19970575 Ver 1_Complete File_19970812

i.l! f'/.1;' I.I.I"I';,;'.'
13 November 1997
Mr. John Dorney
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611

SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway - 401 Certification
File: DWQ #970575
Dear Mr. Dorney:
NOV
?IJCI l?l?(:j?rc?F' lay ? _
"Thank you for discussing the permitting possibilities for this project with me Monday. I have
discussed our options with NCDOT and they fully intend to either mitigate the channel loss or
pay the fee in lieu of the actual mitigation. It is my understanding the fee in lieu of
construction of a new channel will be approximately $28,000.00.
Based on my direction from NCDOT, I request you issue the certification with a condition.
The condition will stipulate that NCDOT notify NCDENR within 90 days of the date of this
letter as to whether mitigation or the fee in lieu of mitigation will be used. The applicant also
understands and agrees that no construction can begin without posting the fee or providing an
adequate mitigation plan.
Please call if there are any questions or if you require additional information. I look forward to
receiving the 401 certification for this project in the near future.
Sincerely,
J. Mack Little, FASLA
LITTLE & LITTLE
PC: Tom Kendig

'h f

S;.
i - /"i „///r !! !'! ' !''! l;O\ / I /S/,' I!II(,Il ?f,/,'IIIC Ih'( )/I\ I. fr// () /,7 ..-'l ? ( - /
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1••
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RESOURCES
March 24, 1998
Durham County I
DWQPrcject # 9705%5
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick; NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place
fill material in 0.39 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of constructing road crossings at
Northeast Creek Parkway from Ellis Road to Cornwallis Road, as you described in your application
dated August 12 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Numbers 14 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in
the General Certification. This certification replaces the one issued to you on November 15, 1997.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
condition:. listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Compensatory mitigation is required for the stream culverting at Crossing 14C (182 linear feet).
DWQ has received payment for this work.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds
(T 15A:04B.0024).
3. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing damage to
aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
in e ly )
s'fon Howar , Jr. P.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files 970595.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Cyndl_B
From: Ron Ferrell [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 6:48 AM
To: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Re: NE Creek Parkway
Thanks Cyndi. Based on your response I will deposit the check (sure would have paid for a nice
party, we could have bought all of isle 13) and our records will indicate that the impact was 182
feet. Please send me a copy of the revised/new 401 for our records.
Cyndi Bell wrote:
I talked to Mack Little this morning, and he said the final design was
182 feet, due to some minor extensions at both ends of the stream by
NCDOT Hydraulics' request. The 401 issued 11/97 says mitigation is
required for crossing 14C, but does not specify a stream length. A
second 401, issued 12/2/97, does specify 165 feet. So Ron, I guess
this loop is closed for your purposes. John - do you want me to
process another 401 ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ferrell ,[SMTP:ron ferrell0h2o.enr.state.nc.usl
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 10:23 AM
To: John Dorney; Cyndi Bell
Subject: NE Creek Parkway
I have received a check from Mack Little (actually Ballentine Assoc)
for
$22,750. The transmittal letter states that the total amount of
channel
disturbed was 290 feet. It also states that they are removing culverts
and restoring 108 feet of channel. Therefore the payment is for 182
feet of stream channel.
This is not consistent with what John told me this morning, I believe
he
said the authorized impact was 165 feet. Please advise as to whether I
should return this check and send invoice for 165 feet.
Thanks.
State of North Carolina
y Department of Environment,
IVA
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor +t j k
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary C) E H N F=?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 2, 1997
Durham County
DWQProject #970595
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
NC DOT
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill material in 0.39 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of constructing road
crossings at Northeast Creek Parkway from Ellis Road to Cornwallis Road, as you described in
your application dated August 12, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that
this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows
you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification. This certification replaces the one issued to you on November 15, 1997.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Compensatory mitigation is required for the stream culverting at Crossing 14C (165 linear
feet). DWQ shall be contacted by Februa_y 15, 1998 wit h either a commitment to utilize the
Wetland Restoration Program or by a mitigation plan. Stream or wetland fill shall not occur until
DWQ has received and accepted a mitigation approach in writing.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024).
3. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing
damage to aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
i ely,
i r ton Howard, Jr. P.E.
J
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

cc: Wilmington District Corps od Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Mack Little; Little and Little
Cyndi_B
From: John D
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 1:45 PM
To: 'Ron Ferrell'; Cyndi_B
Subject: RE: NE Creek Parkway
CLB - please handle. The 401 is for 165 feet. Could be that Mac Little revised the stream length but it is
not clear in the file.
Ron - you may want to hold check until Cyndi straightens this out (or plan a party for the difference).
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ferrel l.SM.....'I'P;_ron 1_et-rell(a?I12t).eiir,..qat_c:._ri_c tsJ
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 10:23 AM
To: John Dorney; Cyndi Bell
Subject: NE Creek Parkway
I have received a check from Mack Little (actually Ballenline Assoc) for
$22,750. The transmittal letter states that the total amount of channel
disturbed was 290 feet. It also states that they are removing culverts
and restoring 108 feet of channel. 'T'herefore the payment is for 182
feet of stream channel.
This is not consistent with what John told me this morning, I believe he
said the authorized impact was 165 feet. Please advise as to whether 1
should return this check and send invoice for 165 feet.
Thmiks.
r r'>d o
K/
/ VV14
e ??l U
?/MI_II
I,7
U
MEMO
DATE:
TO: SUBJECT:
IVAI
epltll kc
Tod, (?, JJe
? a 31?
'e- ? C 3"? ?o e-* 'f e-.'a4 V?1 ! 'f i r(? ?-. 0l2 c S ?)
( l7 /99,F
a'F -e ; -f-
aS r
5
C- Wd
71
From:
a'a+ STATE o
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources a>
^'° ° "" ?• s?4 ?? Printed on Recycled Paper
•? WPM vd`•y.
--?Rtat•y?ai•'''
1
v?
?, ^, u`-?a\ E,I.T 6?-,
u?,?\Nu
0
I i' `ITF (" /./'/'"/I/
2 March 1998
Mr. John Dorney
NC Dept, of Environment and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 g3
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway Mitigation
Dear Mr. Dorney:
d

Due to delays in public meetings and review of the Northeast Creek Parkway design, a
decision by NCDOT has not yet been made concerning mitigation or fee in lieu. Please
accept this letter as a request to extend the notification of this decision to your office until
April 17.
Thank you for your help. Please call me if there are any questions or if you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
J. Mack Little, FASLA
LITTLE & LITTLE
PC: Bruce Ballentine
Tom Kendig
1 G( ;1/l;. /i V/ . l'i! /?(1" / /': ,/I!(,fi. `.Oi"/I/, 1A,O//\ I (rr(_ '!/`) 'l ;('( ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Water Quality ,?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary C) F= H N F-1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November, 1997
Durham County
DWQProject #970595
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick::
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.39 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of constructing road crossings for Northeast
Creek Parkway from Ellis Road to Cornwallis Road, as you described in your application dated August 12,
1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except
as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below.
1. Compensatory mitigation is required for the stream culverting at Crossing 14C. DWQ shall be
contacted by February 15, 1998 with either a commitment to utilize the Wetland Restoration Program or
by a mitigation plan. Stream or wetland fill shall not occur until DWQ has received and accepted a
mitigation approach in writing.
2. Deed notices, conservation easements or similar mechanisms shall be placed in all lots with remaining
jurisdictional wetlands and waters to restrict future wetland and/or water impact. These mechanisms shall
be put in place within 30 days of the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is
later).
3. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds
(T 15A:04B .0024).
4. An additional condition is that a final, written stornwater plan including a wet detention basin must be
approved by DWQ before wetland (or stream) impacts occur. (cc: Ray Cox)
5. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing damage to
aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
RnNinre,
Howard, F. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Mack Little; Little and Little 970595.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-DischargeBranch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX tt 733-9959
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

13 No-vember 1997
Mr. John Dorney
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Water Quality Scction
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
suBJECT: Northeast Creek parkway - 401 Certification
File: DW'Q 4970575
Deer Mr. Dorney:
Thank you for discussing the permitting possibilities for this project with me Monday. I have
discussed our options with NCDOT and they fully intend to either mitigate the channel loss or
pay the fee in lieu of the actual mitigation. It is my understanding the fee in lieu of
construction of a new channel will be approximately $28,000.00.
Based on my direction from NCDOT, I request you issue the certification with a condition.
The condition will stipulate that NCDU'T notify NCDENR within 90 days of the date of this
letter as to whether mitigation or the fee in lieu of mitigation will be uscd. The applicant also
understands and agrees that no construction can begiui wittwut posting the fee or providing an
adequate mitigation plan.
Please call if there are any questions or if you require additional information. I look forward to
receiving the 401 certification for this project in the near fature.
Sincerely,
J. Mack Little, FA.SLA
LITTLE 8r. LITTLE
PC- Tom Kendig
l..d.?'1),S'!, tPl: ARl.'IIYTI (;7'(IRIi; P!A/VN/.NG P0. BOX /448 l(/I1.f,76ANOR171 Z0 39Vd 3111I-13111I-1 6ZEZTE8616 0b:VT t66T/ET/TT
LITTLE & LITTLE
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE ..: (? JOB NUMBER .N C.1° 1? 1
PAGES TO FOLLOW. 1 PROJECT NAME QC-, TO Mr A?t1 J D C n?u r.4x jrumpmt
TO FAX XCIMI) t'R
TO FAX NUMBED
TO FAX NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
FFOM J `A ^ • t • 1?"?v - FAX NUMBER - 01818$1-2329
REMARKS
The information contained in this tacsimlle Is PrWleged and uun10.1enUW Inlunnvtivn intended for the aole use of the od01-41• If tho raodor
of this facsimile is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient. you ore hereby
notified that any dleyominativn, distrlbutlw, o, wpyin9 of the oommunicotion 1. etriotly prohibit.d. If yea how rooiovsd thin FAX in error,
please Immediately notify the sender listed above, and return the original message by moll to the sender at the address listed above.
LANDSGA.PE' ARCSITEC7'UR91,PLANNING PO BOX 1448 RALEIC$ NOBTH CAROLINA 27802 91,91821-5645
Z0 39Vd 3-111I-13-111I-1 6ZEZTE8616 0b:V1 1-66T/Et/it
1,/T71F & LI7TLF
17 September 1997
Mr. John R. Dorney
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway
DWQ Project #970575
Durham County
Dear John:
Responding to your letter of 9 September, and based on our phone conversation, I understand
that the 401 Certification for wetland impacts on the subject project is contingent on the
mitigation of channel impacts at crossing 14C. You have indicated that if the total channel
impact at Crossing 14C (including all grading, construction, and slope armoring) can be
reduced to less than 150 feet, 401 Certification will be awarded. If impacts cannot be reduced
to below the 150 feet threshold, stream channel mitigation will be required. This
compensatory mitigation will involve a stream reclamation project on a permanent stream
within the Northeast Creek drainage system. As an option, the mitigation may take the form of
a monetary settlement for the amount of $125.00 per linear Ibot of impact.
We will review these options and respond to you in the near future. In the interim, please
accept this letter as a request to consider the 401 Certification of this project on hold until this
issue can be resolved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
X 15e?
Robert T. Peter, ASLA
LITTLE & LITTLE
PC: Mr. Pete Colwell, Water Quality Lab, DENR
Mr. Tom Kendig, NCDOT
Mr. Glenn Phillips, Ballentine Associates
Mr. Earl Guill
/I,A/),1( I111'.1/41//1 F(f/7.1\N/N(, /,O,R()\l//8A'A/h'HM,A(1/1711(':Il<<?LlV',I'-002 9l9 '8215011
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone]
1. ACTION ID: 199820156
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/Northeast Creek Parkway
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 11/3/97
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): 11/7/97
9`0963

Fp
r
9p2?2? I99
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline):11/18/97
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Jean Manuele
FAX [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
agencies' jurisdiction.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. J. Mack Little
Little & Little Landscape Architecture/Planning
P.O. Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Little:
'&.6 1* *
0200% 01=%
AdMIM
?EHNF?
September 9, 1997
DWQ Project #970575
Durham County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill material
into 0.39 acres of waters and/or wetlands located at Northeast Creek in Durham County for
road construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway. Based on this review, we have identified
significant uses which would be removed by this project. These uses are aquatic life uses at
crossing 14C. Furthermore, insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude that your
project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0506. Therefore, we are moving toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A
NAACO 2H.0507(e) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this
additional information. Until we receive additional information, we are requesting (by copy of
this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that your project must be
constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters
and/or wetlands. Specifically can you construct your road crossing at 14C with stream
culverting of less than 150 feet? Any documentation such as maps and narrative that you can
supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification. Also this project will require compensatory mitigation as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506(h). Your mitigation proposal is insufficient because none is proposed for the
stream culverting at 14C. Please respond within two weeks of the date of this letter by sending
a copy of this information to me and one copy to Mr. Pete Colwell at the Water Quality Lab at
4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607. If we do not hear from you in two weeks, we
will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn. I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
c
R. am ey
Jter uaC (?4tion Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
970575.nty
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
44o1 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 - Telephone [phone] - FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
REMORANDUM PRINT NAMES: Reviewer:
BTG Go ??C I
C0: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE: Z` 17
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) :;*
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO: 0000575 COUNTY: DURHAM
APPLICANT NAME: NORTHEAST CREEK PARKWAY
PROJECT TYPE: ROAD CROSSINGS PERMIT TYPE: NW14
COE #: DOT #:
RCD
CDA:
FROM APP DATE
FRM
CDA: 08/12/97
_
_
REG_OFFICE: g9b __
_
ZIVER AND SUB BASIN #: 030605 STR INDEX N0: 16-41-1- 17-(0.7)
STREAM-CLASS: WSIV
WL_IMPACT? : `J/N
WL_REQUESTED: 0+/ q
WL__SCORE (#) :
MITIGATION?: Y
MITIGATION-SIZE:
WL__TYPE : #&11_?
WL_ACR_EST? : Y/ N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: ON
MITIGATION-TYPE:
DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y&
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y(N)

-
l ?
xl

TI

Lrj

HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One) IISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:
&^0 / eC 7f ',V Jl he 1'644 &,-- f (',4,72 _rw0
? ._ V ea 6M 5 CZ lit 6j (,' bA4 R y 1-t 'c j 7 6,' {C! <K , ???! Gvi 6r s,1, LL
/ (Nr???*? fs j e w+ a s// ?/ ?IT,i?
) Z? ?a /_1 Y, h e
uve'7 ?? Gl /s ?c?yL>Pc/ CSP?-rte I'i/
?;( ?
110CCA3 aloM!? owe i-o to ,-I'n ,-f feki ? s??vuwt, Gr?G, ?f
c : Regional Office
Central Files
T f
RECEIVED
AVG 1219
cu r C? °S R 'IDN ID: ENV(Rnn??, 9T
NM-_aN?H1D?. PSRIf__^ R-.QUZS?:D (PROYIDE Lu+1-ONYITDL t??RtTl V) .
PRE -CONS TRUCT! ON NOT! F! Ca T ON .A PPT T C.P_T i ON
CR 1 TIONFi ICE PENS T-- R QU=?E
1) NCT= 2G??=0N ='O ? CC?°S OF ?`7G'L'G?- ?S
2) A2P?OC?T-O:i _-CR Z=C=CN 401 Gam"'- C?==ON
3) C.^.Cr'm= =czn n.i'== NC DZTISiON OF cz; .S=AL Y-Air'L=`- =
S?'D T1-i-r- CRT_G.i A7" AND (1) CO2°- OF r---s C:.?T..:T^_D rczZm TO = APPROP_IPZATZ
OE-_C- 0= =- COAPS OF _--'TGiv=-S (Si AGZ iC"f ADDRESSES SEZ T) . SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SZITT TO THE N.C. D?TSION OF E*TVIRONZ_EN. T?T? 2??ZAG?T
(SEE m_GZN. CY 10DRESSES SF-=*-.T)
1. OWwERS NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201

C-TY .
Raleigh ST?"T E. NC Z_---) CODE: 27611
P°O,YEC= -OC? TION ?DORF.SS, -NC'UDZNG SUBDTV SIGN N =?M (I= D =- :vT =CIA
Bur am Count between Cornwallis Road and Ellis
Road (see attached location map).
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) .
(WOR_K) :
4. * I_ PD°T_,-C?.BLZ: AGENT'S NAHE OR REScCNS=BEE CORPORATE' OFF=131 •; ?..DDR=SS,
J Mack Little, Little & Tittle Landscape Architecture/Planning
PHONE NUMBER.
PO Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-821-5645
S. LOCrTI_ON OF WORK (PROV=DE A 2-10, PR E=ERLBL ? COPY OF USGS TOPOGR?P _C
r(1D OR A.ERIALL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SC.1-LE)
COUNTY: Durham NE.?RZST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
See Attached Location Map
1
r
S2ECT_FIC LOC_1-TICN. (INCLUDE RODS
NUMBERS, L;LMhLm_R1KS, ETC.) • Crossing 26A: zt800 ft. south of hairpin curve in
SR 1951 between S. Alston Ave. & Cook Rd. (SR 1950) Crossing 14B: on SR 1951
approximately 550 ft. southwest of Cook Rd. Crossing 14C: On SR 1951 ± 1,650
ft. east of Cook Rd.
6. T7• -DACLED OR 1Ta712ES L STR.. 7r.M/R_ ...R
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
ia. IS PROJECT LOCATED Nr WATER CTASSiM:.D ?S TROUT, T--DAL SALT"qAT--a
(SA) , 'r.=G'ri 4Gr?ITY WA.=RS (FiQW) , OUTST?VDI_?`1G RESOURCE WATERS (OR?v) , W._C:?
SUPPLY (WS OR WS-==) ? YES [ J NO [x?x =_ YES, -XP -?I:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOC'-TED WITHIN A NORTH C OLIN?_ D=-TIS=CN OF CC?S.?.
t?=?1?GZ%I NT_ A_= OF .V`4?RONM-?1T__LL CONCZ-m (.Z-C) ? YES [ J NO [ XJ xx
7C. I_ THE PROJECT IS LCCr--D WITHIN A'CO?..ST?? COUNTY (S:.- P G:. cOR
LIST Oc- COAST?t, COUNT= CS) , W'r3T I_ THE L11gD USE PL?N •(LUP) DRS.CN AT_ON'
Not Applicable
8a. r.3L` A.-NY SECT=ON 404 PERMITS BEEN PREIVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
Tt=S PROPERTY? YES [ J NO (x jx •I_ YES, PROVIDE ACTON I .D. 1vTiI?SE_. OF
?R: J=OQS PERMIT =ND ?VY ?SDT_T_CN_ :NFOR_'L:T_ON (_NCT_,UDE ° C_000PY OF 40?
CERTIFIC'TION): Areas previously delineated and filled under 1989 Manual
criteria would not have been considered wetlands based on current•(1987.).criteria..
8b. PRE ADDITIONAL PERHIT ?tFQGc'.STS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
?TGRE? YES [ J NO [x?]x YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOT=Z NUMBER OF ACRES IN. TRACT OF LAND: ± 26 acres
9b. ESTZY-!=D TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT S:_ :
0.39 acres
,? T. _ Northeast Creek
2
r

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OE rS-ETL.MI DS nIPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROTECT BY:
E--. LL ING: 0:39
F-HOODING :
• DR74---N7L-GZ:
EZC3 V7LTT_ON :
OTHER:
0.39 ac.
TOTAL. ACAS TO 3E !`'AC=TD :
10b. (1) STRE-'-? C??StNL TO BE DACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROjc.CT (_-
tZ?'I,OC`iT_:D? F-ROVIDE D rSZ-aNC BOTH BETORD ;-ND A=ZR R,=CC- TXQN) -
14B: 170 ft. 14B: 140 ft.
L:.=G-=GBEFORE: 14C: 165 ft. I_* AFTE-R: 14C• 155 ft. FT'
.14B: 9-14 ft.
S7?DTz BEFORE (based on normal high wata= =nton=s) - 14C: 23-31 ft. . FT
h? a = T,ER: 14B: 8 ft. 14C: 18 ft.
14B: 60 inches 14B: 72 inches
AV?RAG E DE3'?'= BEFORE: 14C: 9 ft. ' A_T'ER: 144- 9 ft- FT
(Z) ^RE='r C:=?NNr' IMPACTS HISt RESULT =RCM_: (C"?.CE
OP=.v C:?*iNr.L RE:.GC_'__ION: P1 OF P-?=. IN C: =VNEL: XXXX
C:_?SINr?. EXCAV?SION:
CONST_RQC:ION OF A Dc`s/cLCODZING:
OTHER:
1? . CJNSTRDCT_ION Or A POND. =S. PROPOSED, WHIT IS THE S=ZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRr-:N=.NG TO T: POND? Not Applicable
WE= IS THE EXPECTED POND SUR_ACZ ?R`?? Not Applienhl
12 DESCR_PTION OF PROPOSED WORK :VCLUDING D_TSwSSION OF TYPE OF
MEC HIN=CAL E-QUIPHENT TO BE USED (ATTIC Py -NS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAF+_?1G=
ONLY); Grade four and five lane sections. Construct two lane section.
Backhoes, pans and haul trucks will be used for. construction. See Attachment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Construction of Northeast Creek Parkway.
3

r.-v TT =S BL:,_?JED T=- T::_S ACTVTY 2?LJST BE C_Li?=D
14. STATE R--SONS r ? rr?? FiTT?2?iD
OUT -NWLTI-WDProposNC roDadwa cr ss Se?t bu? ieO ? N a Ju of Northeast Crook- Pormits
-13CTS)
are for crossing only. Crossings are being made er e d' cular
to channels to minimize impacts. Crossings
of wetlands.
CON_AC= TH II•S 1':t=Sn PS7D W-LDL-- SERV_C
1S . YOII A_?F. R QU_RED TO - .,
(IIScriS) ;1ND/OR NA:TCNc?? --RZ- -ES 5E=??C (NI?:S) (S= - ^ aC-?1C_
?LRDING THE ?R-Z. C 0: IMUNY _ EDERALLY L= j D OR
.-D-DRESSES S'c?CT) Tc:- -ENED S EC :.S OR :? :1T ._
?ROPOSED FOR LISTING ZNTD;I3`lGERZD OR
.N TH?. P RN=_ ? ?= T: == Itsv B= `-----`-=°°-D S`_' =`- PROPOSED •PROjZCT . Da
See Attachment (A == AC. R S?ONSES
CONT?_C T ED
16. YOU MREQUIRED TO CONT C_ THE F-7-ST_OR=C °RZ5:E=TV _--.ON 0,7---,r ,!,R
'?ST_OR_C
_ q G tD_*1G THE PAS :.SICE OF
0) (SF- C-FDICv ?CDR SSZS S'-- ) IL
- - y_ ?"TLD BY THE PROPOSE-:)
?ROP_RT= S IN TH:°=:?: rWr.- . _
PROjZCT. DA:s qpf, At- 1- -1 t, 1h
17. DO=S T:r. PROSECT T_?v'L'OLtaa ??1 EX?END=TQR°_ OF PUBLIC _=v'NDS OR THE USE OF _
PUBLIC (S_?^'E). ..•yD?
Y-SS. $$x NO [ ] (3F NO, GO TO 18)
r ES DOES THE ROv- F?=.QQ= -°Rt=r_?r_?'_ON O: P`i wV'V=RONv-ZiT?1
_N?_ ?VL =RON?'?=iIT3?
a. s. Yyy REQIII:S=??I=S OF NORTH C_:RO:.
DO a T P URSU! T TO THE
POLICY ACT?
YES fixx NO [
ICAROLINA
b. IF Y- S, 1-S THE DOCUt-EN_ BEEN R =-IrN =D T'.RCQG'r_ -H7 NORTH CAROLINA
DEP?RT`-rr-NT OF ?LOIIIZNISTR T_ON ST T E CLZ;LRZNGr.OQSZ?
YES [jxx NO [ I
T_. ANS-R .R TO 17b IS YES, THEN Sv y - ;°PROPa_1T E DOCUY-----NT_ T=ON FROM THE
ST .T%- C.T z;L R NGt.OUSE. TO Di TISYON OF E-NV-N ?, I??NaG= ' `7T RrC-i- G
COMPLIANCE' FiT_T? THEE NORTH C;ROLINA ENVIRON2-MMA, POLICY ACT. See Attached
QUESTIONS REG;URD:NG THE ST?T E CZE-a-RA-NGcCQSE R---V---E-e; °qOC SS SHOULD BE
DIRECT=D TO MS. C .RYS B?C =LTT_, DlRE=. OR S IFLTE CLF_;L_RING'aOQSE, NORTH
CAROLINA .DE??RTyFNT OF 2.DMINISTRATT_ON, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH',
NORTH C.7ROLMNA 27603-8003, TELE2HONE
4
, . .
18. THE FOLLOW=NG 1TZYS SFCULD BE INCLUDED WITa THIS L?
2L a
IC'T10 =_
PROPOSED C==•I=TY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXC?V?T°_D OR _.LL I aTrR-7aJ
INTO NLTI. %-NDS :
a. WETL;I-qD DE:,-LN T-CN LaD SHOWING ALL VVETT?*IDS, STR..MS, LAKES
;11TD PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NPT1'ON'w1DE PERT-ZT NLHBERS 14, 19, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ;LLZ STR----r?_*S ( 1TERN=T_°VT AND P°_RI--..ITZNT) ON PROPERTY
MUST BE SH-OWN ON THE F-mP. MA-0 SC:--TES SHOULD BE 1 ?1C -EQUALS 0 FEET OR 1
INC EQUALS 100 OR Th:IR EQUiv'i.LZNT.
b. REPRES .*JT_=-VE PzOTOG7,A2: OF WE'ZT_.-NDS TO BE
M-12ACTED BY -PROJECT. - - - -
C. DEv=NZ; T=ON WRS PERFORLED BY A CONSULT.71-NT, --.-1C'..,UDE ?LL Dry
SHEETS R_F'LF:v-x--N TO THE PLACMEX-ENT OF THE DELI-N i-?'SON LMIN E.
d. rTT= C A C02Y OF THE ST_ORL``wATrR I1a?Ir?C??Vi PL?1v =_ REQUIRED.
e . hr?T IS 1,72M USE OF SURROUND-7. q PROPERTY?
Industrial, residential, undeveloped.
IS PROPOSED 2_*ETHOD OF
S i• r_. S_S20S???
Not applicable
a. S=CvLD : *1D Dc'- 7D !GET UT ORIZATION LET=ER PL_C_=LE.
NOT TTT "'%qDi S OR WA=- RS OF THE U. S . MAY NOT c3 _?*_C: ACTED PR_0R TO c
1) . ISSJANC OF A Sc CT_TCN 404 CGR2S OF. ENG1 -
N72:IFcS _ I YT,
2) .rIT R T_? 1SSJANCI OR FA_VEr OF A 401 DIMS= ON Or
ENVIRCN -a' NT L M=NAGc.'?'NT MAT-
7 --1 - QUALl''Y) C: RTI= ICA.T=ON, AND
CQAS''a T COUNT---,- OlTT,) , A L: T=- R QOM T--:.
NORTH C,'?-OLT_2QA DIV_SsON OF COASTiAL 2* N.aGL2 NT ST_%TING T P_tcOPOSaD
ACTIVITY IS CONSIS"'ENT W---T'--' TEM NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL yy.Gcw*?'NT
P_ROGRr'1M.
ER' VAGENT'S SIGNATURE
D2 TE
.(-AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF -_UTHOR_ ZTTON LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
r. T-
+
go
• t °
ILL si _ 6Tf `a
?ctow4i S Jr Oticftam ..
FO
?
I ' bYla„a « Oak CCOY41
v_ < MAR,

I O~• C, w sl a 4ci R' t° ?
• O
t
t c.-.. C.R

h
7 ? ` ? p
,t t ov
1 .
Fo Ito. r

Ke<?c t ? _ ?? i 8cthesQa t?? j?
so.

tom. (; . f? K •G,?o I
few SEARCH
j
acal

,o
r
P
°
; .. f 14,
,
< zC
-.
Pafkwpod ?`?` !
1
-
1 5
s 5
.0
?r
Nclson.
J
I . I

,? a<u? I
-
• OE
(AL

:7,a Al

I $? ? J

. _.._..*...-..._..-.
I
I/
V
m Q
FR?'Y

a
9
y
ST
h G" ;
urhamr ec
Comm Coll

o ?
y . L
LOVE
R
i
D.
14
?
M tn` G
' PARKWAY
/ <ur
l
( l l
Project 1
w Limits
W 1O
1
?
c i CO
?ti
pR • ,,
0 ?
9?
l
?s a

N
Fguro
NORTHEAST CREEK _ PROJECT LOCATION MAP
PARKWAY
REFERENCES
DLID I-L Ills ?l s 1i'I
DLID I-C Ir r.ca e{{
DcID 1w r.cs
9
0 sza
DLID Poor. IeIl{ r{Ci Pal
MID I M 11.{ r"'• t~
Km Poo[ 1n{ reta ~{
P® WK 111{ rKi m
1a>a POCK 1174 F"x Sig
r IN
0- 11 ?k 9"
uL . IY
MAT T POOT Poor. I" P Iw Kl I3s
r"T IMIC I W ?A.X 83
r,laT BOOr. 111 r..-. I
Il1
rl'T POOL T1 r'"
rlAT 1,00c 32 P?a IS
TaI 1(Ir Ile6 !
Tar. Wr 1Y
Tai r.r 1M
TAI IAr 11711
N/r
JAI Y L
VTNNZ
D6 365 PC W
I
N/r
113= P. I
• IIOSIIiTON I
DO 13{1 PC 2J.?(
N ly
Zt+
1a. 1
JostrAs I
DO 3{
PC 33 J.
I
?I
.n pl
Tte?rtv PaT7
uIl r.slro.e
M I1.1 K rY
K PaIKM
I
I

"J 1
/
f
s
t
L
\ C
j
{
NOTES
cacao
. Dews wo. rrc
. mw.m ru.l
Hn cn..o?
JOT/N GROUP 5=
1 DD 1330 PC 950
.1
?r- -J?---r=
C - -7 Nn
w?+l JOVA.N GROUP SIX
1 q DO 1330 PC 030
/r
i, Ja1¢t D. t ! yi
t RAC1. J. BAUCO11 I
Dr8 80 70 PS G 162 I <r+o.aem PosTa+sT alas r.+s..T RM i w
ro..c vIl
:
1 ! 1 21
?? ? ? I I Ir
// ?/ r 1 1 GL1X0 I !
TM 568-02-003 I
GLtXO
T'Y 541-01-017
? / Itl I !
? / 1 ?1 I k
11 I {,?
i G Lao
lql I ?'
TM SU-02-002 1 i 1 I !
1 ?1 1
J
lr.era® Por-"T Obi rY ay am 11' ? - - _ - !? • I
?snale TTK.arI?C J -{? i til:
oT?cTa1 r{.a«r rc ?i' ?, all
1 _
J /
T
Nn
AM
TRICE
T , SocI.tu
JS,
/
I X N 16"
rc Jjz
J
I
I
j
--
RNTa1124
D(vxsTo113
A DO 14Z3
NCDOT WETLANDS CROSSINGS
Pan M
NORTHEAST CREEK PARKWAY
TRANCYL- TOWtCW.
DUFVAM COUNTY. N.C.
I TM 568-02-012 I
/ I !
I
I I I
a VOA i k.
?? $I I I I
I ? 1
._r._,.._.,.1
r - - GTAXO
N, TM 568-02-006
GL1X0
TL 568-02-001 - -
I
` ? ( Nn
sun or Poem ca"um
DO 407 rC 733
Y ??` il? P'B 70 PC 7r.
_ I
T---- - --1
DUPONT DL NO(OVRS A CO. I I
DO 1141. PC 400
104 PC 103 N/r I
• DO 1550 PC 394 .? BALLENTINE
1 l"UU"
t FRO"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WEnANO OETk::iM=TIGN
(1987 CGE Wadands Oalinaation Manual)
projactl5itai e ? v-?83?
App!(cant(oWner:
lnvcstipatar:w=" ? ? ?5-
Do t`Salznai Ctrcumsia a icat Situation)? Yes °
is tha sita siQAifi=1d &S cAce ?? yes (ID
Is tha araa a paten
((t neaded, =121a an raverse.l
VEGETATICN
• l
r
()eminent Plant $O? Stratt7m tndioat
Z._/ Jt? NtGtkA- 2 L,5, Felt/
•c.
y 7-e>
6. f?,r.st" t?it?TfW? GY_?/rltr ??1
7.lffPt r/? ?• w vF r??s/? ,k/
S.
P.rc•nt of Oa --;X=t Spadrs that are act. FACN ar FAC
(axdudSnq FAC-1.
Ramarka:
Dam:
County: _179 rr a-f-c
Scala:
Community 10:
Transect 10:
Plat 10: wcr

emin?t Plant $oeGiet Stratum Ind{eatof.
3. ---

1Z
13.
14

15. . ?..
16.
H=RCLCGY .
•
R•cacdsd Oats (O•scrh• 1n Rcmaricsl:
-' Wedend HydtnloQY Indcatara:

i
Pricsury ndiutaca:
?3tr•acn.txk4t.ccTideGaup• ? at.d
Agdd nhatocr-Ph• Z. Od kr Upp•c 121nch.a
Qdwf -
rotd.d Oata Awaat 1. .......•???w4or FA4&-A
"" orin tsr.•a
: ;?idkn•nt OapOtiU
Patt•m• In W.danda

ziacu:
a
.r,

S.cacdary k+dlcauca (2 oc mare raauIt.dl:
,C dizt+d Root Clurtinala In Uppat 12 trrchaa
N A- Qn?
papth of Surface Water. . ?-- atar?SLairt.d Laayi
3 ,/ `Locst Sad survey Oats
Depth to Fra• Wsz•t M Fit: FAC-Ii.uttal T4 at

d
G '? ?
S "other (5:044t In Ramada)
:
o
Depth to Saturated
Rarrsartc? '
pRtltt
r
SOILS
Maq Uric tQama y Qt:inaQ< C:a..: • ,(J ???ra-?
(Sat(aa and Pttsaal• - ?A- F.id Obaatvatsana
LOA. _ Oaafcm iA&op.d TYPO? Yn. t1a
Z-axoaamY Oubaccal:
Aro({iQ Qe?erpde?, T4=rw. Canar<dana.
Mauix Caiac Mazda Cotacl .. Marla
Oep? - urtteM Maisrt Abut?ec.cerCx?crsT( Srrvctvro, ete.__
r.c e. {lort?en '?}l''•.ni..tt Motes ? . _ --?- -
--
i
H}?it{a SoA itwicatccs: - '
f{iatoacl ?Caacradcns .
i{isda >, ?ipadcn _ _Iilph Or?snia Caatant In Surtaca Lcyac to s4ody +axs , , -
• ?-S?tltCia T.doc ?•Cttlani0 StraESdngtn Sa?Y Saba -
Aquia (?rtoc:fora R?G?? ,, ?Ustod an Lard Oedda zoos tS.t -
ustad cn futioc-.d f{ydria Soils (Sst i
v a UC:Cn Caciddans _ Otttac (! !«n Ia R 1 i
?iGfey*d cc Low-Ctuams Gouts
Rimackss :. .. j
WETLAND DETERMINATION
?tydropEtfsia Yadatsdaa graaait? s? do (Cirda!
Wadsttd 1tYdcaloQy Ntsana No
1{ydzia Eo?a ptas.ntl ? do
R.cttarkt: '
• (C1cdo1
Is tills Sane coq AointVAtNa a W<dand? 2J Ka

by
I

FROti

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETIANO OETERMINATION
(IS 87 COE Wadands Oalinaation Manual
??Kcxw,aY?N?Orj? oat©•
ProiactlSita: County. 1A +R fth-M
s !
• APPnc3nt/Own©r. ?b - State: ? i?l? L•
Invastipator:•- L'
on the Sim? ? No community 10:
Oo I1oc:ttal dreufrtstas exist iovl Situation)? Yes ® Transact 10:
Is the sita .siptiificandy disturbed (AZYA - (12 ?• plot lO: 2
Is tthe area a potential Problem Aces? Yes
(If naeded. explain on ('tNvarsel
3
.i

VEGETAT)ON
Str?rrt+ In?ceiar
rJP ?I?ar-? R 1 p as
. 7.(if e I I-- / f1 H _G L I U7T Il_ S N au _ FAQ _
pstesctt et Occcnnaat Spades that scs 0(iL. FACN ac FAC
(exciudnQ FAC-1.
Rar:ssrkt:
om:ne**C Punt Species StrMMM Indtcatef
9.• lltlRrx??is REPoN?? '- .
10.
IZ - .
13. ---
14.
,}OYo
HYDROLOGY
• Wadac+dllydtalaQYt?lucoa: Q00 E
1aite. ctTws Gaups Fhat0cwhe Saturated In Uppet 12 Inches
FObesomtkng: t0ascr?o In Rcctc?tiul: Fay InCiutacr.
?Wetst l tcics
sta AvsZal:Ia =pift Linos
Sedlmant Oepasits
OrinaQa Faueme In Wedsnds
Sacand.ty tndiutars (2 of mats csgcrlrsdl: 12 Inches
0epth at Sutfacs Watsr: anj
0aath to Fcss water In Pic
N
Depth to Saturated Sa1•'.
0z4zad Root ehatucale in Upper
-WctohStcirted Leaws
_Lacal Sa3 Survey 0AU
FAC-11eutrd Test '
Other (69Wn In Remarks)
r
Rsmafu: - ..
t- KV%A
SOILS
' ' > Maq Urk Hama aceiaia. Casa: 11 PLA-Nb
(galas and Ptua.I• Fi.ld tJbastYaaeas
• ConScm Macotd TYPO? No
TaronamY MubCrcual:
Proff(v Qee4?den; "?;.?.: ? _. T• '• "• - T.xtuts. Cortcradoaa. ,
Mactvr Ca cr _ Macds Co(ecs MaCa
?a rrnelr MaF?r}f Abunde.+ee?N*?TC • Strtfettrrh ete. .
e. err en '{t"•.nTwtf M?nl
..._...?
..
tacst
• Kydrta oQ indc?
- Sit:lose{ ?Canctadozis
• t{Iah atQasu?a.tCtantaRt u?s{au layer In SacdY $e;14
•. t•{IsdQ'??'? - ?r ?an?O Sttasidna ?l 'S?'"'i ?,SOZt ..
SuIQCic z6al ?Uscod on Lau{ f(edc Soas ust
Moiatur. ReGuna UvAd an ttadar j t{yddo Soaas Utt
Radvdrta Cac?Cldons ?dthsr (6?!«rt In Ramat .
=Ctayad at Law-chrama Colon
Racnacksi
l

WETLAND DFrERMINATMON
r*ff% hfdc YeQotado n prasaat? Yn (Ckd4 nd Hydrology Praasnt?
a 3oas Prasant? Yas
arScs:

• (Ckdal
is tide _°.np**Q pazttWid is a W4dac4? Yas tta

rpott

1
i
i ?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANO OtM(NATION
(I S87 COC Wa:iaads Oalinaation Manuail
FrojactOW:
Appacant10Wnur. ,?ls t7?r• -
Oo Norma( accutztstactcas asst cn the site? ..
(s th(: sita sicli-tacandy d-mturbed (Atypical Situatianl?
is tfla arua a potentia( Problem Area?
(if needed, onlain on co`cma.)
YEGErAMON
Srracvm (ndie++<
Q?+inent Ptent 5(iecief
5..,,? ?Nt Pt'?4C?S ??1RGlf//art/,d d0
.7. ?v?uC7/F?t?l?C 5C_ F-
J
s. .? If r-
peresctt of Ocnsinaat Spades that err 0131• FAC-9 of FAC
(axc!uCin4 FAGI.
Ramark,a:
HYDROLOGY
Recatded Oats (04SCr;b# Ia Ramsrkal:
Sttsectt, t&kt. ccTW4 GauQe
AtU FhQt0Zrcphs .
? .'.-" Qthst .
?tlo Ra rdsd IIata Avsz??
Field Cbsscv<docW
Oepth of Svrf<ee W<ta: A=,A? Qnj
Ospth to Free Wstst to Pit:
• N
Ospdt to S<turated So3:
Ram<cics: -
' w

263 ?/ Data:
County: p ,-, F? ? N
- Scats: 0 el
No Community (O•
•
<TED No _
Transecr 10:
Ye ; <E? Plot 10: eJU.'1 Z6 a f C-

Qom'n.rnt Pfen< 5oecies Strecym Indteatoe
s. ?o?t,lGEnA. J oNkC- Vi,uE.FAt7-'
to.
11.
IZ .
13.
15.
1 tJ. ---
15?Z
Wedend t(ydtany inClc<tca: tJ o?E
Fzim<ry Indc4wrv.
&-wadated
-!S wrctd in upper 12 (aches
--Wa.t Marks
-Odtt Linse
-?Sedt n4at 0epoeits
~_Oreinc?. Fattame in Wedar,da
S.condacy tc,diutacs (2 or mare c.quiredl:
_(]Z flz.d Raot channsis In upper 12 inches
_W<Lar?Stsirt?d 1.aaws
Laeal S4 Survey Oats
FAc-uvmai Test
_„Omer ( sin In Ranudcsl ? .
FROCS
..SOILS • .V??ab
•? r8 ? CrG GR?ED??E S,cµoy Lcw,f* T-a?
I`llcp Ucut t`(tmt /c,?f2T???Y f ('1JEk/?{.'1? pcYiniQa Gala: /?'YT?? e- - «g
(Sti{u at<d Ptuial: idR?~G?,- ?G '- Fi.td abiscvtuon:
L A ?.?•-?V ?O?-f? ' Ccnfimt M•op.4 TYA?? ar C C••
Trxonacny (subcrcupl. .
pro(ftg Ceeet+IIdon; ?/ ? • - r MaC1a . ? - Taziurt, Canccadant.
Otpth Matrix GoSa? fACCdt Co(acs
urtTeM Mo?ec1 _ Abtfod c??_x_ *??t • Strtlctttre ere.
N / •
' /o Yk N
_ . a: rte- f f3• Lo.a+yY
,. E R 6 lJf-
C
•i•Iy?tIC $OQ ((1dIClCaCt: ?O?`,E
.. .. - '. 1-{(itatCl _ C,OAafttlQM -
I{Iscfo t i;sedoct _ Oct, QcQacua CQattnL In Sut(tu L.tytc Ia 540dy .,axi
Su(ACio trQQf cv;a w SCt+? IA:s-,ly. SQit
Ilqu{a Meiituss Reanzt _Llitod on I.ood tw--4a SCBs LU'C
RfdurnC CanCitiani - _LIstcd Ca Iud=a I{Y?'cia Saks Llrc
,___Gltytd Cclarr-ChrCM4 Cdaca - __ dCs.c (£ i:?ntaf
r
Ractutkst .
WETLAND DEI MINATION
?{ydro'ptzytiC YtCatition Ptctsdt7 Ytt Jo ?!?! .
k?latlind ?{rdrafaQy I'rtttcu? _ Yts
Hydcio SaBt ?ttatntT Yat do Is tuts S.mRGc+Q Pant?Nttwn a Watt.ad7 Ytt ©a
` Ramsrkt: ?V R 1 b D1GT1OI-?.'i.? ?I?ZE.4-5 .ti,a ••?, ? ,5 To.2 ?....a_7-?.cc? '
?"Y To P a F i3?'K 'To -TOP o t--* 75 Af--ZK w IT%+ o -pJd u7"
7-59G
- gppcov.a by

SOILS
ALYmq .?':: Map Utdt f1<m< C ?GT??r fwA ?0/?5? Qtalnaat C:a.<: I
• _ (S<d<a ltd Phss.1: T G Fi<id Cbs<rvaczana
Lo?/•-f Caaficm M.oa•d Tvp•7 Yc. t1a
T<ronatttY C3ubatocsal: S,a ?JU
pM?g Qe?c?Qtler,, '? Made T<xtctrv. Canat<dana.
Motda
(].ptti MattvC Coke Cotoa ?.,.?? Mote c} _ Abunder+ta?TncreiC • SrrvcteNe ete.
S - too rjc= ?o?1E ? ?s?.?f s?
fa
.,
'3 :3 Al o ? E ? o,a.t. y
------------
------------
Hydda Soil indlcatoa: No?lt--
' Mttoscl -
?iilsda t.;?adoa
-'-?3lSttTdSC t.5a?
=Agtr(a Moi:ttm 9-4;?Mt
Reducing Cor4datts
_Gtty+d cr La -chrvma Uca
Racttiacks:
i
i
i,
f
f
i
Cat?cradons
?Mah dtCas??a??C,t(act.tsnt En,?Saaace f_ty?tt in Sac?dy Sass
~ Z",;o Sti ?.+•V inSatxlY SOas
Ustod on L0c4 ifydda Sons Uct
UVAd Ca itad*C%.l t-{e_da Soils i.itt
_..dth4i- isR--&3t
WMAND DEIERMINA'IION
- (Ckdel
tydcopida Yagttadan 3?ressrit7 ' Yts (C1rda!
Yttdatui }{ydrafagy i'tt«tttT Yts o
Y<s o Is tad. 34rnp+Q FontWthia a w4tl4nd7 Yta tto
ftydrfa SoAa prtatnt?
RttstisrSa:.3aiu3ntt.Tto?''-? ?i?.?At?-c,'?'??,?-5-.???/.c_-t?rt,??`?`j":?T°T °F I3l?h1K
T-O 1'?P o? _ ?Nlt - w tT!•t 110 ?J,O..?c-:•-•+r wb""f'l?+-s1?S. wTl?-IN
-t-?f£ STvDS? SEA • .

^pp?owa by "(•LUSA%.G

i
i
• FROtl
•i
•• i
• I
i
,:.{?r.??ti;-mac ? ?-•
• DATA FORM
ROUTINE %VETIAN0 DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wadands Oalinaation Manuail

•-e2?r?c P?ttiW- Y ?hi?i-I
&TUf
ProjactlSlta.
Data:
-
Applicant(owner: IV r' tac9•f• -
??
?
c S Cato: ato. -_
. L .
-? 17
Y1?K
Invastlpator. , ? .
Oo Nc mai amtsnutancas exi•-t on tttn silo? as No Community 10:
(s the sits sias1fieandy disturbed (Atypical Situation17 Yes Transeet 10•
10
is the araa a pvtentiai Problem Area? -Yes :
Plat
(if needed =1zin on ravema.)
Y Gi7G ? r? a rv.?
20m nenf Pfenf srecties Stn+rcM± (nc4crio? ?om:?..*K Pfe?t Saeries StrotVm ind{erte?
.
J?
??
7 ?'
? 3• Go R ?vy? Ft?2, fin- f> P 4??f?
-
(
I. fQ4 y5 ?R?1 --
-
-

4.?l?oF.,c av? ??C iDd- ^ IZ
772S 47-6- -u 1a.
nurt7/Fog/a
<
c
i v?aE? Y F 14.
..,
i
n
6.
7_f- -AA. JaF"01"r ? V1 ?• F?_ 1?. ?
8.?itiy? ?,4,?pa• dE G.s-G - 1Q.
P•runt of coninant specl- that am 40M. FACN CC FAC
(axcfu&nc FACE. 2c?!
J?V

Rarisarice:
wMI
r-i r ucl?a.u? ? -
Racatd.d Onto (Oasa'xie in Rcm4gffa1: Wdsc,d t{ydcvicGY 1nQutoa: t{aE -
_
Zuv"nt. Ljke. arTld• Gouge FtimarY Indutofa
rAerial Photo ephs
---- tcxrndated
•? aturated In Upper 12 lnch•d
Other _
dahlo
A
d
v ?wat.t IA.&4
va
tto Racrdo
_
cats - Oritt tln.e
so(am*a 0.6;2,0 tits
^OrairtaC• Fatteme In Wedanda
Said abeefvtkne: s.cartidery kiaceuxs (2 or more r•quIt.d1:
1
A Qn Cxkaz*d Root Channsls In Upp•f 12 Inched
.
O•pth of surfacs Weur: -Watahst.ined I.AVV-•i
Oepth to Free Weter In Pic f, Q Urn 1 -(.0csl Sad survey Oats -
FAC-li•utral Test

>36 ?/ iln l
r

-
iakt In Ranarksl
other (f
ated sad.
Oepttt to saas
?,
RamakG • •
i
0

t c9
N
1 ? }
I 0 ,i
11 ? nl
I ?
I
? I
I
I
I
l
1
I
I
i
I
I
!

? T
?
?
w
?? f
I N
q
a c
I ? 4 a..
\ / J
i
i
I
I?

o ?, I

{
1
,o l
?- I
?I

i
I
I
0
a
n
w
T
I
Io
I?
IkA
I?
i?
I?
i
i
0
I
i
11 ? i f
N
co
1 +
^
cu
\V
1 ' W
t,j
' + ° 'O'd - 05'L L + L5 d1S
C, 7w) I
* 7 C)
o •? 1
1 \ ,,, ?? 1 co 0
1
+C)
11 p
O
o'
f
09, p O + .-
W
I t ,
1 14' 12' I
W
26'
1 ' N
I L -
ji U - r
• Qo j Z
1
i + O in
09+ I + +
? 'SNV2i1 '038
Z:z 09+
?? • r^ I ?? SNVUI ON3 b
I
m co
\\ ¢+ ZO E +
11 ?? ? C.D + Z
0 to
10 o Q
+ 1? ^ W
LLI
+ F ca
1 ` ?
^ n
z ? w
U) U)
kZ6 d ?S I
g5?zd ?\ B . I
\ i
'n to
\
_ ` y 1 •I
71
a \\ 1
ocD I 1 1 '? k
a kr ? ?
0 1 W?
_ c .'
? 1 Z I
-, W I
? 1 ?w I
ti ?1
I
\r rn ?w `w
d UA co to
+ I
3?? 1
COD 0
Q1 to co
VI +
1 CO \ ~Uk t?
\ N L I
us \ co N I
1 •, M •+ ? I
- ko?i-
cr'

Y z
a
X
a
J

4 ?? u
U
v
I
.. ? vrry
I
! ? ICI. ,? , m ` ?\
I I \
1 ! ?
rq U)
I ?
1 ,?1 • m '
I D ..
O I l o t J 0 0 2° •? i SV
-n - PDE aN Oav
s ? ' I I o ` in g
i
s i'I I ??? •
I 9' c 3
SS
? 1 ••• ? II ? 3-
n l 0
71
1 I ,I t
-10
1 ? I I I "'
1 I i j cP A?
(nom ?, NI I I DDC?
--?Mz V) i i X D
C
D 0 I Z. I Z
v
+ Z 770
I
O ooN N I , I m ?-? \
J n ? I I ? t v
-f- m D 70
.s 73
00 X D
I I 1 ?l
I i?l . ? GD
o D 1 I .bz i I I D Z
m -? z
Frl c I I I -? ;;? ?N
K ---I
MM
I 1 I
rri
N
I Yt„LUI??VL L??nl \\,.II ?4/?'J1J ?VV J. J? .: w• a? ./. -
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorscn? Scare ll
November 14, 1996
Mr. Whit Webb D
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch l?
Transportation Building 1 8 +196 ?j
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
i i----??
r'80JEC, MANq N
Dear Mr. Webb-
Re: SCH File #97-E-4220-0215; EA/FONSI - Proposed Construction of the Northeast
Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, NC; TIP #2831 A
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Becaus,e of
the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy, Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett; Director
State Clearinghouse
CB/j f
Attachments
NOV 2 Q 1996
cc: Region J
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01-00
An Equal opportunity / Affirmarivc Aerion Employer
I -A
O
TAKE
PRIDE 1N
United States Department of the Interior
?OV(6
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ts
Pose Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
Ecological Services CHIGHWAYS
Hay 24, 199
Hr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleinh, Nc 27611
subject: State rthe of Creek Parkway, Durham1Countyt,oNorth1Carolina?,pTIP
for N , .
No. U-2831A
Dear Mr. Vick:
of April 7, 1995 requesting information from the
This responds to your letter o on evaluating the potential
u.. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
environmental impacts and ofi'h abov provided -r ferencedaPce ,with provisions?of provides lFish
and ping information as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
-? nd Wildlife Coordination Act,
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
! (NCDOT) calls for the construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis, a project of approximately 1.8 miles. The proposed
project is divided into five sections, some of which will follow existing
roads. Actual work within the sections includes construction of two apes,
grading to facilitate future construction, and none.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
existing
1.: A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
,
.••333
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas
i which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
.. A lizt and acre-iae of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
2
types should follow tThiselistdshouldlalsotgiveJthemacreageeofaeacha
Wetlands Inventory.
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identif in and Delineatin Jurisdictional Wetlands.
which will
3. Engineering techniques
constructing any any
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
es of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
A-7 4. The cover types be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,ereduce,
or compensate for habitat value losses associated withavotheidablproe wetland
These measures should include plans for replacing
losses.
d..
1
0
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to ccur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed P J (secondary
ed project will add to
assessment of the extent to which the propos similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the 'area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Wake County. The sectioncof the the
environmental document regarding protected following information:
1- A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
,affected by the action;
3. psi analysis of the ",effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which-the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Actlr subject to its
formally proposed or isted as
provisions, including Section 7, until
would placeethetspin th ecies underltheJfull of a {j
threatened or endangered.
change data
candidate species- This Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
protection the endangered status in the e project corridor is unknown. Therefore, theiruhabitatr
candidate
the project to avoid any adverse impact to
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. ifo our office can-supply any
please act Howard Hall, the
additional information or clarification,
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Si ely yours,
CS-?
David A. Dell
Acting supervisor

REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Durham County
,Ards
Laid eaglti (=L 'v- etus Ieucoc?D us) - C•
Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus micha(xB) - E'
Smooth conoflower (Frhinacea laevigata) - E
There are species which, although not now fisted or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. Theso 'Candidate-(C1 and C2) species aro not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered, We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Green floater (Lasmi= subviridis) - C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
Insects
Soptima's elubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2•
Plants
A liverwort (Plagiochila Columbiana) - C2'
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - C2
Tall larkspur (Delphinium ezaltatum) - C2
'Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county-

i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Sc"tary
Division Of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. Director
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM CD 95
TO: H. Franklin Vick,'P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch F
Division of Highways S f?epartment of firan. / -6-?
FROM: David Brook
Deputy storic Preservation Officer
State Hi
.
SUBJECT: Northeast in Durham, wDurh from CornwallisRoad m County, TIP U-2831A,
Ellis
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within
for arpchaeologi Pal sect
corridor, although the corridor
resources. It is likely that as yet unrecorded sites may be affected by the project. request
you forward
hat Prior to our making recomso e We tmas determ ne the extent ftcurrent development
recent aerial photographs Y
in the area. aware
structu We have conducted a search o tancef local d with n the planning area( es of
historical or architectural inp
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigb, North Carolina 27601-2807
.r

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
A H'
Jams B. Hunt. Jr.. GovcxuOr
1 Betty Ray 1vlccain. Secretary
May 30, 1995
Division of Arciuvc-s an 4w.7
WiUiam S. c Jr. Director
S't
JUN S 1995
MEMORANnUM LITTLE & LITTLE
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways ortation
Department ofT.??ar sly
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State is rte Preservation officer
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway, U-2832A, Durham County,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received the aerial photograph for the above reference p project from
Robert T. Peter of Little & Little. As indicated on the aerial, ro ect
area is heavily developed It is unlikely National R Register--elig ble a haeological
as presently proposed will affect any
resources. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigations in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made he advisory Council 106 of Preservat b'ntsric
Preservation Act of 1966 an
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. ave Thank you for your cooperation and ase consideration.
contact Renee Gledhill Ea iey ions
concerning the above comment, p
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
a cc: T. Padgett
X St to Clearinghouse
bert T. Peter
109 East Jooes Street • Ralcipb. North Carolina 27601-2807

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Environmental Sciences Branch
Ecological Assessment Group
May 30, 1997
MEMO
TO: Ecological Assessment Group
Regional Wetland Contacts
Greg Thorpe - Water Quality Planning
Dennis Ramsey - Operations Branch
Ruth Swanek - Instream Assessment Unit
Jimmie Overton
FROM: John Dorney
RE: Fourth draft of DWQ policy for stream mitigation

I
i
Attached for your review is the next version of the stream mitigation policy. As you will
recall, this policy will help Regional and Central Office staff and the private sector determine
when and how much compensatory stream mitigation is required for 401 Water Quality
Certifications. I received comments from the Regions, members of our Group, Ron Ferrell
(regarding what the hearing officers intended) and Water Quality Planning. As you might expect,
there were a wide range of thoughts. I have deliberately chosen to write a conservative policy
which would only require mitigation when aquatic life uses are clearly lost. Given the uncertainty
of stream mitigation policy, I believe that this approach is prudent at this time. Please review
carefully and send any comments to me by 13 June 1997.1 believe that next step should be to send
this policy around for external review (DOT, agencies and selected consultants). Also Bob
Johnson for the Corps of Engineers in Asheville informed me that he is working on a similar
policy for the COE. I will coordinate this review with him as well. Finally Dennis Ramsey is
working with a committee representing five agricultural agencies to better define perennial waters.
The attached draft policy may help in that regard as well. Finally I will need the modeling folks to
review this to see if it is consistent with the 7Q10/30Q2 discharge policy. Thankx for your help.
Strempo4.mem
cc: Steve Tedder
Bob Johnson, COE Asheville Field Office
Environmental Sciences Branch - 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atrimtiative Action Employer 50% recycIC410% post Sumer paper
.,
DWQ POLICY REGARDING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR STREAM
IMPACT
DRAFT
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Lab
yERSION FO R
May 30, 1997
Recently adopted 401 Certification rules have a separate
provision for the minimization of impacts to waters as well as
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to waters (15A NCAC 2H
.0506(b)). However unlike the case for wetlands, the rules do
not provide numerical guidelines for compensatory mitigation
regarding impacts to streams. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) intends to work with DWQ Regional Offices, Department of
Transportation (DOT), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), US
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the private sector to develop
and refine guidelines for notification for compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams. These decisions
will be reflected in appropriate General Certifications as well
as policy decisions signed by the Director of the Division of
Water Quality.
Listed below is DWQ's draft policy developed to implement
this rule. We fully expect that work in this area will involve
considerable discussion and related fieldwork. If this policy
changes, we will notify our 401 Certification mailing list of
those changes.
I. DWQ Notification and Distance
Biological data (primarily benthic macroinvertebrate
analysis) indicate that streams in culverts are biologically
impaired - that is, the aquatic life use is degraded or lost.
Culverting or otherwise burying streams should be minimized in
order to protect these aquatic life uses. A linear distance of
150 feet seems to provide a reasonable balance between roadway
design criteria (allowing a four lane road with median and side
slopes) and DWQ staff workload. For the sake of consistency,
this distance will also apply to all projects which proposed to
impact channels whether the project is linear (e.g., roads) or
not (e.g., land development). This provision would be a
reporting threshold for all projects eligible for Nationwide
Permit 26 as well as other Nationwide and Regional (General)
Permits which require written concurrence from DWQ and would be
listed as appropriate in the accompanying General Certification.
For notification purposes, any time more than 150 feet of stream
is proposed to be impacted by the entire project (not just
necessarily in one location on that project), then notification
to DWQ will be required. Applicants will be required to

separately report the length of each stream crossing in the
project. Finally if notification is required to DWQ, staff may
add site specific conditions (such as a requirement for
stormwater ponds for commercial or industrial projects) as
allowed by the appropriate General Certification.
II. Mitigation Requirements
Compensatory mitigation must replace those unavoidably lost
or degraded existing aquatic life uses of these streams either
through instream measures and/or riparian techniques such as
buffer establishment and/or cattle exclusion. In this regard,
only loss or degradation of streams with existing aquatic life
uses will require mitigation by DWQ rules. These streams are
defined as those with both a positive 7Q10 and 30Q2 flow or are
observed to have aquatic vertebrates which require continuous
water (such as fish or bullfrog tadpoles [who usually require at
least two years to mature]). Streams meeting the biological
criteria would be identified from a field visit for those streams
with watersheds smaller than those predicted to have positive
7Q10/30Q2 flow. This definition is consistent with DWQ's NPDES
program and the statistic can be readily calculated using methods
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (Low-Flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina. 1993. USGS Water-Supply Paper
2403 by G.L. Giese and R. R. Mason, Jr.).
If a stream has no or very little aquatic life due to
existing watershed conditions or historic impact (as described in
15A NCAC 2B .0202(27)), then stream mitigation would not be
needed since there would be no existing aquatic life use to
replace. If an applicant believes that the stream in question
does not have an existing aquatic life use even though the 7Q 10
or 30Q2 are greater than zero, then the applicant may collect
data (vertebrate and macrobenthos data) to present to DWQ to
document that situation. The study design and analytical
methodology must receive written approval by DWQ before data
collection is undertaken. Unless these data are provided,
streams with positive 7Q10 and 30Q 2 flow will be assumed to have
existing aquatic life use.
When compensatory stream mitigation is required, the
mitigation ratio shall be one to one based on stream length
including restoration of both stream banks. If the stream is
classified as HWQ (ie., native and special native trout waters,
primary nursery areas, WS-I and WS-II watersheds, and SA waters),
or ORW, then stream mitigation should be done in a stream within
the same river subasin of similar classification. If this is not
feasible, then a 2:1 mitigation ratio will apply.
It is clear that streams with either zero flow 7Q10 or zero
flow 30Q2 can have existing aquatic life uses depending primarily
on the flow duration. Until the relationship of the presence and
extent of aquatic life in these streams is better understood, DWQ
will not require compensatory mitigation for the culverting of

these streams. However applicants will be encouraged to follow
stream relocation guidelines were feasible for these streams.
Field work to resolve this issue is encouraged by DWQ and will be
undertaken by DWQ as staff time allows.
Mitigation procedures for impacts to canals must be handled
differently. Larger canals can have significant aquatic life
especially in the outer coastal plain. However replacement of
large canals in this landscape often requires wetland impacts.
DWQ will only require mitigation for fill of those canals that
the Corps of Engineers determines to be waters of the U.S. The
150 foot threshold still applies.
Incidental stream loss associated with construction of a
pond for stormwater, irrigation or^other purposes will not
require mitigation for the stream loss. However pond creation
may not be used to mitigate for additional stream or wetland
loss.
Projects that propose to improve drainage through means such
as channelization and dredging are not suitable sites for stream
mitigation since the aquatic life in these systems is usually
degraded or will be degraded by the stream work. Stream
improvements which are designed utilizing bioengineering
techniques which do not utilize channelization, dredging or hard
bottom structures are suitable candidates for stream mitigation
efforts provided that the streams are degraded.
III. Mitigation techniques
DWQ has developed a technical memorandum (see attachment)
which addresses various technical aspects of stream mitigation.
Mitigation should be done on approximately the same size or order
of stream, in the same river subbasin and (where feasible) in
watersheds targeted in the basinwide management plan to be
partially or non-supporting their uses due to nonpoint source
problems. If suitable sites cannot be located or acquired, the
search areas should be expanded to adjacent subbasins.
Legislation establishing the Wetland Restoration Program
discusses mitigation for "wetlands and riparian areas". DWQ
believes that this language allows an in-lieu payment to the
program for stream mitigation by private and public parties on a
dollar per linear foot basis. DWQ plans to establish a process
with DOT whereby this procedure could be implemented rather than
have DOT invest extensive staff resources for stream mitigation.
The Environmental Management Commission on 10 April 1997 passed a
temporary rule (15A NCAC 2R .0503 (b)(1) to allow the Wetland
Restoration Program to charge $125 per linear foot of stream in
order to satisfy this mitigation need. This process should be an
attractive option in many instances for the public and private
sectors.
IV. Cumulative Impact
DWQ rules for permitting of stream fill also require
consideration of cumulative impacts (15A NCAC 2H .0506 (b)(4)).
This decision is especially important in linear or phased
projects. In terms of streams, if any particular stream with
positive 7Q10 or 30Q2 flow or with vertebrate aquatic life is
planned to be impacted by fill (culverting) greater than 150
feet, then mitigation will be required for the entire length
including the 150 feet. Relocated streams with these
characteristics will be required to follow stream relocation
guidelines. Past impacts which required 404/401 authorization
will be considered when additional impacts are planned in order
to control cumulative impacts. Several possible scenarios are
shown on the attached sketch for illustrative purposes and are
discussed below.
If multiple crossings of a particular stream are planned,
then mitigation will be required if the total fill for that
stream exceeds 150 feet. Mitigation would be required for the
entire amount of impact to the stream.
Except as noted above, mitigation requirements will be
considered separately for each steam. For instance if fill for
each separate stream (culverting) in a particular project is less
than 150 feet, then stream mitigation will not be required for
the project unless total fill of the stream exceeds 150 feet due
to multiple crossings of the same stream.
If a stream with positive 7Q10/30Q2 flow or vertebrate
aquatic life is straightened using bioengineering techniques, any
loss of stream length greater than 150 feet will require
mitigation.
If bioengineering techniques are not used (for instance if
the stream is placed in a concrete lined conveyance), then the
entire length would require compensatory mitigation if the length
exceeds 150 feet. Bridging of streams will not require
compensatory mitigation for the stream impacts since the aquatic
life use is still present beneath the bridge.
In addition, compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts
may be required in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h).
streampol.mem
•-
POSSIBLE STREAM COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SCENARIOS
Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Branch
May 27, 1997 t
150 foot crossing - stream
250 foot crossing - no compensatory three 100 foot crossings
need mitigation for mitigation needed (300 feet total) - compensatory
entire 250 foot loss mitigation needed if total stream
crossings exceed 150 feet
stream I stream

Relocated stream - if loss ((old stream (Lo)
length minus new stream (Ln) length)) is greater
than 150 feet, then compensatory mitigation
needed for difference as long as bioengineering
techniques are used to relocate the stream. If
bioengineering techniques are not used, compensatory
mitigation will be required for entire length.
II slope

PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone]
1. ACTION ID: 199708146/199708147/199708148
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/Northeast Creek Parkway
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 8/18/97
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal):8/22/97
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline):9/2/97
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Jean Manuele
FAX [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
agencies' jurisdiction.

LITTLE & LITTLE
LE7 T 1'R OF 77t: L%'.S,11177A L
To f%A?'5 . TCc, 1?/Ln ru ea??
Low-, '4
j
J0IiN111BIJ,'

1VL'AR1: SY:,VI)1A'G )'0111litt(tched - (111der-se[1arale corer t741 -?.??
-Shopdrawings -Prints -Plans -Samples .Specifications
- Copy of letter - Change order -
i•nr»r:c nAT1: c1 hhT t)LN0x'11g70,%'
A b r ? ? Gf ?
THESE ARE TIMAWMI7TED as checked below:
r approval
.-Fo -Approved as submitted
u
For your use -Approved as noted
_ As requested - Returned for corrections
_ For review and comment -
- FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
EP T.) for approval
001? copies for distribution
- Return 7_ 4?ted prints
AUG 1
- PRINTS RETURNt &PAN TO US
RegU?atory
COPY TO
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify its at once.
.SIGNED: La' L- L')'C Se?
LAND.SCAPF_ ARCIIITECTURE/1'LA,'VNING PO. BOX 11.18 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLGVA 27602 9191821-56-15
r,'
LITTLE & LITTLE'
PACSIAILE TRANSMITTAL
RATE ' 12). 9'1 JOB NU1lfBER ??-
PAGES TO FOLLOW: ? PROJECT NAME
TO • 0 UUw ?)r FAX NUMBER 3 "
TO FAX NUMBER
TO F1L1 NUMBER
TO FAX NUMBER
TO FAX NUMBER '
.moil FAX NUMBER -- 919831-- 3,29
'?-
r ti.
1 ti
Yds. ?rttia ?t Cr- ti t w 3 G
rile information aonlolned in this facsimile i3 prlvleged and•conWentid inforenction intended for the tale use Ot the odarese66, If the read-
of thiv foowmlfe is not the Intended redolent. or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to, the intended recipient, you Ere hereby
error,
notified that ony dissemination, distribution or copying of th;s communication is slr,aay prohibited. If you have redeved th13 FAX in
pie..& immad'at.ly notify the' sendar listed above,. and return the original message by mail to the strider at the address listed above,
TANDSCApE ,114CIIITECI'URE/PL,INNINC PO BOX 1440 ILVXrCITr NORTIT CAROLINA 2?'G02 9i9/8.?1,5645
TO 39Gd 3-111I-13111I-1 6ZCZTE8616 8©:VT L66T/ET/80
r '
APPLICATION FOn DEPARTh1EI)IT OF. THE ARMY PERMIT
133 CFR 3251
S. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE fprra,gcritlioofregriindl
hubfic sporting burden for this collection of infomtadon is estimated to average 6 hours pcr response, inc{Udine the time for reviewing msuw•rv„a.
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, tnd completing and reviewing the coiecdon of information. Send
cvmments redarding this btrrden ostirunta or any other a$pact of tills collection of Information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Iteadquariart.Service Diractorato of InformationOperations and Reports, .1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite
1204. Arlington. VA 22202.4302; and to the Office of Managament and I1NdUat, Papcrrvork Reduction Proicct (0710-0003), Washington. OC
20ti03. hleaaa 00 No RETURN your form to cithor of those addresses. Completed applications must•bo submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT'STATEidENT
Autholityi 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: Those laws require perndts authartung acGvitina in, of affecting,
navigable water* of the United Utatea, the tGcchargo of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, and the transportation of dradgod
material for the purpose of dumping it Into ocean wators. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form vA3 be used In evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested Inferlttatton is vviuntaryo If Information is not provided, however, the pamtit rpolieation cannot be
proca«od nor cart is permit be issued.
One set of original drawings ar good ropr•odueible oopirs which show the location and character of the prepared activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings end instructions) and be submitted to the Dittdct Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposes
activity. An application that Is not completed in tall will be retumad.
.----- ? -...... ? v.. nor cn,r-n nv ruc i•ilt?DGt
1, APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
G. APPLICANT'S NAME North Carolina
Department of Transportation
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-
a. Residence
b, t3usiness 919-733-3141
J, Mack Little
0. AGUIT'S ADDRESS
PO Box 1448
Raleigh, NC
a. Racidanca
Oran APPROVAL NO. 0710.003
Expires October 1996
Little & Little
27602
b. l3u31neaa 919-821-5645
1 i STA ENT OF IJTi4ORIZ N
I hereby authorize, J. Mack Little to act In my behalf as my agent in the prococcing of this, application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental Informllun in wvppiul of this pTit opplioation.

DATE
SIGNATURE
,
NAME, LOCATION AND D66CRIPTION ri;; PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE tsar Inrtn,odunat
Northeaat Crook Parkway, SR 1308, from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road
13, NAME OF WATEREODY, IF KNOWN fxwwwotwu
Northeast Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Durham NC
COUNTY STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS ffl avokilA1.J
N/A
1Q. OTHEftLOCATION SeelAtta?ched WLocation Map
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
hairpin 26A: ±8001,south•of curve in SR 1951 between S. Alston Ave.
and Cook Rd. (SR 1950)
Crossing 14B•i, on SR 1951 approximately 550 fr. southwest of Cook Rd.
Crossing 14C: on SK 1951 =1,650 ft. caot of Cook Rd.
DITIO OF S?P 91 IS OBSU roponcnt:
ENG FORM 4345, 0 94 •
Z© 39Vd 3-111I-13111I-1 GZEZTE8616 80:V1 L66i/ET/80
r A
fe,hnai)
113- Nature of Activity (D#xrVrrorralprWrcr, intvvt`4
See Attachment
19. Project Purpose ID&V ibf rh# nr." or purao" or for prolet4 as P4"K4)b47-4
Construction of Northeast Creek Parkway, to be built between
1 January 1998 and 31 December 1999.
USE OCKS -72 ifr DR ED A n ritL fA UMAL in TO nF 015CHAnr;Fn
20. Reason(s) for Disc1131`93
Crossing of wetlands and tributary channels.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Typo n 4unio Yarda
Engineered soil fill materials. Total fill is approximately 4,200 cu. yd.
22, surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filed tma insr/Utrronv
See Attachment
23, Is Any Portion of tha Work Already Complete? Yes _ No - XZX IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of AdJoining property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbodk (it more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See Attached'List
25, List of Other Gertincatlons or Approvola/Donfols Received from other Federal. State or Local AQCncies for Work Describod in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUTABER DATE APPLIED DATE- APPROVED DATE DMED
"Would include but is not restricted to zoning, bullplng and flood plain pormita
26. Application is hereby madn fo a permit or p its to authorize the work dascriood In 0115 app)icallon. f certify that the informotion in this
application is • omplate an r a. !u r aortify that 1 poesess the authority to undertake the wor oscribed herein or am acting as the
dul ?r agent of
9 7 l
4 DATE
A., DA
SIGNATURE QF APPLICANT TE 5IGNATUR OF AGENT
The application must W signed by tho parson who desires to undert2ks the proposed activity (aPPlicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled but and signed,
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides tnat: Wboovpr, In any manner within tho jurlcdiction of any department or agency of tho United States
knowingly and willfully falsifiat. contaals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing samo to contain any falso, fictitious or
fraudulent stuarrient3 or entry, shall be fined not more than 410,000 yr unprisonod not more than five years or both.
• • •U,S.CrP0;1996.csa-n?aramta
60 , 39dd 3-L11I-I 111I-1 GZEZTE6616 813:bT L661/ET/80

Attachtnent for Form 33 CFR 325
Block 18 Nature of Activity
The project consists of the grading a four and five lane road section and the comtruetion of a
two lane road section. The construction iacludcs one (1) area of wetland to be filled and two
(2) stream crossings. Total iinpactcd wetland area is approximately 4.39 acre. Fill material
will be structured soil fill. Total fill material is approximately 4,200 cu, yds_ Stream crossings
will include the construction of one (1) 8' x 6' reinforced concrete box culvert and two (2) 9' x
9' reinforced concrete box culverts. Work will be performed with the use of baekhoes,
trackhocs, and similar grading equipment. Culverts will be placed with the use a crane.
Bloc1t 22 Surface Areas of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled
Area 26A is a small, flat area above a minor tributary to Northeast Creek:. Approximately 0.14
acre of wetland will be filled by trackhoe, backhoe, and other similar grading equipment. Area
14B is an existing road stream crossing that is being widened. The existing 60" corrugated
metal pipe is being replaced by an 8' x 6' concrete box culvert. Impacted wetlands are limited
to the actual channel. Total disturbed wetlands is approximately 0.09 acres. Backlwes,
trackhoes, and similar grading equipment will be utilized. Area 14C is a stream crossing with
wetland impacts of approximately 0.16 acres. Impacted wetlands are limited to the channel
only. Two (2) 9' x 9' concrete box culverts will be installed at the crossing. Backhoes,
trackhoes, and similar grading equipment will be utilized.
ve 39Gd 3-111I-3111I-1 6Z£ZTE86T6 80:bT L661/ET/80
e
Bloch 24 Adjoining Property Owners
Carl R. Banks Tax Parcel 0 555-01-019
Saundra Banks
A. Waynewitt
PO Box 3095
Cary, NC 27519
Alston Avenue Baptist Church Tax Parcel # 555-01-017A
c/o Trinity Baptist Church
2123 Soli Drive
Durham, NC 27703
Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Tax Parcel 4568-02-001
3030 Cornwallis Road Tax Parcel 4568-02-002
Durham. NC 27709 Tax Parcel #568-02-003
Joven Group Six Tax Parcel #641-01-018
PO Box 2922 Tax Parcel #641-02-005
Durham, NC 27705
90 30Vd 3-111I-3111I1
GZEZTE8616 80:bT /-66T/ET/80
LITA h' L17'71IJ
LEM R OE71%'.INSM117,1I.
7,o Mr . go 1,, -D u,r L-,"
n?1.?1IZESE???nL?•c}ou -!Ittticbed
- Shop dravtings -Prints
-Copy of letter -Change order
Ct"Wn:c 1)1,77: l711:11'i.

HII'SE ARE 71?,1NS,11117'EU cis cbech, ed below:
or a proval -Approved as submitted
or your use -Approved as noted
-As requested -Returned for corrections
- For review and comment -
- FOR BIDS DUE 19
RE.,11z1RhS
_ Resubmit copies for approval
- Submit copies for distribution
_ Return corrected prints
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COP), TO
If enclosures are not cis noted, kindly notifj, its tit once. SIGNED: T,\,t Y"
I): 17I: 9. dL-9"1 .101;, 1'.1111ER 133-CPIS.L)
l.Ii: ?UV? ?a cz S? Cf G?
Underse/)cn•,itecorer Vin-.v?•L?1.1
-Plans -Samples -Specifications
DESCRIPHON
Qf?Cun.?rr?1??n 1J?I: Fc.a-ki nr ?? ? ??2c
Fs
L:1,VDSC:IPEIRC/1/7"ECTURE/1'L:1;A';V/,A'G 1.O.ROXI?I-18R,ILEIGI1,,N'OR771C:IROL1,A".127602 91)/821-5615
, . 1

Dru rD. CORPS AC:ION ID:
NAT=ON"wiDE Pzm_' T RcQULS T=D (PROVIDE 2G+T=ON'w?Dc P_R TT Tr : J
PRE-CONS TRUC`T'! ON NO'S IF IGam I ON APPT SCI 1 ON
FOR INTIONFi=DE PE3Ix-ITS THAT P-EQUI-REE:
1) NCT- 2C1C_C:7 :J , C :R°S O£ c :G_T"=S
2) A2PLTCA=_ON :CR w.__C27 401 C=_-=C=_ON
3) C^•CT'm===CN n= NC D-SICN OF C.^..A =L 2 21AG<`I?'
ORTG=;AM AND (1) COP'_' OF ?S G:?T..E=? :OBIS TO T`. A?PROP_??^_'r
OE= (--7 or 1_ COR°S OF =*IG?v?'?S (S? AG`IC'? ADDFLSSLS Ste. T) . Sc`.TtY
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SZ.YT TO THE N.C. D;VISION OF 'ZV_RONI `IT2-I? I??J?G?=.YT
(SF P_GZNCY PDORESSES ?T-ASB PRTNI T
1. OWW'RS NAME : North Carolina Department of Transportation
r_DDRES PO Box 25201
CITY:
Su3D_v=S=ON NA??r..
Raleigh ST:ME; NC Z_3 CODE: 27611
DOOjECT LOC 'T'T_ODT 3.DDRES, -NC' UD=NG SUSD-'v ' STON NA?` ( '' D R=vT F 7.0H
FL_L_NG ;-DDRESS ABOVE) :_ bur am County, between Cornwallis Road and Ellis
Road (see attached location map).
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (F:CM-) :
(WORK) :
4. ' I° AD PL=C_?DL AGENT' S NAHZ. OR RES_ ONST..LE CORPOR_1T_ OF. _C_??? 'ADDRESS,
_E
PPHONE NUMIBER• J. Mack Little Little & 1Little Landscape Architectur 1 anning
PO Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-821-5645
S. LOCrT_TON OF WORT{ (PROVIDE A F-1-0, P`_EF?P -BLY COPY OF USGS TO OG?= --C
MRD OR AERI-aZ PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE)
COUNTY: Durham NE?REST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
See Attached Location Map
1
I 1
SPEC_FT_C LOC_IT'T_ON. (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LA.NDLAAKS, ETC.) • Crossing 26A: t800 ft. south' of hairpin curve in
SR 1951 between S. Alston Ave. & Cook Rd. (SR 1950) Crossing 14B: on SR 1951
approximately 550 ft. southwest of Cook Rd. Crossing 14C: On SR 1951 ± 1,650
ft. east of Cook Rd. '
6. 111PACTED OR Na'A-RES1
R_rVER BAS-V: Cape Fear
!a. IS PROJECT LOCH TED N'r.;t--? WATER CLASSIF=_.D :_S TROUT, T_DAI, SATE='WAT=ER
(SA) , 'r.=G"ri QuAL Y WATERS (i:QFi) , OUTSTANDING F-7--SOURCE WATERS (ORW) , W: TER
SUPPLY (WS OR WS-------)? YES ( ] NO (X?X I_ YES, EXPL _M-M:
7b. IS TH7 PROucCT_ LOC:-TED WITHIN A NORTH i=--ROL_TV?_ D=1=S=CN OF CC:5=_-2-j
2"-*T?GL_`?=.?1T 1LR7--;. OF . _V'4:RON2 1T?_. CONC=ERN (?.Z-C) ? X-ES ( ] NO [ X} xx
!c. T_F THE PROJECT IS LOC:-=D WITHIN ? -CO?ZT?-Ll COUNTY (ST-7 PSG- ! FOR
LIST OF COAST: T, COUNTIES) , W'r?T THE LAND USE PL:??T •(LUP) DES_CNAT_ON?
Not Applicable
8a. r34L ARTY SECTION 404 PER_*I_=S BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
T_t=S PROPERTY? YES ( ] NO (xjx YES, PROVIDE ACTT=ON I.D. NUF-EE.. OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT ',*TD W ?DDIT_CN_ L :NrOR.M?T__ON (_NCT_,UDL P :C-CC0 Or 40?
CERTIFICATION): Areas previously delineated and filled under 1989 Manual _
criteria would not have been considered wetlands based on cdrrent.(1987.).ctiteria..
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT_ R QGESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN T1-7-
YES ( ] NO (xAx -- YES, DESCRIBE rNTIC-TT?3TED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: ± 26 acres
9b. ESTIMATED TOTILL NM-DER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOC_3TED ON PRO,7ECT S
0.39 acres
Northeast, Creek
2
CRES OE WZTI,,%MS nIPACTED BY THE* PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
10a. NU1 ER OF
c _LLZNG :
0:39
EXC_? VATION :
F-LICO D ING :
DRPMMI-GE:
OTHER:
0.39 ac.
TOTAL A=RES TO BE I»aC7Z_T3:
BE (1) STRE_'L C ?NNL:+ TO BE MiPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (_=
.p_-Lcc_3T_D, RR0VTD 4Br- 170 f t3OZY BE- ORE i?JD AF
1.? B OG140 f t.
L:-'7GTfi BEFORE: 14C: 165 ft. FT A=TZR: 14C: 155 ft. FT
14B: 9-14 ft.
WIDTHE BEFORE (based on no=a? high wata= eonto=s) . 14C:_ 23-31 ft. . FT
14B: 8 ft. 14C: 18 ft.
6-:MTr =TER:
14B: 60 inches 14B: 72 inches
AV_?`?GL. DE?'*Y BEFORE: 14C: 9 ft. FT . 1ITZR: 144- 9 fr 'T
(Z) c^_R==u C;-aNNEL IM?'-CTS HIS!, R°GU-_ =RCM: (C:.=C? ? TH:--T _?:_')
02E_`t C??NNzL RE?OC=_-ON: °I:AC =--x_z-_N: 0F 2=?E IN. CH NNI E L. xxxx
C•_a_NNZL EXCAW-TION• CONSTRUCTION OF A D?`1/FZCODrNG: '
OT_.T. R:
I^ A. POND =S. PROPOSED, W _T IS THE S=ZE OF
11.
CONS_RUCT_ION OF
• -
,:.RSc+D DRF -*iZNG TO T.:_...POND? Not Annlicable
W?_
..
W- aT 1S THE =- CP_CTED POND SURF CT t?:r..?? Not Appl?r?bl
12 DESCRI°TION OF PROPOSED FORK INCLUDING D=SC-SSiON Or TYPE O:
t_°.C ANTC:, EQU= MENT TO BE USED (FTTAC PE??JS: 8 1/2" X 11^ DR?W=NGS
ONLY)• Grade four and five lane sections. Construct two lane section.
Backhoes, pans and haul trucks will be used for. construction. See Attachment.
13. PUP-POSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Construction of Northeast Creek Parkway.
3
w r T S BELI?JED THAT TL-'-S ACTV_Y MUST BE C.?R_RIED
14 , STATE RE:SONS wr. -- T ?1D
OUT Zn- WETLANDS . (=NCLUDE !I-NY 1EAS R.-.S T -i `- TO L-r' _NIMM.£
`DACTS) Proposed roadwa crosses tributaries
are for crossing only. Crossings are being made Perpendicular perpendicular
to channels to minimize imp acts. ro
of wetlands.
TO CON'?'AC'_ TF: E U.S?'L_SH AND -,LDL_ - SERVICE
15. YOU A_RE R UIRED - --5 e 3V=C (NY--;:.S) (SR= AGENCY
(IIScriS) AND/OR NA.T_ONP? a-AR-NE c
L*1G THE PRSSc.*1C OF P*1`! zEDLR•a_.:,Y _T?=ST D OR
RES S c-.S SHE, R ARD S ° _ - _ _ =C? T F=?=IT' - '
DD SED FOR T,-STING E;t?r; D; RE:) OR TH- ENED S OR C -_-
7N T C? -__.__ED BY THE DROPOSLD PROJECT. Dt?TE
.N THE PE: = ? ?= TH_ T F- B-
See Attachments R=S?ONSES
CONT ACTED
F --,CH THZ- sz c? GZNC__S .) -
16. YOQ ?R R:.QG-R=D TJ cONT _CT THE = !'--STOR-O Or.T CSR
(S.:O) (SLE G .NC`! :-DDRESSLS S.`:.=) THE PRE S N. C= O= r?STOR_C
Svr.=C i? == AT TED BY THE PRO?OS-.J
H FE PROP_RT=DS Z-2-4 THE
PROJECT. DF_E CONTACTED: A?tnrhmnuv
.
. . TJ:. rN r `??:VD_TGRE OF PGBi _C -j_ NDS OR T . r USE O-
17 . DO ES T' PROJECT I?dVOL
PUBLIC (ST_ '"E) AND?
YES. j$x NO [] (?? NO, GO TO 18)
a. `'-rS, DOES T...:. PROJECT R_QQ_RE DREp.R.Rr?T_ON O= ;UNT wy'V_RONY-F-i_ L
DOC"2ME-NT PURSuZ-NT TO THE OF THE- NORTH C?=tOLTN?_ 7
'Tt/=RON}=:TT3TPOLICY ACT?
YES f-Ixx NO [
_ -?Z ED THROUGH T E NORTH C??OLMT-
b DOCUME- TT_ BEEN EN R::v
^R:i'_ON ,..Z.; R:NCOQSL?
J...rIZ.V
DE??RT`•?"?TT OF c
YES [-Ixx NO [ J
?? ?.NSwLR TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT A?ROE?R:-A DOCIIt??"`iTT ATION P1Or*_ TFs%
STAT CLE?RI?*TGiiOUSE. TO DiJISICN OF Fr.*NIRONI?NT_,L 2L'NaGFtyGiTtDLNG
CCNvr,raNCE W_TH THZ- NORTH C;ROLINA -L*TVIRCNY--Z- NT L POLICY r?CT. See Attached
QQES-ONS R::GrRD=NG THE STATE Ci+t-7-R_-NGaCUSZ R--V-Zn PROC SS SrOULD BE
DIRECTED TO VS. C RYS B?C -,TT, DT-RECTOR STATE CLc?RINGHOQSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEP?RTYZNT Or ADL??T-STR_T_ON, 110' WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH-,
NORTH C.;ROLLNTA 27603-8003, TELE?HONE [phone].
4

18. THE FOLLOLvrVG ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS A.? rjC:?'T_0
PROPOSED CT='TTY INVOLVES THE DISC ?RGE OF EXC?VdTED.OR _7LL HAZER_aT?
INTO WET-r NDS :
tvE=L?ND DF_!ZNZ;TION LAD SHOWING ALL FiETL2NDS, S:RZ_?.MS, L?Kc.S
PND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERY-_TT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 25,
29, AND 38). . L STRL-,7)--S ( TTEcZ2?ST_:r_.YT AND PER1--111TENT) ON PROPERTY
Mf ST BE Si:OW-N ON THE 2-mD. A-0 SC: ES SHOULD BE 1 ?1C EQUALS SO t?ET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 _=_ET OR THEIR EQII7,v-7Lr `IT.
b. __ A V?=?.?DLE, REPRESZNT___T-VZ PHOTOG'itP?H OF WLi_T:c'1DS TO BE
Mi x-P CTED BY • PROJECT . - - - -
c. DELZINE:kTION FiAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULT?NT, INCLUDE ALL DF_
SHEETS R-ELZV -NT TO THE PLAC- _fz-NT OF THE DELliE7l-T2:CN L-TN E.
d. ATT.C. A COP`! OF TH-7 STORf_riATE_R L???Zr?C?v"_' P*,V-ld __ REQUIRED.
e. Wr?T IS L22ND USE OF SURROUND71- G PROPERTY'
Industrial, residential, undeveloped.
__ ??? ,IC?=LE, Wr?_ _S PROPOSED METHOD OF SE G= 3=S20S?r,?
Not applicable
9. SIGNED :ND DA=ED A GE:ZT AUT ORIZAT?ON LLT=__°R, __ :_P_,IC_3LE.
NOT_.': WZTL11.1SDS OR WAT7-.S OF TRH U.S. Y-A6Y NOT E I_3-!p=.CTrD POOR TO.
1) . _SSUANC OF A SZCTICN 4 04 CORPS OF• ENG1NZ ERS _ _ZT,
2) =T R T-'--= 1SSUZANC OR WAVER OF A 401 D:vtJ_CN OF
NYIR0N1-ENT%L 2- ANAG EZNT (WA=- -- QUALITY) C R= IC;?.TION, AND
:3 (?7 ZT- CQA.Sm -r coUy =z'--S OTT.L=') , A I. TT =---I QOM T=
NORTH CAROLINA D-LV=SION OF. COASTAL 2rNe'a.GLZ 'NT ST_3.T=NG T=* P-ROPOSED
ACTIVITY: _S CONSISTENT W-1- THE TFv NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL V_ANAC_Z.1t-_-N-j
PROGRAY1.
c.R'S/P_GENT`S SIGNATURE
DL EE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE WMID ONLY
IF AUTH0R_ZPTION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.) )
5 11
a
i
ii
i?
1
..-._.
. _.?...,
.....
_
r
r

tu.
oa..

1 r
t C«l Re
-
44APCL p 'NOILOw are

v
ST A• st Qu
1 tU
l llam
i
.
•e < a
?
1 ? ' bilged
t ? « Oak Geow
v_ ? < MAC

L
O
C3?R4
y
F
H. c- p•,. G....f TT 4ci
a?
F?
?i4 C._.. C.R I (n I
/
1
tt?
Z +, sH 0 /
•
f
s ev
1 YL x I v ?
w

`
14
c
Kc<ne e < _ ?? i 6cthesQa tit
O t ? RO. p t0.

t cr. 4t
W
few (SEARCH Y 9
CON rawy. ST ?c
'-`? •• ?`? DurhomTech • ?A ;
<` _ z
,• .? © coma) Coll
I. 10
-9
U
,..• 0
Pafti.ooa LO V E
';?• _' ;
s`p~ Rp • "'?r' } ao R D .
14
a_u? , to G
• i ? (AttGLE ? ? ?< ?p
N ,;SIAM _?? ; •? ??? ARKW
1 o^I ~`t
t t'-n Proloct
Limits
/ S ui
c
10
i / CAft?lMiCR (,•ifQ<M1t<t . 1? • • Few
Z
/
I' ci copy R•
o
N
NORTHEAST CREEK Fguro
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
PARKWAY
REFERENCES
p,= "K alb ra saT
"m ?ooc IT 1.C
ew
MID aooC I.N r.Gt txa
pnD Loot r.u
KID boot I I" r-" "41
tw
Km p-c Illt rP"c ' r
a® b 1x14 tw
uT Bt4 P-M sta
r u 000C [ I'11 r I"
PLAT To x Ir ?." . Iw
PLAT !00[ Ia Fag 102
r"T 11000 103 PK =
PLAT O-C Il a 10
a " 130
4
PLAT !00[ r P• 4 M
IT 000Z P?4 go
TII kAr a!•
TIC Wr atR
T.S wP W
tax fur sn
N/r
IAI= L `.
TYNXZ `
OB 3" rG W 1
I
JLRRY P.
IIO"3=N I
DO 1341 PC zl
-- fil
Into.
JOSV68
DO 34
PG 35
NCDOT WETLANDS CROSSINGS
FOR TIE
NORTHEAST CREEK PARKWAY
TRANOLE TOVOC @'.
DURHAM COUNTY. KC.
[
{
f4%,t
NO IFS.. - - -
k
LZCX"
?? ?/ \ / .cave wa ..t M11 JOVGN GROUP Six
DO 1339 PC Of
NIr JOVLN CROUP
ce 1339 PC 959
c
t^ 11 ? a
i Ja124 D. k I
t IUCIIS. J. BAUCOM I
PC l
21ez ( O'.oroaa9 rwrat.rt r.ti..T a./tl 1 ~ rwe .n
DPB TO PC
t!-? I C, f..ml
.cv.o1 ` ? ? ? ?,fiots3"'J'1]P 1 1
?? J/ 4On 1 1 GLlX0 I 1
1 TY 568-02-00 1 1
/+ I 1 GLkXo
I 1 TM 641-01-017
1. lu.. 1 ?1 I
l•M,L
i GLUCO 1 1 I ee
TM 566-02-002 I z l i 1
r -y
r
r O+oro® roirm"? ca= ?.at..T am 1- - _ _ S I
-JTc .I
I GWCO
kl I - i I TM 568-02-012 I
Ir r 1

w t+.[ M ..t
V0A
K VKHa / /? I

1• I l r?+l I I
•"tr --
G1dZo
; TY 588-02-o06
?

I ,Y M 15"
I rc uz «?\
/ I •' GLIXO
' `
I TM 568-02-001 - -

I RNT'rf TTtTT Or NORM CLROLDtt

r
•t?
Al. DO 407 M ?t3
, •? sI? re Tb PG 72

4• •Y T w
r -"I
! DUPONT D[ MOUR4 A CO. a
...... D 1141. PC 490
104 PG 101
r..r. ?rr•.?...? ?.?..`?:. I
.._ ....__..... I
.s
= C ?.
... ....?.....-.... ? ova rot= a Oo1QaxT 1
_
,}...???
- .....
•- DO 1559 PG 394 13?]B

tUlivM
FPO"
:t
. 1
a ci?i??4? ter.
?ATA FORM
RauT1NE NyE LAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wadzcl& Oalinaation Manuall DaM:
FrojactoWi _/e?-r-?-". I-G ?'' R h " ?c -Y?tr>?r Fv.?. 83i County: gMH74-.M
Appticant(Ownar.• M I--, r--) - Scam:
lnvastfQatoc 4 M Q Z i 7Tt-
?No community IO•
Oo Non=( a?unutancas axist on the site? -•
0: 10:
is iha sita aicnific andy d'tsYUCbed (Atypi l 5tciation)? Yes Trzn:sccz
is tha ama a potential Pmblam Areal Yes o Ptot !O: " "veer
(If maded. =lain on raversa.)
vEGETATION
rn?ca a.
Qa„inartt Name SC7
A.
cxGrn???
vF tJ'Sl3 +R C''k/
7. lf?G?tT/?tr3 e -A
8.
aminant Qtant SAeciei StretVm Tnd{eatA?
9.
10.

IZ .
13.
14.

1Q. -.
Perceat of Oca•.taat Sped" that am CU. FACN cr FAC
tcxcittCictc FACa. - .
Raraariu: -
HYDROLOGY
i ?
Jam'
R.c atv'.d oat. p]ascnb. to Rcmariu?: W.dec+d tfydcOlQV tndc4tora:
..... -Ztr.aclt• Mica, ct 1M. G4uQ4 Pzunary lr4c4ccnr-
Uw 4144
Mdet ptsot M _
...r st•d to Upp•t l2 tnch-
Qth4r
_'?t1a RscccQ.d Osta Avad+6l. w4or Mck4
?Oritt Un-
.f'.dlcri•nt 0•posita
.insQ. Paa.me in Wedsada
Ft41d M44r4wdoaa: 5."Z.ry k14tc4toca (Z or mor. rs4uir.ai:
Al A- anJ . ,c-x4z*d Root qunneta to upper 12 !riches
Depth cf s?ufaca Watst: ac:c SWn•d UWW-4i
?? tTr1.1 ?•,,,LOCSt S4 Survey Oats
Depth to Fce. W.tu En Pit:
-FAC-Nw4tr4 Teat
• , Qtri4r ?slrt tct Rsc:lscScst
Depth to s4twxtod so3: L •/? .
R.rtl4dcs: ..
r KU%k
SOILS
Map Unit N.m. /1 4 p?in•Q. Ga..: „[ 1 PL ?-? D
(S<d« and Plu441• {= Rid abaa?rscan.
• LoA M ccaam, lvtaoo.d TYP42 Ya. t1a
Taxanamy (Subcrcucl: _ 5A
pro(ti4 Qe?eri4dan? '? T.ztur.. Canat.ciea..
O.pth Matrix Ca{af Mctd. Cala" .. Mod.
hms (MctmeM Moiic} Abund e?ceK' crei( SrrtfcrvM ere.--
r.c w. Hart;on -
.. ./2'' ? S • GREY 1?-vcv ? .
-- -
t .
- -----------
K}?irta SoA tc?dlcata.": - ? •
» t{IQh -c rr4;Ar•?j?C[cf,?4?ctu}?atSIn suddcA Lsy*c In candy Sa;<
lut?Q sedan . _r(kra.cda SU.? nto --IY. Jax< • • f
?ui6CSo?daf ustod on LaCaIUVdda SCU tl"
Acmd Moiatuto Rio _ Ltstcd cn itadoaat HY&ia Soa< List - 1
odcsrnQ cac?Qdans _ 0th.f {6 R1 ,
?iGfsY.d of Lnvr-Ctuocsu Cola" - I
Ric:urka: :. ..
WETLAND DETE it MINAMON
No (Qrc(al '
tydropt tic (drelal
Y.pet dOn PM.ait?
Wd? }{Ydrx4c%Pr...nt7 No
HYdt(a Sa+?o P"r.:.ntT ? Na Is Cd. S.ropQnQ Plat ktihd;n a WqdandT (2?5 NO

^gp'"oa oY rttlu ?n..c, w.,?
t .
FROtt

'i .
.l
r
. RamatScs:
DATA FORM
RatMNE WE LAND DETERMINATION '
(1987 COE Wattaads Oalineation Manuall
,??K AcKcu ?NcVoIr b?ljA Oata:
ProiacslSlta: ?o,? c7' Gs? '?`? ? / 1 County: -rD? f a t 4•l?l-t
AppilcarlrlO?ivitor. Nebo i J State: 1??? L.
Invastipata?• 1?•?-? L' ?? -
on No community l0•
Oo Noc:rtai Clccumstaacas toast the scm? •' ? Transect t0• ? _
Is the sita sicnifieandy disturbed (ArIPI=1 Situation)? Yes ®
Is the ama a potential Problem Area?' Yes Flat 10: - "L2 up
(If neaded. axolaia on raversa.) .'
VEGETATI N
f •
Scret?r<*± fndento?
Qe,?,;t,??c Pienc Soac?
i.FQ I-tip 4?Q c?T?t?l ? --Pic
E
s. l Jf2 vJn?
S. l1cr`)M R t9H ?' -.-C--
Av?t
6. Aim pur
• 7. V-4 IWI UH FGLJQ7Tll- suav ?CA??'!'
Patent d CCn-:nant Spades tint art act.. FACN at FAC
(oxciudcW FAC-1.
Rattsatics: .
L7em:?wrr( Ptent Soec+ei StretVm lndicato?
s. • lt?Rrx ?i?5 RFP_oN?? ?..
14
1s
,4}O Yo
HYDROLOGY
•
W.dand Hydto{oGY tndutats: QOIJ
Raeatdod Oats (DaaCr;bo in Rematkst: FcicnarY 104cuara:
Zavsau Lake. ar'Tide Gaups Itxtndatod
?
-Aadal Fhot Cwh4 `l Saturatod to Uppor 12 lachot
athar -
? t(a RacocQad Osta IlvaTab{a -'water Marks
? Orili LIsHO
1
SodGnattit Ospodts
Oraina?o Faaama In Wedsnda
Field CbaaNatSans: G.cartd.ty t Zwors (2 of mote "quirodl: tnchae
Qz&zod Rant channa{a In Upp 12
04pth of sudact Watsr:? ?Wttoc•Stalnad l eaves
' 1? lIn
1 Lac--i S03 survey Oats
.
Depth tra Fret Water In Pit: FAC44*=d Ta*t
1 ?l
?C COO Opt in in Rsmaciut .
0opth to Saturaud sal: .
SOILS
OratnaQs Gala: S1 PL •d-N 17
Map Unit N4(n4
(Salo. and Phas•1: /ti / • ??¢?/PY ? t=i•ld 05a4cvatr13tu •
Conficm Maop•d TYG?? ® t1o
TazonamY tsubQtcuol:? AY
Pro(tiQ Oe?Gr*vda?'• ;•;:.?.: ? _` _°• • • MaC1• ,. T•XCttr•. Cancr•dans. •
c4pttt Matcix Cota? - t44attt. Cataa . Strcrctcrro ece."
' Mi?efr Morn1 SN,luMetl Mai?rt Abunder+cerC?crt?t'
rK e. ort on i .
L, -5y?i4
------------
. Hydr(C Sot! tc?dlc:tars:.?? ONE ?. -; _. . -.. ..:1
. i{rsmsct -• ?Caocr•dona ? -
_ to sur(444 tgrt in Z4cbdYsax.
>•{tadQ'?h?a'ron _ac ado Strss0y SovTs .
?Su2Adia t.6or t oed HYdda Co3s Cut -
,_,,,? Aqute MoissLtt. R•pm• (Ssiod an
?d an Lood t t{yCria Sods Cut .
Radudnq Cac+dttans -athsr
-Gteyed or Lovt chtoma Colon
Ranuckv
WETLAND DErmmtmmou
i ?. ? (Ckdof
Y fs al
tydrophjrtio YaQaudoa t 7
Is tht• 3«npCc*Q PointVYttin 4Wdandl Yas Ho
W.dam Hydrology F"ta cl Y.,
HyddcSoAe P es•ntl
ftoffuwiw.
^pprovao UY
FRot1
- r
• i

i
i ?
. •. DATA FORM
RatMNE WETUrro OETEi1M1NAnON .
(1,987 COE Wetlands Oatinaation Manuall
PraiacifSita: df ` GRF?iC laRKw?s'??c/?w p/'a?#?u- Data:
o?i i r ?-? r 2e 3 ?, CCUnty: _ D /I
Appkant[OWnar-* 11CA2017 - Stara: (`1 e
Invastfpator.? !A MA2?- Z '7r4 -
No community (0.
Oo Nonnal Cvcuzzutaneas exist on tfta sitz?l No Transect (O:
ts the sita siQnitieantty d'iszurt?ed (azYPit 5tuatzonl7
(12) Prot !0: c?u,? a_?. C=
f
is tha aura a p=ntiat Problem Area? yes
(if needed, explain on ravarsa-)
YEGir! A 1 iUi`?
12om;nertt Nenf 5 ec?2 .Sr?ret?if^?? ?^?Crto?
s.?1 w, PFA' ;5 ViA?A AP 1
1 1 F?.
7•. is A4.y/Ff?t-t? 5CE 4s 11
B.G.a RYA- F,4c-"
J70m;n"r Plent Species Stromm tndtcator
s. Lo?rGElta. Japo?tGt. Ui?E.'-'
110
13.
Vs a
Potato at aoni"nt spatxss that era 00FAGW cr FAC
(axciuQaQ FAV.
Remarks: -
HYDRCCCGY
Recorded Oeto (Otserb? ? Remacksl:
_:S"w t. Lake. cc Zida G*ug o
McW PtrotoQ?phs
""•' Qthat .
?2!a Recorded Osta 1lva?M'
S41d Cbaarvad,*=
Oapth of s4Uf4ca Water: A,
CapthtoFra•Waattnfic ly Qrt3
it
aapttt to Satsmttsd Sea:
Ramacicc:
a
Wadand t fydroto0y (ndkatcts; ?-l (D '
Primary L-4CACnrr.
(twndatad
-^sewated In upper 12 tn--h-
Watar Mcrks
Oritt Una
Sodknant 04pocits
^Ors!cw,;• Fattama in WedaMs
S.candaty ttidtcatocs (2 or ntare raqu(ad1--
lrchaa
(3x4zad Ract C;unnaa in UPP
?W<tar5tsirisd Latws
^L=J- Z4 survey Oats
FAC-Uwjm ! Taat
Qthar ([-xpt41a in Rcmarks)
J^
cgoct
' '50lLS • ,V ??.,b
-? ,.$ = CrG Gtz?EVI?E S.cl?,oc! L.aot+
Map URIC Nana OrsinaQa Gala:
- (Sai{aa and F{ucal• ?• Fi.td abaacvauaR: b c«
c
C4n
L .._,e-?V ficm Maogad Tyvd? as
TiYoncmy (SubQrcual.
Proftly C;lcez lan- -'' Y - TaXtura. Coaeradana.
Maccvc Cc{ct Mccdo CO{crs Modt -
?aP? ucneM Moiect ISbemder.c•e+r-?<*e?( • Strtfettt.e ete.
f,c
/o YR lv Q- ! ?Y
'88_ f ?B
Lo.a?Y
:i, IJA-
c
------------
.Hyddo SoQ {Rdtc:tars: 71o?E '
... - _S-{(stosc{ • ?Concradans •• .
liIstie C--ZveCon _ ^M,p,.tt drQaruua?tC,fo?atcnc {-n?S}c?cc•!au L,aY+? Ia SacxfY Saxa , ? - •
ic-dar ^- ustod on Locd t fydda Scat {1st
Mcit=o Rat ?umd ca ludocut Hydria SQU List
RtduccRQ Cocxiidans -' dCc.C (i«n Sa Rai
cc Lary-Ctuonu Catoca - _.
Ramarics:
WETLAND U-1 MINAMON
?? ?a? - (C1Kial
)tydrophfdc Yapautton Prassrit?
WadaRd tt de a aQy Praaant? Yct t2da S.mov Q PointwNtNn a Wationd? Yat
Hydzic Salt Pasant? Y44 O
' RaCiLifSC.a: V V R 1 b 27IGT'10 t-?.•i.? ?E'4-.5 L3 ?- L ?5 1?.Q ?...a_.TE.cc?
p,?? v fi TO i? o F ?q.?K TD TOP O G' E .? ? !? w ITH J? o ?C..D?I/S?/'•r'i-
-? 7-tf•G srv ?y - a-??a
W E 7' loo.-N 5 w l f t? II-?

FR0t1 '
SOILS
` Map Uctit tQsm< ,1 G / AT?? f K/QGI?C o Ocaia<Q< Gts<: /lS ? 1 L
(S<d« 4M Pha441• C- r Tito ah<scvaunas
- Canfirttt Maatl.d TYpi7 Ya< t1a
L o?M
T<xoaomY (SuScrcuol: SaNb _ ..
Pr.,fTte Oe?c?Qder.; x Taxiut<. Caaccaciaa<.
Maccix Caton Maeda WJcs Mat?< Scrvcnxe ece.
?<P? - rmirM M??A Abundo<?ceK?rtmeTC
roc e• Ftort?on _ '?tw.....,.tf Meticl f? - 1
..? .. A-f 3' AYR. 3 a IlodE Y
-
K??Q san t?t?<tan: Note
Msmsct Cancradaas ar to S4rdy Scx< .
In surf<u Lay
• .
MQti dccania Castsat
Ks do E;iPadact - '?ac3a:,crs.i3c+Otn:5-1y.5112<
JIStnQG lC40t ?rUS(4*d an Locd tW-dc SOU LTIL
Aqutd mcit"v R < t tstod ca t4<6ccul HYI:!aa S'OUA Ust 1
ReducaQ Ccc4docts dth.f tt i«n is R-n- k•• l
_Gt<y.d at taw-Cluncru Cdaca _..
Ramada:
WETLAND OUiMINAMON
?;ydreP?a Yecotadaa pra«tit7 a
Wadand }{YdtotaQy t'r<s<st7 Yn Is t:ds S«nOtcW Poic+tYftfiie o W.dand7 Ys< No
ttydrta SaII< Pn:<ntl Y.s
7- I..,* A-Aa;6-t
1 7a '['t?P ot= Aar.ltc - w rrrt *So ab?a?c2?-?7' ?e?Tu?N1?s. ?TMi+-'
FROM
'i .
ri
- 1
s
DATA FORM
ROtMNR WETLAM0 OEIERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands 001ineation Manuall
FJfOieCIlSILII: NaRT1f?tE!`K Pi?ttiwa Y (1?!'IXlf PtiG?1Cl?? Data:
Appffca d0waar. ?ISL? r `f•- _ CC
te: . L .
(rlvostfQatar. , ? M/ GK L-/ ? Scam:
00 N0rmat Cfrcun'm= as exist art the Site? as No Cammunity f0;
to the situ SiQnific=dy disturbed (Atypical Situation!? Yes Transeez 10: i
is tf1Q ama a patentiat Problem Area? Yes Ptat f0: G 1l?c=?- ??,4 ?'
(If needed, explain Cn favarsa-)
Ytuc?r??wc?
??iAe? went $(7etie! $r'fati1f71 In?Gefof ?Om.nein( P1e?f $A wtiC1 $tIe CVT tnd{CatOf
.
f?
Fot T?3c?'• ? 3. Go R ?vuS F[.c??t ? per- eft P 4? -!'1 ' /
!. FQ4 vs G R a.u?f
- _
Z1?Ft r ??,,1 DR41'?1 . av, ?? F? to.

? ?/Fo?ia UuoE.c ?F? 24.
[S. F,a?, uS 4gN . _
15.
8.vr/? 14.
Psresmt of Dominant Spades that are CGL. FACN cc FAC 2g!
3%
Iaxcfuersc FAC-1.
Remarks: •
ri T u tAu Lxj -2 1 -
• Rscotdad Oats (t]sscr:bo In Rcmariul: Wsdsctid }{yCcoto?y ImQcittota: t{ar?E -
Ztm to Like. cr?ide Gauge Primary

Iladal PhataQtzphs k?undacad
Satw tad In Upper 12 Inches
Other
v!!u Racacdsd Osu Aw2abls Wetar Medcs
?
-
Otitt Lines
-_'$*dun*mt Oepoeits
w-criusaC. Panama In WedaMs
Field Cbsetvations: S.cattidety tr.diuoocs m or mote raqulr.dl:
Q Qn
1 a .d Root Chsmnsls In Upper 12 Inches
^
.
Depth of Sudaco Waut. Watao•SWa*d LAC"i
Oapth to Fran Vitt-It In }pit: 11.4 Qr14 L44:a sa Survey Oats
FAC-Itats 4 Tast
310 ?? Qcs 1 Omer MEPULct kt flea arks,
Dapttt Lo Saturated Sad: •?
Rsrttsck.>~ - .
i
. .j

N
I
I ?. o
I?
? I
,I
I
. I
l
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
a .?
? f
o I o ' ?..
i o
i I
i
i
a
I?
i?
I?
}
l
of
?r
N
,7 N
I
I
0

a
U
I
?? ?I r
I .?
I p ??
i?
I?
I
I?
i?
I?
to
?o
i
i
I
i
I

1 t ' N

1
? co
1 +
1 1 IL ca
5 (0

r
I
' ( ?'
.n- m f I

1 L I O
C!
a

00
U" old 09* Z-L+Lg vis

+ a)
co
/2 - I ab E
r
I
1 i ° 1 + °
\?
y? I
, f g
of

'
1 Lq
°+.-

°
;
1
09 + +
C
o
ul
1+
I ? ? I
'
'

U 14
12
1
0 '
+ 26

1 1
LL.

/ f tn O /
n? O
$

+ /
Lr5 0
O

!

09+ r

` + to
-
Z-- SNV21 '038
SNV
I
?? \\
r?
?' ;
Z0. E 2l1 aN3 ?
° b
°
\

U U U- o
! in i s
to °
99'L +L-k-) ?? s o `°
+ ??
f ° ?- W
W+ °
M F
E
°
/ Q

t
1
? a•5? Zd
UI c
y
1 k?
1 1 ?
,y
1 1? u1N
a
?y vl
1 s
_I
'i
J W I
a
w
. ? a
ao
o 1
. 1
•o
c N
r
? ?Z6d-S?.i -f •
? N •I
1 ? I U v
t
1
1 ?r ,I
1 W + .I I
1 ?
t ?- I U Z
1
Q
1 Q
t ?
1 ?
1?- o Y I
I
Z ?
7
1 ?'' ts? I • °
3 ` o`
W I ? i?rn
1 I m? z
t I
t I
ter)
1 I
cflo k?`? I
k o /. •
? o I
. ?i
.. y8
. U A .
Z? ,yl
VIA
un
a \ ra +
U
Q6• 1

D
k I
I
N LO I
00 N
. -q- ?'' I r?
T A- %J
N
+ I I t w f---
LLJ
I ! I
In ? ? I I i ! j ~ ?
o>
zQ I 3 z I. I. I I <o
co Co. I ! ?i I- m N
Z I
. Q}- ? ?I ? I I I I ?W00
Q co
w + z I ! I c? I tr) r- 1
I W I i- `? w Z W_
Q Q I ! I N LL) Li U?
>o,
> w I ( I I 1 3
I I I . - • 1 •:
Lo to
E I w?
e
--3 CO V)
E1 o I ? ? SS
ASOAS GROUND $ o 34d - ? =
TANK In o o. + „o F
l Q+? I o
• w ? I I I I r +
I I it o ' I
I I I?-00 + .
M
I z
?. I
I ( I w cn w
- --- ` 1 = I t cn
? w I ? JI + r
? I t I•
I I I I ? ?,
1 w l l I ?? I
!, I
LL.
s`ss
?f 18 ,
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt. Jr., Govemor Katie G. Dorsca? Sc ?4
November 14, 1996
Mr. Whit Webb rw (? C?' >g}r? ????
N.C. Department of. Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building l 8 ±196 ??
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 j
,PR0- J EC; MANAGSIM I E N I
Dear Mr. Webb: ?---'
Re: SCH File K97-E-4220-0215; EA/FONSI - Proposed Construction of the Northeast
Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, NC; TIP #2831A
The above referenced environmental impact information has bccn reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Because of
the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
a4 qw 61-1?
Ms. Chrys Baggett; Director
State Clearinghouse
CB/jf
Attachments
NOV 2 0 1996
cc: Region J
116 West )ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01.00
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmativc AcIion Employer
United States. Department of the Interior.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 53726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Hr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
NC 27611
May 24, 199
q
TAKE
PPJDE IN
AMEM
o? a
?G E ! VF
0 O
'MAY 2 6 1995` r
DIVISION OF Q?
?0Cf HIGHWAYS ?
F?'1RONt??
Rale??sh,
nding
Subject: State Environmental Assessment/Fi of No significant impact
for Northeast Creek Parkway, Durham County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2831A
i
11 Dear Hr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 71 1995 requesting information from the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the poential
environmental impacts of thero over Terence ance,with provisionsrofpthe1Fish
and Wig information and is pr
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
and Wildlife Coordination Act,
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(14CDOT) calls for the construction of theprortheaslyCreekmi rkwayThecproposed
Cornwallis Road Ellis, project P
some of which will follow existing
project is divided ed into five sections,
roads. Actual work within the sections includes construction of two lanes,
grading to facilitate future construction, and none.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
• ting and
1.: A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borro areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2•. A 1-; zt and acreage of the wetland typos which will be impacted. Wetland
• types should follow tThiselistdshouldlalsotgive'themac?eagdofaeachal
Wetlands Inventory.
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identif in and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
which will stgreamgchannels
3. Engineering techniques
constructing any any
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
es of u land areas and the acreage of each type which would
4. The cover typ p
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project.
These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland
losses.

6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Wake County. The should the the O
environmental document regarding protected p
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. ?.n analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which'-the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally tectedyunnder the Actl or subject to its
until prposed or sted as
provisions, including Section 7,
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the specsunder the full if its
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on
project,this project. Pleaicial
continue to advise us of the progress including your off
determination of the impacts of this project. Ifo our office can supply any
please
additional information or clarification,
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Si ely yours,
David A. Dell
Acting Supervisor

Durham County
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
B,rds
`i Laid eaglu U ,? i?cerus leueoc?o,, •us) - C•
Pfants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxn) - E'
Smooth coneflower (Frh;nacea laevigata) - E
F There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for fisting as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These -Candidato-(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any <?f its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered.. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
,,,.. we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
Insocts
Soptima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2'
Plants
A liverwort (Plagiochila Columbiana) - C2'
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - C2
Tall larkspur (Delphinium ezaltatum) - C2
1
•Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county-

s T ;, s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor William S. Price. Jr.. Director
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM -? MAY 1 5 1995
TO: H. Franklin Vick, -P.E., Manager 2
Planning and Environmental Branch DIVtSICN OF e
Division of Highways f;1GHWAYS 0Q
nepartment of (r?i'7-l:? /J RONt`' P
FROM: David Brook G
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway from Durham
County, Uo d toA,
Ellis Road in Durham,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no recorded archao°Ihascnal sit eve rbeenasuv ywith ed, for arpchaeologi Pal feet
corridor, although the corr d
resources. It is likely that as yet unrecorded sites may be affected by the project. request
forward Prior to our making recommendations determ ne the extent f tcurrhat d velopment
recent aerial photographs so w may
in the area.
es of
We have conducted a seamhort iour mportance d withan the planning area.
historical or architectural i p r fed
eral While we note that this project is to be state consultation and compliance ,the potential with Secti on 106 of the
permits may require further
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XV1. If you have any questions regarding them, please Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Joees Strcct • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
•r
X9
A 1 4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor William S. c Jr. Director
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary . ??
r ?f
JUN S 1495
I? May 30, 1995
MEMORANnuM LITTLE & LITTLE
TO: H. FranklinandVick,
nmental Br
Planninning anch
Division of Highways
Department otTr-an5eortation
'rte/ L?.J
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State is rtc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway, U-2832A, Durham County,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received the aerial photograph for the above referenced roject fproject
Robert T. Peter of Little & Little. As indicated on the aerial, the proposed
Nathonal Register-eligible ar Parkwa paolect
area is heavily developed- It is unlikely
as presently proposed will affect any .
resources. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigations in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made he pursuant to Section 106 of Advisory Council on H stork Preservatiointsric
Preservation Act of 1966 a
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation a consideration.
t Renee Gledhill Ea leytions
concerning the above comment, please contact
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:siw
cc: T. Padgett
St to Clearinghouse
Xbert T. Peter
C6
log East 10= Strcct - "cigb• North Carolina 27601-2807
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4 °. o
November 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Northeait: Creek Parkway
Durham County
State Project DOT No. 9.8059062, TIP # U-2831A
EHNR # 97-0215, DWQ # 11375
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project
will impact 3.03 acres of wetlands and did not quantify impacts to waters. DWQ offers
the following comments based on the document review:
A) DWQ received a 401 Certification application for a portion of this project in
1992. DWQ approved wetland fill for wetlands W-2 and W-3. Total approval
was for 1.14 acres. The remaining 1.89 acres will require a 401 Certification.
Compensatory mitigation will be required for this project. A minimum of 1.89
acres will need to be restored or created.
B) DWQ cannot issue a 401 Certification for projects which require an
environmental document (according to administrative code 15A NCAC 1C.0402)
until the document has received approval from the State Clearinghouse.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh COE
Tom Kendig, DOT
John Dorney
-? Michelle Suverkrubbe
necreek.ea
'-AXED
V 1996
Environmental Sciences Branch - 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action EmAloyer 5011. recyckod/l0% post corrsumer paper
NCDENR - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 y\
RECEIPT
March 19,1998
J. Mack Little, FASLA ?bodlatm-
Little & Little Landscape Architecture/Planning
P.O. Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
The Wetlands Restoration Program has received a check in the amount of $22,750.00,
check number 13450, as payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water
Quality Certification issued for DWQ Project # 970575. This receipt serves as notification that
the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that
you must also comply with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or
local government permit or authorization associated with this activity.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact Ron Ferrell at 919/733-
7015 ext. 358.
Sincerely,
g?do
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
cc: John Dorney
File
JNC;TRC , HCP , FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Nov 04'96 16:42 No.005 P.04
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919.733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DE14NR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co?dinator _
Habitat Conservation Program (' >^
DATE: October 28, 1996 y?•__/
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Ior the
Northeast. Creek Parkway, from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road, Durham County,
North Carolina. TIP No. U-283 IA, SCH Project No. 97-0218.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA/FONS1 and are familiar with habitat values in the, project area. The purpose of this review
was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
I et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
NCDOT proposes to construct Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis
Road. The roadway will initially be two-lanes, with grading for a four- or five-lane section.
Project length is approximately 1.8 miles. Wetland and waters impacts are associated with
Northumot Crcck and total approxiinatc.ly 3.03 acrts.
The EA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlifir
resources in the project area. However, we remain concerned over potential impacts to Nortleast
Creek and the proposed Ercenway along the Northeast Creek corridor. Encrouclnncnts by this
project into the floodpluin along Northeast Creek will interfere with the functions of the
lloodplain and a iacent wetlands as well as decrease the vegetated riparian buffer. Projccls such
as this rue particularly damaging to the environment because of the direct impacts to natural areas
and secondary impacts from the projected development this roadway will serve.
4NCI;RC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Nov 04'96 16:43 No.005 P.05
Memo 2 October 28, 1996
We have previou:+ly recommended that the wetland impacts of this project be covered under
one permit because of significant wctlaud impacts for a project of such limited scope. We Feel
that regardless of the type of permit which is applicable to this project, NCDOT should mitigate
for all project related wetland impacts.
At this time, we will concur with the EA/FONSI for this project, NCDOT should continue
efforts to minimize impacts and should employ NCDOT 13cst Management practices to protect
off-site resources. We continue to request that NCDOT provide wetland mitigation Fier the
impacts of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA/11'ONST. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE. Raleigh Field Office
A
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet 0 3
DWQ - Water Quality Section !2C 11
J
MEMORANDUM ?h?lR???Nra, 196
TO:
Wetlands
?,John Dorney
# Eric Galamb (DOT)
? Greg Price (airports, COE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/ORWxQw)
Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Planning Branch
11
Technical Support Branch
? Coleen Sullins, P&E
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: _ VI f.
oaf
?tQ-ss? GO.
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mts:\circmcmo.doc
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County Date:
ro -? -n J -3-) A_ I=- , - I
? Project located in 7th floor library
11-3
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Air El Coastal Management El Water Planning
VWater El Water Resources 'Environmental Health
? Mooresville
.Groundwater
NAildlife ?Solid Waste Management
Raleigh P" P and Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
? W
t ? Recreational Consultant 0 Land Resources ? David Foster
on
as
ng ? Coastal Management Consultant N "Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others
? Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Ps 104

1

Northeast Creek Parkway
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road
Durham County
State Project No. 9.8059062
TIP No. U-2831 A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
' H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
' Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]

71V
' Dre vE
1
11
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Nfanager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

Northeast Creek Parkway
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road
Durham County
State Project No. 9.8059062
TIP No. U-2831 A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
Little & Little, Landscape Architecture/Planning
J. Mack Little, FASLA
Environmental Study Manager
C
• 2
.
4CK L1?
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation

James A. Bissett, Jr., P. nit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
Thomas R. Kendig, AICIIQ
Project Manager

SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT
)
' Administrative Action, Environmental Assessment/ Finding of No
Significant Impact.
' 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information
concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be
' required under the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Permits under Section 404 will consist of
Nationwide Permits No. 26 and 14. In conjunction with these permits,
a 401 certification from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, & Natural Resources will be required.
' 4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
t The project area is located on the southeast side of the City of Durham
in Durham County. The southern terminus is Cornwallis Road (SR
1308) and the northern terminus is Ellis Road (SR 1954). The study
area consists of undeveloped woodland, developed light industrial
areas, and four developed single family lots.
The project area includes a portion of Northeast Creek.
' S-1
iL
5. PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
to construct Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis
Road in eastern Durham County. The project is approximately 1.8
miles long. The improvements involve the construction of two lanes
of a future four-lane with median and five-lane facility. Grading will
be completed for the entire road section width.
The proposed project is designated U-2831A and is included in the
1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for
right-of-way acquisition in Fiscal Year 1996 and construction in Fiscal
Year 1997. NCDOT estimates the cost of the project at $4,682,500,
including $382,500 for right-of-way and $4,300,000 for construction.
TIP cost for the project is $200,000 for the right-of-way acquisition and
$1,600,000 for construction.
6. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and
fulfill the goals of the 1991 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan. Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a major
thoroughfare between Cornwallis Road and Ellis Road.
Adverse impacts from the proposed project include wetland
encroachments of 3.03 acres and reduction of approximately 14.5 acres
of woodlands.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The proposed four-lane with median and five-lane sections being
considered for Northeast Creek Parkway are required based on
projected traffic volumes.
An alternative alignment to the south of the preferred alignment has
been studied and abandoned due to significantly higher impacts to
S-2
i
wetland areas.
Other alternatives considered and found not viable were the no-build
alternative and postponement of the proposed project.
8. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management
Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are
necessary.
S-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
J

J

Page Number
Summary S-1
I. Need for the Proposed Project
A. General Description 1
B. Project Status 1
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility 1
1. Typical Section Description 1
2. Right-of-way 2
3. Speed Limit 2
4. Access Control 2
5. Degree of Roadside Development 2
6. Intersection Treatment 2
7. Railroad Crossings 2
8. Drainage Structures 2
9. Utilities 2
D. Traffic Volumes 3
E. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community 3
II. Description of the Proposed Project
A. General Description 4
B. Summary of the Proposed Project 4
1. Typical Section Description 4
2. Right-of-way 5
3. Bikeways /Sidewalks /Greenways 5
4. Proposed Design Speed 6
5. Access Control 6
6. Intersection Treatment 6
7. Drainage Structures 6
8. Permits Required 6
9. Estimate of Cost 7
III. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 8
A. No Build Alternative 8
B. Postponements of the Proposed Project 8
C. Other Alternatives 8

IV.Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts 10
A. Social Impact 10
1. Land Use 10
2. Neighborhood Impacts 10
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses 10
4. Public Facilities and Services 10
B. Economic Impact 10
C. Cultural Resources 11
1. Historic Architectural Resources 11
2. Archaeological Resources 12
D. Environmental Impact 12
1. Vegetation and Wildlife 12
2. Rare and Protected Species 14
3. Wetlands 16
4. Water Quality 19
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation 20
6. Soils 21
7. Farmland 23
8. Traffic Noise Analysis 23
9. Air Quality 27
10. Geology 33
11. Potential Hazardous Material Sites 34
12. Visual Impacts 34
13. Construction Impacts 35
14. Permits Required 36
15. Secondary Impacts 36
V. Public Involvement 37
VI. Comments and Coordination 37
VII. Finding of No Significant Impact 38
APPENDIX

LIST OF FIGURES Following Pag e
Figure 1 Project Location Map 1
Figure 2 Proposed Alignment 1
Figure 3 1991 Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 1
Figure 4 A Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes (Build Alt.) 3
Figure 4 B Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes (No Build Alt.) 3
Figure 5A-C Typical Sections 4
Figure 6 Designated Greenway 6
Figure 7 Previously Proposed Alignment 8
Figure 8 Wetlands 15
Figure 9 Streams and Floodplains 19
Figure 10 Noise Monitoring Locations 25
Figure 11 Receptor Locations 29
Figure 12A-B Proposed Right-of-Way 37
LIST OF TABLES Page Number
Table 1 Distribution of Impacts to Vegetative
Communities 13
Table 2 Wetland Impact Areas 18
Table 3 Soil Summary 22
Table 4 Typical Sound Levels 24
Table 5 Noise Abatement Criteria 25
Table 6 Summary of Ambient Noise Levels 26
Table 7 Summary of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards 29
Table 8 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 33

L NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1 A. General Description
' This report presents the results of a study of proposed construction of
the Northeast Creek Parkway (see Figures 1 and 2). Northeast Creek
Parkway is proposed to be constructed as a four-lane and five-lane
roadway. Grading will include the ultimate four or five-lane section;
two lanes are proposed for construction at this time. A section of
Northeast Creek Parkway presently exists from TriCenter Boulevard
north approximately 1,600 feet. An existing portion of So-Hi Drive

' will be incorporated into Northeast Creek Parkway. The study area
begins at Cornwallis Road and ends at Ellis Road, a distance of
approximately 1.8 miles.

Northeast Creek Parkway is classified as a major thoroughfare in the
1991 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan,
' shown in Figure 3.
' B. Project Status
The project is listed in the 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation
' Improvement Program (TIP) as U-2831A. Right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled for Fiscal Year 1996 and construction beginning in Fiscal
Year 1997. This funded TIP project includes the grading for the full
' road sections and paving of two lanes only. The full width paving of
Northeast Creek Parkway is planned as a future project.
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility
' 1. Typical Section Description
The existing portion of Northeast Creek Parkway consists of a
graded five-lane section with a two-lane roadway. It is paved
from TriCenter Boulevard north approximately 1,600 feet to the
entrance of Research TriCenter North Building Six. So-Hi Drive
consists of a paved two-lane section. Existing pavement width is
24 feet. Existing shoulder width is five feet.

-1-

1 6 ?
INIs 'A
• !? O` EER CH RO ----.•-
? + wo.
• NA?EL HOLLOWAY asvp
ILL sT. A- Durham
• • R -C •. 06
u '?f `
loylond M Oak Grove 1
< WAKti
> ?iy p? w0
O ? ?p M
? N
N.C. C3
ow• c.•...I w sT wyc? i i w°I yy C••rw C•M I
f9c
• ???f ?r~ ?) 41 SNf
I tr ~ I
7
RO Ito. i? •
O
I /1 No• NOv
few O?EARCH °
I ?
PICWT.
o a.
fd• w ^ • x
• I Q ?1 ; ? t 2 I
16
r
,<, Low s CIr i, (M
e I
ParkwMd
j sco wo ??F. I
o , R N•IsoR -? .
Clegg
IAt4GI
1 ^I L 4PAh Lr"
V I
I ?/ `o I
5
Cl y .?
i
V/ CARPENTER Grp/nlff.
. •__
In
C9
f? Q
FR?r

~
-?y
ST
h ci
urhomTec
Comm Coll
1?j '
O
h b
y (,
LOVE
R RD.
1{0
G
M
?? PARKWAY
vQ?
u~i Project
w umits
Few Z
D CO
-c
N
NORTHEAST CREEK Figure I
PARKWAY PROJECT LOCATION MAP 1
I
m= w m= m= .= mm r m r =No==
76. F:
a
U
-i
n.
m
m
m
a
?o
X
m
0
10
0
N
m
v
D
r
z
m
m
z
i
i
0
A
O
O
co
O
O
.i
Qf
O
O
pN
O
O
T
N
c
m
m = r== m= m = r= m = = m

fl
t
w

J

LI

2. Right-of-way
The right-of-way width of the existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway is 90 feet. The right-of-way width of So-Hi Drive is 60
feet.
3. Speed Limit
There is no posted speed limit on the existing paved section. The
speed limit of So-Hi Drive is 35 mph.
4. Access Control
Existing Northeast Creek Parkway and So-Hi Drive have no
control of access.
5. Degree of Roadside Development
Development along the existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway consists of light industrial development. Development
along existing So Hi Drive includes residential development, a
church, and a child care facility.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersecting roads connect with Northeast Creek Parkway and
So-Hi Drive at grade and have stop sign control.
7. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings in the project area.
8. Drainage Structures
Three concrete drainage structures cross under the existing section
of Northeast Creek Parkway. Drainage structures on So-Hi Drive
include (1) 60" Corrugated Metal Pipe, (1) 42" Reinforced Concrete
Pipe, (2) 6.5' x 9.5' Bituminous Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe, and
various 15" and 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe driveway cross
drains.
9. Utilities
Underground power lines parallel the existing paved portions of
Northeast Creek Parkway on the east side. An underground
natural gas line crosses under the existing paved area just north of
-2-
7

• •: ; ' a?oo Ro- •

Z ?

`UTHEA .. ,?

fi Pro osed
? m
F
roject c

a

9
?o -0

1 ..-' ... .::..

1-40 < a
W .....
sag
J
O
#4C 54

1 cftw p

( ? --. _- p
' 2640 52
- 2
1 640
Z 12 mile 1 m
NORTHEAST CREEK DURHAM CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO Figs
PARKWAY URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN 3
NCDOT-1991

TriCenter Boulevard. A City water line parallels So-Hi Drive. A
city sewer service line crosses under the existing paved area north
' of TriCenter Boulevard.
' D. Traffic Volumes
The existing (1994) and forecasted (2020) average daily traffic volumes
for the proposed Northeast Creek Parkway are summarized in Figure
4A.
Existing and forecasted average daily traffic volumes for a no-build
alternative are summarized in Figure 4B. The projected volume of
traffic on Northeast Creek Parkway indicates the need for the proposed
project. Traffic volumes will be reduced on Cornwallis Road east of the
project, on Alexander Drive, and on the Durham Freeway east of Ellis
Road.
' E. Benefits to the State. Region, and Community
This project enhances the safety and general welfare of residents of
' Durham County by providing more travel lanes and a more direct
route for the flow of goods, services, and traffic. The project is
' consistent with the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare plan as prepared by the NCDOT (Figure 3). Designated as
a major thoroughfare, the roadway will provide improved traffic flow
' through an area earmarked for continued commercial and
institutional development. The project is consistent with the Durham
2020 Plan and the South Central Durham Plan. The project will
provide support for the continued development in the area.
' The project is expected to enhance economic growth and development
in the project area and to favorably affect the local tax base.
1

0
1 -3-

r m m m m m M M M M
Z
0
m
D
n
m
m
;rN
D
a0
D
(DI-4
,4 N
N
a
.000 J?a?
0 0 0

0 0
0 0
m 13
'
`
_ - 0

r
z 0
m M -q
W .?. m

t v
m
CO ?

... m
v N
a a o ?
< ?-
M <
z v

_ b m
C M a
Z M
v v
a m
a
V
U) -
m
"n m

"n a
n -n

n
to

1
m
x
z
z
U
-0
m
0
L
0
m
O
N
O
O
-'i
-n
n
0
r
C
E
Riddle Rd. 1
1
1
1
1
1 N '?
1 4
1
1
1
1 y8y
?"o
I? N.E Creek p ?4*%
,/?
y
`?
to
Co„
o
?o.
T
D?
A
z
z
0
0
s
\a?
v
c
3
T
c?Do

?S4
9g
W O
W
017L 'Ja aepuexeld
ObZ
= = = m = = = = = m = = = = m = m = m

z
O
m
D
0
m
m
D
D
m
x
z
D
z
v
10
0
C-
m
m
v
0
c
c
v
N
O
N
O
m
D
n
0
E
_T
A CO
W C
ti
0 0 0 . .
o° 0
0 0
0
m m m
s o
r

M z
? n

i
cn j
?
m
cn v
? ° m
v ,
r
?

g? ? m
D m
Z

a'? z M <
cn •v?o?a ?
a? c m m
D `?Ls`?ve
a0 v
D
m
a a

m ?
Riddle Rd. -n >
D
n m

n
cr
o?
w
o
c

So a
y

sy
48
Q?
O ?

!O\00

moo
„
?N
.p 8Z L •aa aepusxeid
617Z
z
z
0
Sro)^'
a
,
C
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1 A. General Description
NCDOT proposes to construct Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in eastern Durham County along both
1 existing and new right-of-way (see Figures 2 and 12). The facility will
be graded as a four-lane divided and five-lane roadway. Two lanes are
proposed for construction at this time. The length of the project is
approximately 1.8 miles.
B. Summary of the Proposed Project
1. Tyyical Section Description
Two typical sections are proposed. The first section, a five-lane,
curb and gutter section, will consist of four travel lanes and a
12-foot center turn lane. The inner travel lanes will measure 12
feet in width. The outer travel lanes will be 14 feet in width to
allow for bicycle movement. The second section, a four-lane with
median section, will also accommodate bicycle movement. The
outer travel lanes will measure 14 feet in width, the inner travel
lanes will measure 12 feet in width, and the raised median will
' measure 25 feet in width.
The proposed improvements are as follows:
Section One consists of a new 90-foot right-of-way running
' approximately 1,300 feet north from Cornwallis Road to the
existing section of Northeast Creek Parkway. Grading will
incorporate a width for the future five-lane section. Two lanes
are proposed for construction at this time.
Section Two consists of an existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway, continuing north for approximately 1,600 feet. The
' 90-foot right-of-way is graded for the ultimate five-lane section,
two lanes of which are existing. The existing paved section will be
widened to 26 feet to accommodate 2 feet for bicycle traffic.

ip
i g
O L

O
ip
N
Q
C
gl
I
I

``
O a I?I z o
o o a I 0 z
co (D e
I I I>
J
o I I i
0 I I v _
I
I
I rn
i. I
I
I
I
I I
I
I?
I I
I I z
I I ?
I I cn
.
I
I I ?
I
I I o
I

cO I Q
to
I
o

1
m
I
I
Yr
W
W
UQ
N3
QY
Wa:
cc
= CL r
O
z
I
r

CV I ?\
I??I
cD to I I
I
IIII ?I
IIII II
IIII II
IIII II
I
o
04 S IIII II
IIII II fs'
IIII II ?
III I
04
IIII II
3 °' I z 8
= I $
O \i ji W Z CA
I- o C14 P:
i J
Go
I I ? I
o rl
N _ ? a s
_ _ _ W
N ? H
04 m
It
N
co =
?m
N
Z
O
U
W
N
J
Q
FL
Y
W
W
cc }
UQ
QN
Wcc
=a
0
Z
co ? I
o I
31 W

?V co J
J i (_n
I I ?
I i 0
I
W
I I o
I I Q
I ? c?a
I
I I?
I I
I
I
I I
I I 1

>- 8
p I I
I
i ?1
? a :
O OI F
Ck:
co to

I
ICI

j
O I
b
CP
I^
1
I
I

O
I
to
N
i

(V Co
s
to
K
s
O '\
.?

m
?U
n

Section Three transitions to 120 feet of right-of-way to contain a
proposed four-lane section with a 25-foot raised grass median.
Section Three bears northeast to meet and follow the existing
So-Hi Drive. Grading will incorporate a width which allows for
the ultimate four-lane, divided section. Two lanes of the
four-lane section are proposed for construction at this time.
' Section Four continues approximately 800 feet along the existing
So-Hi Drive. Planned as a future four-lane, divided section on
' 120 feet of right-of-way, no improvements are proposed for this
existing portion of So-Hi Drive at this time.
1 Section Five continues approximately 2,600 feet as a proposed
four-lane, divided section on 120 feet of right-of-way along the
' existing So-Hi Drive, then realigning to intersect Ellis Road in the
vicinity of Southern High School. Grading will incorporate a
' width which allows for the ultimate four-lane section. Two lanes
2. Right-of-Wax
The acquisition of adequate right-of-way to contain the five-lane
section is proposed. The right-of-way width for the five-lane
section is 90 feet. The right-of--way to contain the four-lane with
median section is 120 feet. Additional right-of-way or
' construction easements at intersections and slope easements will
be acquired as necessary.
1 3. Bikeways /Sidewalks/ Greenways
Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a proposed bike facility
' in The Regional Bicycle Plan. The proposed roadway section will
accommodate bicycle movement by providing 14-foot wide
outside travel lanes in both the four-lane with median and
five-lane sections. Drainage grates will be bicycle compatible.
In addition, the proposed berm behind the curb will provide for
future development for pedestrian movement. The portion with
90-foot right-of-way will include 10.5 feet of berm on either side
' of the five-lane section. The 120-foot right-of-way portion will
include 12.0 feet of berm on either side of the four-lane with
-5-
of the four-lane section are proposed for construction at this time.

median section. This area may be used for future sidewalk
development and/or future jogging trail development.
The Durham Urban Trails & Greenway Master Plan includes a
greenway running along Northeast Creek. The designated
greenway crosses the present So Hi Drive. Pedestrian access across
the proposed project at this location will not be affected by the
project.
4. Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway will be 50 miles per
hour. The anticipated posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
5. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersections will be at-grade, with stop sign control for
intersecting side streets. Based on future projected traffic
volumes, signalization may be warranted at the intersection of
Northeast Creek Parkway and Cornwallis Road. In addition,
future signalization may be required at other locations as dictated
by future development traffic.
7. Drainage Structures
Drainage structures include (1) 42" reinforced concrete pipe, (3)
existing concrete drainage structures along the existing portion of
Northeast Creek Parkway, (1) 24" reinforced concrete pipe, (1) 60"
reinforced concrete pipe, (1) 6' x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert
(to replace the existing 60" corrugated metal pipe), (1) existing 42"
reinforced concrete pipe, and (2) 12' x 6' reinforced concrete box
culverts.
8. Permits Required
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required for
all stream crossings. These permits are anticipated to fall under
the Nationwide Permits 26 and 14. 401 certification from North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, & Natural
Resources will be required in conjunction with these Nationwide
permits.
-6-

z.
0.
Z
m
D
cn
n
m
m
v
D
D
v
m
z
D
m
v
rn
m
z
D

A
O
O
.d
Q1
O
O
N
A
O
O
T
a) _C
R
m m m = = m = m = m = m r = = r = m

1
9. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost of the project is $ 4,682,500.00, including
$382,500.00 for R/W and $4,300,000.00 for construction.

iJ

fl

LJ
-7-

III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. No Build Alternative
1
The "no build" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of the
proposed project, such as the disruption of the natural environment by
the use of additional land for roadway purposes. However, benefits of
the proposed action, such as providing a more direct route for the flow
' of traffic, increased safety, user cost savings, and completion of a major
thoroughfare, would not be realized. The long-term benefits resulting
' from the construction of the proposed project - including increased
accessibility, enhanced economic development, and provision of a
more efficient route - would more than compensate for any
' unavoidable adverse impacts.
' B. Postponement of the Proposed Project
Postponement would delay the effects of any negative impacts, but it
' would also delay positive impacts from improvement of this road and
accommodating traffic from planned development. The project would
also be more difficult to construct in the future as development within
the project area increases.
' C. Other Alternatives
An alignment alternative to the south of the proposed project was
previously reviewed by NCDOT and local communities (see Figure 7).
This alignment was investigated and determined to be less desirable for
' the following reasons:
1. The southern alternative would cross a low area adjacent to
Northeast Creek that was visually assessed to be wetlands.
Additional wetland impacts were estimated to be in the range of
1.80 acres (see Figure 7).
2. The southern alternative included the extension of Cook Road to
1 the south. This would necessitate the relocation of an existing
residence.

2
m
n
m
m
PO
9,yk
q?4s

Z D
m
O
-G
O
m
0
U)
0
D
r
z
ig
m
0 "0
< ri o
O cD X3
a
cf)
(D
m C
CL
0
o
a ?
D a
cA
3
CD

A
O
O
co
0
0
1
Q1
0
0
N
A
O
0
_T
V
C
m

x
.1 ?

-n -L
M o
CD
D CD
T N
w
o -n
o
o
w a
V ?
0
Co :'
0
0
Ul
(J1
D
li,

i
e°
s°
I TRICENTE;
BOULEVAR
Io
?y
m ?
a
?j

-- -0
::r o
a a;
n o
o =3
O
"-0
cn o
'°
o o
2 N
CD
CL
?. D
< a
(D
CID
.-a
CIRCLE
I?
3 i
A
n
A = m m m = m m m = = = m = = = = = =
i
3. Much of the southern alternative consisted of entirely new
right-of-way across land that is undeveloped. This undeveloped
land consists of both woodlands and open areas. The proposed
project ties into portions of the existing So-Hi Drive right-of-way,
thus limiting environmental impacts.
4. Private development on property adjacent to Ellis Road has
blocked the alternative southern alignment.
Additionally, building more of the road on new right-of-way would
cost more to build and would destroy more natural habitat.
-9-

LJ
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Impact
1. Land Use
' Existing land use in the project vicinity includes light industrial
and commercial development on both ends of the project. The
central portion of the project, along the existing So-Hi Drive
i right-of-way, is undeveloped woodland with four residences and
one church. This project is consistent with the Durham 2005
Comprehensive Plan and the South Central Durham Plan.
2. Neijzhborhood Impacts
' Four residences front existing So-Hi Drive. Short-term adverse
impacts are expected due to the construction process. Long term
positive impacts include improved grade access at driveway
connections. Traffic volumes on So-Hi Drive will increase as a
result of this project.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses
' The proposed project will not require the relocation of any
residences, businesses, or institutions.
4. Public Facilities and Services
There are no fire stations or police stations located in the
immediate vicinity of the project. Southern High School is
located on Ellis Road at the eastern end of the project. An existing
church and an existing child care facility are located along the
' existing section of So-Hi Drive. These facilities will have
improved access due to the project.
B. Economic Impact
' Construction of the proposed project would have both short-term and
long-term economic impacts. In the short term, the local economy
would be affected by providing employment to contractors and workers
during the construction period, resulting in additional income
generation.
' -10-

Also in the short term, due to right-of-way requirements, some
parcels of land will be removed from the real property tax rolls.
On a long term basis, the proposed project would provide increased
access through previously undeveloped land. This access is necessary
for land uses as planned in the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan,
which earmarks the area for continued office and research facilities,
and for facilities supporting these land uses. It would also have a
major positive impact on the local tax base through the generation of
property and sales taxes. In addition, the value of other land in the
area will be enhanced by the development potential. After
development, the real property values would increase.
As part of the region's traffic network, the proposed project will have a
positive impact on the overall local economy. The flow of goods and
services, as well as traffic flow, will be enhanced by the proposed
project. Users will benefit from reduced travel time and reduced
congestion. In particular, this project will serve traffic generated by the
approved development mentioned above. As previously stated, no
businesses will be relocated.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to review pursuant to North Carolina
General Statue 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will
have an adverse effect upon a property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historical
Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect of the subject project was delineated,
and this area was then reviewed for the presence of properties
listed in the National Register and any other important properties.
No properties listed in the National Register, or any other
important properties, exist within the study area.
-11-

1 2. Archaeological Resources
An examination of the archaeological site files at the Office of
' State Archaeology does not indicate the presence of archaeological
site in the proposed project area. Due to the development in the
' study area, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
has recommended that no archaeological investigations be
performed.
'
D. Environmental Impact
1 1. Vegetation and Wildlife
a. Plant Communities
' The distribution of plant communities in the project area is a
result of topography, soil characteristics, hydrology, and land use
practices. Much of the plant communities within the project
corridor have been disturbed by urbanization to the surrounding
landscape. Four plant community types were identified in the
project area during the site reconnaissance as described below.
Hardwood Forest
Major canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), red oak
(Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), red maple (Acer
' rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Major understory species include
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida) and yellow poplar
' (Liriodendron tulipifera). This community typically occurs in
well drained upland soil types.

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Major canopy species include hardwoods as described above mixed
with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata). This community typically occurs in well drained
upland soil types and represents an earlier successional stage than
the hardwood forest habitat type.
Riparian Forest
Major canopy species include yellow poplar, sweet gum, and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Major understory species
include red maple, river birch (Betula nigra), common alder
(Alnus serrulata), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
-12-

Riparian forest habitat types are present adjacent to Northeast
Creek in the flood plain corridor.
Urban /Disturbed
Communities identified as urban/disturbed include utility
corridors, existing roads, residential /industrial areas, abandoned
farmlands, and other natural areas that have been cleared for
development. The majority of vegetation in these areas have
been altered or modified by human activity. The urban/disturbed
habitat type is the most extensive vegetative community in the
project area. The project area contains several small creeks, all
tributaries of Northeast Creek.
Impacts to vegetative communities associated with the proposed
widening and relocation of road would consist primarily of habitat
modifications resulting from clearing, cut and fill, paving, and the
creation of borrow areas. Table 1 shows the distribution of impacts
to each habitat group.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTS TO VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
Community Type Acreage of
Hardwood Forest 10
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest 10
Riparian Forest 1
Urban/Disturbed Lands 17
b. Wildlife Communities
The upland hardwood and mixed forest vegetative community
types provide food, shelter, and nesting resources for a variety of
wildlife. These areas are particularly attractive to woodland
wildlife when located adjacent to urban/disturbed areas.
Mammal species typically present in the project area in the upland
hardwood/mixed forest habitat include: white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
-13-

F,

LI

?I

I

eastern cotton-tail (Sylvilgus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis). Nesting birds common
to the habitat type include the wood thrush (Hylocichia
mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), pine warbler
(Dendroica pinus), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), bluejay
(Cyanocitta cristata), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
and northern mocking bird (Mimus polyglottos).
Wildlife diversity is typically highest in the riparian forest
communities. Northeast Creek and its tributaries provide
specialized aquatic habitats which may support populations of
fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and invertebrates. Fish
species typically found in the project area include the largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), catfish
(Ictalurus spp.), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and various minnow
species (Gambusia affinis, Notropis spp., and Catostomus spp.).
Amphibian and reptile species indigenous to the project area
include bullfrog (Rana catesbania), American toad (Bufo
americanus), mud puppy (Necturus maculosus), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), and water snakes (Natrix spp.). These
species rely on aquatic habitat for food, shelter and breeding
habitat. They can be expected to be present in Northeast Creek and
the bordering riparian forest habitat.
Wildlife observed during the 11 June 1995 site reconnaissance
included white-tail deer (tracks), raccoon (tracks), gray squirrel,
red-tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common crow, mocking bird,
American robin (Turdus migratorius), wood thrush, mallard
duck (Anas platyrhynchos), and northern cardinal. Efforts to
specifically inventory all invertebrate species present on the
project site are beyond the scope of this report.
2. Rare and Protected Species
A record search of Natural Heritage Program files was conducted
on 8 June 1995. A site reconnaissance of the proposed project area
was conducted on 11 June 1995. The site reconnaisance was
conducted along the project perimeters. Field excursions were
made at several points by foot into the study area to assess biotic
-14-

communities. Field notes were collected regarding flora
community types observed and wildlife sightings. In general,
biotic communities within the project area are heterogeneous or
mixed in nature. Much of the study site consists of abandoned
farm land in various stages of succession; urbanization and
moderate industrialization have further impacted biotic
communities. A listing of Federal/State endangered and
threatened species known to occur in Durham County was
obtained from The Natural Heritage Program.
a. Federally Listed Species
Federally protected plant and animal species with endangered (E)
or threatened (T) status receive protection under the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Category 2 (C2) candidates are
those species which may in the future be considered for listing as
endangered or threatened. These candidate species are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act until they are
formally listed as threatened or endangered. Although these
species are not granted legal protection, consideration of them in
the development of a project is encouraged.
Records maintained by the Natural Heritage Program indicate no
federal threatened or endangered species are known to occur
within a one-mile radius of the project site. Three Federal
endangered species are known to occur in Durham County,
including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii).
The only known concentration of bald eagles in Durham County
occurs on Jordan Lake approximately four miles south of the
project site. It is improbable that bald eagles regularly utilize
habitat types observed in the Northeast Creek area and no
sightings of bald eagle nests were made during the walkover. The
other two endangered species, the smooth coneflower and
Michaux's sumac are found most frequently in disturbed habitats
with abundant sunlight. According to the Natural Heritage
Program, no sightings of these have been made on the project site
or within a one mile radius of the site.
-15-

Z
0
m
D
U)
-i
0
m
m
m
x
-v
D
D

m
r
D
Z
v
N
-o
a
n
a
z
m
a
0
A
S
co
O
O
.A
O
O
N
A
O
O
'Tl
v
a ?
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Based on the Natural Heritage Program Database in conjunction
' with the site reconnaissance, there is no significant evidence that
either of the two plant species would occur at the site. There are
' only about six known sites of either plant species in Durham
County.
' Therefore, based on records maintained by the Natural Heritage
Program and the site reconnaissance, there is no evidence
' indicating the presence of any of the three species as noted during
the field investigation. Considering the history of land use of the
project site and the results of the field investigation, Northeast
' Creek Parkway will have no adverse impact on these species.
' The following Category 2 (C2) candidate species are known to
occur in Durham County: Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni),
Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima), tall larkspur
' (Delphinium exaltatum), sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata),
A liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana), green floater (Lasmigona
' subviridis), and yellow lampmussell (Lampsilis cariosa). They
were not identified during field surveys.
' b. State Listed Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants with

' the North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act and the the North Carolina Plant
' Protection Act of 1979.
Federal listed species identified in the preceding section of this
' report are all classified at the State level as Special Concern (SC),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Endangered (E). Conclusions regarding
' species occurrence in Durham County are detailed in preceding
paragraphs under "Federal Listed Species".
3. Wetlands
' Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR
328.3) as:

-16-

"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three
essential parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetlands hydrology (COE Wetlands Delineation
Manual, 1987).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorized the Corps of
Engineers (COE), in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United
States" has broad meaning and incorporates both deepwater
aquatic habitats and special aquatic sites, including wetlands (COE
Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987). Executive Order 11990
requires that new construction in wetlands be avoided to the
extent possible, and that all practical measures be taken to
minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
A portion of the wetlands areas within the project area was
delineated in 1989 by the current property owner (W-1, W-2, and
W-3 of Figure 8). General Water Quality Certification from the
State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development Division of Environmental
Management was obtained and a Nationwide Permit 26 was
issued from the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. This
permit was obtained by the property owner to allow construction
of an access road to a developing property. This privately
developed access road was built in 1990 and constitutes "section
two" of the project as detailed in Figure 2. Areas W-2 and W-3
on Figure 8 are located in this area. Area W-1 of Figure 8 was
included in the permitted area in anticipation of extension of this
access road to Cornwallis Road.
-17-

A portion of the wetland areas within the project area were
delineated in 1994, based on the methodology outlined in the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands, 1987. Field reconnaissance was conducted in January
1995 to confirm the wetland delineations and identify any
additional wetland crossings that may occur within the project
area. Areas within the project corridor which are subject to
Section 404 permit review include 1) water and channel limits of
Northeast Creek and associated tributaries and 2) floodplain
systems immediately adjacent to this creek which are considered
jurisdictional based upon the three-parameter methodology
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Figure 8 shows the location of the wetlands identified in
the project area (W-4, W-5, and W-6).
Wetland crossings for sites W-4 through W-6 will be submitted "'V(L-t
for Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from the Wilmington District Sex
Corps of Engineers. These permits shall be obtained and will be /] (k/ GPI
used or modified as part of the roadway construction project. j?.
Crossings shall be accommodated by the use of culverts. 5
Table 2 lists the map reference number for each wetland site as
shown on Figure 8 and the area impacted at these sites. An
electronic planimeter was used to calculate the impact areas based
upon the construction limits of the proposed roadway.
TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS
Wetland Site
Number
W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
Wetland
Location
Adjacent to Northeast Creek
Adjacent to Northeast Creek
Adjacent to Northeast Creek
UT to Northeast Creek
UT to Northeast Creek
Northeast Creek
Acres
npacted Permit
Status
1.47 NWP #26*
0.96 NWP #26*
0.2 NWP #26*
0.15 NWP #26**
0.09 NWP #14**
0.16 NWP #14**
UT = Unnamed Tributary
NWP = Nationwide Permit
(*) Previously permitted by property owner (**) To be
-18-

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been
designed to avoid new construction in wetlands to the extent
possible, and employ all practical measures to minimize or
mitigate impacts to wetlands. Measures have been employed in
the initial planning of the proposed alternatives to minimize
potential impacts through route location (avoidance), design, and
construction practices. No rechannelling of Northeast Creek or its
tributaries is planned. Sedimentation and erosion control
practices will be utilized to minimize construction impacts. No
borrow or fill areas are planned in the wetland areas. Where
wetland crossings are unavoidable, the proposed alternative
crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest point to minimize
impacts.
4. Water Quality
The Northeast Creek Parkway project area is drained by the
Northeast Creek Watershed. This drainage system is part of the
Jordan Reservoir Watershed, which is located in the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Northeast Creek is classified as a Class "C" tributary (NC Division
of Environmental Management (DEM), 1993) indicating suitability
for fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation,
agriculture, and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The
DEM classifications are based upon existing or contemplated best
uses for various stream segments. There is one major point
source discharged (> 0.05 mgd) into Northeast Creek in Durham
County (Durham Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant). In
addition, there are two biological sampling locations established
on the creek, which has a biological classification of fair.
Biological classifications are based on the survey results of the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN). BMAN
results are available for certain water basins throughout the State
and are useful for assessing long-term changes in water quality.
The rating scale for biological classification includes poor, fair,
good/fair, good, and excellent.
-19-
W
O?
ti
.• \\
O?
ti
.0?
ti°
,y0
V*l
ab0?
S/
w
?73 >

ui
c
b
? oo
b C
o
c
CIO CL

O
1 IL
w .
)
U.
o
N
Q
CC L'

'y Q C
c
w
0101. + 2 C
ti

O#
ti

elz
J ti`
I

a
a
s?
Fb v70 ?+
4° .
d +
ti
a_
u.?
ClVOU Sl-7lt/
\ CP ly
o?
ti

i z
w
cc
) Q
W
a

ti
Y
W
w
c}
UQ
c~n 3
QY
wcr-
= CL
O
z
Northeast Creek flows in a north-south direction within the
project area. Three road crossings are planned for Northeast Creek
and its unnamed tributaries.
While Northeast Creek is part of the Jordan Reservoir Watershed,
the project area is not within the critical watershed.
Design measures to protect water quality are similar to measures
taken to protect wetlands. Design measures for protection of water
quality in roadway design can include minimizing the number of
stream crossings, crossing streams at their narrowest segments as
close to perpendicular as practical, maximizing the distance
between the stream and the road, and avoiding public water
supplies and high quality aquatic habitats. Best management
practices will be used at all stream crossings.
Construction practices should also include sedimentation control
measures such as berms, dikes, dams, silt basins and silt fences.
Best management practices will be incorporated during all phases
of construction to avoid adversely impacting the water quality in
or near the study area. In addition to potential increases in
turbidity, stormwater runoff from roads may present additional
impacts on surface water quality. Runoff from roads may contain
heavy metal loadings, high dissolved and particulate matter, oil
and grease. Management measures such as vegetative controls
(grass swales), detention/ infiltration basins, and retention of
wetland vegetation are often effective in reducing pollutants in
stormwater runoff.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Figure 7 shows the floodplain impact of the
proposed project. The impacts are based on a draft version of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain
maps. The proposed alignment will involve 3.85 acres of
floodplain.
The proposed action will be designed such that the floodway will
-20-

' carry the 100-year flood without increasing the flood water
' elevation more than one foot at any given point. The dimensions
of the drainage structures and the roadway grades will be adjusted
and designed to avoid increasing the flood hazard in the project
' area. The project will be coordinated with appropriate state and
local officials and FEMA to assure compliance with FEMA, state,
and local floodway regulations.
6. Soils
1 Soil formation and characterization result from a combination of
biological and geological activity along with the topographic
' positioning of an area. The soils within the project area are
characterized by two major soil associations:
' 1) White Store-Creedmoor Association: The White
Store-Creedmoor Site Association consists of gently sloping to
' moderately steep, moderately well drained soils that have a
subsoil of dominantly firm and very firm clay; or uplands.
2) Mayodan-Granville Creedmoor Association: Nearly level to
moderately steep and moderately well drained soils that have a
' subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam; or uplands.
Ten soil series from these major associations were identified from
' the project area (USDA 1971). Characteristics of these soils are
summarized in Table 3.
A hydric soil is one that is saturated, flooded or ponded long
enough during the growing season to develop an anaerobic

' condition in the upper part. Such soils typically support the
growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils classified by the Durham
County Soil Survey are located in some areas of the project area.
' These soils units are concentrated within channel limits and flood
plains bordering Northeast Creek.

-21-

TABLE 3
SOIL SUMMARY
MAP SOIL % SLOPE GENERAL
UNIT SERIES CHARACTERISTICS
Ch Chewacla 0-2% Nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils or flood plains.
Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is high.
Frequently flooded for brief periods.
CrB Creedmoor 2-6% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Slow permeability,
Sandy Loam water capacity is medium. Major limitations are wetness,
very slow permeability, slope and runoff.
ree moor 6 - 10% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Slow permeability,
Sandy Loam water capacity is medium. Major limitations are wetness,
very slow permeability, slope and runoff.
p Congaree 0-2% Nearly level, well drained soil or flood plain. Permeability
Silt Loam is moderate, available water capacity is high. Frequently
flooded for brief periods.
GTB Granville 2-6% Well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is moderate,
Sandy Loam available water capacity is medium. Major limitation is
runoff and slope erosion.
MfD Mayodan Urban 10 - 15% Well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is moderate,
Land Complex available water capacity is medium. Major limitation is
erosion hazard from runoff and slope.
P Pin stop Fine 2 - 10% Well drained to excessively drained soil or broad ridges and
Sandy Loam narrow side slopes or uplands. Permeability is moderately
rapid and available water capacity is medium. Major limita-
tions are runoff and slope and depth to bedrock.
P Pinkston Fine 10 - 25% Well drained to excessively drained soil or broad ridges and
Sandy Loam narrow side slopes or uplands. Permeability is moderately
rapid and available water capacity is medium. Major limita-
tions are runoff and slope and depth to bedrock.
Ws White tore 6 - 10% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is
Sandy Loam very slow and available water capacity is high. Major
limitations are erosion from runoff, very slow permeability an
perched water table.
WSE White tore 10 - 25% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is
Sandy Loam very slow and available water capacity is high. Major
limitations are erosion from runoff, very slow permeability an
perched water table.
-22-

7.
8.
Farmlands
The project area consists of areas that are planned to be urbanized,
and are therefore exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy
Act.
Traffic Noise Analysis
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generating plants, and highway vehicles. Traffic noise is
composed of noises from the engine, the exhaust, the drive train,
and tire roadway interaction.
The actual magnitude of sound is caused by short-duration
fluctuations and atmospheric pressure. These fluctuations are
called sound pressures. Since the range of sound pressures varies
greatly, a logarithmic relationship is used to reference sound
pressures to a common pressure. This relationship is defined as
the Sound Pressure Level and is measured in decibels (dB). To
approximate the sensitivity of the human ear while listening to
pure tones, the decibels is often modified by Frequency Rating
Curves (A, B, C, or D).
Vehicle noise levels are commonly modified by the A-Weighting
Curve. This curve correlates very well with human response to
noise. Particularly in describing annoyance caused by traffic noise,
particularly in describing annoyance caused by traffic. Sound
levels utilizing the A-Weighting Curve are expressed in dBA.
Typical sound levels expressed in dBA are listed in Table 4.
-23-

TABLE 4
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Source Distance Levels (dBA)
Jet takeoff
Jet takeoff 200 feet
2,000 feet 120
110
Jet landing 200 feet 100
Heavy truck 50 feet 90
Pneumatic drill 50 feet 80
Freeway traffic 50 feet 70
Air conditioning unit 20 feet 60
Normal conversation 12 feet 50
Light auto traffic 100 feet 50
Library - - - - 40
Soft whisper 15 feet 30
Threshold hearing - - - - 0
Source: US Noise Pollution,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1972
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as LEQ (H).
The hourly LEQ or equivalent sound level is the level of constant
sound in an hour, that in an hour would contain the same
acoustic energy as the time varying sound. In other words the
fluctuating levels of sound level traffic noise are represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
To determine if roadway noise levels are comparable with various
land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772, US Department of Transportation,
FHWA, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise". A summary of the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is presented in
Table 5.
-24-

C
L

r

TABLES
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Category LEQ H Description o Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serentiy and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is
to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B above.
D - - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: 23 FR 772 Procedures or Abatement o Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise.
' Receptors in the area of the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension
include such sites as residences (category B), churches (category E)
and businesses (category Q. No category A receptors were
identified.
' Two factors are used in determining traffic noise abatement. The
first factor is when future noise levels either approach or exceed
the criteria levels for each activity category, where approach is
' defined as within one dBA of the criteria. The second factor for
considering traffic noise abatement is when future noise levels
' constitute a substantial increase over existing noise levels. If the
existing noise level is relatively quiet, less than or equal to 50 dBA,
a substantial increase is defined as 15 dBA or greater increase. If
' however, the existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA, a 10 dBA
or greater increase is considered substantial. Noise abatement
'
-25-

m w m = m m m m m m m ¦wi m m m m m m m
z
O
M.
I
m
a
U)
0
m
m
m
x
-v
D
D
z
O
V5
m
9
O
z
=1
O
z
z
O
r
O
n
a
0
z
N
4
O
?OO
1-A
0)
O
O
pN
O
O
T
O ?
c
1
CD
m m m m m w m m m r m m m m ¦w m m w
' measures are considered when there is either a substantial
' increase in noise or the noise level approaches or exceeds the
NAC.
' To establish the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project,
noise measurements were taken at four locations. The noise
measurement locations are shown on Figure 9, and the ambient
' noise levels are listed in Table 6.

TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Site Location LEQ (dBA)
1) Proposed entrance to Cornwallis Road; 50 feet 64
from center line of nearest traffic lane
2) So Hi Drive and Northeast Creek Parkway 59
Extension; 50 feet from center line of nearest
traffic lane
3) Cook Road intersection; 50 feet from center 53
line of nearest traffic lane
4) Existing So Hi Drive and Ellis Road intersection; 63
50 feet from center line of nearest traffic lane
Based on field measurements, the existing noise levels generally
' ranged between 53 dBA and 64 dBA.
' One measure of the noise impact is the extent of the 66 dBA noise
level contour. This contour line is the distance from the
centerline of the proposed Northeast Creek Parkway Extension to
' the contour line where a noise level of 66 dBA is predicted to
occur and can be used to determine which receptors approach or
' exceed the FHWA NAC. The distance from the centerline of the
proposed Northeast Creek Parkway to the 66 dBA noise level
contour based on the projected 2020 traffic volumes is 128.0 feet.
' There are three residences located along the proposed alignment
that fall with this noise contour.

-26-

The 66 dBA noise contour can assist local officials in land use
planning decisions. The contour line may be used to prevent
problems in the future, such as placing a residential development
within the 66 dBA noise level contour.
The other measure for assessing the noise impact is to determine
the noise level increase from the existing condition to the future
conditions (build and no-build). Based on the ambient noise
level measurements recorded, it was determined that a
representative ambient noise level of 59 dBA would be used for
the existing So-Hi Drive section and 64 dBA for the existing
Northeast Creek Parkway section. Therefore, the 69 dBA noise
contour was used to identify residences experiencing substantial
noise increases at the northern end near Ellis Road, and the 74
dBA contour was used at the southern end near Cornwallis Road.
Analysis reveals that three residences will be affected near Ellis
Road, which fall within the 69 dBA contour, and no residences at
the southern end, for a total of three residences experiencing
substantial noise increase.
When a noise level of a proposed roadway project exceed noise
abatement criteria or cause substantial noise increases, noise
abatement measures should be considered. However, noise
abatement guidelines indicate that it is not reasonable to provide
noise abatement on non-controlled or partial control access
facilities such as the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension.

1

9. Air Ouality
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified six
pollutants for tracking air quality. These six pollutants are:
particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (SOD, nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and lead (Pb). Mobile
sources (principally vehicular traffic) are linked to the emission of
carbon monoxide and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen dioxide and
ozone. Recent nationwide estimates indicate that more than 50
percent of all CO emissions are from mobile sources. Particulate
-27-

1 matter, lead, and sulfur dioxide emissions are generally associated
with stationary sources and industrial activities.
' CO is the most commonly occurring air pollutant generated
by
mobile sources. It is a colorless gas produced from incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing fuel. CO is a potentially fatal gas
that affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. At low
' concentrations, mental function, vision, and alertness are affected.
' Ambient air quality is determined by measuring ambient
pollutant concentrations and comparing the concentrations to the
corresponding standard. The "ambient air" is defined by the US
' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access". The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
NAA
f
h
i
i
l
S
d
d
S
id
ifi
ll
d
ar
Q
or t
x prev
y
tan
s (
)
e s
ous
ent
utants:
e
po
PM-10, CO, 03, SO2, NO2, and Pb. The ambient air quality
' standards are classified as primary standards, secondary standards,
or both. The primary standards were established allowing an
' adequate margin of safety for protection of public health.
bli
h
i
S
d
d
d
d
h
i
f
d
econ
ary stan
ar
s were esta
s
e
w
an a
equate marg
n o
t
safety to protect the public welfare from adverse effects associated
with pollutants in the ambient air.

' In protecting public welfare, air pollution effects on the following
are considered: soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, climate, property,
transportation, economy, personal comfort, and well-being. The
scientific criteria upon which the standards are based are
periodically reviewed by EPA, and the standards are re-established
or changed based upon the findings. The current national
primary and secondary standards ambient air quality standards are
' summarized in Table 7.

-28-

TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time National Primary National Secondary
Standard Standard
PM-10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 ug/m3 (a) Same as primary (a)
24 hr (b) 150 u /m3 (a) Same as primary (a)
S02 Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 ug/m3 None
24 hr (a) 365 ug/m3 None
3 hour (a) None 1,300 ug/m3
N02 Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 ug m3 Same as primary
8 our a 9 ppm None
1 hour (a) 35 p pm None
3 1 hour b 0.12 ppm ame as primary
Pb Quarterly
Arithmetic Mean (a) 1.5 u /m3 Same as primary
(a) Not to be exceeded more than once per year
(b) Not to exceed more than one day per year averaged over a three-year period
ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air
ppm = parts per million
microgram = one millionth of a gram, where 454 grams = 1 pound
Monitoring of the pollutants, except Pb, is performed statewide by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM). When standards are exceeded, an area is labeled as
non-attainment for that pollutant. Durham County is classified
as a maintenance area for 03 and CO.
The most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles is CO.
For this reason, the analyses presented are concerned with
-29-
r mm m m= m m w M 'M m m m m M ¦r m
z
0
m
a
0
m
m
m
X
-o
a
m
a
?r
?0
20
_a
2-4
.15
oZ
N
00
mm
00
vN
Dr-
.<m
m
m
m
0
N
4
rn
0
0
N
O
O
21
1
1
v b
s9 2
>Oao
0 d n m
O D m m
9 -C C N
m D n m I?
nm=0
m ?I
° 'D
TRICENTER
Z
v , BOULEVARD
cn
c ?D
-i .
m
D I
r D
r2
to
r?
n
rm CATALINA
STREET a
I?? m
DIAL
r ? DRryE
BRADFORD
/ • ? ? `?o clacLe •
O Exis0 o
m Says DRIVE O , n
r
o'
m ?
w q9
° o
0
x
w
c?
N
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m =

1
determining the project 2020 CO levels in the vicinity of the
' project.
To determine the CO concentration at a receptor, two
' concentration components must be used: local and background.
The local component is predicted from dispersion modeling and is
' due to CO emissions from motor vehicles operation near the
receptor locations. The background component is the ambient CO
level. The background CO component for the project area was
t estimated to be 1.8 ppm as recommended by NCEHNR. This is a
typical value for a suburban area. These two components were
' added together to determine the total CO concentration for
comparison to the NAAQS.
' Areas with high traffic volumes are most likely to generate the
highest levels of CO. In determining the air quality impact of the
proposed project, the intersections with the highest projected
' volumes of traffic were evaluated. The intersection of Cornwallis
Road and Northeast Creek Parkway and Ellis Road and Northeast
' Creek Parkway are anticipated to have the highest CO levels due
to higher traffic volumes and the presence of vehicles idling at

1 these intersections.
At these intersections, the line source computer model CAL3QHC
' was used to predict the local CO concentration components. The
CAL3QHC model is a dispersion computer model developed for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based on the
assumption that vehicles at an intersection are either in motion
or in an idling state, the program is designed to predict air
' pollution levels by combining emissions from both moving and
idling vehicles.
' CAL3QHC uses emission factors generated by EPA's approved
model MOBILE 5A. To evaluate the maximum impact of the
' proposed project on ambient CO concentrations, worst-case inputs
were used in the modeling including receptor locations at
minimum right-of-way distances, adverse meteorology, peak
' traffic conditions, and worst-case CO vehicles emission factors.
The worst-case assumptions for these parameters are not expected

-30-

to occur simultaneously; however, the objective is to develop a
worst-case scenario to predict the highest CO concentrations that
occur as a result of the proposed project.
MOBILE 5A input parameters included:
Vehicle Mix
autos (gasoline) 55.6%
light trucks (gasoline) 20.9%
medium trucks (gasoline) 8.1%
heavy trucks (gasoline) 3.6%
autos (diesel) 0.2%
medium trucks (diesel) 0.3%
heavy trucks (diesel) 10.8%
motorcycles 0.5%
Tampering rates:
Annual mileage accumulation rates
and registration distributions:
Basic exhaust emission rates:
Inspection /maintenance program:
MOBILE 5A Default
MOBILE 5A Default
MOBILE 5A Default
No I/M in 1995, assume Basic I/M
starting in 1996
Additional corrective factors:
Anti-tampering program:
Refueling emission rate:
Ambient temperature:
Minimum and maximum daily
temperature:
Base and in-use volatility (RVP)
Region:
Calendar year:
Speed:
Operating mode fractions:
None
None
Uncontrolled
45°F
minimum = 4.50°F
maximum = 45.0°F
10.5 in 1995, 10.5 in 2020
Low altitude (approximately 500 feet
above mean sea level)
1992 and 2010 (January 1)
25 MPH
Non-catalyst, cold-start vehicles =
20.6%
Catalyst, hot-start vehicles = 27.3%
Catalyst, cold-start vehicles = 20.6%
-31-

Worst-case CAL3QHC and CALINE3 input parameters included:
Averaging time:
' Surface roughness:
Settling velocity:
Deposition velocity:
Receptor height:
' Traffic volumes:
Emission factor:
' Source height:
Wind speed:
Wind direction:
' Mixing height:
Ambient concentration:

J

60 minutes
0.75 (corresponds to tall grass)
0 centimeters/ second
0 centimeters/ second
1.8 meters
peak hour volumes, year 2020
from MOBILE 5A (grams per mile)
0 meters
1 meter/second
1 ° increments
1,000 meters
1.80 ppm
As stated earlier, the intersections with the heaviest projected
traffic volumes were evaluated. A total of eight different receptors
(four at each intersection) were analyzed to compare the air quality
impact of proposed Northeast Creek Parkway. Table 8
summarizes the results of the air quality analysis. Only the CO
concentration at the most affected receptor (worst-case) is shown.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
CO Concentration ( m)
Receptor Intersection with Intersection with
Number Cornwallis Road Ellis Road
1 3.4 3.1
2 3.4 3.1
3 3.2 2.9
4 3.2 2.9
-32-

In 2020, the maximum one-hour CO concentration of the
intersection of Cornwallis Road and Northeast Creek Parkway is
expected to be 3.4 ppm and the maximum concentration at Ellis
Road is expected to be 3.1 ppm.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentration within the
NAAQS indicate no violations of the one-hour CO standard of 35
ppm occur. Likewise, it can be concluded that the eight-hour
standard (9.0) will not be exceeded because the one-hour CO
analysis does not exceed 9.0 ppm.
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the
Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance"
for 03 on June 17, 1994. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent
of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP
does not contain any transportation control measures for Durham
County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1995 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to conform to
the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is
November 9, 1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is April
4, 1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with
the final conformity role found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been
no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
10. Geology
The site is located within the Durham Triassic Basin, and the site
is underlain by siltstone and sandstone which were deposited in a
sedimentary environment. Bedrock consists of soft to hard
sedimentary rock which is encountered at depths of three to ten
feet below the existing ground surface.
-33-

11. Potential Hazardous Material Sites

L
C

Potential hazardous material sites include generators, treaters, and
disposers of hazardous wastes, landfills, sewage treatment
facilities, garbage dumps, abandoned service stations with
underground storage tanks, fuel, oil, and gasoline storage tanks
and lagoons. The following sources were reviewed to determine
if any hazardous material sites or leaking underground storage
tanks are located in the project study area:
• Hazardous Waste Branch Files, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR)
• Special Incidents Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Superfund Section Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Solid Waste Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• North Carolina Solid Waste Section List of Solid Waste
Facility Contacts, December 1992
• North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Sites Program, Status
Report, February 1992
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Wasteland Pre-remedial/Federal Facility Report, September
1993
' As a result of the review, no sites were identified within the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, there does
not appear to be any hazardous materials, landfills, underground
t storage tank sites, or other sites that would have an impact on the
proposed project.
12. Visual Impacts
' The central portion of the project area is predominantly wooded
and undeveloped with gently rolling hills and small creeks.
Portions of the study area will be visually impacted by the
construction of the proposed project. The typical section for this
project was selected to allow for landscaping and screening in
' selected areas to mitigate adverse visual impacts.
-34-

13. Construction Impacts
Short term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water
quality, air quality, natural resources, and noise. The potential
impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to established
construction methods. These methods are described below:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the
right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise
required by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal
within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of
waste or debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the engineer. Such approval
will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. During construction of the proposed project, all material
resulting from clearing, grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, and disposed of by the
contractor. Any merchantable timber will be salvaged. 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.
Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits will be
protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree
trunks from heavy equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees
from fill dirt around the base, or accidentally spilling petroleum.
c. Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. There will be strict adherence to the erosion control plan by the
contractor, including limiting areas and duration of exposed earth
and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as possible.
f. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby residents.
-35-

' g. Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be
the main contributor to the construction activity noise emissions,
noise impacts during project construction are of short duration.
Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as
measured at a distance of 50 feet may vary from 70 dBA to 100
dBA. It is anticipated that the major sources of construction noise
' will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile driving, and
paving. General construction noise impacts that can be expected
are temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals working near the project. Such noise will be limited
to daylight hours as much as possible.

14. Permits Required
Section 404 permits will be required from the Army Corps of
Engineers for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional
wetlands or "waters of the United States". In addition, Section 401
of the Clean Water Act requires each state to certify that state water
quality standards will not be violated for activities which: 1)
involve issuance of a federal permit or license; or 2) require
discharges into "waters of the United States". The Corps of
Engineers cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality
' certification is approved by the NC Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources - Division of Environmental
Management.
As discussed in Section IV.D.3, some wetland encroachments
have already received Nationwide Permits from the Corps and
water quality certification from the state. The permits were
previously obtained by the property owner and will be used or
modified for this project. Other permits outlined in Section
IV.D.3 are pending.

15. Secondary Impacts
Post construction secondary impacts will be dependant on future
' development in the project area. This development is expected to
include institutional as well as commercial projects. As the area
evolves, secondary impacts may include the development of
currently undeveloped land which may result in the loss of
additional woodlands and fields.

-36-

V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An informal public hearing will be held after this document is
completed and distributed by NCDOT. The hearing will be informal
with one-on-one interaction between project staff and the public, and
' will be held at a site in or near the project area. Exhibits for the
workshop will include maps of the proposed alignment, aerial
photographs of the project area, and all information included in this
document. Citizens will have the opportunity to make comments on
forms that will be provided.

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed construction of Northeast Creek Parkway
were requested from the following agencies. An asterisk indicates that
a written response was received. These comments are incorporated
into the environmental assessment contained in this report. A copy of
the comments is included in the Appendix.
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Geologic Survey
Triangle J Council of Government
City of Durham
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Durham County
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History
NC Department of Public Instruction
Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
-37-

I.......... ........ ..... . . ..... ... .......... ............ .... ....... I..... ....... . ............. ....... .... ............ . ... .. ....... ......... .......... ... ...... . ...............
... .............. .......... . . .......... .... ...... . I... ......... .. . . ..... .... .... . . ... . .......... ........... ..........

w
Z
J
U
I-
Q
?m
N
? r
LL

O
O
co

D
W
Cl)
0
a
O
IL
a
CL
w
w
cc
U
W
a
w
x

I VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
' document, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment. This FONSI completes the
environmental review. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be
' prepared for this project.
' All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices
will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No
special or unique environmental commitments are necessary.

u

-38-

APPENDIX
I
FHOM HALLIGH KLUULHIUKY
June 5, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199201826 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
.r. Vick:
Reference is made to my letter of March 29, 1993, to the city of. Durham
that confirmed Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material
into 2.6 acres of waters (and/or wetlands) of Northeast Creek, associated with
the construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension, northeast of
Cornwallis Road, in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. Reference is also
made to your request of May 18, 1995, submitted by your agent, Mr. Mack Little
with Little and Little, that notified us that you have not begun construction
of the reference project and that the work will not begin until the summer of
1995:" our review of the scope of your proposed work within jurisdictional
.raters (and/or wetlands) indicates that you propose no additional impacts to
jurisdictional areas beyond those originally reviewed and authorized.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Colic of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization was
provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of
&edged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters.
Your proposed work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
'accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John
Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked, which will occur prior to January 21, 1997. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits,
which will be announced by public notice when they occur. If you commence, or
are under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments: may be addressed to Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh
Field Office, telephone [phone], Extension 24.
?KUM KHLLIUH KLbULHiUKV
1
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
' North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Pont Office Sox 29535
Raleigh, North Caroling 27626-0535.

REPLY TO
ATTENTX>N OF
I !?-
A
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MAY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-189OLITTLE
May 22, 1995
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
-'al_b'j
This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact for Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in
Durham, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831A" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199500522).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood
control or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
11
Prwr4W an ® Rocyc4d P"
' May 19, 1995
1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON: Page 1 of 1
' "State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Northeast
Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, North Carolina,
' TIP No. U-2831A" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199500522)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
' Services Section, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project is located in the city of Durham
' and Durham County, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. From a review of Panel 30 of the January 1982 City of Durham Flood
Insurance Rate Nap (FIR14), the proposed roadway appears to cross a tributary
' to Northeast Creek which was not included in the Durham Flood Insurance Study.
Based on a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map,
' this stream does appear to have sufficient drainage area at the crossing to
produce flooding. We recommend coordination with the-city for compliance with
their flood plain ordinance.
' From a review of Panel 55 of the February 1979 Durham County FIRM and
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, a section of the proposed roadway appears to
be aligned close to the detail study stream of Northeast Creek and may also
impact the floodway. Should there be any impacts on the 100-year flood plain
or defined floodway, we recommend that you coordinate with the Federal
' Emergency Management Agency regarding the need for a no-rise certification and
with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any
modifications to their flood insurance map and report.
1
2. MATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the submitted information and has
provided the following comments. On March 8, 1994, Mrs. Jean B. Manuele met
with Mr.- Mack Little, agent for North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), along the corridor of the proposed Northeast Parkway, in Durham,
Durham County, North Carolina. The wetland delineation performed by
Mr. Little was reviewed and was determined to accurately depict the limits of
our regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
' Mr. Little was advised that the crossings of Northeast Creek and three of its
associated tributaries are eligible to be authorized by Nationwide Permit
' Numbers 14 and 26.
On May 18, 1995, Mrs. Manuele spoke with Mr. Little and she was informed
that the permit application had been submitted to NCDOT for review and
' subsequent submittal to our office for concurrence. Should you have any
questions concerning this project, please contact Mrs. Manuele.
?Y r?Fs
w.
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor August 22, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Wendy C. Moses
Little & Little
Post office Box 1448
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Ms. Moses:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Craig Davis Properties - Ellis Drive Ext.
Durham County
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in wetlands adjacent to Northeast Creek,
we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered by
General Water. Quality Certification No. 2176 issued November 4,
3-987. A copy of the General Certification is attached. This
Certification may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps
of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If you have any questions, please contact Bill Mills at
919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
R., Paul Wilms
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regional Office
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
11

•ti
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SA:d26-89-62, Ellis Drive Extension
SEP 20 1989
LITTLE & LITTLE
Mr. Craig M. Davis
' Craig Davis Properties
3605 Glenwood Avenue) Suite 435
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
' Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is in response to the pre-discharge notification that was
received from you on August 24, 1989, concerning a proposed project in
Durham County, North Carolina (copy enclosed). .

Your proposed project has been evaluated and, based on the information
that you provided, the Division Engineer has determined that it Is authorized
by Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26)(copy of Division authorization
enclosed).
A separate Department of the Army permit is not required providing the
work is performed as described in the pre-discharge notification and in
accordance with the conditions listed in 33 CFR 330.5(b)(1-14) (copy of list
enclosed). Other State and local authorizations may also be required.
Thank you for your cooperation with our permit program.
Sincerely,
Enclosures

i

Copy Furnished:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
September 15, 1989
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
? Ms. Wendy C. Moses
Little and Little
Post Office Box 1448
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Copy Furnished (with Division recommendation):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

V DEPARTMENT COF THE ARMY
OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. ORPS OF ENGINEERS
O
YVILM(NGTON, NORTH CAROUNA 28402-1890
M/ F EMy REFER TO
March 29, 1993
MAR 3 1993
LITTLE & LITTLE
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199201826 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
City of Durham
Engineering Department
Attn: Mr. Lee Murphy
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Dear Mr. Murphy:
lication of April 16, 1992, for Department of the
Reference your Vint'•app
discharge fill material within waters of the Unite
,
Army authorization to nal 1 adjacent to'
States, causing the loss of antadditio.1 acres of wetlands 2. res
and above the headwaters ortho?east creek., fyr?erte total fill of 2. 6 ?acres
creek for construction of the N Durham County, North Carolina'
Cornwallis Road, in Durham,
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
NWP
Title 33, code of Federal Regulations
Federal Register on November 22, 1991,. lists nationwide permits (
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. The discharge does not cause the. loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States; a would
b. The permittee notifies the District Engineer if t ne nesacreg in
cause the loss of waters of the Stateconds For discharges in
accordance with the "Notification" 9 the notification must also include
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, wetlands; and
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including
including all attendant features, both temporary and
c_ The discharge, project.
permanent, is part of a single and complete

-2-
Your work 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. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
[phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
certification prior to starting work.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the.date of this letter
' unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, ths
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
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,

Enclosure

G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

U RHAM City of Durham
4 North Carolina
Department of Transportation
101 City Hall Plaza phone [phone]
" Durham. North Carolina 27701 FAX [phone]
8 6 9 May 9, 1995 C E I V?
IYOF MEDICINE
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch MAY 1 2 1995
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201 DIVISICN OF Q
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201 PIGHWAYS
P
Subject: Northeast Creek Parkway, TIP Project No. U-2831 A ??RON6tIE?
Dear Frank:
The City of Durham is pleased to offer preliminary comments for the preparation of the draft
State Environmental Assessme are ding to No Significant Impact (SEAJFONSI) on the
subject project. Our comments
Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a proposed bike facility in The Regional Bicycle
Plan. The proposed cross sections should therefore accommodate bicycles. The curb and
gutter segments should provide 14 feet wide outside travel lanes. The segments without curb
and gutter should provide 4 foot wide paved shoulders, which may well be justified with the
truck traffic anticipated in this industrial area. Also, the SEAJFONSI should address the need
for.pedestrian facilities and connections with sidewalks recently constructed theResearch
proposed corridor. This facility may also provide an excellent opportunity for Triangle Park to expand its jogging trail system. This should also be addressed.
The proposed right-of-way widths should be sufficient to accommodate one both bike and are
pedestrian facilities. The proposed 90 feet rights-of-way for segments
insufficient for these purposes and should be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet. The right-
of-way must be sufficient for both wide outside bike lanes, sidewalks, and utility strip.
Please be advised that Durham has several adopted land use plans that affect this area.
Consistency or inconsistency with these plans should be appropriately noted. These plans
include the City and County Comprehensive Plan, The South Central Durham Plan, The
Triangle Township Plan, and The Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Master Plan. Please
note that the project affects the proposed Northeast Creek Greenway. Each of these plan
documents are available from the Durham City-County Planning Department.
Mary Hough, the City's Transit Administrator has prepared comments for the Durham Area
Transit Authority. Her comments are attached.
1 r
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project early in the
the Draft SEp/FONSI and plan to prov de additional
process. We look forward to reviewing
' comments based upon the findings of the draft study.
If the City of Durham can provide additional assistance, please let me know.
' Sincerely,
H. Wesley Par am, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
' Attachment
cc: Mark Ahrendsen
' Vonda Frantz
Dick Hails
Mary Hough
' Owen W. Syrian
i
AIMM
DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Mary Hough, Transit Administrator
f'T I" 1r-r'T: Nnr*h-nst Creek Parkway
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design for the above referenced
project with regard to the needs of public transit.
Although this road will not necessarily be used by DATA, it is a connection within
RTP that would be used by the TTA. Because of this, it would be desirable that
the road have adequate shoulders, in terms of size and construction, to
accommodate waiting areas and amenities for transit users. This is especially true
in the areas where commercial/industrial facilities abut the road. We have already
received requests for service from entities on Tricenter Blvd., so it appears that
there is a demand for transit service in the area.
I hope that these comments/request can be incorporated into the design of the
road, and if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to call me at 688-
2742.

I

F-?`" ¦
TAICF?? ?
PR1DE IN
United States Department of the Interior, ????
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological services ?., E I V
Post Office Box 33726 V ?O
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 Q`
May 24, 199
`MAY 2 6 1995' r
v
z
DIVISICN OF
Mr. H. Franklin Vick HIGHWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch F?? T
N.C. Division of Highways IRON P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Parkway, Durham1County, North No Significant Impact
No. U-2831A
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 7, 1995 requ?sting information from the
U. 5. Fish and wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for the construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis, a project of approximately 1.8 miles. The proposed
project is divided into five sections, some of which will follow existing
roads. Actual work within the sections includes construction of two lanes,
grading to facilitate future construction, and none.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1.. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A lict and acrce3ae of the wetland t.,pes which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing narssoat
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project.
These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland
losses.

6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Wake County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species should contain the
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the ".effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Si ely yours,
David A. Dell
Acting Supervisor

Durham County
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Birds
l.ald c,aglu 1????i?,eeius Icucoccu..u.us1 - L
Plants
' Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxn) - E•

Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - E
' There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
' we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
' Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis carioca) - C2
' Insects
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2•
Plants
' A liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana) - C2•
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - C2
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
'
1
I•Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

FI

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
May 11, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0731; Scoping - Proposed Construction
of the Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to
Ellis Road in Durham, NC TIP #U-2832A
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region J
?Tom Rendig, NCDOT
116 West )ones Street -Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 -Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
' Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director

MEMORANDUM
All
44
E) EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee
' RE: 95-0731 Scoping Proposed Construction of the NE Creek
Parkway, Durham
' DATE: May 9, 1995
' The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.

attachments

RECEIVED
MAY 10 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

' p.o. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equol Opportur y Affirmotive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10'6 post-consumer poper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, r446e 0 A
Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary 1:3 FE
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 5, 1995
MEMRAND
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review 195-0731; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Construction of Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, TIP IU-2831A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channel ized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh. North cororna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity AMmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% post-congimer paper

,Melba McGee
May 5, 1995
'Page 2.
H. Will borrow locations be
should avoid wetlands to
' Prior to approval of any
contractor shall obtain
? R.
1

in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
the maximum extent practicable.
borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
a 401 Certification from DEM.
Did NCDOT utilize the-existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
'd d and minimized to the
3. Mitigation shoul e i
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
wetland impacts have been avoi e
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
A b n the following order:
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 40.1 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10925.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

'Reviewing (111e* REGIONAL OFFICE I
State of Nort?1 Carolina , arc:.
Department of Environment, Hoslth, . d NeturahBasclU?s tG^'' _?__ Due Date:
_T? y -- '-- Project Number.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW '- PROJECT COIAI'rlENTS - -=-
•.! it(s) andlot approvals indicated may need to be obtained in r
After review of this project it has with North determd that ine Law. EHNR a -Ch- Indicated on the reverse of the loan.
order for this project to Comply
units should be addressed to the Region
Process
Questions regarding these pe it pIlice rrrlils are available from the same Normal Time
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and Pe.t r• (statutory time
RCQiO/t?I Olljce. Irmitl
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
30 days
PERMITS
Appiication 90 days belore begin construction or award of
permit to construct [ opetale wastewater treatment construction cont racts On•slle Inspection. Post•appiication (90 days)
tac(Iltles, sewer system extensions, t: sewer t n technical conference usual
eystems, not discharging into state surface wa e .
belOre begin activity. On-site inspection. 90120 days
permit to discharge into surface water and/or
NPOES • D!
f
ilities lication 180 days
App lication conlerence usual. Additionally. obtain permit 10
o FteOmY
-granted after NPDES
f
ilit tNrAI
t
ac
permit 10 operate and construct wastewater ac
y
construct wastewater treatment
lans or issue of NPOES
t of
i
? discharging into state surface waters. p
p
lime 30 days alter rece
permit whichever is later.
30 clays
lori lecnniV. conference usually necessary
li (NrAI
pR.app
ca
? Water Use Permit
7 days
complete application must be received and permit issued (15 clays)
? Well Construction Permit prior to the rnstallauon of a well.
•
ropeny
i
n _
55 days

p
a
served on each adjacent ripar
st be
Application coOY mu
On-site Inspection.-Pre•a001ication conference usual. Filling
wner
f l40 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit .
O
l Fill from N.C. OFill IOPermitl o
may require Easement td
e and
Dred
? g
ra
Administration and Fede
60 days
(90 Caysi
permit to construct 1 operate Air Pollution Abatement
as per 15A NCAC 21H NIA
? facilities and/or Emission Sources
Any Open burning associated with subject Proposal
ith 15A NCAC 20.0520•
must be in c°^+Plia^ce w 60 clays
Demolition or renovations OI slrUClurdw tnn15A
liance
IA
asbestos material must be in comp N
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and re
/1 CO?
demojition. Contact Asbestos Control Gfoup
t (9e o]ys)
o
prior
919.733-0820. a
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC

73 must be properly addressed to any land disturbing activity An erosion & seaimenla i
?
Land Duality Sect 1 at least 30
days

d
20
The Seuirmr`:•talion Pollution Control Act of 19
H one of more acres to
uired be disturbed. Plan tiled with PloPer Regional Office (

Cite oian
must accomoanv
additional

ays(
130
s)
S0 cla
y
? control plan will be req
CIA M lot the first
Ordinance:
days bel:ae be innin activity. A A fee
the referrenced
ith respect t°
i (
y
d 1973 mu
c
A
.Sedimentatan Pollution Conlro l
'tMi st be addressed
_
tn EHNR. Bond amount'
LJ 'f• rid 1(1x0 wi
on-site Inspection usual. Surely 00
I dlectee laneAny area 3G clays
i
`' ,?,?;;, • _ vanes with lype•hmlFe >:nd humlxr of acres °
bond
p2rmi10. The appropriate
than b6i krc:?use bq (60 days)
o ldmine P?nr?i? ^«
,?! •.u ? ' --
' .
f r6inid preaiet
*si t v receiiil). 1ft ermil ean•be' tsiut:d 1 day .
?. .
:_
.-'? - - _ _
'. r ffnrt
?lrtslon•Foresi Resourc!!'fl ?e
C
llllA?1 N
I
1
• r
.
• ••
.-..? grlh i f`.JatfrurK•r permit ;
.
r3t :c,
!•
?n.sr
CAr_
•I ext;1.3', day',
Y•. .... ..--
`
`
- •
v '
•"^

-
da
a
• ..!•.:'1' 1. . ••?.-.. •_.?-.?• ?
_ 1 .• r •? .- ,.•
.
'..
,
•
- .. IO?i'Oy 14 b. Liivision Fore41 ai?WF erequifea -11 ttro re
C1iOns
y
1
,
y
-• - - "` G*1,r d Ciearinoi Burning Permit • ??
ic lolls
-~ -
r tdrfbue& i%&nn9 aclivitieS its i^va I??
Vrf-
l %i41 ten day3 belillie-6cl?]l porn is Olanne0."
m
m

'
ttY..'in coastal N.C. with organ
_
'ppuii
- y ?
e
tould be a kflitkO
`s 90.120]
1
-NIA
•
L! J pR {tttlriing Facilities ?.. r
001IL4.1bn 60 days befdh kjM. tAriarwucn.
11
d ,?
3p Car'
,
,
11 perMltt4quirl
-
A?jhGnl mist +ii!'N G Qu+?:ilmtd tnpineli 10: o1 ti 011ans.
uuetP6i19eoes?r6itJI it EHNR &O
60 O+iY
0
I
^s
And
:Irapecl•cow:f4ctr?o1h;Nniryt0
le rIi=+
r
it F' -111. A X1
Oaen Safely PC It
dits
e
plena. Mal ?!
Is
t
g
is?lri?11uMe1Fdn of sli
a vt EAgi!rse
c•
r
?
'
'
-. .r• '
must a
: ,1(40 armit tfolri 1
!
..
•b b
S200
!i"ic fr(ilffnimifIll W OI
A -?fj?uaKryy H 'y'r6*(JC1tsaNlcatio,
pdi(wrial pfaCtatiMp k; Wsra din a
An
t
r?
g
:
17ri,
eorrrPe9yrtue!b0 °Ql'tiO _ _
.
A Of lh!''Fd1al DIO!{t cOS1,sr)II tle Je0umre vPO^
I ??•`
•- _
• ytKet
,. 'c : i' c4ritenued Qn rev erse
n
W.
moval

FERMI'TS
(statutory time
,
limit)
10 days
(NIA)'
r I
10 days
(N(AI
15.20 days I
(NIA)
(i0 days
(130 daysi
55 days
(150 daysi
22 days
(25 days)
13 pertnll to drl:: oil d g- -e"
'
Gepphysiui Exploration Permit
a SWS (Jkes Construction Permit
s01 wafer Ouallly Certification
SPECIAL APPLICA (G•`! PROCEDURES or REOUtREMENTS
File surety bond of S5AW with EHNR running to Slate of N.C.
cond)))om) that any well opened by drift operator shall, upon
abandonment. be plugged according to.EHNR rules and regulations
Application filed with EKNR at least 10 days prior to lasue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form.
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include
descriptions Z drawings of structure t proof of ownership
of riparian property.
NIA
' - - I 0,00 lee must accompany application
El Permit for MAJOR devebpmenl :5 J
M.00 fee must accompany application
MINOR development
CAMA Permit for
U? Several geodetic monuments aft located In or near the proiecl area. it any monuments need to be moved or desiroyed. please not ly:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 276a7. Raleigh, N.C. 27611
. I I Abandonment of any wells. it reC'jired. must be In accordanGt warn trot rr, wN ^-r•- ?-
¦ ? Notification of the proper regional office is requested It -orphan underground storage tanks (USTSI are discovered during any excavarw•• -?-•.•..,,.
AS oays
Q Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) Is required. (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. Who eenain to cite comment ?utho(ily):
(,?. S '; S(.Di l?? Rico !?+ Sc ? ?? cor??•-cam M ? ?? ?5??/?o?.,?. ss.?b i ? ?h- ?.?.r-? n,•?-??
t i,, ft„- t?t c- Do aJ? t?fl°Ro?k-_-7
t JI?tJ --[? ?(r;S (V 1.1 ?l<7 (1?1 ST•/1?-c-+1-+10 ? o r ?b?v M? Plr?-• f ^-tiF
5 rV3: L-L P?3 S?ior!3 F DA-?wA??td?-
G,).1 ?1 ?t A?-lc4.r ?l p am?? .

REGIONAL OFFICES
regli. y these-permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Ouestions
.
tonal Office
Re
?vill
ion
nal office
? Fayetteville Regio
ilding
B
h
i
p
e
q
As
g u
ov
a
Suite 714 Wac
fjn l
59'yVQod Fayetteville, NC 28301
I Aevllle, NC 26801 '

(919)4
86.1541
' r(794) 251-6208 c•.
;
•: 'ldc:
Q -_q,?i+:. ' ?:
PWIe Regional Office
Street. P.O: Box 950 .•
? Raleigh Regional office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
NC 27taQ9
,
Raleigh
Mbbille. NC 28115 _
,
733.2314
-
919
(
p:
)
(7O4) 663-1699 • :. ?:.•. _?
? Wilmington Regional Office .
I s1!1 ?apt Re t ice ice •
424 {.a ink venue v 127 Cardinal Dnve Exicns:on
NC 28405
Wilmington
ashrhpSon. NC 27689
t?46t ,
(919) 395-390.0. 7
-
?1 9.
A
? Winslon"em Regional Office
6025 Nonh Point 9tvd. ?•:.
Suite 100
Winston-Safetls,;,N3 .27106 •
4

)
(9t9( 890,007:-

r' N__c,rrh _c=: aro_hn_a Wildlife Resources Commission E
1 C N. Salisbury Streit, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
(,-):, A\DUi\:
McGee
Office, of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DLHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi
Habitat Conservation Program
i-)„T : May 9. 1995
`l 'RJF.CT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCT)O.Ti regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the Northeast Creek
Parkway, from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, Durham
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-283 IA, SCH Project No. 95-0731.
I h s memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NC:DOT 'for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subiect project. Stab biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(-N1C'.W g.C ..) Dave ravie%ved the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
i e: seq., as :anend*d; 1 NCAC 25).
have no project specific concerns or recommendations at this time, however
to ht:ln facilitate &,cument preparation, our general informational needs arc outlined
I m-,;c intion of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
in (ndinP a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
piwit species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2 May 9, 1995
Memo
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
t P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
for charnelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
projcct construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria. listed.
;. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
fire.:xte'1t to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
tiaei;iciiIat;on of wildlife habitat (wetlands or up!ands).
Niitig-tiou for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
in-li,e.-t degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
' A, ri:mt1136Ve impact assessment section which analyzes the enviroiunental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
' individual project to environmental degradation.
A dissuasion of the probable impacts on natural resources wluch will result
from ;coon dart' development facilitated by the improved road access.
eoii_.tt•action of this facility is to be coordinated with other state.
in,ulicipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects
' s i--,u,:i h. included in the environmental document, and all project
should be identified.
;, ,•1; -i for the opportunity to provide input in the early plaruune stases for
' ,,? . • :f ; can fui•;hz. assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
Warl_c::, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
E'7•ant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
NougamclEndangered Species Section Mgr.

.116 ?•t ?r s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Seattary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. Director
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM MAY 1 S 1995
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Zj
Planning and Environmental Branch DIVISION OF e
Division of Highways h1GHWAYS 0Q
nepartment of Mr--nc . t-l / ?-
FROM: David Brook 4istoric P„reservation Officer
Deputy State
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway Durham from County, Uo d toA,
Ellis Road in Durham,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse. within There are no recorded ar f hdo°lhascnal sit eve rbeenasurdv yed for arpchroposed aeologi cal lect
corridor, although the co reco resources. It is likely tom me dations fors uvesite y awe requestfthata ou for wardect.
Prior to our making rec
recent aerial photographs so we may determine the extent of current development
in the area.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservatio Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 12 12(a) and contact ecutive Ord Gledhiller-
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please Renee
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jamcs B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
' Betty Ray McCain, Sccretary
Division Of Archives and History
William S. .c Jr. Director
'
May 30, 1995 JUN 5 1995
' MEMORANnUM LITTLE & LITTLE
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department otXrat s?ortation
' FROM: David Brook
Deputy State is ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway, U-2832A, Durham County,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
' We have received the aerial photograph for the above referenced project from
the proposed project
Robert T. Peter of Little & Little. As indicated on the aerial,
area is heavily developed. It is unlikely that the Northeast Creek Parkway project
as presently proposed will affect any National Register-eligible archaeological
' resources. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigations in
connection with this project.
' 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.
DB:slw
' cc: T. Padgett
Y to Clearinghouse
Zert T. Peter

' 109 East Jones Strect - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
0
Ty .SwF o?
ORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
TONDUM
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
? G E ! V ?o
April 21, 1995 Q'
t
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. al?e
Assistant Stat S nntendent
Auxiliary Se s
AN 2 5 1995
VISiGN OF ?Q
DI
C r;IGHWAYS S Q?.
WRON
RE: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in
Durham, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831 A
Please find attached communication from Dr. C. Owen Phillips, Superintendent for
Durham County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
An Fqu]I Opportunity / Atfirmxivc Action F:mploycr

O
O
Bolding
A World-Class System

April 12, 1995
Dr. Charles K Weaver
Assistant State Supenntendent
Auxiliary Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Dr. Weaver:
C. Owen Phillips
Superintendent
2 1 I9°5
Subject: State Environmental Assessment/Funding of No Significant Impact for
Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831 A
My staff has reviewed the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway
Safety proposal for the Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road.
We concluded that this parkway will not present any negative impact to our school
system, but will assist the traffic flow in this area.
In reference to Section Five, Southern High School was mentioned. This campus was
sold to Glaxo, Inc. and a replacement school was opened in 1993 cn a new site.
Sincerely,
C. Owen Phillips
cc: Ted Drain
Mike Mulheirn
Gary Ackley
r
Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
/off
2 Hanes Drive
Post Office Box 12255
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Mr. Mack Little
Little & Little
Post Office Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Little:
Elizabeth H. Rooks, Dkvcs« d Plydcul DevvIoP-V
-rti
;a 109'5
May 11, 1995
LITTLE & LITTLE
This is to confirm our telephone conversation concerning the standards
to be used for the construction of Northeast Creek Parkway between
Cornwallis Road and the Durham Freeway. This thoroughfare will
provide a loop road along the northwest side of the Research Triangle
Park. It is my understanding from our conversation that Northeast
Creek Parkway will ultimately be a 4-lane, median-divided road, but
that only two lanes will be constructed initially.
The Durham-Wake Counties Research and Production Service District,
which is the special tax district for the Research Triangle Park, has
been constructing pedestrian trails throughout the Park over the last
several years. To date, approximately 8 miles of these trails have
been constructed. On behalf of the Service District, I would request
that, if possible, Northeast Creek Parkway be constructed with
shoulders which are wide enough to accommodate an 8-foot asphalt
trail as this would facilitate construction of pedestrian trails by the
Service District in the future. Also, if there are sufficient funds
available, the Park would support construction of wider outside lanes
to accommodate bicycle traffic.
DEVELOPERS OF THE RESEARCH TMANGLE PARK

t

L

1

Mack Little
May 11, 1995
Page 2
Please feel free to call me if you need any additional information
about the Service District and its plans for constructing pedestrian
trails in the Park.
Sincerely,
S
Elizabeth H. Rooks

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, F:.IWA
Health and Natural Resources e
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E dft
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
H N F1
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
March 27, 1996
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne(F
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Draft EA for Northeast Creek Parkway
Durham County
State Project DOT No. 9.8059062, TIP # U-2831A
EHNR # 96-0731, DEM # 11205
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject
project will impact 3.03 acres of wetlands and did not quantify impacts to waters. DEM offers
the following comments based on the document review:
A) DEM received a 401 Certification application for a portion of this project in 1992. DEM
approved wetland fill for wetlands W-2 and W-3. Total approval was for 1.14 acres.
The remaining 1.89 acres will require a 401 Certification.
B) DEM does not believe that application for two crossings of Northeast Creek can be
covered by the corresponding 401 Certification for NW 14. DEM believes that the NW
14 permit can be used for one crossing of a creek only. DOT should contact the
Corps of Engineers (COE) so they can make this determination.
C) The document states that application for wetland sites W-4 through W-6 has been
submitted to the COE. DEM has not received an application for these impacts. DEM
cannot issue a 401 Certification for projects which require an environmental document
(according to administrative code 15A NCAC 1C.0402) until the document has received
approval from the State Clearinghouse.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality concerns are
satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Raleigh COE
Tom Kendig, DOT
Monica Swihart
necreek.dea
FAXED
MAR 2 71996 ;
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50`16 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourcw
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form n h?
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

N iku," 03 '-P+"q t
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources El Environmental Health
El Mooresville
?Groundwater
*Nildlite ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer 'kTForest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
El Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (spREQ' VED
El Wilmington
?Others
?Jgnvironmental Management
'44R
El Winston-Salem PWS l )Monica Swihart
121996
ENVfRftEN
TAI SCIENCE
S
....
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attac
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental C

Northeast Creek Parkway
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road
Durham County
State Project No. 9.8059062
TIP No. U-2831 A
(DRAFT)
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
S In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act

For further information contact:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
U
L
E
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
F-1
Existing Data Screen for PDATA
PERMIT YRA:
APPNAMED:
PROJECT TYPEE:
COE #F:
RCD_FROM _CDAG:
REG_OFFICEH:
STREAMCLASSI:
STR_INDEX_NOJ:
WL_IMPACT?K:
WL_REQUESTEDL:
HYDRO CNECT?M:
MITIGATION?N:
MITIGATE SIZO:
DATE SENT ROP:
DATE FROM ROQ:
COE_SUSPENCER:
FINAL ACTIONS:
92 PERMIT NOB: 197 COUNTYC: DURHAM
NE CREEK PARKWAY ROW
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
TYPET: NW26
199201826 _
DOT #U:
APP DATE FRM
CDAV: 42092
RRO RIVER AND SUB _
_
BASIN #W: 030605
C SUP ST CLASSX: NSW
16-41-1-17
Y
1.14
Y
N
42192
51192
ISSUE GENERAL
WL_TYPEY:
WL ACR EST?Z:
WL SCORE M AA:
MITIGATETYPAB:
CAMACOMMENT?AC:
M_ORE_INFO?AD:
DCM_SUSPENCEAE:
FINAL DATEAF:
WL PERMIT'DAG:
FTBH
Y
20
N
N
52692
1.14
F4 SHOW THE NEXT RECORD E8 : FIELD OPTIONS SCREEN
1:-: E I
Northeast Creek Parkway
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road
Durham County
State Project No. 9.8059062
TIP No. U-2831 A
(DRAFT)
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
Little & Little, Landscape Architecture/Planning
J. Mack Little, FASLA
Environmental Study Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
James A. Bissett, Jr., P. E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Project Manager

a
SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Administrative Action, Environmental Assessment/ Finding of No
Significant Impact.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information
concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be
required under the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Permits under Section 404 will consist of
Nationwide Permits No. 26 and 14. In conjunction with these permits,
a 401 certification from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, & Natural Resources will be required.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The project area is located on the southeast side of the City of Durham
in Durham County. The southern terminus is Cornwallis Road (SR
1308) and the northern terminus is Ellis Road (SR 1954). The study
area consists of undeveloped woodland, developed light industrial
areas, and four developed single family lots.
The project area includes a portion of Northeast Creek.
fp-1
S-1
C
0
0
5. PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
to construct Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis
Road in eastern Durham County. The project is approximately 1.8
miles long. The improvements involve the construction of two lanes
of a future four-lane with median and five-lane facility. Grading will
be completed for the entire road section width.
The proposed project is designated U-2831A and is included in the
1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for
right-of-way acquisition in Fiscal Year 1996 and construction in Fiscal
Year 1997. NCDOT estimates the cost of the project at $4,682,500,
including $382,500 for right-of-way and $4,300,000 for construction.
TIP cost for the project is $200,000 for the right-of-way acquisition and
$1,600,000 for construction.
6. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and
fulfill the goals of the 1991 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan. Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a major
thoroughfare between Cornwallis Road and Ellis Road.
Adverse impacts from the proposed project include minor wetland
encroachments of 3.03 acres and reduction of approximately 14.5 acres
of woodlands.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The proposed four-lane with median and five-lane sections being
considered for Northeast Creek Parkway are required based on
projected traffic volumes.
An alternative alignment to the south of the preferred alignment has
been studied and abandoned due to significantly higher impacts to
7
S-2

wetland areas.
Other alternatives considered and found not viable were the no-build
alternative and postponement of the proposed project.
8. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management
Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are
necessary.
S-3

0
0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Summary S-1
I. Need for the Proposed Project
A. General Description 1
B. Project Status 1
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility 1
1. Typical Section Description 1
2. Right-of-way 2
3. Speed Limit 2
4. Access Control 2
5. Degree of Roadside Development 2
6. Intersection Treatment 2
7. Railroad Crossings 2
8. Drainage Structures 2
9. Utilities 2
D. Traffic Volumes 3
E. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community 3
H. Description of the Proposed Project
A. General Description 4
B. Summary of the Proposed Project 4
1. Typical Section Description 4
2. Right-of-way 5
3. Bikeways/ Sidewalks /Greenways 5
4. Proposed Design Speed 6
5. Access Control 6
6. Intersection Treatment 6
7. Drainage Structures 6
8. Permits Required 6
9. Estimate of Cost 6
III. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7
A. No Build Alternative 7
B. Postponements of the Proposed Project 7
C. Other Alternatives 7

IV.Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts 9
A. Social Impact 9
1. Land Use 9
2. Neighborhood Impacts 9
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses 9
4. Public Facilities and Services 9
B. Economic Impact 9
C. Cultural Resources 10
1. Historic Architectural Resources 10
2. Archaeological Resources 11
D. Environmental Impact 11
1. Vegetation and Wildlife 11
2. Rare and Protected Species 13
3. Wetlands 15
4. Water Quality 17
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation 19
6. Soils 19
7. Farmland 22
8. Traffic Noise Analysis 22
9. Air Quality 26
10. Geology 32
11. Potential Hazardous Material Sites 32
12. Visual Impacts 33
13. Construction Impacts 33
14. Permits Required 35
V. Public Involvement 35
VI. Comments and Coordination 36
VII. Finding of No Significant Impact 37
APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES Followin g Page
Figure 1 Project Location Map 1
Figure 2 Proposed Alignment 1
Figure 3 1991 Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 1
Figure 4 A Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes (Build Alt.) 3
Figure 4 B Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes (No Build Alt.) 3
Figure 5A-C Typical Sections 4
Figure 6 Designated Greenway 6
Figure 7 Previously Proposed Alignment 8
Figure 8 Wetlands 15
Figure 9 Streams and Floodplains 19
Figure 10 Noise Monitoring Locations 25
Figure 11 Receptor Locations 29
Figure 12A-B Proposed Right-of-Way 37
LIST OF TABLES Page Number
Table 1 Distribution of Impacts to Vegetative
Communities 12
Table 2 Wetland Impact Areas 17
Table 3 Soil Summary 21
Table 4 Typical Sound Levels 23
Table 5 Noise Abatement Criteria 24
Table 6 Summary of Ambient Noise Levels 25
Table 7 Summary of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards 28
Table 8 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 31

0 L NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
This report presents the results of a study of proposed construction of
t the Northeast Creek Parkway (see Figures 1 and 2). Northeast Creek
Parkway is proposed to be constructed as a four-lane and five-lane
roadway. Grading will include the ultimate four or five-lane section;
two lanes are proposed for construction at this time. A section of
Northeast Creek Parkway presently exists from TriCenter Boulevard
north approximately 1,600 feet. An existing portion of So-Hi Drive
will be incorporated into Northeast Creek Parkway. The study area
begins at Cornwallis Road and ends at Ellis Road, a distance of
approximately 1.8 miles.
Northeast Creek Parkway is classified as a major thoroughfare in the
1991 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan,
shown in Figure 3.
B. Project Status
The project is listed in the 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as U-2831A. Right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled for Fiscal Year 1996 and construction beginning in Fiscal
Year 1997. This funded TIP project includes the grading for the full
road sections and paving of two lanes only. The full width paving of
Northeast Creek Parkway is planned as a future project.
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Typical Section Description
The existing portion of Northeast Creek Parkway consists of a
graded five-lane section with a two-lane roadway. It is paved
from TriCenter Boulevard north approximately 1,600 feet to the
entrance of Research TriCenter North Building Six. So-Hi Drive
consists of a paved two-lane section. Existing pavement width is
24 feet. Existing shoulder width is five feet.
u
-1-
IFJ

• A C
I_
pt`
IP L MO Durham
I LL ST. L10WAP = j a I
A- v '
• - Np r .• n 2
I:y . lorland •+ Oak Grove
< -9
y n ~` ? i
V WARC
AOh ~ y ® R
W 4 ?
P _ pi 1! Q.
OR' Cw r ST 7
• co uM.... T
4 C.- C.R '
7 M
ti
55 s ov
t~
•o it
u
00
e• e
Keene Bethesda IFfs? • j
r?/1 no.
Ro ' I
PO to i!I
few 9 ?+
(ZPEARCH
11 O? ® Sp ERN /
I
? •F pw. ? ?I(wT. ?
?', ` IW Y S o /?
1 ?o

gip A
LOW s Gro
®
"L 5
I
PD. Nelson
.J

00
I
Genies ?:. j ?, Y ,

rT •
99
•

I RIANGLE
54
j

L'? Pik

Ui
/

y
s, S

.J

?•-• • CARPLNTCR (pent f` Fe
N
C7
co
Q
FR ?,Y•
9,y
ST c?
urhomTech . Fop
Comm Coll

O
y L
LOVE
R RD.
14
Y ? G

M ?---
PARKWAY
?
I UQ

\ a Proloct
w LIMIta
N 1o
D CO
z ?q
. ! rig

?c
N
NORTHEAST CREEK PROJECT LOCATION MAP Figur©
PARKWAY

z
o,
?o
M,.
n.
m
m
m
M
m
N
m
r
m
z
--I
N
n
p
0
Ao
I•?°o I
N
is
O
O
T
N
CD
C
0
5 , '4C
4
0
0®T .
4 0 ?
i3 0
aHdn3inoe
X cn Q o UKN301HI
la. do
ca co
' I ©o
,O
duo
co
Q?
n
pm
?m
M ?Ab CATALrNq
?0 STREET
A
m
CD C
r m
am ?
oy ? ?
1 °?L
x ORryF
© t?
S R m o ) o
BRADFORD
j`9SA rt ® CIRCLE
/ (n ?O
m 9
D ® Fn
m ® a
EXrSTINO SO.Hr ORIVE
N

0
1
2
jr ;.. .t Caa ` Q
Q i.ryV
cza
- G3
?LUTNEq ? Y' ` ?_ V-A nn
• OAR. t _ 0 ?? ?,???
Q®l°Y Ql t? coE
4 oQ Proposed ?• m
-, Project _ -?
?O.
a
NC 54.
- U
Z
o ._C%0
Cr { 1 C111N PACI
? -- '- O 2640 5280
`y 1" - 2640
112 Milo 1 Milo
NORTHEAST CREEK DURHAM CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO Figuro
PARKWAY URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN 3
NCDOT-1991

Q
2. Right-of-way
The right-of-way width of the existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway is 90 feet. The right-of-way width of So-Hi Drive is 60
feet.
3. Speed Limit
There is no posted speed limit on the existing paved section. The
speed limit of So-Hi Drive is 35 mph.
4. Access Control
Existing Northeast Creek Parkway and So-Hi Drive have no
control of access.
5. Degree of Roadside Development
Development along the existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway consists of light industrial development. Development
along existing So Hi Drive includes residential development, a
church, and a child care facility.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersecting roads connect with Northeast Creek Parkway and
So-Hi Drive at grade and have stop sign control.
7. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings in the project area.
8. Drainage Structures
Three concrete drainage structures cross under the existing section
of Northeast Creek Parkway. Drainage structures on So-Hi Drive
include (1) 60" Corrugated Metal Pipe, (1) 42" Reinforced Concrete
Pipe, (2) 6.5'x 9.5' Bituminous Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe, and
various 15" and 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe driveway cross
drains.
9. Utilities
Underground power lines parallel the existing paved portions of
Northeast Creek Parkway on the east side. An underground
natural gas line crosses under the existing paved area just north of
-2-
r A
L
TriCenter Boulevard. A City water line parallels So-Hi Drive. A
city sewer service line crosses under the existing paved area north
{ of TriCenter Boulevard.
D. Traffic Volumes
The existing (1994) and forecasted (2020) average daily traffic volumes
for the proposed Northeast Creek Parkway are summarized in Figure
4A.
Existing and forecasted average daily traffic volumes for a no-build
alternative are summarized in Figure 4B. The projected volume of
traffic on Northeast Creek Parkway indicates the need for the proposed
project. Traffic volumes will be reduced on Cornwallis Road east of the
project, on Alexander Drive, and on the Durham Freeway east of Ellis
Road.
E. Benefits to the State. Region, and Community
This project enhances the safety and general welfare of residents of
Durham County by providing more travel lanes and a more direct
route for the flow of goods, services, and traffic. The project is
consistent with the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare plan as prepared by the NCDOT (Figure 3). Designated as
a major thoroughfare, the roadway will provide more travel lanes and
a more direct route for the flow of goods, services, and traffic through
an area earmarked for continued commercial and institutional
development. The project is consistent with the Durham 2005 Plan
a and the South Central Durham Plan.
The project is expected to enhance economic growth and development
in the project area and to favorably affect the local tax base.

-3-
Y
= m m Ml - CSI = = L
z
0
z
m
D
0
m
m
7C
.D
D
D
co y
~ N
a
0
YN oxe;
v
\POOS iO O O O O O

0 0 0
0 0 0
X m
m
_ 0
Fn

r z 0
m 0 -1
U)
' -4
O v

m ?.

m
to
D D o
< `..
m <
z v

m D
z 0
v v
> m
v n

?

m ?
D .?
M
a
0 -

n
m
x
z
D
Z
v
10
0
L
0
m
v
0
0
m
m
"n
n
0
r
c
m
U)
Riddle Rd. 0
0
0
0
D
ON y
0
0
a
0
®C®ree9k 6
N`N/I ®gg 0®??a ea Np F
pkwy
® *14?

11
As
0
0
T
A Z
Dc
m
z
z
0
e
CD
v
m
m
a m
244
9g
W O
4m (Jo
to Cn
Of7 L *1(1 Jopuexold
0

z
0
s
m
D
U)
n
. ao
m
m
-o
D
ab
D
m
x.
z
D
z
v
0*
C-
m
0
-i
m
v
Z,
0
v
c
v.
N
0
N
O
D
In
n
'C
0
r
C
m
U)
T
a {p
we
m
di
cD

O O O
O 00
0 0 0
M n O-N

IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
NCDOT proposes to construct Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in eastern Durham County along both
existing and new right-of-way (see Figures 2 and 12). The facility will
be graded as a four-lane divided and five-lane roadway. Two lanes are
proposed for construction at this time. The length of the project is
approximately 1.8 miles.
B. Summary of the Proposed Project
1. Typical Section Description
Two typical sections are proposed. The first section, a five-lane,
curb and gutter section, will consist of four travel lanes and a
12-foot center turn lane. The inner travel lanes will measure 12
feet in width. The outer travel lanes will be 14 feet in width to
allow for bicycle movement. The second section, a four-lane with
median section, will also accommodate bicycle movement. The
outer travel lanes will measure 14 feet in width, the inner travel.
lanes will measure 12 feet in width, and the raised median will
measure 25 feet in width.
The proposed improvements are as follows:
Section One consists of a new 90-foot right-of-way running
approximately 1,300 feet north from Cornwallis Road to the
existing section of Northeast Creek Parkway. Grading will
incorporate a width for the future five-lane section. Two lanes
are proposed for construction at this time.
Section Two consists of an existing portion of Northeast Creek
Parkway, continuing north for approximately 1,600 feet. The
90-foot right-of-way is graded for the ultimate five-lane section,
two lanes of which are existing. The existing paved section will be
widened to 26 feet to accommodate 2 feet for bicycle traffic.
u
-4-
0

ca
I ?
0

(V
o
Q
C
g
b?
o
I
_
N
?I

? I

Q
LL- S O

° a ICI Z C-4
o o ? I O zF

CD O> -t
co (D
I U
W cFi o
I
I I U) 2,
o I I _1 `_'
8
?
o ?I I U ?

?'
I I
I, I
I I
i I
I i \
I I
I
w
I
I I J
I I (n
i I =
I I ?-
I I o

o
N cD I Q

m
?a
i12) U)
T
z
O
U
w
U)
J
Q
U
EL
F-
Y
W
W
c
?, U Q
QY
W CC
= Q
F. a
[C
O
z
a
0
N -?
8 I \?i
pS I ?
?
Si y?
r
I
I
? ? I
I
IIII ?
IIII II
IIII 1
IIII II F
o
I III II it
I
`"
tD III I
b IIII II F5
c
V IIII ?I
IIII II ?
I
?
III I
I

tD III I
IIII II
z
Q1 I
N

C5
,
o
s

o

N I

Qz
I I a
Z
o $
o w
=9
=
i
- N
4 F-
U o
LO =
co (D
I
I
O W J
to N r? W
? J
U as
N n- bl d
H
U
7

O i ?>X
? U
-.
N fQ
SIC
CL

iD

0 F
8
T

0
?n
N
Z
O
U
W
cn
J
Q
U
IL
}
1-
Y
W
W
cc }
UQ
QY
W T
TQ
I.. a
Ct
O
Z

I
o ?
gl

r I /J W
J
,
CD "'II I
J
N J i U)
r 2
F-
0
I O
Q
I ?
O

Q \ ' I
Z
n

o Z =a
= O O I ?o

p co
CL frS
I s'
g
<
o
F- N
K?
I
L
O
I

CD
N -
?Tj
d

(V ED
2
0
I
O
r '.
?
}

5 U
LZSP LO
C'7
Z
O
p
U
W
U)
J
Q
U
IL
}
F-
Y
W
W
cc }
UQ
QY
WX
=a
cc
O
z
jir
Section Three transitions to 120 feet of right-of-way to contain a
proposed four-lane section with a 25-foot raised grass median.
Section Three bears northeast to meet and follow the existing
So-Hi Drive. Grading will incorporate a width which allows for
the ultimate four-lane, divided section. Two lanes of the
four-lane section are proposed for construction at this time.
Section Four continues approximately 800 feet along the existing
So-Hi Drive. Planned as a future four-lane, divided section on
120 feet of right-of-way, no improvements are proposed for this
existing portion of So-Hi Drive at this time.
Section Five continues approximately 2,600 feet as a proposed
four-lane, divided section on 120 feet of right-of-way along the
existing So-Hi Drive, then realigning to intersect Ellis Road in the
vicinity of Southern High School. Grading will incorporate a
width which allows for the ultimate four-lane section. Two lanes
of the four-lane section are proposed for construction at this time.
2. Right-of-Wax
The acquisition of adequate right-of-way to contain the five-lane
section is proposed. The right-of-way width for the five-lane
section is 90 feet. The right-of-way to contain the four-lane with
median section is 120 feet. Additional right-of-way or
construction easements at intersections and slope easements will
be acquired as necessary.
3. Bikeways /Sidewalks/Greenways
Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a proposed bike facility
in The Regional Bicycle Plan. The proposed roadway section will
accommodate bicycle movement by providing 14-foot wide
outside travel lanes in both the four-lane with median and
five-lane sections. Drainage grates will be bicycle compatible.
In addition, the proposed berm behind the curb will provide for
future development for pedestrian movement. The portion with
90-foot right-of-way will include 10.5 feet of berm on either side
of the five-lane section. The 120-foot right-of-way portion will
include 12.0 feet of berm on either side of the four-lane with
-5-
i

median section. This area may be used for future sidewalk
development and/or future jogging trail development.

The Durham Urban Trails& Gree n
way Master Plan includes a
greenway running along Northeast Creek. The designated
greenway crosses the present So Hi Drive. Pedestrian access across
the proposed project at this location will not be affected by the
project.
4. Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway will be 50 miles per
hour. The anticipated posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
5. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersections will be at-grade, with stop sign control for
intersecting side streets. Based on future projected traffic
volumes, signalization may be warranted at the intersection of
Northeast Creek Parkway and Cornwallis Road. In addition,
future signalization may be required at other locations as dictated
by future development traffic.
7. Drainage Structures
Drainage structures include (1) 42" reinforced concrete pipe, (3)
existing concrete drainage structures along the existing portion of
Northeast Creek Parkway, (1) 24" reinforced concrete pipe, (1) 60"
reinforced concrete pipe, (1) 6' x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert
(to replace the existing 60" corrugated metal pipe), (1) existing 42"
reinforced concrete pipe, and (2) 12' x 6' reinforced concrete box
culverts.
8. Permits Required
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required for
all stream crossings. These permits are anticipated to fall under
the Nationwide Permits 26 and 14. 401 certification from North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, & Natural
Resources will be required in conjunction with these Nationwide
permits.

-6-

z
m
C?
m
m
n
v
m
3
2
m
v
?o
m
m
2
n
Z.
O
O
co
O
O
J
M
O
O
A
O
O
U
T
to
? C
CD
1
1
F
9. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost of the project is $ , including
$ for R/W and $3,700,000.00 for construction.
J
J
g
L'
n

-7-
L
W

III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. No Build Alternative
The "no build" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of the
proposed project, such as the disruption of the natural environment by
the use of additional land for roadway purposes. However, benefits of
the proposed action, such as providing a more direct route for the flow
of traffic, increased safety, user cost savings, and completion of a major
thoroughfare, would not be realized. The long-term benefits resulting
from the construction of the proposed project - including increased
accessibility, enhanced economic development, and provision of a
more efficient route - would more than compensate for any
unavoidable adverse impacts.
B. Postponement of the Proposed Project
Postponement would delay the effects of any negative impacts, but it
would also delay positive impacts from improvement of this road and
accommodating traffic from planned development. The project would
also be more difficult to construct in the future as development within
the project area increases.
C. Other Alternatives
An alignment alternative to the south of the proposed project was
previously reviewed by NCDOT and local communities (see Figure 7).
This alignment was investigated and determined to be less desirable for
two reasons:
1. The southern alternative would cross a much wider floodplain
and would have greater wetland impact than the proposed project.
2. The southern alternative included the extension of Cook Road to
the south. This would necessitate the relocation of an existing
residence.
0
-8-
Q

Additionally, building more of the road on new right-of-way would
cost more to build and would destroy more natural habitat.

-9-

0 IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Impact
1. Land Use
Existing land use in the project vicinity includes light industrial
and commercial development on both ends of the project. The
central portion of the project, along the existing So-Hi Drive
right-of-way, is undeveloped woodland with four residences and
one church. This project is consistent with the Durham 2005
Comprehensive Plan and the South Central Durham Plan.

2. Neighborhood Impacts
Four residences front existing So-Hi Drive. Short-term adverse
impacts are expected due to the construction process. Long term
positive impacts include improved grade access at driveway
connections. Traffic volumes on So-Hi Drive will increase as a
result of this project.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed project will not require the relocation of any
residences, businesses, or institutions.
4. Public Facilities and Services
There are no fire stations or police stations located in the
immediate vicinity of the project. Southern High School is
located on Ellis Road at the eastern end of the project. An existing
church and an existing child care facility are located along the
existing section of So-Hi Drive. These facilities will have
improved access due to the project.
B. Economic Impact
Construction of the proposed project would have both short-term and
long-term economic impacts. In the short term, the local economy
would be affected by providing employment to contractors and workers
during the construction period, resulting in additional income
generation.
0?1
-10-

Also in the short term due to right-of-way requirements some
parcels of land will be removed from the real property tax rolls.
On a long term basis, the proposed project would provide increased
access through previously undeveloped land. This access is necessary
for land uses as planned in the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan,
which earmarks the area for continued office and research facilities,
and for facilities supporting these land uses. It would also have a
major positive impact on the local tax base through the generation of
property and sales taxes. In addition, the value of other land in the
area will be enhanced by the development potential. After
development, the real property values would increase.
As part of the region's traffic network, the proposed project will have a
positive impact on the overall local economy. The flow of goods and
services, as well as traffic flow, will be enhanced by the proposed
project. Users will benefit from reduced travel time and reduced
congestion. In particular, this project will serve traffic generated by the
approved development mentioned above. As previously stated, no
businesses will be relocated.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to review pursuant to North Carolina
General Statue 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will
have an adverse effect upon a property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historical
Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect of the subject project was delineated,
and this area was then reviewed for the presence of properties
listed in the National Register and any other important properties.
No properties listed in the National Register, or any other
important properties, exist within the study area.

-11-

2. Archaeological Resources
An examination of the archaeological site files at the Office of
State Archaeology does not indicate the presence of archaeological
site in the proposed project area. Due to the development in the
study area, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
has recommended that no archaeological investigations be
performed.
D. Environmental Impact
1. Vegetation and Wildlife
a. Plant Communities
The distribution of plant communities in the project area is a
result of topography, soil characteristics, hydrology, and land use
practices. Much of the plant communities within the project
corridor have been disturbed by urbanization to the surrounding
landscape. Four plant community types were identified in the
project area during the site reconnaissance as described below.
Hardwood Forest
Major canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), red oak
(Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), red maple (Acer
rubruni), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweet gum
Wquidarnbar styraciflua). Major understory species include
flowering dogwood (Corms. florida) and yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). This community typically occurs in
well drained upland soil types.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Major canopy species include hardwoods as described above mixed
with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata). This community typically occurs in well drained
upland soil types and represents an earlier successional stage than
the hardwood forest habitat type.
Riparian Forest
Major canopy species include yellow poplar, sweet gum, and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Major understory species
include red maple, river birch (Betula nigra), common alder
(Alms serrulata), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
-12-
Q
0
Riparian forest habitat types are present adjacent to Northeast
p, Creek in the flood plain corridor.
Urban/Disturbed
Communities identified as urban/disturbed include utility
corridors, existing roads, residential /industrial areas, abandoned
farmlands, and other natural areas that have been cleared for
development. The majority of vegetation in these areas have
been altered or modified by human activity. The urban/disturbed
habitat type is the most extensive vegetative community in the
project area. The project area contains several small creeks, all
tributaries of Northeast Creek.
Impacts to vegetative communities associated with the proposed
widening and relocation of road would consist primarily of habitat
modifications resulting from clearing, cut and fill, paving, and the
creation of borrow areas. Table 1 shows the distribution of impacts
to each habitat group.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTS TO VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
Community Type Acreage of Impact
Hardwood Forest 10
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest 10
Riparian Forest 1
Urban/Disturbed Lands 17
b. Wildlife Communities
The upland hardwood and mixed forest vegetative community
types provide food, shelter, and nesting resources for a variety of
wildlife. These areas are particularly attractive to woodland
wildlife when located adjacent to urban/disturbed areas.
Mammal species typically present in the project area in the upland
hardwood/mixed forest habitat include: white-tail deer
(Odocoileiis virginiaiziis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolineiisis),
-13-
0

communities. Field notes regarding
were collected flora
community types observed and wildlife sightings. In general,
biotic communities within the project area are heterogeneous or
mixed in nature. Much of the study site consists of abandoned
farm land in various stages of succession; urbanization and
moderate industrialization have further impacted biotic
communities. A listing of Federal/State endangered and
threatened species known to occur in Durham County was
obtained from The Natural Heritage Program.
a. Federally Listed Species
Federally protected plant and animal species with endangered (E)
or threatened (T) status receive protection under the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Category 2 (C2) candidates are
those species which may in the future be considered for listing as
endangered or threatened. These candidate species are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act until they are
formally listed as threatened or endangered. Although these
species are not granted legal protection, consideration of them in
the development of a project is encouraged.
Records maintained by the Natural Heritage Program indicate no
federal threatened or endangered species are known to occur
within a one-mile radius of the project site. Three Federal
endangered species are known to occur in Durham County,
including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
micliatsxii).
The only known concentration of bald eagles in Durham County
occurs on Jordan Lake approximately four miles south of the
project site. It is improbable that bald eagles regularly utilize
habitat types observed in the Northeast Creek area and no
sightings of bald eagle nests were made during the walkover. The
other two endangered species, the smooth coneflower and
Mi
h
'
f
d
f
l
aux
c
s sumac are
oun
most
requent
y in disturbed habitats
with abundant sunlight. According to the Natural Heritage
Program, no sightings of these have been made on the project site
or within a one mile radius of the site.
-15-
9

z
0
ao
m
U)
0
m
m
m
m
r
z
v
n
m
m
n
0
A
O
O
O
O
O
.a
O
O
O
N
A
O
O
T
?.
co
Q
0 0
v v
CD CD
0 0
r-b 1-0
Cl) CD
M CD
a a
'v Z7
0 0
a? 0
(D cl)
N N
N v
CD CD
CD
a 'D
.. CD
s a
0 pr
n ?
O
M CCD
n
m

9= C=
vg= 00 1;01
N /
Y /
66'1-)?'
2
Q® .
0
® TRICENTER
BOULEVARD
REEF
DRA?DFOF
CIRCLE
'a
M
Z
n
tn
r
z
s
co
y
!l
® N
Oz
C Zu
Elm
a?
®15;
0;lz
0 a?
A, <
Q
0 I
p
0© Ln
A o '
0? /. m
D
LEI
Based on the Natural Heritage Program Database in conjunction
with the site reconnaissance, there is no significant evidence that
either if the two plant species would occur at the site. There are
only about six known sites of either plant species in Durham
County.
Therefore, based on records maintained by the Natural Heritage
Program and the site reconnaissance, there is no evidence
indicating the presence of any of the three species as noted during
the field investigation. Considering the history of land use of the
project site and the results of the field investigation, Northeast
Creek Parkway will have no adverse impact on these species.
The following Category 2 (C2) candidate species are known to
occur in Durham County: Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni),
Septima's clubtail (Gontphus septinia), tall larkspur
(Delphinium exaltatutn), sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata),
A liverwort (Plagiocltila columbiatia), green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), and yellow lampmussell (Lampsilis cariosa). They
were not identified during field surveys.
b. State Listed Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants with
the North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act and the the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979.
Federal listed species identified in the preceding section of this
report are all classified at the State level as Special Concern (SC),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Endangered (E). Conclusions regarding
species occurrence in Durham County are detailed in preceding
paragraphs under "Federal Listed Species".
3. Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR

-16-

fl
U 328.3) as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three
essential parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetlands hydrology (COE Wetlands Delineation
Manual, 1987).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorized the Corps of
Engineers (COE), in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United
States" has broad meaning and incorporates both deepwater
aquatic habitats and special aquatic sites, including wetlands (COE
Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987). Executive Order 11990
requires that new construction in wetlands be avoided to the
extent possible, and that all practical measures be taken to
minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
A portion of the wetlands areas within the project area were
delineated in 1990 and Nationwide Permit 26 was issued from the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. This permit was
obtained by the property owner as part of this roadway
construction project. Areas W-1, W-2, W-3 on Figure 6 denote
these areas.
A portion of the wetland areas within the project area were
delineated in 1994, based on the methodology outlined in the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands, 1987. Field reconnaissance was conducted in January
1995 to confirm the wetland delineations and identify any
additional wetland crossings that may occur within the project
0
-17-

fl

area. Areas within the project corridor which are subject to
Section 404 permit review include 1) water and channel limits of
Northeast Creek and associated tributaries and 2) floodplain
systems immediately adjacent to this creek which are considered
jurisdictional based upon the three-parameter methodology
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Figure 8 shows the location of the wetlands identified in
the project area (W-4, W-5, and W-6).
Wetland crossings for sites W-4 through W-6 have been
submitted for Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. These permits shall be <
obtained and will be used or modified as part of the roadway_
construction project. Crossings shall be accommodated by the use
n of culverts.
Table 2 lists the map reference number for each wetland site as
shown on Figure 8 and the area impacted at these sites. An
electronic planimeter was used to calculate the impact areas based
upon the construction limits of the proposed roadway.

0
v
v
Z

TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS
Wetland Site Wetland Acres Permit
Number Location Impacted Status
W-1 Adjacent to Northeast Creek 1.47 NWP #26
W-2 Adjacent to Northeast Creek 0.96 NWP #26
W-3 Adjacent to Northeast Creek 0.2 NWP #26
W-4 UT to Northeast Creek 0.15 NWP #26 pending
W-5 UT to Northeast Creek 0.09 NWP ##14 pending
W-6 Northeast Creek 0.16 NWP #14 pending
UT = Unnamed Tributary
NWP = Nationwide Permit
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been

-18-

6

designed to avoid new construction in wetlands to the extent
possible, and employ all practical measures to minimize or
mitigate impacts to wetlands. Measures have been employed in
the initial planning of the proposed alternatives to minimize
potential impacts through route location (avoidance), design, and
construction practices. No rechannelling of Northeast Creek or its
tributaries is planned. Sedimentation and erosion control
practices will be utilized to minimize construction impacts. No
- borrow or fill areas are planned in the wetland areas. Where
wetland crossings are unavoidable, the proposed alternative
crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest point to minimize
impacts.
4. Water Quality
The Northeast Creek Parkway project area is drained by the
Northeast Creek Watershed. This drainage system is part of the
Jordan Reservoir Watershed, which is located in the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Northeast Creek is classified as a Class "C" tributary (NC Division
of Environmental Management (DEM), 1993) indicating suitability
for fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation,
agriculture, and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The
DEM classifications are based upon existing or contemplated best
uses for various stream segments. There is one major point
source discharged (> 0.05 mgd) into Northeast Creek in Durham
County (Durham Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant). In
addition, there are two biological sampling locations established
on the creek, which has a biological classification of fair.
Biological classifications are based on the survey results of the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN). BMAN
results are available for certain water basins throughout the State
and are useful for assessing long-term changes in water quality.
The rating scale for biological classification includes poor, fair,
good/fair, good, and excellent.
Northeast Creek flows in a north-south direction within the
project area. Three road crossings are planned for Northeast Creek
and its unnamed tributaries.
e
-19-

o "
A;o
C
v
gp-
2v ' ?f
s J r r 1 vY ?`,
u
-nif.w Eli
.y°
.10
% Xi
a.
c$?r
aa?QN
Y?ryry
to
YAV
O?
ti
jr
\aVOa SlllyMNaO?
U f ca,A•v?i ?,?
°-(t 41.0` l?
cl q I .1 i
J LLi
1 Q
1 W
i o
ti t
yi
, : r4,
O?
ti
+
+
0
a o)
00
w
O
4
ca
Q
C3
v
O-
i
Cf)
Z
a
J
M
0
O
O
J
U.
0
Z
a
a
w
Y
w
w
[C y,
Ua
N?
QY
w LL
cc
O
Z
K
0
a
a
a
_m
N
8
0
While Northeast Creek is part of the Jordan Reservoir Watershed,
the project area is not within the critical watershed.
Design measures to protect water quality are similar to measures
taken to protect wetlands. Design measures for protection of water
quality in roadway design can include minimizing the number of
stream crossings, crossing streams at their narrowest segments as
close to perpendicular as practical, maximizing the distance
between the stream and the road, and avoiding public water
supplies and high quality aquatic habitats. Best management
practices will be used at all stream crossings.
Construction practices should also include sedimentation control
measures such as berms, dikes, dams, silt basins and silt fences.
Best management practices will be incorporated during all phases
of construction to avoid adversely impacting the water quality in
or near the study area. In addition to potential increases in
turbidity, stormwater runoff from roads may present additional
impacts on surface water quality. Runoff from roads may contain
heavy metal loadings, high dissolved and particulate matter, oil
and grease. Management measures such as vegetative controls
(grass swales), detention/ infiltration basins, and retention of
wetland vegetation are often effective in reducing pollutants in
stormwater runoff.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Figure 7 shows the floodplain impact of the
proposed project. The impacts are based on a draft version of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain
maps. The proposed alignment will involve 3.85 acres of
floodplain.
The proposed action will be designed such that the floodway will
carry the 100-year flood without increasing the flood water
elevation more than one foot at any given point. The dimensions
of the drainage structures and the roadway grades will be adjusted
G
-20-

6
and designed to avoid increasing the flood hazard in the project
area. The project will be coordinated with appropriate state and
local officials and FEMA to assure compliance with FEMA, state,
and local floodway regulations.
6. Soils
Soil formation and characterization result from a combination of
biological and geological activity along with the topographic
positioning of an area. The soils within the project area are
characterized by two major soil associations:
1) White Store-Creedmoor Association: The White
Store-Creedmoor Site Association consists of gently sloping to
moderately steep, moderately well drained soils that have a
subsoil of dominantly firm and very firm clay; or uplands.
2) Mayodan-Granville Creedmoor Association: Nearly level to
moderately steep and moderately well drained soils that have a
subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam; or uplands.
Ten soil series from these major associations were identified from
the project area (USDA 1971). Characteristics of these soils are
summarized in Table 3.
A hydric soil is one that is saturated, flooded or ponded long
enough during the growing season to develop an anaerobic
condition in the upper part. Such soils typically support the
growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils classified by the Durham
County Soil Survey are located in some areas of the project area.
These soils units are concentrated within channel limits and flood
plains bordering Northeast Creek.
Wa
-21-

a
11
TABLE 3
SOIL SUMMARY

MAP SOIL % SLOPE GENERAL
UNIT SERIES CHARACTERISTICS
Ch CheWacla 0-2% Nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils or flood plains.
Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is high.
Frequently flooded for brief periods.
CrB Creedmoor 2 - 651o Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Slow permeability,
Sandy Loam water capacity is medium. Major limitations are wetness,
very slow permeability, slope and runoff.
CrC Creedmoor 6 - 10% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Slow permeability,
Sandy Loam water capacity is medium. Major limitations are wetness,
very slow permeability, slope and runoff.
CID Congaree 0-2% Nearly level, well drained soil or flood plain. Permeability
Silt Loam is moderate, available water capacity is high. Frequently
flooded for brief periods.
GrB Granville 2-6% Well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is moderate,
Sandy Loam available water capacity is medium. Major limitation is
runoff and slope erosion.
MfD Mayodan Urban 10 - 15% Well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is moderate,
Land Complex available water capacity is medium. Major limitation is
erosion hazard from runoff and slope.
PfC Pinkston Fine 2 - 10% Well drained to excessively drained soil or broad ridges and
Sandy Loam narrow side slopes or uplands. Permeability is moderately
rapid and available water capacity is medium. Major limita-
tions are runoff and slope and depth to bedrock.
HE Pinkston Fine 10 - 25% Well drained to excessively drained soil or broad ridges and
Sandy Loam narrow side slopes or uplands. Permeability is moderately
rapid and available water capacity is medium. Major limita-
tions are runoff and slope and depth to bedrock.
WSC White Store 6 - 10% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is
Sandy Loam very slow and available water capacity is high. Major
limitations are erosion from runoff, very slow permeability an
perched water table.
WsE White Store 10-25% Moderately well drained soils or uplands. Permeability is
Sandy Loam very slow and available water capacity is high. Major
limitations are erosion from runoff, very slow permeability an
perched water table.
-22-
N
AM
7. Farmlands
The project area consists of areas that are planned to be urbanized,
and are therefore exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy
Act.
8. Traffic Noise Analysis
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generating plants, and highway vehicles. Traffic noise is
composed of noises from the engine, the exhaust, the drive train,
and tire roadway interaction.
The actual magnitude of sound is caused by short-duration
fluctuations and atmospheric pressure. These fluctuations are
called sound pressures. Since the range of sound pressures varies
greatly, a logarithmic relationship is used to reference sound
pressures to a common pressure. This relationship is defined as
the Sound Pressure Level and is measured in decibels (dB). To
approximate the sensitivity of the human ear while listening to
pure tones, the decibels is often modified by Frequency Rating
Curves (A, B, C, or D).
Vehicle noise levels are commonly modified by the A-Weighting
Curve. This curve correlates very well with human response to
noise. Particularly in describing annoyance caused by traffic noise,
particularly in describing annoyance caused by traffic. Sound
levels utilizing the A-Weighting Curve are expressed in dBA.
Typical sound levels expressed in dBA are listed in Table 4.
21.
-23-

0
?1311

TABLE 4
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Source Distance Levels WBA)
jet takeoff 200 feet 120
jet takeoff 2,000 feet 110
jet landing 200 feet 100
Heavy truck 50 feet 90
Pneumatic drill 50 feet 80
Freeway traffic 50 feet 70
Air conditionin unit 20 feet 60
Normal conversation 12 feet 50
Light auto traffic 100 feet 50
Libra - - - - 40
Soft whisper 15 feet 30
Threshold hearing - - - - 0
Source: US Noise Pollution,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1972
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as LEQ (H).
The hourly LEQ or equivalent sound level is the level of constant
sound in an hour, that in an hour would contain the same
acoustic energy as the time varying sound. In other words the
fluctuating levels of sound level traffic noise are represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
To determine if roadway noise levels are comparable with various
land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772, US Department of Transportation,
FHWA, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise". A summary of the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is presented in
Table 5.
U-7
-24-

0
E
G

TABLE 5
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Category LEQ (H) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serentiy and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is
to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B above.
D - - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: 23 CFR 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise.
Receptors in the area of the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension
include such sites as residences (category B), churches (category E)
and businesses (category Q. No category A receptors were
identified.
Two factors are used in determining traffic noise abatement. The
first factor is when future noise levels either approach or exceed
the criteria levels for each activity category, where approach is
defined as within one dBA of the criteria. The second factor for
considering traffic noise abatement is when future noise levels
constitute a substantial increase over existing noise levels. If the
existing noise level is relatively quiet, less than or equal to 50 dBA,
a substantial increase is defined as 15 dBA or greater increase. If
however, the existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA, a 10 dBA
or greater increase is considered substantial. Noise abatement
?rt
-25-
n
u

7.
0
m
0
m
m
m
ao
z
O
Z-n
m
O
z
=i
O
z
r
O
n
D
O
z
N
a
0
0
A
O
co
O
C
.1
O
O
O
N
b
O
M
O co
c
m

measures are considered when there is either a substantial
increase in noise or the noise level approaches or exceeds the
NAC.
To establish the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project,
noise measurements were taken at four locations. The noise
measurement locations are shown on Figure 9, and the ambient
noise levels are listed in Table 6.

E,--
E:
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Site Location LEQ (dBA)
1) Proposed entrance to Cornwallis Road; 50 feet 64
from center line of nearest traffic lane
2) So Hi Drive and Northeast Creek Parkway 59
Extension; 50 feet from center line of nearest
traffic lane
3) Cook Road intersection; 50 feet from center 53
line of nearest traffic lane
4) Existing So Hi Drive and Ellis Road intersection; 63
50 feet from center line of nearest traffic lane
Based on field measurements, the existing noise levels generally
ranged between 53 dBA and 64 dBA.
One measure of the noise impact is the extent of the 66 dBA noise
level contour. This contour line is the distance from the
centerline of the proposed Northeast Creek Parkway Extension to
the contour line where a noise level of 66 dBA is predicted to
occur and can be used to determine which receptors approach or
exceed the FHWA NAC. The distance from the centerline of the
proposed Northeast Creek Parkway to the 66 dBA noise level
contour based on the projected 2020 traffic volumes is 128.0 feet.
There are three residences located along the proposed alignment
that fall with this noise contour.
0
-26-
?l
0

The 66 dBA noise contour can assist local officials in land use
planning decisions. The contour line may be used to prevent
problems in the future, such as placing a residential development
within the 66 dBA noise level contour.
The other measure for assessing the noise impact is to determine
the noise level increase from the existing condition to the future
conditions (build and no-build). Based on the ambient noise
level measurements recorded, it was determined that a
representative ambient noise level of 59 dBA would be used for
the existing So-Hi Drive section and 64 dBA for the existing
Northeast Creek Parkway section. Therefore, the 69 dBA noise
contour was used to identify residences experiencing substantial
noise increases at the northern end near Ellis Road, and the 74
dBA contour was used at the southern end near Cornwallis Road.
Analysis reveals that three residences will be affected near Ellis
Road, which fall within the 69 dBA contour, and no residences at
the southern end, for a total of three residences experiencing
substantial noise increase.
When a noise level of a proposed roadway project exceed noise
abatement criteria or cause substantial noise increases, noise
abatement measures should be considered. However, noise
abatement guidelines indicate that it is not reasonable to provide
noise abatement on non-controlled or partial control access
facilities such as the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension.
9. Air Quality
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified six
pollutants for tracking air quality. These six pollutants are:
particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (SOD, nitrogen dioxide
(NOD, carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and lead (Pb). Mobile
sources (principally vehicular traffic) are linked to the emission of
carbon monoxide and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen dioxide and
ozone. Recent nationwide estimates indicate that more than 50
percent of all CO emissions are from mobile sources. Particulate
C
-27-

J
0 matter, lead, and sulfur dioxide emissions are generally associated
eft with stationary sources and industrial activities.
CO is the most commonly occurring air pollutant generated by
mobile sources. It is a colorless gas produced from incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing fuel. CO is a potentially fatal gas
that affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. At low
concentrations, mental function, vision, and alertness are affected.
Ambient air quality is determined by measuring ambient
pollutant concentrations and comparing the concentrations to the
corresponding standard. The "ambient air" is defined by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access". The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the six previously identified pollutants:
PM-10, CO, 03, S02, N02, and Pb. The ambient air quality
standards are classified as primary standards, secondary standards,
or both. The primary standards were established allowing an
adequate margin of safety for protection of public health.
Secondary standards were established with an adequate margin of
safety to protect the public welfare from adverse effects associated
with pollutants in the ambient air.
In protecting public welfare, air pollution effects on the following
are considered: soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, climate, property,
transportation, economy, personal comfort, and well-being. The
scientific criteria upon which the standards are based are
periodically reviewed by EPA, and the standards are re-established
or changed based upon the findings. The current national
primary and secondary standards ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 7.

-28-

0
0
a
a
0
0
0
a
0
e
B
e
e
e
e
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time National Primary National Secondary
Standard Standard
PM-10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 ug/m3 (a)
1 Same as primary (a)
24 hr (b) 150 u /m3 (a) Same as primary (a)
S02 Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 ug/m3 None
24 hr (a) 365 ug/m3 None
3 hour (a) None 1,300 ug/m3
N02 Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 ug/m3 Same as primary
CO 8 hour (a) 9 ppm None
1 hour (a) 35 ppm None
03 1 hour (b) 0.12 ppm Same as primary
Pb Quarterly
Arithmetic Mean (a) 1.5 ug/m3 Same as primary
(a) Not to be exceeded more than once per year
(b) Not to exceed more than one day per year averaged over a three-year period
ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air
ppm = parts per million
microgram = one millionth of a gram, where 454 grams = 1 pound
Monitoring of the pollutants, except Pb, is performed statewide by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM). When standards are exceeded, an area is labeled as
non-attainment for that pollutant. Durham County is classified
as a maintenance area for 03 and CO.
The most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles is CO.
For this reason, the analyses presented are concerned with
-29-
CZ3
O
m
n
0
m
m
m
V
?r
?0
S0
z-i
-40
(3 Z
qu)
00
11-11
my
00
a cn
v?
aW
.? m
m
m
0
m
m
P,A
CY)
0 I
0
(g
i C
CD
? f
ms's 1
>00413
o d o m
O D 2 m
? -G C (A
v
m = m
0 m 0
D
r
0
Z
O
D
r
z
O
-I
m
0
r-
0
0
a
0
to
m
0
v
a
0
x
3
N
D
O
OC= oe=®
I?
r
y
2
®0
v
°D
TRICENTEF
BOULEVAF
?D
aD
4z
90
d?
4y
4 A?
/ o
Q ? OF
® p
in
BRADFORI
/ ® `$y CIRCLE:
o
o
O ® i
?orfl?+0©
STRIE?7
a
z
n
to
0
determining the project 2020 CO levels in the vicinity of the
?'
project.
To determine the CO concentration at a receptor, two
concentration components must be used: local and background.
The local component is predicted from dispersion modeling and is
due to CO emissions from motor vehicles operation near the
receptor locations. The background component is the ambient CO
level. The background CO component for the project area was
estimated to be 1.8 ppm as recommended by NCEHNR. This is a
typical value for a suburban area. These two components were
added together to determine the total CO concentration for
i comparison to the NAAQS.
Areas with high traffic volumes are most likely to generate the
highest levels of CO. In determining the air quality impact of the

u proposed project, the intersections with the highest projected
volumes of traffic were evaluated. The intersection of Cornwallis
Road and Northeast Creek Parkway and Ellis Road and Northeast
Creek Parkway are anticipated to have the highest CO levels due
to higher traffic volumes and the presence of vehicles idling at
these intersections.

At these intersections the line source computer model CAL3QHC
was used to predict the local CO concentration components. The
CAL3QHC model is a dispersion computer model developed for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based on the
assumption that vehicles at an intersection are either in motion
or in an idling state, the program is designed to predict air
pollution levels by combining emissions from both moving and
idling vehicles.
CAL3QHC uses emission factors generated by EPA's approved
model MOBILE 5A. To evaluate the maximum impact of the
proposed project on ambient CO concentrations, worst-case inputs
were used in the modeling including receptor locations at
minimum right-of-way distances, adverse meteorology, peak
traffic conditions, and worst-case CO vehicles emission factors.
® The worst-case assumptions for these parameters are not expected
-30-
u

to occur simultaneously; however, the objective is to develop a
worst-case scenario to predict the highest CO concentrations that
occur as a result of the proposed project.
MOBILE 5A input parameters included:
Vehicle Mix
autos (gasoline) 55.6%
light trucks (gasoline) 20.9%
medium trucks (gasoline) 8.1%
heavy trucks (gasoline) 3.6%
autos (diesel) 0.2%
medium trucks (diesel) 0.3%
heavy trucks (diesel) 10.8%
motorcycles 0.5%
Tampering rates:
Annual mileage accumulation rates
and registration distributions:
Basic exhaust emission rates:
Inspection/ maintenance program:
MOBILE 5A Default
MOBILE 5A Default
MOBILE 5A Default
No I/M in 1995, assume Basic I/M
starting in 1996
Additional corrective factors:
Anti-tampering program:
Refueling emission rate:
Ambient temperature:
Minimum and maximum daily
temperature:
Base and in-use volatility (RVP)
Region:
Calendar year:
Speed:
Operating mode fractions:
?_l
None
None
Uncontrolled
45°F
minimum = 4.50°F
maximum = 45.0°F
10.5 in 1995, 10.5 in 2020
Low altitude (approximately 500 feet
above mean sea level)
1992 and 2010 (January 1)
25 MPH
Non-catalyst, cold-start vehicles =
20.6%
Catalyst, hot-start vehicles = 27.3%
Catalyst, cold-start vehicles = 20.6%
-31-
2

u
Worst-case CAL3QHC and CALINE3 input parameters included:
Averaging time:
Surface roughness:
Settling velocity:
Deposition velocity:
Receptor height:
Traffic volumes:
Emission factor:
Source height:
Wi
d
d
n
spee
:
Wind direction:
Mixing height:
Ambient concentration:
n
60 minutes
0.75 (corresponds to tall grass)
0 centimeters/ second
0 centimeters/ second
1.8 meters
peak hour volumes, year 2020
from MOBILE 5A (grams per mile)
0 meters
1 meter/second
1° increments
1,000 meters
1.80 ppm
As stated earlier, the intersections with the heaviest projected
traffic volumes were evaluated. A total of eight different receptors
(four at each intersection) were analyzed to compare the air quality
impact of proposed Northeast Creek Parkway. Table 8
summarizes the results of the air quality analysis. Only the CO
concentration at the most affected receptor (worst-case) is shown.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
CO Concentration (ppm)
Receptor Intersection with Intersection with
Number Cornwallis Road Ellis Road
1 3.4 3.1
2 3.4 3.1
3 3.2 2.9
4 3.2 2.9

-32-

n
In 2020, the maximum one-hour CO concentration of the
intersection of Cornwallis Road and Northeast Creek Parkway is
expected to be 3.4 ppm and the maximum concentration at Ellis
Road is expected to be 3.1 ppm.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentration within the
NAAQS indicate no violations of the one-hour CO standard of 35
ppm occur. Likewise, it can be concluded that the eight-hour
standard (9.0) will not be exceeded because the one-hour CO
analysis does not exceed 9.0 ppm.
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the
Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance"
for 03 on June 17, 1994. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent
of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP
does not contain any transportation control measures for Durham
County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1995 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to conform to
the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is
November 9, 1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is April
4, 1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with
the final conformity role found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been
i
ifi
h
i
h
i
'
d
no s
gn
cant c
anges
n t
e project
gn concept or scope, as
s
es
used in the conformity analyses.
10. Geology
The site is located within the Durham Triassic Basin, and the site
is underlain by siltstone and sandstone which were deposited in a
sedimentary environment. Bedrock consists of soft to hard
sedimentary rock which is encountered at depths of three to ten
feet below the existing ground surface.

-33-
n
r
11. Potential Hazardous Material Sites
19 Potential hazardous material sites include generators, treaters, and
disposers of hazardous wastes, landfills, sewage treatment
facilities, garbage dumps, abandoned service stations with
underground storage tanks, fuel, oil, and gasoline storage tanks
and lagoons. The following sources were reviewed to determine
if any hazardous material sites or leaking underground storage
tanks are located in the project study area:
• Hazardous Waste Branch Files, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR)
• Special Incidents Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Superfund Section Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Solid Waste Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• North Carolina Solid Waste Section List of Solid Waste
Facility Contacts, December 1992
• North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Sites Program, Status
Report, February 1992
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Wasteland Pre-remedial/Federal Facility Report, September
1993
As a result of the review, no sites were identified within the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, there does
not appear to be any hazardous materials, landfills, underground
storage tank sites, or other sites that would have an impact on the
proposed project.
12. Visual Impacts
The central portion of the project area is predominantly wooded
and undeveloped with gently rolling hills and small creeks.
Portions of the study area will be visually impacted by the
construction of the proposed project. The typical section for this
project was selected to allow for landscaping and screening in
® selected areas to mitigate adverse visual impacts.
I?
-34-
iIJ
i

13. Construction Impacts
En Short term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water
quality, air quality, natural resources, and noise. The potential
impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to established
construction methods. These methods are described below:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the
right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise
required by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal
within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of
waste or debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the engineer. Such approval
will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.

b. During construction of the proposed project, all material
resulting from clearing, grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, and disposed of by the
contractor. Any merchantable timber will be salvaged. 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.
Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits will be
protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree
trunks from heavy equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees
from fill dirt around the base, or accidentally spilling petroleum.
c. Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. There will be strict adherence to the erosion control plan by the
contractor, including limiting areas and duration of exposed earth
and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as possible.
f. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby residents.
-35-
I

g. Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be
the main contributor to the construction activity noise emissions,
noise impacts during project construction are of short duration.
Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as
f
70 dBA
di
f
f
100
d
eet may vary
rom
stance o
to
measure
at a
50
dBA. It is anticipated that the major sources of construction noise
will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile driving, and
paving. General construction noise impacts that can be expected
are temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals working near the project. Such noise will be limited
to daylight hours as much as possible.

14. Permits Required
Section 404 permits will be required from the Army Corps of
Engineers for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional
wetlands or "waters of the United States". In addition, Section 401
of the Clean Water Act requires each state to certify that state water
quality standards will not be violated for activities which: 1)
involve issuance of a federal permit or license; or 2) require
discharges into "waters of the United States". The Corps of
Engineers cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality
certification is approved by the NC Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources - Division of Environmental
Management.
As discussed in Section IV-D.3, some wetland encroachments
have already received Nationwide Permits from the Corps and
water quality certification from the state. The permits were
previously obtained by the property owner and will be used or
modified for this project. Other permits outlined in Section
IV.D.3 are pending.
V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An informal public hearing will be held after this document is
completed and distributed by NCDOT. The hearing will be informal
with one-on-one interaction between project staff and the public, and
will be held at a site in or near the project area. Exhibits for the
r.?
-36-
n

workshop will include maps of the proposed alignment, aerial
photographs of the project area, and all information included in this
document. Citizens will have the opportunity to make comments on
forms that will be provided.
u
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed construction of Northeast Creek Parkway
were requested from the following agencies. An asterisk indicates that
a written response was received. These comments are incorporated
into the environmental assessment contained in this report. A copy of
the comments is included in the Appendix.
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Geologic Survey
Triangle J Council of Government
* City of Durham
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
Durham County
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History
* NC Department of Public Instruction
* Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
?l
h.-
H-,
-37-
fl
r ?r rr ?r r ?r ?r rr ?r r ?r r r r . ?r ?r ?w ?e
z
0
m
m
a
0
m
m
m
X
-v
a
X
a
-v
0
-v
0
Cl)
m
v
z
O
T
D?

Z
O
m
a
n
m
m
m
xi
-o
n
?i
a
-v
O
m
O
Cl)
m
v
z
co
O
O
_'n
N to
W
? f
r f I?
D
Z
r
z
m
HT, 1
u
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment. This FONSI completes the
environmental review. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared for this project.
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices
will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No
special or unique environmental commitments are necessary-

-38-
i
0
a
APPENDIX
0
D
FROM RRLLIGH KtUULHIUKY
a?
0
June 5, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199201826 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
. Vick:
Reference is made to my letter of March 29, 1993, to the City of Durham
that confirmed Department'of the Army authorization to discharge fill material
into 2.6 acres of waters (and/or wetlands) of Northeast Creek, associated with
the construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway Extension, northeast of
Cornwallis Road, in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. Reference is also
made-to your request of May 18, 1995, submitted by your agent, Mr. Mack Little
with'Little and Little, that notified us that you have not begun construction
of the reference project and that the work will not begin until the summer of
1995Our review of the scope of your proposed work within jurisdictional
"waters (and/or wetlands) indicates that you propose no additional impacts to '
jurisdictional areas beyond those originally reviewed and authorized.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CM), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization was
provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters.
Your proposed work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John
Darn ey, telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked, which will occur prior to January 21, 1997. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits,
which will be announced by public notice when they occur. If you commence, or
are under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh
Field Office, telephone [phone], Extension 24.
A ,
a
f KU1'1 KHLLLU" KLUULHIUKT
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resourcao
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535.
n
a
Q
0
0
fl
0

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
May 22, 1995
Mr.' H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
-"W
This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact for Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in
Durham, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831A" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199500522).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood
control or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Printed on Recycled Paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MAY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-189OLITTLE

May 19, 1995
Page 1 of 1
9 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Northeast
Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, North Carolina,
TIP No. U-2831A" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199500522)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Q Services Section, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project is located in the city of Durham
a and Durham County, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. From a review of Panel 30 of the January 1982 City of Durham Flood
Irsuranc- Rate Map (Fir?ifthe proposed roadway appears to cross a tributary
to Northeast Creek which was not included in the Durham Flood Insurance Study.
Based on a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map,
this stream does appear to have sufficient drainage area at the crossing to
produce flooding. We recommend coordination with the-city for compliance with
their flood plain ordinance.
From a review of Panel 55 of the February 1979 Durham County FIRM and
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, a section of the proposed roadway appears to
be aligned close to the detail study stream of Northeast Creek and may also
impact the floodway. Should there be any impacts on the 100-year flood plain
or defined floodway, we recommend that you coordinate with the Federal
Emergency- Management Agency regarding the need for a no-rise certification and
with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any
modifications to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the submitted information and has
provided the following comments. On March 8, 1994, firs. Jean B. Manuele met
with Mr.. Mack Little, agent for North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), along the corridor of the proposed Northeast Parkway, in Durham,
Durham County, North Carolina. The wetland delineation performed by
Mr. Little was reviewed and was determined to accurately depict the limits of
our regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Little was advised that the crossings of Northeast Creek and three of its
associated tributaries are eligible to be authorized by Nationwide Permit
Numbers 14 and 26.
On May 18, 1995, Mrs. Manuele spoke with Mr. Little and she was informed
that the permit application had been submitted to NCDOT for review and
0 subsequent submittal to our office for concurrence. Should you have any
questions concerning this project, please contact Mrs. Manuele.
0

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON 01ST•RICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1 Ago
WILM(NGTON, NORTH CAROUNA 26402-1890
WrC tYrCF[RTO
March 29, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199201826 and Nationwide Permit No.
Waters)
City of Durham
Engineering Department
Attn: Mr. Lee Murphy
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
MAR 3 1993
LITTLE & LITTLE-
26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Dear Mr. Murphy: .. ,
Reference your )pint••aPplidation of April 16, 1992, for Department of the
y authorization to discharge fill material within waters of the United
Arm
tates, causing the loss of angadditional 1.1 Acres of wetlands adjacent to;
for..a total fill.-of 2.6 ;acres,
Q S
and .above, the headwaters-of , Northeast Creek, _
for construction of the Northeast .Creek Par oath ?arolina.= northeast of -
' Cornwallis- Road,•in Durham, D
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 22,19tltolists nationwidetpermits (Water Act,
pursuant
Authorization was provided,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. The discharge does not cause the. loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
b. The permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in
_ special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Q
I

M
-2-.
Your work is authorized by this 1414P provided it is accomplished in strict
C1 accordance with the enclosed conditions. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
[phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
certification prior to starting work.
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
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 inonths 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
P1
L
i V
RHAM City of Durham
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
101 City Hall Plaza Phone [phone]
Durham. North Carolina 27701 FAX [phone]
t..
7 8 6 9 E
r:?YOFMEDICINE May 9, 1995 G 1
I it
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch MAY 1 2 1995
N. C. Department of Transportation ZJ
P. 0. Box 25201 DfVISICN OF Q
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201 ?:tGHWAYS ???
Subject: Northeast Creek Parkway, TIP Project No. U-2831A ???RONN(EP
Dear Frank:
The City of Durham is pleased to offer preliminary comments for the preparation of the draft
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI) on the
subject project. Our comments are as follows.
Northeast Creek Parkway is designated as a proposed bike facility in The Regional Bicycle
Plan. The proposed cross sections should therefore accommodate bicycles. The curb and
gutter segments should provide 14 feet wide outside travel lanes. The segments without curb
and gutter should provide 4 foot wide paved shoulders, which may well be justified with the
truck traffic anticipated in this industrial area. Also, the SEA/FONSI should address the need
for,pedestrian facilities and connections with sidewalks recently constructed along the
proposed corridor. This facility may also provide an excellent opportunity for the Research
Triangle Park to expand its jogging trail system. This should also be addressed.
O The proposed right-of-way widths should be sufficient to accommodate both bike and
pedestrian facilities. The proposed 90 feet rights-of-way for segments one and two are
insufficient for these purposes and should be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet. The right-
of-way must be sufficient for both wide outside bike lanes, sidewalks, and utility strip.
Please be advised that Durham has several adopted land use plans that affect this area.
Consistency or inconsistency with these plans should be appropriately noted. These plans
include the City and County Comprehensive Plan, The South Central Durham Plan, The
Triangle Township Plan, and The Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Master Plan. Please
r_1 I note that the project affects the proposed Northeast Creek Greenway. Each of these plan
documents are available from the Durham City-County Planning Department.
Mary Hough, the City's Transit Administrator has prepared comments for the Durham Area
Transit Authority. Her comments are attached. -
0
0
0
0
Ftl
0
0
a
a
0
0
a
a
0
a
0
0
0
e
a
a
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project early in the planning
process. We look forward to reviewing the Draft SEA/FONSI and plan to provide additional
comments based upon the findings of the draft study.
If the City of Durham can provide additional assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
H. Wesley Par am, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Attachment
cc: Mark Ahrendsen
Vonda Frantz
Dick Hails
Mary Hough
Owen W. Syrian
r-
42 I ;
_ ?'4'• _L._,_ .w y._a+v?' -V AS?"'?.L1???,??r}y?'yi1_ ??? ? _ j: ...
` :_.I :t 7 ?d.?: r?i1'^? 1?4#??W?.s•: ?_ _?_ t .. q.•.'rsl M< - -
DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Mary Hough, Transit Administrator
?'r 'r).!rrT: Nnrthn,?st Creek Parkway
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design for the above referenced
project with regard to the needs of public transit.
Although this road will not necessarily be used by DATA, it is a connection within
RTP that would be used by the TTA. Because of this, it would be desirable that
the road have adequate shoulders, in terms of size and construction, to
accommodate waiting areas and amenities for transit users. This is especially true
in the areas where commercial/industrial facilities abut the road. We have already
received requests for service from entities on Tricenter Blvd., so it appears that
there is a demand for transit service in the area.
I hope that these comments/request can be incorporated into the design of the
road, and if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to call me at 688-
2742.
0
0
0
a
un3i(6
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 24, 199
tl
TAKE-?
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
d o
E1 VSO
'MAY 2 6 1995' r
k0,'PHIGHWAYS
IVISION OF Mr. H. Franklin Vick Planning and Environmental Branch Qy
N.C. Division of Highways FM?jRONt
P.O. Box 25201
Raleiah, Nc 27611
Subject: foortNortheastmcreek Parkway, Durham County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2831A
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 7, 1995 requt=sting information from the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for the construction of the Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis, a project of approximately 1.8 miles. The proposed
project is divided into five sections, some of which will follow existing
roads. Actual work within the sections includes construction of two lanes,
grading to facilitate future construction, and none.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1.. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2r. A list and acreage of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identif in and Delineatin Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project.
These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland
losses.
0
0
0
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the Brea (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Wake County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species should contain the
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
a 5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
Q The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
0 Si ely yours,
David A. Dell
Acting Supervisor
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
e
0
a
r1l
0
0
0
0
0
e
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Durham County
Birds
L?iId uaglu h,<.;i ;eetus IeucoeeD; anus) - L
Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E•
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevinata) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. Theso "Candidato"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing tho below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
Insects
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2'
Plants
A liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana) - C2•
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - C2
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
Ju.vr.

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
May 11, 1995
U Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
r7 I Planning and Environmental Branch
U Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
U Dear Mr. Vick:
RE: SCH File n95-E-4220-0731; Scoping - Proposed Construction
of the Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to
Ellis Road in Durham, NC TIP mU-2832A
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Attachments
cc: Region J
?Tom Kendig, NCDOT
OW,
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
0
116 West Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 - Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01.00
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee Y'
RE: 95-0731 Scoping Proposed Construction of the NE Creek
Parkway, Durham
DATE: May 9, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
MAY 10 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
p.o. Box 27687, Roleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equol Opportunity Affirmotive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer poper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 ®?
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor [? rt? Q tt F:?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED FE tl ?.,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 5, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart`,"Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review V195-0731; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Construction of Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, TIP #U-2831A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.

P.O. Box 29535, Rdoigh, Notch Cororcna 27626-0535 Tol©phono 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
0 An Equol Opportunity Affirmdivo Action Employor Wt rocyclod/ 101 post-conskmnor popor
M
Melba McGee
May 5, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided-and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 40.1 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10925.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
0
a
- State of North Carolina - n_ Fact
Department of Environment, HIalth, =rd Naturat?BasaU?r--ICn
--f- r--
r RNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS - -=-
a
F'evicwin9 Ili e'
WEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE 1
Project Number. Due Date:
INTERGOVE
T
attic(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
After review of this project it has been determined that the'EHNR pe r
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office Indicated on the reverse of the form.
e same Normal Process
Repionli?I utions Office,. information and guidelines relative to these plans and pnenils are available from th Time
All app (statutory time
limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
award of 30 days
permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment
faeitltks, 64" ( system extensions. S sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or
??--77 permit to operate and construct wastewater Ixililies
d,scrarginq Into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin Construction or
construction contracts On-site inspection- Pos"tipplicalion
technical conference usual
Application 160 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted -grante after POES Reply
time, 30 days after receipt of plans Issue of NPOES
permil•whicherer is later.
pre-application technical conference usually necessary
B
DI Water Use Permit
Iic2tion must be received and permit issued
Complete atop
well Construction Permit pnot to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian propeny
owner. On-site InspeCtion.-Pre•a0ptic2t1On eonlerence usual Filling
D Dredge and Fill Permit may require Easement td Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H
_j;J An open buminq associated wile subject proposal
Any .
must be in compliance associated
with "CAC 20.0520
Oemolit,on or renovations of structures containing
liance with 15A
m
N/A
p
asbestos material must be in co
tification and removal .
NCAC 20.0525 which requires no
prior to demolition. Contact AsbeslOs Control Group
Q coP? (9C days)
919-733-0820.
? •

l
El Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC
f 1973 must be property addressed lot any land disturbing activity An erosion b sedimen a '
I at
st 30
t
?
days
20
The St6ima.Aation Pollution Control Act o
mote
ir
s
e
led
otan
accernoanv t
ach addit onRalgaocrelor art mv
ne
1(
ra
d X30 davs,
of e
acre
nd S2000
t
r
fi
control plan will bn,neQactcvty A fee of S30aor th
ddressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
'^
davs to (30
ays,
ffn
_tltti $editheniatbn Pollution Control Act of 1973 must to a
Bond amdunr
an EHNR
=f
l
-
.
Ort-site inspection usual. Surety bond tiled w
of acres of alfected land Any area
ind humter
lh
li
30 days
s)
d
_ =::7
• _
t f
t
v:iies with lype•
use p rtnilo. The appropriate bond
thin 6ne icri D' 30
ay
Mm,nQ•P?mmit
:i•

•,• rrrned greater
t(ie ermit cin'tx' lssu_d
t?t br receiizU lit; _

d
r w
• ?Y. '?-•? •
••- '' h?
1ibh,?'Ft.C •?tYli?oM1 Forest RasobiC'ft:'It jSCffn,l ay
•r 1
(N:A
.i N
ptih CXr ir: irrinC permit •ztaG3'?'dSys Cr-
`
•: '. __ .l,•.f:Y.,T.?_ ...• .. _ ? '(I
C11t Yb'y NA' 66sion Foreik Ri ?DUf>pi uired Moro
i
•
: ,
1 I day
dal
nst
e
site,
?On
i G,dvr+d Cl 'thin (:v+;,d i j Sl prouM1Q'cliinnq utivitie'i 4it involvttd. Inspection 1
earhti auminq Pcirnlt • Z2 -
= je=
t
l
- ?-
_? Q
•
pounds: in eoasta N.C. with organic soils r ?
,
be(isNe oc
'should be 140iSlhb`al 1"+ % ten day
• '1 -.
= r x CS
•'r
t 120Ciy7
„ ?
klA (NIA)
r Oil Refining Facilities ... "
(,W04% 60 days teldlt bti (Z tOnalrucUCn.
tt
30 davs
II pcmll.ftAuirt d, 11,00
meet to: VIM* ?
d en
%t(
' _
• g
te
Nb Qu+•
ACjhean( rrusl >;'t
EHNR•aDDrov'
ctlon.Oattiq?C+slnuclarf?l sz.?L?
t '
: t
J
i 60 days)
t
' 1
Pc
n+ll
f
r n
'1r?peel•egns
6tay x!63-1i;7th(v ?sfR?d urine{'15t(jlQvitp,fbrtlyd proq?n And
etts.
n
i
id •g
><
ety
t
;t Sa
Oi o
.
p
mv6irs0so: Ehg,!uets`ltta7wpad)dn of site is n
f
,
to
4
4u•p:rmit
of 5?00bQ must ac.
?•,• _
n
s `.•.
r y
j l& bis1.'5 ran a
(
ayyp6mirif,.An ,lddi{ omit 0t6dts
(h C4 at
t
(YI: .? `
•
.: e
h?•L..•• C.Dml?7y("
' t llx"tdlal pf0 Kt cost, RJII eft jtou,f! rpon =KE!,0 =
bercsftt pt _
••
;
- -• - ..?
^. • ?nt• .r r tonlnnued gn reverse r
47

0
Q FERMITS
Permit to dt1'-* oil or gas well
Gaophysicai tiPloralton Persil
J
a r -, State Lakrss Construction Permit
0 D sot water Quality Certification
DI CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
?I CAMA Permit for MINOR development
0

(statutory time ,
SPECIAL APPI-l"AT(G-S PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
bond of $5A00 with EHNR running' to State of N.C.
t
u 10 days
re
y
File
conditional that any well opened by ddil operator shall, upon (NIA)'
abandonment, be plugged according to•EHHR rules and regvtations

Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
APplicallon by letter. No standard application torn. (NIA)
Application tee lased on structure size is charged. Must Include 15.20 days
descriptions i drawvlgs of structure d proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
'
(A days
?.• NIA (130 days)
55 days
$250.00 lee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
$50.00 fee must accompany application (25 daysl
D' Several geodetic monuments ue located in or near the project area. It any monuments need to tie moved or (3estroyta. Please nobly:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
D Abandonment of any wells. If required, must be In accordance with Title 15A, SutxhaPler 2C.0100.
D Notification of the proper regional office is requested if `orphan" urderground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
AS
days
D Compliance with 15A HCAC 2H.1000 (Coitstal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being Certain to cite comment outhority):
(.?. 5 •; S(.of Imo.-l-f t?,t o E? S(„? t :or.l?rx.c? M,, ?? ?3??/NJO??.ss.eb i ? ?h- ?.? n??
(y l.t ? -1--g' 'airs t(, a lif.rD l N 61?1?-C-.t,? o;.? • o r f?F c?.? ?+-? P?7L f
5? f.l .?? s' P-t1?'R.•?- tJLVI c l;-3 Pcs' cylE(,c? o3 Sjvl,.6,E d?--
' REGIONAL OFFICES _
Questions.reDa?din.g these-permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
~D A3ij:9ville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59•yVgodfin Place Suite 712 Wachovia Building
• AAevllic. NC 28801 Fayetteville. SIC 28301
` ,[phone] [phone].. ; :.
q•a:+: •, D Ralei9h Regional Office _
t[wlfe MainRegional Street, P.O: Office Box 950 8800 Barrett Drive Suite 107
27609_,
• 4l rWllle: NC 28115 Raleigh. 7hh• . NC NC -2314
p;r
(701) f,637639
Ilish'riptt -Regional* Ice • Wilmington Regional Office
422 arpJtp? Avenue 127 Cardinal Onve Esicts:on
• • ashirqq(on. NC 27889 ` . Wilmington, NC 28405
• ,(fl181 926481 [phone] _
1:. WinstonSalem Regional Office
;n:, • i'.'' D= North Point Blvd. ?••.
• ` Suite 100 F MJ.:
Winston•Satem,;.NO.27106
'-- (919 89,x7,007: .t
0
a
a

North Carolina WilMe Resources Commission
j I[ U. Salisbury Stre'r, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
tANDUN-1
M: ? a McGee
Officx of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
i
D"Ti : May 9. 1995
SI BJFCT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCT)OTi regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the Northeast Creek
Parkway, from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, Durham
("oil-ltv, North Carolina, TIP No. U-283 IA, SCH Project No. 95-0731.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concern regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subieet project. Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
?NC'wR_r1 have re-vitwe(l the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
a accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
1 e; scq., as strendrei; 1 NCAC 25).
N\','. 1,1ve plc, nr(:ject specific concerns or recommendations at this time, however
to hero facilitate document preparation, our general informational needs are outlined
t )-scrintion of fisherv and wildlife resources within the project area,
j» fndinv a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
constriction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
pl:uit species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Progrun
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone] •
0
1.
0
\ lr f I I V I I I L L ? L..1 11\ l.. I ?-.- - - - •.• ?.• •• - - - - -
May 9, 1995
Memo 2
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 21647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
l?! for charnelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
;. Cover type maps showing wwetland acreages impacted by the project.
Weiland acreages should include all protect-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
cJ teri- iisted.
+. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
The exte'tt to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fracnicitt.ation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or up!ands).
e;. 1\•litigntion for avoiding, nninimizing or compensating for direct and
indire??t degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
A cz:mulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
efferta c,!'h:gh,n?ay cotnstrttction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
A discu3siott of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
ft-() . sccon dary development facilitated by the improved read access.
it cou_traction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state.
in.tnic.pal, or, private development projects, a description of these projects
should b, included in the environmental document, and all project
,p,,;cor; should be identified.
5-uti iC•r -,he.opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
f ; ca:n i w :tj . assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
_ 'N:arUc::, Distric*. 5 Wildlife Biologist
ri E':)•artt, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
i ongamz/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
0
51
/r Swt o`er
U
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
LJ'James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
0
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
may 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
nepartment of Mmn°'--" -. 7-1
FROM: David Brook
De 4istoric esern Oficer
puty State Pr
CEO?r
MAY 1 5 1995
>J
SION OF z`
HWAYS
P?.
Z'?ZONN5_1'z
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to
Ellis Road in Durham, Durham County, TIP U-2831 A,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the proposed project
corridor, although the corridor has never been surveyed for archaeological
resources. It is likely that as yet unrecorded sites may be affected by the project.
Prior to our making recommendations for survey, we request that you forward
recent aerial photographs so we may determine the extent of current development
in the area.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
?..:. T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
I
0
0'

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. C Jr. Director
ry ; ??
May 30, 1995 JUN 5 1995
MEMORANnuM LITTLE & LITTLE
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of_T•ra sr>ortation
FROM: David Brook
c reservation Officer
i
Deputy State is 4,_),
SUBJECT: Northeast Creek Parkway, U-2832A, Durham County,
CH 95-E-4220-0731
We have received the aerial photograph for the above referenced project from
Robert T. Peter of Little & Little. As indicated on the aerial, the proposed project
area is heavily developed. It is unlikely that the Northeast Creek Parkway project
as presently proposed will affect any National Register-eligible archaeological
resources. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigations in
connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
St to Clearinghouse
L,R6bert T. Peter
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
0
0
0
0
CA J t t v - - \
„` SWF o
-,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
April 21, 1995
'-'* TORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. a `
Assistant Stat S nntendent
Auxiliary Se s
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
h
4 G E ! V Fo
4
I
t APR 2 5 1995
' /
'L DIVISION OF
Z0 r;IGHWAYS ?
VIRONN??P
RE: State Environmental Assess ment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in
Durham, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831A
Please find attached communication from Dr. C. Owen Phillips, Superintendent for
Durham County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
a
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employes
0
0
0
A
Building
A World-Class System
C. Owen Phillips
Superintendent
April 12, 1995
Dr. Charles I- Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Dr. Weaver:
r?"'' 2 1 1995
Subject: State Environmental Assessment/Funding of No Significant Impact for
Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831A
My staff has reviewed the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway
Safety proposal for the Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road.
We concluded that this parkway will not present any negative impact to our school
system, but will assist the traffic flow in this area.
In reference to Section Five, Southern High School was mentioned. This campus was
sold to Glaxo, Inc. and a replacement school was opened in 1993 on a new site.
Sincerely,
C. Owen Phillips
cc: Ted Drain
Nfike Mulheirn
Gary Ackley _
r
a®rTnkNrrailc?l???
f
0
4.
Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
2 Hanes Drive
Post Office Box 12255
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
/off
Elizabeth H. Rooks, Dkectw of Ptpstcw De`eiopmem
r;
ICS
LITTLE & LITTLE
Mr. Mack Little
Little & Little
Post Office Box 1448
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Little:
May 11, 1995
This is to confirm our telephone conversation concerning the standards
to be used for the construction of Northeast Creek Parkway between
Cornwallis Road and the Durham Freeway. This thoroughfare will
provide a loop road along the northwest side of the Research Triangle
Park. It is my understanding from our conversation that Northeast
Creek Parkway will ultimately be a 4-lane, median-divided road, but
that only two lanes will be constructed initially.
The Durham-Wake Counties Research and Production Service District,
which is the special tax district for the Research Triangle Park, has
been constructing pedestrian trails throughout the Park over the last
several years. To date, approximately 8 miles of these trails have
been constructed. On behalf of the Service District, I would request
that, if possible, Northeast Creek Parkway be constructed with
shoulders which are wide enough to accommodate an 8-foot asphalt
trail as this would facilitate construction of pedestrian trails by the
Q Service District in the future. Also, if there are sufficient funds
available, the Park would support construction of wider outside lanes
to accommodate bicycle traffic.
0 DEVELOPERS OF THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
0
Mack Little
May 11, 1995
Page 2
Please feel free to call me if you need any additional information
about the Service District and its plans for constructing pedestrian
trails in the Park.
Sincerely,
S
Elizabeth H. Rooks
NCWRC,HCP,I=ALLS LAKE

Mar 27'96 11:07 No.003 P.02
ww?.?f ?v?.• cow.,-.?rK
Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Ralelsh, North Carolina 2760-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fulhvood, Executive Director
MEMORAND1 M
TO: I dclba McGee
Office of Legislative and IntergovernmentalAffaim
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager CHabitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 27, 1996
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the Northeast Creek Parkway, Durham County, North
Carolina TIP No. U-2381A, SCH Project No. 96-0731.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject Draft EA/FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project
area. The purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. Our comments arc provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et scq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project involves the construction of a four- or five-lane roadway on
new location from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road. A distance of approximately 1.8
miles. The project as proposed will impact approxirnutcly 3.03 acres of waters or
wetlands adjacent to Northeast Creek.
After reviewing the subject document, we have the following comments.
1. We could find no clear statement of purpose or need for the project.
Without a statement of need, it is difficult to evaluate feasiblo alternatives
for the project.
2. Although other alternative alignments were considered for the proposed
construction, they were discarded due to higher environmental impacts.
However, no information was provided to,3upport these: claims. A
discussion of potential impacts for each alternative should be provided.
This should include a description of the sources of the data used for these
evaluations. Maps clearly outlining wetlands, floodplatin limits and stream
channels should also be included.
TEL:[phone]
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Mar 27'96 11:08 No.003 P.03
Memo 2 March 27, 1996
3. The document states that the project will benofit the economy by
increasing property values and development potential. However, this is
not contrasted with the additional environmental impacts that the
development will likely bring. A discussion of secondary impacts should
be included in the EA.
4. '17ie document states that the benefits of the project out-weigh the "minor"
wetland impacts. NCDOT is reminded that 3.03 acres of impact to
jurisdictional wetlands on a project of this length and scope is not a minor
Impact. The wetlands that will be impacted by the project arc providing
water quality benefits to Northeast Crcck and in doing so to Jordan Lake
down-stream. We feel that NCDOT should apply for permits for
all wetland impacts associated with this project. Any permits that have
been previously granted should no longer be applicable. This should be as
an individual '404' permit or a nationwide 26 permit with compensatory
mitigation. Although most impact sites are small the cumulative impact is
significant in a rapidly doveloping watershed.
We can not concur with the EA/FONSI for this project as written. However, if
additional information can be provided we may change this position.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft EA/FONST. If we can be
of any further assistance please contact David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at
[phone].

,,. SfAI[ o
JAMES B. HUNT, JR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
April 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb '
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager '
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact for Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road
to Ellis Road in Durham, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2831A
The firm of Little & Little Landscape Architecture and Land Planning,
Raleigh, North Carolina, has been retained to prepare a State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI) for the construction
of Northeast Creek Parkway from Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road. The length of
the project is approximately 1.8 miles.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit input from agencies and
individuals concerning the potential impact of the proposed project upon any
structure or feature in proximity to the project and the impact of this
project upon social, economic, demographic, land use, or environmental
conditions. It is anticipated that additional right-of-way will be required
for the project. No control of access is expected for the proposed project.
The proposed improvements are included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of-way is scheduled to begin in September
1995 with construction scheduled to begin in March 1996.
The proposed improvements are as follows:
Section One consists of a new 90-foot right-of-way running approximately
1,300 ft. north from Cornwallis Road to the existing section of Northeast
Creek Parkway. Grading will incorporate a width for the future five-lane
section. Two lanes are proposed for construction at this time.
Section Two consists of an existing portion of Northeast Creek Parkway,
continuing north for approximately 1,600 ft. The 90-foot right-of-way is
graded for the ultimate five-lane section, two lanes of which are existing.
No improvements are planned for this section at this time.

,4...
April 7, 1995
Page 2
Section Three transitions to 120 feet of right-of-way to contain a
proposed four-lane section with a 25-foot median. Section Three bears
northeast to meet and follow the existing So-Hi Drive. Grading will
incorporate a width which allows for the ultimate four-lane, divided section.
Two lanes of the four-lane section are proposed for construction at this
time.
Section Four continues approximately 800 feet along the existing So-Hi
Drive. Planned as a future four-lane, divided section on 120 feet of
right-of-way, no improvements are proposed for this existing portion of So-Hi
Drive at this time.
Section Five continues approximately 2,600 feet as a proposed four-lane,
divided section on 120 feet of right-of-way along the existing So-Hi Drive,
then realigning to intersect Ellis Road in the vicinity of Southern High
School. Grading will incorporate a width which allows for the ultimate
four-lane section. Two lanes of the four-lane section are proposed for
construction at this time.
The EA will evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of
the proposed project. Specific issues to be addressed include natural
resources, archeology, historic structures, wetlands, air and noise impacts,
water quality, floodplains, hazardous materials, and other relevant impacts.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for
this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping
comments related to this project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project,
it is requested that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or
adverse impacts of the proposed project relating to the interest of your
agency. For our consultants to stay on schedule and for your input to be
included in the planning and environmental report, please respond within 30
days. Attached is a location map for your review.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact
Mr. Tom Kendig at [phone], ext. 263.
TK/wp
Attachments
CORNWALLIS ROAD
D rt7 Z Z
m. 0 p
xx p '
.. CDD,
O
II+ IV'
.7
,-n P. 0
O , ?p
°o?N(D
CO PC
> ?,?
? •1
CD

X

a
O.
? 0
a
a `°
o
I

C/)

m

, 0

7
W N
7
1
{{

n
ca O
c
? a
c
D ro
a c

ro
o
o

0
N
/
r
r
O O
to
a

E '° I(
a?
M z, ?`•
N O
Cl) '•
fD
ti
iv
a
O
O
K
m
O
ro .
State of North Carolina ,\ ;
Department of Environment, /F o
Health and Natural Resources 1.. v f
Division of Environmental Management wi
Y`
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor f?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary J
® ?? t!
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 5, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0731; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Construction*of Northeast Creek Parkway from
Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road in Durham, TIP #U-2831A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
-
A aJ
ag
H,
bo --_7M
A
? Cc
DZ a -tor o - e Q 4 0.17,3
an b
?r. TpOSSZb1 Op T ?t shaZQ °b at o t ? ?'e
o he 1 a Y Z
Ff• d,7 lvhat Why n e t 1n a 4°rr kZ as?
Ale Zate ktent o f 1e el -2 01 ce wa t ex Corr
e as . th C st . rt • e to o?,
'po ,7 ' ," e try traz? dpAZ?? a9 roa Z?icd ste te apt to
? 007 weal Q.,)-'e
1. ?ngta1 r a Co C Arob Coy b1 e? a a11g? o?
as
eo?pen eUZ e ceptUa1 ens 212 t10?e?ts aDE?l,ana? th
2• and flan Sat The 1 47, the fan s 47u e
0 1 's1U e op1 t1Z togat1 dtz o s?4y event eh as
to gQt ej o ?t k pO U.et? 0I' °1 p 4 p jai aced a teCh? i
re t1g ha Ina ss1 bee ?1 n to que
d et??ea lease st°ra1 ess ek na fat n d o be c°?1 day to p the s
D e? ns nt11 dot °n, h°?1 Ferr mi on ea spa e t
ao?U s1 o° ?sri?g he Co hat Brea Zoe e ovegdtlos the d?a 1 Zcl o? he
t e?1e eft (Ro Urn Nc?A nci 40 ?? th oQ n Ar fit 1p
the t th Ar1 l? has he g roz°ns o dter e?hanCe°11ow kZ?n th rea tea to r
by t o pZ? ap?Z to ?e gObee?Oz cer) ar & p?dZ? . 47 ?re?t,ing oa -Ztzsa eethoa he
t 1ed42t sUQ, c ertZ- Q, cQt het S?:t 0 cer aka 1as ' gatl0"2 °e
" 3z b yep r I
Ana req 1 tt t er orris ate o?? Cd b?, h 'on Th1zc• 040 Ca t1y b .
re e o Zre en DES that he F o"2 e de 2L, 1 re Zo? a?k?
ceqzj 1re u2, a c?o ons th th ONS appl Aar d 9u1 Lip • Ca ng•
dV.os?e C eraZthZsre?Ce at thee 41 or ? t?oe?t OAvS ooh ?r -i ohot be
a anz °ll co cer Aroye q0 OA 11 o t zs egzlZ 1 heed ent on 12 109 be a r tz-
c dt1?p ater °r Rod be - reCm2tte the °?
cam' 2S• nr Zea eh1 ee' °? 1 A1Z e p has she owe a ?o
?r1e to t ?' 1 A1ea9 or a U
tlo 1 Z t bee a trnt ea r
e he w se Ge ns y c s 1
Gd1a?b 111ax2J77 0j2ci e. a a1 P?estC Zgnea
Qt .
Z,-2
z
ext bpd is that -Z t 3 c° v 4 a
AraCta ce X04 1 XQ-7 a3e
able beep
o Q
o `<NN
n?
N
~z / Zw
~ w _ ~ ~ - W a~M _ ~ t.S 8Sb ~ n ~ ~
~i Q) Q ~ M , Z N ^I I I M „Sb,%S.tO S ~ H
~ ~ r-i ~ ~ ~ , „8 Rp ~ ~ Ifs ~ ~ oz~~
~~s E~~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ a i H r _ ~1~ x
~ ~ ~ ~ I 'l o . ~ F-' d ~ A. 1~-i ' ~ < ~ ui W r ^ m w~~
~N Q ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~1 . ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ A O ~ • ~ wa W b r",~+ a
i Ra ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s V, W 1" / A to oo`` ~ ~ ~ G `z z ~ s ~ ~ ~ (Y G7 _ _
~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ Q ~ r0 ,~Q 5 ~ C7 ~ 1, . ~ 1 ~ a ~ o
a s z ~ ~ Q ~ ~ i y a Q z o
_ ~ ~ ti~ Oa ~ O r-i •'r ~ , ~ / / ~ a U00
O Z x o ,
h A ~ I giszonr av ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ i d ~ " ~ N M
~ ° I p"1 _ r n ~ a
wx~ o _ V/ N ~ v
r , ~ . _ ~ {~y , 1, ,~.I o~ ~ V
_ . , ~7.1U - o :ti 1 _ ~ ~ r x, o r z o
d ~ coq ~ ,S4"t9 ,Z0~9~ ~ r, ? ~ W \5 bh ~ n_ z ~ I ~ z
~ 000
O w ~ 0 0
z \ P ~ ~
A ~ N,, 1 ~ ~ d ~ N _ I ~ ~ w a a o FA
6 j ~ ~ a, Y s ~ o ~ ~
8 _ ~a ~ ~ -ozt ~ 7r~' I ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 0% ~ a w ~1, 1(~
i I 99i G. U -+6a .e- U l ~I a ~ ~ ~ 1 U Z I M ~ 009
~1 89i F9~ - i W ~ Sk,'jS.50 C ~ i \ ~ N M „'~...i~~' _ T
~ ~J ~ ' r~_ ~ ~0 3 E~
0 ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ m m ~ ~ M In
i x \ ~ O `t .v
AZT--- ~ ~ n N ~ ~ z d
J J n ~ OJ Q m'° ~ Z n<d ~ ~ ~ a
_ ~ ~ ~ ~
. - i~ J a S~' ~ m ` ~ - ~
C ~ O I ~ ~ ~ ~ \
Z N I t Q Q C~ z ~ a ~ ~ z
~ t ~ I 0 0~
a / ~ Qi I o~ a ~
~ Z_ W 0. ~ o
U2 ~ f ~ ~ ~ o
0~ ~ w xQ W
a ( ~ C~ C7 U j_., ,CL soli _ ~ A M ,.S~,OG.lO A
w a t I
w o ~ r~ - x
~ ~ o~ ~ d C7 ~ r w
z s ~ x w
~ ~ ~ ~ a w f~ .
~ zQ ~ - Z ~ ~ ~ i ? z 0.• ~ c :-c, t~u,oo
o A ~ t A ~ ~3
J w ~ ~ 0 u~, ~ 3 °t ~ ~ ro r ~
w ~ ~ Z a ~ ~ ~n 3
~ ~ w a Z z~ a p N ~ p j d C
3d~ p d Z ~ p ~ _ 8B L a~~ ro ~ C~ m. m
W = ' ~ A ~ Z ~ - - - - G, - - - - - - v, ~ Z p a ~ _ ~b i ' ,~,~-b ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~
W -o o
~ Y ~ ~ O Z i.^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
W w Q Z ~ Y ~ ~ ~ a ~o ~ .ez~zes ~ ~ 2 C ~ O - .0
w ~ z ~ 8 ~ --,3 :mss ~ ~ O QQO x O C ~ ~ m ~
~ w ~I w ~ ~ z O w z ~ 1 ? O C~2
Z ~ w a w~ ~ tD 3 ~'~m~ 4 ~
_ 'Q x. ~ ~ = L" ~ Q ~ O t
~1 Q 3 o w a O D ~ d O
z • ~ I r o~~~~ A as I ~ i o_
Z Z w ~ o0 o O ~ 3 m } ~ a d O. ~
Z ti ~ ~ ~ ~ z w oo ~ O U~'=om
~ a oa ~ i ~ to C ~ ~
~w ~ 1 ~ T~ '`3 r gym,, {d V ~ p''~' N~®3E
~x ~ ~ ~ ~ «fA~~ c h
~ c~ a A _ ~D° 0 ~ ~ ~ r, o ~w o
A ~ Coccv W ~ `\4 m o m m
8' stogy l ~ 173.8 EX'1'~ '46~5~~ - pppK RD ~ o~ ~ ~o ~ O ~
_ J- 6.28 1 1 N A ~ ~ ,~0 ~ v ~ 3 ~ CA C to d ~ 1~ .1 ~~11 ~ I- m U vt..
8 ~ ~ ~Z ~ - ~ ~y / ~ 5 ~2 A d ~1
% _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 4
~,,r ~ ~ ~ i _ ~i Q~
F~ , 1 N ~ v°
~ ~ 8 ~ d L49 (Sp L5, ~ b 2 , ~1 ~ z i
Ol \ O p Z O V ~ Y J j~ n Z x ~ ~ ~~o~.`~ ~ ~ ~ I
titi a ~-"1-~ T ~ n _ w O pq ~ ~ ~ v~ w ~ d a ~ ° t ~ L~` ~ .tr ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~d O d z ~ l ~a ~
s-~ ~ . n J X> ~ a a',J "7 < ~ x wQ D ~1 a w l ~ as U J
{11 ` ~ J ~ n' O ~ W ~ i= J ~ W W ~ W
d'~ ~ ~ x a $ ~ ~ w w ~ A ~ ~ ~OH ~ ~
I Z J J U ~ a ~ ~ 8sodo ~ ~ O
sb ~ ? ~ s ~ ~ to M a w ~ R- ~ ~ ~
1 'e9 0 9s ~ (n d c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ a a
3 • ~ ~ ~s ~ c x N~ p ~ o
~ ~ ~ H c . ~ x 9~ tx 6~• ~ \ ~ ~ ~ U~ (n ~ z' ~ o ~ ~ L ~ u ° ~ v` G" Z
a: \ ~ ~ C a6 ~ Z o u ~ ~ \ d~ z ~ ~ ~ o
ba z e Q N A F a ~ z w A I- ~n S ~
W oC ~ \ `,,k A W O a z~ ~ o
w ~ ~ f . 3 ? ~ C ~ H Q n ~ ~i S 1 I~ o G D ~ c~ ~ - F' ~ ~
a o z a a w w z u / A
~ x a 3~ ~ ~ ~ 5~ - o ~ v ~
B6 9d 5TT Hd ~ ~ a w S ~ s/ ~ a ~ Sr, W w
I r o ' ~ ~ i N ~ ~ W °1 ?E L~ ~ ~1 _ _ Z 3 0
p- W U) o z ~ o ~ h
N ~ ~ . Y- Q
i~00NOOd' N OONN W V~ ~°D ~''~N~C12NmU7i~ ~Ind~OC''1t'9 °p N
Ntf~ODCOZ~0~000'J00.~.~+.~C~r+~O ~ ~ n"~" 1 -N"~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~1 N ~I ~ p '~JJ N 1 \ ~ rI ~ Y'J H . ~ \ z ~ U rn ~ ~'i^l~
d'O ~ WWWWWWWWW WW N i ~ Z w ~ ~ z x a c~ o o~
non + non m ~ N m + m - N?W Nnnmm~ + W W W u II II II ~ c X08 0-+ onnvnn ~ n mR- + m + n W CyC7C7ChChLytyC70007ttiC7C~WW f~~hry~~ •~N nnmNm „OvS fV'O ~GO ~ ~ +W N+?An~ e d d d d ~ d d d d d d d t7 C7 a ~ ~ J JJ~ cnw ~ A z w~ ~
~ ~ aaaaaaaaaaaaaa~dNO~~N J X / ~ \Nn ~ w Q 7 ~t ~ nJ ~ vl 1~-1
aaNm~~ ~ , ~ \ W a o
° ~d~Nd~aDd~d~ NONN ~ ~ W ~fJi~M@'~cGQ~~~i~•~Nd~M03 ~ ~ ` \ o Fi r J ~ W
;W ssWa3 aas~~ W a s s 3; ~;ss;a;; W; N ~MOO.~~'9~1f~•-~.~000~Ot~2 , ~
B ~ / a~_ rP pv~i~, t~+r r P~P.-~ Pn W ~i ~i ~ IYI 11.~// / ~ ~ Z ~ r ~ ~ ~ ! r - N
~I~ m ~h PPO O ? M" O n.-^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W r) 2-,~~ nn ~in~iN zZZZni z~iz'z `z M ~i a=Z Z ~ _ ~ Z= ~ 0000000000000000 a ~ ~ ~
x I 000000000 000 ~ ~ I W 0000 FHFE„~ ~ m ~i G i c0 O ~
W~AO~alatalRl{~W OgRI ~ ~ Z Rl rr'q a1 W a1 Q', W a O ~ ~ n+mm~mmm ~nn+mm~owo- + +nc~n~m n+ mn r ~ z a ~ - ' s=
JJJJJ..I J.-" NNfV f~N n + + 'n nn NmOmmm A A A A A ^ A A L^ C~ L~ C~ C'~ JJ'J^JJ JJJJJJJ .J! JJJJJJ JJJJJ J J J JJJ JJ J JJ JJ
t n ~ i ~ W f:7 W Gr] W fi] r~] ~ ~ ~ d ~ d d [z. sn `Z f1, 1 'u [T. r.r r_
wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaa Z ~ eq w w P"
J 1 , ~ I AAaaAaaaaaaaaaaa w z a z w Z W i \ cQ z P-4 z z 0 w
g co ~p war-
co
. fly A aaa
A A

F-- z /
Z_ t.J ~ w °roo
LJ / ~ _ .r._ .r._ Z ~y N
YY Q~ ? 1..~ ~ i CL I f,, S ~ M~ ~rnrn oirooo
X15 Aa ,~C- ~ i 1 ~ as X
i ~ r ~ ~ a ~ a ~ Z I~ JO'Q w
~u,~ < ~ ~ / f w~~ r: wa W . C .y,, j: h~ Q
Rp ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rl ~ W
<~o ~ r' ~ x z z ~ ~ va Q ~ \ ~ 1 ~ ! a~c~ Q ~ o
UM ~ ti _ ~v a z a
~ ~ ~ a a o Up0
a / _ ~ ~ - o _ L ~ ~1 , , a
t 1 di ~ ~ ~ N n
s ~r ~ 1 ( rk ~ h _ ~ ,y V ' rn~ 3 a r, ~ a
v p~ O ~ ~ ~ w x o ~ N
I ;r, o ~ a a
;L . .r _ _ e x J O z o x
d ~ MaJ ~ i ~ ~ i' . r, r ~ ~ z
W ~ h~ ~ ~ ~ o C0
a f ;E~ O w ~ 0 o d+
• s z I l
r. ~ A ~ i w ~ ~ ~ A w ~ a ~ H A
~ ~ . , , o a gl C7 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~Qt?j- j ~ ~ , l ~ ~ W 1 ~ H
?9' p, W ~ - t ,y~ A '?i+ ~ ~o%
T-_ - 5a ~ r ~a _ ~ _
-fir
o m I I ` ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ C, i
~ J
it 1 ; ~ - _ 1 ,f ,ors z~ ~
J% x= I ~ ~ ~ ~ Z . ~ ~ a~
~ ~ , n =r
~ ~ ~ - f. ~ ' o ~ ~ ~ d r U
~ ~ \ ~ ,`k r ~ W
Z ~J 1I ~1 ~ N t ~ ~ `L ~ \ ~ ~ z
I I ' o rn
u: ~ ~ ~ Q / ~ 1 0 ~
7 ~ GL Z ~ ~ ~
c0 w
V • X r_, W ~
T h I ~ n_ fZ _ ~A
v \ v i.l „'~~ic~,~„ _ A
o a I ~ w N
~ a, d ~
Z ~ x
~ ~4 z x
~ o z `r '--a~ v`~cE C_, r c N p p
Z ~ ~ i I z L ~S N V w
~ A ~ I I I a ~)A~ , w _I I~ Y ..i 0 3 v 4 Si t ~ t0
! 7 _ VOl t.•'i C N p
' a Z C ~ C ~ 7 y ~ ~ > p ~ C ~ 4
Z L lZ ~ O 3~~. ~ p a Z 98L~ ~ ~ Q G ~ d m N N
v 1 ~ U
~rW ~ ~ o a ~ .cat;<,~ ~ y L N N X
--s ~ ~i z ~ ~ t~ c~ ~ ~ a Hv o ~~~w..
W Q z ~ ~ I ~z~~~aG ~ Z cMpc Q
~ ~a o - - - ~ Q z ~ ~ o ~ .mss ~ O I ~ p y U ' b C O roa~a~p~
Q Qo'~ x O z t~z WZW W U ZW O" ~ ro c ~ m . ~
.i. W • 4 ~ ~ ~ ~3°'~°' ,,~~m a ~o~ca
- _ ~ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ f , ~ - r- O S: - ___„-:~~er..- ~ U) iJ ~ Q ~ , X At t- Q
~1 ~ Q` Goo w a o ~ ~ ~ 3 o n ~ ~v c f U m m o ' O ~ ~ t N 7
LL ~ ~ O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ L~ I i O I Q a s ~
z z ~ ~ ~ O p p .fl J C)
Z Z ~ a \ U1 ti CO u ~ ~ Q. ~ a m ~ o $~,com
Z W O O lCJ
~a O~ 1 ~ W ~ I - ~ w m CO ~mro3E
~x ~ ~ y o 0
~ ~ a E~ ~ _ - f DpNED) QED) U J ~ N C y
~ _ (Tp BE W \ p cct3 . C O y N
~ Q' EN510N - G ~ U a
~46 - - ppK ~ g C - 6.2 ~s` Z ~ e,, 1' ~ otor
_ - d _ 1 f'- ~ U V y.~'~°4`~'
r~ ,~c "'>J Ul
~
,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )
~ ~ ~
l49 Lap L5' d yy, t o S~ ~Z ' 2~ m ;.v 1 N n~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ L t' r ly ~ ~ I a y,.,`
~ n U; tl~ O Q O ~ "Y 9 L ~ ~ fl
~ ~ 1 J - X t ~ ~ ~ ~a I {sl ~a4 i
ti J w ~ h ,
d~ ~ x~ p ~ w W ~ 'i w a ~ - , ~A~Bo p ~ o C,.J
i ~ x ~ N ~ w A ~ ~ ~ . 4~ rO ~ ~ ~ Q~O Q i ~ ~ V 1 V ~ L ~ ~ ` d0~d ~
~ z ~ J G. ~ ° ~ 'y
S'b r ~ t, ~ U7 F V V ~ ~ a Q ~ ~
9 0 9,- ~ ~ ~5 7 \ „ J , ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~.7 w ~ ~aa
p 6~ \ x ' Ey 4' ~ ~ x as ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F W
l 0 ~ L; Z c u u ~ ~ d+ z ~ j o
ba z a z w
Q: ~ ~ F_' W ~ ~ A w 4~ z ~ o
~ J1 ~ C s Q . ~ ~ 0 0 ~ - ~ E" f~ ~ ~
- ~ i a a ~ W ~ ~ _ ~ Z a
0 o ~ ~ = A 1 Q ~ ~ ~ x J U
r ~ a BB 9d SII Hd ~ a w W G~ r ~ _ ~ ~
G: \ ~ .'~W - w ~ Q - z A ~
~ 0., \ 7 W~
o- zrr;m i ~ W ~ a~ ' + MCI C_' ~
i~ 00 ~ t0 GD dl ~ CO aD N O ~i~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~y ~1 ~l ~ Q
I C0 1n L~2 ~2 1f~ QO In i~ r+ lC~ d' CO C'7 C~ ti ~ ~ N lf~ OD O ~ 0~ C10 C'~ 00 rl r+ @7 ~ At O ~ ~ ~ ~ [ -i ~ ~ ~ ~ o
dl Q~ f. V ~ ~ ' Z u_1 0~'
~ WWWWWWWWWWWWWW ~ ~ooio°~Yf1 lUnn inn°mnn~°DnR'°$ ° flNrl tONN aminrnafonl~ NI~OiN01 f Y' ~k ~ ~ ~ V V v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J W W ` ~ r zx o 0 o~rn r s ~ x u~ A a
17D (v~Yi 1b bnnOnnn (vb YfhO lV1A NOOimmnrl~NiN m- ~f m N° N~~Of ~ `~/1 /I /I j~ ~h T IU ^••-N ..N^NN NNN.-Mn^^^^N .-(V^^^.- ~f^Y1 d N ?^nn"n f~ ~1 ill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~I VI ~ VI `A1 VI V V ryr i
it ~ ~ ~'aaaaaaaaaaaaaa~~'~0~~"~ N I ~ I i ~ I, i ~ ~ aa~com~ r ~ ~ u ~ z zw
s i I ~ a ! I N~tn?n I, I ~ i N~MMtDM.-+.~~.~ CEO ~ I w ~ dl ~ . oz
- p N o n n n a o n g ' - ? ~ 1 f - ^ ~ a ~ r-1 ~ rl .-1 rl rl ~ ri ri rl ~ +-1 ~ ~ 1 Q ~ _ ~ ~ - - W U --t _ ~
Y F^ NEp 1~ N a f O ^IN ~ Y iYl~j~ L[, "4L'.: __1__ ~ ~ ~t.~~~ - - (L.. - . ~ ~ti ~ ~ N
Qpp . ~ P tl ~ f ~ rq~ ~i f p ~ 0 ~ . + N r ? Q . ~ f Q ~ + ^ . W W W W Mil W W Fi') FPM 1~~11 11~~11 1~ 1~/ 1~~/1 11~~ / ~Yt: ;pOY~i Vi2~yf1-~ f - ? 21 ZZZ Z MF W W W Mil Mil ~ ~ t ~ x
r ~~_~_~=~~:z= ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 0000000000000000 ~ d' Cat 0000000000000000 a F ~ c x~m
I i I ~ I li I ,~I, W E+HE-+E~ O i r-I I I I i ~ I GaPQAAGQWAp4GQ AAApaA ~ n Z M ov~v~~
C .i nlNbnmmo^ nrnen umo^N In m - YY rnl ^Nn u;~p n O. ^Nn INVin v' ~ ~ ~ W O ~ W ! _IJJJJ JJ^^.-.-^^-.. N N M n M M Iff 1'11 nY7NNu)NnI(I J N J JJ JJJ..: J.J JI~ " i J JJJ JJJ JJJJ JJ JJJJJJJ JJJJJ JJJ JJ.J I AAAAAAAAAE-IE-IFE+FFH ~ rT, ~..1 q~I,
IW ~ ~ ~ ~ { J d~ r_~ r_~ r_~ r_~ r_~ r_i r_~ r_i ~ i i i it it it r_ ti ^ ` ~
I i ,I IwwwwwwP"ww 0-4 640
f ~i t i I '~I I I I~ ! IWWWWWWWWW I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I . I, I , ~ i i , , i ~ aaa a aaaaaaa ~ ~ z I ~i III A A A A A
Q c n Z W Z Z O c0 °
C T: W Q
M 1-4 E-o
W M A A ,I