20180072 Ver 1_CR_Arch_20180112

Praject TrackingNo.:
16-11-0006
ap�x NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SLTRVEY REQUIRED FORM �
��' �` p����' This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not =E ,�-
y Q .
`� �`� ��;- � f�
�� q�� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the �;;
'4��� Histaric Architecture and Landscapes Group. � x�;�
PRQJECT Il�FORMATION
Project No:
I�%3C�i'�f�
I�I�►�,�,
Br. No. 220034
17BP.12.R104
Federal Permit Required?
Cousary:
Document:
Cleveland
Mcc
Funding: � State ❑ Federal
� Yes ❑ No Permit Type: nwp 3
Project Deserapiion: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 0034 on SR 2033 (Oak Grove Rd.) over
Muddy Fork Creek. While no designs were available at the time of the review, a replace-in-place
construction with an of£site detour is anticipated. Generally, the roadway appmach and aligrunent will
keep a si:milar alignment, if not the exact same. The new bridge may feature a wider deck or may be
higher and new ROW and/ar construction easements may be required for fill, cuts and drainage. The
new construction footprint may be somewhat larger than the existing facility construction footprint
though the majority of the location is considered modified by the previous earthmoving. For purposes
of this archaeological review, the APE is assumed to be 75 feet to either side of the bridge with a distance
of 500 feet along SR 2033 in either direction. The maximu�m APE width is 150 feet with a malcimum
project Iength of about 1050 feet tapering at each end which includes the current bridge to be replaced.
This is a state funded project, however, a Natian Wide Perm:it 3 is anticipated fro�n USACE, therefore,
this is a federal undertaking and Seciion lOb of the National Historic Preserva�ion Act applies for
archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTLTRAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, resudts of review, and conclusions:
USGS mapping (Waco) and aerial photogz'aphy was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The project area is in
close proximity to a modem reservoir, Moss Lake which is also referenced as Kings Mountain Reservoir,
a short distance to the northwest. The immediate surroundings along SR 2033 and Bridge No. 0034 are
mainly wooded parcels with no modern residences or businesses in or about the APE. One driveway
adjacent to the bridge provides access from the bridge location on to the adjoining lot. Guardrails have
been extended from the concrete rails on the bridge to include metal rails for a notable dista:ace along the
road on either side of the existing bridge.
There are several soi� types present in the project APE. The most prominent soils is Chewacla loam
(ChA, 0-2 % slopes, frequently flooded) at about 70°/a of the APE. Chewacla is describ�d as being
freqZtently flooded and be:ing somewhat paorly drained. Examining USGS mapping and aerials, it is
possible that the bed of Muddy Fork Creek was originally west about 300 or 400 feet in this same low
flat terra.in. If so, it is uncertain if this was a modern shift made during the construction af the nearby
reservoir or the result of more natural forces. Noted as being prime farm land if drained, the frequent
flooding amd potential far wetuess may make tiie location less desirable for Native American and later
hurnan activities. Another 20 percent of the project area is Grover gravelly sandy loam (GrD, 15-30
percent slopes and rocky) which represents the sloped terrain within the APE, at� unlikeIy Iocation for
most archaeologica� site due �o their hilly nature. Also represented is about 10 % of WeA, {Wehadkee
loam, d-2 percent slopes and frequently flooded), a poorly drained soil where the relic Muddy Fork
channel appears to be locafed. Again, with the undesirability of the frequent flooding and the poorly
drained nature of these soiIs, or the sloped ones, this the APE is unlikely to contain archaeological
"Na ARCIIAEOLOGYSURVEYR&QUIIU'sD " form far the Amended Mrnor Transpanation Pmjects as Quulified in the 20I5 P�ogmmmaticAgreemerst.
1 of 6

Project Tracking No.:
16-11-00�6
deposits. The soils present within the APE suggest a low probability for impacting intact, si�ificant
azchaeological resources.
Virtual driv�by was available using Google and �ing Maps. Conditions at the street-level show wooded
areas though also a massive area of new construction within the APE. Apparently, in the past two or
three years a waterline proyect originating at the nearby reservoix- was upgraded from a large 24 inch pipe
to a massive 36 inch pipe. For general safety and OSHA compliance, many areas requirecl a broad
constructiou easement and use oi temporary trench retaining walls that resulted in major soil
disturbances. Design plans were gathered from engineer�ng sources that show the extent of construction
on at least one quadrant of the APE. That completed construction, combined with building the existing
roadway and bridge, leaves a poor physical context for preservation of intact, si�ificant archaeological
sites in much of the APE.
Earlier historic maps were also examined. Many do not show the human-made reservoir which wasn't
constructed until mid-century, including the earliest {iJSGS Lincolnton 1909) which has some small
roads in the vicinity of the project, though with radically different alignments and a crossing of Muddy
Fork Creek northeast of the APE. The 1950s USGS mapping (Charlotte 1953,195�4,1960) has low detail
but shows the same road configurarian. By the time the 1973 Waco USGS mapping is created, the new
reservoir is completed and roads around the project have been reconfigured. This is presumably after the
current Bridge No. 34 was construction along with this portion of SR 2033, noted on some records as
being built in1954. An aerial 197b USGS map (Waco} shows some cleared areas near the bridge. This
could be drained agricultural iields, borrow associated with the new dam, or be a signature of a realigned
Muddy Fork Creek. No cemeteries were noted during the aerial vievving, on USGS mappit�g ar the
cemetery database maintained by NCDOT archaeologist Paul J. Mohler at the project location.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited in October, 2016, to review archaeological mapping and
reference any l�own archaeological surveys and sites. There are no previous azchaeological surveys
within the APE, and no known sites. The proposed replacement of nearby Bridge No, 0025, half a mile
west along SR 2033 just south of the reservoir, was reviewed (PA # 16-01-0066) for the need fox an
archaealogical survey by NCDOT archaeologist Shane Petersen. Due to the scale of the project and the
slope, no survey was recommendea for that project due to low expectations for the presence of
archaeologicaZ sites especially those that rnight be significant and intact (February 17, 2016). A notable
and large scale archaeological survey in the area was for tbe Shelby Bypass (NCD�T TIP # R-2707,
Bibliography # 4721, ER 95E4220-0384) about a mile to the southwest. While several sites were
identified as part of that investigation, two sites are relatively close by, 31C149, a low density historic
and Native American si�e on an eroded,logged landform, and 31C153 an isolate. Neither of those sites
were considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
For this undertaking, the proposed replace in place bridge project wi31 have a relatively confined
construction footprint. An offsite detour is available for nse. Some new ROW or easement may be
required, though much af the APE has been masssvely altered far the new 36" buried water pipes. Soils
mapping suggest that the ground near the bridge often floods and can be somewhat poorly drained, factors
which lessens the probability for certain types of archaeological sites. Because irhere is reduced chance
for an archaeological sites ta be present, especially ones that might be intact and significant, no
archaeological survey is recommended for this undertaking as currently proposed.
Brief EaSpdanation of why the available informatron provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentifaed historic prapertdes in the APE:
This project involves replacing a bridge in place with an offsite detour. Exisring disturbances suggests a
low probability for encountering archaeological sites, especially ones that might be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Also, soils near the project are subject to be somewhat poorly
drained and flood with some frequency. No known archaeological sites will be affected by the project.
No archaeological survey is recommended. Therefore, this federally permitted undertaking should be
considered compliant with Section 106.
"No ARCHA�'OLOGY SURi�Fs'Y REQUIR&D "furm for the AmendedMrnar Tmnspor�arron Projecls as Qualifred in rhe i015 Progmmrnatic.4gtreement.
2of6

Projecd Tr¢ekingNo.:
16-11-0006
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s} ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDQT ARCHAEOLOGIST
"No ARCHAE'OLOGY SUHVEYREQUIRED " form far the.4mendrd�rror Transparfrelion Ptojects ar Qualified in the 2015 Programmalic r[greemeni.
3of6

Project TracldRg Na.:
1G-11-Q006
Fygure 1. Vicinity of PA # 16-11-0006 an USGS topographic mapping (Waco), showing Bridge No. U034 on SR 2033
over Muddy Fork Creelc. A black circle shows the pro}ect locatfon, Note the proximity to the reeervair.
"Na ARCRA£OLOGI'SUA4L7'1PE¢UIRLD "form J6r lhe AmtndedMmw 7ransparlatron Prgecls as Qud�ed rn tNe d015 Progrmn'nnHc Agreemenl.
4affi