The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20191231 Ver 1_B-4413_compared_to_B-4414_TGS_Comments_20180718B-4413 Beaufort County — TGS Comments This is a project in the general vicinity of the B-4414 project which did use an offsite detour. So, the question may be asked "Why can NCDOT use an offsite detour on this project but not on the 6-4414 project?". Several differences between the two projects are listed below: 1. B-4413 Offsite Detour additional travel time = 13 min B-4414 Offsite Detour (potential route to the south) = 17 min According the "NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects", the B-4413 project falls in the "Evaluation" category whereas the B-4414 project falls in the "Unacceptable" delay category. 2. According to the approved Categorical Exclusion (CE) Environmental Document for B-4413 signed on 5/29/08, the following are stated (see page 3 of the document): • Beaufort Emergency Services along with Beaufort County Schools Transportation have also indicated that the detour is acceptable. • NCDOT Division 2 has indicated the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the off-site detour are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour. The B-4414 stands in contrast on both the above accounts: Per the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) document (the CE does not illuminate these same concerns since the offsite detour option was eliminated), local officials had the following concerns: ➢ 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 destinations The signed Categorical Exclusion (CE) Environmental Document agrees and promotes "Alternate 2" (new alignment to the north — maintain traffic on existing) as the preferred alternate. The document also states "NCDOT Division 2 concurs that this is the preferred alternative". (ca. 4/27/2017) _" � � .1 8-4413 Detour Route 8-4413 Detour Time 8-4413 CE Document c -� co � a � � U -�- i � �- �- � � U � 0 � �- c 0 v U 4- 0 � i U �F- �- 0 � � M � � � � � -� U N •-, 0 L � � h- / •-, O � � � U� N� o� L a. �o N�W � N�� 0 0 .c �� Qoa M / �C oi v � / \ ° / � � � � �� _ � �� ♦ , � ' ' � � � * . . � � . . . . � . . _ . _ . .� � . � I ♦ . . , � , � � � ] � � ARDS AS SHOWN IN "ROADWAY STAND/�RD DRAWINGS" - . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPQRTATION - RALEIGH, N.C., LICABLE TO THIS PROJECT AND BY REFERENCE HEREBY ESE PLANS: TITLE �Y LANE CLOSURES �Y ROAD CLOSURES �RY WORK ZONE SIGNS : WQRK ZONE SIGNS )ES � DEVICES :L AND BARRIER DELINEATORS - :L AND BARRIER DE�INEATORS - :L END DELINEATIDN .�EC�.Er�D � .. . INSTALLATION SPACING TYPES AND MOUNTING .l.�. �1 '�. '' . . � .� � . � .. �. .i' �: ONTROL DEVICES CCADE {TYPE III) aER "� 11�. C.D.O. T. WORK Z011�E TRAFFIC C011�TR 4L � o F r% P ,,,,,,,,, 1561 MAIL SERVICE CE11tTER (MSC) RALEIGH, NC 27699-1561 �O N R y�Gy 750 N. GREE11lFIELD PARKWAY, GARII�ER, 11tC 27529 (DELIVERY) ,�5 oF cq !y P�OKE: (919) 773-2800 �AX: (9l9} 771-2745 0 �� o�� > 0 � ,` . c1+ � J. S. BOURNE , P. E. STATE T�tAFFIC MA11t�lGEME11tT E11t�I11lEER ,� ,� �.� �i 8 v Z • STEVE KITE , P, E. ��F��c co��ROL PROJECT E11tGI11tE�R a� � o � �� ,`Q' I � � � � DON PARKER TR�IF.F�� C011�TR4L �"ROJECT DESIG11t E11t�I11�,E.ER � Ftir Qo� p WORK Z011tE SAFETY � MOBIL�TY o,� �F TRPN G�' "f'rom the MOU11tTAI,11lS to the COAST" ASHVIN PATEL � P. E. T'RAFFIC C011�TROL DESIG11t E11� .fi�11tEER F 7`RAFF� 1�� oF �� SHEET N0. TITLE TMP-1 TITLE SHEET, INDEX OF SHEETS, LIST aF APPLICABLE ROADWAY STANDARD DRAWINGS, LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES AND PHASING C��1r�ERAL r�10 T1: S CHANGES MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS IN THE DETAIL DRAWINGS, STANDARD DETAILS, AND ROADWAY DETAILS ARE NOT ATTAINABLE TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS OR RESU�T IN DUPLICATE OR UNDESIRED OVERLAPPING OF DEVICES. MOQIFICATION MAY INCLUDE: MOVING, SUPPLEMENTING, COVERING, OR REMOVAL OF DEVICES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE FOLLOWING GENERA� NOTES APPLY AT AL� TIMES FOR THE DURATION OF THE CC}NSTRUCTION PROJ ECT EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE PLAN OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTERATIONS A) N�TIFY THE ENGINEER THIRTY (3�) CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO ANY TRAFFIG PATTERN ALTERATION. SIGNING � C) D} PROVIDE SIGNING AND DEVICES REQUIRED TO C�OSE THE ROAD ACCORDING TO THE ROADWAY STANDARD DRAWINGS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS. , �. � . .i : 1. ..� � . �, . � 1' ! i 1 ' '1 COVER OR REMOVE ALL SIGNS AND DEVICES REQUIRED TO CLOSE THE ROAD WHEN ROAD CLt}SURE IS NOT IN OPERATION. STATE FORCES WILL COVER OR REMOVE ALL SIGNS REQUIRED FOR THE OFF-SITE DETOUR INHEN THE DETOUR IS NOT IN QPERATION. ENSURE ALL NECESSARY SIGNING IS IN PL.ACE PRIOR TO ALTERING ANY TRAFFIC PATTERN. TRAFFIC CONTRtJL DEVICES E} PLACE TYPE III BARRICADES, WITH "R4AD CLOSED" SIGN R11-2 ATTACHED, OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO CLOSE ENTIRE ROADWAY. STAGGER QR 4VERLAP BARRICADES T4 ALL�W FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS. I'�� S.I��1lIG STEP 1: USING FLAGGERS, COMPLETE RESURFACING OF SR 1714 AND P�ACE FINAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS/MARKERS. (SEE RSD 1101.02, SHEET 1, ROADWAY PLANS AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS) STEP 2: USING R�ADWAY STANDARD DRAWING 1101.03, SHEET 1 OF 9, CL�SE US 2�4 {-L-} BETWEEN STA. 11+80 +/- -L- AND STA. 19+7� +1- AND PLACE TRAFFIC ON OFFSITE DETOUR. - PROVIDE ACCESS TO DRIVEWAYS AT ALL TIMES. STEP 3: REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT THE PRUPOSED STRUCTURE, ROAQWAY APPROACHES UP TO AND INCLUDING THE FINAL LAYER OF SURFACE COURSE, DR1 AND DR2. PLACE FINAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS/MARKERS AND TIE IN WITH EXISTING MARKINGS AS PER FINAL PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS. . , . � , ., � .� � , � . �. �, ` . � , � . � APPR O VED: DA T : � ,+,'��rn��i .� CARp� ��. �� / ��i ,,.......,, ��.�`-�-°.•��C�s s /�j •• :; 9 �,�. : :q� ��: : SEAL = : SEA� ; � � ; 022104 ; � . . . . . . ., ' ''`�� r N��'' `' '� � • ••........•��;',. ,�� S. K��,� .��s� 3HEET NO. � � • .'� � 16 Seed 7ick Neck Rd, Pdr : X�\ 1� � i � �ECUfF f11�I'S:r'�1V1N1N. 00 le.com+�r3a Si�11i,'�5.�4(Ir36�3--7r.,%r185L'b�; �15.5$�i�:��7 -/�� ! �'�F,- `oi`Sr yc .;iIS��; . � - �:-' -i: r � c r - - F �i , � . � 9 9 P . . , , .;E. �� u, ._ --•----�-,_, r,:;66ii_1,1=._,�, ��-:-4�T"�!431i s:1��i +!.1lli�!1�n�!ld-�'t,c,4E� �9b1�!��1� �.r�L ��-�6�:ti��x.5'_�,�1��Urt;��`r,t,5�, {.tx;;�a'�L1_rtr1�,5�3rJc1�;!Iil1Ul �r_U7f11 en ,, Ap� � New Tab � Log in � xfer.seavices.rr�dat.gc �� Serid d€rections to }��ur ��hone � via Seed Tick Neck Rd and NC-99 N Z3 mirn = r�:�r .�: ;h�;�„ irsfiF,;. � mol�< UETAILS ~��drt ��'�.4�'� � U�t !iN � � � 16�2 � 1� 1741 k 16 Seed Tick Neck Road r � �� (� ,�SE i1S3 . � �.. GO gle f 2�-0� �� i81�� '� �C I . arr � ■rr � ■rr + � � � Map data �201 B Google Un�ted 5taras Terms Send €eed6ack 2000 ft� � Il� C� '�1 0.1; 3:ao �+ � �rr��s BEAUFORT COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 264 OVER BROAD CREEK FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-264(24) STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1151601 WBS 33690.1.1 TIP NO. B-4413 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADIV�INISTRATION AND N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: . ' �� . D E �regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation � Z1 � ? DA'I'E John . Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration BEAUFORT COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 264 OVER BROAD CREEK FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-264 (24) STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1151601 WBS 33690.1.1 TIP NO. B-4413 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION I►� : 11 : Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place Raleigh, NC 27609 �/t zlc� Date e en C. Greene, P.E., Project Manager R ey Kemp & Associates, Inc. For the North Carolina Department of Transportation SEAL N � : �,._ c. a � ��¢ �11� � � �� Date Jo n L. Williams, P.E., Project Manager Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Categorical Exclusion May 2008 SI�2� v� PROJECT COMMITMENTS BEAUFORT COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 264 OVER BROAD CREEK FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-264 (24) STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1151601 TIP NO. B-4413 Division Two Construction, Resident Engineer's Office — Offsite Detour In order to have time to adequately reroute school buses, Beaufort County Schools will be contacted at (252) 946-6209 at least one month prior to road closure. Beaufort County Emergency Services will be contacted at (252) 946-2046 at least one month prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units. NEU — Public Trust NCDENR has indicated that Public Trust Waters and Public Trust Shoreline Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) exist in the project area and has asked that access to the roads at the southwest corner and the northeast corner of the bridge be maintained. The existing bridge is a designated Regional Paddle Trail System Launch Site by the Mid East Regional Paddle Trail. The NCDOT acknowledges the inconvenience to those accessing the stream but believes that the standard applications are warranted by the protection offered to the traveling public and to the stream bank and this inconvenience is not considered undue interference by NCDOT. Roadway Design — Design Guidelines The NCDOT will adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds since the project lies within a buffer zone. Hydraulic Unit, Natural Environment Unit — Tar Pamlico Buffer Rule The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to this project. Proposes an in-water moratorium from February 15 to June 15 for Anadromous Fish passage. Due to the presence of suitable habitat for the West Indian Manatee, the NCDOT will implement USFWS's Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee -� Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters (June 2003). Roadway Design & Program Development Having B-4413 (Bridge No. 51 on US 264 in Pantego) and B-3611 (Bridge No. 77 on NC 99 near Bellhaven) closed at the same time is unacceptable. During the construction on B-3611, NC 99 will be closed for a few days in early 2010 and again near the end of construction in late 2013. B-4413 must be let so that its use of offsite detour will not overlap the brief closure periods for B-3611. Categorical Exclusion May 2008 BEAUFORT COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 264 OVER BROAD CREEK FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-264 (24) STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1151601 TIP NO. B-4413 INTRODUCTION The replacement of Bridge No. 51, located on US 264 over Broad Creek, in Beaufort County, is included in the latest North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as B-4413 and is eligible for the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. I. PURPOSE AND NEED The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 51 has a suf�ciency rating of 44.9 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program. Components of both the concrete superstructure and substructure have experienced an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traf�c operations. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Bridge No. 51 is located approxirnately 0.3 miles south of the junction with SR 1616 on US 264, near the town of Pantego in Beaufort County. Refer to Figure 1 for the project location and Figures 3 and 4 for photos of the existing project area. Bridge No. 51 was constructed in 1925 and rehabilitated in 1956. The bridge is not currently posted to restrict weight limits. The overall length of the 6-span structure is 69 feet. It has a clear roadway width of 28 feet that includes two travel lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on continuous I-beams. The end bents are reinforced concrete caps on concrete piles. The interior bents are reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The height from crown to streambed is 11.7 feet. US 264 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2008 average daily traffic volume (ADT) is estimated to be 3,560 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traf�ic are 3 percent TTST vehicles and 4 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2030 ADT is 6,100 vpd. The two-lane facility measures approximately 25 feet in width including the variable grass shoulders on each side of the roadway. The horizontal alignment of US 264 is straight on each end of the bridge and the vertical alignment is generally flat within the project area. The speed limit in the unmediate vicinity 1 of the bridge is posted at 55 miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of-way is approximately 60 feet in width. There are overhead power, underground fiber optic lines that are attached to the bridge, and underground sewer lines in the vicinity of the bridge. There are no other apparent utilities. Utility impacts are expected to be minunal. This section of US 264 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an unusual number ofbicyclists use this roadway. This section of US 264 is designated as a hurricane evacuation route by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. Land use within the project area consists primarily of wooded areas. There are no buildings within close proximity of the bridge. Two to four school buses cross Bridge No. 51 two times per day, for a total of four to eight bus trips per day. There has been one crash reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 51 during a recent three year period. In the one reported crash, a single passenger car hit a deer as it crossed the road. III. ALTERNATIVES A. Project Description Based upon the preliminary hydraulic report, the proposed replacement structure will be approximately 130 feet long with a 40 feet clear roadway width. The structure will provide two 12 foot travel lanes with 8 foot of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of the bridge. The roadway approaches will provide two 12 foot travel lanes with 8 foot shoulders (2 feet paved and 6 foot grass shoulders). The grade will be approximately the same as the existing roadway. The design speed is 60 mph. B. Build Alternatives Two build alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 51 are described below: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, trai�c will be maintained by using an on-site detour southeast of US 264. The total length of detour roadway approach work for this alternative is approximately 930 feet. The detour for this alternative will meet a 7 50 mph design speed due to the existing horizontal alignment of the current roadway. The total length of permanent roadway approach work for this alternative is approximately 875 feet. This alternative will meet a 60 mph design speed. Refer to Figures 2A and 2B for illustrations of this alternative. The on-site detour will be located approximately 20 feet southeast of the existing road. The temporary structure will consist of a 105 foot bridge. The detour roadway approaches will consist of two 11 foot travel lanes and 6 foot wide shoulders (2 feet of paved shoulder) on each side. The length of the temporary detour will be approximately 1035 feet. Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 2 consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traf�c will be maintained by using an off-site detour. The total length of permanent roadway approach work for this alternative is approximately 875 feet. This alternative will meet a 60 mph design speed. Refer to Figure 2A for illustration of this alternative. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridg,e Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The of� site detour for this project would include US 264/NC 99, NC 99, and SR 1714. The majority of traf�ic on the road is through traf�c. The detour for the average road user would result in 15 minutes additional travel time (13 miles additional travel). Up to a 6— 9 month duration of construction is expected on this project. Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay alone the detour is acceptable. Beaufort Emergency Services along with Beaufort County Schools Transportation have also indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 2 has indicated the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the oi� site detour are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour. C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 264. Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) Alternative 2 was selected because of the decreased environmental impacts, the lower cost, and the shortened construction time associated with the utilization of an offsite detour. NCDOT Division 2 concurs with the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. 3 IV. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated costs for each alternative, based on current dollars, are shown below: Table 1. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (Preferred) Structure Removal (Existin ) $33,000 $33,000 Structure Pro osed $546,000 $546,000 Detour Structure and A roaches $429,000 $0 Roadwa A roaches $248,000 $268,000 Miscellaneous and Mobilization $331,000 $201,000 Engineering and Contin encies $244,000 $153,000 Right-of-Way/Easement and $32,000 $12,000 Utilities Total Project Cost $1,863,000 $1,213,000 V. NATURAL RESOURCES A. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS a. Water Resources The project study area is located within sub-basin 030307 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03020104. The structures targeted for replacement span Broad Creek and associated wetlands. Broad Creek (S1) (SIN 29-34-34-5) has been assigned a BUC of SC; NSW from its source to Pantego Creek. No Watershed Critical Areas or water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located within 3.0 miles of the project study area. b. Biotic Resources Four natural communities were identified within the project study area: Cypress-Gum Swamp (blackwater subtype), Wet Pine Flatwoods, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and pine woodland. In addition to these plant communities, there are also areas of maintained/disturbed land. A summary of plant community areas is presented in the following table. 4 Table 2. Summary of Vegetative Communities Present in the Project Study Areae. Plant Community Area (ac) % of Project Study Area Cypress-Gum Swamp 11.37 36.4 Wet Pine Flatwoods 1.51 4.8 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 9.35 Pine Woodland 3.12 Maintained/Disturbed Land 2.59 Total: 27.9 30.0 10.0 8.3 89.5 aProject Study Area includes an open water area attributed to Broad Creek (S1) ( 0.83 ac) (2.7 perceat) and impervious surfaces (2.44 ac) (7.8 percent) are not included in this plant community assessment. c. Terrestrial Communities Impacts Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant community present within both the proposed right-of-way and the temporary construction limits of any on-site detour or easement that falls outside the estimated permanent right-of-way limit. A summary of potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 3. All plant community impacts are based on aerial photograph base mapping. A portion of the permanent plant community impact amount will consist of proposed right-of-way for the road after the bridge replacement is complete. Impervious surface and open water areas are not included in this analysis. Table 3. Potential Impacts to Plant Communities POTENTIAL IMPACTS PLANT acres COMMUNITY ALT A ALT B Impacts Impacts Temp. Im acts Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest Pine Woodland 0.10 0.10 0.12 Maintained/Disturbed Land 0.51 0.51 0.20 Cypress Gum Swamp 0.12 0.12 0.47 TOTAL FOR ALT acre 0.73 0.73 0.79 B. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS a. Surface Waters and Wetlands Broad Creek is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on field investigations, the project study area also contains jurisdictional wetlands. Areas of these systems within the project study area are summarized in the following table. 5 Table 4. Summary of Jurisdictional Areas Present in the B-4413 Project Study Area. WETLANDS Feature Wetland Typee Area (ac) % of the project study area Number Wl PFO (Ri arian) 4.56 14.6 W2 PFO (Ri arian) 3.20 10.3 W3 PFO (Ri arian) 2.85 9.1 W4 PFO (Ri arian) 0.57 1.8 WS PFO (Ri arian 0.43 1.4 W6 PFO (Ri arian) 0.01 <0.1 W7 PFO (Ri arian) 1.26 4.0 TOTAL: 12.9 41.3 SURFACE WATERS STREAMS Feature Characteristicsb Length Area % of the project study area Number linear feet ac S 1(Broad Perennial 512 0.83 2.7 Creek) (R1UBH)/ Im ortant TOTAL: 512 0.8 2.7 " Wetland Type: PFO palustrine, tbrested. b Stream Type: R2UBH tidal, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded. b. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States Temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount of each jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-of-way and/or those associated with temporary on-site detours. Temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has been completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/or the proposed right-of-way of the new structure and approaches. Portions of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas often end up being within the final right-of-way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in Table 5. Table 5. Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ALT A ALT B Im acts Im acts PFO 0.13 0.62 TOTAL FOR ALT (acres): 0.13 0.62 Impacts Temp. Impacts Temp. Im acts Im acts Perennial Stream Channel 85 0.00 85 60 Im acts feet TOTAL FOR ALT feet meters 85 145 PFO - palustrine, forested b. Permits 1. Section 401 and 404 This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 (72 CFR; 11092 —11198, March 12, 2007) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the United States expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23 (GC 3701). If temporary construction is required that is not described in the CE, a NWP No. 33 for temporary construction, access, and dewatering (72 CFR; 11092 - 11198) and associated DWQ General Water Quality certification, (GC 3688) may be required. Bridge No. 51 will be removed without any resulting fill in waters of the U.S. Broad Creek is subject to the Tar- Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules apply to a 50-foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. Activities in the buffer area beyond the footprint of the existing use are classified as either "exempt", "allowable", "allowable with mitigation", or "prohibited." Guidelines will be consulted in their entirety to review all project related uses subject to the Buffer Rules. 2. Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) provides for jurisdictional review of impacts affecting Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in 20 designated coastal counties, including Beaufort County. The replacement of Bridge No. 51 will cross Broad Creek. Broad Creek is designated as inland fishing and Public Trust Waters. Therefore, Broad Creek is considered an AEC. Encroachment on an AEC resource will likely require a Major Development Permit per CAMA regulations. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that federal actions (i.e., 404 permit issuance) comply with requirements of state administered coastal zone management programs [16 U.S.C. 1456(c)]; therefore non-AEC impacts in Beaufort County will require a CAMA consistency determination as part of the permit process. 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the 7 purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessar}�' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle. An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) mandatory contents include: a description of the proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action agency's views on those ef�ects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect includes any impact which, reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.810, adverse ef�ects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. EFH is only designated for federally managed species that have a management plan under a Fisheries Management Council (Ron Sechler, NFMS, Personal Communication). The South Atlantic Fisheries Council manages species such as red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and several species of shrimp (Penaeus spp.). Broad Creek is not on the list of water bodies that require an EFH Assessment. c. Federally Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Table 6 presents the federal protected species listed for Beaufort County (5 November 2007 USFWS published list, as updated on the internet 31 January 2008). Table 6. Federally Listed Species for Beaufort County, NC. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Potential Biological Statusa Habitat Conclusion Present Red wolf Canis rufus EXNa Yes No Effect Kemp's ridley sea Lepidochelys kempii E No No Effect turtle Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No No Effect wood ecker West Indian manatee Trichehcus manatus E No MANLAA Sensitive jointvetch Aeschynomene T Yes No Effect vir inica Rough-leaved Lysimachia E No No Effect loosestrife as erulae olia ° EXN Experimental nonessential endangered species, E- Endangered, and T Threatened. " MA NLAA May Aiiect; Not L�kely to Adversely Altect \ Red Wolf Biological Conclusion: No Effect N.C. National Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicate no documented occurrences of the red wolf have been recorded within 1.0 mile of the project study area. No individuals were observed during the field investigation. The proposed project will have no effect on the red wolf. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biological Conclusion: No Effect NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of Kemp's ridley sea turtle within 1.0 mile of the project study area. No individuals or nests were observed during the field investigation. The open water within the project study does not to provide potentially suitable foraging or nesting habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The proposed project will have no effect on Kemp's ridley sea turtle populations. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Biological Conclusion: No Effect NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of RCW within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The pine stands in the Wet Pine Flatwood and pine woodlands within the project study area contain loblolly pines 60 years or older and may provide marginal nesting habitat. However, the mid and understory are too thick and the pine stems have no clear bole. Surveys were conducted by Jeff Harbour and Jessica Meyer and no individuals or cavities were observed during the field investigation. The marginal nesting habitat within the project study area appears to be separated by open spaces or unsuitable habitat 200 feet or more in width. West Indian Manatee Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Potential habitat for the West Indian Manatee, including fresh water of suf�cient depth (1.5 meters to usually less than 6 meters), does occur in the project area. A search of the NHP database (July 16, 2007) found no occurrences of the manatee within 5 miles of the project vicinity. Although manatees have been documented to inhabit freshwater rivers, the project study area is likely too far inland to provide essential foraging habitat for the manatee. However, because the project study area includes water of suf�icient depth, the NCDOT will implement USFWS's Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee — Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters (June 2003). Therefore, the Biological Conclusion for the West Indian manatee is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Af�ect." Sensitive Jointvetch Biological Conclusion: No Effect NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of sensitive jointvetch within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Broad Creek and two small roadside ditches within the project study area could be considered tidally influenced and therefore may provide suitable habitat for the sensitive jointvetch. All suitable habitat located within the project study area was surveyed for sensitive jointvetch on August 1, 2006. A reference population in Beaufort County was reviewed prior to surveying the project study area. No sensitive jointvetch was identified within the project study area as a result of the pedestrian survey and therefore the project will have no effect on the sensitive jointvetch population. � Rough-leaved Loosestrife Biological Conclusion: No Effect NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Although a Wet Pine Flatwood system occurs within the project study area, this is a loblolly pine dominated system whereas rough-leaved loosestrife is usually only found in ecotones between longleaf pine systems and wetter pocosin type areas. There is no suitable habitat within the project study area and therefore will have no effect on the rough-leaved loosestrife population. According to NCNHP records, no Federal Species of Concern (FSC) have been documented to occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. A review of the NCNHP records indicates that two state protected species, have been observed within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The snowy orchid (Platanthera nivea) (T), was observed in moist, grassy, boggy open soil along Cuckold Creek near Belhaven in 1935. The Carolina diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin centrata) (SC), was observed 1.1 miles west of Belhaven in 1995. Bald Eagle The bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of August 8, 2007. It is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No potential habitat was observed within 600 feet of the project study area; therefore, the construction activities will have no effect on the bald eagle. VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES Compliance Guidelines This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or pernutted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Of�cer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA procedures. Historic Architecture In a memorandum dated January 11, 2006 the SHPO stated there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix. Archaeology The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 11, 2006 stated that NCDOT had formally surveyed the area surrounding the proposed project in 1993 and that "no sites were recorded around Broad Creek or within the area encompassed by the present undertaking." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix. 10 Community Impacts No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No relocatees 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 no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications. 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 This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93.126. It is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and project level CO or PM2.5 analyses are not required. This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, 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. Therefore, 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 MSATs. Any burning of vegetation shall be performed in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. 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. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traf�'ic operations. The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications. 1] The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section 4( fl of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Section 4( fl of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/water fowl refuges, and historic properties. An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area. 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. IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the project development with a scoping letter. A newsletter was sent by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit to all property owners af�ected directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. One comment was received requesting that impacts to the surrounding area be minimi�ed. On January 14, 2008, representatives of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit met with the Town Council for the Town of Pantego. The town council supported replacing the bridge in its existing location, using an offsite detour, and expediting the construction as much as possible. X. AGENCY COMMENTS NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, NC Department ofNatural Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, N.0 Wildlife Resource Commission, NC Division of Water Quality, N.C. Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Oi�ce, Beaufort County, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and National Marine Fisheries Service. The following agencies had no special concerns: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, NC Division of Water Quality, N.C. Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Of�ce, Beaufort County, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and National Marine Fisheries Service. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC): Proposes moratoriums from February 15 to June 15 for Anadromous Fish. Response: The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water between February 15 to June 15. 12 NCDENR: Public Trust Waters and Public Trust Shoreline Areas of Environmental concern (AEC's) exist in the project area. Access to the roads at corner of the bridge, except the southeast corner, should be maintained. Response: The NCDOT acknowledges the inconvenience to those accessing the stream but believes that the standard applications are warranted by the protection offered to the traveling public and to the streambank and this inconvenience is not considered undue interference by NCDOT. XI. 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. l3 • - DETOUR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION US 264 Replace Bridge No. 51 over Broad Creek Beaufort County, North Carolina TIP NO. B-4413 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Not to Scale FIGURE 1 �' ' _ .' c, � ; a� �• " x• �� A `r -� � � � •� ;. : � ).1' � ( �.� �i :. $ �/ -� �,• '�. �: •� � ��' . ��' '�: L,J�,�� r?+'��',^`•, a� �` 'A ";� �� F� .t�- • "�t�ji � �? � � ,j� �d�,f� ��,� '� .' Y1Y �} � ..? ;�' �'' J�; � ' �? Y'f _• � S . h � � � , _- �� ` � s .`�� " i�f�� f a 1��,y /, r�` T`�' ,t� � i, �- . e� ,�� .f L 6r a*,s - "Y.; .f�`. . �•� ..� - � �R � � t ' . • � {t . ! L \ . ,� �r �r - � , r��'y��. r � ,�'�4 � �� `. � � ,�r. ' `�''�p" �' � � , � r � 's � - _ �,��r ' F ~'� � . f� �, � � \ � � � � �- �c�. � , � ';; :,� � �� — � ► � � �� ..�� - � , � . � � ��.� — • � �1 \ � � ,,�.� � .,. . _�.. . � — ,; - . f. � � w � i �-��.�-�� • -� s ,,,,6= _. ._ � .' '��^�� . `� � ' '` l � \ �' '�' `', r ` � � _ r i _ � �r-�.�: � �: � l 'kY" '�ir � �t . . ,�r . \ � � ..�' . - � =�'•�s�'� j• ` ,�� `:,}4 �' f: -' . . j � ..,- •�,., �a . - "'Le� �� „ �c �-r, �,�� ,� � F .�� .r�' a � �� ► �, �� ` � '� � `' � � 1 �` � ��" � � 4- � � ' �- a ;,� � � ` � S . F � � . �' 1 .'� � . � . .1 � 1 � !�� : �� y ' �' �'�' I � �' � — � / �., � T,'' �� +� '�� k��' �' . 9r'�4 � � r`• '{ .. �'�., • I � '±�'� �` . a - � �'f� �� i � � �d '1' . � +'R . � *.. 1 '.��` r .r_' X�� ,'.._ L - ` tiy�`� t��.. r�x'",,,G. • 1� � •p`_ \ �' �� ,�t -� � •.y � �� . - J` . 1 . A�• / I . � �. � ; �' �' .i + � � .� `� d � - � : . � �' � � � � _. ,,�,�c : ,+1t �., � ,� , 1 �- ;�.:.i. �`'.� ..c- ;� � *�� j• �`+!„��:, :��yI � �O t .:�, S'`w .,�4'�� `- �` �'`�%", � � i � , � ' r.. L �R� _ � > i ' �s . 1 , -1' .>+� � � l 7 ! — -� � � . �• �r ; �'� 1(� ' �a r 7�"+�.� _� ' '}�� c 1�. `�'' / � . . � ' � Q ' ' � �. � . I''� , i � Y � � i J .l' ` 1 i � ` :'�?� f'.p'� .: r'� -:a s�:� r !'lr=t�� , � � c s ; =�'�t � , �` ' �. , '�<j 1_ � � � � � 1 ' ., \ US 264 --a�M--- �l `--------�_—a�M— � � � � � � � � � — — 9�M — — ��_ '� — —_��_` � _ � ��-`� �_ _ - -- ' � � � � � � � � � � � —. �.-�- ---------'-------�— -- _ _ __ � - _ 1� _ _— — . - --� --��"__� � �_ ._ L ---� — _ - _-- —�— _ - __�__ ------------- -��-�:-.:-�F----� -- - .- . - . ,., _ ° .__ � - . . : �,�_�.- - ��- - � r (!s 2s�i — / r �� — ��- . - -�,— � �- f� � � � ��`..` -� zrsr:�-T= _��_ � � '_ � �. � : `�-�-'�"�. \� __._ 4 � / ` ` , — — � � � ► / � � �� M� * � � END PROJ�T -44/3 � ; � � � �" � ': Y'�,�; � BEGIN PROJECT 8-44�3 ' " � � /J // ,' � ,� ♦ '` � � � � %'� � . � -�, . �:' . .� � i �.ti� � � � j � '�► - . � � •�. \ � � � J- � / \ \ _ _ ` - ,� . �� . �j Z �• I � �, � � �� .:.� • ,�, `JC = *' � � t�' � � C5 \ �c / I � JC � R �7 , y� .i L. , r.'iz �:Q „ �� r' , ` � g `r � ' ` � • \ — -' � � j � ��' ' � r � � ' ;` t � � �'�? ' (:� � �t. , (°� I � 4,�=� • ��3- K,. � r . �.. . ' . ` �%�� • � i" � ' • i � � . '�.. ' rn m � \ � .�Y .� �s ^' �.* . � � � . � . �' ` � ' • '1' r� "" �'''�.,. � +�� * � `% � � f � �� r � � `' ` �WLbI i "�" � 1' "t.� � ,, i ��yy� \ �'� �/'�' y ,�' � —�' 2�� '� � �, f ..l.y, i_ 1 �' , �. � � � � . �� e�� _ . ... . . , . . .j. �� .• ' �' _ - _ . � �t_ "�v � ` � � �,:• � A , �� ,� � � ��t .el \ � � ."f' �C=. z,- ," : \ .,e.t c, f: A �` ,,�.. r �' �� .� � - _ 1�`. i � I � - F�.e �_r � ,�.` �� .,�i�� i`i 1 ��,; � I � � '�, � NORTH CAROLINA DEMRTMENT �'�, }, � � �% - ..� ,- , � 1 .' ��r� _ r- '' OF TRANSPORTATI�N � �` " �i ^" " ►b / I �" K ' �f �� G� DMSION OF HIGHWAYS y ',,, � ". - . r • .�.: `' � � ` i ;,. - '� - �t' �,�/`� 1 PROJECT DEVELOPhAENT AND '�%z - , v � �. � . � - � { �4�'�' - * � ' �' '' I � �- - j r'� � ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH . � �� A. � ,}�,:. ,;�. ��. �i, � �, �� L.� � ,��. ;�?!'`,, � ` 1 �-r� ,'l`�� `�`�` �.�,.. � � ,�-'c '�';� '� :�;; I �r BEAUFORT COUNN .�4 �� , �+' �- .G"�R;_ ` ,�'.,, :`• � . :`�,-•�` � '�• ��: REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 264 • ,�,�*'t s ' �' , ' �' ��''``i ,_ �� "�., .Y - _ _ _ � ;�� _ '. OVER BROA� CREEK + � -?�e'� v, Proposed RoadwaY - � � ' -''.� � � 1' �, ' �r 7�,��'; ' .9�� B-d413 `F, ; � t � ~�t c: .^� � t�; $ � � �'�*��'a?f,� xsy=�-�, � � ' �� ` _ � - �' . ',; � r� u-� '' � i' � �` • ° ... . SCALE: 100 •�; � ._f: s" �ti'^ ;. � � - ��' �► : � � ' 1� �� , _ . C{, � . ' � +� _ .� �� ' �� : �, , . � ��'� �; ._��- � �� u' " •1* . - . 4 � �� {�� -' Y �;� � _ - . �� f y � t .� {_� . R. .� �• �' -� � - ' � ;� � � ' �`.�"" . - `� i � �y� ..�T��' S� • �- � �r �1� . ��_ � 1'7�� . �� A�� r ` �� • ' �. �� i 1 F'�.! �'��r � . I�s '. . � ! . `,� �' � ��'��yF',+'`''.Y �, ' '" �..' � 1 � - � y . " t " � : '�� - � , � �74� � - � y��,��'` �._,a� � "_ .� t �� . �A? « ' � .�:i' , 1 � '" �� : n� �`- `�. �'� � � , R�F,i1�� 7�� ,�CT'�:i3 . i ' �� ' \ \ � r ' 4 ' � � � R;�+ � �e' �y� � . -� ,' {��• � ' � � '+..'�' y�,+�/ ' 'l '�..1 ��. � � � � :p� � � �.� '�'`�:�:�':: � ��. � , _ . �� " �. ,�i . �c } �r �,} �. . , � � �� ' � � +�' �w y7�' _ � ��. � . � : y -� " .. . ��AT �r .� � . . ' , l � r '+5 '~ �j( "� .. . ;�F'� � '�`, �` iFi1� ,�•;i w �}� r �' \ n � �� i�7: �., _ r,. +��1T,� � r .. WLg� ��t'1 ' � �� :�`�.,� � r . f . . - jl". ,� " � �` �� Y �- . � c�� l �i, ' � �� r ' � r �� `I' � t "� ;f �' � �, �' + �c - ,� ' . • r�`', ��a,� y� �. ..��.. -�� -r �'5�.. 1I �r ' - . i � � 'R�. .�. � `� - '�'y;,� / 1 � I ..+.r . t � '.i�' _ � fF�.•'� , F T � y� � T . � ��,• � • v' �:^� ` 'J �i ��, +� �r� .1, :ivF' � \ ,�j n' / �e �c : � '. '.� ' ' ' �3 �`- -_ ,' _ � � � t�+��,�� r''•' F S � \ ,. � �.� :.tC,' • 1 �.. i � ��',. ' '� - � I � !y�' 1 ' ,�'�1� ='I�:`��' . �'',�Y � \ � � ' �e I � 3 Y .. - � l� ,, �. � , ±s 1 ' , ` - -pt , 1 _ -.�.. ' `l' � BEGIN PROJECT B-44/3 � � END PROJECT B-44/3 � � � 1 1 _ \ 1 ►------__ � � � � —91M— — � � f ' � ` �91M— � _ _ � � _---- ^= � � � � � � � � � :� ��m�, -G- �� - --�_-`--- --_------_--'_ � �e �_.�_�_---�---_ __� �___�� -�� -- ` -- ��__�_�=��,i!` G —=.=r�! �,� ---'� -- US 264 �_� � "-• '�,��;- `-�''� � � z:Q ; �.J�� ,M�' � �, •f.e.:4 i.''��_rC. yr i a a '' � i ,�.Q 14' !t } *} ,. . , � ��, . _ _.,. _� �s� �� ` - :r �� ` `�r�_} T `', , �� .��' - . - r � - ��'. �� -. '� � . ��_ _ ` r� � .f� � �_i '�"*�-r-sTr�.t� , -_ _ _ �I—.-.' '_'-�'r*=m : � ]� E � _"----------- c � � _� —� — ��— —� � ,, ':�. F -v —�— ` '_ ` ..'.Y.,r .1. � �, / . +�'•�� `�} �. _ ,�'��'i�� , ' \ \ � !. _i .�•'.�� , � r:` '�' � � � . s �, r a. _ a t �� ' : �: �. �.��'�ti' � I X �' \ e� �t � 'r..�. �� j,�i: � ��4�.. � L�. �. '�; �� \ )�iT'1�� wf�' � � `,'� - � �. � � �� '� � �j.1�� +IYill"{. �+ � � t�r �• � � '� � t��k � '��;� '1 / , �: � - �F � " .,.' ',4�' 4 �� ,� �•. . ��. :.�, '�':'i - � ~ i��i Proposed Roadway ' � , � :< � -_ �� - ` � — _ . �� I � �1 �� __ � 1 � 1 � L r . . � ^�h.N � / 'J — — — � __ �__� � � F - � - r-=-~-- - -- `o � i 1 � ` � � / � 0 � \ / � � i � �� \ � � / � i / � � .- � .;: �► �// F � � /�-'' � � � � �` � � 4 �_, �> I \ _ �� ` � / �.�. i- .� - � - i \ ' -w�}� . = ` - ... _ � ` � y W � . a � lQ � � � : - -, . t- ::.��' �;' .��` �.� \ _ .�;. I � � \ +'�R . •,i .' `_ I � µ,�,� �"r` _ :1• � � \ :}•, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT � ' � �.t �;' -- � �� ,V�� OF TRANSPORTATION � DMSION OF HIGHWAYS � PROJECT DEVELOPMENf AND __ ._.. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH BEAUFORT COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 51 ON US 264 OVER BROAD CREEK B-d413 SCALE: = 100' FIGURE 2B ( On�site Detourj Northeast approach to Bridge No. 51 Looking Northwest from Bridge No. 51 . :. r Fqj , w ::: `•. �t�� . �% o'� . : �4Y■ �':p North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Pctcr 13. tiandbcck, Administratur �Iichxl I�. I�:axlc}'. Grn�trnr�r Lisbc[h (:. I•:can�, Sccretan• Jcffrc}• J. Crrn��, l�c-�,utt' ticcretarr• January 11, 2006 MEI�TORANDUM TO: I�iarie Sutton �r�:: a,,. ..� ,�. ,�.",,, �-:�.,;%`''' � k �-: :,1 �-�,��k r � , . ... `�%�.' c, � . ,., , . .- .,,,� , � � .,�. . •��M • /�. �. � �.� Officc of ;�rchi��c� and I Iistory� Di�•ision af I Iisrorical Rcsourccs llacid Brook, Uirector Project Development and Environmental Anal�rsis Branch NCDOT Division of High�va}�s FR0�1: Peter Sandbeck � � Pp�� SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. � 1 on US 264 over Broad Creek, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP- 2G4(24), State Project No. 8.11�1G01, B-4413, Beaufort Count��, ER 05-2587 Thank you for �=our memorandum of October 24, 2005, concexning the above project. We have deternzined that the project as proposed will not haire an effect on any historic structures. The project area is located adjacent to and overlooking Broad Creek. NCDOT fortnally surveyed the area surrounding the proposed project in 1993 under ER 92-7499. Deborah Joy of NCDOT performed this work and produced a report entided: �rc%aeologicu! Su�7�ey for Wide�ri�rg US264 From NC 32 Ea.rt of I�a.rf>tttoto�t to NC99 in Belbave�r. I�o sites were recorded around Broad Creek or �yithin the area encompassed by the present undertal:ing. This report was re�-ie�ti>ed and cleared by the Office of State Archaeology. As a result, the issues regarding cultural resources have been preriously addressed by NCDOT. Our office has no comment on this particular project. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the National Historic Preser� ation r'ict and the Advisory Council on Historic Preser�-ation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 500. Thank you for j�our cooperation and consideration. If you ha�-e questions conceming the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earle�•, en�-ironmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the abo�-e-referenced tracking number. cc: Mar�� Pope Furr, NCDOT Matt ��ilkerson, NCDOT Location M•rilin� Addrc�s Telephont/Fax ADMINISTRATION 5��7 N. Bluunr Strect. Ralci};h NC �Gl7 �tail ticmcc Crnicr, liaki�h NC 27G99-dG17 (919) i±7-47G3/73}-NGS i RESTORATION 515 N. I1lutmt Stmct, R�Ir�},h N(: 4117 Afail tirrncc Ccntcr, Ralci�;h N<: 27G')')�-0G17 (')19) i++-6547/715-JRU1 SURVEY & PL.ANNING SIS N. liluunt $trcrt, Ralci�;h, t�'C 4G17 Mul ticmcr Crnrcr, Kalri�;h NC 2719')-dl,l7 ('719)7.1 (,545/715-48U1