Criteria Sheet Funding: � State ❑ Federal � Yes ❑ No Permit Type: Corps 404/DWQ 401 The project ca!!s for !he replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR !!46 (Cane Branch Road) over Cane Branch in Yancey County along the zristing alignment. The archaeological Area of Potential Effecls (APE) for !he project is defined as a 400 foot (121.92 m) lang corridor running 200 feet (60.96 m) norlh and 100 feel(60.96 m) south along SR 1146 from the center of Bridge No. 133. The corridor is approximately 100fee1(30.48 m) wrde extendrng SO feet (15.29 m) on eilher srde of SR l/46 from ris presen! cenler. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief descriptron of review activities, results of revrew, and conclusions: Bridge No. 133 is just south of U.S. 19 E, west of Micaville, and east of Bumsville in the westem portion of Yancey County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted in the southwestem section of the Micaville USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on July 16, 2012. No previously recorded archaeological si[es have been identified within or adjacent to the APE, and no sites are found wi[hin a mile radius of bridge. In addition, no existing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD), Determined Eligible (DE), or Surveyed Site (SS) properties are within or adjacent to the archaeological APE. Topographic maps, USDA soil survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), and historic maps (North Carolina maps website) were utilized to gage environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance within the APE. Bridge No. 133 crosses Cane Branch roughly north to south. The waterway drains north into the Little Crabtree Creek. These waterways are part of the French Broad drainage basin. The APE to the west of SR 1146 is situated within the floodplain, while hillside slope is present to the east (Figure 2). The majority of the APE is open and consists of residential, business, and church properties. Ground disturbance generally appears light from past road improvements, landscaping, and utilities. A review of the USDA soil survey map indicates two soil types are within the APE (Figure 3). The floodplain is wmposed of Bandana sandy loam (BdA). This series is somewhat poorly drained with a slope of less than 3 percent. It is also subject to occasional flooding. Prehistoric and historic settlements are unlikely to be found on this soil due to persistent wetness and flooding. The hillside to the east is made up of the Evard-Cowee soil complex (EcD). Although this series is well drained, slope is between 15 and 30 percent, and soil erosion is severe hazard if the surface is not protected. Typically, slope of 15 percent or more will not yield significant archaeological sites. As a result, intact cultural deposits are unlikely to be encountered on either soil series within the APE. 12-07-0011 Altiiough no sites have been reported in the vicinity, several previous investigations have been carsied by archaeologist with the U.S. Forest Service within a mile of the bridge. These investigations have been conducted along ridge tops, saddles, and drainages in the Pisgah National Forest. No works has been carried out in the Little CrabVee Creek valley in which the project area is located. Additional work is likely needed in this area in order to draw any conclusions on the predictability of site locations based upon previously recorded sites. However, the current project will not provide the data needed as the project primarily impact poor soils and steep slopes. Early historic maps from the 18th and 19th centuries provide few details concerning the project area. The 1902 Mt. Mitchell USGS topographic map and the 1902 soil survey map for Mt. Mitchell are likely the earliest maps to depict the project area (Figures 4 and 5). They illustrate a road similar to SR 1146, but its alignment is further east. It also does not cross Cane Branch at the current bridge location. However, these two maps do show the church at its present location east of Cane Branch. Iater 20th century maps such as the 1938 North Carolina Sta[e Highway and Public Works Commission map continue to show the road on the east side of the church with no crossing over the creek (Figure 6). A second large structure is show on the west side of the creek and within the APE as we1L When compared with the current aerial photograph, this structure falls on a local business building and its parking lot. This map also depicts the railway to the north of the APE. A clearer map is from the 1953 soil survey, which depicts Yancey County from 1939 (Figure 7). The church and the larger structure to the west are visibly shown. The road is now on the west side of the church and is shown as an unimproved road. However, it still does not cross Cane Branch within the project limits. From this review, it seems very unlikely for undisturbed deposits associated with a significant historic structure to be affected by the project. Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are no unidentified hrstoric properties in !he APE: The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133 is located within the Cane Branch floodplain and along hillside slopes. It is unlikely intact and significant archaeological deposits will be present in this area. This is not only due to the small scope of the proposed bridge replacement at its existing location, which will only cause minor impacts to undisturbed properties, but also due to the poor quality of wet soils within the floodplain and slope greater than 15 percent along the hillside. Furthermore, the review of historic maps suggests no significant archaeological deposits from fonner historic shuctures are within the project limits. Sites of all former structures are currently occupied by buildings and parking lots. As long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the de6ned APE, no fur[her archaeological work is recommended for the replacement of Bridge No. 133 in Yancey County. If construction should affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further archaeological consultation might be necessary. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s), Previous Survey Info, Photos, Correspondence, Photocopy of notes from county survey. FINDING BY NCDOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL NO SURVEY REOUIRED . __.__ __.___...... � � ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE (CIRCLE ONE) 7/23/12 NCDOT Cultural Resources Specialist Date 12-07-0011 I \ � � x . � � � . ��- r.�� . . 1.' , ,. ,. . t .._:__:..: . "": _ � . � . . � � ' � �, . ... . . , I �f:l i �I ' � I = It, 1e � � . �I " ' . � i��.i I 'ii � � � �� ... !hfG� `'' B� im� � � t '�;41' i, -�� i.. mhbh �5 � l ,f � i �: � `� I w � 'i . � � .. � � f � � ��t a�� r . Q3.m , � " , � ✓ . ' .� . t : � � � . i i 1 : � � ,1 . t _ - e . {� ��i1111+0IC1 ... - . . [!c) "-0tvf� � �l>t�8 � '_ • � [ . 1 _21.a �{r Tli]NA ' i � ,� . . � t�trP t.� . I �� ! �'� �'! . I . � � .� _e �� ' �� i � � �� .,. . -� ' � � _ � -s � Y � _ � - f .': t i�rree �:�� .e • rce� . . ' � - �. � . M�E'Y� ` �. 1 � � -1 l . � � r, � . 1. ,SiEwr ndrr.�,� . A .x5ti � �"- f, , ', ; � ' ,.. NTi ; �$Y � � � ��; ,r� ' _ � ` , , � �.! .`';v +4u � � �.� ' �' . . } � I i � � 1 �10,'�� 5��, �(4i� � "�('r � d� i a: s . .. . I � . � � � � . i . .. `s i� � � ' ��' = C� '1 ., .. ., , . • j' � �` �,'�, � '� �� i i Y'iS{.AH` � !�A'C'ln3v'AL r"I ;.. �� • , � - , QR�ST i I. i „� , ;r: ,<<. . , �� N i _ _._ _ -�i�till', i� '� �Ife iii�i y t� 1 1 t S� x,' �"t} ,?� : �i.p>., u.`i 1 1 1 ± }�i ` � � . . . ... .... .. � q`v . _ E. •�'.i:�� .... i '�`^,j :i 1%:��ii J `� . . .� .... ... _. � . .e . . . , . �.__..� � . �. Fi��re L Topographic Setting of Project Area, Micaville (1960; photorevised ]978), NC, OSGS 7.S Topographic Quadrangle. 3 .� � � �.p ' � �""" " },.LF` *� p}°µ�a��xp � �w �,,� � �. �� , p % �'1 .� b�� ,f • Y 9 �°'�`r+ ' � ;_ � � � �'� ' , t« �� : � t � �� t � � . . � .'�,� � � � � * � 4jN ,� � f� '�' � . t �", �S �. ° � � � �� . � , t J "* � s k" � � •t .. �: . �"`n't��'� o .�k.., , * iz-o�-ooii � ��. ' _. x ��+� ( ,+�' n � � � �' �. ' ,a . �. . I� . '��' . � .. �ef��..._-.,r-. �� :�e� ,s�� ' t� . �. ,� , i.. a r� ` j7"� rl�y��'? � � '��`�i;i r. ,r ; "+ a� .'�- � � e�.�, '�_ . . . � �� *�� - �,' ,. . i �� z��. .�•�� .� , �'A�l � in � � r .��k'd: �� y�� *�� l�rt ��1' . �, � �+e � � � � �, � � ><�. � ;.� , . `, ... "� � ;a , �, � `' � ��`' � �� „d.� ts�: � 1 il�i _ � � � ; �� ( }V��`�. �( ( �� y�n�l �� L> n...i. ea11 }' ..... 4 , ._ ._._ . � . �� j". � � " U 7lYi , I �1 ' ,�. � , ._..__ '"'__' P.t.D`�. _ . '_ 2. Aerial photograph of die APE showiug development and area. 4 iz-o�-oo� i i v� �� ` . +! �,�/1 +�a� a� ,h"� . . r ° �+C� �' 7 ,�'"� 5r� '�7 �'.. .rv �� ,r � i � n,i ��a,*gl� � � v ��y � � aE , q� ^��*t•'f�x! `� x �''� �� ' �y+ ��"� �� "�.�, ��y�V�* °'�°�s, r r� ,d v�` ',, � s�" a � ?�'Y��pp�. � � � �,k � � T � � t +� � �� .. f� d I y r `U� �♦ fk � t'�'. i b � '� � x�, "' � �t � r �� 1 � T'd'� y a,. : a T",� � ' 4 : S f��.� d f i �� i6P �II� 'p'� ' . �jd N a � 6 iR iµ � 4 4 � � � ..f3�Rd��. . iCF b ,ry,�yPy�[}�. 22' + � i � i #� «��r *'4'b�� t' ICt W�d}.��"R,� 4 S .. tyk .,Y,'} ��p � � g 4 Z � *� ka9 . �'�.y �. .. t `�. ;y. e ' ii.� �" ��J� 9 i� # .� 'v1� p � " . . ) x 7 ' � y x y"M1� . . � r ' �h �� tf� � �� H�� -...... � t Jr . k �. �if �� 1` � Y Li �4 `iF��`a'ii } � ' � � � �y i � � '9�� 1�, � � �,,� G yt d {f �� r.�c �'�'` � "" �. G`'. � r•� � t ., .'" x � � . �' � �a G " 1 �. # ' � `? �t . ' ''v �•j hl[ . �� . . . �y ��u�� ,�;ap i3. '� :iw �f ,� � P : S F �.. . i ry �= _ a d $yi � � , � � � �� . k' ��` � r 7 i(� �FBrI ry � i�� J`� �� .. � � ¢ ('�� '1} �� t�� , „ii[ ' � h� .� # . � . . . .' �t � �„ 3 . W � •' ��'� `C '., � `� �: .. `'��` °� �� r� �`� � °_�� ,. � � 4��ti� �� ` S. .��i� f4ir ! p � �.� . � -� �f , �,� � �,. f... �� - � � ��. �. , : � ° � � �ys t �� jt��: "" � . k *d .�.`� . �, i ,� St.;$ � 3t � } ' �:`w '�. . � �� rt t � � y / � f �' �q� .� � �` ' �$��° E� ° a � ` � � � -i. � �_ F . �n P � � i�4 � # . �' � ' �� N '�• i t 4l.'' �,;.A . ii�-) 1 4 t*� }i.� � �� ..�tl,l.'_i l�t } � . . .. ... Fn�.; .. �M . � ' il � VI -�� • � C � � �e ..,... - "_ ( C (_ . .____ __. Figwe 3. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development aiid soils witl�in tlie project area. 5 12-07-0011 .: . , ' . � � �I�} � � � .. � . t � V c� q9 �s a 5 4 ,J �'- � �♦ q f t . r 4 , S� �_ � "+ �Y� 3 f g F' � � ' 3 x s r�i'`- .. � � C��.. s P y�`X #�� a "�� J� �'�# � �'��' � �� ; f '�� f� 1 `s� ��" �' �'--� �t� � e`E� pj � � r � �,,, `m+� ,� � r' � � r � �� r " � � � �` x . fit� r . 7 �� ( � 3 .. � � aF �r r g' P � � a j..,{ r � } ��i+4� � € � * ( � i � Y ! ? . FR � . . .. � ��., t '�^t,�xi �y a��l� - . � } , =k ��„- . ""e} t q %, " „ k tt y � . }� 1 �"y t, �'a. �I��VVIi'�IVG y p, ke'Rk �d��{Jf} 9v . A�j '� _ 7 0 �"i j � � _ F.,� "3�� :� i ; �f j � s � i � '� k�R { . `'r _ � . . . . I . . ... .e�,� �� m,' . . . �'. . ` �5 i � �,k;i � . n � � . . . . #. v 'igure 4. The 1902 Mt. Mitchcll USGS [opographic map showing the project area. � . , � . � ,_' ��°,�;",r = t�, " ° � `� �t� f'r�,�. r � . ' i. .. . ,tx` . . . � N: _�*�.,. � ,_ �� r£ . � , . ., ,. �. . � y.,'..' ' �,..��. F � . . . ' a . �� y�;' � .�' �, � a�` " � �1 s{��e �� i #,' % { �' i s i . , %' � `` ��, � �, ,..:.,; � „ . , � �~ '' ' �: � * �; + a �` � •�� •,`'��S O �'-�� r�'. :R:{ n �� .. � � Project Area �� <?` � � ��, � ti. `-e �T# � �x` � S. i ; f ,utn � . f� . �;t � i. . � � �x � � .. }'ap'£( . -�' . . 5 � � � � �� k� � � � � �/��£j . ... +4. �%. xS 4. . ` .. . . E .. 'igure 5. 1902 soil survey map for Mt. Mitchell showing the project area. 6 12-07-0011 �; , , . �,y ` � � �� '�� ; ir ��,9�,�`� � �� i��' �. . �_ , i � � ��"� b 4� � � >��.r � �� ,+'� ` :� � �a � � � +� � C�, t P� ,� ' °� � � a,�..s &< , � � � � � $��,�r¢ :�� ,.�-� Project Area„ � : � �,�� .,�r� „ � , � ��`�� , r ',. �, p' , � ;� , ; . �.„ , ��`� � �*�, . .��,,`� �� . �{ � � �� '� +� � � �x � � '�S ��'�'� g��„"� �r��, � �; ^_ ��# t' � � � + �i�� ,t �. : �,�. ,,� �� ,. ' � '��`� '�� . � ��u'�'" � �rC.`'+� � �'f., ` ,. � �� C�� ."t.�° S � � � �do ' .. i ° � � $.� � � 4 � � *.. �$- {�� ki& �4•��`. tif 4 ! � x w ` � ,r W � b* � � ' � t �� dr � �'"' ... �t � n: . � � _ � � �i� �'o.; �..., � @ F �j'ar .. � �� 3. . g �z � � ' w'�r � = 4 � �a � . � �� .� . .. � � � � �:: _ � ` s . � �✓� . , . �r . .. �.�� . � Figure 6. The 1938 Nortli Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission map for Yancey County showing the project area. m i y,b .: �i. . ' . i.�_'�� . .3e;, s 1 � .. � , a }„� § { �� a ; E � ��' ` � � � �' �+: ��a... � � �` % ,�. ' � t �, � �u t;:-'3 � , P ) �' _., ' °�, ��'��_ � �` v ` 11 a 's, ,� l� �� k h�'� w:7 � � � r� � � ` m.� i:� �t'E . :. � ,"a � ; . , j�e `d s.>` '`� 'tx;4s� ' ..w'^�+ur y, - ;' �.� y a �'f�,�p�•�'. � . ' Ff t P� '".y,�r� �W�� °:+�e�. _. rt.. .s��.: . t� �. 1 � � � �� .. �� ., �� t ... 4 / O 5 qR'� • . � .3 � � � � � � �� i y F'roject Area ( ��} �, C % : � �i F �:. { ,� ::! . ip� -�� S� ��'� . � � � . s � )' t - ....: H ' � Y �r� �>'f'� .. t �� f r ' ` � P,i � Ix} � : . � � �.1 „ . ." , . Fi��re 7. The 1953 soil survey map for Yaucey County showing the project area. 7