19940148 Ver 1_Complete File_19940218

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT, JR
GOVERNOR
District Engineer
Army Corps of Eng
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
February 14, 1994
ineers 4Q,1
Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R.SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
tSS UE®
Subject: Union County, Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR
1630 over Richardson Creek, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1630 (1), State Project No. 8.2691401,
I.D. No. B-2648.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
Therefore, we do not anticipate requn individual
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordancOthregulations 3 CFR 771.115(b).
permit but propose to proceed under wide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. ovisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of will be
followed in the construction of the project.
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment,_Health and-Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
11 In
J. A
ssistner
Planning and Environmental Branch
is
4'._'%
BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coord.
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. B.G. Payne, Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

Union County, Bridge No. 26
on SR 1630 over Richardson Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1630(1)
State Project No. 8.2691401
I.D. No. B-2648
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?? /-I-/
11-72-17.7
(/
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
H-30 13 'w, e,
Date Nic olas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
..-.Jb .....A
Union County, Bridge No. 26
on SR 1630 over Richardson Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1630(1)
State Project No. 8.2691401
I.D. No. B-2648
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
kicmel:e L. James
Pr ject Planning Engineer
o ???•o???' . C A,?
O
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
S E ZA L _
6976
o
e
%
41,
Lubin Prevatt, P. E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental
1W F •
Union County, Bridge No. 26
on SR 1630 over Richardson Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1630(1)
State Project No. 8.2691401
I.D. No. B-2648
Bridge No. 26 is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP funding for this project is estimated at $825,000.
The current estimated cost for this project is $735,000 which includes
$35,000 for right of way and $700,000 for construction. The location is
shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated.
The project is classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 26 will be replaced slightly west of its existing location
as shown by Alternate 2 (see Figure 2). A structure length of 230 feet
and a width of 28 feet are recommended. The structure will provide a
22-foot wide travelway plus a 3-foot offset on each side.
Approximately 900 feet of approach work will be necessary. The
approach roadway should be a 22-foot pavement plus 8-foot graded
shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the 12
month construction period.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Wetlands will not be disrupted by the project
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is required, prior to issue
of the Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23. Final permit decisions lie
with the Army Corps of Engineers.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1630 is classified as a major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not a Federal Aid Highway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1630 has a 22-foot pavement with 8
to 12-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). The structure is situated 15 feet
above the creek bed. The approaches are on embankments 8-10 feet above
natural ground. Development in the surrounding area is rural residential.
A power line and underground telephone cable are located along the
west side of the roadway near the bridge.
2
The current traffic volume of 700 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 1300 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 1%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1961. The
superstructure consists of a timber deck with I-beams. The substructure
consists of timber caps and piles.
The overall length is 191 feet. The clear roadway width is 24.5
feet. The posted weight limit is 14 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons
for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 26 has a sufficiency rating of 34.1 compared to a rating
of 100.0 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on Bridge No. 26 during the period from
June, 1989 to May, 1992.
Two school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 26 were studied as
follows:
Alternate 1 would involve replacement of Bridge No. 26 in its
existing location with a structure 230 feet long. During construction,
traffic would be detoured on existing local roads as shown on Figure 1.
The grade for this alternate would be raised approximately 3 feet. This
alignment would provide a design speed of approximately 30 mph.
Alternate lA is identical to Alternate 1 except that during
construction, traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour
structure 120 feet long, located immediately east of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) involves replacing Bridge No. 26
approximately 70 feet west of the existing structure with a bridge 230
feet long. The grade will be raised 3 feet. During construction, traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge. This alternate improves the
vertical and horizontal alignments. The design speed will be improved to
approximately 40 mph.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic services provided by
SR 1630.
.. A.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance
Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due
to its age and deteriorated condition.
, /' • .
3
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 1A Alternate 2
Structure $322,000 $322,000 $322,000
Roadway
Approaches 179,500 179,500 265,000
Detour
Structure &
Approaches - 258,000 -
Structure
Removal 23,000 23,000 23,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 75,500 117,500 90,000
Right-of-Way,
Utilities 25,000 40,000 35,000
Total $ 625,000 $ 940,000 $ 735,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 26 will be replaced approximately 70 feet west of its
existing location with a new structure having a length of 230 feet as
shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure.
The recommended improvements will include about 900 feet of roadway
approaches. A 22-foot pavement plus 8-foot graded shoulders will be pro-
vided on the approaches. A 28-foot clear roadway width is recommended on
the replacement structure in accordance with current NCDOT Bridge Policy.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydrographics Unit recommends the
new structure have a length of approximately 230 feet. It is anticipated
the elevation of the new bridge will be approximately 3 feet higher than
the floor elevation of the existing bridge. According to the Bridge
Maintenance Unit in Union County, the bridge has been overtopped twice in
the past six years with a water depth of approximately 8 inches. The
length and height may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
Bridge No. 26 has poor vertical and horizontal alignments. The south
approach to the bridge, as well as the bridge, are located on a tangent
alignment. An 18° curve exists on the north approach of the bridge. The
existing design speed on the bridge is approximately 30 mph.
4
The alignment for recommended Alternate 2 contains a horizontal curve on
the north approach of approximately 10° which provides for a design speed
of approximately 40 mph. A design exception will probably be required.
Recommended Alternate 2 provides improved horizontal and vertical
alignments and a higher design speed. In addition, it maintains traffic
during construction.
Maintaining traffic on-site is not essential. Approximately 1.5
miles of additional travel would be necessary for the average vehicle
affected by road closure. A road-user analysis, based on a 12-month
construction period, indicates the cost of additional travel would be
approximately $115,000.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommended Alternate 2.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
With the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, the
bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The
project is not expected to affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and
important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether
the proposed project will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to
complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed
form is included in the Appendix (A-1).
% ,
5
According to the SCS, 1.7 acres of statewide and local important
farmland soils will be affected by Alternate 2. The SCS rated the soils
at 66 using its Land Evaluation Criterion scale of 0 to 100 points.
Completion of the quantitative site assessment on Form AD-1006 indicates
that the conversion of this land does not exceed the numeric threshold at
which other alternatives should be considered. Although Alternates 1 and
IA are preferable strictly from the perspective of conservation of
farmland soils, the impact of Alternate 2 will not be significant.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that
if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) of this project was reviewed in
the field. There are three modern buildings in the general project area,
but the only structure within the APE is the bridge itself, built in 1961.
Project maps and photographs were reviewed with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO letter, dated October 20, 1992,
stated that they were aware of no historic structures located within the
APE and recommended no historic architectural survey. The letter is
included in the Appendix (A-2).
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly-owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance.
The proposed project occurs approximately 5 miles north of the town
of Wingate, North Carolina (pop. 2,615), Union County. The project
location is characterized as a rural, hilly, setting with agricultural
fields and small forested tracts dominating the landscape. Farming and
agricultural industry are the primary land uses of the county.
Union County is in the southern piedmont physiographic province and
is characterized by moderately sloping to steep hills and associated
narrow bottomland floodplains. The project area is in the Carolina Slate
Belt Soil System mapping unit. Parent material is mostly volcanic rock,
and basic and acid tuffs. The volcanic, igneous rocks rise above the
surrounding slates, as high rolling hills. The major soil association
located in the project area is the Georgeville-Herndon Association, which
are well drained soils that have a surface layer of silt loam and a
subsoil of clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam, and clay.
6
The hardwood-dominated Floodplain Forest community type is associated
with Richardson Creek, which is crossed by the alignment. American elm,
red maple, sycamore, tulip poplar, and river birch comprise a dense
streamside and floodplain canopy. The understory is relatively thin and
contains species such as hackberry, ironwood, American holly, and box
elder. Buckeye, spicebush, and cane comprise the shrub strata, with cane
forming very dense stands. Woody vines such as poison ivy, blaspheme
vine, trumpet creeper, Virginia creeper, and grape are abundant. Several
herbaceous species occur, but none in great abundance. These species
include false nettle, violet, rattlesnake fern, Christmas fern and
saxifrage. Japanese honeysuckle has begun to invade this community which
will eventually suppress the growth of other herbaceous species.
Faunal diversity and abundance are generally high in this type of
habitat. Land clearing for agriculture has fragmented the forest.
Diversity and numbers are not expected to be as high as in larger forested
areas.
Birds are the primary group of animals which utilize the canopy
component of the community. This community is in a constant state of flux
as migrating species procure different community composition with the
changing seasons.
The species that were observed during the site visit which utilize
the canopy for nesting and foraging include the red-headed woodpecker,
eastern bluebird, blue jay, tufted titmouse, and Carolina chickadee.
Other animals observed in this community are the red-shouldered hawk,
wood thrush, ruby crowned kinglet, northern cardinal, swamp sparrow, grey
squirrel, and raccoon.
The Mixed Upland Forest occurs on upland plains and slopes and grades
into the Floodplain Forest. Faunal species composition is expected to be
similar, as most of the animals mentioned will move between habitats. The
eastern chipmunk and the striped skunk are two mammals observed in this
habitat which are common in upland communities of the Piedmont. Short-leaf
pine, southern red oak, and post oak are the dominant canopy species.
Persimmion also occurs here but is less abundant. Younger canopy trees,
flowering dogwood, black cherry, sweet gum, and tulip poplar comprise the
dense mid-canopy. Shrub species occurring include winged sumac,
sassafras, blackberry, and American holly. The number of herbaceous
species here are few due to an overgrowth of Japanese honeysuckle;
however, bracken fern, heartleaf, and black-eyed Susan are scattered
throughout. Trumpet creeper, green brier, grape, and Virginia creeper are
abundant here as well.
The existing roadside shoulder is routinely mowed. It is populated
almost uniformly with fescue. Dandelion, red clover, and wild onion are
scattered throughout. Dense patches of common "waste" site species occur
in areas away from the mower impacts but are still influenced by
disturbance. These species include pokeweed, sunflower, trumpet creeper,
sericea, winged sumac, smooth sumac, Joe-Pye-weed, blackberry, milkweed,
and butterfly weed. Residential species of this habitat are expected to
. a .

be few, due to limited size and variability. This habitat is utilized by
numerous opportunistic animals, primarily as a foraging zone. The
Carolina chickadee, northern cardinal, rough green snake, turkey vulture,
common crow, and eastern cottontail may forage in this habit.
Several fish species which were captured include: bluehead chub,
creek chubsucker, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, flat bullhead, chain
pickeral, and eastern mosquitofish. Many of the species residing in this
stream are adapted to moderate, flowing streams with a gravel or bedrock
substrate and are characterized as having jaws without teeth. This
feature is adaptive for grazing algae off rocks. This stream shows signs
of water quality problems such as: diseased fish, sedimentation, and
nutrient overload.
Several turtles were captured during stream surveys: river cooter,
yellow-bellied slider, eastern mud turtle, and eastern musk turtle. The
northern water snake was found along the edge of the stream as were the
green frog, pickeral frog, and northern dusky salamander.
No freshwater mussels (family Unionidae) were evident in the stream
even though rocky-bottomed streams of the Piedmont have historically
strong populations of Unionids. This is probably a result of the
introduced Asiatic clam which was found in large numbers during site
visits. The invasion of this species along with diminished water quality
has resulted in serious depletion of the freshwater mussel fauna of North
Carolina's aquatic habitats. Large piles of Asiatic clam shells (muskrat
midden) were observed along the stream banks. Other mammals such as
raccoon and mink also feed on freshwater molluscs.
The belted kingfisher was observed near the stream. The major
portion of the diet of this bird consists of small fish, amphibians, and
aquatic invertebrates.
Impacts to the faunal component of the terrestrial communities from
clearing and filling activities will result in displacement and reduction
of fauna. Estimations of acreage impacts to the community types are
provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED (ACRE) IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
Community
Alternate FF FU RC
1 0.0 0.0 0.2
1A 0.3 0.3 0.2
2 0.1 0.3 0.2
Impacts in acres are based on 80 feet of right of way. FF, FU and RC
denote Floodplain Forest, Mixed Upland Forest, and Roadside Communities,
respectively.
8
Impacts from project construction to aquatic resources are directly
related to sedimentation which causes mortalities to photosynthetic and
benthic organisms. Gills of fish, larval insects and amphibians are also
affected by increased siltation. Construction related siltation may also
cause changes in the physical attributes of the water bodies, including
reduction of dissolved oxygen, diminished water clarity, changes in water
temperature, and changes in water level.
At the point of crossing, Richardson Creek is approximately 110
feet wide. Channel depth ranges from 2-2.5 feet. Fallen debris and
sediment islands have created pools up to four feet in depth. The
substrate is composed of coarse sand, overlain with large rocks. The flow
rate was moderate during the site visit. The water is generally clear
with no obvious signs of pollution (oil, trash, etc.); however, nutrient
overload is apparent (abundance of algal growth), as are sedimentation
problems.
The waters of Richardson Creek at the project crossing carry a best
usage classification of Class WS-IV CA as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993.
Class WS-IV designates waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and
.0211 of subchapter 2B (Surface Water Standards, Monitoring) of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC). Best Usage of WS-IV waters are a
source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes
and any other usage specified for Class C waters. Class C designates
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental
classification "CA" designates Critical Areas which are those waters
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with
pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed.
Employment of Best Management Practices (BMP's) is required by DEHNR, for
projects impacting Critical Areas.
No wetland plant communities occur within the project boundaries.
PO ntial wetland_ determinations were made using the criteria
specified in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual".
A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 is anticipated to be
applicable for impacts to surface waters of Richardson Creek. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded
or financed in whole, or in part, by another Federal agency or department.
The Federal Highway Administration has determined that the activity for
this project is categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to issue of the
Nationwide permit #23.

9
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army.
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to have
a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any species
classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended. Endangered species receive additional protection under
separate state statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species
falls under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987..
As of September 20, 1993 the USFWS lists the following two federally
protected species for Union County: Schweinitz's sunflower and the
Carolina heelsplitter. Suitable habitat for both species occurs within
the project area.
Plant-by-plant surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted
to determine if this species occurs within the project area. No
Schweinitz's sunflower plants were found. Construction of this project
will not impact the Scheweinitz's sunflower.
Surveys for freshwater mussels (family Unionidae) were conducted
during the site visit. No evidence of any freshwater mussels inhabiting
the stream was found. Given the degraded nature of this stream and the
survey results, this species is not likely to occur within the project
area; hence, construction of this project should not adversely impact the
Carolina heelsplitter.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals revealed
no historical records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species
occurring near the project area.
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Union County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of the joint EPA/USDOT "Interim
Conformity Guidance", dated June 7, 1991, and FHWA supplemental guidance
memoranda dated July 27, 1992 and October 9, 1992, do not apply to this
project.
It is noted the impact on air quality will be insignificant. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and NEPA, and no additional reports are required.
10
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown
in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not
considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.
Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of about the same
magnitude. The alignment of the project is perpendicular to the
floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
MJ/wp

I . I .
ail
N
01,
Mershvil le
f
White
e;
7504 ') \• Advance. F 1656
.) , :?? ? 1601 I '0 1658
P -
,
a 3 -
0 ?
165]
1606 1675 ) 3
1 40rOW00 1611 1671 - 1615
P 9 1653
W
.8
`
,S`/tQy
.8 .71 4
1!
> i
1640 1638
0 7 65
'
i
4) .3
1?8. 1669 .? I.1 200
1611
1691 ? 17
)
1613
•3
f 1528 -.\! 1501 N
•` 4 1652
M1 167e
j
1676
,V CrQQk ,? 1690 ?? 1638 .1
m
.
`\' 1627
0 k .B
.N . 161 B pAS .?
.6 1 QOI
.
1367
FAS
.'p
.8 FAS /,.ti'r
`r. .6 .7
3 1674 164
\5
.
11 1367 2 ::fb17 b 4 1637 1611
19
?
1`
164
13
% ? .9 f 6
1617
136]
d
{'' (S" 1
M1
1636 J 162
1k 'O 1530 y UNIONV a 1692
• 13
1650 c 16
9
.
'
6 1504 7 1 POP.11 j
' 0 161 a 1631 9 6
16
6
1S59 b 1615 IM9 ',3
1611 - 1665 b 001 'N 7 M1 'V ? T?
1635
1681 1 n
r'
q ,0
627
.F
1631
1631 1
ti•
e4 S. rt 4P
1.80- - ? 1645
1
'
y FAS
5
6
q
3 1635 b
o, ,? .3 1633 (
11504
y 1081 1 J
1672 or 'L
5
1 7 a
ry
N tsso S ,e \
s
6c
- < h
1673
\,1. • 1
1508
+ G? 1616
- 1615
.'o
1505 ? ' j S Oak Grove .Q n
630 1679
1507 Isos n tr Ch. ?? EAS 1627 1
1620
•J 'I 1666
N?
1627 1628
1506
,? 6 ti 1632 9
.3 M1
\•
1504 1001 ,) .
1631 P
a 5

o M182
1680
1503 >"s :±y 1676 1630 ^
\? 5 1
5 '%' 2! h 1"7 1681 1006
BRIDGE NO. 26' °

'
??
2
"'S
?? .? ) WlUUY 1
?
?
?: I 1238 1757 ?
•'.f -
Cr¢ek 1006 n 631
stewaris m \? 0 ?, t75a Pine Grov
" ` i? ^?' 1764 ° d
?3 1752 Sch. \ 6
- 1645
200 '8 •?
9p F ;1
` 1_002
1631
.:.:
1765 3 1759
1758 m
•• h
FAS .6 '3 ' 1 •! t
J ,7
FP'
,6 -a
1751 70
^
R,O7?n 751 f.? X1739 .B 1789/ \ 177e ; y..
1783
.. > 7 4 1758
74
5 176__ 1631 O 1754
607
j ..
ti::ti;:• .c. vis
.81753
.
2
^
?...7 ..
fAU :y
:: 3
.
':.
WINGATE
1755\p 1754 b•
?
POP 2,615 F
CS%

.1 :- FAU V
7
1 21
PAP
.
FAU
S
E.• 1
ROE t: 20 FAU .1
1.4 '.a
wb' j
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 26
SR 1630 OVER
RICHARDSON CREEK
8-2648
0
1 -1 miles 2
FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 26
UNION COUNTY
B-2648
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUL H
SIDE VIEW
E4
3
ZONE A -
ZONE C
-- \ \/
Creek .'' .' I i.
ZO N E A (I E:
T: 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
'ZONE A
BRIDGE NO.26
? -.
I> >: : .? tp
j!!!'!![;l;j,;? NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RA
K!
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
r I ii ciiili!
/71?'- ZONE A ?? ??I!jll l?lilj
11 UNION COUNII',
?/ ; ?IJlljl`'! NORTH CAROLINA
?-? ;? - I;II;iIIE(UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 'T
- ii III II!?) I'I ?
I ? .
ZONE 1 J'I I'If'I PANEL 125 OF 200
!
J. (III! 41Ij li I
I
,63I ZONE A I!II;II,II',!
1 Ii I COMMUN{TV-PANEL NUMBER
r
370234 0125 B
J k
•? ?:•.::?:? J •F.--:?".:'...-.?':'?. '?>:•. III 'll ? i'?
EfFECTIYE DATE: !
JULY 18.19833
ZONE c FIGURE 4
V ' I) n? ?!IIIIi j!?II Federal Emergency M.nagemenl Agencv i
t
us. Deperbnent of Awkuhwo
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1(To be completed by Federal Apancy) Dete of Land Eveiurt(on'"et J a?
Nerve of hoieet `3 Fedetel Agency 6rftvkvd
ow !Land the aGntY And 8"
V t?\ cn Co N G
PART III (To be completed by fi*# Apency) XU A site t site C- sire D
A. Tout Acres To Be Converted Directl
a. total Acres To Be Converted Indirecd
PART VI (To be completed by Fedora/ArnW) ab:trtwtn
k site Asamr-sm cdWris Mn* cr tedo are explained In 7 CPR SM-510/ Pwn"
1. Ares Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Notutrban We
3. Percent Of Site Beira Farmed
6. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
-4
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit
a. Creation of Nonfarmable
On-F.
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 S
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Apency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From P&rt V) 1 \e
Total Site Ass sment From Part V/ above or a loco 160
site essessmen S3

q
TOTAL POINTS (Tote/ of above 2linw) 260 %N
=AL-11 site Aueament u.edi
Site Selected: election et O No O
Reuon For Selection: `
G° -c- Tl ??? S? l1S
o cca'c\ o t? ? ? ? . 3 w o v\ ? ? c.?v , ? ?. G• -'<?-r-?. ? a c c. c?
2G S C. t?-e?•r1? ?"O C` Grp OC\ - 5 •'?-{? C?.''Co ?i C ? b ?yC. n a
?2C M Gr Q r\? Gp n?. e C g? p n 6?' G n G l,? ??\G O GG V C
Form AD-10% (10.631
an in$true tiora on reverses;*)
A-1
?,` SUTp a?
s
V
pwa
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 20, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
31.0 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 1630 over
Richardson Creek, Union County, B-2648,
8.2691401, BRZ-1630(1), ER 93-7313
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
V .ti
`?4 J F ?'- a _^
OCT 2 3 1492
On September 29, 1992, Robin Stancil 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 and for our use afterwards.
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 concerns.
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 ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-2
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,
r
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
f -
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE ? l- +(27 _p
TO REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
3107

4 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 18, 1992

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Michele James
Kim 9 d SAW
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Union County, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1630 over Richardson
Creek; B-2648
A scoping meeting was held on September 29, 1992 to initiate the
subject project.
A list of those attending is as follows:
Jay Bennett Roadway Design
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
Valerie Lee Traffic Control
Jesse Gilstrap Traffic Control
Danny Rogers Program Development
Betsy Cox Structure Design
Abdul Rhamani Hydraulic Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulic Design
Don Sellers Right of Way
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Eric Galamb DEHNR-DEM
David Yow NCWRC-Habitat Conservation
Michele James Planning and Environmental
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Based on available information, it appears that the subject bridge
should be replaced on new location east of the existing bridge. Traffic
should be maintained on the existing structure.
A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended replacement is
$730,000. The estimated cost in the Transportation Improvement Program is
$473,000.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
?-- November 17, 1992
Page 2
A list of alternatives to be studied is as follows:
1. Replacement at existing location - road closure
1A. Replacement at existing location with an on-site detour to
the west.
2. Replacement slightly west of existing location-maintain
traffic on existing structure.

19

PROJECT BRIDGE
SCOPING SHEET
DATE 8-28-92
REVISION DATE 11-18-92
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-264
STATE PROJECT 8.2691401
F.A. PROJECT _ BRZ-1630(1)
DIVISION 10
COUNTY Union
ROUTE SR 1630
PURPOSE.OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE:.BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 26 on. SR 1630
in Union County over Richardson Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1;_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2.-...EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE.DETOUR
3. RELOCATION _ X
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING-PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES
NO x
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 700 VPD DESIGN YEAR 1300 VPD
TTST 1 DT 2
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 191 FEET; WIDTH 24.5 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 230 FEET; WIDTH 28 FEET
OR
CULVERT - SIZE FEET BY FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 120 FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE PIPES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 700,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 30,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................$ 730,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................ .. $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............... $ 23,000
TIP TOTAL COST.... .................. .................$ 473,000
i
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 11-18-92