20191231 Ver 1_B-4414_Summary_of_Justification_for_Preferred_Alternative_20180718

B-4414 Beaufort County
Summary of Justification for Preferred Alternative
The following are in priority order:
1. The Field Scopin� Meetin� (FSM) results indicate that "Alternate 2" (new alignment to the north —
maintain traffic on existing) is the preferred alternative. (ca. 4/13/2015) (see Appendix 1 page 6 of
the document)
The signed Community Impact Assessment (CIA) agrees and promotes "Alternate 2" as the
preferred alternate. (ca. 6/12/2015) (see Appendix 2 page 1 of the documentJ
The signed Categorical Exclusion (CE) Environmental Document agrees and promotes "Alternate
2" as the preferred alternate. The document also states "NCDOT Division 2 concurs that this is
the preferred alternative". (ca. 4/27/2017) (see Appendix 3 page 2 of the document)
2. Other Alternatives Reiected:
A. Replace Bridge on CurrentAlignment using Staged Construction - the old bridge is not practical
due to its age and deteriorated condition. Bridge No. 43 was constructed in 1925 and
reconstructed in 1956, and the timber materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their
useful life. Bridge No.: 43 currently has two crutch bents. Stage construction would require
that a portion of the existing bridge be removed and that traffic would be in a one-lane
operation. Stage construction was not considered a viable option due to the condition of the
existing bridge and due to the high traffic volumes on NC 264.
B. Replace Bridge on CurrentAlignment using an Off-site Detour
• Shortest route (approx. 3.9 miles) — via SR 1611 (Jones Bridge Rd.) and SR 1609 (Free Union
Church Rd.) (see Appendix 3— Vicinity Map -- Figure 1 of the document)
➢ SR 1611 would need to be improved (approx. 10-ft lane widths) (see Appendix 1 page 2
of the document)
➢ SR 1611 bridge over Pungo Creek would need to be improved or replaced (see Appendix
1 page 2 of the document)
o Posted (SV 26 tons TTST 30 tons) according to Bridge Inspection Report — Would
need to carry what US 264 carries (> 40 tons) (see Appendix 4 for BIR)
• Other detours not fully studied due to "Unacceptable Delay". With a likely project
construction duration to be between 8 and 12 months, the delay is unacceptable according
to the "NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement
Projects" (see Appendix 5J.
➢ North option (24 minutes additional travel time) (seeAppendix5)
➢ South option (17 minutes additional travel time) (see Appendix 5)
3. Local Officials Concerns: (see Appendix 2 page 1 of the CIA document)
• An offsite detour may add an additional 15-20 minutes to EMS response times as well as
impact response times by the Sheriff's Dept. and the Fire Dept.
• Potential problem for young student drivers and buses entering and exiting Northside High
School campus and put a high volume of traffic on secondary roads
• High traffic volume on US 264 in the summer due to tourism events in the Bel Haven and
Pantego areas as well as Fourth of July travel to coastal vacation destination

APPENDIX 1
FSM Worksheet

5/ll/12
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FIELD SCOPING MEETING WORKSHEET
Return with Comments to Division by 3/13/2015 (Two weeks prior to FSM)
TIP No.: B-4414 FIELD SCOPING MEETING DATE: 4/13/2015
��v�S�oN: 2 LOCATION: Greenville Division Office
COUr1TY: Beaufort
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): US 264
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 43 over Pungo Creek on US 264
FLJNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Minor Arterial
TIER: Statewide
MPO / RPO AREA: Mid-East RPO
MUNICIPALITY: N/A
ATTENDEES NAME (PRINT) PHONE No E-MAIL
DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER Ed EatmOn 252 439 2800 [e-mail]
AREA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Johnny Metcalfe 252 675 3208 [e-mail]
ENGINEER
DIVISION BRIDGE MAINTENANCE Ma1'y Beth Houston 252 514 4724 [e-mail]
ENGINEER
DIVISION UTILITY COORDINATOR RObert MemOry 919 707 7191 [e-mail]
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER Jay Johnson 252 439 2800 [e-mail]
DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY Doug AskeW 252 355 9059 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
HYDRAULICS REPRESENTATIVE Paul Atkinson 919 707 6707 [e-mail]
PDEA REPRESENTATIVE Charles Cox 919 707 6016 [e-mail]
NEU REPRESENTATIVE Chris Rivenbark 919 707 6152 [e-mail]
GEOTECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE Dean Argenbright 252 355 9054 [e-mail]
STRUCTURE DESIGN Emily Murray 919 707 6498 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
ROADWAY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE Gary Lovering 919 707 6271 [e-mail]
LOCATION AND SURVEYS Terry Wheeler 252 514 4784 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL Steve Kite 919 662 4339 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE Tommy Register 919-773-8887 tregister@tgsengineers.c
1

5/ll/12
DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES
FEATURE BRIDGED: Pungo Creek
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 114 (FT.) DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT) 31.583 (FT.)
WATER DEPTH: 15 (FT.) HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 23 (FT.)
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: 6/16/2014 POSTED: SV NA TTST: NA
STRUCTURE TYPE: Steel
SPAN TYPE: Continuous
SUFFICIENCY RATING: 40.38
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: 55 (MPH / STATUTORY SSMPH)
DETOUR: OFF-SITE POSSIBLY ON-SITE POSSIBLY STAGE CONSTRUCTION POSSIBLY
IF DETOUR IS OFF-SITE, PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF DETOUR ROUTE SR 1609 (Free Union Church Road ) to
Jones Bridge Rd. to US 264, Northside HighShool is Along the Detour Route and Near the Bridge,
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? 11 ( MILES )
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? Yes, Lane Widths are 10 ft.
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGES ON DETOUR? Bridge on Detour Posted SV 24/ TT 29, May need improving
ARE BRIDGES ON DETOUR CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED ON TIP? NO COMMENTS: Not that I am aware of
ARE THERE EMS, SCHOOL , OR BUSINESS ACCESS ISSUES? YES COMMENTS: Northside High School, rquest
of 1 bus turnaround
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? NO COMMENTS:
SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION? NO
REASONS: no pedestrian facilities on existing structure
IMPACT RATING TO UTILITIES LOW
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES YES IN CONFLICT YES
POWER TRANSMISSION LINES NO IN CONFLICT N/A
TELEPHONE / CABLE LINES YES IN CONFLICT YES
FIBER OPTIC YES IN CONFLICT YES
WATER YES IN CONFLICT YES
SEWER NO IN CONFLCIT N/A
NATURAL GAS NO IN CONFLICT N/A
OTHER IN CONFLICT --------
BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY NEAR THIS PROJECT SITE, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS 6 MONTHS
IS THERE ANY FUTURE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN THE PROJECT AREA --------
IS A FEMA BUY-OUT PROPERTY BEING IMPACTED
2

5/ll/12
HYDRAULICS UNIT (COMPLETED BY HYDRAULICS UNIT STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A FEMA PERMIT? YES
IS THERE UNUSUAL SCOUR POTENTIAL? NO IS PROTECTION NEEDED? NO
ARE BANKS STABLE? Yes IS PROTECTION NEEDED? No
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOLTNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? No
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED Yes COMMENTS Preferably spanning existing
center span (Navigation Channel)
WERE HYDRAULIC ALTERNATIVES BESIDES A BRIDGE CONSIDERED No COMMENTS Assuming drainage area
precludes culvert.
POSSIBLE SPAN LAYOUT: 36" Girder, 1@50', 2@55' 75 Deg Skew (consider 75 deg. skew at FSM per Hydraulics Unit)
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT (COMPLETED BY GEOTECHNICAL UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
EXISTING FOLJNDATION REPORTS? No IF SO, ATTACH.
KNOWN GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN AREA WHICH MAY AFFECT DESIGN None
ARE PERMITS NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATIVE WORK AT SITE No COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL AND / OR VIBRATION SENSITNE STRUCTURES NEAR BY No COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY KNOWN LANDFILLS AND / OR GEOENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD SITES AT OR WITHIN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE No COMMENTS:
DEPTH OF WEATHERED ROCK OR ROCK BELOW STREAMBED N/A ( FT. )
ARE ANY IMPACTS ANTCIPATED TO NATURAL SPRINGS OR ARTESIAN WELLS No COMMENTS:
POSSIBLE FOLTNDATION TYPE: Pile
3

5/ll/12
PD cX� EA AND NEU UNIT (COMPLETED BY PDEA STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
TRAFFIC FORECAST (AS PREPARED BY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH AND PROVIDED BY PDEA)
Accident History: 3
-L- BASE YEAR (20 )
-L- DESIGN YEAR (20 )
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
SHOW -Y-LINE TRAFFIC IF APPLICABLE FOR BRIDGES OVER / LTNDER.
% TRUCKS/DUALS
% TRUCKS/DUALS
-Y- BASE YEAR (20 ) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC % TRUCKS/DUALS
-Y- DESIGN YEAR (20 ) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC % TRUCKS/DUALS
TRAFFIC SAFETY (AS PREPARED BY THE TRAFFIC SAFETY UNIT AND PROVIDED BY PDEA)
OPERATING SPEED: MPH
CRASH RATE: 142.24
WETLANDS AT SITE Yes COMMENTS:
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA Yes COMMENTS: Habitat present for Atlantic sturgeon,
West Indian Manatee, Rough-leaved loosestrife, Bald eagle (no nests sighted but 2 eagles flew over study area)
TROUT OR TVA COLJNTY No COMMENTS:
CAMA COLJNTY Yes PRIMARY NURSERY AREA No
MORATORIA Yes IF YES-DURATION Anadromous fish: February 15- June 30
COMMENTS: Also, West Indian Manatee: June-October
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER No COMMENTS:
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: SC;NSW
WILL A COAST GUARD PERMIT BE REQUIRED -------- COMMENTS: Area signed as a canoe route
IS THE PROJECT SITE IN OR NEAR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
NATIONAL FOREST No
WILDLIFE REFUGE No
STATE, COLTNTY, OR LOCAL PARK No
AIRPORT No
A LAKE FOR RECREATION OR POWER GENERATION No
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR No
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS Yes
PUBLIC USE BOAT RAMP No
CEMETARIES No
WILL A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PERMIT BE REQUIRED No
IS THE PROJECT AREA KNOWN FOR POTENTIAL INDTAN, COLONIAL, OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Yes
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL ffiSTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA No
IS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF, OR ANY PART THEREOF, CONSIDERED HISTORIC No
WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT A CHURCH, COMMLJNITY CENTER, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY No
IS THIS PROJECT ON A STATEWIDE BICYCLE ROUTE OR A LOCAL NON-MARKED BICYCLE ROUTE None
ANY CLARIFICATION OR COMMENTS ON ITEMS ABOVE:
4

5/ll/12
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO FSM)
ALIGNMENT: EXISTING HORIZONTAL Good
EXISTING VERTICAL Good
POSSIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS AASHTO
POSSIBLE DESIGN SPEED 60 (MPH)
POSSIBLE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS No COMMENT No design exceptions anticipated
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LENGTH 1050/2000 (FT) NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES 2@12'
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES Shoulders
COMMENT
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH 8(FT) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH 4(FT)
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE 40 (FT)
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED Yes
COMMENTS: Existing driveways will be reconnected
IS THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMENTS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED FOR
CONSTRUCTION Yes COMMENT
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED No
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATEES No IF SO, DESCRIBE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: High impact for to and from school campus. Low impact for student and stop location,
Need intersection of Yeatsville Rd and Hwy 264 to remain available for bus turn around and travel.
STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY THE STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE:
TYPE: 36" PSG, 75 degree skew
NUMBER OF SPANS 3 LENGTH OF SPANS 1@50', 2@55' (FT)
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED No
WILL STRUCTURE REQUIRE DESIGN FOR VESSEL IMPACT OR FENDER SYSTEM No
DESCRIPTION:
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED No
5

5/ll/12
CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACCESS (DISCUSSED AT THE FSM BY DNISION BRIDGE MANAGER)
METHOD OF ACCESS:
TOP-DOWN No
(WORK BRIDGE / CAUSEWAY) PROPOSED LOCATION RELATIVE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE:
PROPOSED LENGTH BD (FT) WIDTH (FT)
MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS TO SITE:
TRACTOR-TRAILER ACCESS Yes BARGE ACCESS No HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACCESS Yes
POSTED ROADS AND POSTED BRIDGES IN VICINITY THAT MAY AFFECT ACCESS Yes
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE Yes
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED / RESOLVED AT FSM BY ATTENDEES
LIST ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED BY ROADWAY DESIGN:
1) Replace in place
2) Realign to north
3)
DESCRIBE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DECIDED UPON, WHY CERTAIN
ALTERANTIVES WERE REJECTED, AND IF AN ALTERNATNE WAS SELECTED, WHY.
Per meeting with RDU
CHECK ONE
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (CHECK ONE)
CATIGORICAL EXCLUSION (CE) ❑
PROGRAMMATIC CATIGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE) �
THE OPTIMUM LET DATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND/OR iINRESOLVED ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: However, it is recommended to provide
an offset of 4 to 6 ft. to provide space for the occasional bicyclist/pedestrian. (NCDOT Bike and Ped), Alterante 2 is the
preferred alternative.

APPENDIX 2
Community Impact Assessment (CIA)

/a..�.ii e�.f\
�,'.�_:�� STIP 6-4414 Beaufort County COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I�� �
BRIDGE NO:
OVER:
ROUTE:
wBs:
EXISTING NO LANES:
EXISTING LENGTH:
ADT (2015):
060043
Pungo Swamp
US 264
38358.1.2
2
114 ft.
5,200
(Note: Closest Available Detour Route not studied when ADT < 2, 000 vpd)
PROJECT PLANNING ENGINEER:
FIRM PROJECT MANAGER:
CS PROJECT MANAGER:
DATE:
CS APPROVAL BY:
Community Context
Charles Cox, P.E.
Tommy Register, PE (TGS)
Herman F. Huang, Ph.D.
June 12, 2015
���
Figure 1: Direct Bridge Impact Area
STIP B-4414 is a bridge replacement project to replace Bridge No. 43 on U.S. 264 over Pungo Swamp, located
approximately 6 miles southwest of Pantego in central Beaufort County. U.S. 264 has a Functional Classification of Minor
Arterial. This project has two alternatives. Alternative 1 involves replacing the existing bridge on its current alignment with
an off-site detour via SR-1609 (Free Union Church Road) and SR-1611 (Jones Bridge Road). Alternative 2(preferred)
calls for replacing the current bridge on a new alignment while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during
construction. The project area is rural, consisting primarily of farmland and single-family residential land uses.
Notable Characteristics
• Farmland soils eligible for protection under FPPA are present within the DBIA. If a new location alternative is
considered that is outside of the DBIA, then NCDOT must reassess the impacts to farmlands.
• Census data does not indicate a notable presence of populations meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice within
the Demographic Study Area (DSA) nor were minority or low income communities observed within the Direct
Community Impact Area (DCIA) during the site visit.
• Census data does not indicate Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations meeting the US Department of Justice
LEP Safe Harbor threshold or a notable presence within the Demographic Study Area.
• There is one access driveway for a single-family residence located just inside the Direct Bridge Impact Area (DBIA) in
the northeast quadrant, approximately 670 feet from the bridge.
• This bridge location is posted as an access point for the Pungo Creek Paddle Trail, part of the Mid-East RC&D
Regional Paddle Trail.
• Local officials indicated concerns about an off-site detour route and the timing of any closures. An off-site detour may
add 15-20 minutes to EMS response time for some calls, and would impact responses by the Sheriff's Department
and Fire Department as well. A detour route could be a problem for young student drivers and buses entering and
exiting the Northside High School campus, and would put a high volume of traffic on secondary roads. In addition, it
was noted that there is a high traffic volume on US 264 in the summer due to tourism events in the Bel Haven and
Pantego areas, and that the fourth of July weekend is a particularly critical time due to through traffic to coastal
vacation destinations.
• There are several active farms to the west of the bridge that are marked as Voluntary Agricultural Districts. There are
also parcels within the DCIA that appear to have active agricultural operations.
• Northside High School is a traffic generating facility located within the DCIA and along the Closest Available Detour
Route. It is located northeast of the bridge site, approximately 0.25 mile north of the intersection of Free Union
Church Road and U.S. 264.
■ Another socio-economic resource that may be impacted is the Mt. Zion Free Will Baptist Church that is located just
west and outside of the Direct Bridge Impact area and is within the Direct Community Impact Area.

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 2
Potential Proiect Impacts
• Per local officials, this project will result in HIGH impacts on traffic going to and from the Northside High School
campus, LOW impacts for student and stop locations, and the risk factor associated with the bridge replacement
would be MODERATE pertaining to Fire and EMS response. Additionally, the bridge closure would have a
MODERATE impact on traffic during the Fourth of July weekend due to a large population concentration in coastal
areas and traffic issues associated with the holiday.
• A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has been completed (NRCS Form AD-
1006 for point projects or CPA-106 for corridor projects, Part VI only) and a total score of 53 out of 160 points was
calculated for the B-4414 project site (see Appendix D). Since the total site assessment score does not exceed the
60-point threshold established by NRCS, farmland conversion impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered
notable.
• No notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project and no Environmental Justice populations
appear to be affected; thus, impacts to minority and low income populations do not appear to be disproportionately
high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed
throughout the community, and no denial of benefit is expected.
Findinqs and Recommendations
• It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with NCDOT Division of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation to evaluate the inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities in B-4414, as well as the necessary
level of bicycle/pedestrian access accommodation during construction. This recommendation is based on the
NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation's recommendation that a 4-6 ft. shoulder be provided for
the occasional bicyclist and/or pedestrian. However, this bridge is not located on a designated bike route nor is there
an indication of significant bike or pedestrian usage.
• It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer evaluate alternatives that utilize a temporary on-site
detour, given the presence of Northside High School, a notable traffic generating facility in the project area, as well as
to address the concerns expressed by local officials regarding the impact of a closure on emergency response times
and traffic volume on secondary roads.
• Due to the presence of active farms in the Direct Community Impact Area, it is recommended that the NCDOT Project
Planning Engineer ensure that access is maintained for farm equipment and impacts to agricultural operations are
minimized during construction.
• It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with the Beaufort County School System as
well as Emergency Services concerning the proposed projecYs impacts to traffic and accessibility.
• It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with the NCDENR Division of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) concerning pedestrian and paddle access to the Pungo Creek Paddle Trail. The DPR's State
Trails Program has requested that NCDOT consider including a small parking area and canoe launch as part of the
bridge replacement project.
The replacement bridge will not permanently alter traffic capacity or travel patterns, reduce travel time, affect access to, or exposure of, adjacent
parcels, or create new transportation or land use nodes. Due to its minimal transportation impact causing activities this project will neither influence
nearby land uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect and cumulative effects study will not be necessary.

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 3

B-441� Beaufort County CC'ifUiMl7NITY IMPACT ASSESSME�➢T �.1�une, 2015 - page 4
CLOSEST AVAI�AB�E D�TOUR ROUTE �egend
�
�r��
Unifln
Church
� � TI�P �Bridge
s����Ev -- — Closest Avai6able Detour Route
��.� �,_FA�M R� r
��,'�
� Schoal (Pa�blic)
``t—�1 �'Ia Nursing Home
'; BEAUFORT i� Churches
` Tax Parcels
� Nortr�c,sc �anaged Areas
SR t6u9� ��� �
� �ieme�,ca�,� CI Voluntary Agriculture Districts
� i �ortf2sid� � � — S��`88ms {NCDENI� Hiyd�'0}
-� �� - i Hig�h � —
i� t. �ion Fre _ c,'°U ��� ,,/`/
Baptist �FF��p ' j - ':�i; , I I
„C g-4��1�'� �'oy - �/ /i '1 � �
/
�
.�
, �� �
�
0 1 2 Miles
I � � i � � i 9 I

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 5
Threshold Laws Possibly Affecting C/ass of Action Presence Location (Check all that apply)
• FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT [FPPA] ELIGIBLE SOILS � YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
Farmland soils eligible for protection under FPPA are present within the ❑ No
DBIA. If a new location alternative is considered that is outside of the
DBIA, then NCDOT must reassess the impacts to farmlands.
• POTENTIAL SECTION 4(F) PROTECTED PUBLIC RESOURCE
• SECTION 6(F) PROTECTED RESOURCE
• NOTABLE WATER RESOURCE PRESENT
• IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE [EJ] POPULATION AND/OR OTHER
TITLE VI PROTECTED POPULATION
• IDENTIFIED LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY [LEP] POPULATION
Community Resource
• ACCESS DRIVEWAY
There is one single-family residential driveway located in the northeast
quadrant of DBIA, approximately 670 feet from the bridge.
• FEMA BUYOUT PROPERTY
• WATER SUPPLY/WATERSHED
• CEMETERY
• KNOWN PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT & NEARBY STIP PROJECTS
• OTHER RECREATIONAL RESOURCE
This bridge location is posted as an access point for the Pungo Creek
Paddle Trail, part of the Mid-East RC&D Regional Paddle Trail.
• NOTABLE RECENT GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
• SIGNS OF COMMUNITY COHESION
• OBSERVED SPECIAL USERS
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
TITLE VI ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ YES ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
� NO ❑ Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Demographic Study Area
E� ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ YES ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
� NO ❑ Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Demographic Study Area
❑ MEETS USDOJ SAFE HARBOR THRESHOLD
❑ MORE THAN 50 ADULT PERSONS
� NO
Presence Location (Check all that apply)
� YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ NO
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
❑ YES Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO
❑ YES ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
� YES � Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ NO ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ YES ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ YES ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO ❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ YES ❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� NO ❑ Direct Community Impact Area

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 6
• NOTABLE COMMUNITY CONTROVERSY
Local officials indicated concerns about an off-site detour route and the
timing of any closures. An off-site detour may add 15-20 minutes to EMS
response time for some calls, and would impact responses by the
Sheriff's Department and Fire Department as well. A detour route could
be a problem for young student drivers and buses entering and exiting the
Northside High School campus, and would put a high volume of traffic on
secondary roads. In addition, it was noted that there is a high traffic
volume on US 264 in the summer due to tourism events in the Bel Haven
and Pantego areas, and that the fourth of July weekend is a particularly
critical time due to through traffic to coastal vacation destinations.
• LOCAL AREA PLANS TARGETING FUTURE GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
� YES
❑ NO
❑ YES
� NO
• AGRICULTURAL OPERATION � YES
There are several active farms to the west of the bridge that are marked ❑ rvo
as Voluntary Agricultural Districts. There are also parcels within the DCIA
that appear to have active agricultural operations.
• VAD [VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURE DISTRICT] OR EVAD [ENHANCED VAD]
• BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, GREENWAY, AND/OR TRANSIT FACILITY
• BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
• TRAFFIC GENERATING FACILITY OR NODE
Northside High School is a traffic generating node that is located
northeast of the bridge site approximately 0.25 mile north of the
intersection of Free Union Church Road and U.S. 264. It is within the
DCIA and along the Closest Available Detour Route.
• AIRPORT
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
� YES
❑ NO
❑ YES
� NO
• OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCE THAT MAY BE IMPACTED � YES
The Mt. Zion Free Will Baptist Church is located just west and outside of ❑ No
of the Direct Bridge Impact area, and is within the Direct Community
Impact Area.
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� Direct Community Impact Area
� Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
❑ Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Closest Available Detour Route
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� Direct Community Impact Area
� Closest Available Detour Route
Within 1 mile of project.
❑ Direct Bridge Impact Area
� Direct Community Impact Area
❑ Closest Available Detour Route
• MOBILITY, ACCESS AND/OR ACCESSIBILITY � YES
Per Local Officials, this project will result in HIGH impacts on traffic going to and from the Northside High ❑ rvo
School campus, LOW impacts for student and stop locations, and the risk factor associated with the bridge
replacement would be MODERATE pertaining to Fire and EMS response. Additionally, the bridge closure
would have a MODERATE impact on traffic due during the Fourth of July weekend due to a large population
concentration in coastal areas and traffic issues associated with the holiday.
• COMMUNITY COHESION
❑ YES
� NO
�

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 7
• COMMUNITY SAFETY
❑ YES
� NO
• FARMLAND SOILS ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER FPPS ❑ YES
A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has been completed (NRCS � No
Form AD-1006, Part VI only) and a total score of 53 out of 160 points was calculated for the project site (see
Appendix D). Since the total site assessment score does not exceed the 60-point threshold established by
NRCS, farmland conversion impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.
• DIRECT OR OPERATIONAL IMPACT(S) TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION(S)
❑ YES
� NO
• DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH & ADVERSE IMPACT(S) ON EJ POPULATION(S) ❑ YES
No notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project and no Environmental Justice � No
populations appear to be affected; thus, impacts to minority and low income populations do not appear to be
disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be
equitably distributed throughout the community, and no denial of benefit is expected.
• EFFECT(S) TO OTHER TITLE VI POPULATION(S)
• OTHER
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
COORDINATE WITH NCDOT BIKE & PEDESTRIAN DIVSION � YES
It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with NCDOT Division of Bicycle ❑ rvo
and Pedestrian Transportation to evaluate the inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities in B-4414, as well as
the necessary level of bicycle/pedestrian access accommodation during construction. This recommendation
is based on the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation's recommendation that a 4-6 ft.
shoulder be provided for the occasional bicyclist and/or pedestrian.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DUE TO NOTABLE COMMUNITY CONTROVERSY
OUTREACH TO TITLE VI POPULATION(S) (NON-EJ/LEP)
OUTREACH TO EJ POPULATION(S)
OUTREACH TO LEP POPULATION(S)
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE(S) THAT UTILIZE A TEMPORARY ON-SITE DETOUR � YES
It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer evaluate alternatives that utilize a temporary ❑ No
on-site detour, given the presence of Northside High School, a notable traffic generating facility in the project
area, as well as to address the concerns expressed by local officials regarding the impact of a closure on
emergency response times and traffic volume on secondary roads.
COORDINATE WITH FHWA REGARDING POTENTIAL 4(F) RESOURCES
❑ YES
� NO

B-4414 � Beaufort County , COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT � June, 2015 - page 8
MAINTAIN ACCESS FOR FARM EQUIPMENT & MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Due to the presence of active farms in the Direct Community Impact Area, it is recommended that the
NCDOT Project Planning Engineer ensure that access is maintained for farm equipment and impacts to
agricultural operations are minimized during construction.
COORDINATE WITH OTHER LOCAL OFFICIALS OR STAKEHOLDERS
■ It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with the Beaufort County
School System as well as Emergency Services on the proposed projecYs impacts to traffic and
accessibility.
■ It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Planning Engineer coordinate with the NCDENR Division of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) concerning pedestrian and paddle access to the Pungo Creek Paddle Trail.
The DPR's State Trails Program has requested that NCDOT consider including a small parking area and
canoe launch as part of the bridge replacement project.
COMPLETE THE NRCS FARMLAND CONVERSION FORM POST-DESIGN
OTHER
SOURCES
� YES
❑ NO
� YES
❑ NO
❑ YES
� NO
❑ YES
� NO
■ North Carolina Department of Transportation
■ NC One Map (http://data.nconemap.qov/qeoportal/cataloq/main/home.paqe)
■ Beaufort County, NC GIS (http://www.co.beaufort.nc.us/tax-admin-downloads)
■ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1 data (provided by NCDOT in the form of Streamline Decennial 2000
and 2010 data)
■ American Community Survey, 2008-2012 Five-Year Averages (provided by NCDOT in the form of Streamline ACS
2008-2012 demographic data)
■ Soils Data: NRCS Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
• Beaufort County Soils Data: USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data file:
(wss_SSA NC013 soildb NC 2003_[2014-09-13])
■ Email and phone communication with John Pack, Director of Beaufort County Emergency Services (Phone: 252-
946-2046)
■ Phone communication with Ken Windley, Interim Beaufort County Manager (Phone: [phone])
■ Phone communication with Seth Laughlin, Beaufort County Planning Director (Phone: [phone])
■ Email and phone communication Jerry Wynne, Beaufort County School Transportation Manager (Phone: 252-946-
6209)
■ Phone communication with Chris Boyd, Beaufort County Parks Manager (Phone: [phone])
■ `Scoping Review for Bridge Replacement ProjecY Memorandum from NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation dated February 26, 2015
■ `Scoping/Start of Study' Letter from NCDENR Division of Parks and Recreation dated April 23, 2015
■ Site visit: November 11, 2014
APPENDIX ITEMS
A. Demographics Used in Tabular Form
B. Site Photographs
C. Local Official Input Forms
D. Preliminary Screening of Farmland Conversion Impacts

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS USED IN TABULAR FORM
Population Change - 2000 to 2010
Percent Annualized Growth
Geography 2000 Geography 2010 2000 2010 Difference Change Rate
CT 9901, BG 2 CT 9301, BG 4 1,113 1,233 120 10.8% 1.0%
CT 9907, BG 2 CT 9307, BG 2 1,866 1,781 -85 -4.6% -0.5%
DSAAggregate 2,979 3,014 35 1.2% 0.1%
Beaufort County 44,958 47,759 2,801 6.2% 0.6%
North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 1,486,170 18.5% 1.7%
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2010 and Census 2000, Summary File 1 100% Data, Table P1 and P001 "Total Population."
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Total Adult Primary Language Group of Persons Who Speak English Less than Very Well
Geo ra h Population, Spanish Other Indo-Euro Asian/Pacific Other
g p y 18 years and
older # % # % # % # %
CT 9301, BG 4 1,057 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 9307, BG 2 1,682 2 0.1 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
DSAAggregate 2,739 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2008-2012),Table B16004, "Age by Language Spoken at
Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over."

Poverty
Very Poor: Under ,
Total Po ulation for whom Below Poverty 50°/a of Poverty Near Poor: Between 100 /o
P Level and 149 /a of Povert Level
Poverty poverty Status is Determined Level y
# % # % # %
CT 9301, BG 4 1,345 240 17.8% 84 6.2% 140 10.4%
CT 9307, BG 2 1,981 230 11.6% 45 2.3% 197 9.9%
DSA 3,326 470 14.1% 129 3.9% 337 10.1%
Beaufort County 47,069 9,704 20.6°/a 3,196 6.8% 5,135 10.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2008-2012),Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in
the Past 12 Months."
Race
American Native
Black or African Indian and Hawaiian/ Some Other Two or
Total White American Alaska Asian pacific Race More Races Total Non-White
Geography po ulation
P Native Alone Islander
# % # % # % # % # % # °/a # % # %
CT 9301, BG 4 1,389 1,236 89.0% 153 11.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 153 11.0°/a
CT 9307, BG 2 1,981 1,754 88.5% 192 9.7% 13 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.1 % 20 1.0% 227 11.5°/a
DSA 3,370 2,990 88.7°/a 345 10.2% 13 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 20 0.6% 380 11.3%
Beaufort County 47,542 32,475 68.3°/a 12,440 26.2% 45 0.1% 88 0.2% 1 0.0% 1,869 3.9% 624 1.3% 15,067 31.7%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2008-2012), Table B02001, "Race."

Hispanic or Latino Population
Hispanic or Latino Total Hispanic Not Hispanic
Origin Population
# % # %
CT 9301, BG 4 1,389 0 0.0% 1,389 100.0%
CT 9307, BG 2 1,981 2 0.1 % 1,979 99.9%
DSA 3,370 2 0.1 % 3,368 99.9%
Beaufort County 47,542 3,190 6.7% 44,352 93.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2008-
2012), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race."
Minority Population
White, Non-Hispanic Minority Population*
Geography Total Population
# % # %
CT 9301, BG 4 1,389 1,236 89.0% 153 11.0%
CT 9307, BG 2 1,981 1,754 88.5% 227 11.5%
DSA 3,370 2,990 88.7% 380 11.3%
Beaufort County 47,542 31,498 66.3% 16,044 33.7%
* Minority population includes all races that are non-white and Hispanic populations that are also White.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2008-2012),Table B03002, "Hispanic
or Latino Origin by Race."

�3-���14 � Qeauior��f Cour7t�i - COMMU�ITY iiV�PACT ASS�SSME�i�f �� Juo�e, 20�15 � paqe �u2
APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOS
't �- �; � t. �
� ; � , �," , �
,.� _
<
�h : j 4
k! �`f- �. I 1 �� r�1
� � dy � � , ,� �, ,� �+ J F
� + ��. �� �
s 3 � r f -
x+ ) l �' 1 1' � �
� ��� zvr. ! ,_ �I,,�.r �� ._�� _ �_41 �
�� �'pe� _ 4 �"c vo- .s.,�i �, r.
i
4�,� �',
��. _ .
�, ` ""`
� ;� � ,�. . . ip
�,� �
� � �.
Figure 1: North Bridge Quadrant
�� � � � 1� � �'� �.� �', ' ,~ •1 f
, I " A ' I .4'f1 '-' :�_r �•
'. I ' `; i � ". t l � �_ � � .�
�. Y 4 .��f
���+:~ � ��L¢.. ��. . . - ..
'��F� ,�� � __ �=
�, -"'e�':.
�y ��� �'� � ' ''r ='s �;
IR'uL i fY S�= �� � �� z
' � u]��;'� � .,,tFArM' � � 6c'�qw�
.., ..�� - Y ..
� y.
� ; ` "� � "' ��'�
� ; .� " , : ,,'� � �
.. i W .� H
y � 7 a � '� � d
� � �-� �
��T � :�� J ,a �yry �� �'�<�> ._
� $)�' �'.r `fi� � 'iC _Pti` ,T � frF "G �
^�/��q!y1 F b
:'6 . %���/l�RCS'� � � �.i� � sLLw• _ h
Figure 3: South Bridge Quadrant
� � REGfBNAL
�,. PAODLE �TRAIL�S►STEiN
�.
�'� �a�� i�rnnManus
F.� � � �1K#D It5tI @80-f]75 � �
r�af�suille HWr 269 aEcass �
Fuogo CreeN i��ai! Syslam
, �:,
I:�...���� �v�o�r�o�ar�aa, +k.��:��
� �—_
�� � �` '' '�± �
t • � � •�s;,�
,. .� �, .:'
' ,`� �i ;s � �' �
' � ����• .:. .. l ��1 �
u ��' P � � � 31� .�.'
� �,`� .
Vec_ -��.� _ .� �.f..�Wl��b�'�
Figure 5: Pungo Creek Trail access point
"��. ' '�I'� � � �.V';� d���—
;:�
� p `� < �.�.i ��.`liid. �:., � _ , ' ' F I -e�
.. ��q ' %+Y,'`�-'�,��� ��;.? � ��. �
� . .;,..n �, j k AI�, ,�s,p,
. ��
�' `��'�� Y ' , � � r'� `�
�'_ ,e ''�ri
Figure 2: East Bridge Quadrant
-�4: ::.
�. t �y�� .Y��y.1� � 5`p � , T C�`���y� ,
iw�. \i ! � A'L��� �(„�' .�i��9"�"�✓t+
ih
r� �A
tla `�'� Y��1W��,� �� ��A�� � �� ��
�' h�ec-�— r'V. t N��� iy ��i-$ �" � 1^^ :
. � �'`a ���t�'`-F �" �"� �:
��{y A � y
. ' +� k' { . '�C
i1 1 �IT1 � ; ,;����
. 1 +. � � ' y�'(�+��N
i
.��''�+�';, T � �£,�_ � ,� ` �,_��
t� -/ �,.w T ���. �`
,i'�` � � ° , ���F ��l: ��.�€ _ —
�'�`�y i
Fi1
� . .F1� _':� ��" . �. R � .
t�� �,,"'�p 't :t,�'�
� .r A,.
5����'�k•��1 � . 4;-
z'a "3�' '
,,,. . :. c. -
'sA'��' ` . . �'31 "".q,., :
� �'i.
�'S... _ :1�raV ,.
Fiaure 4: West Bridqe Quadrant

B-4414 - Beaufort County - COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 13
APPENDIX C: LOCAL OFFICIAL INPUT FORMS
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local EMS Input Form for
STIP Proiect B-4414 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Using the project map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your answers in the space
provided. Then save (Using the Save As... command) this file with a new file name for your records and e-
mail the new file back to the original sender or to name(a�ncdot.�ov. If you would prefer to complete a hard
copy of this form, please send all sheets to the following address or fax number below:
Megan Pendell (via phone)
TGS Engineers
706 Hillsborough Street-Suite 200
Raleigh, NC, 27603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Insert Project Vicinity Map
Please rate the overall impact of this project on Emergency Response Services:
❑ No Impact
❑ Low Impact
� Moderate Impact
❑ High Impact
Check all that apply & provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided.
If there are concerns please specify. Be as specific as possible. (e.g. location in a high call volume
area, closure could affect response to schools, weight restrictions, expected new development in the
area, coardination with partner agency required to facilitate seroice)
� The detour will slow down ambulances to places such as Northside High school. Also, the Bath Fire
Department is located approximately 6 miles Southwest of the Bridge project location, which causes
concern far Emergency vehicle routes.
Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity
of potential detour routes, ar the location of resources along these routes?
� The detour will slow Emergency vehicles down, so they will most likely use other detours depending
on the location of the patient. Also, if there are patients in certain locations it will take about an extra
15-20 minutes for EMS to get to those ]ocations.
Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge closure would be of
particular concern?
� The fourth of July weekend is a very critical time when the bridge closure would have a significant
effect due to a large population concentration (close to 15-20,000 people in a close radius) and traffic
control issues.

B-4414 - Beaufort County - COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 14
Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
� School transportation was contacted; concerned about extra costs resulting from detour routes and
extra mileage. Nearby Christian School could be affected. Sheriff was contacted; concerned about
being slowed down by detour routes.
Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
� N/A
If there any other concerns you have regarding the potential impact of this project on EMS services,
or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible.
� Would like a Temporary Bridge. The quicker the project is completed, the better! Important not to
block driveways of the Fire Department. If the Washington Hospital closes down, this will become a
High impact situation because the time for EMS vehicles to arrive at a Hospital will take longer.
Form Completed by:
TGS Engineers via phone conversation with:
John Pack
Director of Beaufort County Emergency Services
[e-mail]
252-946-2046
Date:
Began: Thursday, February 5, 2015
Completed: Friday, April 17, 2015

B-4414 - Beaufort County COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 15
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Planner Input Form for
STIP Proiect B-4414 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Using the project map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your answers in the space
provided. Then save (Using the Save As... command) this file with a new file name for your records and e-
mail the new file back to the original sender or to name(a�ncdot.�ov. If you would prefer to complete a hard
copy of this form, please send all sheets to the following address or fax number below:
Megan Pendell (via phone)
TGS Engineers
706 Hillsborough Street-Suite 200
Raleigh, NC, 27603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Insert Project Vicinity Map
Please rate the overall impact of this project on local Planning objectives:
❑ No Impact
❑ Low Impact
❑ Moderate Impact
� High Impact (Major artery road, per Seth Lau�hlin); (Major U.S. Hwy, major thoroughfare and
collector, per Ken Windely)
Check all that apply & provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided.
Are there any known plans for development in the vicinity of the project?
"There are several hundred single-fanlily residential lot developments East of the Bridge and adjacent
� to Pungo Creel� that will be going under construction in the next �ve years; Will need access to
Highway 99," per Seth Laughlin; TGSEngineers Note: Highway 99 intersects with Highway 264 ten
miles west of Bridge No. 43; specified lot developments are also ten miles west of the bridge.
Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity
� of potential detour routes, ar the location of resources along these routes?
Response routes far the local EMS and Fire Department will be re-routed.
Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge closure would be of
particular concern?
- Will nccd to coordinatc cvacuation routcs during hun-icanc scason
�
- Summer tourism events in the Bel Haven and Pantego areas; and school-related functions would
increase traffic in the project area.

B-4414 - Beaufort County � COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 16
Are there any adopted plans far either pedestrian, greenway, bicycle, or transit facilities in the area?
� Please provide a description of how the plan applies to the project area, the title of the plan, its year of
adoption, and the current status of its implementation.
N/A
� Are there any other adopted plans for growth that could directly affect this project?
N/A
Are you aware of any special populations/ communities (e.g. minority, low-income, Limited English
� Proficiency) existing around the project?
Low-income area; There is an even mixture of Blacic, White, and Latino people, includinb nlany who
arc limitcd to thc Spanish languagc
� Are there any FEMA buyout properties in the vicinity of the project?
N/A
� Does the project lie within a VAD or EVAD District?
N/A
Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
� - Woody Jarvis, NCDOT Engineer in the area (252-946-3689)
- John Pack
- Sheriff.
� Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
N/A
� Are there any additional comments you have for this project?
Is a temporary bridge possible?
Form Partly Completed by:
TGS Engineers via phone conversation with:
Seth Laughlin
Beaufort County Planning Director
[e-mail]
252-946-7182
Date:
Tucsday, May 5, 2015
Form Partly Completed by:
TGS Engineers via phone conversation with:
Ken Windley
Interim Beaufort County Manager
[e-mail]
252-946-0079
Date:
Tuesday, April 7, 2015

B-4414 - Beaufort County - COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 17
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Schools Input Form for
STIP Proiect B-4414 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Using the project map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your answers in the space
provided. Then save (Using the Save As... command) this file with a new file name for your records and e-
mail the new file back to the original sender or to name(a�ncdot.�ov. If you would prefer to complete a hard
copy of this form, please send all sheets to the following address or fax number below:
Megan Pendell (via phone)
TGS Engineers
706 Hillsborough Street-Suite 200
Raleigh, NC, 27603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Insert Project Vicinity Map
Please rate the overall impact of this project on school transportation services:
❑ No Impact
� Low Impact (Student and Stop location)
❑ Moderate Impact
� High Impact (To and from school campus)
Check all that apply & provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided.
How many School Buses use the project corridor each day? (total # of daily buses, total # daily of
� trips)
Approximately 9 buses, 18 trips
Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity
� of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these routes?
"This will be a problem for young student drivers and buses entering and departing the school
campus with a high volume of traffic on secondary roads."
Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge closure would be of
� particular concern?
"This event should be scheduled to coincide with summer because of Hwy 264 traffic being
redirected by Northside High School"
Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
� stakeholders)?
Speak to Chris Boyd for specifications on daily bus trips.

B-4414 - Beaufort County � COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 18
Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
� "Need intersection of Yeatesville Rd and Hwy 264 to remain available for bus turn around and
travel."
If there any other concerns you have regarding the potential impact of this project on school
❑ transportation services, or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible.
N/A
Form Partly Completed by:
TGS Engineers via phone conversation with:
Jerry Wynne
Beaufort County School Transportation Manager
[e-mail]
252-946-6209
Form Partly Completed by:
TGS Engineers via phone conversation with:
Chris Boyd
Beaufort Parks Manager
[e-mail]
252-946-3810
Date:
Began: Thursday, February 5, 2015
Completed: Friday, April 17, 2015

B-4414 - Beaufort County COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT June, 2015 � page 19
APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS

B-4414 - Beaufort County - COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT , June, 2015 � page 20
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS
1. Area in non-urban use. Points awarded = 15 out of 15
More than 90 percent of land within a one-mile radius is in non-urban use.
2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 10 out of 10
More than 90 percent of land within the 1000 ft. project radius is in non-urban use.
3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
Less than 20 percent of the land within the 1000 ft. project radius is actively being farmed.
4. Protection provided by state and local government. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
Less than 20 percent of the land within the DCIA is currently subject to state or local government policies
or programs, or covered by private programs to protect farmland.
5. Distance from urban built-up area. Points awarded = 15 out of 15
The project site is more than 10,560 ft. (2 miles) from an urban built-up area.
6. Distance to urban support services. Points awarded = 10 out of 15
Some of the services exist more than one but less than 3 miles from the site.
7. Size of present farm unit compared to average. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
There is one parcel within the 1000 ft. project area radius that appears to contain farmland. The total
parcel area is 83 acres, which is 50 percent or more below the County average of 407 acres.
8. Creation of non-farmable farmland. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
Less than 5 percent of the total acres within the 1000 ft. project radius boundary will become non-
farmable due to the project.
9. Availability of farm support services. Points awarded = 3 out of 5
Some services are available in Belhaven (7 miles from site), Bath (9 miles from site), or Washington (14
miles from site).
10. On-farm investments. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
No on-farm investments were observed for farm units within the 1000 ft. project area radius.
11. Effects of conversion on farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
The project would result in no significant reduction in demand for support services.
12. Compatibility with existing agricultural use. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
The proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland.
Conclusion: Total Points = 53 out of 160
NCDOT has completed a screening of farmland in the project area and calculated the total number of points for
the site per Part VI of the NRCS AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form.

APPENDIX 3
Categorical Exclusion (CE) Environmental Document

US 264
Bridge No. 43 over Pungo Swamp
Beaufort County
Federal Project No. BRSTP-0264(31)
WBS No. 38358.1.2
STIP No. B-4414
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
� �F ��onn� ca
A
P o(Z
u y
o z
o °
v9f P�v
��h� OF 7PAN`'QO
�I��� * � �
• L�. � �
DATE Brian Yamamoto,
Project Development Group Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
�l �� �G�'`' � ��__�
DATE John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

US 264
Bridge No. 43 over Pungo Swamp
Beaufort County
Federal Project No. BRSTP-0264(31)
WBS No. 38358.1.2
STIP No. B-4414
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2017
Documentation prepared by
Thompson Gordon Shook Engineers
� ao -ar�� �-
DATE
Clifton T.'Registe
Project Manager
TGS Engineers
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
�V
FNGINFERS
�:az:��a:'"
���
a ���
��,
,,������ CA R������
.�`..��1� 0� /.
r
�
�— ZO — Z,p �-�
DATE Elmo Vance
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 264
Bridge No. 43 over Pungo Swamp
Beaufort County
Federal Project No. BRSTP-0264(31)
WBS No. 38358.1.2
STIP No. B-4414
Hydraulics Unit — FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division Construction - FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Division Construction - West Indian Manatee
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that although there are no records in the vicinity of this
location, it is possible that the federally endangered West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)
could be present in Pungo Creek from June to October. The service recommends using their
"Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for
Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters" for this project.
Hydraulics Unit, Natural Environment Section — Buffer Rules
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to this project.
All Design Groups/ Division Resident Construction Engineer — Wetlands
Wetlands will be cleared by hand.
All Design Groups/ Division Resident Construction Engineer — Wetlands
Turbidity curtains will be utilized for in-water work.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
April 2017

US 264
Bridge No. 43 over Pungo Swamp
Beaufort County
Federal Project No. BRSTP-0264(31)
WBS No. 38358.1.2
STIP No. B-4414
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 43 is included in the latest approved North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 43 has a sufficiency rating of
40.38 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient
due to a substructure appraisal of 4 out of 9 and functionally obsolete due to a deck geometry
appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards.
The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel beams. The substructure
is comprised of two reinforced concrete caps on timber piles and two steel piles. Components
of the concrete superstructure and substructure have experienced an increasing degree of
deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located north of the Town of Bath in Beaufort County on US 264 over Pungo
Swamp (see Figure 1). Development in the area is agricultural and residential in nature.
US 264 is classified as a rural arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is
not a National Highway System Route at this location.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 264 has two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot shoulders, including
2-foot paved. The existing bridge is on a tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 22
feet above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 43 is a five-span structure that consists of reinforced concrete deck on steel beams.
The end bents and interior bents consist of reinforced concrete caps on precast concrete piles
and timber piles and steel caps on steel piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was
constructed in 1925 and reconstructed in 1956. The overall length of the structure is 114 feet.
The clear roadway width is 28 feet. There are no posted weight limits on this bridge.
Aerial powerlines are located on the south shoulder of US 264 and are owned by Tideland
Electric Membership Corporation (TEMC). Fiber optic telephone cable is located along the
south shoulder of US 264 and attached to the bridge, and is owned by Tri-County Electric. A
1

buried telephone cable is located along the north shoulder of US 264 and is owned by Sprint.
There is no evidence of water, gas, sanitary sewer or storm sewer at or near the project.
The current traffic volume of 5,200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 7,800 VPD
by the year 2040. The projected volume includes three percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and four percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour in
the project area. Nine school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon
routes for 18 total trips.
There were three accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 43 during a recent four-year
(January 2010 to December 2014) period. None of the accidents were associated with the
alignment or geometry of the bridge or its approach roadway.
This section of US 264 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the STIP as
needing incidental bicycle accommodations. Sidewalks do not exist on the existing bridge.
Neither permanent nor temporary bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are required for this
project; however, based on comments provided by NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation indicating potential for pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to the close proximity
to Northside High School and Northeast Elementary School, 8-foot offsets are provided along
the bridge. Bicycle safe railing will be provided.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 43 will be replaced on new alignment to the north while traffic remains on the
existing structure during construction. The total project length of the new alignment is
approximately 0.34 mile.
The permanent replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 160-feet long providing
a minimum 40-foot clear deck width. The bridge will include two 12-foot lanes and 8-foot
offsets. The bridge length is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic
requirements. The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised approximately two-feet.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 720 feet from the west end of the new
bridge and 920 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches will include a 40-
foot pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes. Eight-foot shoulders (11-foot shoulders
where guardrail is included) with four-foot paved will be provided on each side. The roadway
will be designed as a Minor Arterial using AASHTO design standards with a 60 mile per hour
design speed.
NCDOT Division 2 concurs that this is the preferred alternative.
2

B. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by US 264.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Bridge No. 43 was constructed in 1925 and reconstructed in 1956, and the timber materials
within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life. Rehabilitation would require
replacing the timber components which would effectively constitute replacing the bridge.
An "offsite detour" was eliminated from consideration since traffic will remain on the existing
structure during construction.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on 2015 prices, are as follows:
Structure $ 704,000
Roadway Approaches 703,000
Structure Removal 54,000
Misc. & Mob. 408,000
Eng. & Contingencies 281,000
Total Construction Cost $ 2,150,000
Right-of-way Cost 51,000
Utility Cost 114,000
Total Project Cost $ 2,315,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
The study area lies in the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina. Topography in
the project vicinity is comprised of low broad hills with wide level floodplains along streams.
Elevations in the study area range from 0 to 6 ft. above sea level. Land use in the project
vicinity consists of forest habitat, along with agricultural fields and residential development
along roadways.
Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Tar-Pamlico River basin [U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03020104]. None of the water resources in
the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study is designated as Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-
3

II). Pungo Swamp is not listed on the North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired
waters.
Pungo Swamp is listed as navigable waters within the study area, from the Pungo
Swamp to 10 miles upstream.
Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR.
Table 1- Water Resources
„ X
" « -°/o 0
Z m a v a � m�
.� Q � ` T � L N �
m �t 3 a`i = N u � �i = � '^
++ ,.., O 'L p � +'
L � � � Y � � t � � � V � � �
v� m� m'�- � � u �n > V Z Z m c�
Pungo Swamp 6 90 60 (est.) Silt, Slow Turbid 29-34-35-1 C; SC;
Sand NSW
UT 1 to Pungo Swamp (SB) 5 15 48 Silt, Slow Turbid 29-34-35-1 C; SC;
Sand NSW
UT 2 to Pungo Swamp (SC) 5 35 48 (est.) Silt, Slow Turbid 29-34-35-1 C; SC;
Sand NSW
Biotic Resources
Table 2 — Biotic Resources
Community Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/Disturbed 8.9
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype) 2.7
Hardwood/Pine Forest 0.5
Total 12.1
lurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters
Three jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 3). The physical
characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional stream are detailed
below. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
4

Table 3. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Length Compensatory River Basin
Name �ft,) Classification Mitigation Required Buffer
Pungo Swamp 267 Perennial Yes Subject
UT 1(SB) 256 Perennial Yes Subject
UT 2(SC) 99 Perennial Yes Subject
Total 622
Wetlands
Six jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. Wetland classification
and quality rating data are presented in Table 4. All wetlands in the study area are
within the Tar-Pamlico River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020104). Wetland sites
WA and WD are included within the cypress-gum swamp (brownwater subtype)
community. Sites WB, WC, WF, and a small portion of WD are included under the
maintained/disturbed community, and site WE is included within the hardwood/pine
forest community.
The preferred alternative for STIP B-4414 is anticipated to impact approximately 0.97
acres of wetlands in the study area.
Table 4-lurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands
Map NCWAM Classification Hydrologic NCDWQ
ID Classification Wetland Rating
WA
WB
WC
WD
WE
WF
Riverine Swamp Forest
Riverine Swamp Forest
Riverine Swamp Forest
Riverine Swamp Forest
Headwater Forest
Riverine Swamp Forest
Permits
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
71
65
65
71
27
65
Total
Area
(ac.)
0.81
0.97
1.00
0.98
0.03
0.32
4.11
The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the
purposes of National Environmental Policy Act documentation. Depending on the
amount of impacts, Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 will likely be applicable. The USACE
holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will be needed.
The section of Pungo Swamp located within the study area is an Area of Environmental
Concern, Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shorelines, that falls under the jurisdiction
5

of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Therefore, a CAMA permit will be
required prior to construction.
Federally Protected Species
As of March 9, 2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries lists eight federally
protected species for Beaufort County. A list of these species and a Biological
Conclusion for each of these species, based on survey results in the study area, are
listed in Table 5. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best
available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.
Table 5- Federally Protected species listed for Beaufort County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus E No No Effect
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E No No Effect
Red knot Calidris canutus rufa T No No Effect
Red wolf Canis rufus EXP No No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E Yes MA-NLAA
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia E Yes No Effect
asperulaefolia
Sensitive joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica T No No Effect
E- Endangered; T- Threatened; EXP- Experimental Population; MA-NLAA — May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
West Indian manatee - Biological Conclusion: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
There is suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee in the study area. Pungo
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. The NCNHP GIS point layer, updated January 2012,
indicates the nearest recorded West Indian manatee occurrence is
approximately 13 miles southeast of the study area at the confluence of the
Pungo River and Pamlico River. NCDOT will adhere to "Guidelines for Avoiding
Impacts to the West Indian Manatee, Precautionary Measures for Construction
Activities in North Carolina Waters."
Rough-leaved loosestrife — Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife in the form of saturated soils
within roadsides and utility right-of-ways exists in the study area. A review of
NCNHP data, updated January 2015, indicates no known rough-leaved
�

loosestrife occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area. A survey of potential
habitat was conducted on June 29, 2015. No occurrences were observed at
that time.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for
nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within
a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed
on January 8, 2015 using 2012 color aerials. Water bodies large enough or
sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified.
Suitable habitat for bald eagle exists in the study area, as it is within 1 mile of
suitable forage habitat (Pungo Creek). Additionally, a review of the NCNHP
records, updated January 2015, indicated one bald eagle occurrence (EO
31281) within 1.0 mile of the study area. This occurrence is located 0.75 mile
northwest of the study area. The nest was last observed in 2012. On January
12, 2015, A survey of the area within 660 feet of the project limits was
conducted on January 12, 2015. Two adult bald eagles were sighted flying
through the study area. However, no nests were identified.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally
funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity
to comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architecture
In a form dated February 4, 2015, the N.C. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) indicated no
surveys for historic properties are required. The form is attached in the Appendix.
Archaeology
An archaeological field investigation was conducted on March 11, 2015 to evaluate the project
area. In a form dated April 2, 2015, the NCDOT Archaeology Group reviewed STIP B-4414 and
7

determined that there no National Register Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites present or
affected by the proposed project. The form is attached in the Appendix.
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. All construction will take place along existing alignment. There are soils classified as
prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the
project will involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications. A
preliminary screening with the AD 1006 form resulted in a score of 53 points out of 160. A
preliminary score of less than 60 cannot result in a notable impact on protected farmland soils.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
The project is located in Beaufort County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment
area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volume, vehicle mix, location
of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts
relative to the no-build alternative. As such FHWA has determined that this project will
generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been
linked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for
MSAT's.
Noise levels may increase during project construction; however, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise
and the limitation of construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate
the effects of intrusive construction noise.
0

This project has been determined to be a Type III Noise Project and therefore, no traffic noise
analysis is required to meet the requirements of 23 CFR 772.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
An examination of local, state, and federal regulatory records by the GeoEnvironmental
Section revealed no sites with a Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) within the project
limits. RECs are most commonly underground storage tanks, dry cleaning solvents, landfills
and hazardous waste disposal areas.
Beaufort County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no
practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an
impact area of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase
the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development:
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Department of Environmental
and Natural Resources, NC Wildlife Resource Commission, NC Marine Fisheries, NC Division of
Water Resources, Division of Coastal Management, NC Division of Parks & Recreation, Mid-
East Rural Planning Organization, Beaufort County, Beaufort County Fire Marshal, Beaufort
County School Transportation, Beaufort County Emergency Services, and the Town of Bath.
The Beaufort County School Transportation expressed concern that an offsite detour during
construction would be a problem for young drivers and buses.
Response: Bridge No. 43 will be replaced on new alignment to the north while traffic
remains on the existing structure during construction.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service stated that "although there are no records in the vicinity, it
is possible the federally endangered West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) could be
present in Pungo Creek from June to October. The Service's GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING
IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities
in North Carolina Waters should be implemented during this timeframe."
9

Response: The US Fish and Wildlife Service's GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO
THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in
North Carolina Waters will be utilized for this project.
The NC Division of Coastal Management stated that "in-water and on-shore work for this
project should take precautions to prevent excessive turbidity." Turbidity curtains were
requested for in-water work during the Field Scoping Meeting.
Response: Turbidity curtains will be utilized for in-water work.
The NC Division of Coastal Management stated that it appears that "Areas of Environmental
Concern will be impacted: Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shorelines. Therefore, a CAMA
permit will be required prior to the commencement of construction."
Response: Noted.
The NC Division of Parks and Recreation requested "that NCDOT consider including a small
parking area and canoe launch as part of this bridge replacement. This would allow for access
to the Pamilco River."
Response: Based on NCDOT's Guidelines for Recreational Access at Creeks and
Rivers, this bridge replacement project does not lend itself to accommodate a parking
area or canoe launch for the following reasons: the existing bridge does not have an
existing public or privately owned access facility; no separate funding source; and no
partnering agency willing to maintain, fund or manage the site.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
N.C. Marine Fisheries, N.C. Division of Water Quality, Beaufort County Emergency Services
Department, and the City of Bath had no special concerns for this project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A letter was sent in January 2015 by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
to all property owners affected directly by this project. Property owners were invited to
comment. Two comments have been received to date.
There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
Zo

X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
11

Legend
� � � Studied Detour Route
g School (Public)
Approx. Detour Length= 3.9 mi
N
�i������r��u�ar�t.u��e��:�.
� `"'�" _ ,��'�4c� `� '
Wi�..i� ���������� �` -
�����` .
: �
. ���
.
�� ���
.
= �
g'
: -
* - ,�
_ ; �V,,�,,�-.
� �cy 4 S,Q
'' B-4414 ���
�= � s
�:
�_
• �:'dtni��-�� S _ g .
, �., � U$Miq�waY 264—
'��c
�>'�vp li5-Zr;-i R,�y�',Q
� >>
L�ry�B
� ,. SR����9
�
�
c�
s
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
4q���""�'°�s��tp NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
= OF TRANSPORTATION
� � DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9g, rv, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
''�����>^`'� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
ESRI World 5treet Basemap
d�i ! - 1 ri�`j .•(�' +aT� a4 . f.'! �,.
IF�;.y�` ., ..�/ � ' , " �y . ., --- -
;` ��' ��� __ ' 9��4�..a, '�� _
,..6r��nnlls• ', t � �' 'J ` e H �
t'', '., � �; h 6 �'3;✓ I 3 r•
� �
�1- T�� 7, r`� k�-� �s2�_�� g6` �- .. .w
re�v4�. � B���'Et/A' kl"* y..� 'O—R� T �
�� 9 , ^1� �y,.. , ti ,9�� ' ���,�, .� TJ' �:
� � _ "�.; �,V .` � i S 6^:
` Y. � ��/ ' ' . _ 1._5,
�.'ii� '�a � 7 � ' �` � ,1.`
�5�' � ., � - ,��.� 3 ,� - . m
R �R \ � �'[' -�N l--_ _ -'- - . "'"' . N. �S.
ri.�'
VICINITY MAP Date: 1-8-2015
Beaufort County, NC
Replace Bridge No. 43 on US 264
over Pungo Creek Figure 1
B-4414

�d`� ���� ; h�' �� , ��. '�y �� � �
T F��"�� � Y'•�a� {�` � � � y� �� �i
�. � 7•� ^ ��� . . �t -.
� `�,+ ,1 � . � iC� .;! .
'I � � � f �,,.' � � * � ,�` . 7 • 'e. �'q.
„�J �.f 1K � St,..'w , ,�,\!!s�' i� "' _ '`�� ��NORTHSIDE -. �.�+�;,
� � s .� �, ll�r . :�. <�'�,r''r. �''; -,s�, . fii � � ..,�. • HIGH � �s � +,
� ���ia$b� ° ,;f•,i � Y y�r�° �'�• ,�5: `_1LZ � � �`,' • , i'. ��*�
- �� r�'�� j"� �"'�f �.. ,r r� �K ., : ,�„ °'� ,,,,.� °e y�, r - �'
, .� ���
� * 1.+��v`1'"�'T,d'�� `� Y`�'' ���, k't'��'"'`��`��.rR ����� y . � ..
� R'p�h �`r.Y.7# '� �'� "�s �+r, � ,
�Aq � +� ��' .� . 1` it � r: �r i d� .. a f,yf-r � ,i � � �, . �. , �
T '`r�a .`.�nS.+� �*f .�+�1 ( 'SC�.�� p� ����-�„ �� � y . n ii v;�:` �„�i� 5 �",, ` ;
c. 2,.7 if ti...f 1'r4� i! .4 Y: �.-. `t' .'h qy, y� ,�`�y` 1
;��}�������� ���-�r�-s. . ����"�.�?S: �r� �.:� %v �^�R�n � ; �� 7iL r � �.' �`�'?� d'r`£ �Y��T'k�'� M_ +A"'1�.,
`�� �K, gi.s}�,p� r .�'�' tF� t � 7 �n, C 4 � a3� �,.�-rtj k:�l: .•,i �4. "jE 1 � '�' � �+� - -
:���''}= ''�"�C a��:�'� t �� � ��.�'t„� ".�� 'E�+ .t�' � �ar� � ,- � � t , � � � � � � �� �
-�� A .1�C`"�<J� �."t'' x �` �E t � "��'�� � � � �; i. ` � �:" � "$.4 � �� p��y .•r i ti' ` ` � `� � ����r�.��l, �,
a"r� i y �. � y
r &'.� S ij� �.i��+; {� ,� � �. y{y, .�'r' sb` f.�' �q, F' ' a.
- �t �`'a. 9J '�d �f =% � `�7.f Y �t"; ,✓" �'�-s �.'" ¢mi+ �"`'y�'�",�. �, -�, 'JF.:.0 ��k � ��' 1 "'�',9w,'ri ���
sk' - t i�, � � y i:,� z'��' � �r
�,���C � r� f� � rq+..,� ��..r_,'� ,`���r� � Y '�� � s� � s '�',o: � "r,�= '�'' `} . ._�j� z. "�Me'*w�: •"Mt 1 '4..t`,� .
- � �,
•n i 1 � � w � n �- �'N c � . rF� . Y :'r � �is.�..:s °t �.,� .x�"° };;� . .i.+w �
�a �' � • .-{,�.. s� � ?r a � '. -d �Y . �� �. h -� . . � �. � �.
..� : . . - - t �,�C. Y
� ��i4 ys ���.tr.'SYi� �'N +{r+:' _.�,� '� '.K,r,,;•� �, !'x� - Y �. ��L.�'`" .-�+�K4 � C' . . � .n ^ �3' � ,.,^l �'i�
T p.J'y }
� _ .F g� fT.. x�� � �,../ 1 r� h . yq �,-,r�. � ' �� 1� �a
r p rk' ���' i [�',y �� f� r �X �'� t i Y _:,�. :
�"y/' t - �'. Y
y i t'Lr � 3 _ h.r�q5a �`� .�.e. .�� t T� ��-�i�,E �7 . � �� �~� . ����
;Jr _4 , ''i��� � ..��' � �p�"$� '��t a"�1R. ir Y � � � '3"�., . �L �
.j. C . N" F-��c�� I� � :!`� -. r.,� .k.�Y'���'rj: {i� ' � �.��7 t% > � , .
f.� F �� _.. � .. �.,-. -w •.� f � ;tY�l .:Y �l ir. s y �°"crets y� M �"'1'�'�`'F�`' Y � .. �.. .
� ��, �i .. •� 3. � f .�,�:. x�ti�c f � . { �� J, :� 4 .. .-a� �-_� � �' � �i �. ��.T ��
� � /} .�. . , . " �.��. K �� ��y � � ��st� � d �,� Ar-1 �������
� ��,��, � ;,Y��.,, �•�` �. . . � � �s � 'tw._� ,� � Y �.� :e� �G
.,+4 x. �� ' � .
S �q.
p�;,,�i �`�j� *A:+���� �. - d' .Y :�1�^e'� ..I;.:V�".�� � - . _ " .� . _ FK"!r . _:..s�.�,
#fX j; -•"'q�;�i? rr 1:, - `:`'�c *`� r� '. - � ��Ai�`"S' " ���'`
o- ��tc „" .� � �� }p ty �f�'.�?',, . y _ ��� � r,� � .
�" ? q� { {.:Y� r ' � Y � ti r - � - �f y �y � 1� � s_ �r
�te � �,a e'. �, r { _ ,�" -, _`� � i l� ,- r . �.., �,. �, `�'��- ' _
c ��� �r �
�"�,��� �"�',�.'�, ��k'�� -� �. .� •�,� H� � � 4j�� 4 n��y�� ` ,� � � .�� -y .
�,� � �
, {{ �. � �����,a � y ��'�, u ,�r .u;�- -- � '_� �� q
��'�yp,y 1 ~� t � A 9 - �; e�. '` � .X�": .. �"`� Q - � '� ' ` � � ���,� .. ',�.,. „�y.x+� ,. `74 � - �
v �
�P"�-� ,'�'�}�,�t�va��� is. '"�� ��.a` l,a''�r�.'S�'���J�- � ����i .r�x'Xt� ���/Y�,J..;ti�`��:� fi�.^ '�^'�.� ��
» j ��S s ' � 4i 4" u ze� �.jP +�y �' 4V � .. 'c�+ � �
�'� �� _ '_'i�� ��� ��tr'�'(� r �x � � y��'�. y�-� �4 r �.f � '•'� � �` �. �� !�c
� °� _ � o{� y ,� . 9Fx 4.s��`' f,-.-�� i "���w`�''� •�4. �� °� < �r`.Z
� �f� '� � �j ii, . e._ '�'d � � '��p � i'V"'.iv F��r1.y, . i a. _ �' �i� Y� Jqi 1�r{ . \ . y �i .
�i�'` f ��'� ��� �^I fTry �.. 4 �t � i� f .A�i''��� T.�' t g1 � ''•�i �'�' ��,
o .'� {� � "' � '>� �� +� -✓+ 1 �
, s} �. `���y( y���� j�r;�'N t.� �t�` ���.,�� "ti�+�'':'k`� x *��'�' ? �'k�y4 �°1
.. � . /1` � � LC�xhr, ,� � , �. ji Y _ A � . ,h !�l` � �. . . .!`r� �,b�,, d y �. -�.. '''Y �( . ,' a S �:
�' ,`�,. v�Y u-'" �! •. y� •"1 '� � , �+ ,�� T �v�-: r oF + � t j'` � T���
� � `8'c yir �i
� , ��,}� �,.i�.,�%F.� +'k:�� ��p� YP a:xlt R.* �` � � • �,i ���.i'ri; �a1�,7r��.. 1�r'Li �w
���,sJ/��: 4�� .���r`yj,��":''S�i�, + �`x`�^�� 1 s + ;S: ' s i,�*+ �` t,';� +��,�� a �;i
� 4 . A^ . . T K�y � � . - , -- `!�,,,-fr'�'� . , . � .c .P �r„Ad"
� • f ,� ..... !i� � � �� -'i�'� � , ��`{i'��� .{ �a � le�..L�jy�,�,�( i . ' . � s � � --TJ � C�' ��` ,.rr M"•• �} j ' � .
� r R:. i �� �°C f� �� � n {" '{H ���k"���W' � ��1� �Yi�. t :4 M ..
J d 1�r � r � . 4 � x► � 1� ~ '��h{ �y�.,J[Y� �L ? ' �1��. .'y'n t- . yy_ �...
� ..�Y t l 1 �1K �e ' -�, � Ll . � A� � � K � ' � �r� I � t'F
�� �f � . � S �.��'"'"�Yi. 'x �� i ,s�^�`� �'�.�v���T� . � :�« 7 l � �`} r,X� �� _ M .r� �x�
%� l j� �� � ' .f"E 9 �� n +l'� d � `� a� U� � T) �l . i � ' '►* � s ° n4;,
. -1 +,�. �Y y'� ..E.. - ��'�t��t �.,�,��-� �i���-l�.� �� �1 �- .. T�` ; � • �i.s�. �
� s ��v� R lS' 's `a �t�`a ',� �L � R t� �',�, t/� �4R;� j2F. ia,i�
. \ Yi _k. r j�'Y3- r .�, ��'rr 7" ra- y,h; � e. a r3's-� r kYE'''
o � +y
,�, 1 �:.: ��„��x+�aa �- 1[ ' �. ,�,. 4 �rc n, w,
'� -,r '4 �,� �,� ' � T�. � �. s * f�'�Fz �" j` � 6•�� : c., �f ��'� �. s T _ , '�� f.�
�� i t� y�, x t y. � I ��..�' L,� .- y, yb -''�
�ra�{�„.y �,�, ,�1'�' � �L '' .�'i �;," �,� ��,: -�� k " :7 s - - 3 ' .�, ����9�'-�. M�,� i � �„�
,,y� ►�
\ \. �,�r�'� �. S E . � �. � t !l�?fn 3.c�r.�:ti S �`� � y� ��?�'af� �' � y ' .F
\ �e� *1 r �� , �� p - � ���T �'�A�'fT��'�h� �d 1. � S' ��'^ � N� ' � "i �
V .,yi� �;. t sr v7�i� J� ' I 4ti �� " 1 . �._. 4n+R y''t �'Ti;t
� ,C '� _.� Y �'1 ti� {�...��' - ^� ��'+�'i' �.` 4i
_' ! � . 1 ' � ' .� � : t... �' f''1 �Y '1".•
,S• � . _ �.,.�,�� �
. �;,� '. . . , . . y�. �. v `: ^�4 ..: `
? 3'G ♦< � �T ��,
4 - ' r '. \ �� _ - � ��A���{� 7
'`r � �. '.r' ... _ � I - _.. �' .R►w•"-ki �• _�.,.
.. �' •rY.- ��:� .�".'��F� � `[
� � r 4^J t � ,
�..",r "� � r 'i� � .s.• �' ♦
..`r.� � � � " • . . ' � ���'r
.. �. �: ' �� �,� �-. �
. _ T�' � Y� � t'
� ' ,l! � y . .y ♦
�y"_� _ _ '.� y1�1�,,��y � •. .. i _
� --rt = ; �i � � J'�,'�`-�.* '��; � . � _ � - i _ � ;� ,�.-. �
0 200 400 800 _ � ` "'�`� �� •• � y -.
,z .-r s, � � },
Feet ,� '�; ���� '2012;4eriallmage.ry
��;� _=g�.
"'�'°�s NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT STUDY AREA MAP Date: 1-8-2015
h'� yCf
: OF TRANSPORTATION Beaufort County, NC
y � DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 43 on US 264
9g, �rv, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & over Pungo Creek Figure 2
''� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
°r "'"�� B-4414

� �.���. � _ N
�.� '� �� �. �� �` '' ._ � ��� �� ' � � . - ��s,.._ _
� y � .' �{ ! � � -� ! .` �.
� 'r _..o�-�:� - � -- ` - - Iy��. . _.Y� y`_ .I � - -_ _'3N.-I _ ',
� �� - - �4��� _� � ��� � � J� �
. i . h o - �- r,3, � % ,.- _.- , "� . . .
_ _ ��1�'' ` ; - -- �
, �; ,` � �! _ _ ��=. _ =
� r��
- �t � !tiy _�� `f i.� ,\ - > `
- u •�� ' � rr. ) ^ .. :
' .�c:� a S�rd.�_�-_�_ ' ,.. ,1: � _ ,>-�� - '
� . �a�- . ' . \�'� ` l2' ` - -
s � ' - �` . i�o4h'o 'Y � , o� /'� , - x :� . .
� � J, � - _ • . Ir �- "' r /� �Z. _
/� /�
4�� � I � C'� � ,. 11 f�� Q q� �/1 r, •��
'� 11 i ' ' ��-�� � �� � � � I " � � � . J� �fF /'r `�� .
•'�u.i I..�� � f �i.. � �.�\� : ��b �I� J_ ±= � ..
�� � �� ; � ; h� , : � = ���.
t� Lfp ' :-.t � .�
: /
��91� J � �_ _' (}+t � �'� -/ / �,' p � � ~`'� "-�� -� ��� i -- - --
_ � - �i ,.� )1_- ' � � `�;, � ��j - .
- ,." _ !�- k'� ' ,,�f . �
_ � .: '. _ -� � � � i �l x��
. ; _ � �� ,�,_ 1'
_ .. r _ _r`�!`f��g?% - ..��� � � - �� . � /} +, ���/� ,i � � .�
f� Ylt �'i - - �'� „— _ r �.� _ , ' �1ti Ys .
� _ ��� �� �- - � z � � -; .� ,';���
_ .� �: n� �,,U� � � __ ��: B=44�14'' � � ��,
-- ., ', ` r ,��. F�a nt� g o o��
P�netbwn i �.,� �.; `�� _ - °
: ,; �,
_- �- . � . � �_
-�i �, �
: u .�__ ' ,' ' • - ��M,, .v-C � :l' . 1 ...'(
r„ , '_+, \
��� . ' ' • m _ �u�n w�� � �g � ����� _ � �� J� � r�`�„ �
. 13 . ; . • � .,� :. � (j-, �� � --
� , !'e�.tesville : .,�ac n�k ''' �y � -�`�,� _ � i� �, -
�\.\.' Y , .�:� `, ..,h- y� �� .. —.��� /. �'�'` . y Y \' _
, ; ��, i . �� � -c�,,' _ .=�- r -
— -----�_� ' � `' �� ' �A �� _.� _ � / �
�" .'�� ,
, '�l -, , � �J�- � ','�. �"�y�;
0
� �./ � ; �- i ,;'� h'� < • � '�',
.� 1 , � � '`t�
� �� {t � � _ � i � \'1
�� r . � ^� = i_ � rn
�� , � � � � _ _ � ��� � �
i"G ' __� - � _ -
� � ,� �,. � � � .� ; x .
'j� \;� �y�.��r. � . �� • - tS
� � �� � �� ���
� ` �y
�, ��a � ;�� �
�l� ) (I c�t � - C} - -. � � . . - �� /j�' _ �\\
l � ' � ��� . � � � , �, V � _ . . � �r ' .
, �, n /r
4 -- --' � y . , -� ,
� 4 �,� . 1 � �!:.
. -' -., � - . � - � 4 ' +y � Y s. . � i�
� 17A I � r w - � � . f ='R - _ . � :•- - ) � i
� r` C = � - - -. � :
� � ruJ: (f � — - + ' �
k` i �f 718,'�
�J��`�_. ; Pantego Quadrangle
t
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 "�;,, _
. ,., „ -
Feet Source_�USGS Topos (Digital Raster Graphics) Image Service
4q��` ""��sy�tj NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT USGS TOPO. MAP Date: 1-8-2015
= OF TRANSPORTATION Beaufort County, NC
y � DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 43 on US 264
9g, �rv, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & over Pungo Creek Figure 3
''� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
°r "'"�� B-4414

-liLT2— POT Sta. I6 + a�.QO
- �"9 �
j. n
�t5
.�a. _ul h _"'M
��� �.11 ' l�l\ l �� l.11 �C l �I
� ���� ` i� ����� �� �
L �f � YY tl ���.11 �€ ���1 l � ��� �l�
�� �` �u �� �� �� ���� �1 { ���� �� �
�
�
�B;b ->.w
✓fl \:?.l''' y�.�
ir
�„+;"n. � �*�c - " �.:.�
i
�
, , �. ��N 1+:KAPC JC��=S . . F �
� �-5 n3��G 6 `�, ;� �
� .� , . ,
14i.jeTtv � � . � � i x �. • .
� 'N�::�l� .� -
� rr n z':,,��" I�y � �.. - _ .
.N ., _ �
lAj ,
���/�
�1,
�����
• x
gR40LEY EDWARO NIRDN��,
AE3 isiTiaG &U6 .
u, P�:. i;`
. . . f ;T�r
. .Ndiii'.> F :!'w..
w'- �r �
'pW�FI 3SQ -1 � -°.4�,..
� ,. _ _ _ rvPe 0 �5�...:t
Y[_. HJ�:- ORJ' ;7r3 n:�.,at-,.. ��� —� x ��.
�—��
T�ZT :
N ` f. �, _
0,'.D US 2fi� •; QS� i� � � f ' ��
� � �- L � Glrnll 154 T6-3
- - ---- � � . ;R� ��"�f � . - . � r � — �' " � ~ ,C~ _` � '� L
_------ ,s��.� -pLT2' � � , ` ," . . �
-- 38" 2Z.3' � .. �- � � �— �— � — � - � � � �
< i,�.+
�
- �c '�+�' �.1 �� _ � � . �. '� k�, a. r � e. k i' i� 4 4 } t . ,
3 If �Csh
�
. (- � _- � r l � �•. � t � t k � , , e f * � 4 � f � .
� -
_ S. : + / � � t t Y Y .. , . . .. - Y z .. .. .. - ; - .. �;
� C .. s'. .._ , ::. \
. � t t � �� � \ �� , .+ .� �.-�"J TANKAR�J JONES wr0os �
_ � � �� ry 'i,R n3!rG 5r.5 ip
-� � " .. �. : t x x t� � idj
/ �
� � N � t � � � t �' s'�"J
_--_ _ -- - _ � Pr Sra 22+or.rr
�oo�s / �* * � , Q d= f0' 10' S6:C7 iRT1 a
� �, D= 3' 1�?' SJ.2' u'
�., C = 319.88' r4
N�oo; � T = l60.3b' �=
R = f.8flt7.�'
V = 60 mph
��� 1
�a:.:
ANTICIPATEd E3ESIGN DATA
DESIGN STAIVt}ARD$ = AAS�-3T�
D�SIGN SP��p = bfl INPH
AQT 2419 = 6320
ADT 2(339 = 9390
pF3V =
D =
�un� _
TfST = S%
AAfN. RADIUS = 133fl
MAX. GRAC}E = 3%
K sug = 136
K ceest - 151
SE AAAX. = fl.�6
CLASSVFICA�ION = RURAL ARTERIA�
T�RRAIN = LEVEL
DESIGN EXCEPT�ON = NONE
O PAVEMENT REFAC]VAL
� BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
SEE SHEET S FOR �ALT2- PRQF9L�
4 -ALfi2- US 264
8' 12' � 12' s'
I
Q3 ' 03
GRAQF
POPNT
BRI�CiF TYPACAL SECTIUN
1 �3' 6' 12' 8'
Z, i�� w.Grt
� � �.
6 � DPS
_° II
+�'AReA6LE
SLOPE
� -ALT2- U5 264
�
12' ' 12' 8'
FI' W�C,,R Z
Q d' Q �
FDPS � �
u '�
gc�.nae a
wo�N, _ °
�� P,02 n
RC}Ap4"JAY TYPICAL S€CTIQN
�
PR6JECT RfFERENCE f�t0. $HEET Np.
8-94l4 6
Rw Sh+EET r�0
OAPWpY HES7C�N HYD'R0.UL1C$
ENG71sE[A ENGINEER
II�COh1T�LE E FL:#�]S
DO :iOT L'�SE Pt1F / W ACOU�FSITiBti
P�SLIMII�� RY i�LANS
� UO RQT USB FO COV TRt� TlOV
� �CC TGS ENGINEERS
3 7Q6 HIILSBOROUGH ST. STE. 200
� kaIRIGH, NC 77693
� PH (919� 773-8887
COR�. LICENSE h?O.: C-0R75
�� �i.� '� rJ'8 �OQ
�■
SCAL�
�}
- Q
�z :.\ _ '�I -J 0�0
fV
. . , , . Q
� �
. . . , �
� F , F f �`, �. I
_ — _ — _ �
5 N :.� . �. H ..: �. . . .. � d
rrP€ 6-7> � � �. �
T T �- T T _'r � T T T �_ �
� - Ii,:.:... _ � �
_ �..M . . . . . — __ ,� �. �
r TT��TTC+4 w
� ' i1"PE 8-77
, r,_._ �___._�_^ �^.�
iYPE �77 I (j�q�f�� H{j.4j � CL .: GItAU 350 TL-3 rf5 264 �jy
� — � —�--� I � �;�^r;� ,�-`9 �� � . � : � c - � w
L -- — 1
cc��c w+r ` L=��-- rnn . wn w
�
-..�-----
� r '- , RE�WCNE � : - � , W
Fxrsrrn�c Z
� f t �" �1'ii�'iE 4 5 4 92.`�. ��, . � .t i� u�� J
s � z �G�9 -- . s Y . . _
'C �c �:.4 GRAII 350 j�1
� 3 k � 4�n y . k i i . �,
i : — � g � `F �' . � �H:;rJL�S : . �
N>. „':_'„j,
� R:�'w_' �:�
c�'
'M#RIABLE SLOPE

� PAVEM'FNT REMCIVAL
SEE SFIEET 8 FOR -AV.T2- PRQFILE
ANTICIPATED DESBGN �DATA
DESIGN SLAI�DA4iQ$ = AASHTQ
RESIGN SPEEp = 6(7 MPN
ADT 2019 = 6320
ADT 2039 = 4390
DHW =
D =
DUAL =
TTST = 8°6
NVIN. RADIUS = �330
Ai/L�t. eiRAdE = 3�ia
K sag = �36
K crest - �51
SE MAX. = 0.06
CLASSIFICA�ICdaV = RL1RA� ARTERI,AC
TERR{11P� = LEVEL
DESIGN E%CEPTiON = NCiNE
����a:.:
��� �.J ��� � �V Y 1 � i i
� ���� ` i ����� �� �
L l � � � ����� i ` � �� �
�������� �� 3,..•n � � ���V 1 •�
�
� �
eerrr a.a�acK ��
t�e w,3 �c e� g�
w,00S -
h aJ<3�.7"f "i 77�q•]0' a o z
C �
- ... ''D1�' H i5 g H 19�u.44 •
i�r y
.. - _ . 66 5p'��� € g. .,� t _
_ •�-1
' - �� � . 4 2 '� O
PR6JECT RfFERENCE f�t0. I $HEET Np.
r U Rw Sh+EET r�p
ROAPWpY HES7C�N HYD'R0.UL1C$
ENG71sE[A ENGINEER
II�COh1T�LE E FL:#�]S
DO :iOT L'�SE Pt1F / W ACOU�FSITiBti
P�SLIMII�� RY i�LANS
UO RQT USB FO COV TRt� TlOV
�,CC TGS ENGINEERS
3 7Q6 HIILSBOROUGH ST. STE. 200
� kaIRIGH, NC 77693
� PH (919� 773-8887
COR�. LICENSE h?O.: C-0R75
�� �i.� '� rJ'8 �OQ
��
SCALE
4Y
�
�
� � �`_--y- . ... :S� ZSS. �
�} 4 J v. �
N �- � � s�� ' UNROOD G. KEECsi
� � " � [1B Y9f 5 P6 T68
� ,. . � �e'�5�'zr'w,� i3���.i.r,�: ...� - -- -- _ dOR67Hv CCEMMONS THfHId3 C�EE VAk STk4LONNEH
�B r002 P ��D50 P� 55J
G bN6� � E SLbE 2�-
�61J . . . , ai.aa•-"�.. s rg'm5c� � � . - � PC F Sl.� 2�-g S
o.s.�<y `S�i" . . . _
� �. � . -i N ti � .
\
N — �RECortpS SUUN6� '•-• �`�. . �
� . �� ,;�__ F r '�'.�� -p . � \ -_ .. u
� W�6f5 . , — � • . '. �n
� , . , . �� ..f ..Ss � ' � i
� GRAU 350� Tt-3. - _ - = - '�-�p c +
� . . . . . . � � f_�.. .. � F � � �� � � ". . �� � _ _ lo
r - - _ +s v
Ky : m. � , , ,_ � C�i �_ I �m i �
_ � �
-- _ - � C C
F, . - . . � . . . - i �a crm _ ' � ~ ` �- � I � � � --� --- I � � ` - '! � �':
� ;-,�,� � -- -d_� _ � fn51mC Ri� ; fr
2 1 I 9'GMJ ` .�f3GfN� �I.= _
ti,
��Ir2` _ I iFGM�I � _
� -- - L i _ `-. . .. ..
� �=� -` � — _ .s � A7 27•4' E � � � US 264 �. / �-
Lt-I . _ -� -.,+_ _ _ - ` ... _` � ' e � . C , ` . . � . �� �`I�2�G�,v� .1/ ;r��;� _ . � 1 �
� ,,,�� , i �,_ c �
� a,r x - ,. , , . Y . - -� - - .. ., �6�M.3 �r Eiv; � - i-1 � - �:— - _ � __ � � _� '
_ � � � f � . . . ,� ' ' , . ' � m V ] _ ' -��,j -
{ ) it-3 ELYA K.IAASSfY ne` . +° � . ,� ��� I 5 I '..,
� � t 05 53B PG.l6� , y y �aarr�w JEFF�RSON HEIR$ I I _�� U YSFO
. , . , . . � i�, � . , oe c�z Pc �z _w �
. � � �,
� �, . -.,. , •,v,�� 1.-� _ �� ,, . . : --.,�_ „ m � la6 22 PL 5[7 � i- { D �I
o ,
i# � ��- y�? `��� � �� i'qryr
� 9'b
,�I Sta 28+6g59
L] = 4' ll' 09�' fRTI
D = ti 55' �29'
L = 456.�4'
T = 228.�2'
R = 6,245,ap'
V = b0 mph
10` 6' 12' 8'
Z 11' W.GR
D � d•
VARIABLE
SLOPE
O . . . . .. .. ,. � � , �
_- � , ..�_ ��. .
-... .-. _ . �� ,
^"] E•�v, . . , 'w�aos � � � � . . . - �� .
S/}
ti
4
THOf]B 82�l�FiFjR56N
rmzzxs�
T�
� -ALT2- U5 264
I
12' ' 12' 8` 3D'
11' 1YTiR Z
� A• a w
FaPS 6 _
l7 LL
I, GRADE Z p
POINT z LL
02 o aa o
6:1 ,y�N
ROA�WAY TYFICAL SECTUQN 31 �4a' ��RIABLE SLOPE
r', ��
�I 42`''n'' _- - --
l � - -� - , _- --_- ; o- - - -
:r"- / - � ----
fx�,h� w,.
� �
. � [tr(uvniFv
, I
ENI7 STATE PRO ECT B�4414
-ALT�- POT Sra, 36+QO.P(1
iN0AlA5 G. ,IEFF�R54M
� zi6�c�s�

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oQ�'� ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ,.,�:.�.�^��,�
,,. �.p,�...
i��'� � � �� �" PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM ��:' � �
i Q�1� I :��:; : _. �Ra
�'a:..,. ;�.� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not �; �•..` :��
�� ��`:� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the ��
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
WBS No
F.A. No.
B-4414
38358.1.2
Not provided
Federal Permit Required?
County:
Document:
Beaufort
PCE or CE
Funding.• ❑ State � Federal
� Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP 3 or NWP 14
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 43 on US 264 over Pungo Creek in Beaufort County.
The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as a 2, 000 foot (609.60 m)
long corridor running 1, 000 feet (304.8 m) northeast and 1, 000 feet southwest along US 264 from the
center of Bridge No. 43. 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 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed
the subject project and determined.•
� There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's
area of potential effects.
� No subsurface archaeological investigations are required for this project.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
� All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
� There are no National Register Eligible or Listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present
or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needec�
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
lofll

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 43 is located west of Belhaven and northeast of Bath in the northern portion of Beaufort
County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted in the southwest corner of the Pantego 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
19, 2015. Two previously recorded archaeological sites (31BF248 and 31BF256) are recorded within the
APE, while another seven sites (31BF228-31BF231, 31BF247, 31BF249, and 31BF253) are identified
within a mile of the bridge. According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Ofiice online
data base (HPOWEB 2015), 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), historic maps (North Carolina maps website) and Google Street View application 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.
An archaeological field investigation was carried out on March 11, 2015, to evaluate the project area.
Bridge No. 43 and US 264 cross Pungo Creek from the northeast to the southwest. The stream drains to
the east into the Pungo River. These waterways are part of the Tar-Pamlico drainage basin. The APE
resides along a floodplain/marsh with low stream terraces at either end (Figure 2). The area consists of a
forested floodplain/marsh and mostly clear residential properties along the eastern terrace and a church
property on the western terrace. Previous ground disturbances included buried utilities and channelizing
of the creek.
The APE is composed of five soil types according to the USDA soil survey map (see Figure 2). The
floodplain/marsh is made up of Muckalee loam (Me), Hyde loam (Hy), and Augusta fne sandy loam
(At). These three series are nearly level, very to somewhat poorly drained, and subject to frequent
flooding. Usually, these soils are unlikely to yield any significant cultural resources associated with early
settlement activities due to being persistently wet. The stream terraces consist of Altavista fine sandy
loam (AaA) in the northeast and Seabrook loamy sand (Sb) to the southwest. These series have slope less
than 2 percent and are considered moderately well drained. Typically, these soils types would be tested
for cultural material since they are considered dry.
A review of the site files shows that the project area was previously surveyed in 1992 by NC DOT
archaeologists for the widening of US 264 (TIP R-2601). This investigation resulted in the identification
of nine sites (31BF228-31BF231, 31BF247-31BF249, 31BF253, and 31BF256) along US 264 within a
mile of the bridge, two (31BF248 and 31BF256) of which fall within the APE. All of the sites except for
31BF248 were determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and required no
further work. This includes site 31BF256, which is a historic isolated find. Site 31BF248 on the other
hand is reported to consist of the remains of a plank road and boat crossing or bridge as well as a boat
landing located on the southside of the current bridge (Figures 3 and 4). During the R-2601 investigation,
no historical documentation pertaining to the site was found. Interviews with residents suggested that
creek was used to transport goods, but information on an early landing at 31BF248 was not known. The
review of the 1957 general reconstruction plans for Project 1050 (US 264) found that the road
improvements at that time consisted of widening on existing location and did not indicate the remains of
an earlier crossing. Shovel tests were placed as near as possible to the remains but failed to yield
artifacts. It is thought that the remains date to the 19th or early 20th century. Avoidance was
recommended for Site 31BF248. If the site could not be avoided, then further work was recommended to
determine if it's eligible for the National Register.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2of11

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
Lastly prior to fieldwark, a historic map review was conducted. Most early maps from the 18th and 19th
centuries provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads, settlements, and
drainages. The 1818 Clements and Price map of The Country Between the Roanoke and Pungo River is
the first map that was reviewed which identifies a bridge at the current project location (Figure 5). This
map labels the Pungo Bridge and depicts a road with a similar alignment as US 264 to the north and SR
1718 (Yeatesville Road) to the south. Although this map confirms an early 19th century bridge at or near
the current bridge, it does not authenticate that the wooden remains at site 31BF248 are this bridge. The
remaining wooden post could be part of a later structure as this route from Bath has been continually in
use. Improvements to the route during the 19th century can be seen in J.H. Colton's 1854 map of North
Carolina (Figure 6). This map shows the early alignment of US 264 and the community of Pungo Creek,
which would later become Yeastesville. The road appears to cross at or near the current crossing. The
1908 Beaufort County Geological map gives a clearer picture of the project area showing the bridge and
nearby homes and churches (Figure 7). These buildings are situated well away from the bridge and do
not fall within the APE. Subsequent 20th century maps provide no further or useful information. From
this review, a bridge within or very near the project area has been in use since 1818. The remains of one
of these early bridges appear to be 31BF248, which falls within the project limits. All other historic
structures are outside APE and will not be encountered.
The current archaeological field investigation at Bridge No. 43 consisted of a surface inspection and
evaluation of the wooden remnants at site 31BF248 (see Figure 2). No subsurface testing was deemed
necessary since the project area was previously investigated with test pits during the R-2601 project.
Wooden remains were seen mostly below the water surface (Figures 8 and 9). These consist of a series of
round post that range from approximately 3 to 6 feet (ca. 1 to 2 m) in length lying horizontally side by
side along both banks. The posts appear to be about 4 in (ca. 10 cm) in diameter. Six vertical posts were
observed standing in the water near the western bank, while one vertical post was seen on the east side
(Figure 10). The size of the vertical post is unclear, but they are slightly larger than the horizontal post.
The remains stretch for approximately 50 feet (15 m) along the eastern bank and 32 feet (10 m) along the
western bank. The river current has shifted some of the horizontal post downstream, but otherwise the
condition of the site seems to be stable and resembles the site description from the R-2601 project report
(Figure 11). Conversations with the caretaker at nearby Mt. Zion Church and local property owners did
not reveal any new information far site 31BF248. No one knew for sure if the posts were part of an older
bridge or part of a dock (for a ferry crossing). The visible posts are not part of any plank road that
traversed the region. No plank roads are recorded in the area and the posts present are not typical used for
these roads. The history of the crossing is imprecise. As previously noted, the iirst recorded bridge is in
1818 with the next mention nearly a 100 years later in 1908. The present bridge is reported to have been
built in 1925 and rebuilt or refurbished in 1956 (Figure 12). It is suggested that wooden remains could be
part of the 1925 bridge as it is aligned with the old alignment (prior to 1957) for NC 264, but this could
not be verified. In addition, an exhausted search through periodicals and internet resources could not
produce any significant event or purpose at the bridge site. These remains have low research potential,
are not associated with a significant event or people, do not show a distinctive design or construction, and
do not have a part in the community's cultural tradition or identity. It is also doubtful that these remains
are those of the 1818 bridge, but more likely those of an early 20th century bridge. As a result with this
uncertainty and lack of significant elements, site 31 BF248 is determined not eligible for the NRHP.
The archaeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 43 show that no significant
archaeological sites are within the APE. A previous survey has identified sites 31BF248 and 31BF256
within the project limits. Site 31BF256 was previously determined not eligible for the NRHP, while the
current investigation recommended 31BF248 as not eligible. No further archaeological work is required
for replacement of Bridge No. 43 in Beaufort County. However, additional work will be required should
design plans change to encompass property outside of the currently defined APE.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3of11

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
Other: images of historic maps consulted
Signed:
�
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
/1' ��
Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
❑Correspondence
4/2/ 15
Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4of11

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
,, a , � _
� � .
�,i, � �, . �
t
t , y�i . 1.i' _
I li a f ' ...
I dne Mile Radius ��haded) l� . ���� ��- -_
� Araund Projectaeea � ;,� , � _ -
r � �
--'- ---- _i il�,�i� �:.. ~�'—f�:�" r f.�f� 1'�'r'g '7_L r+ �
Y � � �i _ �� I e . I� - .
�3�1� 'I4�:I .�I�� � R q t� � ' ,1 ' �.! �_�,: 3�� ~ �'`-� �M� . . `}�ti.'��� 4 .
` � q � --�.i—.`. � � � �I �' ` L f i. I ss "-�'. . �� ;��, .
_ i � � � �� , �6�9f ?�p +��. � I a' {•� I r'� +� � -
�`'p � " -�' I� .� '� ^� , ��� r"�� �
.�~ l� . �,,^ I � �`, I� � '1��� ' � ~ !jI ,� " � �1 . �-, I \�
�'{.� I , ~ � � },:�.� I �- � N � � ,�rt_.:. �� �f.�
�• i ,' ��� � 4 ��S I, f ,�,/�� , � _ . n r � '� --- -
4 � . .}.- °�__.`s; L' � �� fj �� s
; f i� � � =_ � ,�
4 j � �}�I d'�'-- r! l �� � lI', � � •ir
, . _Ip I . f .0 9 _---����� �� ~'t.� f�` ''�� ii F V I ' ,,. �^ .. f
� �r 2 y , , _ '� i ! ; � i � i e +.4 -`�' ! � ^:
� � �� I t r
� �� A l�'� f',' � i -. . i � `� f �, . �,f 1 p,�� � 4_�r� !i ' '
�..'_ ��ill � � - ' ��� i � y� 1% 1 i . - '
1 �' x ��
_-1r �F�`� liie, . a - �` r 5�, -f�:,. �ir SI�!y � , ��,' �'i!` :..
� �y+-� �{-� � � .�`�} s �'�, ir��f f� a �_). ��{ �
+ f e�"�� '� ' L' -- . ~�'r� �'✓� a �} �' 4^e: l
v I ..s,er-"r Es.' FiCIC��2 '�i _ e % � •
-�� ¢'� ' ..�. �� A�E {Rec�) - -�' ��, ° �-��,
� � �'s..� �r�. .'� �..` F.� � �_ ��� :'.� #�r .'* �,:` _
VM � �.�1�ti � � � y�� � �} _ k -''
r. � � .7 ° �ti � ; -�:,a .-� :, 1
�r ����
f` ,,o s � � T � ;
i� �I u �'' f� �r �_ . y _ � � `k ��
I ��1 � y L��J k - ��� t 7� +.h��
, _` .�
I I � �� _ ' ..,:
� � - j'+��' J'( ��ti:' � 4�5-�- � y`.i��".�.y '�F, �N � ��1,�'�:.
N k �lo ��i � �A al��lir .�"���;i Rf2 �' � J �`"� ��t '��?r'e - II f� t` ��� * � �
�,,f, I
�,� ,—� � � ���� I�I � �`' � � � � \;' ��J �,�� ? ,' �.(- „xs i
i� �� �_,Lt�rL#$�Yli��- ' PL 1+4lC 1 �� �.- } y � �,� �,� ,, ` �- ,} r
� � ii' ��.� ,'� � �' �' �` '�. _ �-�� � �"° '{
'I , � I o � � Y`� f "_� + � �'.'t, _ = �. 1 � � ;
� � ��� •.k
� � � � � � � -,� '~ �' � � 1
+ ��II � � Y ;;�_ � � i� _�� .ti� �� - ti 'o x
'y � � v ,,. � J;y rt �a� r-�t ti�\' i a G� � i i
1 � �.T�'�` � 'r �.. `�:•� � �� - � s �-�`
T � �:� � � � �.�
E' � �j � � �
.+� y r/ � I( ,.i , � � i —! � .� '� .
7� /r �� „p •A �- 1. '` :L`� 4 .-I�� 5 Q��k 5
�, "��..�� ;;'' ���1 1 ���- ' ;- �� ;�,
�I °� �� t,. ` " � _ ' �* yv �
,�, ,f f rS I �. I I � i '�,}�C
� t � �+�' w ,'�s I � u` ' I � �.- :,; F
� �.1 .�!� � 4A ;l„ 1, '"� l�
V � ..1y���� + �1 ` - �_.'. Iq{} 1� P �f !r
� � _ t���� i� . "
� �', � � :, ,-- � , 7 „�' ' � ��. ,� e ' _
� � t � �,y,s,-, � � p � .
,„ ,� , ti., ,
- i.Y ; _ -'.i.
I �, I�1 J � '.1 .
s �1 ' I L � S
�I�Mi l� 1 � ��, ��� � F�. .v
G - 1 ` ��y
� �� �� �� I k . � �€kM1 -f �'��
I fr/�` � �-fi��' I� " '�::. ; ��a
Q � P�'
�A'4
IV
�4� I� E S
� 0 1.�U� 'JV E
Peaa�rtCour�ty
h✓leters �
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Pantego (1951; photorevised 1974), NC, USGS 7.5'
Topographic Quadrangle.
"NO NAT/ON.9L RF_GlSTF_R ELIG/BLF, OR ZdSTF_D ARCHAF.OLOGIG4L ,SITES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorrn %m� Miivor Ti�arsspnrlcitio�2 Projects as OualiJied irt d�re ?007 Programnindc Agree»se�tt.
5 of 11

Pr•oject Trackino> No.:
15-02-0001
�. - , . . „r
.
.F , ' u �� `1?f�'�'`�_'� .,��,��x..
�- _,. i. . ,�,• ;��} t .g,.� _� ���,�_ :' ~-.
.4'� � �,� .?� 'i. � r �/ .w ,���E
{��,„��-y ✓� �- ' �Y.d�S' ��� 3 ' - .J?��r � - � =�-rir � �
5 _%• .t`� fl .. c" � �l �-''^ . {Y:! �` c� ��r �"+
� � � _
_ . �� .
' � ' • � `:�j�.,,, � `.-' � � 3��� � . • _ yli�°'� �' ."`` �," a
r ♦ � n J � � �. ' k ' y
�, ��.� .� •�. ' +�►�§.. �i-��i� `- � � t=✓ti�5{ � �� � ���
�� � , 'a}�.� �� y s �o ,s�' � � ����� "s�.:� � ��4� �,
g.y� 4�. `� � � �.�,a i� �', `
, -rT'N �, �`� y�+� - �-�s�h-a+" � � `��i�'l ,.� 1
� �_, 5� YF p� �� ``i�"-� }� � i � j y� � ► � 4'. i
� d 1
2. � . _ _ '� S � �-3 'ti � � "�i�'• �,'1i �., `Sh,- . . �� �
•¢�. � � +-.��` � .� � � ,k1.� �� _� � t ' '� ` i _'. � .
� �
, '. �� � � ��,� � � v� � �-�
_ ,� _ ��_ . , f� ..
� -:�n�; ��_ ' ti' r-� ° '' `�"��, ,+,� ' #
.� J� b i�'i� �-: �� 4 ��� .b- rl .
2T? { r� +9�� - y � � f � � yt' 1 �, , �±��� � � .
.�y ,� . f� _ ! �" . � • � F � � .
- `� � Y� � •. S.
�tl— - �1�F2�6 jY'�11���;�1 ,' _ - � ;:
;'w±.� � �.. �� � � � a � �`
�y�;� a .,�� .�t �
_,•, � � _ »° �` _ .:..—.
� ��� � � _ -
_ ,
�� ,��..
� � ��:.� �rid�� 4� � � r � {��
a� � r ,� - F�E (Red} - - � ,'1
.,�'. , �y -4.. x � ,��� ,,. /�
�,��, �� ��' �P�`�� ,'�, ��� - ����'�,, __ � �a�.
}� , ��. ., � �w�. � •� "�
� � , .R� ,
`!'. = t r
� �� '�� e�`� � �
-f� .e, i _ _ -/' �_'. �' ��
"' �,� �,_ _'p P Q3 ,, � ;�x: =��� �1��2�& �Y�Ilouv� and ��;, �; �
_� t: ' e ' y ;�:
,� � �' � ' � t tiNooden �em�ins ��r-anr��i �v„ �,;
s� 0 o'-�y .,;�, �' <„ �
I'�„ , . " 4+ .a.:� 4{r k, �t�-•. ��� ��'
�� rn .4 r a � r:. � ����' �J}3� ,� +,�' �.r ti;
� w . .:�� +� ae.� ,y�t-. . �' �.
Y r ., r r�y ��' �y
�
t 3 -_ F � �.i J.l� �'� ��i'. .1
� «. ..�,� .- ,' . L '�-r "e � ��`tt-.
_ f - � �Ld�e�• k � r �� ,
_. ; "J � _�l �� �h 7 .� iti
� . y ' `*� � �' �' � '1 � � �. iI w�
�'
� �. . �� `� �� Y�� _ � �1
� � �
At
I _ � � ' p" .� �. � � �. � �� '., .
�; � � i 1�l
� �� � � �,,.-� °� -
K �. *�
M1� ' ��� i a � , �,_ ,;�y . 1j:,; _
� �` � ,,..�_, S� _
�9 �����.. K vt-.�rT�� � - . . �t��
� r,�r L��,�,� �
j.� ' ' r r- � � :,
,�� � � �� i �.
y �ontaur at 2 (eet
Y. � _C
_ '�<' "I1� �� .J�'��.cu
.�? _ -.. .1 - _
� _
1 � ��
0 1.0�0 �
Feet
0 300 'JV E
Sea��rt Co�r�ty
h�leters �
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development, landforms, soils, and sites 31BF248 and
31BF256 within and near the project area.
"NO NAT/ON.9L RF_GlSTF_R ELIG/BLF, OR ZdSTF_D ARCHAF.OLOGIG4L ,SITES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorrn %m� Miivor Ti�arsspnrlcitio�2 Projects as OualiJied irt d�re ?007 Programnindc Agree»se�tt.
6of11

Pr•oject Tracking No.:
15-02-0001
Figure 3. Round horizontal posts on the east bank of Pungo Creek at site 31 BF248 fi-om R-260 ]
investigations looking south.
l� igurc 4. Horizont�al post and vcrtical post south of existing bridge at site 31 BF248 from R-2601
investigations looking west.
"NO NAT/ON.9L RF_GlSTF_R ELIG/BLF, OR ZdSTF_D ARCHAF.OLOGIG4L ,SITES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorrn %m� Miivor Ti�arsspnrlcitio�2 Projects as OualiJied irt d�re ?007 Programnindc Agree»se�tt.
7 of 11

Pr•oject Trackii�g No.:
15-02-0001
�. ��'�
,i. - �
Pr�ject Area �'
.. .,, , , ., ,
. . � - `� . •- N . � ♦' • � . � . . . ♦ . � ( a.
1� � -� �
�
�
.�
Figure 5. The 1818 Cleinents and Price inap of The Countr•y Betweer� the Rocziaoke c�nd P�crngo River
showing the approxiinate location of the project area.
� ri/J'l ll�'!�� : J', . �„ v �
�r T � . ' ' ' �� � � � �
;S-' � y. � y\ �` • . , � � • • , � ., y
�
� � �f v ' • I � � ~ � ~4 S •� �/� �� �
� � �, � �
� P ro, ect Ar���i = � - . =; .�-��- � �.
� , — . � •� r' . �.�. �, � .
� � ' ^ . + . �, -;Ar .�! /�I t I � ,,.c. •.
�y � r d tr 1 �s•� ' .' w. . ,�• � " �. � �E�,� � �'= L . � y �
`� � "� �"�( '� _ �'.� t � � -� �' .
r _ . ,�, . . � � • - ' ry +..
~� r •`�T-1 -�► �. ' 1 ` , �(! �� �I ���I.1
- E l� 1 [� �� � ' � ,� r`�+ �L �
� , � .1 � f���'�f "�''�` .,s � ,
� 1� .
�' - � � _ � � � - • � ( 'j ' . : � ` ` ,..r `.. �+�+ ,
fl!!.ti'�j�.� , � ' - � -_ ..- ..
' ��
1 l.c � � � ' � �� � .
, t 1��7�j� � �
- ,� �-- � c � r,�i��.
♦ ��.�� � • . il� S
� � �
,.,, ,� � � `
� `�7':ti.`,,�,�3 ' t-�-��#1 ► � _ �J � �'i
,
.,�� .r,,�. ,� s �- — � � , � _ � J ° . `
', -� � ��,�t f—`�' � • ��
•�t�{'i1��'�'t�,l%�'. � ,. r"��
.
� _�� .. �,..�`' �_ _ . �i ���.�r �.. .
Figure 6. J.H. Colton's 1854 map of North Carolina showing the approximate location of tlle project
area.
"NO NATlONA1. RF.G/STF_R ELIG/BLF, OR I,ISTF_D ARCH.4F_OLOGIC:4L S/TES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorni /or Minor Ti�aiTsprn�tatiort Prqjecls as Q�Aalified in the 2007 Prograrnrrtatic Agreenzent.
8 of ll

Pr•oject Trackii�g No.:
15-02-0001
Figure 7. The 1908 Beaufort County Geological �nap showing the location of the project area.
Figure 8. Horizontal post below the water sui-face on the eastern bank at site 31 BF248.
"NO NATlONA1. RF.G/STF_R ELIG/BLF, OR I,ISTF_D ARCH.4F_OLOGIC:4L S/TES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorni /or Minor Ti�aiTsprn�tatiort Prqjecls as Q�Aalified in the 2007 Prograrnrrtatic Agreenzent.
9 of ll

Project Trackino> No.:
15-02-0001
Figure 9. Horizontal post below the water surface on the western bank at site 31BF248.
Figure 10. View of vertical post near the westenl bank at site 31 BF248.
"NO NAT/ON.9L RF_GlSTF_R ELIG/BLF, OR ZdSTF_D ARCHAF.OLOGIG4L ,SITES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorrn %m� Miivor Ti�arsspnrlcitio�2 Projects as OualiJied irt d�re ?007 Programninde Agree»se�tt.
10of11

� �. ,�'�,\ � � , w ,�
.. - t , �-� ,
�rc � � ��`:
�� � ; � ��-�.: .:,.'�: -
_.:�4_,.r - _. , � . � , �9���� } f —.-. . _ -
�.,�.� � � . ,� �f'_�- -
al '� 4
������ �? �� 7k .�+.n.
Y,r� . u . " _ `
t'"v _ 1 . ).i- _ = . . .
M ; p £ \
S '.� 'a � ..�\ ', � � .
i
K 4.�� �4 � � � q.._' _ .
t � ��. 1 f! i �. �44 Y; � -:��_ �- � .
�, r : , � �. � :, ' r,�, :� � . .
, :�
` , � � ' � � ,� ,_
. �` °adt 'R y z s' �. �f;4�`. ''�tz.��Yy�..
` F t� 4�` D tii�,a �� - i�
� :Si� i }'..� > .T +s :.�4 S� �� �.v � � l 7) '- s� -`
�' � � ���� {- :.r�,1� �a _Y,r,i t ,,�� a ,i n bf��`1 -.
.� .. r � y' y '�°a �, t, rl � ;.�e
r-s` _ .1 d�'�rau ��r#.', a ��`z , fi'y � i A V�" d. 1 4`i _
Pr�oject Trackiitg No.:
15-02-0001
�
� \W �
�' ' � : a r ;� i � ��� v�. �t1+,���� a: ' ,, � i+� �"�-R� , �,ti�'�'�►�eaA�el� �M�; � �,� ..
` � "- � " � :.�. rl,d��� _ y\i�W�p'¢jy-,s�l�,>\�,y�,� �4 , n'�� „ - �m.�:�:
v4
ti; t � � �< �" ,�9 D'"��`�' �`����� �g P' yG �a" ` � � �i�^r ��':�
���-�'���'� { 6�;� 71 : ����}{;��� � � ,�: _ � �:
y �; ja ,J.fd� . �° e �[b ,F�> '`J,'�4 i r . 'a . e�. �a.aus � ��t,;� .\. � �(,ar `�' -� -'� f.�-2�a � '�
v y d 4_ 7� l 1 �, 9.�k' �y"t! i'i� � � � 4��'
'-�� ' i �'tV��iF:N�� rl�^,�C � q � +'� ! ; •�c'b�'��i,t� y`�� �
,� �a�i .d� 7'� � -s,s,' � o �un y , � �� ��� ` . .� '
rar� y�' �' ..�b' � ��".r"���� ���}-�ti�.r��1�'��. .�'fX n�_ �i�,'�„� rr�' •�* � � �. ,r�-� .
�Ui T, f '�'�., f � Y i ,� 1� � ��� y s<"�y�'�Cn��,�. P; } �.��..** � �`y�.�E J'��}!► '��- . �4�1o^'�'r;,x+.-�✓ ... -.
�
,� , Jd T �,�� 1�. �' ; '
.LiOM^�p � � '..�5� 9 awl � : i i� � t,�s .:a a .�''r�'. �r9y 1� �' r 'r+ i s �-.o- '�i: �, , Lci
;' :T� y 1 ��M .
� :,�j�03<i��i �-� .K� � Y�5 w. i'_"I�rp'i�Q�n: ,=,N _ � � . -r':'�
Figure 11. Ovetview of ttle easteili bai�k of site 31 BF248 showing similar depiction as in Figure 3.
- _ 1..-.� �1� AfbFN �� �Y 4G i�Tt1�4 _ _ ��. .y��
� "�i t`+'�p . .. ..! y 1' . y _� K �� . ` y* q �1 -
- , �'iT . c,, .. ,y§,.`, t �� � ,y . -� � Ss �r� �. .� �. 'k� t � _ �.Y �i[.F�i
- _ `� � ' o :4 ti'� _ . . -�. , � : - _ � �
��.l.. �1,��z �� . �� .�_ ���..w . _. .x' . . ' � � . � .. � _ �
.� _3. ' r� , - -
_ z - ` 1Y . lc , .- . _. . .. . — . .
~� r� i f� '
, � ,� r � � -�- :.'r.�i l�' ��.`'`� � Y y . . � ;
.�'� � � " , _ - . �.{,�`�..�
- tiJ� i��� � ��i�C.��.�� ��T --.� l.' ��.L . .- �is �r.���.�c
�"'�. � �' ` r'�i.�.� .�, � "� . + � z ;`�°'"�
r�. w� , �, � � � ; 3 � . . �L� i��'�: t
-- �,. �� - _ - - . `s ' a - ., .
�';' - -.� 7'�,¢A1 �
— ' _ - _ �,y ,C� - - �
�� -�.t . t ' e .. s ' '- . _ _ ' ' ` . .�a� . � !� _ �,f'
� ^I �. t �' •i: �i r.' _.
�� . .�• .'y�� - "�"'»'�" - - � . � �- _ -�. 1 '�x',- F•.
. -:.'� .ie. � 7 ,rr. � . �,J - .
_ . .. . . � _ ' g ..9�, . . �,�
1P�
�_ ��� Y� ��; ��' ' . '
!,-�'�".l�y- 1f�1 � . . - .. � .
t�� � ti'YyL� ._?�Y�r �i,��(�' . -
� �,.� F f� ,�+°rj+'�y ��. Y
Pj, � �� ��" �r � .S. ... . .
�r ' .��"'�f�f� � .
Figure 12. 1956 Monument to the current bridge.
"NO NAT/ON.9L RF_GlSTF_R ELIG/BLF, OR ZdSTF_D ARCHAF.OLOGIG4L ,SITES PRFSENT OR AFFECTF.D
Jorrn %m� Miivor Ti�arsspnrlcitio�2 Projects as OualiJied irt d�re ?007 Programninde Agree»se�tt.
llofll

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use�
15-02-0001
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
ProjectNo: B-4414 County: Beaufort
WBSNo.: 38358.1.2 Document PCE or CE
Type:
Fed. Aid No: BRSTP-0264(31) Funding: ❑ State � Federal
Federal � Yes ❑ No Permit
Permit s : T e(s :
Prolect Descrintion: Replace Bridge No. 43 on US 264 over Pungo Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Descrintion of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on February 4, 2015. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defned as 1000' from each end of the bridge and 75'
from the centerline each way. South of the bridge is a one-story frame church built 1983; the structure is
under 50 years of age and not eligible for National Register listing. North of the bridge are several frame
houses and mobile homes dating from 1930s, mid-20'" Century, and the 1990s. All of the structures are
unremarkable and not eligible for National Register listing. Bridge No. 43 is also not eligible based on the
NCDOT Historic Bridge Inventory. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no
survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be required.
Whv the available inrormation provides a reliable basis for reasonablv nredictinQ that there
are no unidenti�ed signi�cant historic architectural or landscape resources in the nroiect
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Beaufort
County survey, Beaufort County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered valid for the
purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
�Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
i
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
and
NCDOT Architectural Historian
-- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
Date
0
Historic Architechire and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQU/RF,'D foi•m for Mlnor Transportalron Projec�s as Qualified in !he 2007 Programnm(ic Agreeufent.
Page 1 of 3

r��'o cis.
1930 hoas�e uorthez��t of brid�;e on south side of' US �(�4.
His7nric Arcltftecha�e nm( /.mxlccapes NO SU12b7z}' /ZEpU1H/sll Jurni /br �tlinu� Trw�spa�tuliun P�'ujecl.s u.s Qi�n/i/ir�l in Ihe Z007 Prngrnm�nntic ilRree�»e��l.
Page 2 of 3

���� �.
�- �� '�:»�'�
�yy+. ' ���Ti� +��q 1F+.w_ .. µ ' �a�'."�-
�L'� � 5�.: �_ y�'VE ' .�
� �. .. ... � +:� e�'i� . - _ . . ..
1958 House northeast of the bridge, north side of road.
�
"•t�
Hisloi�ic �IrchirecRn•e nnd Lruulscnpc.r NO SURV/:Y R/sQUIRIiD (ormJi�r�llinur'l innspurinlinn 1'r�%ecls n.s Utialifiec! in d�e 1007 Pr��Krn�iinialir Agrcemenr.
Page 3 of 3

��
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
1►i I �lu [�7.7_\�I �1�1►i I
TO: Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT, Nature Environment Section
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 30, 2015
SUBJECT: 2015 Bridge Replacements
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Enviromnental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
Ueneath the structure, does not blocic fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in ar entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations i�nmediately upon tlle completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
Mailing Address: Division of I�11and Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Bridge Memo
Page 2 January 30, 2015
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist should be
notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be required.
NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information on
requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
1 L Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
12. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
13. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
14. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
15. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be

Bridge Memo
Page 3 January 30, 2015
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-SO linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-4453 Camden County bridge number 19 on SR 1235 over UT: Anadromous species are found
in this tributary. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 30. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4648 Tyrrell County bridge number 17 on SR 1105 over Riders Creek: Anadromous species
are found in this portion of Riders Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June
30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5416 Perquimans County bridge number 29 on SR 1200 over a branch of Perquimans River:
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo
Page 4 January 30, 2015
B-5503 Martin County bridge number 53 on SR 1142 over Collie Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5507 Chowan County bridge numbers 24,20, and 21 on NC 32 over Warwick Swamp, Dillard
Creek, and Sand Run Creek: Anadromous species are found in these tributaries. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge.
Standard recommendations apply.
B-5508 Hyde County bridge number 21 on SR 1311 over Waupopin Canal: Anadromous species
are found in this portion of Waupopin Canal. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February
15 to June 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
B-5605 Hertford County bridge number 31 on US 13 over railroad: We recommend replacing
this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4425 Beaufort County bridge number 69 on SR 1136 over a Branch of Chocowinity Creek:
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4427 Beaufort County bridge number 6 on SR 1422 over Big Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4430 Beaufort County bridge number 135 on SR 1742 over Bath Creek: Bath Creek is
designated as a Primary Nursery Area. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
B-4483 Craven County bridge number 66 on SR 1232 over Grape creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4595 Pamlico County bridge number 14 on SR 1005 over Beard Creek: Anadromous species
are found in this portion of Beard Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June
30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4596 Pamlico County bridge number 28 on SR 1005 over Fork of Beard Creek: Anadromous
species are found in this portion of Beard Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February
15 to June 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
B-4485 Craven County bridge number 26 on SR 1621 over Beaver Dam Swamp: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo Page 5 January 30, 2015
B-4527 Greene County bridge number 26 on SR 1705 over Bear Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4569 Lenoir County bridge number 68 on SR 1515 over Groundnut Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4593 Pamlico County bridge number 38 on NC 55 over Trent Creek: Anadromous species are
found in this portion of Trent Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fsh passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 30.
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4414 Beaufort County bridge number 43 on US 264 over Pungo Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4433 Beaufort County bridge number 40 on SR 1932 over Horse Pen Swamp: Anadromous
species are found in this portion of Horse Pen Swamp. NCDOT should follow all stream
crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard
recommendations apply.
B-4605 Pitt County bridge number 5 on SR 1777 over Chicod Creek: We recommend replacing
this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4606 Pitt County bridge number 17 on SR 1780 over Chicod Creek: We recommend replacing
this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4607 Pitt County bridge number 43 on SR 1923 over Swift Creek: We recommend replacing
this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4709 Beaufort County bridge number 14 on SR 1932 over Branch Durham Creek: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4786 Pitt County bridge number 38 on US 13 over Tar River: Tar River at this location is
designated as a Primary Nursery Area. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
B-4438 Brunswick County bridge number 47 on NC 211 over Branch of Juniper Creek: Juniper
Creek Game Land is located within the project study area, DOT should coordinate closely with
NCWRC during the design and construction of this project to avoid and minimize impacts to this
area. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4590 New Hanover County bridge number 29 on NC 133 over Smith Creek: Anadromous
species are found in this portion of Smith Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February

Bridge Memo Page 6 January 30, 2015
15 to June 30. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
B-4928 Brunswick County bridge number 28 on SR 1432 over Mill Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5311 Brunswick County bridge number 104 on SR 1500 over Middel Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5540 Brunswick County bridge number 202 on SR 1357 over Branch of Shallotte River: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4501 Duplin County bridge number 325 on SR 1004 over Branch of NE Cape Fear River: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4502 Duplin County bridge number 144 on SR 1704 over Panther Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5534 Duplin County bridge number 82 on NC 111 over Burnt Coat Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4635 Sampson County bridge number 9 on US 13 over South River overflow: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4636 Sampson County bridge number 56 on NC 24 over Six Runs Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4638 Sampson County bridge number 195 on SR 1703 over Merkle Swamp: The North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), Great Coharie Tract is located within the
project study area, DOT should coordinate closely with EEP during the design and construction
of this project to avoid and minimize impacts to this area. We recommend replacing this bridge
with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4813 Sampson County bridge number 18 on SR 1004 over Crane Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4815 Sampson County bridge number 3 on SR 1933 over Beaver Dam Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5308 Sampson County bridge number 152 on SR 1455 over Caesar Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5310 Sampson County bridge number 188 on SR 1817 over Ward Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4844 Wayne/Duplin County bridge number 117 on SR 1502 over NE Cape Fear River: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo Page 7 January 30, 2015
B-4839 Wayne County bridge number 96 on SR 1006 over Thoroughfare Swamp: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4840 Wayne County bridge number 264 on SR 1117 over Thunder Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4842 Wayne County bridge number 45 on SR 1353 over Great Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4935 Halifax County bridge number 120 on SR 1003 over Branch of Deep Creek: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4940 Wayne County bridge number 25 on SR 157 over Exum Mill Branch: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4941 Wayne County bridge number 93 on SR 1009 over Town Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4942 Wayne County bridge number 121 on SR 1702 over West Bear Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4937 Johnston County bridge numbers 118 and 119 on I-95 over CSX Railroad: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-4479 Columbus County bridge numbers 222, 226, 228, and 230 on SR 1700 over Red Hill
Swamp: We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5505 Harnett County bridge number 151 on SR 1415 over Hectors Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5511 Robeson County bridge number 399 on SR 1741 over Big Marsh Swamp: We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5513 Harnett County bridge number 72 on SR 2045 over Anderson Creek: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-5529 Robeson County bridge number 434 on SR 1003 over Back Swamp: We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Oftice Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 10, 2015
Tamara Makhlouf
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Makhlouf:
This letter is in response to your request for comments fi•om the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the following proposed bridge replacements
in Division 2.
TIP No. Coun Brid e No. Road Stream
B-4414 Beaufort 43 US 264 Pungo Creek
B-4433 Beaufort 40 SR 1932 Durham Creek Tributary
B-4709 Beaufort 14 SR 1932 Branch of Durham Creek
B-4603 Pitt 29 SR 1715 Fork Swamp
B-4605 Pitt 5 SR 1777 Chicod Creek
B-4606 Pitt 17 SR 1780 Chicod Creek
B-4607 Pitt 43 SR 1923 Swift Creek
B-4786 Pitt 38 US 13 Tar River
B-4788 Pitt 171 SR 1418 Johnson Mill Run
These comments provide information in accordance with provisions of the National
Envirorunental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) j anct Section 7 of tile Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The Service will not be attending the scheduled
field scoping meetings.
Specific Comments
B-4414
Although there are no records in the vicinity of this location, it is possible the federally
endangered West Indian manatee (Ti°ichechzrs manatus) could be present in Pungo Creek from
June to October. The Service's GUID�LIN�S FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE
W�ST INDIAN MANATE�: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North
Carolina Waters should be implemented during this timeframe.

B-4786
The West Indian manatee has been observed in the Tar River immediately downstream of the
City of Greenville. The aforementioned GUIDELINES should be implemented from 7une to
October.
General Comments
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be replanted with appropriate tree species;
4. In streams utilized by anadromous fish, the NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" should be implemented;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Where possible, avoid the use of riprap on the top of the bank under bridges to allow for
wildlife passage under the bridge;
7. "Best Management Practices (BMP) for Construction and Maintenance Activities"
should be implemented; '
8. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
9. Bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream; and
10. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of

the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally threatened or endangered species. To assist you, a county-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information
on their life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at
http://«������.�.lws.�av/ralei�h/specieslcntvlist/nc counties.html.
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occiu�rences of listed species near the project vicinities, use of the NCNHP data should
not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project sites. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinities for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed actions may affect (i.e. likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the actions on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
actions will have no effect (i.e. no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed
species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
The Service appreciates the oppor�tunity to comment on these projects. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
�4� Pete Benjamin
� Field Supervisor
Electronic copy: Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC

Pat McCrory
Governor
���
����
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
April 23, 2015
Tamara Makhlouf
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Scoping/Start of Study — Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 43 on US 264 (B-4414)
Dear Ms. Makhlouf
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has reviewed the project area using available
Geographic Information System (GIS) data of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 43 on US 264 over
Pungo Creek in Beaufort County. DPR understands that NCDOT is seeking comments from stakeholders
in preparation for project development per your cover letter dated February 3, 2015.
DPR's State Trails Program is responsible for coordinating the planning, development and management
of this states paddle trails. Based on our review, DPR respectfully requests that NCDOT consider
including a small parking area and canoe launch as part of this bridge replacement. This would allow for
access to the Pamlico River.
Ms. Jan Trask with DPR's State Trails Program can be reached at [phone] if there are additional
questions or concerns. DPR appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project.
Sincerely,
�����
Justin Williamson
Environmental Review Coordinator
Division of Parks and Recreation
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[phone] / Justin.williamson@ncparks.�ov
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PARKS
Phone: [phone] Internet: www.ncparks,gov �a�~�' WO�d����
An Equal Opportunity 1 A�rmative Action Employer - Made in parl by recycled paper

APPENDIX 4
Upstream Bridge Inspection Report

B-4414 U PSTREAM STRU CTU RE
r� rr NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTENTION PM ISSUED FOR CHANNEL 8 IN SPAN 2
t * DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS �
• BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
y ff Q,��•��°a`+ BRI DGE I NSPECTION REPORT
INSPECTION TYPE: Routine Inspection
COUNTY BEAUFORT BRIDGE NUMBER 060159 INSPECTION CYCLE 2 YRS
ROUTE SR1611 ACROSS PUNGO CREEK M.P. 0
LOCATION 0.5 MI S JCT SR 1609
SUPERSTRUCTURE PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CHANNELS(BMD-13)
SUBSTRUCTURE END.BTS&INT.BTS:PPC CAPS/TIMBER PILES@5'9CTS
SPANS 1 @25'6;2@30';1 @25'6
LONGITUDE 76° 46' 26.73"
INSPECTION DATE 06/04/2014
PRESENT POSTING SV 26 TTST 30 SV 26 TTST 30
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT (4) DELINEATORS
�
LOOKING NORTH
LATITUDE 35° 32' 9.82"
PRESENT CONDITION FAIR
PROPOSED POSTING
. , �
Fracture Critical
Temporary Shoring
Scour Critical
Scour POA
SIGN NOTICE
ISSUED FnR
` No WEIGHT LIMIT
No DELINEATORS
No NARROW BRIDGE
No ONE LANE BRIDGE
No LOW CLEARANCE
No
No
No
No
NUMBERED
REnUIRED

APPENDIX 5
Other Offsite Detour Options &
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Projecis

�� 488 N Boyd Rd, P�totvn, x\� _ l 0 1 l p LV �
r
� ("i i �eCure � https:?;'�+rww.goog6e.cam,'t1�,.1���!��lir}�5,5�G�+Ls86,-�+�.?9':�8?4�l35.�=�?2�,-76,7���77�Zr`��:35,57ir7�;� -76.UIt��;�658 � �r -� - � � - �� i i - � _ — - � - — , - — - — -- - —
I - - - — _ _ _ ,1�.5_,data-.�n��,-��7�5,1ni5.�n��,1���2,�d-7�.��11�913!2�1=5.59F r91t�f.,�UxBy�-�fb�i�h[�7;�E��:;'�:C�xiid� f::iici'�;�1a �4y!1!�iiJ��i�lf°ft;=�r� �` � ,
.E, APPS ❑ New Tab � Log In � xfer,sesvi�zs.net�t.g� —-
i�i Googlz Chrome isn't your defauit bratiti�ser -
X
■
� ' � :C: ,
isoe ,4xT ■•�
1621 d�
�� Sand d�rections to your phone
� via N B�yd Rd and Terra Ceia Rd 24 min
''4 niir; ���t�tl-����.it t�aff��c IS� � n-�il�s
DETAILS
1
s�rt " " � ' • M
� ��� � ���,. �C' C�
i5Z9
32
z�a
zc�a
1331 �`1
��
133�
� �332
, ��o
Pinetown
32
azl
1613
Ib21
1656
��._ �,._..._....__. r -
, bxc
Wilkinson
1621
V
1347
whitspast
1713R
Y7dt
is2e
G o gle
M
171E
1629
�"J
�
Pantego
zes
7705
��
284
�� ?. T���� �
� BQlhaven
�'v
0
� �ti�
�'
'�` - �
1721 + i -
�CfOCk+ 171i � I
�f
1719 __
Map data �20'18 Goagle Unrted States Terma Send feed6ack 1 mi �
� o� t� � � u:�5� �
�r�fza �s

,. �1 1�i�s r�szea, r��tw�n� � x y`�: I 8 I� 4 I� � �
� •; , � �r. i r_p[ ,,�,�� � _7F n.{}711 !'�r r�; ; � 9 - � r +r�`' �- ,7. . - �� 4�;_ - — _ - - _ __.. - ---- -- -- --- - -- _ -
--- --- ---{ �-p—{.�{—,/�- - ---C- -
F � li Secure ittps.;/www.goQgle.com,�T�,p�,�� _a.__o�_5_, , � Iti_, 4 __.e��El_8, 76.7��5�2, �.,5._�u, _F,S, ?F.,,11_,.�5 1-;,5�;'{�c�Ci1=I�iT114E�fii1''��Zf111U�j111��11112�Lf�-.�F�.t�O�i.7�E�lI!LC�35.49�i�a51l�sC�x39�f4248�tJ31L�lE.VKJ��79�UJJ46d449d!�r��4!1��n211d-76,E>91?2?!Zd�5.5_�'7 � �I ,
,,,,, Apps ❑ New Tab � Log In � xfer.s�vices.nCd4t,gc
r► •'�' � ::: � �
tetv �
■�N
• , u 1 �";' u , 1,�� - � : . i eas
�`.p�,� �zt�a
, ���
-•• - � - -� A
-�� Send directiflns to your phone
� via NC-99 N 17 min
�, m�r� ��.�; thc�z�t tr�,rfn_ I=: C� rnii�s
QETAILS
�szs
�Sta1't i'�� v'i� � � �
� -�,.
s�
t�at
nai
iaai
�r�a
8000 Free Union�
Church Road
� ���fdq ii.� Chd��1e �OCetr�'1 �?• CuC�: t0 ScE dcCd �5
14105 US. �.,�
� 17 min �
13.0 miles
'�
�
��
'�rv9� ��
G o gle
. �
�
(�T i�sa
r
1753
'� �
� ��
��z�
t�n
��
�
��r=_ Q
��
6elhaven
_�
L"J
�
•
�„r2.
+ u
t7ttl s
r
�
��
Map data �291 S Goagle United States Terme Send ieedback 200� fr�
„ � � � � 2:58 PM �
� � � 7/17'/?A1$

APRIL 2004
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
For Brid�e Replacement Proiects
Purpose and History of Offsite Detour Analysis
The purpose of these guidelines is to assist in understanding the criteria and protocol used in choosing
whether to detour traffic offsite during the construction of a TIP Bridge Replacement Project.
Applications to maintenance or widening projects are also possible but were not the primary consideration
in developing these guidelines.
Historically, NCDOT used a tool called Road User Cost which attempts to define the additional cost of
wear and tear on a vehicle due to additional miles traveled. This value was then compared to the cost of
maintaining traffic onsite during construction (i.e. temporary structure and alignment costs, right of way
costs, mitigation costs, etc.). This comparison was then weighed with other factars such as EMS input,
division concerns, environmental concerns, etc. and a decision was made on whether to detour offsite.
The comparison of cost has always been controversial since the costs to the environment aren't entirely
economic and are in some cases very difficult to measure in terms of dollars. With an acknowledgement
that the decision to detour traffic offsite has subjective elements, the Department will now use the concept
of Acceptable Delay.
Protocols for Evaluation
Acceptable Delay
Acceptable Delay (also referred to as Additiona] Travel Time) is based on the idea that there are limits
to how long the Department can reasonably expect a person to be delayed from their normal travel
time. Far example, if an offsite detour caused a total delay of only two minutes to the average road
user, this would probably be an acceptable delay even over a lengthy construction period. If the delay
resulting from an offsite detour were to be two hours per average road user, this would likely be
considered unacceptable to any reasonable person. With that concept in mind, the Department has
developed the table below from the perspective of traffic operations to define ranges from Acceptable
(A) to Unacceptable (U) delays. An Acceptable (A) delay implies an offsite detour. An Unacceptable
(U) delay implies the need to maintain traffic onsite. The Evaluation (E) range suggests that an onsite
detour is justifiable from a traffic operations standpoint but must be weighed with other project factors
to determine if it is appropriate.
Duration of Road Closure (months)
<1 mo 2 ino 3 mo 4 mo 6 mo 8 ino 10 mo 12 mo 15 mo 18 mo 21 mo 24 mo
<5 min A A A A A A A A A A A A
5 to <10 min A A A A E E E E E E E E
lOtoQSmin A A E E E E E E U U U U
15 to <20 min A E E E E U U U
20 to Q5 min E E E E U
25 to <30 min E E U U
30 to <45 min E E
45 to <60 min E U
More than 60 U
minutes

APRIL 2004
The "Duration of Road Closure" is the duration of time that through traffic will be forced to use the
off-site detour under consideration (not necessarily the duration of the project).
The "Additional Travel Time" is defined as the difference between time of travel on the detour route
and the time of travel on the normal route by the average road user durin t�he peak hour of travel.
Overriding Considerations
EMS: Contact the county EMS coordinator to determine if an offsite detour is acceptable. If EMS
expresses and maintains a strong ouuosition to an offsite detour citing high risk of loss of human
life, this factor outweighs all other considerations resulting in maintaining traffic onsite. If EMS
states a moderate or low concern, other factors will be considered in the analysis.
Condition of the Detour Route: The condition of the detour route should be at least as good as the
route being closed and capable of handling the additional traffic volumes. Therefore, a route should
not be closed nor traffic detoured unless the condition, safety and geometry of the offsite detour are
acceptable or can be improved to an acceptable level.
Bridges on the Detour Route: Determine the condition and postings of other bridges. The postings
and/or geometry should be at least as good as that of the bridge being replaced. If not, a determination
must be made whether permanent or temporary improvements to the bridge(s) on the offsite detour in
question are possible and/or appropriate.
Improvements to the Proposed Offsite Detour: If improvements are required to use the offsite detour
and result in increased footprint impacts, the impacts must be evaluated as part of the NEPA document
and weighed as part of the evaluation on using the offsite detour.
Jeopardy Opinion: A jeopardy opinion from USFWS might outweigh an Unacceptable (U) delay.
Other Considerations: There are other possible factors such as High Volumes of traffic on an at-grade
railroad crossing or frequent flooding conditions on a detour route. Best judgement must be exercised
in coming to a decision
Final Determination
All issues including delay, overriding considerations, impacts to the human and natural environment as
well as economics must be weighed in making the final determination. Political and permitting issues
must also be considered. The final determination of an offsite detour falls to those who are ultimately
responsible for safety and determining whether the costs (both environmental and economical) are
acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NCDOT. Therefore, the Division and
PDEA will reach consensus and then PDEA will seek approval from FHWA in the planning document.