The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140640 Ver 1_Application_2014062306/23/14 1 of 4 MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is required to prepare environmental documents for state-funded construction and maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either “Yes” or “No”. Complete Part D of the checklist when Minimum Criteria Rule categories #8, 12(i) or #15 are used. TIP Project No.: State Project No.:17BP.3.R.26 Project Location: On SR 1102 Morgan Road at 0.1 miles north of NC 210 in Pender County Project Description: Replace Pender County Bridge 144 with a bridge Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: Special Project Information: Permits from NCDCM, USACE, and NCDWQ are anticipated. 06/23/14 2 of 4 PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO 1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not required? If the answer to number 1 is “no”, then the project does not qualify as a minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required. If yes, under which category? 9 If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist. PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS Items 2 – 4 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO 2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use concentrations tha t would be expected to create adverse air quality impacts? 3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health or the environment? 4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department? Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. 5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value? 6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list? 7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or ground water impacts? 06/23/14 3 of 4 YES NO 8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on long -term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their natural habitats If any questions 2 through 8 are answered “yes”, the proposed project may not qualify as a Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For assistance, contact: Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733 –3141 Fax: (919) 733-9794 PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Items 9- 12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. YES NO 9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action? 10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent fill in waters of the United States? 11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as mountain bogs or pine savannahs? 12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act? Items 13 – 15 to be completed by the Engineer. 13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes? Cultural Resources 14. Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? 15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas? Questions in Part “C” are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource agency may be required. If any questions in Part “C” are answered “yes”, follow the appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction. 06/23/14 4 of 4 PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are used.) Items 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. 16. Project length: 0.090 miles 17. Right of Way width: varies 18. Project completion date: uncertain 19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground surface: ~0.7 20. Total acres of wetland impacts: 0.17 21. Total linear feet of stream impacts: 0 22. Project purpose: Preserve the safety and mobility of the traveling public If Part D of the checklist is completed, send a copy of the entire checklist document to: Don G. Lee State Roadside Environmental Engineer Mail Service Center 1557 Raleigh, NC 27699-1557 (919) 733-2920 Fax (919) 733-9810 Email: dlee@dot.state.nc.us Reviewed by: Date: Lead Engineer Date: Division Environmental Officer “No Historic Properties Present” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Groups 11-08-0084 PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: Str.700144 County: Pender WBS No: 17BP.3.R.20 Document: PCE or Min. Criteria Checklist F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal Federal (USACE) Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP3 or NWP14 Project Description: Bridge No. 144 on SR 1102 (Morgan Road) over Colly Creek is to be replaced in kind while making use of an off-site detour. There will be minor ditch-line impacts. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) should be 75’ either way from the centerline of the bridge and 300’ from either end of the bridge. The bridge was originally built in 1945 and is in poor condition so it has been selected to be replaced under the State Funded Bridge Replacement Program-Design-Build Year 1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) reviewed the subject project and determined: Historic Architecture/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. 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) Project Tracking No. (Internal Use) NO PREHISTORIC OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT/AFFECTED FORM “No Historic Properties Present” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Groups SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Thursday, September 1, and Friday, September 2, 2011. A comprehensive archaeological survey at this particular bridge location has never been conducted; however, five (5) archaeological sites have been recorded within one (1) mile of the proposed project although four (4) of those sites are submerged resources along the banks of the Black River. The other remaining archaeological site is located directly north of the proposed project on the upland terrace above Colly Creek. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (Point Caswell Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were reviewed on Thursday, September 15, 2011. There are no known histor ic architectural resources located within the project area that may have intact archaeological deposits 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. As stated in the Survey Required Form for this project, “Based on soils information, contours, and the presence of an archaeological site on the terrace overlooking Colly Creek on the North side, the southern terrace of Colly Creek may have the potential for containing intact archaeological materials. Although there currently is no design for this particular project, areas within the APE can be written off based on the presence of wetlands and inhospitable soils conditions. With these areas removed from the APE, what remains to be surveyed is the terrace along the southern edge of Colly Creek, which appears to be relatively level and wooded at this time . It should be noted that north of, and presumably outside the APE, may be structures associated with Colly Mill as depicted on the 1912 Pender County Soil Map. It should also be noted that Moores Creek National Military Park, commemorating the battle site of a 1776 American victory over Tory Highland Scots, is located approximately 3 miles Northeast of the proposed project. Therefore, an archaeological survey is recommended for this project. A visual inspection of the entire corridor should be conducted first, followed then by archaeological investigations along the southern terrace overlooking Colly Creek paralleling SR 1102. Should the description of this project or design plans change prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology may be required.” Field investigations of the APE were comprised of a pedestrian survey and subsurface testing to locate and assess potentially significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed bridge replacement project. The pedestrian survey and subsurface testing were conducted on the terraces adjacent to Bridge No. 144. No remains of mill structures or other associated mill dep osits were observed North of the project area. Subsurface testing in these alluvial settings was accomplished through the placement of four (4) shovel tests, two (2) in the SW quadrant and two (2) in the SE quadrant, with a 30-m interval. Testing did not occur within the NW or the NE quadrants based on the presence of standing water and riverine swamp forest. The subsurface tests were placed along the outer ROW for SR 1102 (Morgan Road) on the first terrace overlooking Colly Creek. Within the ROW, there is a buried fiber optic line located about nine feet off the edge of pavement within both the NE and SE quadrants. There is a small unnamed tributary of Colly Creek running parallel to SR 1102 in the SW quadrant, the presence of which explains the soil conditions within that particular quadrant and further suggests that the SW quadrant is subjected to a great deal of flooding. There is a difference of at least 10’ in elevation between the levels of the road surface and both southern quadrants. Overall, no archaeological deposits were identified within the proposed APE. Thus, no archaeological sites were identified, and no further archaeological work is recommended prior to construction. A finding of “no historic propertie s” is considered appropriate in association with this bridge replacement project. Should the description of this project or design plans change prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology may be required. Shovel Test Pit Discussion (see map for spatial reference): STP 1: 0-27cmbs, 10YR 2/1 SA SI, loose root mat; 27-36cmbs, 2.5YR 2.5/4 SA; 36-53cmbs, 7.5YR 5/6 SA; 53-76cmbs, 10YR 6/3 Coarse SA. Edge of terrace, sparsely wooded. Moisture increased with depth. No cultural material. STP 2: 0-90cmbs, 10YR 2/1. Loose root mat at top, with the amount of sand and moisture increasing with depth. Unnamed tributary located very close, which may explain the mucky nature of the soils throughout the shovel test. No cultural material. STP 3: 0-11cmbs, 10YR 2/1 SA, loose root mat; 11-32cmbs, 2.5YR 2.5/4 SA; 32-85cmbs, 10YR 6/3 Coarse SA. Edge of terrace, sparsely wooded. Moisture increased with depth. No cultural material. “No Historic Properties Present” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Groups STP 4: 0-26cmbs, 10YR 2/1 SA, loose root mat; 26-40cmbs, 2.5YR 2.5/4 SA; 40-58cmbs, 10YR 6/3 SA. No cultural material. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Figures, Photos Signed: November 17, 2011 Cultural Resources Specialist, NCDOT Date Figure 1: Point Caswell, N.C. (USGS 1983). Areas Investigated “No Historic Properties Present” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Groups Photo 1: Southeast Quadrant, looking North. Photo 2: Southwest Quadrant, looking North. “No Historic Properties Present” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Groups Photo 3: Northwest Quadrant, looking North. Photo 4:Northeast Quadrant, looking North. ! !! ! stp 2 stp 1 stp 3 stp 4 Mk AnB Lu Riverine Swamp Forest Riverine Swamp Forest Ut Colly Creek Colly Creek MORGAN Bridge No. 144 on SR 1102 Over Colly Creek Pender County !STP Streets HYARUT Soils_All con_pender_02 Wetlands_polys Named_streams Pender_2010Parcels ¯ 06012018024030 Feet Proj ect Tracking No. (Interna l Use) 1 11-08-0084 I NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM _1 PROJECT INFORMATION Proj ect No: Co unty : Brunswick WBSNo: 17BP .3.R.20 Do cum ent : PCE F.A . No : Funding: I:8'l State D Federal Federal (USACE) Permit Required? I:8'l Yes D No P ermit Typ e: NWP 3 & NWP 14 Proj ect D escription : Replace Brid ge No . 144 over Colly Creek on SR 1102 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Briefd escription ofr eview activities , results ofreview, and conclusions: Review ofHPO quad maps , relevant background reports, historic designations ro ster, and indexes was undertaken on September 8, 2011. Ba sed on this review, there were no existing NR , SL , LD , DE, or SS properties intheArea of Potential Effects(AP E). Aerial photographs andHPOGIS indicates thereareno structures intheAPE of the bridge replacement project. Survey Site number PD126B ethlehem Baptist Church is located more than 2000 northwe st ofthe bridge on NC 210 , well outside the project APE. BriefExplanation ofwhy th e available information provides a reliable basis for r easonably predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE: Using HPO GIS website and Google Street view provide reliable information regarding the structures in the APE . These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Maps FINDING BY NCDOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL NO SURVEY REQUIRED 8-Wl Date "No S urvey Required"f orm for Minor Tran sp ortationProje cts a sQualified inthe2007Prog rammatic Ag reement . NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Group s so - <.9 o o, >..... C :::J o o l- Q) "'0 C Q) Q.. I Lyon Swamp Canal Buckle Swamp Creek BRIDGE 144Colly C r e e k B l a c k B ig B ranch R i v e r SR 1102 (Morgan R d) S R 1 1 0 4 ( C a n e t u c k Rd) P oint Caswell R d Bridge 144Pender County North Carolina SHEET 1 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Express Design - Build Bridge ProgramDivision 3 NCDOTDivision of Highways Wilmington Boiling Spring Lakes Oak Island Northwest Surf City Bolton Belville Shallotte Leland Sandyfield Caswell Beach Bald Head Island Navassa Holden Beach Sunset Beach Southport East Arcadia Carolina Beach Wrightsville Beach Topsail Beach Holly RidgeSaint Helena Bolivia Varnumtown Kure Beach Sandy Creek North Topsail Beach BRUNSWICK VICINITY MAP Colly Creek NC 210 Pender 144 Project SR 1102 Morgan Road 1102 1 1 0 4 Morgan Rd NC-210 C a n etu c k R d NC-210 210 Pender Bridge 144 Replacement ProjectAerial Photo MapPender County ¹ 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Feet Colly Creek NC 210 Pender 144 Project SR 1102 Morgan Road 1102 1 1 0 4 Morgan Rd NC-210 C a n etu c k R d NC-210 210 Pender Bridge 144 Replacement ProjectTopo MapPender County ¹ 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Feet