B-4595 CE

Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
Bridge Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
A. Protect Description:
17BP.2.PE.94
N/A
N/A
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division 2 Office proposes to replace
Bridge No. 14 on Neuse Road (SR 1005) over Beard Creek in Pamlico County, North Carolina (see
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map). The project extends approximately 300 feet west of the existing structure; to
300 feet east of the end of the bridge, for a total project limit of 635 feet. The proposed action is listed
in the Bridge Program as Project Number 17BP.2.PE.94.
Neuse Road (SR 1005) is a two-lane, undivided roadway, with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per
hour (mph). The existing bridge over Beard Creek has a 30-foot span, with a structure length of 91
feet and a deck width of 25.7 feet. The project is located in a rural area west of the Town of Arapahoe,
with a few single-family residences and open land nearby.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of this project is to replace a functionally obsolete bridge. Bridge No. 14 was constructed
in 1964 and is in need of replacement. Based on the 2021 Bridge Inspection Report, Bridge No. 14
has a sufficiency rating of 30.15 out of 100. The bridge has a structural evaluation of 3 out of 9,
according to Federal Highway Administration standards.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action
D. Proposed Improvements:
28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to
replace existing at -grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR
771.117(e)(1-6).
E. SDecial Proiect Information:
Environmental Commitments:
Greensheet commitments are located at the end of the checklist.
Estimated Traffic:
The average daily traffic (ADT) along Neuse Road (SR 1005) are as follows:
2019 ADT 800
2040 ADT 1,600
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
NC Bicycle Route 7 (Ocracoke Option) runs along Neuse Road (SR 1005). The Croatan Regional
Bicycle and Trails Plan recommended Neuse Road for widening shoulders to accommodate bicycle
routes. The project proposes four -foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicyclists within the project
limits.
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 1

Design Exceptions:
There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Alternatives Evaluation:
No -Build Alternative — A No -Build Alternative would not replace a deficient bridge and would result in
eventually closing the road.
Build Alternative — The Build Alternative proposes to replace the existing structure with two, 12-foot
travel lanes with four -foot paved shoulders on both sides of the bridge. The paved shoulders expand
to six feet as the travel lane approaches the bridge. The project proposes a bridge deck width of 36
feet (see Figure 2 — Build Alternative Map).
The project requires an offsite detour route including Neuse Road (SR 1005), NC 306 and Scott Town
Road), for approximately 13.6 miles (see Figure 3 — Off -Site Detour Map).
Typical Sections:
2-0
01vN
Bridge Typical Section
q -L- SR 1005
III
RAJL
uV
Roadway Typical Section
Estimated Costs:
The estimated costs are as follows:
Right -of -Way Acquisition $75,000
Construction $1,400,000*
Total $1,475,000
. Estimated construction cost does not include the removal of the concrete turntable.
Bridge Demolition:
The existing structure is made of concrete and steel and NCDOT anticipates being able to remove the
structure with no debris falling in the water based on standard demolition practices. A concrete
column (turntable) left from the previous structure, is currently in Beard Creek under Bridge No. 14.
An investigation will assess the impacts of leaving in or removing the column during construction.
NCDOT Division 2 Office will verify the impacts of keeping in/ removing the structure and the potential
cost.
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 2

Anticipated Permits
A Nationwide Permit will likely be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for
impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from this project. The USACE holds the final
discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction.
Pamlico County is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). A CAMA
permit from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) will be required for
impacts to Beard Creek.
Protected Species:
The United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online
GIS Tool lists nine federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Pamlico
County. Based on biological field surveys, a total of five species were found to have a biological
conclusion rendering of "No Effect." The Eastern Black Rail and West Indian Manatee were found to
have a biological conclusion rendering of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"; and the Northern
Long-eared bat (NLEB) was found to have a biological conclusion rendering "May Affect, Likely to
Adversely Affect." The American alligator was "Not Required" to have a biological conclusion and
does not require a Section 7 survey or conclusion at this time.
The USFWS has revised the previous programmatic biological opinion (PBO)in conjunction with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and NCDOT for
the NLEB in eastern North Carolina. The PBO convers the entire NCDOT program in Division 1-8,
including all NCDOT projects and activities. Although this programmatic covers Divisions 1-8, NLEBs
are currently only known in 22 counties, but may potentially occur in eight additional counties within
Division 1-8. NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to two conservation measures which will
avoid/minimize mortality of NLEBs. The programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT
program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO will ensure compliance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act for ten years (effective through December 31, 2030) for all NCDOT
projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Pamlico County.
Jurisdictional Resources:
One jurisdictional stream, Beard Creek, was identified in the project study area. Beard Creek is
designated as an anadromous fish spawning area upstream of the project site. Two jurisdictional
wetlands were identified within the study area.
Characteristics of Wetlands in Study Area
Map
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
404/401
Area (AC.) in
Total Wetland
Forested
ID
Classification
Rating
Classification
or 401
Study Area
Impacts (Acres)
Sal /Ba ckish
WA
No
High
Tidal
404/401
0rsh.99
0.19
WB
I Headwater Forest
Yes
Medium
Riparian
404/401
0.01
Source: Final Natural Resources Technical Report, September 2021
Cultural Resources:
NCDOT Historic Architectural staff determined there are no significant historic resources in the Area of
Potential Effects (APE). Bridge No. 14 is not eligible for national registrar (NR) listing as it is not
representative of any distinctive engineering or aesthetic type. A No National Register Eligible or
Listed Archaeological Sites Present form was submitted on August 5, 2021.
An archaeological field reconnaissance and survey was carried out on July 27, 2021. Field
investigations did not locate any new archaeological resources, and it was determined no significant
archaeological sites are present within the APE. A No National Register Eligible or Listed
Archaeological Sites Present form was submitted on August 11, 2021.
Public Involvement:
Project Postcards were mailed on September 29, 2021, to notify property owners on the project and
direct questions and comments to the project website. No comments were received in response to the
project postcards or project website.
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 3

F. Protect Impact Criteria Checklists:
F2. Ground Disturbing Actions — Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B)
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30;
&/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project
impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 — 31.
• If any question 1-7 is checked "Yes" then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.
• If any question 8-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions
in Section G.
PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS
Yes
No
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked "Yes".)
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
❑
R1
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
❑
R1
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
❑
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
❑
R1
income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
❑
R1
amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
[1
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
❑
R1
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any question 8-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
Other Considerations
Yes
No
8
Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project
❑
covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
10
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
❑
[1
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
❑
R1
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
2
❑
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission FERC licensed facility?
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 4

Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued)
Yes
No
Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
14
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
❑
[1
remains?
15
Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
❑
2
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.?
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
16
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
❑
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
2
❑
affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
Q
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
2
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS,
❑
etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
❑
2
construction of an interchange on an interstate?
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
❑
2
community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
2
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
❑
2
Planning Or anization's MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
26
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
❑
Q
Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the
property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
❑
Q
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP ?
28
Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
❑
2
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy?
❑
2
30
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
❑
Q
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?
31
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
❑
R1
affected the project decision?
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 5

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked `Yes'):
Response to Question 8:
Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) —The USFWS has revised the previous programmatic biological opinion
(PBO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and NCDOT for the NLEB (Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers
the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The
programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect."
The PBO will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for ten years (effective
through December 31, 2030) for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes
Pamlico County, where the project is located.
Eastern Black Rail — The brackish marsh habitat within the study area is suitable habitat for the Eastern
Black Rail; however, it was not observed during field investigations. A review of NHP records on August
5, 2021, indicated no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Based on the presence of
suitable habitat, the proposed project will have a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the species.
West Indian Manatee — Suitable habitat for the species is present in the study area within the perennial
Beard Creek. Surveys were not performed due to the degree of difficulty involved in the survey. A review
of NHP records on August 5, 2021, indicated one occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area in Beard
Creek (September 17, 1994). It is unlikely the manatee would be impacted by the project due to their
scarcity in North Carolina and highly migratory nature. Based on nearby occurrences and the presence of
suitable habitat, the proposed project will have a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the species.
Response to Question 9:
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has identified streams in the study area as
anadromous fish waters (Atlantic Sturgeon). An in -water work moratorium will be in effect from February
15 to June 30.
Response to Question 12:
Two jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the study area. The proposed project is anticipated to affect
0.19 acres of wetlands. Exact impact acreages, including required extend of fill placement, will be
determined during final design. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as
to what permit will be required to authorize project construction.
Response to Question 17:
There are two, Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) identified
in the study area. A CAMA permit will be required prior to construction.
Response to Question 18:
Based on preliminary coordination, an U.S. Coast Guard (USGS) permit is anticipated for the project.
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 6

H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):
NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge Project No. 17BP.2.PE.94
Replace Bridge No. 14 on Neuse Road (SR 1005) over Beard Creek
Pamlico County
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element N/A
NCDOT Division 2 — Community Coordination
NCDOT Division 2 will contact Pamlico County Schools at [phone] at least one month prior to
construction to coordinate construction activities with school transportation schedules.
Pamlico County Emergency Services will be contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to
construction to make necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
NCDOT Division 2 — Environmental Coordination & Permittinq
CAMA and USCG Permits will be required prior to construction.
NCDOT Division 2 — Construction Moratoria
NCDOT will follow the NCWRC anadromous fish (Atlantic Sturgeon) in -water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 30.
NCDOT Division 2 — Construction
An investigation will assess the impacts of leaving in or removing the concrete column (turntable) during
construction. NCDOT Division 2 Office will verify the impacts of keeping in/ removing the structure and
the potential cost. If the turntable is to be demolished, mitigation measures would be in place to prevent
debris from the column falling into Beard Creek. This may include the utilization of nets or tarps to catch
the debris.
NCDOT Division 2 — Hydraulics
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain mapping Program (FMP), to determine status
of proposed 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).
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 7

I. Categorical Exclusion Approval:
Bridge Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
Prepared By:
12/10/21
Prepared For:
Reviewed By:
Dec 10, 2021
Date
17BP.2.PE.94
N/A
N/A
�c� tdii�c��ki�
Shawn Blanchard, Senior Planning Project Manager
SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Division 2 Office
-DocuSigned by:
4. az��
NCDOT Division 2 Office
❑ Approved
❑ Certified
2
at Jay J,
North
+ If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.
■ If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
+ If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
December 2021 17BP.2.PE.94 Type I(A) CE Page 8

FIGURES

North Carolina
. Department of Transportation
o„Divsion 2 Office
Bridge No. 14, Neuse Road (SR 1005) over Beard Creek
Bridge Program Project No. 17BP.2.PE.94
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Project Vicinity Map
Preliminary &
Subject to Change
- Pamlico County
Neese R
d
Neu,, R
tl
K
Neu N
O �\
November 2021 1 1 Figure 1
N
Bridge No. 14 Rivers & Streams Project Study Area
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,
Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIs User Community I Miles

Preliminary &
Subject to Change
• 's
�MORTy^. North Carolina
1
Department of Transportation
o.�. Divsion 2 Office
Replace Bridge No. 14
Neuse Road over Beard Creek
Bridge Project No. 17BP.2.PE.94
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Proposed Build Alternative
0 125 250
Feet
November 2021 Figure 2
mo+ ....
V " y
I '
t A.
y �, _ ,�y •, mart M"�M ,.
` j r
• J
l� f�
; Neuse
Road
x Beard Creek
: Proposed Edge of Travel
_= �'{ Proposed Paved Shoulder
4 'er,. . .may p
I'�RR
f �• ; Proposed Approach Slab
.+t f. ? r fi f y�• r1a� «. Proposed Bridge
.'''� ' ,•71
417BP.2.PE.94 Project Study Area
_ _ f Parcels

North Carolina Bridge No. 14, Neuse Road (SR 1005) over Beard Creek
Department of Transportation Bridge Program Project No. 17BR2.PE.94
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Divsion 2 Office Proposed Off -Site Detour Map
Preliminary &
N
Subject to Change
I\
S0
Own
RC/
I
IS
ao
�O00f
m
a
/
�
Pr��a
a
W
0
C)
Z
io
Q
cn
N
N
Q.
IV
Bridge No. 14
\
S Goose Creek Rd
o-
C� Ole
Gt l
o
u,
G�t
a�
3
V�ee
A
1.5 m f G e
Neuse R
o
.?�
O
in
-.
0
° 4 e�\9
s
I
ARAPAHOE
November 2021
Figure 3
Project
Bridge
Proposed Off -Site Detour Route
0
0.5 1 2
Miles

APPENDIX A
17BP.2.PE.94 Plan Sheets

W
\
ti
h
L
�L
�L
mL
CAI / U
ON` 0
LC2
Lew
�!Un
0 o�
See
Sheet
I A For
Index of Sheets
See
Sheet
I B For
Conventional Flan Sheet Symbols
See
Sheets
RW- I
Thru RW-? For Right of Way Rlon Sheets
Cypress �h
G R
SCotts Store
ease Road `C�hure
��
� Town Road
Scott Town oad
306
� U
z
1a el
UnChu
Rod o�
� o
PROJECT 1 P.2.R 9
o°
� 306�d Rd
�Nard
Cayton 9 d
Cemetery poO �eCsh
A�,ity
dQ Chure�
°a oa Ne e Ro
3 6 �a
S Dose �r �� ease R0 �eC had ° Oon
VICINITY MAP
DETOUR ROUTE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVID"ION OF ER-31HWAYS
PAMLICO
COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE 1V0.14 ON SR 1005 (NEUSE ROAD) OVER BEARD CREEK
TYPE OF WORD: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
a
1*4
C —L— STA. 19 + 25.00 —L— STA. 28 + 00.00
NBEGIN TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94 END TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94
STATE
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
17BP.2.R.94
I
STATE PROJ. NO.
F. A. PROJ. NO.
DESCRIPTION
17BP.2.PE.94
N/A
PE
17BP.2.PE.94
N/A
R1W & UTILITIES
17BP.2.R.94
N/A
CONST.
TO —
(KEN SR
NELS
EgCH ROAD) -- --- _-------- a>, `� —.-------- ----------------------- -- TO NC 306
----1�----------
��> —L— SR 1005 (Neuse Road)
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB %' 4�"
—L— STA. 22 + 75.00
/` •`'� % END APPROACH SLAB
BEGIN BRIDGE Q�40 —L— STA. 24+29.00+/—
—L— STA. 22+87.00 END BRIDGE
—L— STA. 24 + 17.00 +/—
THIS PROJECT
IS NOT WITHIN
ANY
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON
THIS PROJECT
SHALL
BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
Q
Z
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R W ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
Prepored in the Office of: HYDRA ULICS ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH 1 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
S- Tel:[phone]
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2022 = 915 Fa919.789
- License: C-2197
ADT 2040 = 11600 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94 = 0.141 MILES Engineering&Construction,lnc.
K = % 2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS _ -- LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94 = 0.025 MILES RAJIT RAMKUMAR, PE P.E. %
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94 = 0.166 MILES PROJECT ENGINEER SIGNATURE: t°
50 25 0 50 100 T = 6 % RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
= 60 MPH JUNE 21, 2022 ROADWAY DESIGN
I —Now V '
DANIEL W. GARDNER, JR., PE ENGINEER
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) * TTST = DUAL = LETTING DATE: PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
10 5 0 10 20 FUNC CLASS =
L AMAN, PE
MINOR COLLECTOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 MICHAEHAE CONTACT
PROFILE (VERTICAL) "SUB —REGIONAL TIER" P.E.
SIGNATURE:

Zvi
I' 1
EXISTING R/*T IIN,
C� 15" H PERETAN — 15"AIDRE_
— —T— —TV FO—
—— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7UTL— — — — — — — — — — —
M
��ir
1005 (NEUSE R) 22' BST
-L -
PI Sto 25 +03.52
=
0. 22' 37.6" (RT )
D =
0.30' 58.2"
L =
73.06'
T =
36.53'
R =
//,/00.00'
SE
= SEE PLANS
® 1 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Te1:919.789.9977
Fax:[phone]
® License: C-2197
Engineering & Construction, Inc.
DETAIL 5
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
( Not to Scale)
10'min.
Ditch 1,0'min• 1
Grade � 1.25
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner= 7 TONS,CL I Rip -Rap
Geotextile= 16 sy
FROM STA. 23 + 85 TO STA. 24 + 10 -L- LT
N 80°31'45" W
�— 140.16' � O
2 Q6 O
/�60 WOODED Ln
GILBERT FRANKLIN BRINSON, III °o0- ,.N N x
�S_ DB 228 PG 800 s
✓s V I�
CL
BMI ELLJ`-IION = 8, 1• J
N 475698 2638852 •I /
t`n BL STATION U,G—OEI 105 LEFT / /
tIALFCtJT'IKE EST I I 36' HARDWOOD� 2-FT DITC . .„......**,,.. ..
b o w/CLASS RIP L_ 1
O U
i
son 0
iilflfl�l"=- �rrr
CIA
-..Y•..•.•.•...���J► yie 9"9e.v._.'!r JY '"_iz Ji! _�� �e a�ti�Ztitii..�.�..���:..�.��� �Y ..R� ♦ �� i����iri��rq�l � � �iiRlnei�� ,° �;
11,149
� � �►/Il�ll�lil�� �Y..�1•[ GI�� ��_s__�1•i�r��m� _
�i RIME 0I=1I
�L_,v. �_ _ �_ J. •L r� L .�. 611� .:�_ _ �..._ �� �:ar•IAR I W,• `� a�:li liiiiiu
! ,.......S. ......•r...•.. i�3.,- ir- s .r.. •r•w�rry
GEORGE BRINSON, et ux o OE PROTECTIQN VTE�WRID FIAs CONC s AT c�v
WOODED DB 524 PG 700 LO , §EEE SETA 1 �/- 4 ��
MB 3 PG 13 wo� r50 TAPE � 't L. B RI Pk 4�j�
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94
-L- STA. 19 + 2 5. 00
L0
6- 1
L� 4
� L
_m 1
CV/ R
O
CV OC
-,, L�
0
:1
E
E
LT. & RT �v ST 5 SY GGF iv SPECIAL CUT
�44jo` G���, 2-FT BASE DITCH
Q„ �� SEE DETAIL
B' SIP RAP
CLASS 'II' RIP RA o I/ Av APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
/ TO ELEV. 5. �<c °1 �° 0tv� r P a, OLD BRIDGE TURNTABLE
PRANCES B HOLT
DETAIL 1
TOE PROTECTION
( Not to Scale)
Natural .y�S\0Qe
Ground �—b—►{
�d
d = 1.0 Ft.
b= 2.0 Ft. Geotextile
Type of Liner= Class 'B' Rip -Rap
4�
GEORGE BRINSON, et ux
DB 524 PG 700
MB 3 PG 13
,Oh
FROM STA. 20+69 TO STA. 22+75 -L- RT
FROM STA. 20 + 83 TO STA. 22 + 75 -L- LT
61
�O
L
�P
0
4`
M � •
= DB 228 PG 797
UNRECORDED MAP
N 79°36'16" W
297.89'
DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Natural \ o� Front
Ground �? •� 3' \\e< Ditch
d D F\o slope
Geotextile B
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Max. d = 1.0 Ft.
B = 2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class 'B' Rip -Rap
FROM STA. 24 + 00 TO STA. 25 + 00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 24 + 15 TO STA. 25 + 00 -L- RT
0
w
ANN B. BATCHELOR,
DB 442 PG 743
C
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
17BP.2.R.94 4
ROADWAY DESIGN PAVEMENT DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPL EFIE l[�IL�lI�TS
DO NOT USE FOR// W ACGUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
VERA R. GASKINS, et al
DB 159 PG 35
DRAWN BY PAMLICO COUNTY GIS
EXISTING R/W
—TV FO
T=
SR 1005 (NEUSE RD) 22' BST O
— = r U I L — — — — — — — — — —
IP E — C -- E i
0
minnnc'n
DETAIL 3
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Natural 6•\ aet Front
Ground 3•�\p�� Ditch
D Slope
D= 1.0 Ft.
FROM STA. 25 + 00 TO STA 28 + 00 -L- RT
NOTE: PROPOSED SHOULDER BERM GUTTER -L- STA. 22 +44 TO STA. 22 + 75 LT. & RT.
G
+ 50' TAPER
+ LT. & RT.
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIL 3
ELLEN B. JOHNSON, et al
DB 544 PG 229
TRACT THREE
DETAIL 4
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Natural 01 Front
Ground • '�1 3�e< Ditch
D F\�� Slope
LBJ Min. D=1.0 Ft.
B=2.0 Ft.
'ROM STA. 25 + 00 TO STA. 28 + 50 -L- LT
WITH GUT OF
To BE RD'SRCREERANCH
EXISTING R/W
WOODED
END TIP PROJECT 17BP.2.R.94
-L- STA.42 8 + 00.00
ELLEN B. JOHNSON, et al
DB 544 PG 229
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- PROFILE
SEE SHEETS S-1 THRU S-? FOR STRUCTURE PLANS

APPENDIX B
Cultural Resources Determination

Project Tracking No.
15-02-0033 Revised�]
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oay ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
`.` It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult Qj
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Bridge 14; B-4595 County: Pamlico
WBS No: 17BP.2.PE.94 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE & USCG
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 on SR 1005 (Meuse Road) over Beard Creek in
Pamlico County. This project is a resubmittal as the APE has expanded. The revised archaeological Area
of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as a 1,400 foot (426.72 m) long corridor running 750
feet (228.60 m) east and 650 feet (198.12 m) west along Neuse Road from the center of Bridge No. 14. The
corridor is approximately 200 feet (60.96 m) wide extending 100 feet (30.48 m) on either side of the road
from its present center. In all, the new APE encompasses approximately 6.5 acres.
Initially, a `No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present or
Affected" form was submitted on March 26, 2015. Since the project as expanded, this form PA form is no
longer valid.
This project is currently state funded; however, federal permits are anticipated, and federal funds may be
used during the future. Therefore, this archaeological review was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were 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.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1 of to

Project Tracking No.
15-02-0033 Revised
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 14 on Neuse Road over Beard Creek in Pamlico County, North Carolina. The Bridge 14
replacement project is located west of Arapahoe and is plotted in the southwest corner of the Arapahoe USGS
7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Background Research
A site files search was initially conducted at the Office State Archaeology (OSA) on February 19, 2015; while
an updated review was carried out using data from OSA on July 23, 2021 (HPOWEB 2021). Within a mile
of the APE, no known archaeological sites are reported. The site files suggest that the bridge might have
been previously reviewed by OSA, but no Environmental Review (ER) number associated with the project
could be found. Overall, very few archaeological investigations have been conducted in the area. More work
is needed in the region to better understand site placement in this portion of the county before prediction
models can be applied.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2021), there
are no known significant historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological
deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE.
Most early maps provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads, settlements,
and drainages. The MacRae and Tanner's New Map of the State of North Carolina from 1833 is typical of
maps from 18th and 19th centuries (Figure 2) (Brazier et al. 1833). This particular map depicts a road in the
vicinity of Neuse Road, but the exact route is not clear. In addition, no structures are shown. By the early
20th century, maps in which the project area can be accurately determined are more common. The 1934 Soil
Survey map for the county illustrates a road with a similar layout as Neuse Road with a crossing over Beard
Creek at or near the current bridge location (Figure 3) (Hearn et al. 1934). The field investigations identified
an old road trace in the southwestern quadrant and the partial remains of wooden piers to the south of the
bridge. These features likely date to the early 20th century as seen on the map but are not considered
significant. The 1934 map also plots a structure to the northeast, which is very likely the Alex Brinson House
(PM 255). The three other structures depicted to further to the east are probably the Reel House, their Store,
and an associated building (PM 256). At least two of three Reel's structures are still standing but outside of
the APE in the forest with third collapsed. All of the following structures appear on HPOWEB's data base
as surveyed only and are well away from the project limits. They will not be impacted.
The USDA soil survey map indicates that three soil types make up the APE (Figure 4). Hobucken muck
(HN) composes the marsh. The series is nearly level, very poorly drained, and inundated with water. It is
unlikely to yield any significant cultural resources associated with early settlement activities due to being
persistently wet. The low stream terrace to the east consists of Fork loamy fine sand (Fo). This series is
nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. Generally, significant sites are not found on this series due to
wetness, but the nearby Alex Brinson House is located on this soil type. This suggests other previous
settlement activities might have taken place in the vicinity as the soil could be better drained than reported.
The western terrace and the far eastern high stream terrace are made up of Norfolk loamy fine sand (NoB).
This is a well drained series with a slope of 2 to 6 percent. This series is well suited for early occupations
and as a result was recommended for testing. It also covers a larger area that what is depicted on the soil map
to the east and far lesser area to the west according to field observations.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of10

Project Tracking No.
15-02-0033 Revised
Fieldwork Results
Bridge No. 14 and Neuse Road cross Beard Creek east to west. The creek drains to the south and is part of
the Neuse drainage basin. The APE consists primarily of a marsh with stream terraces at either end (see
Figure 4). To the east of Beard Creek, the low stream terrace is flat with an open lawn and cultivated field
north of Neuse Road and a forest to the south (Figures 5 and 6). Soil erosion is strong especially in the field.
One to two feet of soil has been removed as compared to the high stream terrace in the neighboring forested
property. To the west, only a small section of the stream terrace resides within the APE. It is found mostly
south of the road, while the marsh/wetland covers a greater portion of the APE especially to the north (Figures
5 and 6). Other ground disturbance comes from buried utilities (gas and phone) along the north side of Neuse
Road. The road is also elevated on an earthen embankment as it passes through the marsh.
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 14 was
initially conducted in 2015. Subsequently, a new testing was carried out on July 27, 2021, to cover the
expanded APE. The investigations included a visual inspection of the surface and the excavation of five total
shovel tests (STs) (see Figure 4). STs #1 and 2 were excavated during the first survey in 2015, while #3-5
were dug in 2021. All STs were placed on either the low or high stream terraces with none located in the
marsh/wetland, which was poorly drained or contained standing water. STs were dug 60-m (ca. 197 ft) apart
in the northeast and southeast quadrant to test both the high and low stream terraces and to avoid wet soils.
Only one ST (#5) was excavated in the southwest quadrant along the terrace, while no STs were placed in the
northwest since it was low lying and part of the wetland. A surface inspection was also carried out in the
northeast quadrant within the cultivated field. Although surface visibility was near 100 percent in this area,
no artifact scatters or remains of former structures or features were revealed.
Subsurface testing identified at least three soil layers in the lower stream terrace to the east at STs #1 and 2.
The upper layer is a very dark grayish brown (I OYR 3/2) loamy sand approximately 10 cm (ca. 4 in) thick.
This is followed by a layer of grayish brown (I OYR 5/2) sand, which reaches 35 cm (ca. 14 in) below the
surface. Lastly, a stratum of pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand extends to at least 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the
surface. These soils are very moist and increased in wetness with depth. Since the soils were poorly drained
and unlikely to yield any significant deposits, no additional STPs were determined necessary on the low
stream terrace. ST #3 on the high terrace to the east contains at least 50 cm (ca. 20in) of disturbance overlying
a yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6) clay subsoil, while ST #4 is composed of three soil layers. The surface is a
20 cm (ca. 8 in) thick brown (I OYR 4/3) sand. This is followed by a yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) sand
extending to 60 cm (ca. 24 in) below the surface. Lastly, a grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) sand is present, which
reaches a depth of at least 75 cm (ca. 30 in) below the surface. ST #5 on the western terrace also consists of
three layers. The upper is a dark brown (I OYR 3/3) sandy that is 20 cm (ca. 8 in) thick. Beneath this is a thin
layer of brown (1 OYR 4/3) sand that is 10 cm (ca. 4 in) thick. Subsoil is a yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/3) sandy
clay at approximately 30 cm (ca. 12 in) below the surface. No cultural material was identified.
Recommendations
The archaeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 14 show that no significant
archaeological sites are within the APE. Soils are mostly poorly drained or in marsh, which is not suitable
for early settlement activities. The limited dry area produced no positive results for cultural material. In
addition, all historic structures are outside of the archaeological APE, and any associated deposits should not
be encountered. As a result, no further archaeological work is required for replacement of Bridge No. 14 in
Pamlico County. However, additional work might be required should design plans change to encompass
property outside of the currently defined APE.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation have expressed an
interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process
described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3of10

Project Tracking No.
15-02-0033 Revised
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos
Other: historic map images
Signed:
G.
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
❑ Correspondence
8/11/21
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of10

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
15-02-0033
Revised
G�►t+� HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
., NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
1 ,a
This form supercedes that dated 1 October 2015
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
Project No:
(formerly B-4595)
County:
Pamlico
WBSNo.:
17BP.2.PE.94 (formerly
Document
Federal CE
38425.1.2)
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
X Yes ❑ No
Permit
USACE, USCG
Permit(s):
Type(s):
Project Description: Replace Bridge Number 14 on SR 1005 (Neuse Road) over Beard
Creek (off -site detour planned, no improvements anticipated). New study area, July
2021.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
❑ There are no National Register -listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
❑ There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are no properties within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are properties over fifty years old within the area of potential effects, but they do not
meet the criteria for listing on the National Register.
X There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWACTIVITIES, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS: HPOWeb reviewed on 10 March
2015 and 4 August 2021 and yielded three SS and no NR, SL, DE, or LD properties in the Area
of Potential Effects (APE). Pamlico County current GIS mapping, aerial photography, and tax
information identified a mostly wooded APE with some cultivated fields and cleared residential
parcels (viewed 10 March 2015 and 4 August 2021). The APE equates with the 2021 study
area to encompass construction activities as currently defined (see attached).
Resources within the APE to the west of the existing bridge date from the late 1950s to the
2000s and all are unexceptional examples of their types; one received a survey site number for
the 2015 investigation of the project area. Pamlico County GIS identifies the Barrington/Brinson
Cemetery on the large parcel NW of the existing bridge; the cemetery is located well outside
the APE and beyond likely project impact. The previously surveyed Alex Brinson House
(PM0255) stands on a large parcel intersected by the APE, approximately 200 feet east of the
existing bridge and 150 north of SR 1005 (Neuse Road). To the east of the Brinson House and
also intersected by the APE is a parcel containing the Reel House and Store (PM0256), identified
by the 2015 study and eliminated from further consideration; the buildings no longer stand.
Constructed in 1964, Bridge No. 14 is not included in the NCDOT Historic Bridge Survey and is
not eligible for the National Register as it is not representative of any distinctive engineering or
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects
as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 8

aesthetic type. The comprehensive architectural survey of Pamlico County (1979) and later
investigations recorded the resources already mentioned (Angela Barnett, Pamlico county imagery —An
Architectural Survey ([Bayboro]: The Pamlico County Historical Association, 1980), p.108). There are no NR-listed
properties along the proposed off -site detour route (see attached).
Given their close proximity and the possibility of historically related resources, NCDOT
addressed the Bridge No. 14 and the Bridge No. 28 project (originally B-4596, now BP2.R.002.1,
PA Tracking No. 15-02-0031) in a combined study. NCDOT identified multiple resources as
warranting additional investigation and NR-eligibility evaluation and contracted with Coastal
Carolina Research to carry out the necessary work. The resultant technical report (August 2015)
assessed the Alex Brinson House (PM0255), and near Bridge No. 28 the George R. Brinson
House (PM0258), and the Levin Paul House (PM0259) (see attached). The study concluded
that the resources are not NR-eligible as they have suffered loss of historical integrity through
structural change and attrition of outbuildings and also are surpassed in significance by more
intact examples of comparable nineteenth -and early -twentieth-century dwelling houses and
farmsteads located elsewhere in the county. The study also considered the possibility of a
Beard's Creek Landing Historic District, but found that its former cohesiveness and integrity are
greatly diminished through loss and alteration of many component resources, especially
commercial buildings. The remaining elements of the former community do not constitute a
historic district that meets National Register criteria. HPO has reviewed the study and agreed
with the conclusions (see attached correspondence). The 2015 findings remain valid.
No additional resources of concern are located in the APE, so a finding of "no historic properties
present or affected" will satisfy both Section 106 and GS 121-12(a) compliance requirements.
Should any aspect of the project design change, please notify
NCDOT Historic Architecture as additional review may be necessary.
Technical report, photographs, GIS data on file
at NCDOT Historic Architecture and NCHPO; see also https://connect.ncdot.gov.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos X Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes — NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OF AFFECTED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Bridge Number 14
17BP.2.PE.94
PA Tracking No. 15-02-0033
5 August 2021
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects
as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 8

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Siate Hismuc Presen-aticm Office
�•txzt�
G4Sie ai Amhe cL and His=
Seaearr 3Lu FaLMtz D,!7 : 5ecmb Kris C�3GaS
September 28, 2015
XfEMOR ANDUlf
TO: Vanessa Patrick-
Hurnar Environment T lflit
C Department of Transportation
FRO -XL- Renee Gledhill -Earley YI-'-r-
En�mt3„meatal Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridges 14 and 28 on SR 1005 (Neuse R.oadl over Beard Creek and Cedar Gut,
B-4595 and B-4596, Pamlico County, ER 15-2012
Thank sou for your August 24, 2015 subrstission of the Hktoric Architectural Resources Evaluation Report,
prepared by Coastal Carolina Research for the above zeferenced project )N.'e have review ed the submittal and
offer the faIlowing comments.
The report includes sufficient infounafion to evaluate the historic architectural properties located within the
APE. We concur with the e4,aluation and eligibility detem-m motions outlined in the report as follous_
Tt►e Alex Brinson House (P-NED255), the George R. Brinson House (PW258), the Levin Paul House
(FM 0259) are not eligible for listing in the National Resister of Historic Places due to the loss of lntept�
and the level of significance_
Tluee additional resources were e�,,aluated as part of a potential historic district the Beard's Creak Landing
Historic Ddstrictl - the Benjamin Benson House (PM0254), the Reel House and Stare (PM0256), and
the Joe Brinson House (EM 0257)_ Six other buildings were also docurnented as part of the evaluation of
the potential historic district Saved on the information obtained during the evalmtio 4 none of these
resources are indisiduaW eEgtb&e for listing in the Nationai Register of Histoac Places and there is no
potential foi an eligible historic distract.
Toe above conixx is are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation A zt and the
A&isory Councii on Historic Pfeset7ation's Regulations far Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR part
800_
Thank you for YaLu oaoperaton and comaderatiori_ If you have am questions oo-noeuvag the above cr nment-
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environtnetal re6--w coordinator at 919 f 807-65%9_
oc_ -Warr Pope, Furr, NCDOT, cder- y
Lo 2&m ±C9 Past; cues S- e t Ral5ZhLZ.Z-.M1 kbOlaE,3mot-;+ , s� R NC.2-W946t- Tdepbmx/Fa (919) W745+0iAT'-&-B9
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects
as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 7 of 8

STATE of FORTH CARouNA
DEPARTMENT" OF TRANSPORTATION
1501bLxILa1LVW£ _e'rrcee Rnicv:u N-C-27699-150]
PAT NIDa0KY NICHOLAS I TENN SON
G6VF.RMM SEc[ETw4V
Memorandum S
To: Renee Iedhifl-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
From: Vanessa E- Patrick
Ar0itectural Historian
NCDOT — Historic Architecture
Date: October 1, 2015
Subject: Nrstonc Architecfural Resources Eigrbiiify EvaivaOon Report,
PA Nos- 15-0 -0031 (B-4596) and 15-0 -0033 (8-4595).
Repfaoerneat of Bridge Nos. 28 and 14 on SR 1005 (fVeuse Road)
over Beard Creek and Cedar Out, Parrrffco County, EP 15- 01
Thank you for your recent comments on the above report- We are pleased you
concur vdth the National Register of Historic Places eligibility recommendations
for the resources evaluated.
No additional properties of concern are located in the project Areas of Potential
Effects, and I sham prepare the appropriate paperwork to conclude compliance
review under the provisions of the PA far Minor Transportation Projects -
As always, your Delp is greatly appreciated- Should questions arise: please
contact me at vepetridgZC nWot-gov or 919-707-6082.
Vanessa E- Patrick
FHCFM913t--?1 -2g0D FA X PM-733-915D
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects
as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 8 of 8