Project Background. March 9, Commissioners of Public Works 103 Saint Phillip Street Charleston, South Carolina 29203

Transcription

1 March 9, 2016 Commissioners of Public Works 103 Saint Phillip Street Charleston, South Carolina Attention: Reference: Mr. Frank Crawford Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey Dear Mr. Crawford: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME), on behalf of the Commissioners of Public Works, has completed a Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey (HAPS) for the approximately 26-acre in North Charleston, South Carolina (Figures 1 3). S&ME staff completed this study in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No , dated January 14, We performed the background research and field investigation in general accordance with the standards and guidelines established in the Guidelines for Historic & Archaeological Properties Survey Conducted for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) s Coastal Zone Consistency Certification (CZC), developed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in In a letter dated March 1, 2016, the SHPO concurred with our recommendation that no further cultural resources investigations are necessary. A copy of the March 1 letter is attached to this letter. Project Background Commissioners of Public Works are considering future development of the. In South Carolina s coastal zone, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control s Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) consults with the SHPO concerning the effect of projects on historic and archaeological sites. The goal of the HAPS was to assess the Project Area s potential for containing significant resources, and to make recommendations regarding additional work or considerations that may be necessary to address effects that future development may have on identified resources. This HAPS will serve as part of the due diligence efforts in advance of future planning and development. The approximately 26-acre Project Area is located southeast of the intersection of Rivers Avenue (Highway 52) and Hanahan Road in. The Project Area is located in the Lower Coastal Plain physiographic province. The topography is level, with an elevation of approximately 25 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The property is largely undeveloped. Brandt Road, the remnants of an S&ME, Inc. 620 Wando Park Boulevard Mt Pleasant, SC p f

2 abandoned asphalt road, and a utility easement cross the property (Figures 1 5). A railroad track forms the eastern boundary of the Project Area, residential properties border the Project Area to the south, and Rivers Avenue forms the western border. The northwestern side of the Project Area is bound by Hanahan Road with the northeastern corner extending across Hanahan Road. The soils in the Project Area consist of Urban land-yauhannah-yemassee-ogeechee association (Figure 2). This soil association describes a developed urban landscape on level ground with less than 10 percent natural soil. Background Research On January 20, 2016, Aaron Brummitt, RPA, conducted a background literature review and records search by reviewing available historic maps, ArchSite a GIS-based Cultural Resource Information System, and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History Finding Aid for previous archaeological and architectural surveys. Background research (Figure 6) that the Project Area and adjacent properties have not been the subject of a previous archaeological survey. A property adjacent to the Project Area was the subject of Bradley s 2007 study. The 2007 investigation identified eight historic structures located within the 0.25-mile search radius surrounding the current Project Area (Table 1). Bradley found that the eight previously recorded resources are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Table 1. Previously Documented Resources in the 0.25-Mile Search Radius Resource Number Date Location NRHP Status 0827 c Murray Drive Not Eligible 0828 c Highland Park Road Not Eligible 0829 c Highland Park Road Not Eligible 0830 c Pickens Avenue Not Eligible 0826 c Murray Drive Not Eligible 0825 c Murray Drive Not Eligible 0824 c Murray Drive Not Eligible 0823 c Murray Drive Not Eligible A review of historic maps indicates that European colonists, and presumably their enslaved laborers settled near the Project Area, as early as the end of the seventeenth century. Both Crisp s 1711 (Figure 7) and Mills 1825 (Figure 8) record settlements in the vicinity of but not within the Project Area, and Goose Creek Road which generally follows the modern alignment of Rivers Avenue. The 1919 Ladson quadrangle depicts the railroad east of the Project Area, and the former alignment of Hanahan Road. The 1919 map records the presence of a structure in the location of the current road alignment (Figure 9). March 9,

3 Potential for Archaeological Resources In the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, researchers have used various predictive models to identify areas having a high potential for containing archaeological sites (e.g., Brooks and Scurry 1978; Cable 1996; Scurry 2003). These models have been revised based on data from Francis Marion National Forest (O Donoughue 2008). In general, the most significant variables for determining site location are distance to a permanent water source, proximity to a wetland or other ecotone, slope, and soil drainage. Prehistoric sites tend to occur on relatively level areas with well-drained soils that are within 200 m of a permanent water source or wetland. Historic home sites tend to be located on well-drained soils near historic roadways. The Project Area is in an upland setting near a historic roadway. However, the documented structure depicted on the early twentieth century map appears to have been destroyed during the realignment of Hanahan Road. The USDA s characterization of the soils as Urban land (a developed urban landscape with less than 10 percent natural soil) suggests additional ground disturbance associated with twentieth century earthmoving. Given these factors, we characterized the Project Area as having a generally low potential to contain archaeological resources dating to the prehistoric or historic periods. Field Investigation On January 21, 2016 S&ME conducted the fieldwork portion of this study. Methods The field crew investigated the Project Area by conducting a pedestrian reconnaissance in areas with exposed ground surfaces. The field crew then initiated excavation of shovel test pits. The shovel test pits were spaced at 30 or 60-meter intervals. Additional shovel test pits were judgmentally placed in select locations (Figure 10). Shovel test pits were approximately 30 cm in diameter and excavated to culturally sterile subsoil or to a minimum of 80 centimeters below the surface (cmbs) if no artifacts were recovered. Soil was screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. The field crew kept notes in a weatherproof field journal and recorded field conditions in the Project Area with digital photographs. In addition to the archaeological survey, the field crew conducted a limited architectural survey to identify previously unrecorded aboveground historic resources in or adjacent to the Project Area. Results The field crew excavated 25 shovel test pits, ranging from 45 to 65 cm below the surface. The shovel test pits were aligned in transects placed to examine the area adjacent to the roadway and to characterize the property across the remainder of the Project Area (Figure 10). A typical soil profile consists of 25 cm of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand (Ap horizon), followed by 20 cm (45 65 cmbs) of pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand (Figure 11). The field crew interpreted the second soil stratum as the subsoil. Neither the pedestrian reconnaissance nor the shovel testing did not recover artifacts, identify subsurface features, or observe other indications of the presence of archaeological remains. March 9,

4 The field crew did not identify structures on adjacent properties that appeared to be 45 years old or older with the potential to be historic properties. Conclusion This HAPS identified no archaeological remains within the Project Area. No historic architectural resources were documented during this study. Based on the results of this document review and the field investigation, it is S&ME s opinion that no historic properties will be affected by future construction in the Project Area, and that no additional cultural resource investigations are necessary at this time. We also recommend that you forward this letter to the State Historic Preservation Office for their review. Closing S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide you with this report. If you have questions about the report, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Brummitt at (843) or via at abrummitt@smeinc.com. Sincerely, S&ME, Inc. Quinn-Monique Ogden, RPA Staff Archaeologist Aaron Brummitt, RPA Principal Investigator Attachments: References Cited, Figures 1 11, Letter from SC SHPO dated March 1, 2016 March 9,

5 References Cited Brooks, Mark J., and James D. Scurry 1978 An Interstate Archaeological Survey of Amoco Realty Property in Berkeley County, South Carolina with a Test of Two Subsistence-Settlement Hypotheses for the Prehistoric Period. Research Manuscript Series Number 147. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. Bradley, Dawn 2007 Cultural Resources Survey, Road S-88/Road S-405/Road S-1092 Intersection Improvements. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro North Carolina. Cable, John 1996 A Study of Archaeological Predictive Modeling in the Charleston Harbor Watershed, South Carolina. Report prepared for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Charleston, by New South Associates, Irmo, South Carolina. Crisp, Edward 1711 A compleat description of the province of Carolina in 3 parts : 1st, the improved part from the surveys of Maurice Mathews & Mr. John Love : 2ly, the west part by Capt. Tho. Nairn : 3ly, a chart of the coast from Virginia to Cape Florida / published by Edw. Crisp ; engraved by John Harris. Mills, Robert 1825 Charleston District, South Carolina surveyed by Charles Vignoles & Henry Ravenel, Atlas of the State of South Carolina, Made Under the Authority of the Legislature; Prefaced with a Geographical, Statistical and Historical Map of the State. F. Lucas, Jr., Baltimore. O Donoughue, Jason 2008 Living in the Low Country: Modeling Archaeological Site Location in the Francis Marion National Forest, South Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Scurry, James D Integrating Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Modeling: Validating Prehistoric Site- Settlement Models for the South Carolina Coastal Plain Using A GIS. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia. United States Geologic Survey 1979 [1919] Ladson Quadrangle. 7.5-Minute Series. United States Geologic Survey Reston, Virginia. March 9,

6 ³ METERS ,100 Legend Project Area SCALE: 1:24,000 CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: RD AB DATE: 2/3/2016 PROJECT NO: Location of the Project Area North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina SOURCE: USGS Ladson SC 7.5' quadrangle (1979) FIGURE NO. 1

7 GoA Mg ³ BoA UR GoA Legend Soils Urban land-yauhannah- Yemassee-Ogeechee METERS SCALE: 1:3,500 CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: RD AB DATE: 2/2/2016 PROJECT NO: Aerial View of the Project Area and USDA Soils Data North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina SOURCE: USDA Web Soil Survey FIGURE NO. 2

8 Figure 3. Client Provided Map of the Project Area. March 9,

9 Photographer: A. Brummitt Date: 1/21/2016 Figure 4. View of the abandoned asphalt road with Hanahan Road in the background on the right, facing west. Photographer: A. Brummitt Date: 1/21/2016 Figure 5. View from the he abandoned asphalt road towards the utility easement, facing southeast. The red arrow is pointing to a monument marking the easement. March 9,

10 Figure 6. Results of the Archsite file search. March 9,

11 Figure 7. Project Area, highlighted in red, on a portion of Crisp s 1711 map of the Carolinas. Figure 8. Project Area, highlighted in red, on a portion of Mills 1825 map of the Charleston District March 9,

12 Figure 9. Project Area highlighted in red, on a portion of USGS Ladson quadrangle March 9,

13 Abandoned Railroad ³ Abandoned Roadway Utility Easement METERS Legend Negative Shovel Test Pits SCALE: 1:5,000 CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: RD AB DATE: 2/3/2016 PROJECT NO: Results of the Field Investigation North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina SOURCE: S&ME Field Investigation, Bing Aerial FIGURE NO. 10

14 Figure 11. Drawing of a typical soil profile March 9,

15 March 9,