19970860 Ver 1_Complete File_19971002

'?fATF '."O
41 ISSUE,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 20, 1995 y ?)'sa I? ,t y`1
f
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin-O&-
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 49 on
SR 1432 over Chinkapin Creek, Hertford County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1432(1), State Project
No. 8.2077401, TIP No. B-2838
A Scoping meeting for the subject project was held on May 31, 1995.
The following persons were in attendance:
David Cox
Debbie Bevin
Betty Yancey
Eric Ward
Ray Moore
Betsy Cox
Jerry Snead
Brian Williford
John Alford
Dwayne Sykes
Bill Goodwin
NC WRC
SHPO
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Structure Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and
through correspondence prior to the meeting.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will
be 80 km/h (50 mph). Utility conflicts will be very low for this project.
There are no known utilities in the project area.
The proposed structure will be 7.2 meters (24 ft) wide, with two 3.0
meter (10 ft) travel lanes and 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders. The roadway
approaches will have two 3.0 meter (10 ft) travel lanes and a graded
shoulder width of at least 1.2 meters (4 ft), shoulder will be wider where
guardrail is warranted.
0
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated, by telephone prior to the meeting,
that Chinkapin Creek is classified as Class C, Nutrient Sensitive.
Implementation of standard erosion control measures was requested. Also
replacement in-place with road closure was suggested. Mr. Galamb asked
that there be no weep holes in the bridge deck over standing water.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that Chinkapin Creek is a primary
nursery area for blueback herring and alewife. In light of the creeks
nursery function, Mr. Cox asked that High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation
and erosion control measures be implemented for this project. Mr. Cox also
supported a replacement in-place alternate with road closure, the
replacement structure to be a bridge with no weep holes over standing
water. In addition Mr. Cox asked for a construction moratorium from
February 15 through May 31.
Ms. Sara Winslow of the NC DMF (Division of Marine Fisheries)
commented in writing prior to the meeting that; Chinkapin Creek is a
nursery area as indicated above. Ms. Winslow also indicated that a bridge
was the DMFs preferred replacement structure, and that a construction
moratorium would be requested as noted above.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated that there are no known architectural or archaeological sites in
the immediate project area, and no unknown sites are likely to be
discovered. Therefore, no architectural or archaeological surveys are
required.
Mr. Brian Williford of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new
structure approximately 45 meters (148 ft.) long will be required to
replace the existing bridge. The new structure can be built at
approximately the same roadway grade as the existing structure. If an
on-site detour is required, a 27 meter (88 ft.) long temporary structure
can be constructed to the north of the existing structure. A detour to the
north would be preferred because the detour structure would be shorter and
it would avoid a tributary to the southwest of the existing bridge.
Only one alternate will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 49
over Chinkapin Creek.
Alternate One - SR 1432 will be closed to through traffic while
the existing structure is removed and replaced with a new
structure. Traffic will be detoured along NC 561, NC 45, and
SR 1002. All structures alone the detour route have a
sufficiency rating greater than 80.0.
The construction cost for this. alternate has been estimated as
follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Temporary Detour
CONTRACT COST
Engineering & Contingencies
CONSTRUCTION COST
$ 184,180
174,030
15,790
-0-
374,000
51,000
__$?425,000
Since this project can be completed using road closure and replacement
in-place it is eligible for processing as a Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to
begin in December 1996 and construction to begin in November 1997. This
schedule may be changed to better accommodate the construction moratorium
requested by NC WRC and NC DMF.
WTG/tp
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
6/19/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2838 DIVISION: First
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1432(1} COUNTY: Hertford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2070401 ROUTE: SR 1432
DESCRIPTION: Bride No. 49 over Chinkapin Creek on SR 1432
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Harrellsville, N.C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CoNTENGENcIEs) ............................. $ 425,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, unLrms, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 22,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ 447,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 22,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 397,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(cMCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DUAL %
ti
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section (dirt road)
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoiilder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------------------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR ----------------------------------------- El
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 37.8 METERS WIDTH 5.55 METERS
124 FEET 18.2 Fm
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 45 METERS WIDTH 7.2- ME-MRS
148 FEET 24 FEET
p + L
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
419LP145
TO: CyL ???

? IL
RLF• NO. R 3LDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM; •LDG.
f4e
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILL ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ML ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMKNTS:
'i
r
t`?... AA1Fw
TV..RnH
S"I'NI'E oi: NORTH CAROH NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAM1:S B. HUNT )R DIVISION OF HIGI IWAYS
(;()VI RNOR P.O. BOX 2,5201, RAI.FIGI I, N.C. 276115201
April 26, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Q1 ISSLM
R. SAMULI I iUNT I
Sk R11AKY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Hertford County, SR 1432,
Replacement of Bridge No. 49 over Chinkapin Creek,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1432(1), State Project
8.2070401, B-2838
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 31, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842, Ext. 238.
WTG/plr 03 0 Attachment
0 5
V
r Uhf UT() ?v ?R W
C ?!l/1 A
.S L/
R. *14

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4/24/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2838 DIVISION: First
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1432(1) COUNTY: Hertford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2070401 ROUTE: SR 1432
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 49 over Chinkapin Creek on SR 1432
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Harrebmille, N.C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (waumo ENcnqmuN(3 AND cON1ENGENCIFS) ............................. $ ?,??0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (wcLumm RELocAmoN, uTII.Ims, AND AcQursrnoN) ................... $ ?,??0,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?,?20,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 22,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ S 397,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR®(cmcLEoNE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? S OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DUAL %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section (dirt road)
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE --------------------- ------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR --------------------______________?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 37.8 mrrERs WIDTH 5.55 mmmRS
124 FEET 18.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 14ETM WIDTH A E M
FEET' FEET

¦ s ¦ n ¦ ¦ E am
on no
Como 258
Murfree boron"
3 2 M Dletom` 15a
r I f * W into AE0
? Tunis '-
en l 7 A Cofie d
/H E. ' 6 F O 45 V. 00 00
e Sint Jo *Ahoski Nernllsell 00
wre _. 7 1 Z r 0 ? s ' ..
N
4 142 `
?' '? 1430 f,:•.
p V
4 561 HARRELLSVILLE
1.)? 1431 A? POP. 151
0 ?4; 1432
1423
h ? •6 RP 1
te0o, 1424 ? /fir
5 ?? ? it_ i
1427 ranch
FP
N 1422 itl ? fi? N
FAS N.5 1'1 Bethlehem, ? °
1422 32 `
? Q 1002
??
N ? 1437
`N0S?`? ? `?? .
ti?
1434
Z p '7 A 1.S
1427` N>*RTFO COUNTY L 1 2 Swam-P
1420 ?'??
1321 - -- - - -
1322 b BER COUNTY INE 1324 5 Growers 1331 .5 S
1002 Crossroads
NELLSVILLE .5 1331
)P. 320
a
1321 1.4 1329
1330
1323
.l a? 1320 1325 b ?Ct
8
I4 v
o. 1002 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
IZI
^.h TRANSPORTATION
FqS
1315 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r> %, J .7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
8
pis 1327 BRANCH
42 Trap Itl -
1318 1.3 FAS.1 HERTFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 49 ON SR 1432
OVER CHINKAPIN CREEK
B - 2838
FIG. 1
IN ISSIAEV
I
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: B
State Project No. 8
Federal-Aid Project No.
BRZ-
-
A. Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1432 over Chink'a ree in Hertford
County. The bridge will be replaced with a 45 meter (148 foot) long bridge at the existing
location. The new bridge will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) clear deck width which will
provide a 6.0 meter (20 foot) travelway with a 0.6 meter (2 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 49 has a sufficiency rating of 20.7 out of 100 and an estimated
remaining life of 9 years. The deck of Bridge No. 49 is only 5.5 meters (18.2 feet) wide.
The existing bridge is posted at 6 tons for single vehicles, and truck-tractor semi-trailers
are not allowed. For these reasons Bridge No. 49 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type 11 Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
V
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
+al ,,,,? e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
2
I
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on
the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures
will be implemented and strictly maintained throughout project
construction.
3. No in-water construction activities will be undertaken between February 15
and May 31 of any construction year. Only approach work outside of
wetland and stream areas and other non-water disturbing construction
activities will be undertaken during this time.
4. Hertford County is one of 20 coastal counties covered by the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) regulations. Chinkapin Creek has been
designated as an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) by the Coastal
Resources Commission. Therefore, a CAMA Major permit will be required
for this project. That permit may include other required environmental
commitments as determined by the Coastal Resources Commission and/or
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 425,000
Right of Way $ 27,000
Total $ 452,000

V
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 120 VPD
Year 2018 - 250 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 6.0 meters (20 feet) wide with a 3.0 meter (10 feet)
travel lane in each direction and shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders
will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
Based on initial design, it appears that the design speed will be approximately
80 km/h (50 mph). A design exception may be required due to low design speed.
Functional Classification:
SR 1432 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Engineer's Comments:
The Division Engineer has no specific comments on the project. He supports the
chosen alternate and the proposed detour route.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
YES NO
?X
?X
? X1
4

V
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of -
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? L X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding r?
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters L X
(HQW) ?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States El X
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X2
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? El
?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? l X
5

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? D X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? u X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X C
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control ?
Ll X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land ?l
use of any adjacent property? u X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X n
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? l-
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic El vo
lumes? x
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X E
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or? X
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X J

6
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? I _ x.
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl El X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
(1) Response to question 3 on page 4 - anadromous fish.
Chinkapin Creek is known to function as a spawning and nursery area for
blueback herring and alewife. The use of this area by these species has been
documented by the Division of Marine Fisheries through spawning area surveys.
Eggs and larvae have been captured at the existing bridge site. (See DMF memo,
attached).
At the request of the Division of Marine Fisheries, no in-water construction
activities will be undertaken between February 15 and May 31 of any construction
year. Only approach work outside of wetland and stream areas and other non-
water disturbing construction activities will be undertaken during this time. In
addition, High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures
will be implemented and strictly maintained during construction to limit the
consequences of construction activities on water quality in the project area.
(2) Response to question 10 on page 5 - Area of Environmental Concern.
Hertford County is one of 20 coastal counties covered by the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) regulations. Chinkapin Creek has been designated as an
Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) by the Coastal Resources Commission.
Therefore, a CAMA Major permit will be required for this project. While the
project is located in an Area of Environmental Concern, it will be designed and
constructed to have minimal affect on the surrounding environment. The chosen
alternative, replacement in-place with road closure during construction, will have
the least affect of any possible replacement alternative. Since the existing bridge is
substandard and deteriorating, the "no build" alternative is not a prudent or
reasonable course of action.
T
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-2838
State Project No. 8.2070401
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-1432(1)
Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1432 over Chinkapin Creek in
Hertford county. The bridge will be replaced with a 45 meter (148 foot) long bridge
at the existing location. The new bridge will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) clear deck
width which will provide a 6.0 meter (20 foot) travelway with a 0.6 meter (2 foot)
offset on each side. Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during
construction. See attached location map.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
12
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
7?4

?.?`??,-mA Wn4?a' Date Project lanning Unit Head
?
.
? `mil t' •
.
4.Q`
tV,7 8
.
;
- $ '
Date
Project Planning Engineer
l
G
For Type II (B) projects only:

Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9

??MS1111M m um mu mm so soon mmmmmmmm
CAAOUNA/I
imp
cue ?
zst ??
-P
2
p Mwhessbwo
MaDletm :S•
7 2
? Mint
7
iunn
?. ANnpl 6 Cohe 7 ` 00
E me 7 ?? F O ct
'H not bA i r Ahosk Me?dlsMl •
f •
uan 1 ? io ? ? / • • • •
M
...
r - .y ?' 1430 ••
5?a4 9 1430 ?? ?`: '•
• p G{ 561
ARRELLSVILLE,
4 1431 POP,. 151
0 ? `. 1432
`D
1423
h ? v ?6 QP
'tLe04k ? •%1r
V`1h t42a ±= ? iti iBranch
1427 FAS 1
1422 ? ? Chi
i 1.1 Bethlehem : ? ti°
FAS
1422 7?i ? 432 ?.
? ?- ? ?.• 1002
rOSK`0 N '?, j ? 14:
1434
q0
1002
420 1427 HERTFO COUNTY L Swam
1321 1324 Growers 5 .S
'? 1322 `t' ? BER COUNTY INE •? Crossroads 1331
5 1002 1331
ELLSVILLE
• 320 q
O r'?? 1329
\ 1321 1323 1.4 1330
P
:I
? :•1 1320 1325 b
of
0
1 v
4 .p. 1002
FqS • ! ql yh
1315 FqS 9 Trap1??\ 1327
42
+ 1318 r 1.3 FAS.I
Studied Detour Route -O-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
t'OQ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HERTFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 49 ON SR 1432
OVER CHINKAPIN CREEK
B - 2838
FIG. 1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1432 over Chinkapin
Creek, Hertford County, B-2838, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1432(1), State Project 8.2070401, ER
95-8932
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
CE%
QUN 0 5 1995
ONISIO y of
hNIQ"*AYS . ,
On May 31, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of'the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
'Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
_addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Nicholas L. Graf
May 31, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
` Health and Natural Resources C E L
Division of Marine Fisheries
Jamea B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howea, Secretary
Bruce L. Freeman, Director
MEMORANDUM:
HIGHWAYS
NAY 18 1995
On/ISICN OF

TO: H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT P.E. Manager Planning and Environmental Branch
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief of Analysis and Planning Office
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Biologist Supervisor
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Hertford County, SR 1432, Replacement of
Bridge No. 49 over Chinkapin Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1432(1), State
Project 8.2070401, B-2838
DATE: May 9, 1995
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has received and reviewed the
scoping sheets pertaining to the Chinkapin Creek Bridge replacement. The Division submits
the following comments.
Chinkapin Creek functions as a spawning and nursery area for blueback herring and
alewife. The use of this area by these species has been documented by the Division through
spawning area surveys. Eggs and larvae have been captured at the existing bridge NO. 49
on SR 1432.
The Division recommends that a replacement bridge be constructed rather than
culverts being installed. This agency would also be concerned with any impacts to wetlands
associated with the replacement.
The Division requests a construction moratorium associated with the bridge
replacement. The moratorium time frame would be 15 February through 31 May. This will
ensure the environmental integrity of the area is protected during critical times of usage by
the previously mentioned species.
If the Division can provide additional information, feel free to contact me (919-264-
3911).
P.O. Box 789, Morehead City, North Carolina 28687.0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% reovoled/ 10% coat-oonsumer Oscar