The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110987 Ver 1_Application_20111108L�3 u V L5 kall r 't LJ ` t�iod — 2011 „T- aor `9oG J!, i itt�h ��r pa aN7 t) TG o -, Office Use Only Corps action ID no DWQ project no Form Version 13 Dec 10 2008 Pre - Construction Notification C Form A Apphcant Information 1 Processing 1a Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ® Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit 1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 12 or General Permit (GP) number RGP 31 1 c Has the NWP or GP number been venfied by the Corps? ® Yes ❑ No 1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply) ® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express Riparian Buffer Authonzat on le Is this notrficabon solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification ❑ Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit ❑ Yes ® No 1f Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu fee program [] Yes No 1g Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1 h below ® Yes ❑ No 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ® No 2 Project information 2a Name of project Craven 19 Bridge To Box Culvert Replacement SR 1003 Aurora Road Over Kit Swamp WBS Element Number 17BP 2 R 6 2b County Craven 2c Nearest municipality / town Emul 2d Subdivision name N/A 2e NCDOT only T I P or state project no 17BP 2 R 6 3 Owner Infonmabon 3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed North Carolina Department of Transportation 3b Deed Book and Page No N/A 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable) N/A 3d Street address 105 Pactolus Highway NC 33 P O Box 1587 3e City state zip Greenville NC 27835 3f Telephone no 252 830 3490 3g Fax no 252 830 -3341 3h Email address lblohnson @ncdot gov Page 1 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 4 Apple ant Information ('if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ❑ Agent ® Other specify Division 2 Environmental Officer 4b Name Jay B Johnson 4c Business name (if applicable) North Carolina Depratment of Transportation 4d Street address P O Box 1587 4e City state zap Greenville NC 27835 4f Telephone no 252 830 -3490 4g Fax no 252 - 830 -3341 4h Email address Ibtohnson @ncdot gov 5 Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name N/A 5b Business name (if applicable) 5c Street address 5d City state zap 5e Telephone no 5f Fax no 5g Email address Page 2 of 11 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version B Project Information and Prior Project History 1 Property Identification 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) Craven 19 SR 1003 Aurora Road Over Kit Swamp 1 b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) Latitude N 35 224068 Longitude W 77 053017 (DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD) 1c Property size N/A acres 2 Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to proposed project Kit Swamp A Tributary of Little Swift Creek 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water C Sw NSW 2c River basin Neuse 3 Project Description 3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application SR 1003 Aurora Road is a paved secondary state highway Woodlands Agriculture and Residential Development dominate the landscape 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 0 Square Feet of 404 Wetland Impacts For The Bridge To Box Culvert Replacemet 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 60 This site is part of a longer adjacent stream system 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project Bridge To Box Culvert Replacement the existing bridge has deteonated and needs replacing Utilities will be relocated with no 404 Wetland Impacts nor Buffer Impacts 3e Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used The Existing 35 x 26 9 Timber Bridge will be replaced with a Proposed 34 x 9 2 x 42 Aluminum Box Culvert With Headwalls Utilities will be relocated as necessary with no 404 Wetland Impacts nor Buffer Impacts The Above Ground Water Line located Right of L will be Relocated By Directional Bore The Launching and Receiving Pits will be on Uplands and located outside of the Riparian Buffer Zones Excavators Dump Trucks and Crane Trucks will be used for the Bridge To Box Culvert Replacement 4 Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? El Y es No El Unknown Comments 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final of determination was made? 4c If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company Name (if known) Jay B Johnson Other NCDOT 4d If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation August 2011 5 Project History 5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for El Yes ®No El Unknown this project (including all prior phases) in the past? 5b If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions Page 3 of 11 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version 4 Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of the U S then individually list all open water impacts below 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e Open water Name of waterbody impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Temporary 01 ❑P ❑T 02 ❑P ❑T 03 ❑P ❑T 04 ❑P ❑T 417 Total open water impacts None 4g Comments None 5 Pond or Lake Construction Y If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below 5a 5b Sc 5d 5e Pond ID Proposed use or purpose Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland number of pond (acres) Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 5f Total None 5g Comments None 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes permit ID no 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) 51 Size of pond watershed (acres) 5k Method of construction 6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form 6a El Neuse ® Tar Pamlico ❑ Other None Project is in which protected basin? El Catawba ❑ Randleman 6b 6c 6d 6e 6f 6g Buffer impact number — Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Temporary impact 131 ®P ❑ T B4 Fill -required? Kit Swamp ® Nos 600 Sq Ft 410 Sq Ft B2 ❑P ❑T ❑Yes ❑ No B3 ❑P ❑T El Yes ❑ No 6h Total buffer impacts 2295 Sq Ft 1580 Sq Ft 61 Comments 0 05 Buffer Zone 1 Impacts and 0 03 Acre of Buffer Zone 2 Impacts Pagwf of 10 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version Page 7 of 11 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version D Impact Justification and Mitigation 1 Avoidance and Minimization 1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project There are No Wetland Impacts for this Project Therefore The Wetland Impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible with no impacts occurring on the project The Above Ground Water Line will be Relocated and Installed by Directional Bore with the Launching and Receiving Pits Located in Uplands and No 404 Wetland Impacts and No Buffer Impacts will be affected 1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques Use of existing roadway to operate construction equipment no equipment will enter wetlands 2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? ❑ Yes ® No 2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps 2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this projects El bank El El to in lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) E pe 7--7Quanbty 3c Comments 4 Complete if Malung a Payment to In lieu Fee Program 4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached ❑ Yes 4b Stream mitigation requested linear feet 4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold 4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only) square feet 4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested acres 4h Comments 5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan Page 7 of 11 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version 6 Buffer Mrttgatfon (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ 6a Will the protect result in an impact vwthin a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ® No buffer mitigaboO 6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the amount of mitigation required 6c 6d 6e Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 15 6f Total buffer mibgabon required None 6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund) WA 6h Comments Page 8 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version E Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1 Diffuse Flow Plan 1a Does the protect include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ® Yes ❑ No lb If yes then is a ddfim flow plan included? If no explain why Comments The Project will be De- Watered Water will be pumped around the ® Yes ❑ No installation site into a diffuser bag and a Sediment Bag Silt fence and wattles will be used on this project Existing Roadside ditches will remain in place 2 Stormwater Management Plan 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this projects N/A Roadway /Bndge Protect % 2b Does this protect require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ❑ No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why 2d If this protect DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan The Protect will be De- Watered Water will be pumped around the installation site into a diffuser bag and a Sediment Bag Silt fence and wattles will be used on this project Existing Roadside ditches will remain in place ❑ Certified Local Government 2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program ® DWQ 401 Unit 3 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a In which local government s jurisdiction is this project? N/A ❑ Phase II 3b Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW apply (check all that apply) ❑ USMP ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other N/A 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ® No attached9 4 DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑ Coastal counties 4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ HQW ❑ ORW (check all that apply) ❑ Session Law 2006 246 ® Other NPDES Permit 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached9 ❑ Yes ® No 5 DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements'> ❑ Yes ❑ No 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 9 of 11 PCN Form —Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version F Supplementary Information 1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) 1a Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /stateRocal) funds or the Yes El No use of public (federal /state) land lb If you answered yes to the above does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ® No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? 1c If you answered 'yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (if so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter ) ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments 2 Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards ❑ Yes ® No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)? 2b Is this an after the -fact permit application? ❑ Yes ® No 2c if you answered yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violabon(s) 3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description 4 Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project or available capacity of the subject facility N/A Page 10 of 11 PCN Form —Version 13 December 10 2008 Version 5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or El Yes 0 N habitats 5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act El ® No impacts 5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted El Raleigh ❑ Asheville 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Cntical Habitat? Determination was made by Mr Travis Wilson NCWRC June 30 2011 6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? Mr Travis Wilson NCWRC 7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑Yes ® No status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? Historic Architecture and Archaeology PDEA NCDOT 8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA designated 100 year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No 8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements Pipe designed to no-nse standards 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Maps Jay B Johnson / QF,/�17ji�. November 2 2011 Applicant/Agents Printed Name Date Applicant/Agenfs? Signature (Agents signature is valid only h an authorization letter from t applicant is provided Page 11 of 11 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version Moratorium Craven 19 Part 1 of 2 txt From Wilson, Travis W Sent Thursday June 30 2011 11 52 AM To Sutton Michael W Cc Johnson, Jay B Subject RE Craven 19 Part 1 of 2 WRC does not request an in -water work moratorium for this project Also I would really like to see this structure prior to installation if possible i think it may be beneficial to consider for wildlife crossing applications on other projects but i would like to get a good look at it - - - -- Original Message---- - From Sutton, Michael W Sent Wednesday, June 15 2011 6 08 PM To Wilson, Travis W Cc Johnson, Jay B Subject Craven 19 Part 1 of 2 Good Afternoon Mr Travis Division 2 plans to replace Craven 19, an Existing Timber Bridge with a proposed Aluminum Box culvert we would like to know if a Moratorium exists in this location Attached are maps for your use Many Thanks mike Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties Page 1 Page 1 of 1 From Lane, Stephen Sent Friday, June 24, 20114 41 PM To Sutton Michael W Cc Johnson Jay B Subject Craven Bridge 19 Hi Mike, I have visited Craven Bridge 19 on SR1003 over Kit Swamp and determined that it is not within a CAMA AEC Therefore a CAMA Permit will not be required for this bridge replacement project Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance with this project Sincerely, Stephen Lane Coastal Management Representative * * * ** Note new E -mail Address is Stephen Lane@ncdenr gov * * * ** E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties file //S \SRIP- Env \CRAVEN\Bndge Replacements \Craven 19 \CAMA Junsdichon \CAMA Junsdic 11/3/2011 Project Tracking No (Internal Use) 11 -07 -0035 NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM PROJECT INFORMATION Project No N/A County Craven WBSNo 2B 202521 Document Minimum Criteria Sheet FA No N/A Funding ® State ❑ Federal Federal (USA CE) Permit Requtred2 ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type RGP 31 Project Description The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No 19 on SR 1003 (Aurora Road) over Kit Swamp The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is deftned as a 400 fool (12192 m) long corridor running 200 feet (60 96 m) north and 200 feet (60 96 m) south along SR 1003 from the center of Bridge No 19 The corridor is approximately 100 feet (30 48 m) wide extending 50 feet (1 S 24 m) east and 50 feet (15 24 m) west from the present center of SR 1003 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities results of review and conclusions The project area is north of New Bern and the Neuse River and just east of NC 17 in the northeastern portion of Craven County North Carolina (Figure 1) The project area is found on the Askins USGS 7 5 topographic quadrangle A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 5 2011 It was found that the replacement of Bridge No 19 in Craven County had been previously reviewed by OSA in 2008 (ER 08 -2770) (Attachment 1) No archaeological survey was recommended Additional research revealed no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the APE and only one site (31CV244) within a mile of the project area Also no existing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) State Study Listed (SL) Locally Designated (LD) Determined Eligible (DE) or Surveyed Site (SS) properties are within APE However a Surveyed Site property the Barney Fuller House is north of the APE and east of the intersection of SR 1003 and SR 1627 (Great Swamp Road) Due to its location it very unlikely that archaeological resources associated with this property will be found within the current APE Other informational resources such as topographic maps USDA soil survey maps aerial photographs (Google and NCDOT) historic maps (North Carolina maps website) and Google street view map application were utilized confirm OSA original recommendation Bridge No 19 crosses over Kit Swamp roughly north to south (Figure 2) The project area is situated primarily within the floodplain but the northern end of the APE is located along a terrace The entire APE is also forested The road within the floodplain is elevated along an earthen embankment This occurs primarily south of the bridge Kit Swamp drains to the north and is a tributary of the Little Swift Creek The waterways are part of the Neuse drainage basin A review of the USDA soil survey map indicates that two soil series are present within the APE (see Figure 2) The floodplain is composed of Masontown mucky fine sandy loam and Muckalee sandy loam (Mm) These are hydric soils that floods frequently They are unsuitable for significant archaeological sites due to persistent wetness The terrace to the north consists of Goldsboro loamy fine sand This is a moderately well drained soil located on 0 to 2 percent slope Significant archaeological sites have been identified within this soil series but the area being impacted by the bridge replacement is minimal 11 -07 -0035 Only one previously identified archaeological sites 3 ICV244 is found within a mile of the project area It is located to the west on Conetoe loamy sandy (CnB) along a terrace at the confluence of two unnamed streams The site yielded Middle Woodland pottery and debitage and 20`h century window glass and ceramics The site has been recommended as ineligible for the NRHP The lack of archeological sites in the area is not due to a lack of investigations Several archaeological investigations have been conducted in the nearby vicinity with few if any sites identified This suggests site density is low in the project vicinity Once more it seems unlikely for asignificant archaeological site to be present with the APE based upon previous work m the general area The earliest map to depict the project area with any accuracy is from the Confederate Engineer Bureau and dates to circa 1864 (Figure 3) It shows a road with an alignment similar to SR 1003 and a crossing over Kit Swamp It also illustrates a community of homes to the north of the project area All potential historic archaeological resources appear outside of the APE Subsequent maps from the early 20'h century show few new details The USGS 1902 Vanceboro map labels the cluster of homes to the north as the community of Askin and identifies no features within the APE (Figure 4) The 1929 soil survey map for Craven County shows the community of Askin as relocated to the west of the project area (Figure 5) This was likely done in order to be near the new railroad Again no structures are plotting within the APE It seems from the review of historic maps that no historic archaeological deposits should be affected by the proposed bridge replacement Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No 19 is located within the floodplain and along a terrace It is unlikely intact and significant archaeological deposits will be present in this area This is primarily due to the small scope of the proposed bridge replacement at its existing location which is unlikely to cause any major impact to undisturbed properties In addition soils within the area are generally hydric and the persistent wetness throughout most of the year is undesirable for significant archaeological sites Also site density appears low within the vicinity of the project Lastly the review of historic maps suggests no former historic structures are present within the APE This review of the proposed replacement of Bridge No 19 in Craven concurs with OSA pervious recommendation As long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the defined APE no further archaeological work is recommended If construction should affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE further archaeological consultation might be necessary SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos, Correspondence Photocopy of notes from county survey FINDING BY NCDOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL NO SURVEY REQUIRED ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE (CIRCLE ONE) C Darn,6n—Jones / NCDOT Cultural Resources Specialist 8/9/11 Date tj One Mile Radius (Shaded) �, t _ t Around Prgect Area ► ` �/ ZT- I l l /ry {1 may,_ -- •. • 5 +r } � �t es - _ - .p. - a yys- nS ry r rte' \ �, �1 v � 4 kin O 4 Bridge 19 Project Area x 11-070035 �. w N Figure I Topographic Setting of Project Area Askins (1978 photorevised 1983) NC USGS 7 S Topographic Quadrangles 3 a .r/ { Ly xz GeA t i t (• � �ge tf F 7 " 1 � 1 } i r `trn Aid -, ar 4� • / i � Y• � � r Yx s� 11-070035 Ngure 3 Circa 1864 Confederate Engineer Bureau map showing the project area. QL V, � .� a IS — .�r-M 1� ti � i 111 A+r- -• # t u�� y f1 � � � �Yi�• — ° ° t i Project Area - atli) r figure 4 1902 USUS Vanceboro map showing the project area 5 11-070035 rigure .) 1919 soil map of Craven County showuig the project area Tracking N ER 08 2770 Other 11 s Count) Craven Appheatu NCDOT Project Bridge 19 on SR 1003 over Fork of Little Swift Creek 8-4924 hrrttallV 11/14/200 Curretaltl 11/14/2008 Cltetrt 11/13/2008 DU Program DOT To A/S Info Reg B) Info Type 11 -07 -0035 Struu, 12/5/2008 OUT 11/20/2008 Risen ed F! I INFO Archaeolontt Surve;lRest Sun ey Reg lJy Peport Report Teatmg Reg B) Report Report Hraga�ton By Report Report 11 DoE UNK Cffect Bib K Site's 0 Forms I/V Quads Askm Acres Mks 019 Notes �C Project irta Vap ' J DoE N'R Nap Cleared Archaeolog► 11/19/2008 L Sine) Area Map [1 llurofithed Clearer/Sune) 11/14/2008 Re►ru►t.r(s) LEA/CRS Comments Arch Comments 11/17/08 Recd scoping Due 1215/08 To LEA 8JS 11/19/08 Reviewed the project and checked the quad map No previously recorded archaeological saes noted within the project area A large portion of the surrounding area is developed residentially It is unlikely that a NRHP significant archaeological site will be impacted by this undertak,rg An archaeological survey is not recommerded No Comment LEA Survey Comments 11/14/08 Checked maps & bndge inventory No historic properties affected Cleared No comment CRSHPO Comments Attachment 1 A copy of OSA s review of the proposed replacement of Bridge No 19 on SR 1003 over Kit Swamp 11 Project Tracking No (Internal Use) (HA)11 -07 -0035 NO PREHISTORIC OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT /AFFECTED FORM PROJECT INFORMATION Project No County Craven WBS No 2B 202521 Document FA No Funding X State Federal Federal (USACE) Permit Required? X Yes ❑ No Permit Type RGP 31 and CAMA Project Description Replace Bridge No 19 on SR 1003 (Aurora Road) over Kit Swamp with box culvert, no off -site detour SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCD07) reviewed the subject project and determined Historic Arch itecture/Landscapes There are no National Register listed or Study Listed properties within the project s area of potential effects There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the project s area of potential effects ❑ There are no properties within the project s area of potential effects ❑ There are properties over fifty years old within the area of potential effects but they do not meet the criteria for listing on the National Register ❑ All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered and all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121 12(a) has been completed for this project X There are no historic properties present or affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed) Archaeology ❑ There are no National Register listed or Study Listed properties within the project s area of potential effects ❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations are 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 There are no historic properties present or affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed) No Hest c Propert es P e t form fo Meno T ansportanon Projects a Qua! f ed in the 2007 Prog ammat c Agreeme t X-DOT A chaeology & Hesto c Architect re Groups SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities results of review and conclusions HPOWeb reviewed on 9 August 2011 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, or DE properties and one SS property (the Barney Fuller House (CV 1015)) in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) The APE is centered on existing Bridge No 19 and extends 100 feet from the centerline to the SE and NW and 600 feet from the center of the existing bridge to the NE and SW to encompass proposed construction activities Craven County current GIS mapping, aenal photography, and tax information (viewed 9 August 2011) indicate cultivated, wooded, and developed parcels and two parcels containing pre 1960 resources (Parcel #s 2-041086 and 2 042 050) in the APE Each of the latter contains a barn, dated respectively to circa 1950 and circa 1940, located well outside the APE and no other resources of concern The Barney Fuller House (CV 1015), located by the state architectural survey southeast of the Aurora Road /Great Swamp Road intersection, apparently no longer stands These conclusions are supported by Googie Maps Street View (viewed 9 August 2011) The comprehensive county survey, while not recent, is well executed and reliable, no properties located in the APE are identified in the survey publication (Peter B Sandbedc The HistoncArobltecture ofNew Bem and craven County North Caro/ma (New Bern Tryon Palace Commission 1988)) Constructed in 1950 and largely rebuilt in 1972, Bridge No 19 is a 3S foot long two-span, timber stnnger /multi beam bridge not eligible for the National Register according to the NCDOT Historic Bridge Survey as it is not historically, architecturally, or technologically significant As the project is state funded GS 121 -12(a) applies, in addition, its one Federal permit area is subject also to Section 106 review The APE does not contain properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, nor are there critical resources in the permit area A finding of no historic properties affected will satisfy both GS 121 12(a) and Section 106 compliance requirements If any design elements of the project change, including improvements associated with an off- site detour should one be needed, please notify NCDOT Historic Architecture as additional review may be necessary SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached Location map Signed Cultural Resources Specialist, NCDOT No H to c Propert P e ent form for M nor Transportation Prod cis as Oual fed th 1007 Programmatic Agreement NCDOT Archaeology & Hi torte Arch tecture Gr p Date 4 I I � I I I � SSSSS683g4S�StE�$s$$DGN$$$$! �fiy�rrww � I rnrn rn o m � n Q) II g p� oho O I I I"n m CD r2ri Qz o o� ~ O \ � n Lo L� 0 L'i N = W I 0 0 o 0 LA rnon r Z rn O O a_' CA N CD grn N / � I (031V30O 38 39 01) 3NIl �31bM 0/V I N -I z 0 0 D c O m D m l l G)l mlv r N W O O ---I X O m V) DX cn m * N D O D 21 1 M, ct� NEMMONS tA iA o y N N ~ coif `� � o cs n y :b � I�i n c~� n C „ � Q) o � 5i�� o R� CZ :b 7N- CA O vrn> o D N to Z Z9 + y O m $ Ts roll o v, CA MS 11� + -� O I 1$ :E m O X p N o -� C/) z C) x 22 62b :ANI Mici o Tq + tis o (W 4-DC) pawnssy) W9 60 o0S = n3�3 w p0 99 6Z +01 y Cz nom, U,rn Z8 r-q co cz I C N Ze 2% rn m W N�O �� o z N rn -70 N u ,off N IN) rn �y rn N rrl � o U) �rn o �j n ~ y ~ � n O rn C) ~ (~ II O II II II nl � Q y >� (.31 N O U) Z If k �rn�� r Z �� O �o�Z=ZL O O N of o m �:b S' zrn N �70 :10 rn Z 1 � � rn I y y c tn n y If rn O 4 N -I z 0 0 D c O m D m l l G)l mlv r N W O O ---I X O m V) DX cn m * N D O D 21 1 M, ct� NEMMONS tA iA o y N N ~ coif `� � o cs n y :b � I�i n c~� n C „ � Q) o � 5i�� o R� CZ :b 7N- CA O vrn> o D N to Z Z9 + y O m $ Ts roll o v, CA MS 11� + -� O I 1$ :E m O X p N o -� C/) z C) x 22 62b :ANI Mici o Tq + tis o r u . rV� I � ' g 6 ur C g g O N N N p0 y Cz nom, U,rn m C N y oN N Z Z � O N�O �� o R' rn N o R ,off N IN) rn �y C U) �rn C �j n ~ Fj + ~ y y Q) cn O rn If II O If O n N O U) N O r u . rV� I � ' g 6 ur C g g O n �N y nom, '� a cs 2 g O C 4 C � A Ri 0