20190591 Ver 1_AR18-08-0001NoSitesPresent_20190507

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
00? ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESc.
q
1p
PRESENT FORM
1 .
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-5980 County: Nash
WBS No: 47617.1.1 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: NHP-1522(005) Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ❑ Yes ® No Permit Type: na
Project Description: The North Carolina of Transportation (NCDOT) Division 4 is proposing
the replacement of Bridge No. 203 on SR1522, Halifax Road, over I-95 in Nash County. As part
of the project, the existing trumpet -style interchange will be upgraded to a diamond -type
interchange with two roundabouts. North Halifax Road will also require realignment, and
Bridge No. 221 will be removed. The general study area or project area and archaeological Area
of Potential Effects (APE) encompasses approximately 81.0 acres (32.4 ha) (Figure 1). NCDOT
archaeologists reviewed preliminary information for the project and recommended a
comprehensive archaeological survey and evaluation. Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc.
(Commonwealth), completed the survey and evaluation for NCDOT's Human Environment
Section and Archaeology Group. The project area is on the outskirts of Rocky Mount, to the
west of the community of Battleboro, and includes disturbed areas related to existing roadways
and recent logging.
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.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
A review of the site maps and files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) of
the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) was conducted on March 7, 2019, by
Commonwealth to include sites within one mile of the project area. According to NCDOT's
Archaeological Survey Required Form and the proposal request containing the project Scope of
Work (Petersen 2018), as well as information available through OSA, there are no previously
recorded archaeological sites located within the project area. Eight previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within a mile. Five of these sites (31NS 186 through 31NS 190)
were recently recorded, as a result of Environmental Corporation of America's archaeological
survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 224 on SR 1510, Watson Seed Farm Road,
over I-95 more than a half -mile to the northeast of the current project (PA No. 17-12-0063).
Three archaeological sites (31NS186, 31NS187, and 3INS 188) are associated with 20th century
historic occupations, one archaeological site (31NS 189) is associated with a mid-19th century
single burial and light artifact scatter, and one archaeological site (3INS 190) is a mid- 19th to
21 st century cemetery. 31NS 186, 31NS 187, and 31NS 188 are likely associated with former
residential structures along the northern side of SR 1510. 3INS 189 is likely associated with a
single burial located in a planted crop field south of SR 1510, and 3INS 190 is a mid- I 9th-21 st
century historic cemetery associated with the former McTyeire Church. None of these
archaeological sites were considered to be NRHP-eligible.
The other previously recorded sites (31NS97 through 31NS99) are situated south of the project
area and were recorded by Commonwealth (then Coastal Carolina Research) in 2000 during an
archaeological survey for the proposed construction of a business park (Brady and Lautzenheiser
2000). Site 31NS97 represents a demolished early twentieth-century structure and a low -density
domestic artifact scatter. The site was recommended not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Site 31NS98, a Native American site that is represented by only a
single quartz flake, was also recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Site 31NS99 is a Late
Archaic site that yielded a moderate density of lithic artifacts but lacked evidence of intact
subsurface deposits. The site did not appear eligible for the NRHP.
Figure 2 shows the location of the project area on current topographic mapping. Figure 3 is a
historic map showing the approximate location of the project area on a map from the late
eighteenth century. The map shows some structures, landmarks, and settlements, but generally
indicates that the project area was unsettled or sparsely settled at the time. Figure 4 is a 1919
map including the project location, and it shows structures in the vicinity of the project and
possibly one in the project area where it connects to NC 48. This however, is likely covered by
the current interstate ramp configuration. Figures 5 and 6 are details of recent aerial images for a
portion of the project area. These are shown to illustrate recent farming and/or erosion control
activities in the project area.
Located in an upland setting in eastern Nash County between Swift Creek and Beech Branch, the
project area lies within the Tar -Pamlico drainage. This area is located along the Fall Line
transition zone, a physiographic area that separates the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain.
Therefore, the area is partially underlain by intrusive granitic rock of the Eastern Slate Belt and
partially underlain by fossiliferous clay of the Coastal Plain Tertiary (NCGS 1988). In general,
the Coastal Plain is an area of low elevation consisting of relatively unconsolidated beds of
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
terrestrially and marine -deposited sand, gravel, and clay sediments (Fenneman 1938:1-120;
Thornbury 1965:30-71).
The study area consists a variety of settings including nearly a mile -long stretch of I-95;
entrance/exit ramps connected to the interstate; a small portion of NC 4 and NC 48; a segment of
North Halifax Road, which extends over half a mile to the west of the interstate; and portions of
two agricultural fields, which are connected by a farm lane and by a recently clear-cut area.
Several soils are mapped within the project area including Gritney sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes (approximately 1.8 percent of the project area) ; Meggett loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded (1.5 percent); Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 and 2 to 6 percent slopes (13.5
percent); Norfolk -Wedowee complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes (21.4 percent); Rains fine sandy
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain (16.6 percent); Udorthents, loamy (40.1
percent); and Urban land (5.0 percent) (USDA/NRCS 2019). The percentage of soils including
disturbed Udorthents soils and Urban land reflects the high degree of disturbance in the project
area.
To address the APE, a survey and evaluation was conducted on March 5 and 12, 2019. The
survey required five person -days to complete. Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA, was the project
manager and principal investigator. Amy Krull, M.A., RPA, was the project archaeologist and
was assisted in the field by B. Scott Rose, M.A. RPA; Amanda K. Stamper, M.A.; and Emma
Grace Sprinkle. D. Allen Poyner was the GIS coordinator.
The survey constituted a good -faith effort to identify archaeological sites in the APE, including
cemeteries. Since only undisturbed locations were anticipated to contain intact archaeological
sites with good cultural and stratigraphic integrity, shovel testing was unnecessary in areas of
obvious disturbance including areas associated with current roadways and areas disturbed by
recent logging. Visual reconnaissance was used to identify these areas of disturbance. Heavy
disturbances were spread throughout the APE. Many of the areas initially anticipated for shovel
testing were recently clear-cut and/or inundated with water from recent rain. Figures 7 through
10 show the conditions encountered during the survey.
The project area/APE was given full consideration through visual reconnaissance with digital
photographic documentation as well as intensive survey of areas without the following: standing
water, obvious heavy saturation, signs of very poor drainage, and/or obvious disturbance by
previous earth moving activities, logging, or erosion. A total of 72.6 acres of the project area
was considered disturbed and/or developed. Typical logging disturbance in shown in Figures 7
and 8. Figure 11 shows the survey conditions and intensive survey coverage in the project area.
No surface visibility was encountered in areas that appeared appropriate for intensive survey (see
Figure 11, Areas A and B, and see Figures 9 and 10). Intensive survey was conducted by shovel
tests placed at 30-m (approximately 100-ft) intervals along transects. All soil was screened
through 1/4-inch mesh. Approximately 7.7 acres of the project area was shovel tested at a
regular 30-m interval. An additional 0.7 acres was judgmentally shovel tested. A total of 52
shovel tests was excavated. Table 1 provides a log of the shovel test profiles encountered within
the project area, and Figure 12 shows the locations of the shovel tests. Figure 12 also shows
portions of the project area that were judged to be disturbed due to logging and that also
contained heavy surface debris related to recent clear cutting. The debris was heavy enough
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
across most of the outlined area to obscure much of the ground surface and limit the visual
reconnaissance. Although patches of bare subsoil could be observed to confirm disturbance from
logging and the low potential for intact subsurface sites, areas with heavier debris could contain
obscured surface features related to disturbed sites or small cemeteries.
The shovel tested areas (Areas A and B) are mapped as containing well -drained Norfolk -
Wedowee complex and Norfolk loamy sand soils. The typical soil profile encountered during
shovel testing in Area A contains three zones: Zone 1, a grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) loamy sand
plow zone approximately 30 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) coarse
sandy loam possible E-horizon approximately 25 cm in thickness, and Zone 3, a yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/8) sandy clay loam subsoil (Figure 13). This soil corresponds with the range of
characteristics described for the Norfolk -Wedowee complex, which is mapped for this area.
Norfolk -Wedowee soils can also have a strong brown subsoil (USDA/NRCS 2019). A few of
the tests excavated in the fields were terminated in Zone 2 due to water seeping in at the base of
the tests (Figure 14).
The soil profile of the tests excavated within a small wooded area adjacent to Area A had a
brown (IOYR 5/3) sandy loam and gravel fill mix that is approximately 34 cm in thickness. This
was encountered just below the humic layer and is atop a solid rock impasse. Boulders and rock
outcroppings are present of the surface throughout this wooded area. An earthen embankment,
approximately 15 feet in height, flanks the northern edge of this area (see area adjacent to Shovel
Test B1 in Figure 12), as it buffers the adjacent Wake Stone Corporation rock quarry.
A farm lane runs along the southern and eastern edges of Area A. Trees have been logged on
both sides of this narrow drive, and logging debris obstructs the southern portion of the field as
well as the area between the farm lane and North Halifax Road. This portion of the project area
along the road also contains standing water in several places within the shallow, grassy ditch that
runs along North Halifax Road.
On the northern edge of Area A stands a group of eight abandoned structures (Figure 15), three
of which are located outside the APE. Modern debris is present on the surface around the
structures, which appear historic but not of great age and include a dwelling, a secondary
dwelling or possible bunkhouse, and deteriorating outbuildings; recent logging extends into the
areas between/around the structures. Despite disturbances in this area related to logging, seven
judgmental shovel tests were excavated to investigate the possibility of an archaeological
component corresponding to the structures (see Figure 12). All of the shovel tests were negative,
and no artifacts were encountered on the surface. Shovel testing in this area revealed a two -zone
soil profile with Zone 1 a brown (IOYR 5/3) sandy loam approximately 19 cm in thickness and
Zone 2 a yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) compact sandy clay loam subsoil.
To the north of the structures, along the farm lane, is a trailer mount and other signs suggesting
that a trailer was once parked in this location. An aerial image from 2008 appears to show a
trailer in this approximate location (see Figure 5). To the north of the trailer mount is an
overgrown earthen berm. A detail from a 2012 aerial image shows this area with what appears to
be recently deposited soil without vegetation, possibly used for erosion control along the edge of
the farm lane (see Figure 6). A judgmental shovel test was excavated at the base of one of the
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4of7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
berms, which revealed brown (IOYR 4/3) sandy loam excavated to a depth of 81cm below the
surface.
Just across the farm lane from the earthen berm, within the logged area, is a small surface scatter
of bricks (Figure 16). At least two different types of brick were noted including brick appearing
modern and otherwise machine -made brick. Standing water was observed nearby within the
logging debris. Within a small, relatively clear area between the pile and the farm lane a
judgmental shovel test was excavated. This test contained light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4)
sandy loam but was terminated at just 18 cm below the surface, as the test began to fill with
water. The brick scatter appeared to reflect recent dumping and did not appear to meet the
definition of an archaeological site.
Much of the southern portion of this field containing Area B (see Figures 11 and 12) was
inundated with water from recent rains (Figure 17). The eastern and northern edges of the field
also contained pockets of standing water. Shovel tests excavated in the central portion of the
field revealed a three -zone soil profile: Zone 1, a brown (IOYR 4/3) sandy loam plow zone
approximately 24 cm in thickness; Zone 2, a brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) sandy loam
approximately 10 cm in thickness; and Zone 3, a brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) sandy clay loam
subsoil (Figure 18). This soil corresponds with the range of characteristics described for the
Norfolk -Wedowee complex, which is mapped for this area. In the more northern portion of the
field, shovel testing revealed a slightly varied soil profile with only two zones, with Zone 1
generally consisting of a dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) sandy loam plow zone approximately
24 cm in thickness and Zone 2 consisting of a brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) sandy clay loam
subsoil. This soil profile also reflects the range of characteristics described for the Norfolk -
Wedowee complex, which is also mapped for this area.
In summary, logging disturbance and previous road construction are the major sources of
disturbance in the project area, although two areas were appropriate for intensive survey and
generally had more limited disturbance related to ongoing agriculture. No archaeological sites
were encountered in the APE as a result of the survey. Some of the areas mapped to contain
well -drained soils were inundated with water due to recent heavy rain. A few of these areas were
also recently logged, and in some areas pooled water was observed in ruts and tire tracks left by
logging equipment.
Based on these results, no additional archaeological work is recommended in conjunction with
this project. I concur with the recommendations put forth by the consultant. If the project area
expands and impacts subsurface areas beyond what has already been surveyed, or if design plans
change prior to construction, further archaeological consultation will be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Maps ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑Correspondence
Signed:
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
April 12, 2019
Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
REFERENCES CITED
ArcGIS Image Service
2019 ESRI World Imagery. Electronic document, http://services.arcgisonline.com/
arcgis/services, accessed March 1, 2019.
Brady, Ellen M, and Loretta Lautzenheiser
2000 Archaeological Survey of Areas I and 2, Proposed Whitaker Business and Industrial
Center, Nash County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research. Submitted to Appian
Consulting Engineers. Copies available at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology.
Collet, John
1770 A Compleat map of North -Carolina from an actual survey. Electronic document,
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/u?/ncmaps,467, accessed March 1, 2019.
Google Earth Pro
2019a 2008 Aerial Image, 36°03'47.12" N, 77°49'31.43' W (Landsat Copernicus Imagery).
Electronic access, Google Earth Pro Historical Imagery, accessed March 22, 2019.
2019b 2012 Aerial Image, 36°03'47.12" N, 77°49'31.43' W (USDA Farm Service Agency).
Electronic access, Google Earth Pro Historical Imagery, accessed March 22, 2019.
Fenneman, Nevin M.
1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1988 Preliminary Explanatory Text for the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Contractual
Report 88-1. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Petersen, Shane C.
2018 Request for Proposal, Archaeological Survey and Evaluation, Replacement of Bridge No.
203 on SR 1522, Halifax Road, over I-95, Nash County (TIP o. B-5980; WBS 47617.1.1; PA 18-
08-0001). North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Human Environment
Section (HES), Archaeology Group. Copies available from NCDOT HES, Raleigh.
Thornbury, William D.
1965 Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley, New York.
USDA/NRCS
2019 Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and Natural
Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] Soil Mapping and Official Soil Series Descriptions).
Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/, accessed March 2019.
Wells and Brinkley Engineers
1919 "Map of Nash County North Carolina Prepared by direction of the County Commissioners
and the Board of Education from actual surveys 1918-19 by Wells and Brinkley engineers ". For
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
18-18-0001
the Commissioners of Nash County, NC. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/418, accessed March 20, 2019.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 7

Jamie Rd
Chds Ct
Kims Ct
Wesley IN
Warren
rank in
Halifax
Enfic.
�zlW� Pk",y
o�Q
C+
Nash
°"" ,Edgecombe
NasnviClc Us
_,,,_ „ Roc'4y Darr
Bing
Ta
19 Microsoft Corporation © 2019
Figure 1: General Location of the Project Area.
r
rYler Run
I ,PVP_ 1 \
a8
Legend
Project Area B5980
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
I I I I I I I I I
ERE

14 �
�s
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
1G0
E
l 4
Legend
Project Area B5980
Figure 2: Project Area on the 1963 USGS 7.5-Minute Drake, North Carolina, Quadrangle (ArcGIS
Image Service 2019).

lY AY T' 0 N
ColeysOcxCG 11--c Ord. q a
n S Derr s18�
.Lore
aka,
r d t 5a 5
st17,
IMF
�ilbarxy'3e Phvs — '�� ,: h, 'r
".i 4 C 0 r+lif
4.
eD
' V
1 ( o
Smiml� °; River
c ID RuLemottdr
/.± • �n\ r� Cy4 .� .y �� �:-� _,fi A it K a `C� l F i�i�' A.
i, �'•...� � ,/ ,� � � ii I. � y Hedmnme�%O/ld Fieldvmw
"\
1 / A
Z 1` ♦ Ili • I ` __ \\\
rSF.l ry 4
.n rt. �\. �� /,✓ � (� fi 'r� f !3� Win. 1y � ,�'s �-1'�
...
Figure 3: Detail of 1770 Collet Map Showing the General Location (Blue) of the
Project Area (Collet 1770).

46 1 �M
ill
if
i
y YY
■
i{9 ��Iffr� �I � f--
i
,. ����
- II ■
1 yyyy
ir
y■
• 'sS
f
�
'�
6
0
�'ie.�
•
j11'
51 1• '�.
R
-
-
qW
T
yy-
r
�
!
■
�7
r T
■
t
i
y
p �
! ! 41
16
+ ti
�t.p.
It. ..
tj
1
i . 14. e _
Figure 4: Detail of 1919 "Map of Nash County North Carolina Prepared by direction of the County Commissioners and the Board
Education from actual surveys 1918-19 by Wells and Brinkley engineers " (Wells and Brinkley Engineers 1919), Showing the
Approximate Location of the Study Area (Yellow).

Figure 5: Detail of a 2008 Aerial Image Showing a Portion of the Project
Area (Google Earth Pro 2019a). The area circled in yellow appears to
contain a trailers or farm structures (see approximate location in reference to
project area in upcoming Figure 11 and related discussion).
Figure 6: Detail of a 2012 USDA Farm Service Agency Aerial Image
Showing a Portion of the Project Area also Shown in Figure 5 (Google Earth
Pro 2019b). The area circled in yellow appears to contain redeposited soil
observed during the survey as overgrown berms used for erosion control.

Figure 7: Recently Logged Portion of the Project Area Mapped as Having Well -
Drained Soil, Looking Northwest. Note that some areas include patches of
exposed subsoil.
Figure 8: Recently Logged Portion of the Project Area Within Mapped as
Having Poorly Drained Soil, Looking Northeast. Note area of standing water to
left.

Figure 9: General Conditions Encountered in Shovel Tested Field (Field A),
Looking South -Southwest.
Figure 10: General Conditions in Shovel Tested Field (Field B), Looking West.

t� �e f��µ�` }• 1 � �. j';ly F� �-� :�' f" N Yf;pV,Ak4 .P
'7
�IeG# 1K#t 4'.. .,r�„ s " 1��= 46
pay j'"! •,' Ya sw -.
��"�.._�� �� r ♦ it{w�. ♦ '`� � �F 'ice. y �z +I r;�w• 4
7..4
lr
.r
f
Location of
Figures 5 and 6 y� t !4 "
i Y
i
r
}Legend
Project Area :0
Shovel Tested at 30-meters
Judgmentally Shovel-
sted
• 100 2CO 400 Meters visuay inspected
Disturbed• •

Figure 12: Detail of Project Area Showing Shovel Tested Areas and Areas with Extensive Logging
Debris and Signs of Recent Earth Moving Activity. Base mapping from ArcGIS Image Service
(2019).

Figure 13: Typical Shovel Test Profile Encountered in Area A.
Figure 14: Shovel Test in Area A with Water at Base.

Figure 15: View of Structure in Judgmentally Shovel Tested Portion of Area A,
with Surrounding Logging Debris, Looking East.
Figure 16: Small Brick Scatter Located North of Area A, Looking Northeast.

k
AM�i 'pp 3a'
• r i `
Al
t e Fr ■
�.�S7