20191197 Ver 1_17BP.7.R.116__No Archaeological Survey Required Form 400224 Guilford_20190910

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
o� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not 0
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Structure 400224
WBS No: 17BP.7.R.116
F.A. No: N/A
Federal Permit Required?
County: Guilford
Document: State MCC
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 7 proposes to replace Bridge No. 224 on SR 3000 (McConnell
Road) over South Buffalo Creek in Guilford County. Bridge No. 224 was built in 1964, and is considered
to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete; therefore, it has been scheduled to be replaced. The
Study Area for the project will be centered on the bridge and measure about 150 feet wide (i.e. 75 feet
from centerline) and about 300 feet from either end of the bridge. Overall, the Study Area will
encompass about 142,596 square feet (3.27 acres), inclusive of the existing roadway and structure to be
replaced.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This project was accepted on Monday, December 5, 2016. A map review and site file search was
conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Thursday, December 8, 2016. No archaeological
surveys have been conducted along this particular stretch of SR 3000 (McConnell Road); however, one
(1) archaeological site has been recorded immediately southwest of the proposed project. Digital copies
of HPO's maps (McLeansville Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Wednesday, December 21, 2016. There are no
known historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to the Study Area for which intact
archaeological deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition,
topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs
were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or
prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural,
hydrological, and other erosive -type disturbances within and surrounding the archaeological APE.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE.
Although this is a State -funded project, a Federal permit will be required. Permanent and/or temporary
utility and/or drainage easements will not be necessary; however, additional ROW may be needed. The
size and shape of the Study Area have been drawn in a way to capture any possible impacts beyond the
NCDOT's existing 72-foot ROW. At this time, we are in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there
are no eligible (i.e. National Register -listed) archaeological resources located within the project's Study
Area that would require our attention. Based on the description of the proposed project, activities may
take place beyond the NCDOT's existing 72-foot ROW along SR 3000 (McConnell Road). From an
environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a rural environmental setting on the outskirts of
'No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
Greensboro in the north -central part of North Carolina within the Piedmont physiographic province. The
Study Area is composed of three (3) soil types: Enon clay loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded (EoC2), Wehadkee
silt loam (Wh), and Chewacla sandy loam (Ch). The Study Area consists of poorly drained soils (i.e. Wh)
and somewhat poorly drained soils (i.e. Ch) within the drainage itself as well as moderately sloping and
eroded topography (i.e. EoC2) to the east. In fact, most of the Study Area can be considered a flood
hazard. Preservation of intact archaeological resources would not be anticipated under such
environmental conditions. Similar to TIP# B-5717 and Site 31GF24 (PA 16-01-0126 [Replacement of
Bridge No. 121 on SR 4240 over South Buffalo Creek]), Joffre Coe recorded an archaeological site
(31 GF25) in 1935 about 500 feet southwest of Bridge No. 224 (roughly 175 feet beyond the Study Area).
Site 31 GF25 has not been revisited nor has its significance been assessed; however, its assemblage
consisted of only two (2) artifacts: a semi -polished stone celt and a chipped stone projectile point. Based
on discussions with Steve Davis, Associate Director of the RLA, regarding TIP# B-5717 and Site
31 GF24, one can surmise that these two (2) artifacts were surface -collected and although the original
survey form may have been filled out in 1935 with Joffre Coe's name, the form itself is not in his
handwriting. In addition, the updated form for the site was not coded for the Office of State Archaeology
until 1978 and listed inaccurate UTM coordinates, which place the site about 900 feet downstream from
Bridge No. 224. Discrepancies in "author," timeframe, and location raise concerns about the validity of
an archaeological site in the vicinity, not to mention the overall poor soil conditions.
LiDAR imagery for the project area and its immediate surroundings was also reviewed in an attempt to
locate potential areas for Site 31 GF25. Although elevated areas are noted on either side of the drainage,
these landforms consist of the current roadbed and embankment through the creek's floodplain as well as
areas that have been disturbed by the sewer line corridor running parallel to the creek and the previous
crossing of the creek just to the north. In 1964, the alignment of the road was shifted to the south, thus
straightening the road as it crossed South Buffalo Creek. There are no instances of elevated landforms in
the immediate area where Site 31GF25 is said to be situated. In fact, the only areas of well -drained or
moderately well -drained soil conditions occur farther away from the floodplain in what would be
conceived as "Upland -like" settings and would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Historic aerials of the project area were also obtained for the following years: 1937, 1951, 1957, 1962,
1967, 1970, 1983, and 1990. Several observations can be made when comparing these aerials over time.
First, the late 1960s marks a time when South Buffalo Creek was completely rechannelized. Before, the
channel for the creek curved and meandered back and forth throughout the floodplain. By 1970/1971, the
channel had been completely straightened in an attempt to manage the flow of water better, a method that
has unfortunately since been determined to increase erosion along its banks. Today, stream mitigation
work focuses on reintroducing those curves and meanders back into a creek's drainage. In 1937, Wayne
Arnold typed, "Going out from Bessemer you go straight south until you strike the road from Greensboro
going East — then you turn right and go about 1/4 to % mile east. Field is to the south of road. There is a
small creek or branch that flows into Buffalo Creek just before the highway crosses the Buffalo Creek.
The field is on the south bank of this small branch." Therefore, the perceived location of Site 31GF25 is
based entirely on the 1920 Soil Map of Guilford County, which shows a small drainage running into
South Buffalo Creek just south of SR 3000 (McConnell Road). Current LiDAR data, however, depicts a
small drainage about 200 feet downstream from the perceived location of Site 31 GF25, placing it farther
away from the Study Area for the proposed project (about 384 feet beyond the Study Area limits). Based
on topography, contour data, environmental conditions "then" and "now," it is quite conceivable that Site
31 GF25 represents a small scatter of material that eroded down from a ridgetoe to the west. Currently,
this landform is crossed by a power line easement, running parallel to the creek and aforementioned sewer
line.
The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed several projects within the vicinity of Bridge No.
224 for environmental compliance, including housing projects (ER 87-8020, ER 02-11141), landfill areas
(ER 88-7127, ER 88-7205), secondary road improvements (ER 01-9861), and farm improvements for NC
`No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
A&T State University (ER 02-9014). No archaeological surveys were recommended for any of these
projects, stating a low probability and that the presence of significant archaeological sites was unlikely.
As a direct comparison, NCDOT's Archaeology Group reviewed and conducted a survey for TIP# B-
5717 (PA 16-01-0126 [Replacement of Bridge No. 121 on SR 4240 over South Buffalo Creek]) under the
Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO). Despite the
presence of an archaeological site (31 GF24) in the vicinity, it was determined that the validity of its
documentation is rather suspect; the same can be said for the documentation for Site 31GF25 within the
vicinity of Bridge No. 224. Previous research along the South Buffalo Creek drainage, poor soil
conditions (somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and eroded) and overall topography (moderately
sloping, non -upland settings) within the Study Area, and previous ground -disturbing activities (old road
alignment, sewer line, old stream mitigation work) through the Study Area would suggest a low
probability for significant prehistoric and/or historic archaeological materials to be present. Therefore, it
is believed that the current Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design plans change or
are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be
required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are
uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set
forth for "unanticipated discoveries," to include notification of NCDOT's Archaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED
h["I I"
December 21, 2016
% AJ -L /
Date
`No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
a
• rt
•
Figure 1: McLeansville, NC (USGS 1952 [PR1968]).
1
4
"No ARCHA EOLOG Y SURVEY REQUIRED "form,for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
4of7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
Figure 2: 1971 Aerial (Online Resource -
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=91 e02b76dce4470ebd7ec240ad2O2aO
4, last accessed 21 Dec 2016).
Figure 3: 1962 Aerial (Online Resource -
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=91 e02b76dce4470ebd7ec240ad202a0
4, last accessed 21 Dec 2016).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
7
- r-
.ma's
14
r*iMbf ,
Pl
Affiifil&
L
Figure 4: 1957 Aerial (Online Resource -
httn://ncdot.mal)s.arcizis.com/home/webman/viewer.html?webman=91 e02b76dce4470ebd7ec240ad2O2aO
4, last accessed 21 Dec 2016).
Figure 5: 1951 Aerial (Online Resource - http://gis.co.guilford.nc.us/datadownload/, last accessed 21 Dec
2016).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0016
Figure 6: 1937 Aerial (Online Resource - http://gis.co.guilford.nc.us/datadownload/, last accessed 21 Dec
2016).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 7