Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7919-D Application 1•Y "_' "� Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Development Phone. (501)371-4790 Fax: (501)371-4546 Building Codes Mr. William Wiedower Heiple+Wiedower Architects May 27, 2021 7325 Rockwood Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Re: The Residences at Harbor Town PCD Amendment - Building 7 Dear Bill, Based on previous correspondence and recent information you've provided th Planning & Development Department herebya e Little Rack 4/26/2021 and your May 25 2021 cover letter and r attachments, revzinc including sed PCD he 51 dated "Elevation Survey Building 7" drawing. 9 1812021 7 only, and specifically limit the building height to33 50 ochanges ee#Harbor Town Building building slab. high, relative to the As requested, you provided information indicating the number of Building 7 dwelling units with no setback encroachments site structures and circulation will remain unchanged notable deviation from the prior approved PCD/master plan. or other Finally, with said May 25, 2021 letter you provided information regardin FAA h location allowances pursuant to existing HUD mortgage guarantees for the Har Project; this information addresses the Building 7 location Tela • g eight and runway clear zones. Despite having no input from the FAA n Harbor Town relative #v Clinton National Airport Commission, this office believes you have supplied adequate in ormation t i aal Airport proposed changes to Building 7 will pose no affect upon the airport, its air space, or the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Note: any conflict, damage or injury to life arro e rty associated with Town Building 7 shall be the responsibility of the Harbor Town owne () s I and ant of Harbor Parties; the City of Little Rock shall assume no liability in such matter. affected This interpretation and approval pertains only to the drawings and written mate above. Of course, all other criteria and processes pursuant to currently approved lala stated and subsequent issuance of a building permit apply - Please use Please submit a copy of this letter with other attachments when applyingfor a permit. Meanwhile, feel free to contact me withgarding this questions or comments e related matters. g or Sincerely, I i "4 y t Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager cc: Jamie Collins, Monte Moore, file H W Heiple Wiedower A r c h 1 t e c t s May 25, 2021 Tim Herndon, Development Manager City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: The Residences at Harbor Town PCD amendment Tim: First, let me thank you for your help with our adjustment to the original PCD for this project, specifically the revisions to Building 7, As per our telephone conversation last week, I am attaching a number of documents that back up my request for these changes to be done administratively. As we discussed, in my attempt to avoid the undue delays that could be caused by trying to get a letter from the FAA regarding whether this building height would have an affect on the flight paths at the Bill & Hillary Clinton Airport, I am providing you with a number of documents that were required by HUD before they approved this project. I will list the documents and their relevance. l . This project is a HUD 221 d4 program project, which is a guaranteed loan program called "Multifamily Accelerated Processing". This means that HUD is not loaning any money but rather is guaranteeing the loan from a mortgage company. If the owner (John Burkhalter) defaults on the loan, the HUD takers over the project and sells it to another party. Because Of that, HUD is very cautious in approving these projects. They require an extensive review Process, one port of which is an Environmental Review, which includes a review of the site location in relationship to any local airports. I have included a copy of the Map Guide requirements, specifically as to what review is required. Section "M" in the Environmental Chapter 9.5 lays out the HUD requirements, which are stated in Federal Statute CFR 24 Part 51 Subpart D, I have attached a copy of the statute, and the FAA Regulation CPR 14 part 152, which defines what a "Runway Clear Zone of an airport is. 2. As part of the application to HUD for this program, the owner had to have a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. This was prepared by EBI Consulting, from Burlington, Mass. I have attached the pertinent sections of this report as to the proximity to the Airport. The HUD requirement is that the property be beyond 2500 feet of a civil airport's "Runway Clear Zone, as defined in the above referenced Regulation CFR 14 Part 152. The worksheets done by EBI show that the property is beyond the 2500 feet. The environmental report also has maps and photos of the subject site and it's proximity to the Airport. These are not very clear, so I printed a Google Earth photo showing the some, with the distances to the runways shown. 3. The final item is a survey done by Holloway Engineers showing the maximum height of the Building 7 in relationship to the High Voltage transmission lines just to the east of the Property. As you can see, the top of the towers are 21 feet higher than the top of the building. I hope this information will give the City the necessary coverage for your concerns. And once again, thank you for your help with this matter. Sincerely, V� William Wiedower AIA, LEED AP 7325 Rockwood Street Little Rock, AR 72207 501 681-7031 I City of Little Rock Planning and Development Filing Fees, Date LT 24 i Annexation Board of Ad' �ustment ' Cond Use Permit/T U P Final Plat Planned Unit Dev Preliminaiy $ Plat Special Use Permit Rezoning $ Site Plans Sti eet Name Change Street Naive Signs $ Number _—at ea $ Public Hearing Signs Number— a#4w-ea $' Total $ File No Lo Ap By tri , ouS1NG Aiw C� 1/'16 1-11 2016 MAP Guide Cover Sheet O1L 6VtC� 6o0K I� 0 FRI9 MULTIFAMILY ACCELERATED PROCESSING (MAP) Guide Revised January 29, 2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing - FHA Commissioner Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 539.5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The information is being collected for consideration of the endorsement for insurance by the Secretary or in consideration of the consent of the Secretary to the transfer of the mortgaged property or the sale and conveyance of the mortgaged property by the Secretary, and in order to comply with the requirements of the National Housing Act. The information will be used by HUD to ensure that viable projects are developed. This agency may not collect this information, and you are not required to complete this form, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Privacy Act Notice: The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, is authorized to solicit the information requested in the form by virtue of Title 12, United States Code, Section 1701 seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder at Title 12 Code of Federal Regulation. While no assurance of confidentiality is pledged to respondents, HUD generally discloses this data only in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. OMB Number: 2502-0541, Expiration Date: March 31, 2017 OMB Approval No. 2502-0001- HUD -92417; OMB Approval No. 2502-0005 — HUD -92001 B; OMB Approval No. 2502-0009 — HUD 11; OMB Approval No. 2502-0010 — HUD -92457; OMB Approval No. 2502-0011— HUD -92437; HUD -92441; HUD -92442; HUD -92442A; HUD -2880; OMB Approval No. 2502-0013 — HUD -935.2A; OMB Approval No. 2502-0016 — HUD -92023; OMB Approval No. 2502-0018 — HUD -92464; OMB Approval No. 2502-0028 — HUD -92448; OMB Approval No. 2502-0029 — HUD -2010, HUD -92013, HUD -92013 SUPP, HUD -92264, HUD -92264T, HUD -92264A, HUD -92273, HUD -92274, HUD -92326, HUD -92329, HUD -92331, HUD -92415, HUD -92447, HUD -92452, HUD -92485, HUD -2880, HUD -92466, HUD -92466R-1, HUD - 92466 R-2, HUD -92466 R-3; OMB Approval No. 2502-0044 — FHA -2205A, HUD -2328, HUD -92330A; OMB Approval No. 2502-0057 — HUD -3433, HUD 3434, HUD 3435; OMB Approval No. 2502-0097 — HUD -92403; OMB Approval No. 2502-0112 — HUD -92330; OMB Approval No. 2502-0118 — HUD - 2530; OMB Approval No. 2502-0305 — HUD -9832, HUD -983913, HUD -9839C; OMB Approval No. 2060-0347 — Portfolio Manager (EPA) Related to energy usage and consumption characteristics; OMB Approval No. 2502-0468 — FHA -3259; OMB Approval No. 2502-0470 — HUD -2554, HUD -92476A; OMB Approval No. 2502-0505 — Capital Needs Assessment CNA e Tool; OMB Approval No. 2502-0541— Chapter 2 of the Guide — MAP Lender Approval, HUD -4128; Mortgagee Letter 2009-27 - Chapter 9 of the Guide — Environmental Requirements. MAP Guide, January 2016 Bookmarked version, r 1.1, page 1 of 534 Go to Chapter Index / Section Index L Chapter Title: Subsection MAP Guide Chapter Index Chapter Index Go to hanter Index / Section Index Document page 2 MAP Guide Chapter Index Chapter Index 2016 MAP GUIDE COVER SHEET.......................................................................................................................1 MAPGUIDE CHAPTER INDEX.............................................................................................................................2 MAP GUIDE CHAPTER AND SECTION INDEX.................................................................................................4 CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2 LENDER AND UNDERWRITER QUALIFICATIONS........................................................... 20 CHAPTER3 PROGRAMS.................................................................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER 4 APPLICATION PROCESSING................................................................................................... 95 CHAPTER 5 ARCHITECTURAL & CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ...........................................................104 CHAPTER6 FORMERLY COST....................................................................................................................161 CHAPTER 7 VALUATION ANALYSIS & MARKET STUDY GUIDANCE...............................................162 CHAPTER 8 MORTGAGE CREDIT................................................................................................................234 CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS .......................................................296 CHAPTER 10 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS..................................................................................................341 CHAPTER 11 LENDER UNDERWRITING, HUD REVIEW AND CLOSING MATTERS.....................350 CHAPTER 12 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD....................................................................................................367 CHAPTER 13 COST CERTIFICATION.........................................................................................................411 CHAPTER 14 LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) AND OTHER TAX CREDIT PROGRAMGUIDANCE......................................................................................................................................457 MAP Guide, January 2016 Bookmarked version, r 1.1, page 2 of 534 Go to Chapter Index /Section Index Chapter Title: Chapter 9 Environmental Review and Requirements Subsection Designation: 9.5 Environmental Report Go to Chanter Index / Section Index Document page 318 Any effect on project marketability, value or rents due to the need for continuous monitoring/mitigation must be quantified and discussed in the appraisal. D. Management, Coordination and Communication. The Department assumes greater risk in cases involving environmental mitigation that will occur after Initial Endorsement especially when mortgage proceeds are used to fund the cost of remediation. Extra attention must be given to the need for frequent communication, preferably with written documentation, between disciplines that are coordinated by team leaders and Multifamily Regional Center Directors relating to levels of contamination, cost estimates and the certainty of the effectiveness of mitigation. E. Insurance/Guarantee Requirements. Borrowers are required to obtain separate insurance for environmental hazards from an insurer acceptable to HUD if remediation work will be done on the site during the insured loan period, if the coverage is available. Environmental hazard insurance typically covers liability and cost of completion. The environmental remediation contractor will almost always be different from the project's general contractor. Aside from the contractor qualifications, licensure and bonding that are addressed above, the remediation contractor must provide HUD a separate guarantee of completion for their work on a form prescribed by HUD. 9.5 Environmental Report The lender must submit a narrative Environmental Report to provide information regarding compliance with the NEPA environmental factors, the laws and authorities listed at 24 CFR 50.4, and the HUD - specific requirements described herein, as applicable, as well as any issues that might affect the acceptability of the project, including any issues of compliance with state environmental laws. Each authority must be addressed, unless a CE applies (see 9.1.A.4 and 9.1.A.5, above) or an exception is otherwise noted below. If a CE or other exception applies, the application or Environmental Report must include a statement to that effect. The Environmental Report must include and appropriately cite supporting documentation. The failure to submit applicable supporting documentation may cause delays in the environmental review process. The information below provides background information on some of these authorities; more information can be found in the authorities. The Environmental Report must be submitted at pre -application for those MAP Guide, January 2016 Bookmarked version, r 1.1, page 318 of 534 Go to Chapter Index/ Section Index Chapter Title: Chapter 9 Environmental Review and Requirements Subsection Designation: 9.5 Environmental Report Go to Chanter Index / &wrion Index Document page 319 lenders using the pre -application process, or at the application for Firm Commitment stage for others. HUD may request additional data or studies to comply with these requirements. The following environmental issues must be included as applicable: A. Lead -Based Paint B. Asbestos C. Radon D. Historic Preservation E. Floodplain Management F. Wetlands Protection G. Endangered Species H. Noise Analysis I. Explosive/Flammable Hazards J. Coastal Barrier Resources K. Coastal Zone Management L. Sole Source Aquifers M. Airport Clear Zones N. Environmental Justice O. Other Federal or State Laws P. Additional Hazards and Nuisances The issues discussed in detail below must be analyzed by HUD staff during their preparation of the environmental review in HEROS - Form HUD -4128 and provide guidance by which the lender can assist HUD. These brief descriptions are not substitutes for the requirements in the statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and handbooks. Note that "Toxic Chemicals and Radioactive Materials" should be included in the Phase I ESA discussed above. MAP Guide, January 2016 Bookmarked version, r 1.1, page 319 of 534 co to Chapter Index/ Section Index Chapter Title: Chapter 9 Environmental Review and Requirements Subsection Designation: 9.5 Environmental Report Go to Chanter Index / Section Index K. Coastal Zone Management (24 CFR 50.4(c)(2)). Document page 337 Projects located within a state's coastal management zone must be determined to be consistent with the approved state Coastal Zone Management program. In many states, HUD will require a letter from the State Coastal Zone Management Agency confirming consistency with the approved program. Mortgagees should be aware of the extent of coastal management zones in coastal states and contact the field office early when examining a proposal in a coastal zone. L. Sole Source Aquifers (24 CFR 50.4(d)). An aquifer is an underground body of water usually kept in place by rock, gravel, or sand. New construction and some rehabilitation projects located within the boundaries of the recharge area of a designated sole source aquifer must be reviewed by EPA for their potential to contaminate the sole source aquifer. HUD offices will identify the local, state or Federal agency with maps of sole source aquifers. M. Runway Clear Zone, Runway Protection Zones, Clear Zone, or Accident Potential Zone (24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D). 1. HUD standards regarding the acceptability of property located in Runway Clear Zones (also known as Runway Protection Zones), Clear Zones, and Accident Potential Zones are found at 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D. An Accident Potential Zone is an area at military airfields that is beyond the Clear Zone. 2. Construction or major rehabilitation of any property located within a Clear Zone is prohibited. Acquisition, and refinance of projects within Clear Zones are allowed with some restrictions. HUD must determine that projects located in Accident Potential Zones are generally consistent with Department of Defense land use compatibility guidelines for Accident Potential Zones. 3. HUD, as part of its environmental review for an existing property, shall advise the lender who will advise the mortgagor purchasing the property that the property is in a Runway Clear Zone, Clear Zone, and what the implications of such a location are. The mortgagor purchasing the property must sign a statement acknowledging receipt of this information. HUD may reject applications for existing properties within a Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone because of the possibility that the property may be acquired at that later date by the airport operator. N. Environmental Justice (24 CFR 50.4(1)). HUD will determine whether EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in MAP Guide, January 2016 Go to Chapter Index / Section Index Bookmarked version, r 1.1, page 337 of 534 A., =nnwlw f IAi,CdVERNM�l�IY IIVFDgMA.7TDlf GPCS 24- CF 1F, YA4 S[ Sub�YtstD § 51.300 Subpart D—Siting of HUD Assisted Projects in Runway Clear Zones at Civil Airports and Clear Zones and Accident Po- tential Zones at Military Air- fields AUTHORITY: Sec. 2, Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1441, affirmed by sec. 2, HUD Act of 1969, Pub. L. 90-448; sec. 7(d), HUD Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); OMB, Fed'l Mgmt. Cir. 75--2: Compatible Land Uses At Federal Airfields. SOURCE: 49 FR 880, Jan. 6, 1984, unless oth- erwise noted. § 51.300 Purpose. It is the purpose of this subpart to promote compatible land uses around civil airports and military airfields by identifying suitable land uses for Run- way Clear Zones at civil airports and Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones at military airfields and by es- tablishing them as standards for pro- viding HUD assistance, subsidy or in- surance. [49 FR 880, Jan. 6, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 1996] § 51.301 Definitions. For the purposes of this regulation, the following definitions apply: (a) Accident Potential Zone. An area at military airfields which is beyond the Clear Zone. The standards for the Acci- dent Potential Zones are set out in De- partment of Defense Instruction 4165.57, "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones," November 8, 1977, 32 CFR part 256. There are no Accident Poten- tial Zones at civil airports. (b) Airport Operator. The civilian or military agency, group or individual which exercises control over the oper- ations of the civil airport or military airfield. (c) Civil Airport. An existing commer- cial service airport as designated in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems prepared by the Federal Avia- tion Administration in accordance with section 504 of the Airport and Air- way Improvement Act of 1982. (d) Runway Clear Zones and Clear Zones. Areas immediately beyond the ends of a runway. The standards for Runway Clear Zones for civil airports 24 CFR Subtitle A (4-1-13 Edition) are established by FAA regulation 14 CFR part 152. The standards for Clear Zones for military airfields are estab- lished by DOD Instruction 4165.57, 32 CFR part 256. § 51.302 Coverage. (a) These policies apply to HUD pro- grams which provide assistance, sub- sidy or insurance for construction, land development, community development or redevelopment or any other provi- sion of facilities and services which are designed to make land available for construction. When the HUD assist- ance, subsidy or insurance is used to make land available for construction rather than for the actual construc- tion, the provision of the HUD assist- ance, subsidy or insurance shall be de- pendent upon whether the facility to be built is itself acceptable in accordance with the standards in § 51.303. (b) These policies apply not only to new construction but also to substan- tial or major modernization and reha- bilitation and to any other program which significantly prolongs the phys- ical or economic life of existing facili- ties or which, in the case of Accident Potential Zones: (1) Changes the use of the facility so that it becomes one which is no longer acceptable in accordance with the standards contained in § 51.303(b); (2) Significantly increases the den- sity or number of people at the site; or (3) Introduces explosive, flammable or toxic materials to the area. (c) Except as noted in §51.303(a)(3), these policies do not apply to HUD pro- grams where the action only involves the purchase, sale or rental of an exist- ing property without significantly pro- longing the physical or economic life of the property. (d) The policies do not apply to re- search or demonstration projects which do not result in new construction or re- construction, to interstate land sales registration, or to any action or emer- gency assistance which is provided to save lives, protect property, protect public health and safety, or remove de- bris and wreckage. [49 FR 880, Jan. 6, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 19961 358 Office of the Secretary, HUD § 51.303 General policy. It is HUD's general policy to apply standards to prevent incompatible de- velopment around civil airports and military airfields. (a) HUD policy for actions in Runway Clear Zones and Clear Zones. (1) HUD policy is not to provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects and actions covered by this part except as stated in §51.303(a)(2) below. (2) If a project proposed for HUD as- sistance, subsidy or insurance is one which will not be frequently used or oc- cupied by people, HUD policy is to pro- vide assistance, subsidy or insurance only when written assurances are pro- vided to HUD by the airport operator to the effect that there are no plans to purchase the land involved with such facilities as part of a Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone acquisition pro- gram. (3) Special notification requirements for Runway Clear Zones and Clear Zones. In all cases involving HUD as- sistance, subsidy, or insurance for the purchase or sale of an existing property in a Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone, HUD (or the responsible entity or re- cipient under 24 CFR part 58) shall ad- vise the buyer that the property is in a Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone, what the implications of such a loca- tion are, and that there is a possibility that the property may, at a later date, be acquired by the airport operator. The buyer must sign a statement ac- knowledging receipt of this informa- tion. (b) HUD policy for actions in Acci- dent Potential Zones at Military Air- fields. HUD policy is to discourage the provision of any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects and actions in the Accident Potential Zones. To be approved, projects must be generally consistent with the recommendations in the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines For Accident Potential Zones chart con- tained in DOD Instruction 4165.57, 32 CFR part 256. [49 FR 880, Jan. 6, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 1996] §61.305 § 51.304 Responsibilities. (a) The following persons have the authority to approve actions in Acci- dent Potential Zones: (1) For programs subject to environ- mental review under 24 CFR part 58: the Certifying Officer of the respon- sible entity as defined in 24 CFR part 58. (2) For all other HUD programs: the HUD approving official having ap- proval authority for the project. (b) The following persons have the authority to approve actions in Run- way Clear Zones and Clear Zones: (1) For programs subject to environ- mental review under 24 CFR part 58: The Certifying Officer of the respon- sible entity as defined in 24 CFR part 58. (2) For all other HUD programs: the Program Assistant Secretary. [61 FR 13335, Mar. 26, 1996] § 51.305 Implementation. (a) Projects already approved for as- sistance. This regulation does not apply to any project approved for as- sistance prior to the effective date of the regulation whether the project was actually under construction at that date or not. (b) Acceptable data on Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Po- tential Zones. The only Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Po- tential Zones which will be recognized in applying this part are those provided by the airport operators and which for civil airports are defined in accordance with FAA regulations 14 CFR part 152 or for military airfields, DOD Instruc- tion 4165.57, 32 CFR part 256. All data, including changes, related to the di- mensions of Runway Clear Zones for civil airports shall be verified with the nearest FAA Airports District Office before use by HUD. (c) Changes in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones, and Accident Potential Zones. If changes in the Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones or Accident Poten- tial Zones are made, the field offices shall immediately adopt these revised zones for use in reviewing proposed projects. (d) The decision to approve projects in the Runway Clear Zones, Clear 359 I Pt. 52 24 CFR SU 0 A (4-1-13 Edion) Zones and Accident Potential Zones (b) ' hhege regulatiouc�axe 16endekto must be documented as part of the *XosteX' an\lntergovdrnmental partn enviornmental assessment or, when no s1W and a cls eugthened Federalism e0 assessment is required, as part of the Mlyi4g on sta, proce6es and, on steite,, project file. areawi e, regional a'nd local dogrdina- ..r,� �. 't$on for view of propase.d k'ederal fi- �P — Ei�G�1lERN n' ci'al 'stance d direct Fede al REV EW ���DEPARTMENT OF devXbpmenh .. HD NG AND URBAN DEVELOP (c) ese regulations e intended to MENT RdGRAM5 AND ACTfVI- aid theGernal i�lanagem t of the De - TIES ppartment, nd are 71ot lute tied to cre- at� any right or benefit enforceable N la,"y a par& -a ainst he De tm t Sec. f ; ` or its officersr' 52.1 f at is the purpose of thea regula- /tionay § 52.2 v hat definitio a app to these *2 what definitlan ,apply to these reg�la- regulatlons7 tions? 52.9,\ What pragxarrxs an activities of. f Order means Exeeu a Qrdex 12372, De rt, en�,are subie to these g�la issued July 14,x.,982, d arae de�dpril tic '.' \ 1983 and titled/ `Lntergove mental 52.4 what are time seer etar 's .general re- , Review of Fedexal � ograms.' sp9bsibkllties under the Orddz� ` Se etary means tMSecret the 52.5 What is, the Seo�etaay's abl tlou with respect to%ederaJ'Intaragenay�pvrdi U.SD kartahent of Ho sin land U an tiara? Developm nt or an officio Tor employee 52.6 What pes apjaly to the cele tion of thefIep tment act or the Sec- fprograd actin ties under theca retary under'deleg tion R uthor_ gulations? - / State means atlf the 50 s tea,, 52.7 Flew does: the Secretc6mmunicate Dxstriot of Golif bia, the Cp�imon- with\state and local offici s concerning alth of Pyerto Cq, Gh84I1rri0n- tthe ies. tmant's pLogLams and activi- we th of the Nv�ern Mariam\Is- 52.8 Hovi dos the Searet�ry prov estates landi�, Gam, Amerira� Samoa, ihe an.6ppori; ity tc.•6omrrlsnt on 'tat U.S. t gin Islands, or the rust Terri2\ Federal f pial assis n d "direct tory'of t o Pacific Islands. f� ederal ileo to ment? 62:8 How does el acretary ' ive and te- (� FR 29216, ung -24, 1983, as amen ad sLt 61 spond to vamments? FR 5205, Feb. 9„ OKI f� �6 . 0 How .Ayes the Sre..tary ma efforts 52.3 What programs and aetivitie of aceommodate int 'govePnmen i con- cerr[s? the:-Depnrtxnen are subject to these 52.11 at are the. 8ecre y's obligablons regulations? 4 in int state situations? ,Th. Secretary publi es in the :FED - $2.12 [Res 'vedl ERAL I1EGISTER a list the Depart- AumxosrrYrsl U.S.C. 6"' 42 U.S.C. 3334, ment's programs and ac vitie5 that 85 dl. are subjet�. to these regal. ions and .aiOUFCE: 48 FR 29216, June 24, 1 ,unless �ientifies which of these syr®s jets to ether ice noted. the requirem� is of section 204 f the t r Demonstration itfes,siid Metropo taxi §52.1 What is the urpose of these eg- Dev D;at ent Ac `u1ad ns7 (a) The\reguiations, in this part izxl- §52•`t are'the Seeretary's.general element E ecutive ❑r er 12372, "Inter- . resgb sabilities un er the order? governmental Review of Federal Pro= (a) The7�cretary pro es opportuni- gre,ms," issue July 14, 1982 and amend- ies for conkuitation by `elected offi- ad on April 8, 1983. Th regulations c is of. these �0\ tate and loll govern- -also Implement pplicable ovisions of ments that wId provide th%fanoVa n-fed section 401. of G e Intergoov�ramental eral\funds for,that would bctl Ceaperatian Act o 196E ands coon 204 affect��i by, propped Federal of the Doinonstratio Cities ann& Metro- assists a from, or direct Federal e- politan De�elopmeut�ot•of 1966. velopment by, the Department. Yeq av+ � C �. planning, or airpc system planni g. Project costs means any costs involved in accomplishing a project. Project formulation costs means, with respect to projects for airport development, any necessary costs of formulating a project including— (1) The costs of field surveys and the preparation of plans and specifications; (2) The acquisition of land or interests in land, or easement through or other interests in airspace; and (3) Any necessary administrative or other incidental costs incurred by the sponsor specifically in connection with the accomplishment of a project for airport development, that would not have been incurred otherwise. Public agency means— (1) A state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Government of the Northern Marianas, Guam, or any agency of those entities; (2) A municipality or other political subdivision; (3) A tax -supported organization; or (4) An Indian tribe or pueblo. Public airport means any airport that— (1) Is used, or intended to be used, for public purposes; (2) Is under the control of a public agency; and (3) Has a property interest satisfactory to the Administrator in the landing area. Reliever airport means a general aviation airport designated by the Administrator as having the primary function of relieving congestion at an air carrier airport by diverting from that airport general aviation traffic. Runway clear zone means an area at ground level underlying a portion of the approach surface specified in the standards incorporated into this part by §152.11. Satisfactory property interest means— (1) Title free and clear of any reversionary interest, lien, easement, lease, or other encumbrance that, in the opinion of the Administrator would— Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town 1726 East 2nd Street Little Rock, Arkansas EBI Project No. 1717000250 Report Date: August 15, 2017 Inspection Date: July 12, 2017 Prepared for: Morgan T. Olander Grandbridge Real Estate Capital, LLC 5000 West 95th Street, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66207 Prepared by: ,,OEBI Consulting environmental I engineering I due diligence AAEBI Consulting environmental I engineering I due diligence HUD CERTIFICATION 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 Tel: (781) 273-2500 Fax: (781) 273-3311 www.ebiconsulting.com I understand that my environmental review will be used by Grandbridge Real Estate Capital, LLC ("MAP Lender") to document to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that the MAP Lender's application for FHA multifamily mortgage insurance was prepared and reviewed in accordance with HUD requirements. I certify that my review was in accordance with the HUD requirements applicable on the date of my review and that I have no financial interest or family relationship with the officers, directors, stockholders, or partners of the Borrower, the general contractor, any subcontractors, the buyer or seller of the proposed property or engage in any business that might present a conflict of interest. am under contract for this specific assignment and I have no other side deals, agreements, or financial considerations with the MAP Lender or others in connection with this transaction. This report is written to meet the Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) guidelines pursuant to the HUD mortgage insurance program HUD 221(d)(4) NC as well as ASTM E 1527-13. Signed: Richard Griffitts Author/Senior Engineer Date: August 15, 2017 Warning: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that all of the information I have provided on this form and in any accompanying documentation is true and accurate. I acknowledge that if I knowingly have made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, representation, or certification on this form or on any accompanying documents, I may be subject to criminal, civil, and/or administrative sanctions, including fines, penalties, and/or imprisonment under applicable federal law, including but not limited to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a; 18 U.S.C. §§1001, 1006, 1010, 1012, and 1014, 12 U.S.C. §1708 and 1735f-14; and 31 U.S.C. §§3729 and 3802. ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. LOCA) ONS I ATLAN I,A. ('A I BALTIMORE, HID BURIUNGTOIN. ''?A I CHICAGO, IL DALLAS, TX I DENVER, CO I HOUSTON. TX ; LOS ANGELES, CA ; Nl[Vv YORK, NY � PHOENIX, A _ ; PORTLAND, OR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1 'PAT -1 LE. Vi A I YORK, PA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town E61 Projiect # 1717000250 1726 East 2°1 Street, Little Rock, Arkansas TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Scope-of-Services..............................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Assumptions, Limitations and Exceptions...................................................................................................3 1.4 Special Terms and Conditions.......................................................................................................................5 1.5 Data Gaps.................................................................................................................................................. ...6 2.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION............................................................................................7 2.1 Ownership and Location.................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Subject Property Improvements....................................................................................................................7 2.3 Current Use of the Subject Property...........................................................................................................7 2.4 Municipal Services & Utilities..........................................................................................................................7 2.5 Adjoining Properties.........................................................................................................................................8 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION................................................................................................9 3.1 Title Records......................................................................................................................................................9 3.2 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations.............................................................................9 3.3 Specialized Knowledge.....................................................................................................................................9 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information...............................................................9 3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues...........................................................................................9 3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information...........................................................................9 3.7 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA..............................................................................................................9 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Standard Environmental Records................................................................................................................10 4.1.1 Federal Agency Database Records.....................................................................................................1 1 4.1.2 State and Tribal Agency Database Records.....................................................................................13 4.1.3 Local Regulatory Agency Records......................................................................................................16 4.2 Physical Setting................................................................................................................................................17 4.2.1 Topography..............................................................................................................................................17 4.2.2 Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................................17 4.2.3 Hydrogeology and Hydrology.............................................................................................................17 4.3 Historical Use of the Subject Property and Adjoining Properties.......................................................17 4.3.1 Aerial Photographs................................................................................................................................18 4.3.2 Fire Insurance Maps...............................................................................................................................19 4.3.3 Topographic Maps..................................................................................................................................19 4.3.4 Street Directories..................................................................................................................................20 4.3.5 Recorded Land Title Records.............................................................................................................21 4.3.6 Property Tax Records...........................................................................................................................21 4.3.7 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations..................................................................21 4.3.8 Previous Environmental Reports........................................................................................................21 5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE..................................................................................23 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions.......................................................................................................23 5.2 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products.....................................................................................23 5.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products (Identified Uses).............................................23 5.2.2 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products (Unidentified Uses)........................................23 5.2.3 Unidentified Substances Containers..................................................................................................23 5.3 Waste Generation, Storage, and Disposal................................................................................................23 5.4 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) & Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)..................................24 EBI Consulting Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Froiect # 1717000250 1726 East 2^d Streel Little Rock Arkansas 5.4.1 Existing Storage Tanks..........................................................................................................................24 5.4.2 Former Storage Tanks..........................................................................................................................24 5.5 Oil -Containing Equipment and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)......................................................24 5.6 Additional Site Conditions............................................................................................................................24 6.0 INTERVIEWS............................................................................................................................. 26 7.0 CONDITIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ASTM E 1527 -13 ......................................................27 7.1 Asbestos -Containing Material (ACM)........................................................................................................27 7.2 Radon.................................................................................................................................................................27 7.3 Lead -Based Paint (LBP)...... .......................................................................................................... . ............. --28 7.4 Lead in Drinking Water.................................................................................................................................28 7.5 Limited Microbial Survey...............................................................................................................................29 7.6 HUD Factors....................................................................................................................................................29 7.7 Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screening......................................................................................................30 7.7.1 Purpose and Scope-of-Services...........................................................................................................30 7.7.2 Government Records Review.............................................................................................................33 7.7.3 Current and Historical Use of the Subject Property and Adjoining Properties ......................33 7.7.4 Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screening Conclusions.....................................................................33 8.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS........................................................................................................35 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................36 APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B FIGURES APPENDIX C PRE -SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX D HUD FORMS APPENDIX E PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX F REGULATORY DATABASE REPORT & VAPOR ENCROACHMENT WORKSHEET APPENDIX G HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX H PORTIONS OF PREVIOUS REPORT APPENDIX I TERMINOLOGY EBI Consulting Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town E81 Project # 1717000250 1726 East 2114 Street Little Rock Arkansas APPENDIX D HUDFORMS EBI Consulting Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Pro'ect # 1717000250 1726 East 2^6 Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7.5 LIMITED MICROBIAL SURVEY Microbial growth (e.g., mold or fungus) on building materials may occur when excess moisture is present. Porous building materials such as gypsum board, insulation in walls and ceilings, and carpeting retain moisture and become microbial growth sites if moisture sources are not controlled or mitigated. Potential sources of moisture include rainwater intrusion, groundwater intrusion, condensation on cold surfaces, and water leaks from building systems (e.g., plumbing leaks, HVAC system leaks, overflowing drains, etc.). Inadequate ventilation of clothes dryers and shower stalls may also result in excess moisture conditions. Suspect microbial growth may be clearly visible (e.g., ceramic tile mortar in shower stalls) or may be concealed with no visible evidence of its existence (e.g., inside wall cavities). Based on the absence of structures, a limited microbial survey was not conducted at the Subject Property. 7.6 HUD FACTORS The following additional HUD Environmental Factors were reviewed at the Subject Property. HUD ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS FACTOR Coastal Zone and The Subject Property is not located within a State Coastal Management Zone, Coastal Barrier or a coastal barrier designated on a current FEMA flood map or Department of Resources Interior coastal barrier resource map. No further action or investigation is recommended re arding this factor. Floodplain Management EBI reviewed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Map #05119C, Panel #0476G, dated July 6, 2015. The Subject Property Flood Zone Determination appears to be Zone X, defined as an area outside the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains, on the southern portion, and Zone A, defined as an area inundated by 100 -year flooding, on the northern portion. However, a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the Subject Property has been provided to EBI, and it is EBls understanding that all planned buildings will be built outside of the floodplain. No further action appears warranted regarding this factor. Historic Preservation EBI submitted a Section 106 request to the Arkansas SHPO. A response dated August 8, 2017 indicated "No known historic properties will be affected by this undertaking." Noise Abatement EBI completed a Noise Assessment in accordance with the HUD Noise Guide Book. Based on the lack of four -lane roads within 1,000' of the Subject Property, the airport noise of 55 dB, and the total railroad noise of 62.4 dB, the combined noise levels were determined to be 63.1 dB, which falls into the Acceptable range. The ten-year projection is not anticipated to significantly differ from 63.1 dB. Explosive or Flammable No industrial facilities handling explosive or fire -prone materials such as liquid Hazards propane, gasoline or other storage tanks are adjacent to or visible from the Subject Property. No further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. ______N Airport Hazards The Subject Property is not located wilt 3,000 feet from the end of a runway at a civil airport or 2 '/2 miles from the end of a runway at a military airport. No further action or investigation appears warranted regarding this factor. /�C� R&cp U1 1Zk-moM 15 25vo EBI Consulting 6 29 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Pro'ect # 1717000250 1726 East 2111' Street, Little Rock Arkansas HUD ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS FACTOR Protection of Wetlands The Arkansas River trends east and west approximately 250 feet north of the Subject Property. There are no other surface water bodies, marshy areas or other visible indications of potential wetlands areas on or adjacent to the Subject Property. According to the NWI Wetlands Map, there are no wetland areas in the vicini the Subject Property. High Voltage Power _of High Voltage Transmission lines trend north and south on the east adjacent Transmission or Other property approximately 60 feet from the Subject Property. No other Towers Towers are located on-site or on adjacent properties. Based on review of site plans, the nearest planned building is over 160 feet from a tower. No further action appears warranted regarding this factor. Landfills No landfills are located within 3,000 feet of the Subject Property. As such, no further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. Endangered or EBI has reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website to assess potential Threatened Species or impacts to endangered/threatened species or habitats. Based on this review, no Habitat impacts to endangered/threatened species or habitats are anticipated as a result of planned construction activities, and no further action appears warranted regarding this factor. Sole Source Aquifer The Subject Property will be connected to the public sewer system. As such, Recharge Area no further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. Farmlands Protection The Subject Property is not farmland. As such, no further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. i Rail Lines The Subject Property is not located within 100 feet of the right of way of a railroad. As such, no further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. Natural Gas or None of the on-site structures are located within 10 feet of a natural gas or Petroleum Pipelines petroleum pipeline easement. As such, no further action or investigation is recommended regarding this factor. 7.7 TIER I VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING EBI has conducted a Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) in general conformance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard E 2600-15, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, dated October I, 2015. 7.7.1 Purpose and Scope -of -Services The purpose of this Tier I VES is to conduct an initial screening to identify a vapor encroachment condition (VEC). A VEC is defined as the presence or likely presence of chemical(s) of concern (COC) vapors in the vadose zone of the Subject Property, caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the Subject Property, as identified by Tier I or Tier II procedures. The VES process is a two-tiered screening process. The Tier I VES is based upon information typically collected during an ASTM Standard E 1527 Phase I ESA and is typically focused on known or suspected contaminated properties that may exist in the area of concern (AOC). The Tier I VES includes, but is not limited to, the following: review of Federal, state, local, and tribal government records, as reported in the regulatory database report; chemical use and historical records of prior uses on the Subject Property and within proximity of the Subject Property; soil characteristics; geological characteristics; contaminant characteristics and plume migration data (if this data is readily available); significant conduits EBI Consulting 30 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Project # 1717000250 1726 East 211d Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Airport Hazards (LEST and EA) — PARTNER This Worksheet was designed to be used by those "Partners" (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. General policy Legislation It is HUD's policy to apply standards to prevent incompatible development around civil airports and military airfields. I References htt s: www.hudexchan e.info environmental -review ai rt -hazards Regulation 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D 1. To ensure compatible land use development, you must determine your site's proximity to civil and military airports. Is your project within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport? ® No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within the applicable distances to a military or civilian airport. ❑Yes 4 Continue to Question 2. 2. Is your project located within a Runway Potential Zone/Clear Zone (RPZ/CZ) or Accident Potential Zone (APZ)? ❑Yes, project is in an APZ --> Continue to Question 3. ❑Yes, project is an RPZ/CZ 4 Project cannot proceed at this location. ❑ No, project is not within an APZ or RPZ/CZ 4 If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within either zone. 3. Is the project in conformance with DOD guidelines for APZ? ❑Yes, project is consistent with DOD guidelines without further action. Explain how you determined that the project is consistent: 4 If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. ❑No, the project cannot be brought into conformance with DOD guidelines and has not been approved. 4 Project cannot proceed at this location. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Project # 1717000250 1726 East 2nd Street, Little Rocks Arkansas Circle Search For Auports Results I almlA h.LCr. Ovide Search RxAxports Resuhs �errtasr: _ LL.A4NRL4!l CSRTp1 Y.=iG_ �rerrjbsrs .rn.. C" rru..r■.. Ay.R uIra-D& AI 34.4a, 6&W It wrF•t gM9P pc As W4VM3 WK own w POP LIE�-- /.fie f Page 1 of—', . rx IL" pa.Iri ..qob.b aed..-O" air ON i3' 141Cw iia 51" w irapsirw 112 84.3i'r i.Ol rY https 'oeaaa.faa. Qov oeaaa'eetem i searchActiou j sp 7/18/2017 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Pro'ect # 1717000250 1726 East 21,11 Street Little Rock Arkansas Circle Search for Airports FG46r4d Mat an Adroinfslntian Cirde Searssh for Airports Se V*5-aew Retemrk Gum V-Mt&Zf- Page 1 of 2 or+nu C Kit CWAW POWS LDO�I & Ra_dM.- G An O"MV. lay M. 9n, W1 F. armtl mild (6o ropes ma) 0 AaOR'ArpmtCasa_ 0 �� •Q•tt O Am On Aaport Cs: 0 •isA A ApctM botlon. unwai ®°4 ©M ®s I-— ®oqFE-1M ®y WI® O�au�o RAW3 Rot Vis sYao mov 2WA to l0 36 scams b Rd= nsUM. iltm Iloeaaa faa.ga� oeaaa'a�teznal searek> �ct�onjsp?acdan=showircle5earrhAirportsFo.._ 711812017 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Proiec[ # 1717000250 1726 East 2"d Stree Little Rock Arkansas If mitigation measures have been or will be taken, explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Clid- Dere to ester Cert. 4 Work with the RE/HUD to develop mitigation measures. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. Worksheet Summary Compliance Determination Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: ■ Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers ® Any additional requirements specific to your region Based on a review of the FAA circle search for airports, there are no military airports within 15,000 feet and no civilian airports within 2,500 feet of the Subject Property. See attached. Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? ❑ Yes ® No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Project # 1717040250 1725 East 2"d Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Airport Runway Clear Zones (CENST) - PARTNER This Worksheet was designed to be used by those "Partners" (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. General Requirements Legislation Regulation It is HUD's policy to apply standards to prevent 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D incompatible development around civil airports and military airfields. I Reference htts: www_hudexchan e.info environmental -review air ort -hazards_ 1. Does the project involve the sale or acquisition of developed property? ❑ No 4 If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. NYes 4 Continue to Question 2. 2. Is the project in the Runway Protection Zone/Clear Zone_(RPVCV? N No 4 If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within either zone. ❑Yes 4 Provide a map showing that the site within RPZ/CZ. Work with the RE/HUD to provide written notice to the prospective buyers. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide written notice to the prospective buyer to inform them of the potential hazards.Z See Sample Notice to prospective buyers at tizco;//poi-taLhud. av/hud ortal/docun-tents/huddoc?id=DOC 14226.pcdf Worksheet Summary Compliance Determination Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: ■ Map panel numbers and dates 1 Runway Protection Zone/Clear Zones are defined as areas immediately beyond the ends of runways. The standards are established by FAA regulations. The term in 24 CFR Part 51, Runway Clear Zones, was redefined in FAA's Airport Design Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 to refer to Runway Protection Zones for civil airports. See link above for additional information. z Written notice must be provided to prospective buyers to inform them of the potential hazards from airplane accidents as well as the potential for the property to be purchased as part of an airport expansion project. See link to sample notice. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Proiect # 1717000250 1726 East 2" Street, Uvde Rock Arkansas ■ Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates ■ Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers ■ Any additional requirements specific to your region Based on a review of the FAA circle search for airports, there are no military airports within 15,000 feet and no civilian airports within 2,500 feet of the Subject Property. See attached. Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? ❑ Yes ®No Little Rock, Arkansas Subject's Neighborhood Area " tv C. SULECT Sflb a Ili �y.f � x.A ���p i l � - u• 1. ♦ .i•�. t rCrMe+ It $100 AM kkkk AWS r �� �r'�► o it+tey;sstv E 9roaett:tySt ; - �� �E1AleidwriYrrRvr rcp�e Aftrn ldnral^Fve" { r h RV Perk M_ SUBJECT � �� �k1TYJlLxRIYLY 0 e of _ 4p 1 r •. �. LlicAnituf i s�i• {.. (on I * FilKyirl� i�i i L� � +,� � •i ._ r Mil 4+NY If 7 IN 9 yf.F ^.T � . • '07m Z1.1 rlllhor.a•i+�:�rn y - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residences at Harbor Town EBI Pro'ect # 1717000250 1726 East 2nd Stree& Little Rock Arkansas EBI Consulting w m p A . F N L W�4 James, Donna From: Ryan Lausten <ryanl@burkhalterinc.com> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:48 AM To: James, Donna Subject: Marina John Burkhalter Attachments: D00O22416-02242016162351.pdf, D00O22416-02242016162416.pdf; D00O22416-02242016162515. pdf Donna, Here are the documents that we discussed. Thank you for your assistance in locating the other documents I needed. Thanks, Ryan Lausten Burkhalter Technologies, Inc. 26 Collins Industrial Place North Little Rock, AR 72113 Phone: 501-753-6400 Fax: 501-753-5552 Z0-11 ,,on Regulatory Division DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS POST OFFICE SOX Bal LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0867 www.awl.usace.army.mil STANDARD PERMIT MODIFICATION NO, 2002-17702-2 Mr. John Burkhalter, P. E. 13urkhalter Technologies, Inc. 426 Collins Industrial Place North Little Rock, Arkansas 72113 Dear Mr. Burkhalter; Please refer to the letter dated November 3, 2015, from Holloway Engineering, requesting that a time extension be granted for Department of the Army (DA) Pen -nit 2002-17702-1. Under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. Code 403), DA Perrhit No. 2002-17702-1, which authorizes work, including the placement of dredged and fill material, in waters of the United States associated with the construction and operation of a public marina and associated boat ramp., is hereby granted a time extension until December 31, 2018. The project is located on the right.descending bank of the Arkansas River, Navigation Mile 117.5, in section 1, T. 1 *N., R. 12 W., Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. A vicinity map and location map are enclosed. In addition, you requested that the authorized work be modified as follows. a. The modified marina will contain 14 docks, 355 boat slips, and 25 personal watercraft. slips. A public boat ramp measuring approximately 50 feet wide and 150 feet long wilt be constructed for recreational access to the river. b. The wave attenuator/aid to navigation remains in the original permitted location. Three removable bridge sections will be placed above the ends of the three dikes to link the wave attenuators for maintenance purposes. The bridge sections will not touch the dikes and will be removable (when required) when or if the river surface reaches extreme low flow. They will be the same width as the wave attenuatorlaid to navigation, and approximately 20 to 30 feet in length. The bridge sections will allow the marina staff access to all the wave attenuators/aid to navigation sections without the need to travel by boat to perform their daily inspection for pile guide alignment and inspection for debris. The design change provides additional safety and inspection access. c. The marina fuel dispensers will be relocated to the finger pier creating a fuel island. This design change increases the distance between the fueling of boats and the dock/store restaurant thereby providing additional safety if a fire at the fuel dispensers occurred. -2- d. The boat -turning basin will be increased in diameter approximately 10 feet, which allows for additional distance between the docks and the dock store/restaurant. e: The entry and exit lane locations (3 each) will be increased in width to allow safer boat traffic in and out of the marina. The proposed modifications are hereby authorized. Sheets 1-3 of DA Permit 2002-17702-1 are replaced with revised sheets I-10 of DA Permit 2402-1.7702-2. DA Permit 2002-17702-1 sheets 4-7 remain unmodified. This letter becomes a part of and should be attached to your original permit. The facility shall be, constructed/conducted and maintained as described in the permit and shown on the enclosed sheet 3 of 10. It is your responsibility to understand and comply with the conditions of the permit and to make your employees or agents involved in the operation continuously aware of the permit conditions. If changes are proposed in the design or location of the facility, you are required by law to submit revised plans to the District Engineer for al.)proval before construction of the change is begun. All conditions of the original permit remain in effect. It is your responsibility and extremely important that you understand and comply with all of the conditions of the permit and that. you make any of your employees or agents involved in this operation continuously aware of the permit conditions. If you have any questions,. please contact Jim Ellis, Project Manager, at (501) 324-5295 and refer to DA Permit No. 2002-17702-2: Sincerely, M. Elaine Edwards Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIP`1" REQ1JESTRD ACTION NO.: 2002-177024 JAPB,LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Section 1, T. 1 N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet I of 10 06 ry . . . . . . . . --- 04 1 0�110: f f = ROCK, K. PULASM COUNW,ARKMti 0=1BER 299 2015 1 mmormEsrar1 rT mY9' m' 8 L't373 QMARM 231 Al BOAT LAUNM A 'T OM BOAT IDT j ACTION NO.: 2002-177022 JAPB, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Section 1, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 3 of 10 t r j ACTION NO.: 2002-177022 JAPB, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Section 1, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 3 of 10 GRAPHIC SCALE V-1001 100 0 100 200 6YRMM M4 [DR CKDEM ML EmopDwssul N 13o26m B 1239! OffilEy 231 A BN lAgW B 1123M" :1~�: /:• F: 1 Ia 11 i ACTION NO.: 2002-177022 .IAPB, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Section 1, T. 1 N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 5 of 10 RD 496299ACTION NO.: 2002-17702-2 JAPB,LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas Diver, NM 117.5 Section ], T, I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 6 of 10 G p an Ll;ri I 1 i 2►W sum - - ACTION NO.: 2002-17702-2 JAPE, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, N M 117.5 Section 1, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 7 of 10 ®10100 =Mom.. �II:iGW�O� 0comma MOMSmm E=mmmm MEMO ACTION NO.: 2002-17702-2 JAPE, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, N M 117.5 Section 1, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 7 of 10 i ! I r , i ! I 1 i 1 � I r I dARY - RACK CITY YACHT CLUB AND MAMA 1 r ACTION NO.; 2002-17702-2 JAPB, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Section I, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 8 of 10 `- ACTION NO.: 2002-17702-2 JAPB, LLC MARINA IN LITTLE ROCK Arkansas River, NM, 117,5 Section 1, T, I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Street 9 of 10 %pl ± ". jn}111110" ,.. '. 11e111 Alp -% 0 2' c ku.1873 lui cri 4-1 W ACTION NO.: 2002-17702•-2 JAPB, LLC MARINA iN LITTLE- ROCK Arkansas River, NM 117.5 Seetion 1, T. I N., R. 12 W. February 2016 Sheet 3 0 of 10 9. Rock City Yacht Club Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) ■ Conditional letter of Map Revision comment document which summarizes that the Rock City Yacht Club will have no impacts on flooding of the Arkansas River. The proposed marina construction (decreases) flooding. Q VAR Federal Emergency Management Agency �4 Washington, D.C. 20472 {"SND .SSG September 4, 2014 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Case No.: 14-06-1928R The Honorable Floyd G. "Buddy" Villines Community Name: Pulaski County, AR Pulaski County Judge Community No.: 050179 201 South Broadway Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 104 Dear Judge Villines: We are providing our comments with the enclosed Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) on a proposed project within the City of Little Rock that, if constructed as proposed, could revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, and Flood Insurance Study report for your community. If you have any questions regarding the floodplain management regulations for your community, the National Flood Insurance Program (NI:IP) in general, or technical questions regarding this CLOMR, please contact the Director, Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office in Denton, Texas, at (940) 898-5127, or the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP). Additional information about the NFIP is available on Our Web site at http,,Hwww.fema.gov/business/nfip. Sincerely, Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration List of Enclosures: Conditional Letter of Map Revision Comment Document cc: The Honorable Joe Smith Mayor, City of North Little Rock The Honorable Mark Stodola Mayor, City of Little Rock Mr. Sherman D. Smith Floodplain Administrator, Director of Public Works, Pulaski County Mr, D. Chris Wilbourn Floodplain Administrator, City of North Little Rock Mr. Nathan Charles, P.E., CFM, Floodplain Administrator, City of Little Rock Mr. Lee J. Beshoner, P.E., CFM Water Resources Engineer, FTN Associates, Ltd. N Page1 o17 issue Date: September 4, 2014 Case No.: 14.06-1926H CLOMR APP r Q Federal Emergency NI'anagement Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 a 0 5��.: CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION COMMENT DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FLOOD HAZARD DATA ng Source Effective Flooding Proposed Flooding increases uavoaees as River Zone AE Zone AE Yes Yes Zone)((shaded) Zone )( (shaded) None Yes BFEs" BFEs None Yes BFEs - Base (1-peresnF-annual-ehence) Flood Elevations COMMENT Is document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) comment regarding a request for a CLOMR for the project described above. This cument Is not a final determination; It only provides our comment on the proposed project in relation to the flood hazard Information shown on the effective dtonal Flood insurance Program JNFIP) map. We reviewed the aubmttted data and the data used to prepare the effective flood hazard Infomlatfon far your mmunfty and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management cdtefla of the NFIP. Your community Is responsible for approving Ifoodplain development and for ensuring that all permits requlred by Federal or Slate/Commonwealth law have been recalved, SfatalCemmonweallh, county, and mmunity officials, based on their knowledge of local condlions and In the Interest of safely, may sat higher standards for construction In the SpaCIEI Flood Hazard M (SFHA), the area subject to Inundation by the base flood). it the State/Commonwealth, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive idplafn management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria, comment Is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questlons about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information e)(change (FMD() loll at 1.877-336.2627 (1.877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304.4605, Additional Information A (he NFIP Is avaliabte on the FEMA Web site at hitp://wwvv.fema,gov/bualnees/nflp. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14-06-1928R 104 COMMUNITY INFORMATION PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS OF CONDITIONAL. REQUEST (City of Little Rock FILL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Rtnlaslai CountyFLOODWAY UPDATED TOPOGRAPHIC DATA Arkansas COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NO.: 050161 Rocli City Marina _------� APPROXIMATE LAT3TUDE WAD LONGITUDE: 34.745,-92.247 IDENTIFIER SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE DATUM: NAD 83 AFFECTED MAP PANELS TYPE: FIRM` NO.: 0501810107F DATE: October 19, 2001 TYPE: FIRM" NO.: 0501810126F DATE: October 19, 2002 ° FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map FLOODING SOURCE AND REACH DESCRIPTION 6Arkansas River—from approximately 5,860 feet downstream of US 30 to approximately 3,870 feet downstream of US 30 PROPOSED PROJECTU56161IPTION Flooding Source Proposed Project Location & Proposed Project Arkansas River Fill Placement on the right side of the channel and overbank, from approximately 5,860 feet downstream of US 30 to approximately 3,670 feet downstream of US 30 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FLOOD HAZARD DATA ng Source Effective Flooding Proposed Flooding increases uavoaees as River Zone AE Zone AE Yes Yes Zone)((shaded) Zone )( (shaded) None Yes BFEs" BFEs None Yes BFEs - Base (1-peresnF-annual-ehence) Flood Elevations COMMENT Is document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) comment regarding a request for a CLOMR for the project described above. This cument Is not a final determination; It only provides our comment on the proposed project in relation to the flood hazard Information shown on the effective dtonal Flood insurance Program JNFIP) map. We reviewed the aubmttted data and the data used to prepare the effective flood hazard Infomlatfon far your mmunfty and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management cdtefla of the NFIP. Your community Is responsible for approving Ifoodplain development and for ensuring that all permits requlred by Federal or Slate/Commonwealth law have been recalved, SfatalCemmonweallh, county, and mmunity officials, based on their knowledge of local condlions and In the Interest of safely, may sat higher standards for construction In the SpaCIEI Flood Hazard M (SFHA), the area subject to Inundation by the base flood). it the State/Commonwealth, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive idplafn management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria, comment Is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questlons about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information e)(change (FMD() loll at 1.877-336.2627 (1.877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304.4605, Additional Information A (he NFIP Is avaliabte on the FEMA Web site at hitp://wwvv.fema,gov/bualnees/nflp. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14-06-1928R 104 Page 2 of 6 iasua Date: Septembar 4, 2014 Csse N®.:14.06.19288 CLOMR-APP r9tiyAr R7r��, `ederal Emergency Management Agency WasMngton, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF GAAP REVISION COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) i OTHER COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THIS CONDITIONAL REQUEST' CID Number: 0501611 Name: City of North Little Rock, AR -- - ��. • AFFECTED MAP PANELS TYPE: FIRM w NO.: 0501820008D DATE: 09/05/1990 CID Number-. 050178 Name: Pulaski County, AR AFFECTED &AAP PANELS.. . TYPE: FIRM NO.: 0501790426D DATE: 09/05/1991 -- TYPE: FBFM NO.: 0501790426 DATE: 09/05/1991 This comment [abased on the flood dale presently avallabls, if you have any questiona about tills document, please contact the FEMA Map In[nrmslion oYchango (FM00 toff trop at 1-677.336-2627 (1-877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 047 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304.4605. Additional information about the NFIP is available on the FEMA Web site at hup://www,fema.gov/business/nflp. Lute Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14.06.19288 1oq Pale 3 of 6 Issue Date: September 4, 2014 _ Cass No.: 14.06.19288 CLOMR-APP Federal E€ .e�° ene�r � anagement Agency .0 Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LEER OF MAP REVISION COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) COMMUNITY INFORMATION rTo determine the changes in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project, we compared the hydraulic modeling refflecting the proposed project ferred to as the proposed conditions model) to the hydraulic modeling used to prepare the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) (referred to as the effective del). If the efffective model does not provide enough detail to evaluate the effects of the proposed project, an existing conditions model must be veloped to provide this detail. This existing conditions model is then compared to the effective model and the proposed conditions model to differentiate the increases or decreases in flood bazards caused by more detailed modeling from the increases or decreases in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project. FEBiffective below shows the changes in the BFEs; _ _ BFE Comparison Table 5nurce: Ark River BFE Change (feet) Locntiort of rhakifnum change vs. Maximum increase 0.5 at approximately 5,740 feet downstream of US 30 a ve Mlaximum decrease NONE vs. Maxim5na liicrease NONE g !Maximum decrease 0.2 at approximalely 6,740 feet downstream of US 30 vs. lWaximum increase 0,5 atapproximatoly 5,480 feet downstream. of US 30ve Maximum decrease 0.1 at approidmately 4,490 feet downstream of US 30.. i' I I Is comment is based on the Rood data presently avallabts. If you have any queatlone about this deoument, please contaM the FEMA Map Informallon @Xchange (FMIX) toll free at 1.877.338.26kT(I-877-FEMA MAP) or by lever eddressedto the LOMC C{earinghousa. 847 South flic&cn Street, Alnxandrlo, VA 22344.460h, AddltIonal Information about the NRP Is avallebte on the FEMA Wehelta at hnpVtt-mw.fema.govlbuslnesslnilp. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chlel Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14.06.1928R 104 •yy - _ ___._ _-.gyp: _�.w�-�-^__ - �ry�A.�4'tlNG 1' 'ib +�w u- K� ---^.. Pagd 4 of 6 tissue Date: September 4, 2014 No.: 14.06-19268 I CLOMR-APP . 0 Federal Emergency Management Agency F!9Nn y6G Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) C®N6MUNI k' INFORMA.TM (CONTINUED) DATA MQUIIRED FOR EFUL LOW -UP 1L®1D R Upon completion of the project, your community must submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effectiveR� ld and FIS report. If the project is built as proposed and the data below are received, a revision to the 1:RiU and FIS report would be warranted. o Detailed application and certification forms must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the map revision request for the area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1, entitled "Overview and Concurrence Form,99 must be included. A copy of this form may be accessed at hitp://www.fems.goLipla..,Vpreventtfhm/dl—Mt-2.shUn. o The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as -built conditions differ from the proposed plans. H required, please submit new forms, which may be accessed at http://www.fema.gcv/plan/prevenllfhnJdl_mt-2.shtm, or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information. Uonn 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form." 1-lydraulic analyses for as -built conditions of the base flood, the 10 - percent, 2 -percent, and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floods, and the regulatory floodway, must be submitted with Form 2. o A certified topographic work map showing the revised and effective base, 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain and floodway boundaries. Please erasure that the revised info rnation ties in with the current effective infformation at the downstream and upstream ends of the revised reach. An annotated copy of the lrridW, at the scale of the effective RRM, that shows the revised base, 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain and floodway boundary delineations shown on the submitted work map and how they tie-in to the base, 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain and floodway boundary delineations shown on the curre U effective FRIUvi at the downstream and upstream ends of the revised reach. o As -built plans, certified by a rag istered Professional Fngineer, of all proposed project elements. o A copy of the public notice distributed by your community stating its intent to revise the regulatory floodway, or a signed statement by your community that if has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions. Documentation of the individual legal notices sent to property owners who will be affected by any widening or shifting of the base floodplain along the Arkansas Diver. comment Is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMD0 toll at 1.877.339.2627 (1.677•FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Plakett Street, Alexandrle, VA 22304.4606. Addillonal Information it The NFIP Is avaljabla on the FEMA Web site at htip:tl wwu,feme,govlbusinesetnfip. Luls Rodriguez, P -E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14.06.18288 , Page 5 of 6 1 Issue Dote: September 4, 2014 No.: 14.06.192OR I CLOMR-APP Federal Emergency management Agency - Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MI/AP REVISV®N COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUE®) COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUE®) DATA REQUIRED FOR FOLLOW-UP 1LOMR (continued) FEMA's Pee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps may be accessed at http://www.fema,gov/plan/p-reventtfh!iJfir.?_fces,shtm. The fee at the time of the map revision submittal must be received before we can begin processing the request. Payment of this fee can be made through a check or money order, made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program, or by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only). Please either forward the payment, along with the revision application, to the following address: L.OF',C Clearinghouse Attention: ` jli�R Manager 847 South Pickett Street Alexandria, Virginia 22304-4605 or submit the L01VR and fee using the Online LOMC portal at: https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/onlinelomc/signin After receiving apprcpriate documentation to show that the nr%3ect has been completed, FEMA will initiate a revision to the -TUME and report. comment is teased on the flood dais presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXehange (FMI)O toll at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 847 South Pickett Street, Alwtandria, VA 22304.4605, Addlllonel Information it the NFIP Is available on the FEMA Web site at hftp:/Awm.fama.govtbuslnoer,/nflp. Luis Rodriguez, KE„ Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14.00.1928R Page 6 of 6 1 laau® Date: September 4, 2014 COMMUNITY READERS No.: 14.06.192OR I CLOMR-APP Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAR REVISION COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUE®) COMMUNITY INFORMATI®N (CONTINUE®) We have designated a Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) to assist your community. The CCO will be the primary liaison between your community Ln -id FEMA. For information regarding your CCC, please contact: Mr, Frank Pagano Director, Mitigation Division Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VR Federal Regional Center, Room 206 800 Worih Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 (940)898-5127 W preliminary study is being conducted for Pulaski County and its incorpgrated areas, Revised Preliminary cup -es; of the F!RM and cuµ report were submitted to your community for review on July 31, 2014, and may become effective be ow the revision request following this Ci<OMR is submitted. Please ensure that the data submitted for the revision ties into the date effective at the time of the submittal. i comment Is based on the flood data presently available. It you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) free at 1-877-330-2627 (1.077 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 84.7 South Plcicett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4606, Additional rmation about the NFIP Is available on the FEMA Nab site at hitp://www.feme.gov/businesetntip, } Luls Rodriguez, P,E„ Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 14.00.1928R 10. Rock City Yacht Club Cultural Resources Survey 9 Phase I cultural resources survey of approximately 15 acres of land for the Rock City Yacht Club/Residences at Harbour Town/City Park/Related amenities in Little Rock, Arkansas (Pulaski County) A CUI.,TURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ROCK CITY YACHT CLUB & CITY PARK IN LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Chris Branam, RPA November 2012 F.E.A. PROJECT REPORT 2012-104 A CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ROCK CITY YACHT CLUB & CITY PARK IN LIT'TLI? ROCK., PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS I'1o��:.n�be� 1U1 Prepared by: Chris Branam, RPA - Principal Investigator Fiat Earth Archeology, LLC 13 galley Road Cabot, AR 72023 chrisb@-Flateartharcheo logy.com (501)286-7124 (501)593-0609 For: Burkhalter Technologies 26 Collins Industrial Place North Little Rock, AR 72113 F.E.A. PROJECT REPORT 2012-104 ABSTRACT Fiat Earth Archeology, LLC conducted A. Phase 1, cultural resources survey of roughly 15 acres for the proposed Rock City Yacht Club and City Park in Little Rock, Pulaski County, The survey was conducted on behalf of Burkhalter Technologies of North little Rock, Arkansas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested a cultural s"eSOur��S .1"� Jl�'%J and ^li?'V%'/ Cif the UCO NO,^:+;d ::Yr�0-Pfln lt. Tl)" pi"o.joci area is 1ocatQd itomcdiately south of the Arkansas River, es3t of 2"`? Street and ??orth of 4"' Stree Investigations included a limited pedestrian s?_?niey, -mapping, photography, and recording UTMs with a handheld GPS unit. The project area was heavily disturbed by previous clearing, and re -depositing soils and trash. Background research revealed no previously recorded archeological sites near the proposed project area. One new archcological site was identified during the survey, but it is recommended as Not Eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places. No further archeological work is recommendcd for this proposed project. 'rABLE OF CONTEN'T'S Page ABSTRACT ...........................:ii INTRODUCTION ................... ........ I ...... ............ ,......... ............._............. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.....................................................................5 BRIEF CULTURAL HISTORY .................................................................1 l BACKGROUND RESEARCH.......................................................................................15 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS.............................................................................21 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................36 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................37 APPENDIX A Chris Branam Curriculum Vita.....................................................A-1 APPENDIX B Previous Archeological Projects in Pulaski County.................................B-1 APPENDIX C (Separate Attachment — Not For Public Release) Site 3PU836 Location ............................. ....................................... C-1 i -IST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity of the project area on map of Arkansas ..................................... ] Figure 2. Project area surveyed shovm an USGS Little Rock and Sweet HOITIC, 7.5' pm'Alf'ang1c Mar's............................................................................2 Figura :i. Project Arca shown on ac:;ria l snap....................................................3 Figure 4. Project Area with planned development.............................................4 Figure 5. USDA Soil Map showing project area soils..........................................6 Figure 6. Soil description for Bruno urban land complex......................................7 Figure 7. Soil description for Bruno fine sandy loam ...........................................$ Figure 8. 1819 GLO Original Survey Map showing TI N, R12W ...........................18 Figure 9. 1855 GLO Dependent Resurvey Map showing Section 1 ofTIN, R12W.....,19 Figure 10. Western portion of project area (outlined in red) on 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map..............................................................................20 Figure 11, Shovel Test Locations................................................................23 Figure 12. Shovel Test 1 at 100 cin..............................................................7_4 Figure 13. Soil profile From 100 to 130 curbs in Shovel Test 1 ..............................24 Figure 14. Excavating Shovel Test 4 ........ .. ........................... . .......................25 Figure 15. Southern portion of project area (facing east)......................................25 Figure 16. Concrete pad on western portion of the project area (facing northwest) ....... 26 Figure 17. Sketch Map of Site 3PU836..........................................................28 Figure 18. Shovel Test at Site 3PU836 at '75 cinbs.................................. ...........29 Figure 19. Shovel Test l (from sketch map of 3PU836) diagram ...........................29 Figure 20. Examples of ceramic tiles found at Site 3PU836.................................32 Figure 21. Whiteware dish with Manufacture's Mark dating to 1923 .......................33 Figure 22. Top -side of dish in Figure 19 ........................................................34 Figure 23. Bottle finishes found at 3PU836 (all post-date 1900 manufacture) ............ 34 Figure 24. Glass dish/container lid fi-agment from 3PU836..................................35 TABLES Table 1. Artifacts Recovered from Site 3PU836.... . ................ ........ ....... ...32 iv INTRODUCTION Flat isarth /%,r(:Ilc:ology, u,,C c:onductcd i'11asc: 1, cuitur"'J i"Csourc,"S s lrwy o.l roughty 15 acres for the proposed Rock City Yacht CIA . d City Park in I„idle; Rock, Pulaski County (Figuires l thfough 5). The pinjoct circa i located an the south bank of the: ArkRnnns RivCN', frit of %nil atroO and north of /l.il, `"tPRCt; Iln.i`ncdlat(A ,';s1St of the °1� ;", rl (.;ond A a ,. I v- I'r'�1 i"frit ) (f:Yr•.'I Po ,t;;^ F!I l; ,i1'i 1 ��•,tc ,i.�i L, ..,1. .f ;1 l.il. -i:;_� ,":j. /Army 01'17ii of t'.i'If�Illtif;r5 1�(ciLliil.'('01"1/ I�I'!i;ilol'! .I"P,;(ll.l( t'c:('1 r,l GUILLi1''d.1 f^SGI,II'(:(S i"r3'1'Ic;V✓ and survc,y or the pvoposcd doveloplmr.,fit, The piantlerl 1�.r�jr;ci r,oilsi is of a p+�o�)c:,c>cJ if)afilla; a boat ramp; 'parkiti£; meas; a (;)Ly 'park; al -I apartf.ficut c0171F)11;X; and el UGStWfkli1t (see Figure 4). Ground distni`binf; acr.ivitic;s Witt 'be rou hl:y .`j(?0 meters along the river's edge on the south hank and extends south approximately 80 to 1.00 meters (projcc! area is wider oil the erlstc nn side than thy, i'mos;i:crn s)dc). The cultural 'rusourcos background rc;/Icw and ]'Alas', l sljl,ve)y Ni✓rl:; co-nductod acf:ordiil to the standards set 'for the Staac prc scrib d in A Sjuicr I'Icln for the Conservctlion of Archeologicral Resoui-ces in Arkonsns (Davis, ed, 1982, amended 2010), •3�.i p•}�y !e :C• 1 � J"�' ��:i. F •_ 2•?.•• FY r '� � l F � �..•• � �.,� •" Fri � �,� r. K 11 6' i • J , R cs T'1'ciFeci Ai; , f i'n r •'� � � ,'� 1 � .. '. yrs;' w �' • .. • •,, . ;, :,�,,�::: �� .J.,�r. ,r%J tit. '��i 'f-.�i• k i' w•� li tl{r .� _��• f Yl Figurc, 1, Vicinity of the project arca on miap o -f Arkansas, AL —volh • �`:�T.`��A 41 U41rd IS [,4'Wis t —, . 'is oli, I.. op IV Pvov.. Jol On St. iv -4174- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is located at the edge of two physiographic regions, the Ouachita Mountain Division and the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. The Ouachita Mountains are folded, faulted structures with east -west trending ridges and valleys (Foti 1974:17- 18). Valleys and parallel ridges dominate the landscape (Townsend and Wilson .1979:1). The Mississippi River fi.dli:vial Plain is a relatively lc;vol pl=ain v;yitti c-;Irva'Jo-iis varying between 100 and 300 Feet e:ccept for Crowley's Ridge -vvhcrp some of its highest points reach 400 to 560 feet. This region contains mostly unconsolidated sediments such as sand, clay, silt, gravel and loess. The geology of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain is characterized by unconsolidated flat -lying alluvium fro:rn present day and older streams, overlying poorly consolidated Tertiary formations that are dipping slightly to the south. The project area is situated around asphalt city roads, a graveled private drive, industrial complexes, a car lot parking area, and a flooded wetland. The immediate environment of the project area is the sandy river natural levees, The project area is situated in an urban area that has at various times been the location of residences and an industrial area. The alluvial soils in this lowland area are love] to undulating, and some of these soils are prone to flooding. The western half of the project area investigated during the current survey is situated on the Bruno urban land complex (Bu in Figure 5). This soil complex is characterized as excessively drained, level to nearly level soils found on young natural levees that have been modified by urban development (Haley et al. 1975:10, 11). The eastern half of the project area is situated on Bruno fine sandy loam (Bs in Figure 5). This soil type is characterized as excessively drained, level to nearly level soils found on young natural levees on the Arkansas River (Haley et al. 1975:10). Pulaski County has hot and humid summers and relatively mild winters. The average winter temperature is 41 degrees Fahrenheit and the average summer daily temperature is 82 degrees. The average annual precipitation is about 4.9 inches (Haley et al. 1975:3). 5 Map Unit ~Map Unit Acres in Percent of Symbol Name AOI AOI Els HIL1110 [Ir1P 6.'• _2.2% Figure 5. USD/ Soil Map showing ;andy loan-, projcct area soils, 5u Hruno-Urban 16.2 53.7% land complex UV Water 7 3 2,4.2°ru Totais for Area of Interest 30.1 100,0% 6 I 7Pulaskiounty, Arkansas Ell u—© runo -Urban land complex 4411 Q In SkOnu �.f�Y,ir�Ih'11'Hioi'�ii,i,�irdrµ�,`Vi •{ � I> ; II,'I• `, d(1 30 fG,;,' Pec, 0001.10 :.11.1 lir „@tl (1,'I; •: 61x1) unit (, anipositlon I)fove,l9ik7 In pgrieaIl -1,0^' rct'Iy r If. ul I dk,v,tI()i1Ion M Ikulm3 -wring i.1,plcwr, Nwi.I;k I ?p17,t P8,1T1>p .f,�l�i11k� '��:II �L•. r arowil nlaltmv q 11"Iy •iI?XOI Lrn I"InhCr1cY13 9111 9�IMlIAIAtIs Sd>aw fl 10 1 percenl 0(jiltl P rns,!avr+,wt PA!".r; R4ua !'id:l �� rin,r• ;Irdki;oj8 Glass f x.cess6'el'(; 1! III w'; i�i+l'Mn_A'1' fAr h'IP R+7Sf 13'rPl?L�J idyl• f: -��.I�f 1'. •�;t.i . r �,,u �r'•iY 111711 I� S35 In Sjl'IP 11'11''• i�r4M11�YaK1'•1+•r fhXkyl9 y� R�tr'v' i f.{y�dh'!3✓,1 ✓,1� j'r7ft1,+�� )ry}Ili. 1 Ak';U?;Ih4''ro.71a' f•Ifr.tr-r*i' I :'.A � al�u,l r � n;'•';.' 1y13EIIllBIrHR u1U51V3 1 ilr¢f t%3�1;Iffllfl I: ii � m hif IG"?i '• ItirPltel plphle 0 r06 VIOI25 SwAy I(Avi G v, 2 ilNllpS 511.7 ;IIIQII L:.�I';� Ui;4 .•vtI'v,, 61n10J C omponelds AfItleills 1'�fuGfll Of AiJi? 1;17:2 1 G' �sE,l r81 d 1 arxf rwrr �IjI1Q!titA101y6 (IS�y,n..;4;Ip(1.521v� i;fFIr.7V+_' Data Source Information .,,wl 31wot-i Aip.1 ��rl :�akl I •I;,.u'ay. AI4 n',•..1 . rn4,; al?a Ciata VerWO l,' :er ; r,l :D1.' �0� t+.e rtiaivhl:nl Ssr rtry '+ai'.,;.� '4i CA �.ii,a :.il'.,�v ..v • �_. .+ 1 Figure 6. Soil description of Bruno urban land complex. 7 Y., I , I cf. , , ; I I.. 0-,"". I— , . I , 1, I; u„ , F - .; - . 1: c— r: , A q . I , - I Pulaski County, Arkansas Els—Bruno fine sandy loam #A,kp Unit S*tWilij Mr,:Irl 'Iell Mowl wil .1't It"rpO." jr,,In 1, - il I' ri-Aft -1ju to (Or., Map Unit c(Hiltiositiol) 4.1c-scF Smbllu uirxlfourl NjAuol--:,ef*5 ldYlflel N'1;4�4' CA VVII 1 - 4cgL55-sW.V MXjt, Crtw,r, - Parent,maivol Sawy A),rouxi, t1fopeflMs livid qw[N140f. %)Yllo 0 Il') 2 plif cl-411 Ot'rith A) r89310o, ivollevo Molv "11,I)l >Ilj 00!0 , OfIlLrVIVI 0,Ml � Y.I:WAllell 11 ilWil" I capwv P LAr fili & i riu r.m wre hvjh i!, %it, in 19 Ob n1b,-. I'llyll?, M ,'"1'~31 11 AA ji!, 7:1 iv. -fow. +1,taildbk- ware%, capiv,ri I cb Ifflull I" L'tive U10ups LX%� Cj1-.WAN%fje` I ell;" I I Typical pluffle 0 to 6 NVIA7 5'Ody JrOM 6 to 12 A-Ac-il �-Arrdltd k"'o, q r-1 M1414" rompraillikisi AqueWs rewenror,qw 6r([-Prlt i.onftrm Oepferworr, Oottyj 081L.JV17 A"ow;.-Slory vwq Ccqrr19( Data Source Information !iov Sw%vey Aifo Pu(asl.i A4iris;3; .1iiii'levy Aw;v FIM;i r4 "Al.) li-ll NA,xi) 14pv,1w—% 'low '.W 4.N.. I I .111A .WJNQ Figure 7. Soil description of Bruno fine sandy loam. Past Environment Eighteen thousand years before present (BP), an ice sheet covering the northern half of North America (down to below the Great Lakes —40 degrees north latitude) was one of several continental ice sheets that amassed amounts of water sufficient to lower oceanic levels by 100 -- 200 meters belo�ni present. Air temperatures were-, 35 to 42 degrees Fahrenheit colder di:srinr., surnm(-;.- and ° /intpr respe-,cdvel;/ (Morin 1993:'13). By 12,000 BP, the climate had begun to moderate and ice fields and glaciers were beg inning to recede, and by about 10,000 BP - at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch - a major climactic change from a glacial to an interglacial period began. From 18,000 to around 14,000 BP, vegetation patterns remained generally unchanged. The glaciers receded only slightly to around 40 — 42 degrees north latitude by 14,000 BP, and boreal forests consisting primarily of mixed species of spruce (white, black, and red) and some intrusions of oak bordered regions of tundra adjacent to glaciated areas (Morin 1993:76 - '78). Pines (jack/red) were possibly also present until prior to 14,000 BP, becoming extinct in the region thereafter. These forests extended down to approximately central Arkansas, and apparently persisted even further into the southern portion of the continent via the Mississippi Alluvial Plain prior to the Holocene Epoch. From below the boreal forest, mixed conifer and northern hardwoods persisted from 18,000 through 14,000 BP. Around 14,000 BP, warming climactic changes including changes in jet-stream patterns began to hasten glacier recession and influence changes in ecosystems and associated biomasses. Possibly associated with the recession and general shrinkage of the ice -sheets and glaciers, the first major influx of human beings was beginning around this time -period. One current theory is that the new arrivals entered the continent following herds of mega fauna via the Bering Land Bridge, an area of land recently exposed by the shrinking ice fields. By 10,000 BP, glaciers had receded and the bulk of southeastern North America, including the proposed project area, had changed into evergreen forests with increases in oak and southern pine species that extended up to deciduous forests. Mixed conifer/hardwood forests transitioned around 40 degrees north latitude. By 6,000 BP, most of the ice sheets had receded to or were approaching northerly limits roughly in the area they occupy today, and northern pine species had become dominant in the mixed conifer forests north of northern Arkansas. Southern species of pine became dominant in the southeastern evergreen forests by 6000 BP. When humans are first thought to have entered the region, about 12,000 BP, the last ice age was nearing its end, and boreal forests may have covered much of the region. A gradual warming trend resulted in the development of more temperate forests but by 5,000 B.P., conditions had become so warm and dry that grasslands and prairie environments may have been present throughout much of the state. This interval of warmer, drier weather is known as the Hypsithermal and appears to coincide with depopulation of the area during much of the Early and Middle Archaic periods. The modern climate is thought to have begun developing about 4,000 years ago resulting in the evolution of the current forest types. These climatic changes and their resulting I effects on the floral and faunal communities had a direct bearing on hurnan adaptation in the region. This is clearly reflected in the diversity and range of artifact assemblages contained in the .region's rich archeological record (Miller 2001 ). Most animal species typical of the southeastern woodlands werc indigenous to the roglon including deer, mink, raccoon, bison, squirrel, bmir: tl►rIkeY, Oougffr, fOA, wolf, bobcat, and iiik{'1.C,S v:'f511 as`:t �l! tY![}r] of %�'sl'dg, 'fi^}t, eF;yii;ti, %if'?fT��117��e35, frnrl freshwater "filussells, 10 BRIEF CULTURAL HISTORY The guncral sequence of prehistoric. cultural development in the project area is similar to that defined for the, region as a whole and to the stagos of cultural dcvclopinent in the southeastern Unilcd States. '['he major cultural stagcS arc Palro-Irid jail, Archaic,, Woodland, )1✓Il:ifil.`iilppl. 111d Historic'.. Morc in-rinpth (,IiscuSslo'ils of each. Stage arc flee'"ra'It ;l:l 111 /i llllr7_'f`Gr/ ?u,;" -'Cs lvo."aivi,i, iff' i%lu :)'!;, /,ril^ /' oila /I( ;"ol!"51S (Sabo ct al. I98) ) and rIfu mn Adapiaisoac; ii7 the Oi:(.,rk Oma(.hIla "Ouni[l1i45' (Sabo eA al. 1988). Little is known about the lifloways of the eai-I'if%A inhabitants of the region during the Pre -projectile, and. Palen-l-ndian SiigoFs (30,000 H.C. to 9,000 B.C.). Lithic or stone tools including large la.nce;olatc-shapod -fluted dart and spear points are distinctive markers of this period. Based on ctfrnogrciphic studies of primitive societies and paleo- environmental reconstruction, it is hypothesized tht.t the small band level societies dependcd heavily on hunting, fishing,, and gathering wild plants 'tor subslslerice. Many of the large animal species exploited by "the big game, hunters" such as the rnarnmoth arc extinct, Most of the 11alco-Indian sitc;;s found in northeast Arkansas occur on the ripper Cache Rivcr and on the eastern flank ofCrowley's Ridge (Morse and Morse 1983). The fluted Clovis• -like points from northeast Arkansas are thought to be "typically shorter" than those; found on the Great Plains. These surfarc finds have been comparatively elated with sites outside the region to about 9000 to 10,000 B.C. Based on current data, subsistence was oriented primarily to hunting wild animals and gathering wild plant foods. Toward the end of the Palco-Indian stage or the beginning of the Archaic period (9,000 B.C. to about 500 B.C.), the environment became much like it is today. Projectile; points dating to this transition include lanceolate Harms such as the; Balton and Packard. These types are represented in this region and westward to the prairie -woodlands border in eastern Oklahoma (Wyckoff 1984:130-134). During the Archaic period people exploited (hunted and gathered) a wider range of plajlt and animal resource's than their Paleo-Indian ancestors. The subsistence base is reflected in the numerous types of projectile point styles and a wide range of tools ibund in the Archaic Period. In northeast Arkansas, the "Hardin and Early Sternmed Period" is associated with an "influx of Plains -like styles," and dates about 7000-•6000 B.C. (Morse and Morsc; 1983). Hardin points are rare and, again., have a distribution similar to Dalton points. The distribution of Hardin points in cast -central Arkansas is described as "confined to the Wisconsin -age terraces east of the White River" (House 1996). Other stemmed points include Searcy, Johnson and Hidden Valley points (Mors(; and Morse 1983). The distribution of Johnson points extends to the southern portion of the Lower White Rivet- (House 1982). Later point types include the Ricc points (Morse and Morse 1983), Morse and Morse propose that the western lowlands of northeastern Arkansas were largely abandoned ca,6000-4000 B,C. in favor of the, Ozark Plateau (1983). The Late Archaic begins at the end of the Ilypsithermal period when the modern climate and ecosystems established. The rc is a dramatic increase in the number of sites in the region, and for this reason Morse and Morse call this period the "Archaic Expansion." During the Late Archaic;, there is an increased human adaptation to riverine environments and the culture appears to be more sedentary than previous periods. In northeast Arkansas Morse and Morse (1983) suggest -further subdivision of the Late Archaic into three sub periods: Big Creels (3000--2000 B.C.), Burkett (2000-1000 B.C.) and Weems (1000-500 B.C.). The Woodland period (500 B.C. to A.D. 1000) is ide;ntifi(A by the p.roscn.ce of pottery and in some areas the beginning of horticulture and agriculture. Horticulture is the cultivation of species of native weeds (i.e. Ar,nararith, Chenopodium). Agriculture is the cultivation of tropical cultigens (corn, beans, squash, etc.) which were introduced into the area from Meso -America. Tire noticeable correlation o f agriculture, pottery, and burial mounds suggests an increase; in social and ceremonial activities during the Woodland period. Siltstone hoes, indicative of horticulture/agriculture, are associated with this period. The rrost commonly occurring diagnostic artifacts for the period are the Big Creek, Burkett, and Weems points and are likely carryovers from the preceding Archaic period. Other artifacts include adzes, celts, grooved axes, plummets, and choppers (Morse 1983). 7,he development of cerarnir, vessels appears during this period as well, indicating a greater reliance on food storage and preparation as well as more sedentary lifestyles. During the Marksville period, pottery became more diverse and mound building began at some of the more prominent sites. Burial ceremonialism is reflected by rich graves placed in central log tombs and covered by conical mounds. Participation in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere is reflected in the trade of exotic artifacts, mound building, and burial practices. Populations were dispersed in small villages. Diagnostic artifacts include Marksville pottery, coiner -notched and stemmed projectile points, blades and cores, and exotic materials such as copper, mica, galena, obsidian, pearl beads, ear spools, and platform pipes (Jeter, 1989). During the Baytown period, a clear-cut distinction between sand -tempered (Barnes phase) pottery and grog -tempered (Baytown phase) pottery reached its peak. This distinction in modes of tempering is probably indicative of political or cultural boundaries. Pottery is predominantly plain but some cord marking does occur. The most common site type represents a single structure probably occupied by an extended family. Larger villages are also known (Morse and Morse, 1983). Mound building continued throughout this period although there was less emphasis placed on burial ceremonialism as in the previous Marksville period. Lithics, on many sites are rare. Diagnostic, point styles include Steuben points and Gary points. Plummets, boat stones, celts, and pipes, are occasionally found. Subsistence was based primarily on hunting and gathering but a limited reliance on horticulture was beginning to develop. While maize or other definite cultigens have not been identified within Baytown Period features, persimmon, grape, hickory nuts, acorns, and chenopodium have been recovered within flotation samples (Morse and Morse, 1983). 12 The 'type'site ^Itis i:his perk)d i, the: 13r,ytowrr (alg) k1lown a:s Indian Hay) site; iri soutlicrn Monrc► ; (;.[7:tU3ty, grid %Nns dr.;;ignalml by Phillips, Forcl, and Griffrn. 1'11is site;, howe c.i-, ►-vas not excavai:d under eo,,i.roiied c.;on.clitioiis.Oiily one Ra,ycovv,i period site has been adequately studied, Tho DcRossi.tt site; (3S 49) in n.oith-(.-,entral St, Francis County produced 164 trash pits and 500 post molds. i-3 AT), 1000 iliri•r; .j;id �{ illoc(: I;oi.1'IpIP�; socia, ti"rf.;il"ill ;]i ID i1 as 1:,,; stairu,; CH fei'eriti,10.ori, c. These clianges mark the bcglnn'ing of illc W sissippi Period, Motorial culturt: ineJudcs arrow points and shell 'iernpo, d p„ lte;ry. T'li'is lcircp�rriisg 1celi,l'iylrc at0o'�,'rA 'Ir . the, Inanufaet.um of 1 wider variety of vessel forms and decorations. Exotic materials and artistic, ar€ifarts; orcin deroratcA ✓, ii.h rr, and rillial gtymhnis; werr� trarlyd throughout the: region. Aller do atlj, irnportarjt or high stalus individuals eller interred with their posscs5ions in sacred burial sites. Othex character istic-11, nit( -)'r alsoc:iated with Mississippian rulturc include villkif cs with palisrdvs, len*pl rrux.cMIS, ar1 increasing depen&-nce on ngriculti.rrc., Find thF; clr;v41{ylr,nc;,1t (if complexsocial ;yeterns, The how and arrow shows up (luring rile early part ofllle period and largely replaces the atlati and dart common to the preceding periods. Tottery c;volves liom jar ,.mcl bowl forms common in Early Period Mississippian sites to a variety of compound effigy and bottle fornix characteristic of late Period Mississippian and Proto-historic sites. By about A.D. 1000, a number of individual chiefclorns had developed, each generally consisting of a fortified ceremonial center, several 16rtified villages, and "numerous farmsteads. Villages were often planned and houses were usually arranged in rows. in the 1500s, European contact with Native American cultural groups marked the card of [lie prehistoric period. Indian lii'eways during, the contact period are known fi-orn the: written accounts of European explorers. The southern Oxarks were under the control of the Osage Tribe. Immigrant tribes such Is the Choctaw and Cherokee were briefly settled in the Arkansas Valley until their removal to Oklahoma in 1828. European -American settler,, began to move into the region in the late 18"' century and early 19"i cvntury, The fir„;t white immigrants into the Arkansas Toxritory were trappers and hunters. A. second wave of immigrants was priinarily small subsistence farmers. Migration of agricultural settlers during this time derived almost entirely from those coming from the southern Appalachian region of Kentucky, 'Tennessee, and North Carolina (Sabo et al. 1982:89). The settlement patterns are represented by "homesteads exhibiting log house architect.urr, and gardens, located at the base of tributary valleys or at the river valley/slope interface” (Sabo et al. 1892:144). Included in this settlement pattern would be isolated service centers such as rnills, tanneries, and distillcrics located along waterways and almost always along roads. The early settlement in the region were generally subsistence farriers and herders until steamboats were able to make their way up navigable rivers (the Arkansas River in this area) when cotton production increased in the upland farms due, to the new market accessibility. The states population surged in the mid to late 19°i century. In 1820, the state's population was only 14,255. i3y 1840 the population had grown to 97,574 and by 1890 the; population was 1,125,385 (Chism 1891:328-329). 13 In 181.2, Congress established Missouri Territory, which reached south to Louisiana. Two of the territory's southern counties (Arkansas and Lawrence) included much of the area that would become, Arkansas. When Congress established Arkansas Territory in 1819, the two counties were divided into the five original Arkansas counties. Pulaski County was established at that time and named for Count Casimir Pulaski, a Polish nobleman who fought and died in 1779 in the Revolutionary War's Battle of Via✓innate. T'he tcr'rirorial l.c. islatr]r voteci in 187_1 to :mo ✓e the capital :from Afkansas Post (Arkansas County) to Little, Rock because of flooding and disease at the -Former location. The legislature had, in 1820, established Cadron, a lur-trapping post on the Arkansas River -which was located in what i.s now Faulkner County, as the county seat but moved it to Little Rork in 1821 when it chose: to move the territorial capital there. The new state constructed a capitol -building in Little Rock on the Arkansas River bank between 1833 and 1842, and state government operated out of the statehouse until the present capitol was completed in 1915. Pulaski County government operated out of the statehouse until 1883, when the stato government came to require the entire building and displaced the county government to a temporary location. County officials began planning and building the Pulaski County Courthouse, completed in 1889. In 1890, the city of Little Rock derailed the. community of A•rgenta's plans to incorporate as a city by annexing the community as Little Rock's Eighth City Ward. In 1904, Little Rock's Eighth Ward split off to become part of North Little Rock, a separate municipality. In 1906, the city's name was formally changed to Argenta but then reverted back to its present-day name, North Little Rock, in 1917. 14 BACKGROUND RUSEA RCI -1 Background studies were conductcA pruvious io rhcldWOfk. Chrr; Bl'anacri searched the records in the archeological she dawbasc at the Arkansas Arcfieolol,ical Survey (ALIS) in C'ayettcvilic. to chccic fpr previously rccorded arcihcolof ical sites that could he advorac;ly arfociod by tl1n piY poscA pipolino pix)ject. 'I"ht: site Files at , _ tIln7c \]lisiri�c "-Ii Pr�s F 111 to 0)(-(c r ; - h1StO-fiC StYlACtUres list(A 1)n cor 11CJwinated fo? ;.hc Natio-o'd o"I t"ilSim.-.1c: ili 1(.c5 (N 1-111XP). `]'here were Ebur previously .recorded ni,choological sites within a mile of the current project area. None of the previously recordod sites ars; in t.lu; direct Area of Potential Fffect (APF) al'the (:urrently proposecl deve,lopinent. The closest known site is 3Pi1813 at 0.36 iinilcs Iiom the clure-iat 1'iroj(c;t area. "fllis, site; is the reprntcd location of 191' century ceniotery. This information is bar,; d oaa a ncwspaper article, but rao other archival information has been found rogarding, a cernetcry at this location. It is Unclear if an archeologist has visited this site to detcrminc 11' this location does indeed contain burials. Site 3PU257 is a historic site located roughly 0.811 miles from the current prgject area. This site was recorded when wreckage of a wooden hull barge was bund during dredging operations in the Arkansas River. Sonic of the barge was recovered and sonic of the barge remains in the river. No cargo was recovered during the salvage operation. Site 3PU707 is a historic site located approxinaatel.y 0.6 miles from the current project area. `Phis site is a preserve([ Section o f Last 3"' Street that was paved with brink. Site 3PU762 is a section of railroad that was built circa 1906 that was unearthed during construction activities, airproximately 0.82 milers from the current project area. There were six previously conducted archeological investigations within a mile of the proposed project area shown in the records at the AAS. In 1989 W.J. Bennett Jr., Phyllis L. Breland, and Lawson M. Smith co-authored the project report Cultural Resources and Geoinor phological Reconnaissance o/ the McClellan -Kerr Arkansas River" Navigation .Syslem, Pools I Through 9 (AMASDA 1313) for Archeological Assessments, Inc. An integrated program of geomorphological and archeological investigation was conducted within those portions of the McClellan -Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System between Dardanelle, Arkansas, and the Mississippi River. 'These included office, laboratory, and field studies. These Investigations documented those land -forms and land - forming processes which could be identified at a reconnaissance level effort. The documented archeological record was discussed in terms of its distribution across the landscape. Recornmendat ions for further investigations were offered. In 2001 James A. Ross authored the project report MacArthur I'ark Restroom Facilities Cultural Resources Survey (AMASDA 4538) for RGS Consultants. A cultural resources survey was conducted within the MacArthur Park permit area, The project area 15 Was disturbed by land leveling area dic iostallation of a water sprinkler s,ystrnrl so ih(, likelihood of locating amlir;ological sitc;s v/t"):; low. `:i'ncc archi'ml and thc; S'LIrV;;y produced no cvldence of st-r aural rcrnauu: or cultural 'fCEltur(:s within thr) / P.' . It v/as recommended that no 'further ar'ohcologic;al work be Clone for this undertaki'i1g• In 2002. Timoth- C. Kiinj;c:r au.ltho.rr;d the Cli;11011 Cenie:" 1,iyil�� ¢r%�iJ(; f /i;i.'U1"%i/�."C)YJE!'...'.5 ,��'_':' '• � �� (5'�/A." 1, 'A 44 ~7 ) ;) of t'f 0 -lis; rf"port docurlients IIIA 'K)i i.be Ciirltl;rl in tllc City of, i,ittle Rock, 111.11aski. County, Arkaru>as. Thc; AP[" for thr, pmposcd Lnldertaking inch.ulcs Flocks �l, 5, <3, 9, 1O, 1 1, .lel, 1 , 1C�, and 1.7 in Russell's Addition ofilics City of Little Rock that is bounded by i=?ast 3.rd F,'trcet ocl tfic south, the Arkansas River ori the luirth, Collins Avenue on the west, and )~ast /\,venue on the cast and covr_rs approximately +/- 26 acres. Thr, proposed undcOaking include; the; Clinton Presidential Library, archives, and other tnlildings and parks. `-fhrcc wrchitectural resources were currently located in the APT? including tlis Cliocta-�r Route', Station, the; Depot, and the i3ridge. In addition to these, 712 rc:,cordcd by the Sanborn Jmsuranrc, Company team. Artifacts f6and in shovc;l tests excavated below ih, top bank oi• the Arkansas River reflect. late 19th cnntury or early 20,h century artivitir: archaeological data and to place it into a historic context. The study area was a four --block long urban area of existing surface streets that included three blocks on Hast 3rd Street (from Rector Street vilest to Cornrnerce Street) and a one -block section of Commerce Street (from East 3rd north to 2nd Street). The project resulted in the identification of intact archaeological features at five locations, designated 3PU 762 loci A-E. Loci A and B consisted of portions of a berried ca. 1900 Choctaw Railroad spur :line in the 600 block of East 3rd Strc,rA. Loci.is C cort„i tr,rl of a buried secti.cm cf'tri.pie railro^ri -siding in. the 200 bloci� of South Conimcco,, `3tred that was constructed ca. 1926.19:58, Locus O consisted of an early -twentieth-century culvert that encloses Town Creek at the intersection of East 3rd Street and South Sherman Street. Locus E consisted of an early - twentieth -century subterranean brick structure at the intersection of South Commerce Street and East 2nd Street. There was no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible historic structures in the records at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area that would be directly affected. The Bureau of Land Management First Land Patents records and the General Land Office snaps were also consulted for information regarding the history of land ownership of the project area (Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands 2001), The General Land Office (GLO) original survey map of Township 1 North, Range 12 West, approved in 1819, showed no improvements in the immediate vicinity of the project area (Figure 8). The GLO dependent resurvey map approved in 1855 shows possible agricultural fields just south of the project area belonging to ".l.B. Keatt" and "Killian" (see Figure 9); but no improvements directly in the project area Unfortunately the First Land Patent records contained no information regarding the names of the original legal landowners in the project area. Additionally, archival maps of the area were viewed at the Arkansas History Commission by Chris Branam. These maps include Blaisdell's Map of Little Rock dated 1921; Ashburn's Map of Little Rock dated 1957; and the Sanborn Company Fire Insurance Maps dated 1913 and 1939 (on microfilm). The 1921 map and the Sanborn 1913 map show the project area as being in the Fletcher & Clark's Addition. The 1939 Sanborn map shows the current project area contains little in the way of structures (Figure 9). According to the landowner, part of the project area was used as a dump site in the past for debris from a hotel that was destroyed in downtown. Little Rock (off-site). The artifacts recovered during the survey from newly recorded Site 3PU836 and the stratigraphy found at the site supports this assertion. 1F ❑ RKA Nt32I. S J r'M1 J >� c 9 �+ 1 f "iii.• ' rn. i .j ,, .`�.-- ti f Figm-c 8. 1819 GLO Original Survey Map showing T I N, R 1 Z W (Section l is not shown because it is in an arca designated belonging to the "Quapaw Nation of Indians" T1 �7�.YT'a tf1:n�1 -_.+ 'J7�? .. _;1�3:�3�' "�It �� t. ,��;'s�r •-n ++ �Fil1` fQ .. �• '�� '�rar. � ��L•�`t) f��'Oi rr�f1.. rte a.k i .V w l Ll J r'M1 J >� c 9 �+ 1 f "iii.• ' rn. i .j ,, .`�.-- ti f Figm-c 8. 1819 GLO Original Survey Map showing T I N, R 1 Z W (Section l is not shown because it is in an arca designated belonging to the "Quapaw Nation of Indians" Figure 9. 1855 GLO Dependent Resurvey Map showing Section 1 o1'1'1 N, K I zw (approximate location of projcct area outlined in reel). 19 r l� � � ��k^I,,;.�gf�1i i;l`';. � ���?�,�>,�l;kli'!���fM;:. ! I, Ifi Figure 10. Western portion of project area (outlined in red) on 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. 20 +0 i4 ILI r l� � � ��k^I,,;.�gf�1i i;l`';. � ���?�,�>,�l;kli'!���fM;:. ! I, Ifi Figure 10. Western portion of project area (outlined in red) on 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. 20 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS The; archeological fieldwork was supei-viseci by Chris Branarn, RIIA, in November 2012, during one man -day. Archeologists ,lames P. Morgan and ..lane C:armack assisted Chris Branarn in the field, A topographic; map and an aerial map showing the proposed project :area were provided Eiji Clic landowner, John I_ud! haltcr, buforc archeological The pj.-oje-,CI area is situated on the south side of the Arkansas River (Figurc 11). Thu southern portion of the I.rroject arta contains at least 2 rneters of fill dirt and debris (see figure 14). The western portion of the project area was cornpictcly disturbed, where an -18 x 20 meter concrete pad (likely a loading dock) is situated on top of the rill (see Figure; 16). The landowner stated that the; project area was used as a di rnp site ff7r the debris from a hotel located in downtown Little Rock that was destroyed in the 1970s. The northern portion of the site, a strip immediately adjacent to the river, appears to be relatively undisturbed aside 17•orn being, periodically inundated, A total of 28 shovel tests wore oxcavated in the; project arca. Shovel tests were excavated in 20 meter intervals in the portion of the project area that was not artificially disturbed (see map in Figure 11). In the disturbed areas with till, judgmentally placed shovel tests were excavated (see Figure 11). A pedestrian survey and ground surface inspection was conducted in the disturbed areas. All of the soils from the shovel tests were screened through '/ inch hardware mesh. Shovel tests were approximately 35 to 40 centimeters in diameter and excavated to a depth of at least 100 centimeters. The shovel tests were excavated in standard arbitrary 20 centimeter levels. A listing of the, shovel test results can be found in Appendix C (separate attachment). The typical shovel test in the project area in the northern portion of the project area consisted of light yellowish brown (10YR6/4) fine sandy loam to about 80 curbs; a brownish yellow (10YR6/6) fine sandy loam from about 80 embs to 105 curbs; and a yellowish brown (10YR5/6) fine sand fi-om about 105 to 130 rmbs. Tile typical shovel test on the fill area on the southern portion of the project area consisted of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) sandy silty loam over yellowish brown (10YR5/4) silty sand. This basic soil stratigraphy deviated little in the project area in relation to these two distinct landforms. One new archeological site was located and recorded during this survey and assigned the site number 3PU836. Site 3PIJ836 was delineated in the field. A new site form was completed and submitted to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. 'Tile site, is discussed in detail later in this report and the location of the site can be found in Appendix C (separate attachment), Artifacts recovered during this project were assigned accession numbers and Field Specimen Numbers (FSN). The artifacts were returned to We Flat Earth Archeology laboratory where they were washed, catalogued, analyzed and prepared for permanent curation at the University of Arkansas Curation Facility in Fayetteville. Standard 21 definitions for artifacts were used as found in D LOS; A Computerized Art{fact Inventory and Analysis System (Cando and Barnes 1992), During the basic analysis, all artifacts were catalogued, counted, and weighed in grams. Collections and analysis forms vdill be curated under the assigned permanent accession number 2012-542 (assigned by the Arkansas Archeological Survey). The analysis of the historic materials was conducted by Chris Branam and Jane Carmack. Although complete site evaluations are outside the scope of this Phase 1 survey; based on the current fieldwork a preliminary evaluation and recoinmendation for NRNP significance of this site's potential vitas established using the guidelines put forth in A State flan fir the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas (Davis 1982, Amended 2010), and those put forth by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). The following criteria were used in these evaluations: (1) the nature of the deposits such as the presence or potential presence of intact strata, features, or buried horizons; (2) the temporal affiliation and function of the site; (3) the topographic situation represented; (4) the contents of the site including the density and diversity of artifacts; and (5) the sites research potential. Also taken into account were those characteristics in the State Plan, which usually make a site significant and therefore eligible to the National Register. These include: 1. Sites with undisturbed single component deposits. 2. Sites with undisturbed intact material or levels which could provide absolute dates for associated cultural material. 3. Sites with stratified deposits. 4, Sites with human skeletal populations. 5. Sites with good preservation or evidence of the reconstruction of the environment and development of cultivation of plants. 6. Sites with evidence of structures, a village plan, etc., which might provide information on the social, political, and religious organization. 7. Sites with tool kits. NO) P.6 Sro� µ N J I P.6 I } { Y 51 y. . Figure; 12. Shovel "fest l at 100 cm (note hole fi-or soil probe at bottom). Figure 13. Soil profile rrom 100 to 130 cmbs in Shovel Test 1. 24 i 1 1 �•.'. % .� `fir � . �''• � �.� ;'' �4.r ,,�.�. 17 N' ys,Yri �..'k 1'•i� Ij {r Y ��: �r ��h{, Yo . / . , + f '! • .i�- �; µ-Vi are r.'r �•.�• '• }4 i . Excavating Shovel Test 4 (note the arnount of fill to the south in backgrour .. -. .. rte• il"� � 1.. r .. !k :...._.-_ .'��L7thi. Figure 16. Concrete pad on western portion of the project arca (facing northwest). 7.6 Site 3PU836 Site Type: Historic Cultural Affiliation: Early 20'h Century Site Dimensions: 10 meters x 10 meters (incomplete) Site Description: Sits: 3PIJ236 is in a f:r-,avil.'/ dist?ub(-A a;^a thWE as likely Pushed to make a landform for a concrete pad (possible loading deck) that is currently at the top of the rise (see Figure 16). Two shove! tests excavated on the east side of the concrete pact were positive for cultural materials to 120 ernbs using a combination of a shovel and a post -.bole digger. The artifact density is quite high and no culturally sterile level was identified in the shovel tests (we simply could go no further by hand). There was evidence that the historic materials had been burned (melted glass, burned paper) at one time. The positive shovel test consisted of artifacts that date to the same time period and were likely deposited at this location (dumped) in a very short period oftime, However, it appears that that the deposits were burned frotin 60 to 120 curbs as the soil is much darker below 60 curbs. But the artifacts do not change as there is sofne melted glass found throughout. The second positive shovel test, 5 meters south of the first positive shovel test at Site 3PU€336, contained fewer artifacts and the deposits were more shallow. This would likely indicate that this shovel test is near the southeastern edge of the site (see Figure 17). The shovel tests on the west side of the concrete pad were negative and no shovel tests could be placed on the north side due to slope down to river and rip -rap. It is possible the historic midden (dating to the 1920s based on makers' marks on whiteware fragments) extends under the concrete pad. The site could not be delineated to the east due to the extreme slope down to the east (see Figure 17). Archival information and maps were examined at the Arkansas History Commission. In the early 20 century this lot was part of the "Clark & Fletcher Addition". The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from 1913 and 1939 show sporadic private residences in this location and a furniture factory just off to the southwest, but it was not heavily in use during this time period judging from the map data. Based on the amount of "colored" churclies (also AME) in the immediate area shown on the maps, it is assumed that a minority neighborhood surrounded the project area during this period. The landowner stated that during the 1970s a hotel in downtown Little Rock was destroyed and this area was used as a landfill or waste area for debris. This actually corresponds quite well with the type of artifacts found during the survey and the unusual stratigraphy and depth of historic debris and disturbed soils. The artifacts recovered include wire nails, whiteware (multi -colored transfer printing and plain) fragments, bottle fragments (post -1900), container glass fragments, window glass fragments of varying widths, wire nail fragments, Bakelite, burned paper fragments that appear to be from a ledger, brick fi-agments, ceramic the fragments, and bone fragments (bird and mammal) with one containing cut marks. The only 27 rnanufaeturer's rnark on the artifacts is from a whitcware dish and is dated 1923 (set; Figure 19). The various bottle 11C.cks arld finishes recovered ,ill have. seems that continuo all the way over the lip, which elates the bottles to viler 1900 (Abe;rnathy 1980). Steel wire nails, like all of the: nails recovc rcd at Site 3PU836, began being produced in the 1880s and by 1900 had essontially rep1accd cut Mails in the market place (Edwards and Wclls 199:3:18). River sleep slope dnw„ sleep slopu down concrete 3PU836 �I r A Positive shovel Les[ "G.01IOm 119 p Negative shovel Icsl Figure 17. Sketch Map of Site 3PU836. 28 Figure 18. Shovel Test at Site 3PU836 at 75 embs. Figure 19. Shovel Test 1 (from sketch araap of 3PU836) diagrarn. 2.9 -� Table 1e Artifacts Recovered from Site 3PU836 Shovel Test � Provenience Depth (embs) Artifact 'fype Accession Number Artifact Count We4ght � (grams ) 2012-542•-1-1-1 Wire nails 7 3.7 3� 2.1 2012-542-1-1-2 Window glass --1 78,3 2012-542-1-1-3 Brick fi•agment 2012-542-1-1-4 _ Ceramic tile 2Y 5.9 2012-542.-1-2-1 Milk glass lid liner 1 3,3 2012-542-1-2-2 Clear container lass 22 289.8 0-20 Historic 2012-542-1-2-3 Amethyst container glass 2 4.7 2012-542-1-2-4 Aqua container lass 15 15.8 _ 2012-542-1-2-5 Brown container ]ass 3 4.2 2012-542-1-2-6 Green container glass 4 5.7 _ 2012-542-1-2-7 Albany/Bristol stoneware 1 6,1 2012-542-1-3-1 Shell button 1 0.1 2012-542-2-1-1 Wire nails 2 1,9 S 'I' 1 2012-542-2-1-2 Window glass 2 1.1 2012-542-2-1-3 Ceramic tile 1 3.2 2012-542-2-2-1 Clear container lass 28 273,8 2012-542-2-2-2 Aqua container lass 8 20,3 20-40 Historic 2012-542-2-2-3 Blue container lass 1 1.3 2012-542-2-2-4 Brown container lass 3 2,4 2012-542-2-2-5 Green container glass 2 2.0 2012-542-2-2-6 Plain whiteware 1 2.4 2012-542-2-3-1 Animal bone (unidcntified) 1 0.2 2012-542-3-1-1 Wire nails 6 5.9 _ 2012-542-3-1-2 Brick fragment 2 43,5 40-60 Historic 2012-542-3-1-3 Ceramic tile 3 13,7 2012-542-3-1-4 Lead pipe fragment 1 134,2 148,2 2012-542-3-2-1 Clear container lass 19 30 31 r 2012-54 2.-3-2- 2 Brown container lass -- 5.6 _ 2012-542-3-2-3 Green container lass 8 14.8 2012-542-3-2-4 Salt glazed stoneware I 6.3 .- --- ---- - - 2.012-542-3-3-1 ----•.._ Animal bone (I.I111denfifiod) 3 -._.. 0.6 .._ Wi;cnails 2012-542-4-1-1 14 f 18.2. 54.2 2012-542.-4••1-2 Metal spike 1 2012-542-4-1-3 Window glass 4 5.3 2012-542-4-1-4 Brick fragments 2 17.1 2012-542-4-2-1 Milk glass lid liner 1 1.8 2012-542-4-2-2 Clear container 23 57.2 2.012-542-4-2-3 Amethyst container glass 1 3.6 2012-542-4-2.-4 Brown container lass 3 7.1 _ 60-80 Historic Multi -colored 2012-542-4-2-5 transfer printing decorated 1 31.4 whiteware _ 2012-542-4-2-6 _ Plain whiteware 2 3.5 S.T. 1 2012-542-4-2-7 Bristol/Bristol stoneware 1 8.0 (cont) 2012-542-4-3-1 Bakelite fragment (undefined) 1 0.2 2012-542-4-4-1 Burned paper fragments NA 5.8 2012-542-5-1-1 Wire nails 5 4.2 2012-542-5-1-2 Brick fragment 1 139.6 2012-542-5-2-1 Clear container glass 27 81.5 2012-542-5-2-2 Aqua container lass 2 3.9 80-100 Historic 2012-542-5-2-3 Brown container lass 1 1.3 2012-542-5-2-4 Green container lass 2 3.0 2012-542-5-2-5 Plain whiteware 1 1.6 2012-542-6-1-1 Wire nail 1 1.8 2012-542-6-1-2 Brick fragments 2 14.1 100-120 Historic 23,7 2012-542-6-2-1 Clear container lass 11 2012-542-6-2-2 Aqua container lass 1 14.5 _ _ 2012-542-6-2-3 Plain whiteware 2 7.0 31 Sl� -- --------- 2012-542--7-1-1 Wire nail Clear collminer 2012-542-'/-2-1 Uiuo ir 2012-542-'-/-2-2 Brown conlamer Plasiic lube 20 12-542-7-3-1 — — conlainer 2012-542-8-1-1 ss I a�----- lUu*ic —'------_'_- ' —A | 0/2'511.2-8-i Bain vhhmmm � Figme 20. Examples nfceramic tiles found nt8itc,3PD830. HIM Figure 2 1. Whlteware dish with Manufacture's Mark dating to 1923. 33 Figure 22. Top -side of dish in Figure 19. Figure 23. Bottle finishes found at 3PU836 (all post-date 1900 manutacture). A Figure 24. Glass dis]Vcontainer lid fi•agment fi•om 3PU836, Recommendation: Although Site 3PU836 contains a high density of artifacts fi•om a coi,runercial cstablishi,ncni dating to the r.-,arly 20'x' century; the site itself is part of a secondary fill. "Therefore, the site lacks the integrity that would make it eligible for inclusion to the National Register of 1-listorir; Places, The artifacts recovered from the site will be; curated at the University of Arkansas Curation Facilities and the listing of artifacts is likely the only useful data that could be obtained from Site 3PU836, No further archeological work is recommended for Site 3PU836. 35 SUMMARY.' AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Phase 1 archeological survey was conducted by Flat Earth Archeology for a proposed marina development in Little; Rock, The project included background reviews for recorded archeological sites, previots cultural resources investigations, and historic. structures in the vicinity. The project arcawas heavily distki-ebed at various times in the oast. The, so rthe.rn hall'of fbc. project contained scr:ondary fill, mpor'tcdl.mc;tc;rc., to build the area up. The northei.n portion of the, project area, immediately adjacent to the river is often inundated and consists of fine: sand clown to 1.3 meters below the surface. The western portion of the project area has been disturbed by dumping secondary -fill from off-site structures (likely a hotel) that were destroyed. The artifacts from this secondary fill constitute the newly recorded Site 3PU836. This archeological site is not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because it is from secondary fill. No cultural resources originating from the, project area were identified during the current survey. For the reasons mentioned above, no further archeological work is recommender) for this location, if the proposext project area boundaries are altered, additional archeological survey will be needed, if deeply buried cultural materials not associated with Site 3PU836 are encountered during ground disturbing activities, the project will need to cease immediately and the archeologists at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State Historic Preservation Office should be notified. DISCLAIMER There is a realistic limitation involved with standard survey field methodology. Shovel testing is most effective in finding certain types of sites, those with relatively high artifact densities or those with abnorinal soil development such as midden. 'Thin artifact scatters can be missed in areas where surface visibility is poor. Furthermore deeply buried sites are difficult to identify using standard survey methodology. Flat Earth Archeology made a good faith effort to find any cultural resources in the project area through rigorous background research and intensive fieldwork as prescribed in A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas; but this is not a guarantee that no cultural resources arc present. 36 REFERENCE'S CITED Arkansas Commissioner ol'State Lands 2004 Original General Land Office Survey Notes and Plats for the Statc gfArkansas 1815-preseni. Produced by the State of Arkansas. Mavis,, Hester A., (cditcr) 2010 A State Plan for tlic C_cin ;er'Jatlof� o f ArclAcologiral i� sours; li. A.rlcansas, Arkansas Archeological Survey Resc,arch Series No. 2.1, Fayetteville, AR, Edwards, Jay D, and Tom Wells 1993 Historic Louisiana Mails: Ails to the Dating of Old Buildings. Geoscience Publications, Louisiana Stats: University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Foti, Thomas L. 1974 "Natural Divisions of Arkansas," in Arkansas Natural Area Plan, prepared by the Arkansas Department of Planning, pp. 11-34. Arkansas Department of Planning, Little Rock. Haley, George J., Randle 0. Buckner, and Dorris F. Festervand. 1975 Soil Survey gfPulaski County, Arkansas, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, House, John H. 1982 SE Study Unit 2: Archaic Occupation. In A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas, Edited by H.A. Davis, pp. 8-12. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 21, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1996 East. -Central Arkansas. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, Edited by C.H. McNutt. University of Alabama Press, Tuscalusa. Jeter, Marvin D., Jerome C. Rose, G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., and Anna M. Harmon 1989 Archeology and Bio -archeology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans - Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series #37. 37 Miller, John E. 2001 A Cultural Resources Survey gf'AIITD Job Number 1?50064, IlighwUv 122 3ust, Independence County, Arkansas, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, 1993 A Caltural Resources Survey gf Arkansas Highway and Transportation De,�p2rtiiYde,nl job R6`0012, ,''lash Ccc nty, Hi,(;, ,-va-1/ a ni:l Transportation Departr:oont, Little ]'tock. 1992 A Cultural Resources Survey of .Proposed Arkansas I-Iighway and Transportaiion Department Job 60101, Pulaski County, Arkonsas. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Tittle Rock. Morin, Nancy R. (Editor) 1993 Flora of North America North of'Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York Morse, Dan F. and Phyllis A. Morse 1983 Archeology of the Central Mississippi Valley, Academic Press, New York, Munsell Color 1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised Edition, Macbeth Division of ICollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY. Sabo, George III, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Rose, Barbara A. Burnett, Louis Vogele, Jr., and James P. Harcourt 1988 human Adaptation in the Ozark -Ouachita Mountains. Arkansas Archeological Survey. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Dallas. Contract DACW63-84-C-0149, Sabo, George I1I, David B. Waddell, and John H. House 1982 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Ozark -St. Francis National Forests, Contract 53-43ZP-1-00984. Sloan, bitty 2011 "Trail of Tears" entry in The Encyclopedia of Arkansas history and Culture. htt :llenc cIo ediaafaTkansas.nct/unc clo edialentr - detail,aspx?search-l&eiitr ID=2294. Electronic resource accessed January 18, 2012. Stewart -Abernathy, Leslie C. 1980 historic Ceramics: Decorative Techniques, 1600 to Present, Ms. on file at the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 38 Stroud, Raymond B., Robert H. Arndt, Frank B. Fulderson, and W.G. Diamond 1969 Mineral Resources and .1ndwries of Arkansas. U.S. Department of the interior Bulletin 645. Wyckoff, Don G. 1984 The Foragers: Eastern Okla1.2oma. In Prehistory (.f Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Bcdj. Academic 'Prr -�;, 'Yo1(. Pp. 119.. � 60. Yancey -Dent, Carolyn 2011 "Jacksonville" entry in The Irtcyclopedia of Arkansas liisiory and Culiure, ht�//eneyelonediaoFarkansa,-.nwl ncriolaedialentry- detail.aspx?search=I &ent.rv1D=969. Electronic resource accessed January 19, 2012. 39 Appendix A Chris M. Branamt, RPA 13 Valley Road Cabot, All '72023 Plione: 501.593.0609 Email: embranam@gmail.com EDUCATION A.B.D. Tistory Ph.D. Arkansas (Expected Graduation Date 2012) Dissertation "Topic: Small -Scale `wlavPholders and S1avr-,s in the Early Twentieth Century Trans - Mississippi Nest, a Social History of Ni on -Plantation Slavery in Arkansas and Missouri. December 2003 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas M.A. in Anthropology (Historic Archeology Emphasis) Thesis: A Database of Steamboat Wrecks on the Arkansas River between ]'ort Smith, Arkansas, and Arkansas Post, Arkansas, from 1830-1900. December 1997 University of Arkansas at Kittle Rock Little Rock, Arkansas B.A. in Anthropology Minor in Philosophy/Religious Studies RESEARCH INTERESTS • Historic archeology and nautical archeology • Research of historic river transportation in Arkansas and the Southeastern United States • Early American Ceramics • Late -eighteenth to mid -nineteenth century settlement patterns, economics, cultures, and land use in the American South • Small -Scale Slaveholders and Slaves in the early nineteenth century Trans -Mississippi West, an Examination of Non -Plantation Slavery in Arkansas and Missouri. • Eighteenth and nineteenth century distilling processes, drinking habits, and taverns in the southern Colonies/States and Territories (as a part of an Arkansas Humanities Council grant to Black River Technical College located in Pocahontas, Arkansas) • Class issues and social history related to small-scale slavery in the Old Southwest, particularly in the Arkansas and Missouri Territories (as a part of an Arkansas humanities Council grant to Black River Technical College and PhD Dissertation) WORD EXPERIENCE December 2008 to present Arkansas highway and Transportation Department Archeologist • Perform archeological studies and surveys for various projects in Arkansas + Research for and author reports resulting from archeological work performed, giving recommendations regarding archeological clearance and site evaluations • Evaluate and comment on reports by archeological consultants contracted by AHTD + Give archeological presentations to public and academic conferences A-1 Appendix. A. August 2008 to present Flat Earth Archeology, LLC Cabot, Arkansas Principal ltavestiga torIA)-cheologist ■ Perform archeological surveys and background research for cultural resource management projects in /Arkansas and surrounding states • Perform Phase 11 testing and Phas; III ;mitigation for cultural resource management prgj cots � !`.utL-:�:•..;:i��rts_•��i.�l.. �.i:-�:.;1..,,.�::;;`.,�:1i:.7,�t;...�,•_ ,. ._.� -_;�Cli;_;t ,i:.ii; �c_`_,�; 106 or other compliance. needs January 2005 to December 2008 SPEARS, Inc, West Fork, Arkansas .Archeological Field Supervisor • Supervised and directed various Section 106 (archeological survey) projects throughout Arkansas, directed fieldwork and research, and authored technical reports for the projects • Analyzed, researched, and wrote descriptions regarding the cultural significance of' selected historic artifacts from the Jacob Wolf House excavations May 2004 to January 2005 SPEARS, Inc. West Fork, Arkansas ,Archeological Field Technician • Worked on a Phase III Archeological Mitigation of four bate Woodland/Early Mississippian sites in Northeastern Arkansas May 1999 - March 2000 R. Christopher Goodwin & Assoc. New Orleans, Louisiana and May 2002 -- August 2002 (seasonal) Archeological Field Crew Chigf • Worked on various Phase I archeological survey projects for highway and Pipeline projects in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. • Worked on a Phase III Archeological Mitigation for a Prehistoric site in Northern Tennessee on the Cumberland River for the United States Army Corps of ingineers. TEACHING EXPERIENCE ANTH 2310: Cultural Anthropology. An introduction to the field of cultural anthropology with emphasis on basic anthropological coner-pts, the nature of culture, the development of civilizations, human social behavior, and the study of people and customs around the world. Pulaski Technical College, North Little Rock, Arkansas, (Fall 2005; Spring and Fall 2006; Spring, Summer, and Fall 2007; Spring, Summer, and Fall 2008; Spring, Summer, and Fall 2009; Spring, Summer, and Fall 2010) HIST 1113: World Civilizations I. Introduces the major civilizations of the world in their historical context to 1500. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, (Fall 2008) PRESENTATIONS Branam, Chris 2009 ,AHTD Policies Regarding Historic Cemeteries and Burials. Presented at the Memorial In May— Cemetery Preservation Conference held in Jonesboro, Arkansas, A-7_. Appendix. A 2008 Examining the Motives, Means, and Rhetoric of Disfranchisement to Arkansas, 1888-- 1897.. Paper presented at the Mid -American Conference for History held in Springfield, Missouri. 2008 The Lubricant Teal Allowed Arnerica to Move Wast, The Pole of Distilled Spirits in the t"GnS-Mississippi Region dui"irg the Elarly Nineieenth Century, Paper presented at the Arkansas I-listorical Association Si <ty-Sev ;firth Aiinual Conference held in Furcka 2002 Steamboat Wrecks on the Ar"Icansas River between .Fort Smith and Arkansas Post. Paper presented at the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas 1997 F,volution of the Trireme. Paper presented at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Anthropology Symposium held in Little Rock, Arkansas OTHER TEACHING & WORK RELATED EXPERIENCE • History Graduate Teaching Assistant: University of Arkansas, Western Civilization 11, Spring 2008 e History Graduate Teaching Assistant: University of Arkansas, Western Civilization 1, Fall 7_007 ■ Seasonal Interpreter: Toltec Mounds Archeological State Park, 1997 0 Graduate "Teaching Assistant: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Archeology Field School, 1997 ■ Teaching Assistant: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Archeology Field School, 1996 AWARDS 2008 Recipient of the Mary D. Hudgins Fellowship in Arkansas History from the University of Arkansas History Department, 1997 Recipient of the Student Fieldwork in Anthropology Award (now known as the Mark J. Hartmann Anthropology Student Fellowship) from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, CURRENT PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Registry of Professional Archaeologists • Archaeological Institute of America • Arkansas Historical Association • Southern Historical Association PUBLICATIONS Branam, Chris 2010 "Rethinking Disfranchisement in Arkansas: The Election Law of 1891 and The Poll Tax Amendment of 1892" Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Fall 2010. Branam, Chris 2009 Slave Codes. Entry in The Encyclopedia- of Arkansas history and Culture. hitp://ivivw. encyclopedinofarlcaiisas. net/encyclopeclialenljy-detail. asp,c?search= ] &en ti-.y1D=5054 A-3 Appendix A Branam, Chris 2008 Alection La v of 1891. Entry in The: EncLpedia of Arkansas History and Culture. vcluT2cfiat�ca;/cars::crs.;zeP/encycloleclia/e;zt;j detcil.c l�.r?scccclz lcxe„t�ID—�U3' ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS AND UNPUBLISHED WORK Over 75 archoologi.cal reportauihorc;rJ atrid cc •aoihorcd to d?te.. Tlvh f0owing is aassamplc,� Branam., Chris 2010 A Cultural Resources• Survey gf'.PMposed Arkansas highway and 7ransporiation Department Jobs 090169 - Highway 7 Passing Lanes; 090213 -- highway 7 Safely Improvements; and 009784 -- Buffalo River 3ridge and Approaches on Staie Highway 7 at Pruitt, Newton County. For the Arkansas Highway and'Fransportatiori Department. Branam, Chris 2010 A Cultural Resou; ces Survey cfProposed Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Job FA4510, Searcy County Line - Northwest (Phase 1)(Reconstruclion gf County Road 6), Marion Couniy, Arkansas. For the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Branam, Chris 2010 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed James Pork Water Line Project in Scott County, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2010-39. Report Submitted to the James Fork Regional Water District, Branam, Chris 2009 Phase 11 Archeological Testing ofSix Archeological Sites at the Robinson Maneuver Training Center, Pulaski and Faulkner Counties, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2009-43. Report Submitted to Arkansas Army National Guard. Branam, Chris 2009 Phase II Testing of Archeological Site 3WA1383 for Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Job 040411, Washington County, Arkansas. For the Arkansas Highway and'Fransportation Department. Branam, Chris 2009 A Cultural Resources Survey,for a Proposed Cell 'Power Near Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2009-1. Report Submitted to White Buffalo Environmental, Inc. of Tulsa, OIC. Branam, Chris 2009 A Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Arkansas .highway and Transportation Department ,lob 061202, Stagecoach Road (Highway 5) Saline County Line to Otter Creek Road, Pulaski County. For the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Branam, Chris 2009 Archeological Site Revisits and Asses•.s•ments for the Stringtown Road Water Line Extension, Newton County, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2009-58. Report Submitted to Blaylock Threat Engineers, Inc. A-4 Appendix A Branam, Chris and Erik Masterson 2008 A Cultural Resotrces Survey fora Proposed Cell1'ower Near Sulphur Springs, Benton County, Arkansas. flat Earth Archeology Project Report 20003-5. Report Subrzitted to Peregrine Environmental of Bryant, AR, Branam, Chris and Erik Masterson 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey for u. Proposed Cell Tower Near Fort Smith, Sebastian ! of :'y, A.'!c[c.,...,.... r'lst lrtt /.. '� ^ ;1G✓ r�' <^[ 1'`tp ;,'t J.nn� 13c]�:;rY v?t1;'.i1tt.`,C1 tv White Buffalo Environmental, Inc.,. o Tulsa, Oh. Branam, Chris and Erik Masterson 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Cell Tower Near Johnson, Washington County, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2008-3, Report Submitted to Trileaf Corporation of Grimes, IA, Branam, Chris and Erik Masterson 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Cell Tower Near Mountainburg, Crawford County, Arkansas. Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2008-2. Report Submitted to Trileaf Corporation of'Grimes, IA. Branam, Chris and Erik Masterson 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey, for a Proposed Cell Tower Near Pottsville, Pope County, Arkansas, Flat Earth Archeology Project Report 2008-1. Report Submitted to White Buffalo Environmental, Inc, of Tulsa, OK. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey of 1, 743 Acres in the Oden Ranger District of the Ouachita National Forest, Montgomery County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 195. Branam, Chris 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Cell Tower near Oak Grove, Carroll County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Terracon Consultants, Inc., Bryant, Arkansas. Branam, Chris 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Water Line North of Steadman Road in the Prairie Grove Battle Field State Park, Washington County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 193. Branam, Chris 2008 A Cultural Resources Survey of the .Proposed Water System Improvements,for the Rackley Mountain Extension, Crawford County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Hawkins - Weir Engineers, Inc., Van Buren, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 192, Melissa Zabecki and Chris Branam 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey fur the Proposed Waste Area No. 7 (Former Barrow Pit), Pulaski County, Arkansas, SPEARS Project Report 189. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey in the Bayou Ranger District of the Ozark National Forest, Conway, Pope, and Kan .Buren Counties, Arkansas, SPEARS Project Report 185. A-5 A ppend ix A Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey.for the Proposed oposed Sewer.Une Lxtension in Pocahontas and Shannon, i:aizdolph Couniy, Arkansas. S1'1;ARS Projcct Rcport 184. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey fior- the Proposed Tumbling Shoals Public Water Line, Cleburne County, Arkansas, 5P}'ARS Project Report 183. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey oJ'Compgrounds "A" and "C" al Lake Catherine State Park, Hot Springs County, Arkansas, SPEARS Project Report 181. Spears, Carol S. and Chris Branam 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed River Ridge Development and. Testing at Site 3P1565 on the Little Missouri River, Pike County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 177. Spears, Carol S., Melissa Iabeeld, and Chris Branam 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Water and Sewer bine Improvements for the City of'Pea Ridge, Benton County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project RFport 175, Branam, Chris 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Hot Spring County Industrial Park at Malvern, Hot Spring County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 174. Branam, Chris 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Shadow Ridge Subdivision Development at Pickles Gap, Faulkner County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Tim Tyler Surveying, Conway, Arkansas, SPEARS Project Report 173. Branam, Chris 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Water Line Improvements by the Western Greene County Regional Water District, Greene County, Arkansas. Report submitted to NRS Consulting, Inc,, Jonesboro, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 172. Spears, Carol S., Chris Branam, Christopher M. Page, Robin F. Bowers, Glenda Cade, Leslie Walker, and Robert H. Lafferty, III 2006 Archeological Investigations at the filolfHouse Site volume 111; Excavations Under the North Pen and Recommendations for Future Studies. Draft Report in Review. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Widening of the Runway and Taxiway at the Clinton Municipal Airport, Van Buren County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Grimes Consulting Engineers, Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 170. Branam, Chris and Carol S, Spears 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Utility Line Corridor Near the Joplin Recreational/Mountain Harbor Area on Ouachita Lake, Montgomery County, Arkansas. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. SPEARS Project Report 169. A-6 Appcndix A. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed -East Side Parallel Taxiway at the Rogers Municipal Airport, Rogers, Benior� County, Arkansas. An addendum report (to SPEARS 161) submitted to Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, SPEARS Project Rcport 167. 'r,, x_11;' 2006 A Cultural Resources Survey of 12 Prrnposed Seismic Lines on the Ozark -St. Francis National Forests, Conway, Franklin, Johnson, Pope, and Yon Buren Counties, Arkansas. Report submitted to Kingfisher Exploration Services, Inc., Beaumont, Texas. SPEARS Prcjrct Report 166. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Seismic Lines on the Ozark National Forest, Pope, Van Buren and Conway Counties, Arkansas. Report submitted to Kingfisher Exploration Services, Inc., Beaumont, Texas, SPEARS Project Report 165. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Borrow Dirt Pit at the .1-40/Highway 326 Interchange, Pope County, Arkansas, Report submitted to Gilbert Central Corp., Russellville, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 161. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Lakeland Harbor Condominium Development on Lake Hamilton, Garland County, Arkansas. Report submitted to K&S Developments, Hot Springs, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 163. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Oak Shores Boat Ramp on Lake Hamilton, Garland County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Dale Horn (Two D, LLC), Hot Springs, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 162. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 An Archeological Survey of the Proposed West Taxiway and "Basin B" at Rogers Municipal Airport, Benton County, Arkansas. Report submitted to Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. SPEARS Project Report 160. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Oak Shores Boat Ramp On Lake Hamilton, Garland County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report No. 162. Prepared for Two D, LI.,C. Branam, Chris and Carol S. Spears 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Westside Taxiway and "Basin B ", Rogers Municipal Airport, Rogers, Arkansas, SPEARS Project Report No. 160, Prepared for Delta Environmental Consulting Co. A-7 Appendix A Branam, Chris 2003 Steamboat Wrecks on the Arkansas• River between Fort Smith and Arkansas Post, /830- 1900. Unpublished I/last,r's thosis, U-pe„tnlent of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayc,tteville. ANIASDA 8 -TUT, 111-OLcct Name '--- -,Arkansas; A re h co lo g i ca 1 19,171- 7K)' to Nmth Little; pipf-jim, survey 00-00 Sur ArkarsasArkansas 1978 - 51 Phase I T. exas Fasle.rn P62 Gas Pipeline; ? 113 AR Ar�.hcojogical Survoy 001-00 30/1. )--)ark Hollow Orai-m5gic, Nordi Arl(,,)n-'asJJ1tk11.od( Districl, 1985- Littin Rock Corps of Ejigiriccrs ArkansasArkansas 00-00 1981- 805 Jacksonville; Wastewator/Sev/er Lim- Archeological Sijrvcy 00-00 survo'y —090 little Dock T,.Iortlibclt ArkansasArkansas Highway & 1982- -f Transportation DepartrimIL 00-00 T8-2 FaulknertakeDitch ArkarisasSpojisorcd Research 1986- (mProw"Inonts -Prim- AASurvey 00-00 Five Mile Creek Sewerage ArkansasSponsorcd Research 1987- Truitment Plant Pro cram - AASurvey - 00-00 1309 Ink Bayou Testing ArkansasSponsorcd Rescareli 1984- Arkansas River Navigation Pry- AASurvcy ArkansasArchcological 00-00 1313 1987- Pools I through 9 Assessments, Inc. 00-00 1349 -surva, Jacksonville: Cutoff Highway ArkansasArkansas Highway & 1988 - Survey 'Transportation Department 00-00 1351 Wildwood Interchange ArkansasArkansas Highway & 1988 - Reconstruction Transportation Dc rtment 00-00 1385 Plum Bayou Survey ArkansasArkansas 1988 - Archeological Survey - 00-00 TOLTEC Station 2601 Sherwood North Bridges & ArkansasArkansas I lighway & 1993- Approaclics, Pulaski Co., Transportation Department 00-00 (PIF) 2612 Springhill Farm Property in ArkansasS.P.E.&R,S. 1993 - North Little Rock, Pulaski 00-00 County 2.645 Highway 165 - '70 (391), ArkansasArkansas Highway & 1993 - Pulaski County Trans Department 00-00 '1132 Springhill Drive Interchange ArkansasArkansas Highway & 1994- (NLR), Pulaski County Transportation DepaArnent 00-00 31'70 Survey of the Isabelle Cooper ArkansasEGIS Consulting, 1994 - Industrial Park, Pulaski Inc, 00-00 County 3254 Faulkner Lake Road, Pulaski ArkansasArkansas Highway 1994 - County Transportation Department 00-00 ArkansasSponsored Research 3474 Faulknor Lake'Nsting, 1995" Appendix B 3PU115, 3PU163, 3PU410Prograrn Mitigation of3PU115 and - AASurve 3563 ArkansasSponsored Research 1996- 3PU410 at Faulkner Lake Program - AASurvey 00-00 3770 Springhill Interchange A.rkansasMid-Continental 199 7- (AHTD No. R601138) Research Associates 00-00 _ _ 3833 W Proposed FiberOptic Calle, ArkansasPa;;anaorica„ 19981- gq `• 0, ;Aod it �;nnfijiltailFC., !fin, 00-00 3930 McCain Blvd. Pod, ,^ ArkansasArkarisas Highviay &c, 1994 - Enhancement (NCR), Pulaski Transportation Department 00-00 County (PIF) Arkansas Arkansas Highway & 4277 Highway 67 Interchange 2000 - Transportation Department 00-00 4411 Rixey Wastewater ArkansasMichael Baker Jr., 2001 - Improvement Project, Pulaski Inc, 00-00 Count , Arkansas 4846 McCain Blvd. - 43 St. ArkansasArkansas Highway & 2003 - (Smoke Lane) (NLR) (PIF _Transportation Department 00-00� 4949 Kellogg Creelc - Bayou Moto ArkansasArkansas Highway & 2004 - (PIF) Transportation Department 00-00 5026 1-40 McCain Blvd. and ArkansasArkansas Highway &c 2005- Wildwood-Kiehl Ave. Transportation Department 00-00 Pulaski Count 5035 I-30 to Highway 165 ArkansasArkansas Highway & 2005 - Widening Transportation Department 00-00 5112 Reconnaissance and ArkansasPanamerican 2005 - Inventory of 72 Army Consultants, Inc. 00-00 National Guard LTA _ 5121 Indianhead B Cell Tower ArkansasEnvironmental 2005- Corporation of America 00-00 _ 5147 _ Section 106 Review Cell R ArkansasEnvironmental 2005 - Tower, Indian Hills B, N. Corporation of America 00-00 Little Rock 5174 Jacksonville West AR ArkansasEnvironmental 2006 - Corporation of America 00-00 5212 I-40 McCain Blvd. & ArkansasArkansas State 2006- Wildwood-Kiehl Ave, (F) Highway & Transportation 00-00 (PIF) De artment _ 5406 McCain Mall East Cell ArkansasGEO-Marine, Inc. 2005 - Tower in Pulaski County, 00-00 Arkansas 5407 Eureka Garden Road Cell ArkansasGEO-Marine, Inc. 2005 - 'rower in Pulaski County, 00-00 Arkansas 5505 Proposed Waste Area No. 7 _ ArkansasS.P.E.A.R.S. 2007 - (Former Borrow Pit) Pulaski 00-00 Apps ndix 8 M. County_ Ail. sas Highway & 20I0- 6067 Highway 176 to Highway 107 Brockington Road, Transportation Department 00-00 Pulaski County, Arkansas {P F} M. W a .:N. 13 E3- a o a. m p -a o R3, [7OOn a � . p aG Irl s o :L•71►W MGL rpi R Z DO c 5OO ¢� ZO �z;- v00v F- 04 i Qa �Wn Q WYI� WX Q m z N� fix. w a "+ o_ o Zw OJ a� Ow m Z �N A C w(A mn x FMS O zaf Li F- 1 N Y O F n � Q �m W x 2545 I y WF U d� fjl1f+ GKwIW N _U �r K 0 Z Q F-2 J ¢ N O¢ mm O �d m �< as �w Of Z -7919—D 0 NORTHOF 3RD STREET AND EAST OF BOND ST @ PCD n l Z scm o::ra n•,� i ra¢ss.a lit ma� Z� Z -7919—D 0 NORTHOF 3RD STREET AND EAST OF BOND ST @ PCD 2013080721 Received: 1117/2013 8:25:01 AM Recorded: 1110712013 08:33:58 AM Filed & Recorded in Official Records of Larry Crane, PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUITICOUNTY CLERK 1 ORDINANCE NO.FI�;F'0° 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT 4 AND ESTABLISH A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED 5 ROCK CITY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB LONG -FORM PCD (Z-7919- 6 D), LOCATED NORTH OF 3RD STREET AND EAST OF BOND STREET, 7 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING 8 MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER 9 PURPOSES. 10 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY 12 OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: 13 Section 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from PCD - 14 Expired to PCD: 15 Part of Lot C and Part of Lot D of the subdivision of the south fractional %2 of the 16 north fractional'/2 of Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, lying south of the 17 Arkansas River, and a part of Block 7 and Block 8, Garland Addition to the City of 18 Little Rock, Arkansas, and that part of the abandoned street lying between said Lot 19 C and Lot D, and said Block 7 and Block 8, Garland Addition, now in the City of 20 Little Rock, all in Pulaski County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as 21 follows: Commencing at a found iron pin at the southwest corner of the northwest 22 quarter of the north fractional %2 of Section 1; thence north 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 23 seconds east 1,562.85 feet; thence north 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds east 88.59 24 feet to the point of beginning. Thence north 01 degrees 54 minutes 24 seconds east 25 194.60 feet; thence north 01 degrees 54 minutes 24 seconds east 166.71 feet to a point 26 of the ordinary high water line of the south side of the Arkansas River; thence 27 continuing in an easterly direction along the said ordinary high water line the 28 following courses and distances; north 80 degrees 27 minutes 13 seconds east 91.59 29 feet; north 89 degrees 30 minutes 27 seconds east 82.62 feet; north 81 degrees 30 30 minutes 41 seconds east 14.77 feet; north 77 degrees 29 minutes 15 seconds east 77.22 31 feet; north 48 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds east 77.72 feet; south 12 degrees 53 32 minutes 17 seconds west 74.83 feet; south 20 degrees 45 minutes 48 seconds w��� 33 179.82 feet; south 83 degrees 22 minutes 07 seconds east 242.73 feet; south 87 dem w sd [Page 1 of 31 co IerrnlirsUUS+ i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 07 minutes 02 seconds east 12.03 feet; north 85 degrees 27 minutes 38 seconds east 443.12 feet; south 78 degrees 32 minutes 50 seconds east 186.05 feet; thence south 19 degrees 48 minutes 09 seconds east 121.68 feet; south 81 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds east 26.92 feet; thence leaving said ordinary high water line south 08 degrees 06 minutes 06 seconds west 62.71 feet to a set iron pin also being a point on the west line of Lot 5, Pope's 1000 Acre Grant; thence along said west line south 09 degrees 15 minutes 01 seconds west 26.85 feet; thence south 09 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds west 364.20 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of the Little Rock East End Levee; thence leaving said west line along said north right-of-way north 74 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds west 327.79 feet; thence south 15 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds west 44.0 feet; thence north 74 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds west 696.30 feet; thence south 15 degrees 42 minutes 28 seconds west 5.93 feet; thence north 74 degrees 26 minutes 36 seconds west 259.83 feet to the point of beginning containing 11.3995 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. Section 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Rock City Marina and Yacht Club Long -Form PCD (Z -7919-D), located north of 3" Street and east of Bond Street. is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. Section 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. Section 5. That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval of the plan. Section 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part of the ordinance. Section 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. PASSED, November 5, 2013 [Page 2 of 31 I ATTEST: 2 3 4usa City Clerk 5 APP O TO LEGAL FORM: 6 7vLts-� 8 Thomas M. Carpen e , City t rney 9 // 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 14 // 15 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 27 // 28 // 29 // 30 // 31 // 32 33 34 // APPROVED: zz "�/, X) aa—, Mark Stodola, Mayor [Page 3 of 31