19950250 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

, Ifn -,I-
I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI1
8 1:5

JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 13, 1995
District Engineer 401 ISSUED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Durham County, TIP No. B-2552, State Project No. 8.2351001, Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1461(4).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 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 in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734
(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.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sirranklin Z A
H. Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec '
Attachments
cc: Ms. Jean Manuele, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. J. W. Watkins, PE, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
•N?
V
Durham County
Replacement of Bridge No. 64 on
SR 1461 (Johnson Mill Road)
Over Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1461(4)
State Project No. 8.2351001
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2552
3
d
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE -fir H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
I ?
DATE Nicholas Graf, P. E.
(k- Division Administrate FHWA

Durham County
Replacement of Bridge No. 64 or
SR 1461 (Johnson Mill Road)
Over Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1461(4)
State Project No. 8.2351001
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2552
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1994
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Jonn w1 1 reams
Proje t Planning Engineer
W16- i7 e- ?A
Wayne E11 ott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
r `t'/. tZ - Cl - 9¢
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E. Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
C
e ,.
i t
J?
Durham County
Replacement of Bridge No. 64 or
SR 1461 (Johnson Mill Road)
Over Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1461(4)
State Project No. 8.2351001
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2552
Bridge No. 64 on SR 1461 over Little River in Durham County is
currently scheduled for replacement in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The proposed project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement
Program and has been classified as a "categorical exclusion" (CE). The
location of the project and the two alternatives investigated for the
proposed replacement are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 local route serving predominantly rural areas in
northwest Durham County.
The recommended improvements, designated as Alternate 1, include
removal of existing Bridge No. 64 and replacement with a new structure in
the same location at approximately the same elevation as that of the
existing bridge. Traffic will be detoured along existing roads, as shown
on Figure 1.
The estimated total cost of the recommended Alternate 1 is $ 505,000.
The cost contained in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$ 392,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER COMMITMENTS
Best Management Practices (BMP) and Sedimentation Control Guidelines
(SCG) will be utilized to minimize construction impacts. All standard
procedures and measures will be implemented (where BMP's and SCG's do not
supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.
The USGS gauging station (Figure 3b) will be removed as a consequence
of constructing the new bridge.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of
the Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit #23.
2
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception may be required for the design speed due to poor
vertical alignment.
IV. EXISTI
In the vicinity of Bridge No.
oriented in a north/south direction
proposed replacement is to occur i
Statewide Functional Classification
Federal Aid Highway System.
rnNnTTIONS
64, SR 1461 (Johnson Mill Road) is
The section of SR 1461 on which the
designated a local route in the
System. It is not a part of the
In the vicinity of the propos(
width of SR 1461 is 5.5 meters (18
2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders
5.2 meters (17 feet) on each approa(
of way width is 18 meters (60 feet).
Built during 1956, the treated
a 5.2-meter (17-foot) clear roadway
long. It operates and is posted as
deck is surfaced with asphalt mater
I-beam spans. This superstructure
piers and treated timber end bents.
poor condition due to deterioratior
brought about mostly by aging. The
20.5 as compared to a maximum ratir
present design standards. Posted o
tons) for single vehicles and 15 me
semi-trailers. The structure has 1
remaining life.
A gauging station owned and p
Geological Survey (USGS) is locate(
bridge (Figure 3). It is a concret,
equipment for two sensors. One of t'
bank into the water. The other run
bent in the water.
The bridge is situated on a hi
approaches. The speed limit thro
(statutory 55 mph); however, SR 146
signs of 60 km/h (35 mph) due to
roadway.
There is an overhead electric
road about 9.1 meters (30 feet) f
serviced by public water and sewer
the bridge.
Total average annual daily tra
400 vehicles is expected to increas
2016. These estimates include 1% t
2% dual tire vehicles (DTV).
d bridge replacement, the pavement
feet) and has 1.8-meter (6-foot) to
The width of the pavement narrows to
h to the bridge. The existing right
timber, steel, and concrete bridge has
width and is 36.8 meters (121 feet)
a one-lane facility. The three-span
al and consists of timber on steel
s supported by tapered concrete slab
Much of the 38-year old bridge is in
of both timber and steel members
structure has a sufficiency rating of
1 of 100 for a new structure having
ai ght limits are 13 metric tons (14
ric tons (17 tons) for truck tractor
ass than five years of estimated
!sently operated by United States
on the northeast quadrant of the
block structure containing recording
sensor lines runs directly down the
along the bottom of the bridge to a
^izontal. tangent with steep vertical
gh the project area is 90 km/h
is posted with advisory speed limit
he poor vertical curvature of the
ine paralleling the west side of the
n the centerline. This area is not
stems. Utilities are not attached to
fic (AADT) along Johnson Mill Road of
to 600 vehicles per day by the year
uck tractor semi-trailers (TTST) and

3
No school busses cross over the studied bridge.
Dui ing a 24-month period beginning January 1, 1991, there were no
traffic accidents reported in the vicinity of the bridge.
V. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods were developed for replacement of Bridge No. 64. They
are as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) - Replacement of Bridge No. 64 at its
present location. Traffic will be detoured off-site via
other roads in the area during the approximate six-month
construction period.
Alternate 2 - Replacement of Bridge No. 64 at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained on-site during construction by
provision of a temporary bridge approximately 37 meters
(120 feet) long located immediately east of Bridge No. 64.
Removal of the bridge without replacement would result in permanent
closure of the stream crossing. Such action would disrupt the traffic
collecting function provided by this section of SR 1461 for northwest
Durham County and therefore is not feasible.
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 one-lane clear roadway width
is substandard when compared to current design standards.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of each alternative are as follows:

A
Recommended
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Temporary Detour N/A 166,000
Structure Removal 12,000 12,000
Replacement Structure 211,000 211,000
Roadway Approaches 167,000 167,000
Engineering & 60,000 95,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, 55,000 77,000
Utilities
Total $ 505,000 $ 728,000
4 Y
VII. TRAFrIC DETOUR
Alternate 1 (recommended) util
construction as shown on figure 1.
posted. SR 1462 has no bridges. Plea
in figure 1 on SR 1462 is actually a
for traffic which normally travels
indicates that the additional cost t
$ 41,000 during the 6 month construc-
400 vehicles per day with an averag(
additional travel.
izes an offsite detour during
1S 501 has two bridges which are not
se note that the bridge which appears
culvert. This should be sufficient
in SR 1461. A road user analysis
D road users would be approximately
:ion period. This figure is based on
of 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) of
Alternate 2 utilizes an onsite
disruption to traffic. However the
estimated to cost $ 223,000. This i
$ 41,000 and thus supports detouring
The Division Engineer supports
offsite.
VIII. R
Bridge No. 64 will be replace
recommended replacement structure is
feet) long with 8.4 meters (28 feet)
width will accommodate a 6.6-meter
feet) of lateral clearance on each
may be increased or decreased during
peak discharges.
The roadway approaches are to
pavement with 1.8 meters (6 feet)
vicinity of the proposed bridge.
Traffic will be detoured during
roads.
IX. ENVI
The project is expected to
Replacement of an inadequate bri
operations.
letour which would result in minimal
temporary onsite detour required is
several times the road user costs of
traffic offsite.
losing the road and detouring traffic
IMPROVEMENTS
I at its existing location. The
a bridge approximately 40 meters (130
of clear deck width. This structure
22-foot) travelway with 1 meter (3
ide. The recommended bridge length
final hydraulic design to accommodate
widened to 6.6 meters (22 feet) of
grassed shoulders in the immediate
construction along existing secondary
AL CONSEQUENCES
an overall positive impact.
will result in safer traffic
The project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its
limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of the human or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a substantial adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
5
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 effect 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 adversely affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
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 at 36 CFR Part 800.
This project has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). There was one structure, a log cabin style home which was
investigated and determined to be of no historical significance.
Therefore, there are no National Register-listed properties located within
the area of potential effect (see Attachment 1 & 2).
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. Therefore, no archaeological investigation was conducted in
connection with this project.
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981,
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether
the alternatives being considered for the proposed bridge replacement
project will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded
that neither alternative will impact prime or important farmland soils.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
' Raleigh Regional Office of NCDEHNR. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
designated Durham County as a moderate nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) and Ozone (0 ). However, due to improved monitoring data,
' this county was redesignat23d as a maintenance area for 0 on June 17, 1994
and remains as moderate nonattainment area for CO. The attainment date for
CO is December 31, 1995. The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does
not contain any transportation control measures (TCM) for Durham County.
The Durham Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in conformity to the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the November 24, 1993 transportation
regulation (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). The approval dates of the TP and the
TIP by the MPO were on October 9, 1991 and October 11, 1993 respectively.
The approval dates of the TP and TI
and December 15, 1993 respectively
changes in the project's design cc
conformity analyses.
A narrow strip of riparian fore
its banks. Dominant canopy species
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus p
nigra). The mid-story and shrub lay4
of the canopy species, elderberry
(sp.). Large boulders and braided
covered and surrounded by a thick g,
the banks edge, one may find Christi
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis),
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Appr
type will be impacted by proposed
limits of 60 feet.
The Little River is located in
into Falls Lake, a reservoir impoun
Raleigh as a drinking water supply.
by a rock and boulder substrate and
The Little River has a "best u
and HQW as designated by NC-DEHNR.
supply segment with no categorical
or discharges and is suitable for a
waters suitable for secondary recre
survival, fishing, wildlife and
classification of NSW (Nutrient Sens
additional nutrient management (par
their being subject to excessive gi
vegetation. High Quality Waters (
excellent based on biological and
through division monitoring or speci
Construction activities in and
certain sediment control requiremen
Waters (HQW). These requirements
Guidelines (T15A: 04B .0024) admini
No waters classified as Trout
will be impacted by the proposed pr
Elimination Systems (NPDES) are loc
Wetlands fall under the broad
States" 'as defined in 33 CRF 328.3
(COE) takes jurisdiction over the c
into these wetlands as authorized b,
From "bank to bank" the Little River
under Corps jurisdiction.
6
by USDOT were on November 15, 1991
There have been no significant
ept and scope, as used in the
>t borders the Little River on both of
found here include sycamore (Platanus
?nnsylvanica), and river birch (Betula
r are composed primarily of saplings
Sambucus canadensis), and viburnum
channels within the river bed are
-owth of justicia (americana). Along
as fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and poison
)ximately 0.1 acre of this community
:onstruction, based on construction
he upper Neuse River Basin and drains
ed in 1983 and used by the City of
This body of water is characterized
s approximately 100 feet in width.
sage" classification of WS-III, NSW,
WS-III indicates a designated water
estrictions on watershed development
1 Class C uses. Class C designates
ition, aquatic life propagation and
griculture. The supplemental
tive Waters) indicates waters needing
icularly fertilizer, run-off) due to
owth of microscopic or macroscopic
QW) are waters that are rated as
physical /chemical characteristics
it studies.
?round designated HQW waters must meet
> as those designated for High Quality
are outlined in Sediment Control
:ered by DEHNR.
aters, or Outstanding Resource Waters
ect. No National Pollutant Discharge
ed within the project area.
category of "Waters of the United
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
ischarge of dredged or fill material
i Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
may be classified as such, thus falls

f
7

In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion likely
to come under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another. federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a
category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions
are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of November 17, 1994, the USFWS reports the federally Endangered
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
and the Proposed Endangered smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) as
occurring in Durham County. A brief description and habitat requirements
for the above listed species are summarized below.
The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and lakes, usually
nesting near bodies of water where they feed. The largest, living trees in
an area are preferred. No large perching trees or snags exist in the
project area. The proposed action will have no impact upon this species.
Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina. It occurs in sandy or rocky open woods. It
is an erect, rhizomatous shrub, growing to a height of 0.2 to 0.4 meters
(.66 to 1.3 feet). The entire plant is densely pubescent. Leaflets are
oblong-lanceolate and their edges are simply to doubly serrate. White to
greenish-yellow flowers appear in June and are followed by red fruits.
Open roadside areas provide habitat for the smooth coneflower. these
areas were walked and a plant-by-plant survey was conducted. No
individuals were seen. The subject project will not impact the species.
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb in the sunflower
family. This species grows to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) tall, is usually
unbranched and has leaves that are concentrated in a rosette and along the
lower stem. Ray flowers consist of pale purple rays 6 centimeters (2
inches) long encircling purple disc flowers on a solitary head. Flowering
occurs May through July. Six populations are currently known from North
Carolina and usually occur on soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral
8
igneous rock. Habitat is open woodl,
and power line rights-of-way. Open
smooth coneflower. These areas wer
was conducted. No individuals were
impact the species.
nds, glades, roadsides, cedar barrens
,oadside areas provide habitat for the
walked and a plant-by-plant survey
seen. The subject project will not
Durham 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 floodpla'n'in this area is rural and wooded.
The proposed bridge replacement pro ect will not have any adverse effect
on the floodplain. There is no evidence of wetlands or other
environmentally sensitive areas in he vicinity of the project. Existing
drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected by this project.
There are no practical alterna
Any shift in alignment would resul
magnitude. The alignment of the
floodplain area. All reasonable mo
possible harm.
On
adverse
project.
JW/plr
ives to crossing the floodplain area.
in a crossing of about the same
)roject is perpendicular to the
isures will be taken to minimize any
the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
environmental effects will result from implementation of the

FIGURES
wo ago*
am
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64
ON SR 1461
OVER LITTLE RIVER
LOOKING NORTH FROM
NORTHERN APPOACH
TO BRIDGE
(SR 1462 INTERSECTION AT
CREST OF HILL)
LOOKING NORTH FROM
SOUTHERN APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH FROM
SOUTHERN APPROACH
I' URE a
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64
ON SR 1461
OVER LITTLE RIVER
DOWNSTREAM VIEW OF
BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
(EAST) FROM STRUCTURE DECK
STREAM GAUGE IMMEDIATELY
EAST OF NORTH END OF BRIDGE

ZONE B
ET OF
D STUDY
X RM L96 ucPROJECT SITE
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ZON
-ZONE A4
W
M
rt,
LIMIT OF
ZONE C ffrZONE B

ZO
FIGURE 4
ATTACHMENTS

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 12, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 64 on SR 1461 over Little
River, Durham County, J=2252-,-8.2351001, BRZ-
1461(4), ER 92-8403 B- ZOC 2
Dear Mr. Graf:
4c, E i V,
Q G
AUG 13 1992
k DIVISION OF
HiGaHWAY S
? RESEA??
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On July 21, 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 feel that the one structure over
fifty years of age--a log cabin--located in the area of potential effect may be
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We
recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation examine this structure and report her findings to us. Please submit
additional photographs (interior, if possible) of the cabin, keyed to a map, along
with a location description. Also include a brief statement about the structure's
history and explain which National Register criteria it does or does not meet.
Without this information, we are unable to determine if the structure is eligible for
listing in the National Register.
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
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ATTACHMENT I
Nicholas L. Graf
August 12, 1992, Page 2
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.
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,
Ak-?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
E
11
STAIZ,
ss 1... ' S
s
?.,? cgs
1~ 1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 28, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
r Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 64 over Little River,
B-2252, Durham County
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of
William S
DFD 0 1 1994
es OF re
F
This letter is in reference to the above bridge project which we understand is now
being referred to as B-2552 rather than B-2252.
At the request of the project engineer, we are providing the following. On July 7,
1994, members of our staff met with representatives of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation regarding new information on a log cabin within the
project's area of potential effect. There was some concern that the property may
have been connected with the Johnson Mill site. However, based on the
photographs and information provided at the meeting, we believe the structure is
not eligible for the National Register and requires no further evaluation due to its
lack of architectural or historical significance.
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.
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,
v
Da d Brook
i
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 1- F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ATTAC H M E N T 2
State of North Carolina 2 9 (994
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • Division of Environmental Management WETLANDS GR(?
WATER QUAL, P ..
James B. Hunt, Jr., Secretary p H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, , SecreLata
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
March 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM Pk
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn 40 CAI
Monica Swihart`l
From: Eric Galamb ?y
Subject: FONSI for Improvements to Bus. 1-40 and Us 158/421 in Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
State Project DOT No. 8.1622101, TIP #B-2555(A)
EHINR # 94-0670, DEM # 10558
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will not impact wetlands but will impact waters.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
2. Stream relocation activities should be consistent with DOT's stream relocation/
channelization guidelines.
3. Endorsement of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
b-2555a.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
A.. 1!- ...1 /1... -&. -W- nfR..... C- e..+inn Cmr.L..,er r4W- rmrvrlmeV 7 (19l, nrict-cnngtjmAr nnnAr
''4 ? ?9.

%li 5