20211069 Ver 1_BP2.R018_CE_Type_I(A)_20211213

v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 1
Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form

STIP Project No. BP2.R018.1
WBS Element BP2.R018.1
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

This project replaces bridge 730015 on SR 1565 (S. Grimesland Bridge Rd.) over Chicod Creek in Pitt
County. The bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment while detouring traffic offsite, see
attached: Figure 1 – Project Location Map, and Figure 2 – Detour Map.

The proposed bridge will be approximately 107 ft. long with a clear roadway width of 27.8 ft. The
approach roadway will extend approximately 357 ft. and 244 ft. to the south and north ends of the
bridge, respectively.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

Built in 1970 this bridge requires replacement of due to deterioration of structural elements. The
posted weight limits for the bridge are currently 19 Tons and 22 Tons for single vehicles and truck
tractors-semitrailers, respectively. The existing bridge is 90 ft. long with a clear roadway width of 29 ft.

Bridge No. 15 has a sufficiency rating of 47.93 and is categorized as “Functionally Obsolete”. Both
superstructure and substructure elements show signs of deterioration, and have had priority
maintenance repairs performed on the substructure elements. This is a bridge replacement and safety
improvement project.

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. Special Project Information:

Alternatives Discussion:

No-Build – The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the road, which is
unacceptable given the farms and communities served by SR 1565 (S. Grimesland Bridge Rd.).

NOTE: The following Type I(C) Actions (NCDOT-FHWA 2019 CE Agreement, Appendix A) only
require completion of Sections A through D to substantiate and document the CE classification: 1,
5, 8 (signs and pavement markings only), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20; or several other Type I
Action subcategories identified in past NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreements (see
Appendix D). Pre-approval as a CE does not exempt activities from compliance with other
federal environmental laws.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 2
Rehabilitation – The bridge was constructed in 1970 and both concrete and timber materials
within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life. Rehabilitation would require replacing
components, which would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.

Onsite Detour – An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence of a feasible offsite
detour, and also to minimize environmental impacts.

Staged Construction – Staged construction was not considered because of the availability of an
acceptable offsite detour.

New Alignment – Given that the alignment for SR 1565 is acceptable, a new alignment was not
considered as an alternative.

Offsite Detour (Preferred) – Traffic will be detoured offsite during the construction period. The
6.9-mile offsite detour includes S. Grimesland Bridge Road (SR 1565) to Boyds Road (SR 1780) to
Blackjack Grimesland Bridge Road (SR 1777) to Chicod Street (SR 1777) to Pitt Street (NC 33) to
Beaufort Street (SR 1565). The condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite
detour are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour. See attached
Figure 2 - Detour Map. Note that bridge 730005, located along the proposed detour route on SR
1777, is currently posted at 23 Tons and 26 Tons for single vehicles and truck tractors-semitrailers,
respectively. However, Michael Amman (Division 2 Bridge Program Manager) confirmed via email
1/22/2021 that bridge 730005 will be replaced and construction shall be completed before bridge
730015 is let.

Design Issues:

Traffic: Current: 400 ADT
TTST: 3%, Duals: 3%
Local Rural – NCDOT Sub-regional Tier Guidelines
Design Speed – 55 mph
Two design exceptions are required:
· Design speed does not meet sub regional tier on one of the horizontal curves
· Minimum horizontal curve radius does not meet sub regional tier

Typical Section for Bridge:

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 3

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations:

SR 1565 (S. Grimesland Bridge Rd.) is not part of a NC or US designated bike route. Thus, bicycle
and pedestrian accommodations are not required for this project.

Cost Estimate:

The estimated project costs for the Selected Alternative, based on 2021 prices, are as follows:

Right of Way $150,000
Construction $750,000
___________________________________________
Total Cost: $900,000

Anticipated Permits or Consultation Requirements:

The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the purposes of
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. As a result, 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.

Public Involvement:

NCDOT will minimize any impact to businesses along SR 1565 during construction and will try to
expedite the construction time. The area is primarily rural residential and agricultural regarding
land use.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 4
F. Project 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
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked “Yes”.) Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ 
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (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-
income and/or minority populations? ☐ 
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
amount of right of way acquisition? ☐ 
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐ 
7
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
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?  ☐
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
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
mountain trout streams? ☐ 
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit? ☐ 
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐ 
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 5
Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No
14
Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
remains?
☐ 
15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? ☐ 
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
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
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
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐ 
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐ 
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
construction of an interchange on an interstate? ☐ 
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? ☐ 
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐ 
25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? ☐ 
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
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
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ 
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐ 
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ☐ 
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?  ☐
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ 

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 6
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’):

Question 8 – Endangered Species:

Dwarf wedgemussel

Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Dwarf wedgemussels are generalists, and their range of habitats typically include small
streams less than 15 feet wide to large rivers more than 300 feet wide. It is found in a variety
of substrate types including clay, sand, gravel and pebble in hydraulically stable areas. Dwarf
wedgemussel is designated as a “range by basin” species and this project is within this
species’ range. A review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC
(Information for Planning and Consultation) tool revealed that there is presence of the Dwarf
wedgemussel within project limits. The Department will adhere to all Programmatic Biological
Opinion (PBO) project-specific requirements as well as all monitoring and reporting
requirements. Payment into the N.C Non-Game Aquatic Species Fund as set forth in the
PBO will be made to satisfy Section 7 of the ESA for this project.

Tar River spinymussel

Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Tar River spinymussel is designated as a “range by basin” species and this project is within
this species’ range. A review of the March 2021 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database identified historic occurrences (1936) of Tar River spinymussel within 1.0
mile of the study area. A desktop review using the Identified Stream Reach (ISR) layer
sourced by USFWS was performed, and found the Tar River spinymussel to be within 2.5
miles downstream of the study area. A review of the USFWS IPaC tool revealed that there
is presence of the Tar River spinymussel found. The Department will adhere to all PBO
project-specific requirements as well as all monitoring and reporting requirements. Payment
into the N.C Non-Game Aquatic Species Fund as set forth in the PBO will be made to satisfy
Section 7 of the ESA for this project.
Atlantic Sturgeon

Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Designated Critical Habitat for Atlantic sturgeon is not present within the project study area,
and has been confirmed with the Habitat Conservation Division of National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Atlantic sturgeon habitat consists of moderately
flowing, deep, large rivers during spawning, and shallow nearshore areas of coastal waters
and estuaries when not spawning. Chicod Creek is not large enough and too slow-moving to
support this species. A review of the March 2021 NCNHP database identified no known
occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon within 1.0 mile of the study area.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 7
Neuse River Waterdog

Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

A desktop review using the ISR layer sourced by USFWS was performed, and found the
Neuse River Waterdog to be within 2.5 miles downstream of the study area. A review of the
USFS IPaC tool revealed that there is presence of the Neuse River Waterdog within project
limits. The Department will adhere to all PBO project-specific requirements as well as all
monitoring and reporting requirements. Payment into the N.C Non-Game Aquatic Species
Fund as set forth in the PBO will be made to satisfy Section 7 of the ESA for this project.

Northern Long-eared bats

Biological conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has revised the previous PBO in conjunction with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and
NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North
Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 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 8 additional counties within
Divisions 1-8. NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to two conservation measures
which will avoid/minimize mortality of NLEBs. These conservation measures only apply to
the 30 current known/potential counties shown on Figure 2 of the PBO at this time. 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 Pitt County, where BP2.R018.1 is located.

Question 9 – Anadromous Fish:

The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has recommended an in-water work moratorium be
put in place between February 15th and June 30th to protect the migration and spawning of
anadromous species.

Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish will be implemented in the design and
construction of this project.

Question 10 – Surface Water Impacts:

Chicod Creek is classified by NC Division of Water Resources as fresh waters and nutrient
sensitive waters. Temporary impacts to water quality will occur during the removal of existing
structure and construction of the replacement bridge. These impacts will be minimized with erosion
control methods for site runoff. Little to no permanent impacts to water quality are foreseen after
project completion.

Question 30 –Farmland Protection Policy Act:

Bridge No. 15 project site lies within an area designated as “Prime Farmland Soils”. However,
given that this project’s scope is the replacement of an existing roadway and bridge that provides
access to the surrounding farmland, no adverse impacts to farmland will occur. A preliminary
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating was
completed for this project, and a total score of 55 out of 160 points was calculated for the project
site. Since the total points calculated in part VI of the NRCS Farmlands Conversion Form AD-1006
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 8
was less than 60, and the total points of the NRCS Farmlands Conversion Form AD-1006 is less
than 160, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for the project in accordance with FPPA.

H. Project Commitments

See attached Project Commitments Green Sheet.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 9
I. Categorical Exclusion Approval:

STIP Project No. BP2.R018.1
WBS Element BP2.R018.1
Federal Project No. N/A

Prepared By:

Date Samuel Cullum, PE, Project Manager
Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp.

Prepared For:

Reviewed By:

Date Jay B. Johnson
Division 2 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

 Approved
· If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.

☐ Certified
· 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.

Date Michael Aman, PE
Division 2 Bridge Program Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation

FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.

N/A N/A
Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section VII of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).

Cathrine Hossack Meyer
Division 2 Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
11/15/2021
11/15/2021
11/15/2021

v2019.1 BP2.R018.1 Type I(A) CE Page 1 of 1

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS

STIP Project No. BP2.R018.1
Replace Bridge No. 730015 on SR 1565 (S. Grimesland Bridge Road)
Over Chicod Creek
Pitt County
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element BP2.R018.1

NCDOT Division 2 – Emergency Services Coordination:

Pitt County emergency services shall be notified of project construction at least one month prior to
beginning of construction. Contact Pitt County emergency services at 252-902-3950.

NCDOT Division 2 – Access:

The project location is in a rural region with several large agricultural fields, pig farms, and a few
residences within 1 mile of the project site. Access will be maintained to these fields and residences using
the proposed offsite detour.

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit – FEMA Coordination:

The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status
of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This
project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the
Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project
construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the
100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

NCDOT Division 2 – Environmental:

The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has recommended an in-water work moratorium be put in
place between February 15th and June 30th to protect the migration and spawning of anadromous species.

Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish will be implemented in the design and construction of
this project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20

Attachments
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
!A
Pitt County
Beaufort
County SR-1565SR-1780 Chicod Creekµ300 0 300150 Feet
Legend
StudyArea
County Boundary Replacement of Bridge No. 730015 on SR 1565
(Grimesland Bridge Rd.) over Chicod Creek
BP2.R018.1
Pitt County, North Carolina
Project Location Map
Figure 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20

DEPARTE
N

O
F ANSPORTA TIONTAE
OF NORT
H
ROL
NA

WORK
Z
ONE TRAFFIC
CONTROLDIVISION OF
HI
GHW
A
YS
T
S CAI
M
TTR

DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
User:jdeboneG:\NCDesign_Worksets\NCDOT\BP2.R018.1\Work Zone Traffic Control\BP2.R018.1_TC_3TM1_02.dgn9/27/2021
SHEET NO.PROJ. REFERENCE NO.

APPROVED:
DATE:
SEAL
STR # 730017BRIDGE RDS GRI
MESLANDSR 1565SMITHTOWN RD
33
DETOUR DESCRIPTION:
(SR 1777) TO PITT STREET (NC 33) TO BEAUFORT STREET (SR 1565).
TO BLACKJACK GRIMESLAND BRIDGE ROAD (SR 1777) TO CHICOD STREET
S GRIMESLAND BRIDGE ROAD (SR 1565) TO BOYDS ROAD (SR 1780)
N.T.S DETOUR
END
24'' X 18''
M4-8 A
M
ROAD
CLOSED
R11-2
48'' x 30''
TYPE III BARRICADE(S)
21'' X 15''
M6-1 L
M6-1
21'' X 15''21'' X 15''
M5-1 R M5-1
21'' X 15''
M4-8
24'' X 12''
DETOUR M4-8
24'' X 12''
DETOURM4-8
24'' X 12''
DETOUR
M4-8
24'' X 12''
DETOUR
A
H I J K
L
M4-8
24'' X 12''
DETOUR
M6-3
21'' X 15''
DETOUR
OFFSITE
BP2.R018.1 TMP-2
NC FIRM LICENSE: C-1506
[phone]
RALEIGH, NC 27601
SUITE 1500
301 FAYETTEVILLE STREET
PROFESSIONA
LE
NG INEER
N ORTH CARO
LINA
SEAL
043777 EKUD H BOCAJ
D
G
H
STR # 730005
STR # 730015
B C
R11-4
60'' x 30''
ROAD CLOSED
THRU TRAFFIC
TO
TYPE III BARRICADE
NEXT LEFT
42'' X 12''
SP-4L NEXT RIGHT
42'' X 12''
SP-4R
48'' X 48''
AHEAD
DETOUR
W20-2
D
48'' X 48''
AHEAD
ROAD
CLOSED
W20-3
48'' X 48''
AHEAD
ROAD
CLOSED
W20-3AHEAD
ROAD
CLOSED
W20-3
48" x 48"
E F G
E
M
B
A
C
H
I
M
J
I
L
K
L
I
J
L
K
J
PRELIMINARYDO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTIONCO.BEAUFORTPITT CO.
BOYDS RD
SR 1780
SR 1777
PI
T
T S
T
CHICOD STBRIDGE RDGRIMESLANDBLACKJACKPI
TT ST33
BEUFORT STBOYDS RD
GLADSON RDGALLOWAY RDOFFSITE DETOUR ROUTE:
NOTES:
SHEET 3 OF 3.
USE THIS SHEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH RSD 1101.013.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
ALL SIGNAGE IS SPACED AT 500 FOOT INTERVALS2.
BE INSTALLED PER ENGINEER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES A THRU M SHALL1.
F
M4-10L
R11-4
60'' x 30''
DETOUR 48" x 18"
ROAD CLOSED
TO
THRU TRAFFIC
TYPE III BARRICADE
F
J
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
4
-L-
S. GRIMESLAND BRIDGE RD CHICOD CREEKSMITHTOWN RDTO SR 1779
BOYDS RDTO SR-1780 CHICOD CREEKTHIS PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
THIS IS NOT A CONTROL OF ACCESS PROJECT.
-L- STA 11+00.00
BEGIN PROJECT
-L- STA 17+86.00
END PROJECT
-L- STA 14+56.00
BEGIN BRIDGE
(3RD1)
STAGE 3 PLANS
OpenRoads
Plans Developed with
REPORT AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT.
CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED VIA A VOLUMETRIC ORD
SHOWN IN SHEET 3B-1 AND ALL EARTHWORK QUANTITY
THIS PLAN SET. THE SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE
THE CROSS SECTION SUMMARY SHEET HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
UTILIZE THE FORMER ORD PRINT SYTLE.
CROSS SECTION SHEETS. ALL OTHER SHEETS
DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS FOR PLAN-ELEVATION AND
PLOTTING IN THIS SET IS ACCOMPLISHED USING NCDOT'S
BY NCDOT FOR ORD DEVELOPED SHEETS AND CROSS SECTIONS.
PRINT STYLE AND PSET DEVELOPMENT IS STILL IN PROGRESS
NOTE TO REVIEWER:
0.130 MILES=TOTAL LENGTH
0.020 MILES= LENGTH STRUCTURES
0.110 MILES=LENGTH ROADWAY
PROJECT LENGTHS FOR TIP PROJECT BP2.R018.1:
**DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CURVE RADIUS AND HORIZONTAL STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE
DATE PRINTED
TRANSMITTED BY
SCALE
83/2011
NAD
15+63.38- STA L-
END BRIDGE83/2011NAD(SR 1565)
03/15/2022
10/15/2021
JASON M. DEBONE
JOHN P. MAZERES, P.E.
PITT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 730015 ON SR 1565 (S. GRIMESLAND BRIDGE ROAD)
OVER CHICOD CREEK
GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
20 40 8040
D
T
V
=
=
=
=
=
=
480
840
N/A
N/A
6
60
%
%
MPH
ADT
ADT
2022
2042
% *
DUAL 3%

* TTST =3%
FUNC CLASS =
LOCAL
SUB-REGIONAL TIER
K
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
BP2.R018.1 PE
PROJECT LENGTH
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
DESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALESTBD PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN ENGINEER
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:08/12/2021DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT:TIP PROJECT:BP2.R018.1See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
20 40 80400
5 10 20100
VICINITY MAP (NTS)
BP2.R018.1
BP2.R018.2
BP2.R018.3

RW, UTILITIES
CONSTRUCTION

SIGNATURE:SIGNATURE:
P.E.

Offsite Detour
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
CATHRINE HOSSACK-MEYER, PE
[phone]
Raleigh, NC 27601
Suite 1500
301 Fayettville St.,
NC FIRM LICENSE No: C-1506
NCDOT Contact:
Prepared in the Office of:
LOCATION
PROJECTSR 1777BLACKJACK 33
TO GREENVILLE
GRIMESLAND RDS.GRI
MESLANDBRI
DGE RDSR 1565SR 1780BOYDS RD
GRIMESLAND
TOWN RDSMITH-
SR 1780BOYDS RD
33
DI
XON RDBRIDGE RD
MOBLEYS NC GRI
DNAD 83/2001DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
ELECTRIC FENCE
ELECTRIC FENCE
ELECTR
IC
FENCE
WOOD FENCE
GR DriveGR Dr
i
veWOODED
WOODED
WOODED
BM1
BP2-R018 GPS-2
BL-1
BL-218" RCP12" HDPE
EOI
EOI
6" PVC
6
" PVC
EOR
BRIDGE RD.SR 1565 S. GRIMESLAND
BRIDGE
RD
.
SR
1565
S
. GRIMESLAND
TS23°00'16.0"E134.59'S19°38'48.0"E130.55'S07°28'56.0"W280.87'
N
72°05'47.5"
E182.55'N78°30'55.4"W65.63'S27°06'32.7"EEXISTING R/WGREGORY C. BOYD
HARDEE FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC
TJA, LLC
RACHEL R. PERKINS
RACHEL R. PERKINS
DB 3756 PG 617
MB 83 PG 122
DB 2972 PG 626
MB 83 PG 122
DB 364 PG 301
MB 13 PG 48
DB 3395 PG 280
DB 3395 PG 280
MB 13 PG 48
BOYDS RDTO SR 1780
SMITHTOWN RDTO SR 1779
PROJECT.
SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR SEALING TIE IN JOINTS AT BEGIN/END 8.)
SEE SHEET 5 FOR PROFILE.7.)
SEE SHEET 4A FOR R/W AND EASEMENT STATIONING.6.)
ELEVATION: 20.5450'
NORTHING: 653782.9415'
EASTING: 2538979.9855'
BENCHMARK INFORMATION:5.)
CURVE RADIUS AND HORIZONTAL STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE.
DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM HORIZONTAL 4.)
OF PROJECT ARE APPROXIMATELY 10.0 FT WIDE.
EXISTING PAVEMENT LANE WIDTHS AT THE BEGINNING AND END3.)
ALL GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNITS ARE GREU TL-3.2.)
ALL BRIDGE GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNITS ARE TYPE III.1.)
NOTES:EX10EX10108:1 8:18:1 1520POT STA 11+00.00
BEGIN PROJECT -L-01020002010220304040304004-F-
-F-
-F--F-
-F-
-F-
-F-
-F--F-
-F-
-F-
-F-
20' INC
(TYP.)
20
' INC
(TYP
.)CHICOD CREEKCHICOD CREEK60.0' EXIST. ROW-C-03025025N10°41'18.0"E
-L-
-L-
N02°29'55.0"E-L- START 10+00.00-L- PC 10+79.84-L- PT 13+38.96-L- PC 15+52.99-L- PT 16+53.18-L- PC 18+76.92-L- PT 20+15.67-L- END 20+60.92R = 1,273.24
Tc = 130.01
Lc = 259.12
D = 04°30'00.00"
Δc = 11°39'38.0" (RT)
Plc 12+09.85
CUR DATA -L-
R = 636.62
Tc = 50.20
Lc = 100.19
D = 09°00'00.00"
Δc = 09°01'01.0" (RT)
Plc 16+03.19
CUR DATA -L-
R = 636.62
Tc = 69.65
Lc = 138.75
D = 09°00'00.00"
Δc = 12°29'16.0" (LT)
Plc 19+46.57
CUR DATA -L-
17+86.00POT STA
-LEND PROJECT -
-F-
-C-
-C-
-C-
-F-
-F-
14+45.12- STA L-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
15+63.38- STA L-
END BRIDGE
N14°09'33.0"E
-L-
-C-
N23°10'34.0"E
-L-
14+56.00- STA L-
BEGIN BRIDGE
EXEX020110
'
2
' FDPS
2' FDPS
2' FDPS
15+74.25- STA L-
END APPROACH SLAB
2:13:1D
( Not to Scale)
ROADSIDE DITCH
FROM -L- STA. 14+03 TO -L- STA. 14+30 -RT-
Min. D= 1 Ft.
DETAIL A
ROAD
PROPOSED
Ground
Natural
0402
TB 2GI
2GI
TB 0403
SHOULDER POINT
CL II GRANITE RIP RAP
0404
SEE DETAIL C
GRASSED SWALE
BEGIN SBG+29
RETAIN
RETAIN
3:13:1D
( Not to Scale)'V' TAILDITCH
GRASSED SWALE
-RT-
FROM -L- STA. 13+97 TO -L- STA. 14+03
LONGIT. SLOPE (FT/FT): 2.856%
DETAIL B
GROUND
NAURAL
Ground
Natural
DDE: 2 CY
Min. D= 1 Ft.
LENGTH: 14'
SEE DETAIL A
ROADSIDE DITCH
FROM -L- STA. 15+90 TO -L- STA. 16+80 -LT-
END ELEV: 23.2'
BEGIN ELEV: 23.6'
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
CL B GRANITE RIP RAP EST 2 TONS
4:13:1D
( Not to Scale)
GRASSED SWALE
-RT-
FROM -L- STA. 16+51 TO -L- STA. 17+10
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
DETAIL C
GROUND
NATURAL
ROAD
PROPOSED
17+10 RT
-L- 16+51 TO
D10= 0.7'
V10= 1.4 FPS
Q10= 2.8 CFS
D2= 0.6'
V2= 1.3 FPS
Q2= 2.2 CFS
L PRO.= 59'
L REQ.= 48'
SLOPE= 0.34%
DA= 0.48 AC
14+03 RT
-L- 13+97 TO
D10= 0.2'
V10= 2.0 FPS
Q10= 0.4 CFS
D2= 0.2'
V2= 1.7 FPS
Q2= 0.3 CFS
L PRO.= 14'
L REQ.= 6'
SLOPE= 2.86%
DA= 0.06 AC
GRASS SWALE DATA
SEE DETAIL B
SWALE
GRASSED TAILDITCH
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
TONS
CL B GRANITE RIP RAP EST 2
ROADSIDE DITCH SEE DETAIL A
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
CL B GRANITE RIP RAP EST 2 TONS
15"
FLUME
MOD. CONC.
SBG+34
END
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
TONS
CL B GRANITE RIP RAP EST 2
TB 2GI
0401
15" RCP CLASS IV
CLASS IV
15" RCP
TOP OF BANK
TO USE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT JS LINE AS
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE - DOT COORDINATOR
PERMISSION WAS GIVEN BY NCDEQ1.)
HYDRAULICS NOTE:
GRASS SWALE DATA
SBG+75
BEGIN

(STR. PAY ITEM)
EXCAVATION
STRUCTURE
1
GREGORY C. BOYD
4
HARDEE FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC
2
RACHEL R. PERKINS
3
TJA, LLC
2
RACHEL R. PERKINS
83/2011
NAD5/26/20UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PREPARED BY
ENGINEER
PAVEMENT DESIGN
ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DIVISION 2
PREPARED BY

[phone]
Raleigh, NC 27601
Suite 1500
301 Fayetteville Street,
NC FIRM LICENSE No: C-1506

4
BP2.R018.1
3RD1
PRELIMINARY PLANS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE
DATE PRINTED
TRANSMITTED BY
SCALE
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
ELECTRIC FENCE
ELECTRIC FENCE
ELECTR
IC
FENCE
WOOD FENCE
GR DriveGR Dr
i
veWOODED
WOODED
WOODED
BM1
BP2-R018 GPS-2
BL-1
BL-218" RCP12" HDPE
I
NV=24.17'
I
NV=24.52'
I
NV=25.94'
EOI
EOI
6" PVC
6
" PVC
EOR
BRIDGE RD.SR 1565 S. GRIMESLAND
BRIDGE
RD
.SR
1565
S
. GRIMESLAND
I
NV=25.13'T112.73'S53°36'46.6"E87.00'S00°09'52.7"E101.71'S23°00'16.0"E134.59'S19°38'48.0"E130.55'S07°28'56.0"W172.75'N59°43'41.4"W280.87'
N
72°05'47.5"
E182.55'N78°30'55.4"W65.63'S27°06'32.7"EEXISTING R/WGREGORY C. BOYD
HARDEE FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC
TJA, LLC
RACHEL R. PERKINS
RACHEL R. PERKINS
DB 3756 PG 617
MB 83 PG 122
DB 2972 PG 626
MB 83 PG 122
DB 364 PG 301
MB 13 PG 48
DB 3395 PG 280
DB 3395 PG 280
MB 13 PG 48
1
GREGORY C. BOYD
4
HARDEE FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC
2
RACHEL R. PERKINS
3
TJA, LLC
2
RACHEL R. PERKINS
45.00 (RT)
-L -+46.00
30.00 (RT)
-L -+46.00
50.00 (RT)
-L -+86.00
30.00 (RT)
-L -+88.00
45.00 (RT)
-L -+88.00
30.00 (RT)
-L -+06.00
45.00 (RT)
-L -+06.00
30.38 (RT)
-L -+45.00
50.00 (RT)
-L -+45.00
50.00 (RT)
-L -+20.00
30.00 (RT)
-L -+20.00
30.00 (LT)
-L -+00.00
35.00 (LT)
-L -+00.00
35.00 (LT)
-L -+14.00
50.00 (LT)
-L -+14.00
30.00 (LT)
-L -+14.00
30.00 (LT)
-L -+99.00
50.00 (LT)
-L -+99.00
30.00 (RT)
-L -+86.00
48.08 (RT)
-L -+52.99
50.00 (LT)
-L -+52.99
50.00 (LT)
-L -+53.18
50.04 (RT)
-L -+53.18
50.00 (LT)
-L -+38.96
BOYDS RDTO SR 1780
SMITHTOWN RDTO SR 1779
SEE SHEET 5 FOR PROFILE.2.)
SEE SHEET 4 FOR PLAN VIEW.1.)
NOTES:108:1 8:18:18:1 1520POT STA 11+00.00
BEGIN PROJECT -L-4-F-
-F-
-F--F-
-F-
-F-
-F-
-F--F-
-F-
-F-
-F-CHICOD CREEKCHICOD CREEK-C-N10°41'18.0"E
-L-
-L-
N02°29'55.0"E-L- START 10+00.00-L- PC 10+79.84-L- PT 13+38.96-L- PC 15+52.99-L- PT 16+53.18-L- PC 18+76.92-L- PT 20+15.67-L- END 20+60.92R = 1,273.24
Tc = 130.01
Lc = 259.12
D = 04°30'00.00"
Δc = 11°39'38.0" (RT)
Plc 12+09.85
CUR DATA -L-
R = 636.62
Tc = 50.20
Lc = 100.19
D = 09°00'00.00"
Δc = 09°01'01.0" (RT)
Plc 16+03.19
CUR DATA -L-
R = 636.62
Tc = 69.65
Lc = 138.75
D = 09°00'00.00"
Δc = 12°29'16.0" (LT)
Plc 19+46.57
CUR DATA -L-
9+96.72POT STA
-LEND PROJECT -
-F--C-
-C-
-C-
-F-
-F-
N14°09'33.0"E
-L-
-C-
N23°10'34.0"E
-L-
83/2011
NAD
PLACEMENT (DESIGN FOR INFORMATION ONLY)
DETAIL FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT MONUMENT
REVISIONSENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL5/26/20BP2.R018.1
4A3RD1
PREPARED BY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DIVISION 2
PRELIMINARY PLANS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE
DATE PRINTED
TRANSMITTED BY
SCALE
[phone]
Raleigh, NC 27601
Suite 1500
301 Fayetteville Street,
NC FIRM LICENSE No: C-1506
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
Project Tracking No.

2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM
1 of 4
21-07-0002

N O ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this
project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must
consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BP2-R018 County: Pitt
WBS No: BP1.R008.1 Document: Federal CE
Federal Aid No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE, USCG

Project Description: NCDOT’s Division 2 proposes to replace Bridge No. 15 on South Grimesland
Bridge Road (SR 1565) over Chicod Creek in Pitt County. Bridge No. 15 was built in 1975 and is
functionally obsolete; therefore, it has been selected for replacement. Despite Preliminary Design Plans
having been developed, a Study Area was submitted for review. However, based on the Preliminary
Design Plans, it should be noted that permanent drainage/utility easements will be required beyond
NCDOT’s existing 60-foot ROW. Project length measures approximately 0.13 mile (686.4 feet).
Overall, the Study Area encompasses about 8.49 acres, inclusive of all existing roadways, the structure
itself, and any modern development.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

This project was accepted on Friday, July 16, 2021. A review of the databases maintained by the Office
of State Archaeology (OSA) was performed on Wednesday, July 14, and Thursday, July 15, 2021. An
archaeological survey (Phelps 1977 [OSA Bib #406]) of the Chicod Creek watershed has already been
conducted, covering much, if not all, of the Study Area. Seven (7) archaeological sites have been
recorded within one (1) mile of the project area, including one (31PT159) that is immediately adjacent to
the Northeast Quadrant of the Study Area. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (Grimesland Quadrangle) as
well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Friday, July 16,
2021. There are no known historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to the Study Area
for which intact and significant archaeological deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the
proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey
maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have
contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of
modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the
Study Area.

(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes have
expressed an interest: 1) Catawba Indian Nation, and 2) Tuscarora Nation. 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.)

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
Project Tracking No.

2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM
2 of 4
21-07-0002
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably
predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:

This is a State-funded project for which a Federal permit is anticipated. As part of the project’s submittal,
permanent/temporary drainage and/or utility easements will be necessary; however, additional ROW
should not be required. The size and shape of the Study Area have been drawn in a way to capture any
potential ground-disturbing activities that may occur beyond the NCDOT’s existing 60-foot ROW. If
there were no Federal nexus for this project, please know that we would be in compliance with NC GS
121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register-listed) archaeological resources located within
the Study Area that would require our attention.

From an environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a rather rural area in the Coastal Plain
physiographic region of North Carolina. Five (5) soil types are present, three of which make up about
80% of the Study Area (Exum fine sandy loam, 1-6% slopes (ExB), Bibb complex (Bb), and Chipley
sand (Ch)), a third of which is classified as poorly drained (i.e. Bb soils). The preservation of intact
archaeological resources would not be anticipated under such environmental conditions. However, most
of the Study Area consists of moderately well-drained conditions, which would be ideal locations for
archaeological sites to be situated. As an example, most of the archaeological sites along the Chicod
Creek watershed (including nearby Site 31PT159) are positioned immediately along the edge of the first-
order terrace rather than within the flood zone area of the creek. Site 31PT159 is about 100 meters east of
SR 1565 on the north side of Chicod Creek, just outside the Study Area. However, cultural material was
collected from an area 150 meters East-West by 50 meters North-South, but there was no evidence of
stratified cultural materials, so no further work was recommended for the site according to the site form
on file with OSA.

The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed only two (2) projects within the vicinity of the
Study Area for environmental compliance, both of which are utility improvements (ER 13-0441 and ER
14-0017). OSA did require an archaeological survey for these projects based on the sheer length of the
proposed transmissions lines and the variety of landscapes traversed by the proposed corridors. Within
five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT’s Archaeology Team has reviewed at least eight (8)
transportation-related projects for environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA)
with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), none of which falls within a mile of the proposed
project. An archaeological survey was not recommended for any of these projects, based on heavily
disturbed and/or poorly drained contexts and/or the restrictive/constrained nature of each individual APE
(i.e. contained within existing ROW). A review of various historic maps and aerials revealed that this
particular road and crossing was in existence going back to at least the turn of the 20th century; however,
very little has occurred over time within the immediate vicinity of the Study Area since then.

Based on the Preliminary Design Plans, current environmental/topographical conditions, and the fact that
much, if not all, of the Study Area was previously surveyed, it is believed that the current Study Area, as
depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant archaeological resources. No archaeological survey
is required for this project. If design plans change or are made available prior to construction, then
additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required. At this time, no further archaeological
work is recommended. If archaeological materials are uncovered during project activities, then such
resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set forth for “unanticipated discoveries,” to
include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Team.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
Project Tracking No.

2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM
3 of 4
21-07-0002
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST: NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED

July 16, 2021
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date

Figure 1: Grimesland, NC (USGS 1979).

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
Project Tracking No.

2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM
4 of 4
21-07-0002

Figure 2: Preliminary Design Plans (25%).
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20
Bb
ExB
Ch
Bb
ExA
CrB W
Le
GRIMESLAND BRIDGEChicod Creek
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
TIP# BP2-R018 (PA 21-07-0002)Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 15on S. Grimesland Bridge Rd. (SR 1565)over Chicod Creek inPitt County, NC
StudyArea
Unnamed Tributaries
Named_streams
Streets
Pitt_Parcels
mapfldhazar
Soils_All
¹
0 60 120 180 24030
Feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM

This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Pitt
WBS No.: BP2.R018 Document
Type:
Federal CE
Fed. Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
Yes No Permit
Type(s):

Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 730015 over Chicod Creek on SR 1565 (S. Grimesland
Bridge Road).

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on July 13, 2021. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. Based on
County GIS data and Streetview review, there are no properties over fifty years of age within the
APE. Bridge No. 15, built 1975, is also under fifty years of age. There are no National Register
listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design plans change, additional review
will be required.

Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Pitt
County survey, Pitt County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered valid for the
purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There are no National
Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN

Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED

Kate Husband July 13, 2021
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date

21-07-0002
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3

State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AAD3EF47-DF19-417C-8686-1BCCD5727C20