19920141 Ver al_Complete File_19921211

DATE: ?C 2
SUBJECT:
Say hZ W
lw"?al? ?10? C,15C.?sS ?-I? ii?.'zQrdotis
From. C?
?; ?? North Carolina Department of Environment,
?.^ . ?. Health, and Natural Resources ?? Printed on Recycled Paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO December 1, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300292 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
ATTN: L. Jack Ward, P.E., Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
-9 Isc? ;
WE"iLAUDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECT10
Reference your application of October 14, 1992, for Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill material within waters of the United States,
causing impacts to the South Fork of the Little River, for the construction of
a replacement of Bridge No. 57 on S.R. 1461 (South Lowell Road), west of
Bahama, Durham County, North Carolina (B-2134).
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
of the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that
the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
The proposed Alternate 1 is authorized by this NWP provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or
local approval. Information regarding issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification may be obtained through Mr. John Dorney, Division of
Environmental Management, at [phone].
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
. A • 1
-2-
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
A oa STATE,.
y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
October 14, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
ON
Subject: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge Number 57 on SR 1461 (South
Lowell Road) over South Fork Little River; B-2134
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. It is being processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 771, Subpart 115(b) (23 CFR 771.115(b)).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose
to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330,
Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed during construction of the project.
We anticipate that a water quality certification permit will be required
from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR) for this project. The NC Department of Transportation
will apply directly to DEHNR for that permit when plans are developed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
919/733-3141.
LJW/plr
Attachment
cc: Mr. John
Mr. John
Mr. C. W.
Mr. J. T.
Mr. A. L.
Mr. L. E.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
I
0? 1 ? `I 5Q2
Sincerely, ll
o4. • ?.aAl DM
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Leggett, P. E.
Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Stegall, Division 5 Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Durham County
Replacement of Bridge No. 57
on
SR 1461 (South Lowell Road)
over
South Fork Little River
State Project No. 8.2350901
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1461(3)
B-2134
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
?'4D? L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
? Z
at Ni olas: Graf, E, Division Administrator
KjFederal i hway Administration
M
ip
I
Durham County
Replacement of Bridge No. 57
on
SR 1461 (South Lowell Road)
over
South Fork Little River
State Project No. 8.2350901
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1461(3)
B-2134
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ormon 1 i s
Project Planning Engineer
Wayne E li tt
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
k
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1461 over South Fork Little River in Durham
County currently is scheduled for replacement during federal fiscal year
(FFY) 1994 in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
1992-1998 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). FFY 1994 extends from
01 October 1993 through 30 September 1994. The proposed project is part
of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified a
"categorical exclusion" (CE). This environmental documentation includes
preferred proposals for the project. Project location and the three
separate alternatives investigated for the proposed replacement are shown
on the attached Figures 1 and 2.
I. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
NCDOT is proposing replacement of the aged and deteriorating treated
timber structure to provide safer operating conditions for traffic along
this rural roadway. SR 1461 is a north-south collector route serving
predominantly rural northwestern areas of Durham County.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternate 1 is the recommended proposal which includes the following
actions:
*Removal of existing Bridge No. 57 and replacement in the same
location at approximately the same elevation as that of the existing
bridge is proposed. The structure is to have a minimum 28-foot clear
roadway width and a length of about 160 feet.
*Detouring of traffic off site during construction via 1) SR 1461
(Johnson Mill Road) between its T-intersection with SR 1464-SR 1461
(South Lowell Road) and the T-intersection with SR 1002 plus along
SR 1002 and NC 157, and/or via 2) SR 1464, US 501, SR 1002, and
NC 157 (see Figure 1).
Wetlands will not be displaced by this proposed action and very
little vegetation destroyed. A small amount of additional right of way
will be required but no development displaced by the recommended action.
Estimated total cost of the recommended Alternate 1 is $325,000.
This compares with $379,000 assessed in the 1992-1998 Transportation
Improvement Program. Estimated outlays for specific parts of the project
are itemized in Section V, page 4 of this document.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Mitigation of impacts on the environment will not be required due to
location and scope of the project. Implementation of standard procedures
and measures will render special and/or unique environmental commitments
unnecessary. Utilization of applicable best management practices is to be
incorporated as part of project design.
2
Y
Recording and evaluation of the remains of a dam at the former
Russell Mill Site which is located northwest of the bridge site has been
requested by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (DCR).
This request has been met as presented in Section VII of this document.
Use of off-site borrow areas by the project contractor will require
prior approval from DCR, and Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR). These actions will diminish the potential for
adverse effects on the cultural, natural, and human environments in the
project vicinity.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway
The part of the SR 1461 routing on which Bridge No. 57 is located
generally is oriented in a northeast/southwest direction. In conjunction
with SR 1464, it forms a continuous route extending between US 501 and
NC 157. County name of this route is South Lowell Road. Another road
with the same SR 1461 routing but with the county name of Johnson Mill
Road T-intersects with this SR 1461-SR 1464 continuous route. Johnson Mill
Road runs generally north-south. In essence the SR 1461 routing forms a
non-continuous loop road between its T-intersections with NC 157 and SR
1002 (see Figure 1).
The section of SR 1461 on which the proposed replacement is to occur
is designated a Rural Collector in the Functional Classification of
Highways within Durham County. It is not a Federal Aid highway.
In the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement, pavement width is
18 feet with grass shoulders six to eight feet wide on each side.
Existing right of way is 60 feet wide.
Bridges
Built during 1952, the treated timber Bridge No. 57 has a 19-foot,
2-inch clear roadway width and is 143 feet long. The seven-span deck is
surfaced with asphaltic material and consists of six treated timber joist
spans and one floorbeam span. Many of the wooden joists each have been
reinforced with a salvaged steel I-beam placed beside it. This
superstructure is supported by a timber substructure of caps on round pier
piles. Concrete footings support two sets of these piers. Much of the
40-year old bridge is in poor condition due to deterioration of both
timber and steel members brought about mostly by aging. The structure had
a 15.9 sufficiency rating during April 1992 as compared to a maximum
rating of 100 for a new structure having present design standards. Posted
weight limit is currently seven tons for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 57 is located about one mile south of Bridge No. 59 on
SR 1461 over North Fork Little River (see Figure 1). The latter
reinforced concrete structure has a 24-foot clear roadway width and was

I
3
built during 1988 as a replacement of the former bridge. Its TIP
project number was B-1174. Sufficiency rating of the four-year old bridge
was 85.9 during April of '92.
A structure which may be used by some local traffic as part of an
off-site temporary detour during this project is Bridge No. 64 on SR 1461
over Little River about 1.5 miles to the southeast. The section of
SR 1461 on which this bridge is located was paved during the recent past
between its T-intersections with SR 1464-SR 1461 about two miles north of
the bridge and with SR 1002 about 1.5 miles south. The structure has a
posting for one-lane operation on each roadway approach. It has a clear
roadway width of only 17 feet, and has a posted load limit of 16 tons for
single unit vehicles (SU) and 19 tons for truck tractor, semi-trailers
(TTST). The most recent sufficiency rating of the 36-year old, 121-foot
long bridge was 22.4. Programmed as B-2552 in the TIP, the structure is
presently scheduled for replacement during FFY 1995.
Roadside development and utilities
Predominantly residential development of sparse to moderate density
is located in the general project area. This modest to high quality
housing is related to "hobby farming" and would be affected to some extent
by each of the studied alternatives for the project. All units are
situated greater than 50 feet off the road (see Figure 2).
There is an overhead electric line paralleling the west side of the
road about 30 feet off its centerline. An underground cable of General
Telephone is located about the same distance east of the centerline but is
aerially suspended on poles to cross the river. This area is not serviced
by county water and sewer systems. Utilities are not attached to the
bridge.
Traffic volumes and accident data
Total average annual daily traffic (AADT) along SR 1461 of 900
vehicles during 1990 is estimated to increase to 1,000 vehicles during
1994, the presently scheduled year of project construction. At the end of
the 20-year planning period during the year 2014, traffic is expected to
increase to an annual average of 2,000 vehicles per day. These estimates
include 1% TTST and 2% dual tire vehicles (DTV). During each daily
peak-hour period, 6.5% of the AADT occurs in the heavier direction of
travel. Also, the Durham County Transportation Director for school buses
advises that a total of four trips (two round trips) are routed along SR
1461 during each school day.
During a 24-month period beginning 01 January 1990, there were four
traffic accidents reported along a 1.2-mile length of SR 1461 extending
0.6 mile both north and south of the bridge. The resulting rate of 503.16
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm) during the period
compares to 277.7 acc/100mvm during 1991 on 59,385 miles of rural
secondary routes in North Carolina. All of the accidents involved a
single vehicle which ran off the road but none occurred in the immediate
vicinity of the existing bridge.
s
4
V. ALTERNATIVES AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Replacement of the bridge either at its present site or immediately
adjacent to it are the two basic proposals investigated for the project.
The following three alternatives are identified in conjunction with the
proposals:
Alternate 1 - Replacement of Bridge No. 57 at its present site
(Recommended) and detouring SR 1461 traffic via other roads in the
area during the approximate nine-month construction
period
Alternate 2 - Replacement immediately adjacent to the west of
present bridge site along curvilinear alignment of
about three degrees and maintenance of traffic along
present bridge and approaches during construction
Alternate 3 - Replacement at present bridge location as proposed
with Alternate 1 but routing of traffic during the
assembly period via a temporary on-site detour
immediately adjacent to east side of the present
bridge
Following are estimated costs of each alternate:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
On-site Detour Work -0- -0- $148,000
Off-site Detour Work $ 11000* -0- -0-
Remove Existing Bridge 16,000 $ 16,000 16,000
New Replacement Bridge 215,000 225,000** 215,000
Roadway Approaches 43,000 160,000 43,000
15% Engineering &
Contingencies 40,000 60,000 63,000
Right of Way/Easements 10,000 39,000 15,000
TOTAL $325,000 $500,000 $500,000
*For signing ("detour" signs at appropriate intersections)
**Greater cost due to replacement being along horizontal curve
5
VI. OTHER CONCEIVABLE CONCEPTS NOT GIVEN DETAILED STUDY
Removal of the bridge without replacement would result in permanent
closure of the stream crossing by a dead end along each roadway approach.
Such action would disrupt an important traffic collecting function for
northwest Durham County provided by this section of SR 1461.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is not practical
nor wise due to natural deterioration of its treated timber members
brought about primarily by aging. Also, its clear roadway width is
substandard when compared to the present-day minimum for design.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Classification of this project as a Categorical Exclusion is
considered appropriate as confirmed by the following summary of
preliminary findings by the Environmental Unit of NCDOT:
Displacement of Residences and Businesses
Displacement of residences and businesses will not occur in
association with the implementation of this proposed project.
Impacts to Endangered Species
As of 22 July 1992, the US Fish and Wildlife Service listed the
following three federally protected species occurring within Durham
County:
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea aevigata)
No impacts to these species will occur from
proposed project activities because habitat
are not suitable for the occurrence of any
findings result from a field survey of the
biologist on 11 June 1992.
- Endangered
- Endangered
- Proposed Endangered
the previously described
zones likely to be impacted
of the families. These
project area by an NCDOT
Also, for solely informational purposes, there are seven species
within Durham County having potential for being added to the above
endangered and threatened list in the future. These "candidate" species
are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. Of the seven, habitat is suitable for the
following four in the project area;
Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconia masoni)
Yellowlamp mussel (Lamps ilir`s cariosa)
Green floater mussel (Lasmigona subviridis)
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima)
6
Further, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC
Department of Agriculture administers and enforces the State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant and Conservation Act of 1979. These Acts
grant protection of plants or animals with State designations of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC). The following
four species are listed as protected by North Carolina in Durham County:
Tall lackspur (Delphinium exalzatum)
Green floater mussel (Lasmigona subviridis)
Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconia masoni)
Yellowlamp mussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
- Endangered/Critically
imperiled
- Endangered/Critically
imperiled
- Threatened/Critically
imperiled
- Threatened/Critically
imperiled
As indicated earlier, the latter three of the above species are also
candidate species for addition to the federal list of endangered and
threatened species but presently are not provided federal protection.
Siltation and sedimentation
The project will intensify short-term siltation and sedimentation
during wet weather periods in the immediate area of proposed construction
of temporary connectors and permanent bridge approach slabs. Potential
adverse effects on affected resources will be minimized by the
contractor's use of applicable measures of 23 CFR 650, Subpart B and/or
Article 107-13 ("Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution") of NCDOT's
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. These regulations
include an erosion and sedimentation control program developed by the
North Carolina Division of Highways, adopted by the NC Board of
Transportation, and approved by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission.
In view of these measures and project scope, accidental discharge of
dredged or fill materials into the river is not likely. And, as indicated
in Section III of this document, use of best management practices will
assist further in the prevention of water degradation by siltation and
sedimentation.
Water Quality
Regional ground water elevations will not be affected adversely due
to the very limited scope of this proposed action. Effects on the DEHNR
best usage classification of High Quality Waters for South Fork Little
River will be minor with implementation of previously described applicable
preventive construction measures.
Farmlands
The project will have no direct impacts on farmlands.
Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) usually
asks for notification if any of the studied alternatives will either
displace or be located next to any pre-World War II structures. The
V 7
agency advised in a 27 February 1992 letter that they are aware of no
National Register-listed or eligible properties located within the area of
potential effect. And, the 40-year old treated timber bridge is not a
historic structure. Therefore, structures of historical significance will
not be affected.
Cultural Resources also advised in the above referenced letter that
the location for any on-site detour be surveyed for archaeological
resources prior to project construction. An NCDOT archaeologist surveyed
the project area during July 1992 and found indications of a prehistoric
archaeological site (31Dh614) immediately east (downstream) of the present
structure and roadway approaches. The site is potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. Work would be proposed in this
area only with a temporary detour in association with Alternate 3. But
such a detour is not recommended. Consequently, specific construction
measures of the recommended Alternate 1 proposal will not affect these
archaeological resources.
Upon advice of Cultural Resources, the site of remains of a dam at
the old Russell Mill was recorded and evaluated. This spot (31Dh613) is
approximately 300 feet west (upstream) of Bridge No. 57 and has some
historical and archaeological integrity as established by NCDOT's 12
August 1992 evaluation. However, it is located outside the impact area of
recommendations for this project.
Use of any off-site borrow area(s) will need prior approval from DCR
to minimize the potential for affecting such resources. Additional
approval of the use of such site(s) also will be required from DEHNR.
Such authorization will assist in protecting the natural environment of
such areas.
Traffic and Construction Noise
Significant traffic and construction noise impacts are unlikely to
occur since existing traffic will be moved no closer to any existing
receptors in the project area. Also, a substantial increase in traffic
volumes will not result. Construction noise impacts on adjacent
properties will not be major in view of project scope and the fact that
construction activities are usually conducted only during daylight hours
along projects of the nature of this one. Therefore, traffic noise
reports are considered unnecessary and noise assessment requirements of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR 772) should not
apply to this proposed action. Additional highway traffic noise reports
consequently are unnecessary.
Air Quality
The project is located in the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control
Region. Ambient air quality for Durham County is designated as
non-attainment for carbon-monoxide (CO) and ozone. However, this project
involves replacement of an existing bridge and will not adversely affect
existing air quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FHWA
have determined this to be a "neutral" project under current guidance.
it
8
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Alternate
Alternate 1 is recommended in view of its cost and relative property
damage advantages when compared to the other two alternates. And, with an
estimated maximum construction time of nine months, additional roaduser
costs for SR 1461 traffic to detour via other routes in the area will
total about $185,000. Such off-site detouring is estimated to save
$175,000 in construction costs. Consequently, an unfavorable benefit/cost
ratio of only slightly greater than one would result for maintaining
traffic thru the project site via a temporary on-site detour in
association with implementing Alternate 3.
Although implementation of either Alternate 2 or Alternate 3 would
result in on-site maintenance of traffic, additional costs involved are
not justified. Also, SR 1461 traffic was detoured off-site via other
roads in the area during replacement of Bridge No. 59 during 1988 over the
North Fork Little River about a mile north of this project. Furthermore,
the section of SR 1461 which may be used by some local traffic as an
off-site detour was not paved and consequently was not as convenient an
off-site detour during the 1988 replacement as it is at present.
Division 5 personnel have expressed general agreement with the
recommended Alternate 1 but only if construction of the project is
scheduled during a different time period than that for B-2552. Currently
this is the case since B-2134 is scheduled during FFY 1994 and B-2552
during FFY 1995.
The Durham County Transportation Director for school buses has
expressed the belief that the proposed off-site detouring will not create
insurmountable problems with bus routings during the estimated
construction period. He requested official notification two months prior
to roadway closure.
Proposed Structure and Roadway Approach Widths
A replacement structure with a minimum 28-foot clear roadway width at
the site of existing Bridge No. 57 is recommended. In an effort to
minimize potential effects on archaeological resources east of SR 1461,
present roadway approaches are to be widened exclusively adjacent to the
west edge of pavement. Proposed width is a minimum 22-foot pavement with
six-foot wide graded shoulders in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
bridge. Length of the bridge is to be approximately 160 feet but may be
altered based on more refined hydraulic examination during detailed
project design. These dimensions are based on current standards for
design speeds of 35 miles per hour or greater along collector routes
estimated to carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day during the 20-year
planning period.
Although estimated future traffic will be just barely within the
range requiring a 30-foot clear roadway width structure, the 28-foot width
is proposed if a conventional cast in place design is used for the deck.
9
This primarily is due to the existing
length of SR 1461, low truck volumes,
recently replaced nearby Bridge No. 59.
18-foot pavement along the entire
and the 24-foot clear width of the
However, if a cored slab concrete deck is determined feasible during
the design stage, a 30-foot clear width will be necessary in order to
attain the minimum 28-foot width. This breadth would result from
necessary utilization of eleven lines of three-foot wide precast slabs to
contain the deck width plus rails (10 lines for the deck plus width of one
line to support rails). Use of a total of ten lines would result in a
clear roadway width of 27 feet which is less than the minimum standard.
Although use of nine slab lines would result in a clear width matching
that of Bridge No. 59, such action is not proposed due the resultant
substandard design by present standards. Also, use of a clear width of
less than 28 feet would require design exception approval by the NCDOT
Design Branch.
IX. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
An individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
is not expected to be required from the Corps of Engineers of the US
Department of the Army for this project. A Nationwide permit is expected
to be appropriate. This mostly is due to the fact that a substantial
amount of wetland will not be displaced. However, the Corps usually
requests a written description of the proposed work along with final
construction plans (when completed) be forwarded to their appropriate
Regulatory Field Office for further review in order to make a final
determination on permit requirements. Such field office for this project
is located in Wake Forest, N. C.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through DEHNR will be
required. Such certifications are issued for activities which may result
in discharges into waters for which federal permits are required.
As presented earlier, use of off-site borrow areas by the project
contractor will require prior approval from DCR and DEHNR to minimize the
potential for adverse effects on the cultural, natural, and human
environments.
X. SECTION 4(f) DETERMINATION
Section 4(f) properties are those which are publicly owned and being
used as a park, recreation area, or a wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or
land of a historic site of local, statewide, or national significance.
Properties meeting this definition presently do not exist in the immediate
vicinity of this project.
Attachments
OB/PWE/plr
LEGEND
-0- POSSIBLE TEMPORARY OFF - SITE DETOURS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1461
OVER
SOUTH FORK LITTLE RIVER
B-2134
0 miles 2
1 1 FIG. 1

BRIDGE NO. 57 OVER
SOUTH FORK
LITTLE RIVER
IN DURHAM COUNTY
LOOKING NORTH FROM
SOUTHERN APPROACH

VIEW OF SUBSTRUCTURE
FROM NORTH BANK
OF RIVER

LOOKING SOUTH FROM
NORTHERN APPROACH
FIGURE 3