Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171274 Ver 1_Historic/Prehistoric Information_20171009Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 1 of 13 16-01-0168 NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT FORM This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: B-5668 County: Nash WBS No: 45623.1.1 Document: PCE or MCC F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP3 or NWP14 Project Description: The NCDOT is proposing to replace Bridge No. 103 on SR 1105 (Old Middlesex Road) over Haw Branch in Nash County. As defined by the NCDOT, the survey area (Area of Potential Effects [APE]) for archaeology measures 300 feet (91.44 meters) from either end of the existing bridge. The study corridor is approximately 150 feet (45.72 meters) wide, extending 75 feet (22.86 meters) on each side of the centerline of the roadway/bridge. The study corridor encompasses approximately 2.23 acres (97,088 square feet) total, inclusive of the existing roadway and bridge. SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS An archaeological survey and evaluation of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 103 on SR 1105 (Old Middlesex Road) was conducted on April 9, 2016, by Reese Adams and Terri Russ of Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). As a result of the investigations, one archaeological site (31NS184) was recorded within the project’s APE. This site is recommended not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and no further archaeological investigations are needed for this project. I concur with this recommendation as the proposed bridge replacement project will not impact significant archaeological resources. If the project expands and impacts subsurface areas beyond the APE as currently defined, further archaeological consultations may be necessary, as determined in consultation with the NCDOT and/or NC-HPO per the Programmatic Agreement. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject project and determined: There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 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. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 2 of 13 16-01-0168 Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: Bridge No. 103 Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) conducted an intensive archaeological survey for the replacement of Bridge No. 103 on SR 1105 (Old Middlesex Road) over Haw Branch in Nash County, North Carolina on April 9, 2016 (Figures 1 and 2). As defined by the NCDOT, the survey area (Area of Potential Effects [APE]) for archaeology measures 300 feet (91.44 meters) from either end of the existing bridge. The study corridor is approximately 150 feet (45.72 meters) wide, extending 75 feet (22.86 meters) on each side of the centerline of the roadway/bridge. The study corridor encompasses approximately 2.23 acres (97,088 square feet) total, inclusive of the existing roadway and bridge. Background Summary A map review and site file search conducted by NCDOT at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on 2 February 2016 revealed that no comprehensive archaeological survey of this bridge has been conducted, and no previously recorded sites have been documented within the project’s APE . A search of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online database (HPOWEB GIS Service) revealed no previously recorded historic architectural resources within the APE that have the potential to yield intact archaeological deposits. Topographic maps, aerial photography, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey maps, and historic maps were examined for information on natural or cultural factors that might have affected site locations or preservation. The 1902 topographic quadrangle shows no road or bridge crossing in the vicinity of the current project area. Haw Branch is labeled as Wilder Creek (Figure 3). The 1926 Soil Survey, 1938 Nash County Highway Map, and 1953 Nash County Highway Map all appear to show the current road alignment and bridge (Figures 4–6). No structures are shown within the APE on any of these maps. Environmental Setting The APE is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic region and consists of the floodplain and adjacent terraces of Haw Branch. SR 1105 (Old Middlesex Road) crosses Haw Branch roughly east to west. Haw Branch drains south-southwest into Turkey Creek, which flows into Buckhorn Reservoir and Contentnea Creek in Wilson County. Map units (soil series) are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may have minor inclusions of other soils (NRCS 2015). The floodplain of the APE is mapped as Wehadkee loam (Wh), a poorly drained, frequently flooded soil series (Table 1). The terrace on the west side of the floodplain within the APE is mapped as well drained Nason loam (NnB). The terraces on the east side of the floodplain within the APE are mapped as moderately well drained Altavista sandy loam (AaA) and well drained Georgeville loam (GeE). The current archaeological investigation included pedestrian (visual) inspection and shovel testing within the APE. Photographs of the project area are shown as Figures 7–12. A systematic visual inspection of the APE was undertaken to search for surface artifacts, above-ground resources, or other signs of cultural activity. A total of nine shovel tests were excavated during the current investigation (see Figure 2 for shovel test locations). The APE was divided into four quadrants (e.g., northeast, southeast) based roughly on their locations relative to the bridge. Each quadrant of the APE is described below. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 3 of 13 16-01-0168 Table 1: Project Area Soils. Soil Name Code Slope Drainage Landform Altavista sandy loam, rarely flooded AaA 0–3% Moderately Well Stream terraces Georgeville loam GeE 10–25% Well Hillslopes on ridges Wehadkee loam,frequently flooded Wh 0–2% Poorly Depressions on Floodplains Nason loam NnB 2–6% Well Interfluves Northeast Quadrant The northeast quadrant of the APE consisted of an overgrown wooded area (Figure 7). A visual inspection of this portion of the APE revealed no surface artifacts or structural remains. Three shovel tests (STs 1–3) were excavated within this quadrant of the APE. Shovel tests encountered 20 centimeters or less of reddish brown loam over reddish brown silty clay loam. No artifacts were recovered from these shovel tests. Southeast Quadrant The majority of the southeast quadrant of the APE consisted of a landscaped residential lawn (Figures 8– 9). The existing road bed has been built up, and slopes steeply down to the grassy lawn within the APE. Surface visibility in this portion of the APE was fair due to patchy areas of eroded soil; a gene ral visual inspection of this portion of the APE revealed no surface artifacts. Three shovel tests were excavated within this portion of the APE (STs 4–6). Shovel testing generally revealed eroded soils, with less than 15 centimeters of strong brown or dark reddish brown sandy clay loam over strong brown clay or clay loam. ST 4 recovered a quartz biface fragment from just below the root mat (31NS184; described below). 31NS184 Site Size: Isolate Elevation: 180 feet amsl Environmental Setting: Residential Lawn Soil Type: Georgeville loam, 10–25% slopes (GeE) Nearest Water: 90 meters west, Haw Branch Surface Visibility: 25% Field Procedures: Visual Inspection and Shovel Testing (n=4) Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric– Lithic (Unknown Subperiod) Site Function: Isolated Artifact Find Site Integrity: Poor Recommendations: Not Eligible, No Further Work Site Description: Shovel testing in a residential lawn within the APE yielded a biface fragment from less than five centimeters below ground surface in ST 4 (see Figure 2 for shovel test locations). Three additional shovel tests (two of which were excavated outside of the APE with landowner permission) yielded no additional cultural materials. Summary and Recommendations: This isolated artifact does not have the potential to yield significant information pertaining to the prehistory of the area. The site is recommended Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 13 16-01-0168 Northwest Quadrant The northwest quadrant of the APE consisted of a low, wet area within the floodplain of Haw Branch (Figure 10). Surface visibility in this portion of the APE was poor due to leaf litter and other groundcover. Standing water was present throughout the APE. No surface artifacts or evidence of historic or prehistoric cultural activity were noted. No shovel tests were excavated in this area due to hydric soils. Southwest Quadrant The southwest quadrant of the APE consisted of a low, wet area within the floodplain of Haw Branch (Figure 11). Surface visibility in this portion of the APE was poor due to leaf litter and other groundcover. A general visual inspection of the southwest quadrant of the APE recorded no surface artifacts or evidence of historic or prehistoric cultural activity. No shovel tests were excavated in this area due to hydric soils. Excavated shovel tests measured 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to sterile subsoil, hydric/saturated soils, or the water table (whichever was encountered first). All soils were excavated by natural levels (soil strata) and screened through a 0.25-inch hardware mesh. Only one (1) artifact was recovered during shovel test excavations. In summary, archaeological investigations recorded a single site, 31NS184, which is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. As no significant archaeological resources are located within the APE for Bridge No. 103 in Nash County, it is recommended that this project be allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to significant cultural resources. Should the boundary of the proposed APE be expanded or moved, additional archaeological investigations may be necessary, as determined in consultation with the NCDOT and/or SHPO per the Programmatic Agreement. REFERENCES CITED National Geographic Society/ESRI 2011 Middlesex, North Carolina. I-cubed Seamless USGS Quadrangle. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2015 Nash County, North Carolina Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ accessed 31 March 2016. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission 1938 Nash County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1708/rec/18. accessed 28 March 2016. 1953 Nash County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8047/rec/21 accessed 28 March 2016. United States Bureau of Chemistry and Soils: North Carolina Department of Agriculture 1926 Soil Map, North Carolina, Nash County Sheet. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/364/rec/15 accessed 1 April 2016. Project Tracking No.: “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 5 of 13 16-01-0168 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1902 Spring Hope, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. Historical Topographic Map Collection. http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/ accessed 1 April 2016. 1978 Middlesex, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. Historical Topographic Map Collection. http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/ accessed 25 March 2016. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence Signed: April 25, 2016 NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 6 of 12 Figure 1. Project Location (Middlesex, NC USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle) “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 7 of 12 Figure 2. Bridge No. 103 APE and Shovel Test Locations Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 8 of 12 Figure 3. 1902 Topographic Quadrangle (Spring Hope, N.C.) Figure 4. 1926 Soils Map of Nash County Approximate Project Area Approximate Project Area Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 9 of 12 Figure 5. 1938 County Map Figure 6. 1953 County Map Approximate Project Area Approximate Project Area Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 10 of 12 Figure 7. Northeast Quadrant of APE, facing East Figure 8. Southeast Quadrant of APE, facing East Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 11 of 12 Figure 9. Southeast Quadrant of APE, facing West Figure 10. Northwest Quadrant of APE, facing Northeast 31NS184 (ST4) Project Tracking No. “NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. 12 of 12 Figure 11. Southwest Quadrant of APE, facing East Figure 12. Bridge 103, facing East from Northwest Quadrant Project Tracking No.