20191453 Ver 1_B-4709 Signed Type I CE 6-21-17_20191021

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
B-4709
38484.1.2
Federal Project No. BRZ-1932(4)
A. Protect Description:
This project replaces Beaufort County Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932 (Durham Creek Road) over Tan Swamp. The
bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment while detouring traffic offsite, see attached vicinity map.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of the project is to address a fifty -one -year -old bridge with a deteriorating timber substructure and
low posted weight limited.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
FRI TYPE
❑ TYPE II
D. Proposed Improvements:
28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace
existing at -grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117 (e)(1-6).
E. Special Project Information:
Offsite Detour - Pitt County Emergency Services along with Pitt County Schools Transportation have indicated
that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 2 has indicated the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections
on the offsite detour are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour.
Design —
• Rural Local Route using Sub -Regional Tier Guidelines
• Design Speed — 60 mph
• No Design Exceptions Required
• Top Down Construction
1

F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval.
Yes
No
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
❑
0
or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle
❑
Protection Act (BGPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any reason,
Elfollowing
appropriate public involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
❑
income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
El
0
amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
0
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a Memorandum of
7
Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
❑
0
or have an adverse effect on a National Historic Landmark (NHL)?
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those questions in Section G.
Other Considerations
Yes
No
Does the project result in a finding of "may affect not likely to adversely affect" for listed
8
species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
0
❑
(ESA)?
9
Does the project impact anadromous fish?
❑
0
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High
10
Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed impaired
❑
❑X
water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain
❑
❑X
trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Section
❑
0
404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
❑
0
(FERC) licensed facility?
14
Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination other than a
❑
❑X
no effect, including archaeological remains?

Other Considerations (continued)
Yes No
15
Does the project involve hazardous materials and landfills?
❑ 0
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory floodway
16
or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a water course or lake,
❑ 0
pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart A?
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially affects
❑
the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
X❑ ❑
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a designated
❑ 0
Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑ 0
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, etc.) or
❑ 0
Tribal Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control?
❑ X❑
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or community
❑ 0
cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning Organization's
El 0
(MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where applicable)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of
the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the
26
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), or other unique
❑ 0
areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public -use money and
have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
❑
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP ?
28
Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
❑ ❑X
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
❑ 0
30
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
El
Protection PolicyAct FPPA ?
31
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that affected
FEJ
the project decision?

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Question #8: There is suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee in the study area. Tan Swamp has
sufficient depth to support West Indian manatee. Additionally, NCNHP data, updated January 2015, indicates
a West Indian manatee occurrence (EO 5451) located approximately 750 feet downstream of the study area.
This occurrence was last observed in September 1994 and is listed as having very low accuracy. This
occurrence consists of the Neuse River from Fort Barnwell in Craven County into the Pamlico Sound, the
Tar -Pamlico River from Greenville into the Pamlico Sound and portions of the Pamlico Sound. The NCNHP
GIS point layer, updated January 2012, indicates the nearest recorded West Indian manatee occurrence is
approximately 16 miles east of the study area at the confluence of the Pungo River and Pamlico River.
USFWS correspondence, dated 2/10/15, does not recognize the potential for manatees to be present at this
site. NCDOT will coordinate with the USFWS to determine the correct biological conclusion.
Question # 17 and #18: It appears that the following Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) will be
impacted: Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shorelines. Therefore, a CAMA permit will be required prior to
the commencement of construction. The scope of each project will determine whether a CAMA General
Permit or Major Development Permit is necessary to authorize the work. NCDOT is encouraged to coordinate
with DCM during the project development process to determine the appropriate permitting requirements.
4

H. Proiect Commitments
Beaufort County
Bridge No.14 on SR 1932 over Tan Swamp
Federal Project No. BRZ-1932(4)
WBS No. 38484.1.2
STIP No. B-4709
Buffer Rules
The Tar -Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to this project.
CAMA
The following Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) will be impacted: Public Trust Area and Public Trust
Shorelines. A CAMA permit will be required prior to the commencement of construction.
Construction
Top -down construction is recommended.
Offsite Detour
Beaufort County Schools Transportation Manager will be contacted at least one month prior to closure to
make the necessary plans to adequately reroute school busses at 252-946-6209.
Beaufort County Emergency Services Director will be contacted at least one month prior to road closure to
make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units at 252-946-2046.
West Indian Manatee
Suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee is present in the project area. NCDOT will implement US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee".
Wetlands
Wetlands will be cleared by hand.

I. Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. B•4709
WBS Element 38484.1.2
Federal Project No. BRZ-1932(4) �.•�`�� � Roj'•.,,
Prepared By: - SEAL '
L/ 028392 •'
Date Clifton T. ister, PE, Project M er •. �.,.N ��.�
TGS Engin ers ••,�i,9 .G I NE, S�``•`�
�u .�ui ���
Prepared For: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By:
LP I2 Ito�'� jy-no
Date Elmo Vance. Proiect Development E
® Approved
Certified
6.21.1-7
Date
North Carolina Department of Transportation
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of Section F are
answered "no," NCDOT approves this Categorical Exclusion.
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of Section F are
answered "yes," NCDOT certifies this Categorical Exclusion.
Brian Yamamoto, P , roject Development
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
N/A
Date John F, Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
D1

Legend 1,- AK t)R N
p SgP� WHITEHUR
Studied Detour Route Ro SQPRa°� a
9
G°
o'1,00".'ttt,
� N
'I'ICE I,N \�G ♦♦♦ �, � A
�Q S11,1104 r ml N
r
G V
k
tip•,, � a'
o
o
2
m°
�g
A
'QpBlounts
Creek
B-4709�
,, t off, `R-1955
F
Approx. Detour Length= 11.7 mi
1
I
O
Miles
� �6f0&�118♦ i itf .•
1. T ` T
e fddl7:
GRAY RD
ST
ESRI World Street Basemap
1, _� �:�, le. +•„ yT�,
I N.1.1N
IVF5
h a�p HunliC„p NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT VICINITY MAP Date: 1-8-2015
OF TRANSPORTATION Beaufort County, NC
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932
•� PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & over Branch of Durham Creek Figure 1
� N► ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH B-4709

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
15-02-0006
rt
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
rh NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
B-4709
County:
Beaufort
WBS No.:
38484.1.2
Document
Type. -
PCE or CE
Fed. Aid No:
BRZ-1932(4)
Funding:
D State Z Federal
Federal
Permits :
Yes No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932 (Durham Creek Rd) over
Branch of Durham Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on February 5, 2015. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is approximately 1200' from the north end of the bridge
and 800' from the south end of the bridge, and 100' from the centerline each way. There are no structures
within the APE based on aerial imagery. Bridge No. 14, built in 1966, is not eligible for National Register
listing. "There are no National Register listed or eligible properties, and no survey is required. If design
tans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentired sirnircant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Beaufort
County survey and Google Maps are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the
APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
�Map(s) []Previous Survey Info. []Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Lalidscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
ZISlaoi S"
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and landscapes No SURVIiY R1dQUIRIiD forth for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in die 1007 Prograirnualic Agreeuhenl.
Page 1 of 2

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
r: A' v This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not a 1
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the ,s '
a.:....
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
� a
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-4709
WBS No: 38484.1.2
F.A. No: BRZ-1932(4)
Federal Permit Required?
County:
Document:
Beaufort
PCE or CE
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP 3 or 14
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932 (Durham Creek Road) over Tan
Swamp in Beaufort County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined
as a 1,200 foot (365.76 m) long corridor running 600 feet (182.88 m) north and 600 feet south along
Durham Creek Road from the center of Bridge No. 14. The corridor is approximately 200 feet (60.96 m)
wide extending 100 feet (30.48 m) on either side of the road from its present center.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 14 is located between the Pamlico River to the north and the community of Edward to the
south in the southern portion of Beaufort County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted in the
northwestern corner of the Aurora USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on February
9, 2015. No previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the APE, but two sites
(31BF171 and 31BF178) are reported within a mile of the bridge. According to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2014), there are no known historic architectural
resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits. Topographic maps, USDA soil
survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), and historic maps (North Carolina maps website) were
examined for information on environmental and cultural variables that may have contributed to
prehistoric or historic settlement within the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance.
Bridge No. 14 and Durham Creek Road cross Tan Swamp roughly north to south (Figure 2). The swamp
drains to the east and is a tributary to Durham Creek. These waterways are part of the Tar -Pamlico
drainage basin. The APE is situated along the Tan Swamp floodplain with moderately steep side slopes
at either end. The area is mostly forested with secondary growth. Although ground disturbance appears
minimal, there are reports of a heavy disturbance from former occupation in the southeast quadrant.
According to the USDA soil survey map, the APE encompasses only two soil types (Figure 3). The
floodplain is made up of Dorovan mucky peat (Do). This series is very poorly drained, nearly level, and
waterlogged. Persistent wetness and flooding make this series undesirable for settlement activities. No
subsurface testing is required for this series. The side slopes are composed of Winton fine sandy loam
(WeD). This series is moderately well drained with a slope of 12 to 25 percent. Typically, slope of 15
percent or more is not tested since it is unlikely to yield significant archaeological deposits.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 8

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0006
A review of the site files show that few investigations have been carried out within the area with most to
the east of Durham Creek. The two previously known archaeological sites (31BF171 and 31BF178)
reported within a mile of the bridge are 20th century African -American cemeteries. They were recorded
in 1989 by East Carolina University during the Texas -Gulf Survey. The National Register's eligibility for
these two sites has yet to be assessed. Although no surveys have been conducted in the project area, it
was reviewed by OSA (ER 09-2687) in 2009 (Attachment 1). This review was for construction of a
docking facility. Due to reported ground disturbance and unlikeliness of encountering a significant site,
an archaeological survey was not recommended.
A historic map review was also conducted. Most early maps from the 18th and 19th centuries provide
only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads, settlements, and drainages such as
John Lawson's 1709 map of North Carolina, which identifies Durham Creek but little else within the
vicinity (Figure 3). However, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey of 1874 produced a highly detail map
of the Pamlico River and surrounding area (Figure 4). This map depicts a road/trail following the same
alignment as Durham Creek Road with a crossing over the swamp. No structures or farms are plotted in
the vicinity as the area is shown as forest. The 1908 Beaufort County Geological map and the later 1914
Post Office Map illustrate the same road with households along it, but all are well away from the project
area (Figure 5). By the 19030s, the bridge begins to appear on printed material such as on the 1938 North
Carolina State Highway map for Beaufort County (Figure 6). Subsequent 20th century maps provide no
further or useful information on development. This includes no structure in the area reviewed by OSA.
In general, the historic maps suggest that no former structures with new or important information were
once located within the APE, and no significant deposits should be encountered.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 14 is located along the Tan
Swamp floodplain and the neighboring side slopes. It is unlikely intact and significant archaeological
deposits will be present in this area. This is primarily due to persistently wet soils in the floodplain and
slope of 15 percent or more leading up to the ridges. The historic maps also suggest no significant
archaeological deposits from former historic structures are within or near the project limits. Finally, OSA
has previously reviewed the current APE for another development project, and recommended no
archaeological survey. As long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the defined APE, no further
archaeological work is recommended for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 in Beaufort County. If
construction should affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further archaeological consultation
might be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other: Images from historic maps
02/19/15
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2of8

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
TO: Tamara Makhlouf
NCDOT Project Development Engineer
FROM: Steve Sollod, DCM Transportation Project Coordinator 15'0Sr
DATE: March 2, 2015
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments
Bridge Replacement Projects: B-4414, B-4433, and B-4709
Donald R, van der Vaart
Secretary
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed your scoping
request and performed site reconnaissance to evaluate the proposed projects. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide information relevant to the potential permitting of the proposed
project by our agency.
Based on the information provided and site reconnaissance by DCM's Transportation Field
Representative for NCDOT's Divisions 2 and 3, we have provided comments on the proposed
projects below.
• B-4414 Beaufort Replace Bridge No. 43 on US 264 over Pungo Creek, and
• B-4709 Beaufort Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1932 over Branch of Durham Creek
It appears that the following Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) will be impacted: Public
Trust Area and Public Trust Shorelines. Therefore, a CAMA permit will be required prior to
the commencement of construction. The scope of each project will determine whether a
CAMA General Permit or Major Development Permit is necessary to authorize the work.
NCDOT is encouraged to coordinate with DCM during the project development process to
determine the appropriate permitting requirements for the projects. DCM recommends that the
AEC impacts and the CAMA permitting requirements be addressed in the Categorical
Exclusion (CE) document.
• B-4433 Beaufort Replace Bridge No. 40 on SR 1932 over Durham Creek
It appears that no Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) will be impacted by this proposed
project. Therefore, a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit will not be required.
Although not anticipated, should the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) require an
Individual Permit, the NCDOT must certify to the USACE and DCM that the proposed project
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet www.necoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity %Affirmative Action Employer —Made In part by recycled paper

will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the State's coastal management program
in accordance with the requirements of Federal Consistency (15 CFR 930).
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Stephen Lane, at
[e-mail] or 252-808-2808. Thank you for your consideration of the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.