Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171541 Ver 1_Historic/Prehistoric Information_20171130Project Tracking No.: 16-10-0004 NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES �'o�,���,. ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ��-���,�. , Q �� � PRESENT FORM z�� � � ��p°���;� :�:=; �� "�'•o tz' `� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not ��.`�:-..;.��? � a.: ..,.. .; .. •�(� �`'�.�:� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the w..: 9 f5� Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: WBS No: F.A. No: Bridge 124 17BP.2.R.79 n/a Federal Permit Required? County: Document Pitt MCC Funding: � State ❑ Federal � Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP3 Project Descriptio�: The replacement of Bridge No. 124 over Briery Swamp on SR 1515 (Sheppard Mill Road) in Pitt County, North Carolina. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) is centered on the bridge structure and measures 600ft. in length (300ft. from each bridge end-point) and 150ft. in width (75ft. from each side of the SR 1515 center-line). 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 identiiied 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 conclusiohs: To determine the cultural resource potential of the APE, numerous sources of information were considered. First, preliminary construction design, funding, and other data was examined for defining the potential impacts to the APE ground surfaces and for determining the level of effort necessary for compliance. In this case, the project is state-funded with federal perrnit interaction and subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For the most part, the APE dimensions were formulated to capture any federal permit area. Next, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Friday, October 14, 2016. No previously documented archaeological sites have been recorded within the limits of or directly adjacent to the project's APE. Examination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD), Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELlG/BLH,' OR I.ISTED ARCHAEO/.OGICAL SITES PRGSF.NT" forn� jor lhe Amended Minor Transportalion Projec(s as Qualtfred in Ihe 2007 Programura(ic Agreemenl. 1 of 2 Project Tracking No.: 16-10-0004 properties employing resources available on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) website demonstrated that NRHP listed PT0572 Thomas Sheppard Farm is located within the project's northwestern quadrant. Although unlikely, it is currently unknown if any above-ground or subsurface remnants of the farm may extend into the currently defined APE. Also, historic maps of Pitt County were appraised for former structure locations, land use patterns, or other confirmation of historic occupation in the project vicinity and archaeological/historical reference materials were reviewed as well. In addition, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, lidar, and NRCS soil survey maps (CrB, Sw, Le) were referenced for the evaluation of geomorphological, pedeological, hydrological, and other environmental-type elements that may have resulted in past occupation at this location. Finally, review of aerial and.on-ground images (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer, Google,ARC-GIS) afforded first-hand perspectives of the overall study area which were useful for assessing localized disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites/deposits. Based on environmental determinants, the APE is considered to have a moderate potential for the recovery of archaeological artifacts, deposits, or features. Based on the presence of an NRHP listed historic resources situated in the northwestern quadrant, and because of environmental factors that increase the likelihood of prehistoric occupation at this location, an in-field reconnaissance and survey of the site location is recommended prior to construction/replacement activities. This survey work will seek to determine if any historic features or deposits related to the Sheppard Farm, or any other unknown archaeological site, extend into the APE. An in-field reconnaissance and subsurface survey was conducted by NCDOT archaeologists Scott Halvorsen and Paul Mohler on Friday, December 2, 2016. First, a visual inspection of the entire APE was completed. No above-ground historic features or other archaeological resources related to the Thomas Sheppard Farm were encountered. For the most part, the APE and those areas surrounding it are typified by swampy, wetland conditions. The eastern APE quadrants contained no areas with dry ground suitable for shovel testing. Likewise, the swamp in the southwestern quadrant extended 60 meters from the bridge location. One shovel test pit was excavated at the southern APE limits approximately 90 meters from the bridge. This test revealed a 10YR3/1 dark gray sandy loam to 30cmbs atop a 10YR7/4 very pale brown sand to 50cmbs. The third soil stratum contained 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clayey sand subsoil. No cultural artifacts were recovered from this shovel test pit. Next, two shovel tests were excavated at 60 meters and 90 meters from the bridge structure, past the wetland and poorly drained area. The subsurface soil profiles for the two tests were nearly identical with a first soil stratum consisting of a 10YR5/1 gray sandy loam to 20cmbs atop a second layer of 10YR7/6 yellow sand to 50cmbs. Finally, the third statum contained 10YR6/6 brownish yellowclayey sand. No cultural artifacts were recovered from the excavation of these two shovel tests placed in the northwestern quadrant. No further archaeological work or consultation will be needed for the project as proposed. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: � Map(s) � Previous Survey Info Signed: NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence �� - �'za16 Date "NO NATIONAL REG/STER L•I IGIBLC OR LISTCD ARCHAEOLOGICAL S/TCS PRGSGNT" jorm jor (he Amended Minor Transportalron Projec(s as Qualrfied in Ihe 2007 Programmalic Agreement. 2 of 2 l 1, ; . _ . ...�...� _ s�,- .. -_ �r= � '-�'� ;' �.� � t y [� �Za:. . �� �' -�'1 c�iin � �y���r�{� {� de(R�l�'D�-'G�jE��1���"p� ��1��r� }GpE nfi�E�ryk'l��i CE;�k1'Fa\'P lp:�F&^�1-��r.A�!F�2" r�� 1�i1 � d��p�� A��� WA.L:F �'r'�A{L _Kl[�''" J�11�V.'1L�/' ���iL; F l. }V�L:4' U VF.1Q �IdFEIe'F 5i#il_M�1!P EL'IS1rL't ('. ��dlJ!?� IQEP"1.�10EE,4'1'�SF�� ��C'i �c7'3' i�'�IddDGE FtFFH.A( �LPLF'Lt'l4'a"� 1P`Id'f1Pr7.SFri,Y3f!`L' x�U'►�'�JTID'�E $�IFJT�`SFi�:.4wt'FC;Sw;:lSFA' r:EC%,E,'F7""�3 El�Y1,SSIB'L'J,�S � S�S QL:�D �ti9r1P r:[1P6E'R' .2".AIiQ' f0�}'CA80� 5N'EEF' �'T::14�'F.JQ' �'R OF" FHE �SOlT:3 � EId°C'��' f14F' �'1'F7" ��a�"F�' SEFa'E.11,�`F1Q' �'6r �'F��� F'.AI�'-��lY�i�,i'C'17 ��� {��5 EP:�A�fF.�1� P\�::YSBFA' d"�F.� l� "� S[:F&'EA' l�'F ES .��1':F � t> f •�0.- ` / ' - r � ;� . � �A _ ;i; PFFT' ��4' ,x'� T}hI� �' r,r�;: . F'= '7�'a�'a'.�'4°(�'4�'a" �' r ; � ' ;�� r � � �3�'S�'.6G'd'U'a' � 1t� t'r n - '� "' , t ' l�� �ji: � '�' ��' a'k 34 "`-i8d' "-�il'.d' 8"' ,\ � ; „ x � � [�, f.. �?4-���, �:4ccjo /�""'^-�d'-.�� 6r�"' , ��, ,, s � � : � t ';: a! �xdSAd9.4�&A'F,6PDE�J9F�3 ; `� ��'" , ,- � _ �. l "��3'.xi : � d€/Sl�: a' pkE,'�'E,E.'S '7 � i - ---- fr �I �. `� ��\�.i.d.J'Jl19 ,t. i fT`L.i71.. �` _ . 6 � � � � �' . . . � . � � I ' �� 1P i Qs 13.6 J b � tY�'Y,�Cp �DA � ,{ `.t ... I�i.`i:�!J C5O359 �i� L� _ I .� . .' , ' ._. v � .� � -. 'Y, , .��V �C4CUiE! ' ! ' ' � . . .4'r �z?CHY� � t,' � � � '!� � o qJp' �:.. - . E . � '4 �`' �� A1 1 1 �y �(� ��TT7�S � r t' ..� � N' :y'( o CO&R � ' � ��� ;-_ 3 � i N� f ��'' `� , i� �C�F'ORP C'Oel� FF � � � I. � . w' . 1 I . -. ;`t. •''1 f ��� .:.1� n �� � � �� 1 "\i �I 1�- h� Sr'J QCOCEi O � • I z - �� ' '. �. ,r�,,�-c��y, L ��:� �. _ ��< �g r � � . ., y.# _ , ` � � �_'� ` t�.. ' �! n , � �q �crc,t � t ,� r � /��c�L:�. l' � ;ys ��� �� t� r lkt. y �u � ( -t w '-ti� � �,�` � 9i17�:�iri AD� � ��� � ;���c�� � :� . .:�` h5li���' "� �` . j+�.K � f t;✓ � 4sCn� � R�� • ceton� �la''' � h. .�S}s�ijr .� �... � �� �:�:..y � �,:� o �-� ' �L �..�_.�1. i � ..i � a} ', �• t.i :�i � ' r � 111mA1n lYtJj.53f� � ` � �`, �y�. � 115��� � SN�;t ��i 115.4��? F�g2 � � ' � � -: �� .�� .,oceo�i� '.' I yT.. . �-•�"' S�Yew� ,:s� - - � , . : . �' � � ._ ,``. Leggetts Crossroads topographic map displaying the location and boundaries of the projectAPE. ARC-GIS map displaying the location and boundaries of the projectAPE. h ..4� � ��': � �'�� ��y� � � ; ,,5� � Ya f mk ''.�_ } h � '�i � f {7� - .�.? � 1.: r _ v ' y ' �.� - _��. � � � r 5- ��€. f�'� �� 3 .1r1 }'" Yt 4�'i� � �. � �`�i��_ .. �``'���� � ' _ _. '�, - .. 'd: � � �t" ::�.:.:-: _ ��>_� _�> � ,� `�'f � • Landform position (three-dimensionalJ: Crest • Down-slope shape: Convex • Across-slope shape: Convex • Parent material: Clayey marine deposits Typical profile • Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam • E- 7 to 9 inches: fine sandy loam • Bt - 9 to 54 inches: clay • C- 54 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities • Slope: 1 to 4 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained • Runoff class: Low • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frequency of ponding: None • Available waterstorage in profile: Moderate (about 8.2 inches) Interpretive groups • Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified • Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e • Hydrologic Soil Group: D • Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Bibb, undrained • Percent of map unit: 3 percent • Landform: Flood plains • Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope • Down-slope shape: Concave • Across-slopeshape: Linear • Hydric soil rating: Yes lohnston, undrained • Percent of map unit: 2 percent • Landform: Flood plains • Down-slope shape: Concave • Across-slope shape: Linear • Hydric soil rating: Yes Muckalee, undrained • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Flood plains • Down-slope shape: Concave • Across-slopeshape: Linear • Hydric soil rating: Yes Sw—Swamp (Johnston) Map Unit Setting • National map unit symbol: 3tzk • Elevation: 20 to 160 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches • Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F • Frost free period: 200 to 280 days • Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition • Johnston, undrained, andsimilarsoils: 90 percent • Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Johnston, Undrained Setting • Landform: Flood plains • Down-slope shape: Concave • Across-slope shape: Linear • Parent material: Sandy and loamy alluvium Typical profile • A- 0 to 30 inches: mucky loam • Cg1 - 30 to 34 inches: loamy fine sand • Cg2 - 34 to 80 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities • Slope: 0 to 2 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained • Runoff class: Negligible • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 0 inches • Frepuency of flooding: Frequent • Frequency of ponding: Frequent • Available waterstorage in profile: High (about 9.4 inches) Interpretive groups • Land capability classification (irrigatedJ: None specified • Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w • Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D • Hydric soil rating: Yes Le—Leaf silt loam Map Unit Setting • National map unitsymbol: 3tz0 • Elevation: 20 to 160 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches • Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F • Frost free period: 200 to 280 days • Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition • Leaf, drained, and similarsoils: 80 percent • Leaf, undrained, and similarsoils: 10 percent • Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Leaf, Drained Setting • Landform: Flats on broad interstream divides, terraces • Down-slope shape: Linear • Across-slope shape: Linear • Parent material: Clayey marine deposits Typical profile • A- 0 to 6 inches: silt loam • etg - 6 to 67 inches: clay • Cg - 67 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities • • Slope: 0 to 2 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Natural drainage class: Poorly drained • Runoff class: Very high • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (KsatJ: Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frepuency of ponding: None • Available waterstorage in profile: Very high (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups • Land capability classification (irrigatedJ: None specified • Land capability classification (nonirrigatedJ: 4w • Hydrologic Soil Group: D • Hydric soil raYing: Yes Description of Leaf, Undrained Setting • Landform: Flats on broad interstream divides, terraces • Down-slope shape: Linear • Across-slopeshape: Linear • Parentmaterial: Clayey marine deposits Typical profile • A- 0 to 6 inches: silt loam • Btg - 6 to 67 inches: clay • Cg - 67 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities • Slope: 0 to 2 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Natural drainage class: Poorly drained • Runoff class: Very high • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frequency of ponding: None • Available waterstorage in profile: Very high (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups • Land capability classification (irrigatedJ: None specified • Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w • Hydrologic Soil Group: D • Hydric soil rating: Yes "'h�.s ;��:: ,� �a NCSHPO website map displaying the location of the generalized project area in Pitt County, North Carolina.