u2807

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIVISION GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
N ?
Sanford T. Cross, Director
Public Transportation
c-+r?
US 15/501, Durham and Chapel Hill, Durham and Orange
Counties, North Carolina, T.I.P. U-2807A
The Public Transportation Division, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
preparing a Phase 1 Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate a broad
range of transportation system treatments and investment strategies to relieve traffic congestion
along the subject corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill in Durham and Orange Counties. This
project is being conducted in cooperation with the NCDOT Division of Highways, the Federal
Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the City of Durham, the Town of
Chapel Hill, and the Triangle Transit Authority. Phase 1 is expected to be complete in late 1997.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and to coordinate regulatory agency review for
the first phase of the subject project.
PROJECT HISTORY
In 1993-1994, the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and private property owners in the US 15/501 corridor jointly participated in a
corridor study for the section of US 15/501 from Franklin Street in Chapel Hill to the US 15/501
Bypass in Durham. The study focused on developing a Corridor Master Plan which identified
anticipated congestion problems and provided recommendations towards providing better
mobility along the corridor. The recommendations were multi-modal in scope and were intended
to begin the planning process towards implementation of a fully multi-modal network of
improvements. Those recommendations included: 1) the need to upgrade US 15/501 to a
controlled access facility (urban freeway), 2) preserve right-of-way for alternative mode
improvements along the corridor, and 3) investigate other Transportation Demand Management
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
2
(TDM) strategies, i.e. carpooling programs, incentives for staggered work hours, and others. The
findings of the US 15/501 Corridor Study were supplemented by analyses conducted as part of
the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study conducted by the Triangle Transit Authority. The results of
these studies have prompted the need for additional analysis through a combination Phased
Environmental Analysis and Major Investment Study.
STUDY AREA
For auto alternatives, the study area limits extend from the US 15/501 Bypass in Durham south to
Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. For non-auto alternatives, the study area extends from the Duke
University campus in Durham to the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill. (See
attached map.)
ENVIRONMENT
The project study area contains incorporated portions of the City of Durham and the Town of
Chapel Hill and unincorporated portions of Durham and Orange Counties. Existing land uses
within the study area include active residential and commercial uses, Duke University, and the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The following is an excerpt from the US 15/501 corridor study, US 15-501 Corridor
Transportation Master Plan (February 1994), which focused on the US 15/501 corridor between
the US 15/501 Bypass in Durham south to Franklin Street in Chapel Hill:
The most environmentally sensitive feature within the corridor is the New Hope
area. The New Hope Creek area contains important wildlife and breeding and
migratory bird habitats. It contains numerous significant plant communities and
sites for rare plant species. Its floodplain and the floodplain for Dry Creek are a
part of the open space preservation plan for New Hope Creek and can be
considered proposed natural areas. Wetlands in the study area are predominantly
along New Hope Creek. The 1985 Durham Urban Trails and Greemvays Master
Plan shows a proposed nature trail along New Hope Creek. A trail is also shown
in the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan.
The William N. Patterson House, included on the State Study List of historic
structures, is between US 15-501 and Watkins Road.
Attached is an excerpt from the conclusions and recommendations section of the Environmental
Inventory (April 1993) for the US 15-501 Corridor Transportation Master Plan.
In order to investigate all social, economic and environmental factors that may be involved with
the project, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is distributing this letter to obtain
comments relative to effects on the natural and human environment.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation would appreciate any comments to be made on
this project within 30 days of receipt of this letter. A scoping meeting is scheduled for Thursday,
::October 24, 1996, at. 11:00 a.m. in Room 470 of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. If
further information is needed, please contact Ms. Carol Carter, Manager, Urban Section at (919)
733-4713, Ext. 226.
STC
Attachments
40
?-as 1
N
10
'o
SYP 15
70
NS 1

C? R
Nw'
?
ZZ/
ROB 1 ) ' 6 a DUKE
STUDY AREA F? oG?
? o UNI
¦
LIMITS 1PFS R A Y
`
rp N~! Q? ©DUKE UN
Q
,
MED. CTR.

1

OP ¦DUKE

ff
F
S U IV.
'

' CREEK = ¦ TAOIUM 'Q
?
O ?Q
?-
y
Q
DUKE FOREST 'may
Vt`e? J° CAPN ? i`?
k
ROAD m g44
iS
WHITFIELD CH 6 1 PICKETT AD DURHAM

J
?

/ O? y
1 F SOUTH
?rl! .z. QUARE
MALL
UMV• ?C'1p
s
4? h

CHAPEL HLL

.,
000
i

HORACE
WILUAMS .
?.,..
^'?trc
m F

$' ?
0

4
_
o
?•
AIRS ROAD

?y LITTLE

A < 1 '
i
m
r f.- ? 9A
5t. UNIV.
OF1
¦ N.C. RALEIGH G
1 G
N J
5
•ENAN STADUI ROgO I Y1G M
' 1-'a
O
'
6 7S ?i' UNC ¦ 1
10SPITALS ?#41
DEAN E. SMITH CENTERI
S
L ' '
- - - - - - _ '
STUDY AREA
LIMITS
TIP U-2807A
EXHIBIT 1
C HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE STUDY LIMITS U$ 15-501 STUDY AREA

1 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Natural Systems
The majority of significant wetlands, 100 year floodplains and natural areas are located
along New Hope Creek, Sandy Creek and Dry Creek. These areas are relatively
undisturbed due to the topography and floodplain and provides unique urban wildlife
corridor between Duke Forest, Eno River State Park, and Jordan Lake. Construction in
this area should be minimized as much as possible. Bottomland hardwood wetlands
along New Hope Creek should be disturbed as little as possible. A section 404 Permit
for wetland disturbance from the US Army Corp of Engineers and a Section 401 Permit
from the Water Quality Section of the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management will be necessary for construction activities within these wetlands.
No recorded threatened and endangered species exist in the study area at this time.
However, since the threatened and endangered systems list is dynamic, it is
recommended that prior to final design approval of any improvements, the inventory
currently being prepared by Steve Hall of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program be reviewed.
If threatened and endangered species are found, avoidance of this area is recommended.
4.2 Cultural Resources
Four (4) historic structures and twelve (12) archaeological sites have been identified within
the study boundaries. None of these structures or sites are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
One historic structure, the Wm. N. Patterson is listed on the State Study List with notations
that it would be eligible for inclusion on the National Registry. This structure and its
surrounding areashould be avoided in selecting locations for transportation improvements.
16
A
All archaeological sites identified within the study have not fully evaluated to determine
National Registry eligibility: Therefore any archaeological site affected by US 15/501
Transportation Improvements should be evaluated by an archaeological reconnaissance
to determine National Registry eligibility prior to construction of the improvement.
Many greenways and three (3) parks are proposed for the study area. It is felt that these
greenways and parks can become an asset to the communities of Chapel Hill and
Durham, and.if developed properly could provide not only recreational facilities but also
a safe, energy efficient, and healthy means to travel about the study area via walking or
on bicycle. It is therefore recommended that any traffic improvement design investigate
I this alternative means of travel.
One (1) school, two (2) churches, and four (4) cemeteries exist within the study boundary
' and should be avoided during routing of any transportation improvements if possible.
1 4.3 Underground Storaqe Tanks
Eleven (11) underground storage tanks have been identified within the study boundary.
The age of the tanks and their physical composition have also been identified however,
exact location and structural integrity of these tanks have not been determined. It is
recommended that during the preliminary design of the selected transportation
improvement alternative, all effected properties possessing underground storage tank(s)
be screened and that the tank(s) be located and tested to determine if they are presently
leaking. Past evidence of leakage should also be determined by the collection and
analysis of soil and ground water samples in the vicinity of the tank(s).

1
17
4.4 Social Concerns
Section 2 of this document describes factors which illustrate the need for improved
transportation system in the Durham/Chapel Hill study area. Traffic pattern and volumes
indicate that the existing US 15/501 Corridor between the Franklin Street Interchange and
the Durham Bypass Interchange is experiencing undesirable levels of service. The
existing 1-40/US 15-501 Interchange coupled with the availability of undeveloped land
along US 15/501 provides desirable areas for commercial development which will
undoubtedly increase traffic in the area even more.
Area residents are already experiencing the results of traffic congestion along US 15/501
due to the increased volume of "cut through" traffic in residential areas. Associates with
this increase traffic is the increased speed of vehicles moving through the neighborhood.
Since the majority of the study area is without sidewalks or bicycle lanes pedestrians and
cyclists are concerned for their safety when using roadways in the area.
Residents request that any transportation improvements proposed for the area consider
eliminating "cut through" traffic, installing sidewalks and bicycle lanes to enhance public
safety and consider aesthetics in the design so as to minimize loss of property. valves.
18
a AATEo
?e wdn?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIVISION GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 21, 1996
F",,,RO ?2? 199
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric EaIHNR
DEM -Water Quality Lab ?MF!vrq? °^???,y6
4401 Reedy Creek Road VFs
FROM: Sanford T. Cross, Director-:?h+;
Public Transportation
SUBJECT: US 15/501, Durham and Chapel Hill, Durham and
Orange Counties, North Carolina, T.I.P. U-2807A
REVISED SCOPING MEETING DATE
Due to several schedule conflicts, the Scoping meeting originally scheduled for the above
referenced project has been changed from October 24, 1996 to October 34, 1996. The
meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. in Room 434 of the Transportation Building in Raleigh.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Carol Carter, Manager, Urban
Section at [phone], Extension 226.
STC'
Attachments
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
Ad
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
wc- ipwck2
GQ l4;14 L
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 29, 1996
m
Mr. Sanford T. Cross
a
Director, Public Transportation Division °z •
r. m
North Carolina Department of Transportation ca m
P.O..Box 25201 m
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 `0 o
m 0%
m
Subject: US 15/501 Corridor Study, TIP No. U-2807A,
Durham and Orange County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cross:
This responds to your letter of September 30, 1996, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
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 (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing a Phase 1 Major Investment
Study/Environmental Impact Statement. This work will evaluate a
broad range of transportation system treatments and investment
strategies to relieve congestion along the subject corridor.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the.planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. We believe
planning should seek to avoid adverse impacts to New Hope Creek
and its adjacent wetlands. If unavoidable wetland impacts are
proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Opportunities to
protect target areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
16
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally
recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned along or
adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median width should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required Federal or State
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that
were considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. Also, an assessment should be
included regarding the extent to which the proposed project
would result in secondary impacts to natural resources and

how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct
wetland crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore,
enhance, or create wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
and,
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid,
minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with the project. These measures should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Durham and Orange Counties. Habitat requirements for the
Federally-listed species in the project area should be compared
with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable
habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey
methodologies and results included in the environmental
documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance,
the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be
considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used
in the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and of the associated habitat that may be affected
by the action, including the results of an onsite
inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed
species. Indirect effects are those that are caused by
the proposed action and are later in time but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which
includes interrelated, interdependent, past and present
impacts of Federal, State, and private activities in
the project and cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a
larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification; and,
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private
activities (not requiring Federal agency involvement)
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of
potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects; and,
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, Federal agencies are required
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat. Federal species of
concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does
not have enough scientific information to support a listing
proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present
time. These species receive no statutory protection under the
ESA, but could become candidates in the future if additional
scientific information becomes available indicating that they are
endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species
under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates 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 made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project.
Sin
A-W=17 6Q cerely, -P-- 144
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachments
FWS/R4:HHall:10/29/96:WP:A:Du U2807A.o96
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P. E., Director
LT! ? FAA
IT4
10
ID F= F=1
November 15,11996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn7
From: Eric GalambZ?
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
US 15-501 Improvements
Durham and Orange Counties, TIP # U-2807A
DEHNR No. 97-0277, DWQ No. 11404
A scoping was held on October 30, 1996 for this project. During this meeting DWQ
stated that there are high quality wetlands associated with New Hope Creek and
adjacent to the waterfowl impoundments. DWQ has requested that avoidance options
be thoroughly pursued. If the wetlands cannot be avoided, minimization efforts such
as bridging should be fully considered.
The Town of Chapel Hill already has a computerized signal system. The City of
Durham is currently installing a computerized signal system. One option that should
be studied is coordinating the systems for the US 15-501 corridor so that traffic can
flow freely between the towns without signal conflicts.
The Division of Water Quality (WQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/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? WQ 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 control measures are not placed in
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500% recycled/10% post consumer paper
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from WQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from WQ.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area? Can a combination of TSM and build
alternatives produce an acceptable LOS?
L. 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.
M. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek.
N. DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in new or replacement bridges
in order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of
water. If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed
directly over water.
WQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For WQ to concur with an
alternative in the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full control of access to the
wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland mitigation.
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 WQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI
or Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until
the applicant informs WQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the
Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
usl5dur.sco
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
FAXED
NOV 1 519%
?fS ?5/,?0 Gl 2907A
r
"oZ
c,?ru; s
xQs? ter, S
?- o---?
i
71? i4PXIII? tl
Cox es ?? YPH-
c, cPrr ?.e $tiYo e 1'(5
r ?J
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
•
DWQ -Water i I y Quality Section L4
MEMORANDUM
1C//:V
TO: Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? John Dorney
Eric Galamb (DoT)
? Greg Price (airports, COE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
?
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oxw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
11
Planning Branch

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
13 Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE:

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
mis.\circmemo.doc
fax: [phone] e-mail: michelle@a dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
Date:

? Project located in 7th floor library
I 1 ?e?
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 L_j Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt Air L. Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e J Water ? Water Resources _?LEnvironmental Health
? Mooresville 'Groundwater .Wildlife [DSolid Waste Management
Raleigh and Quality Engineer ?rForest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant +and Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as "'
?'Coastal Management Consultant Ri arks and Recreation :]Other (specify)
? Wilmington `i Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS 1 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
?STAro
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNi- JR. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIVISION GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
Sanford T. Cross, Director
Public Transportation Orr-
US 15/501, Durham and Chapel Hill, Durham and Orange
Counties, North Carolina, T.I.P. U-2807A
The Public Transportation Division, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
preparing a Phase 1 Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate a broad
range of transportation system treatments and investment strategies to relieve traffic congestion
along the subject corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill in Durham and Orange Counties. This
project is being conducted in cooperation with the NCDOT Division of Highways, the Federal
Highway Administr?ltion, the Federal Transit Administration, the City, of Durham, the Town of
Chapel Hill, and the Triangle Transit Authority. Phase 1 is expected to be complete in late 1997.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and to coordinate regulatory agency review for
the first phase of the subject project.
PROJECT HISTORY
In 1.993-1994, the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and private property owners in the US 15/501 corridor jointly participated in a
corridor study for the section of US 15/501 from Franklin Street in Chapel Hill to the US 15/501
Bypass in Durham. The study focused on developing a Corridor Master Plan which identified
anticipated congestion problems and provided recommendations towards providing better
mobility along tile corridor. -Tile recommendations were multi-modal in scope and were intended
to begin the planning process towards implementation of a fully multi-modal network of
improvements. Those recommendations included: 1) the need to upgrade US 15/501 to a
controlled access tdC11ity (urban freeway), 2) preserve right-of-way for- alternative mode
improvements along Ilie corridor, and 3) investigate other Transportation Demand Management
ECr IVED
OCT ._ 9 1996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGIIOFJ:;F _ III IONE [phone] FAX [phone]
A.
2
(TDM) strategies, i.e. carpooling programs, incentives for staggered work hours, and others. The
findings of the US 15/501 Corridor Study were supplemented by analyses conducted as part of
the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study conducted by the Triangle Transit Authority. The results of
these studies have prompted the need for additional analysis through a combination Phased
Environmental Analysis and Major Investment Study.
STUDY AREA
For auto alternatives, the study area limits extend from the US 15/501 Bypass in Durham south to
Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. For non-auto alternatives, the study area extends from the Duke
University campus- in Durham to the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill. (See _
attached map.)
ENVIRONMENT
The project study area contains incorporated portions of the City of Durham and the Town of
Chapel Hill and unincorporated portions of Durham and Orange Counties. Existing land uses
within the study area include active residential and commercial uses, Duke University, and the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The following is an excerpt from the US 15/501 corridor study, US 15-501 Corridor
D-ansl)orlalion Mcisrer Man (February 1994), which focused on the US 15/501 corridor between
the US 15/501 Bypass in Durham south to Franklin Street in Chapel Hill:
The most environmentally sensitive feature within the corridor is the New Hope
area. The New Hope Creek area contains important wildlife and breeding and
migratory bird habitats. It contains numerous significant plant communities and
sites for rare plant species. Its floodplain and the floodplain for Dry Creek are a
part of the open space preservation plan for New Hope Creek and can be
considered proposed natural areas. Wetlands in the study area are predominantly
along New I-lope Creek. The 1985 Durham Urban Trails and Greefnvays Master
flan shows a proposed nature trail along New Hope Creek. A trail is also shown
in the Neu, /lobe Corridor Open Space Master Plan.
The William N. Patterson House, included on the State Study List of historic
structures, is between US 15-501 and Watkins Road.
Attached is an excerpt from the conclusions and recommendations section of the Enwironmental
Im.,enloq (April 191) 3) for the US 15-501 Corridor Dranspw•talion Master Plan.
In order to investigate all social, economic and environmental factors that may be involved with
the project, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is distributing this letter to obtain
comments relative to effects on the natural and human environment.
3
The North Carolina Department of Transportation would appreciate any comments to be made on
this project within 30 days of receipt of this letter. A scoping meeting is scheduled for Thursday,
October 24, 1996, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 470 of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. If
further information is needed, please contact Ms. Carol Carter, Manager, Urban Section at (919)
733-4713, Ext. 226.
STC
- - Attachments
ga
1
I-85 I
N
m BYP 15
70
HS J ??
6
?
Cqq R
Hk.
ROB _ J -
- - H^ 6 ^ DUKE
C3 UNIV

STUDY AREA
F cG?
o (E)
.
LIMITS R. AD
r N 2 tQ @DUKE UNI ,
o ?d? J
01 Y MED. CTR.

J .
p
OA DUKE
B
V.
qv.
) l
24, '
/
/ x
cREE TAOIUU .?`
O ¦
?o R?
?
DUKE FOREST ?o
JO
?? C `
?a.
a4,Vw
? gCC/S ?Gr
m
ROAD /
J
Wtill'FIELD AN
E)MiA?-
PICKETT AD

? SOUTH R
S`
O Cf?.. O
OUARE UH1V.
1
MALL 4;

C1 APE1 H LL V t`
N
EASTO
•? .U a
CH
?
ay
z M -
-
AP
r
EL Z 0
f
HORACE
NIWAUS /
ROAD
o
AIRPORT

UTTLE
r J f
?c
N

1EV co

SZ. UNIV.
OF G
N N.C. RALEIG NG

/

' H
ROA 94
•ENAN STADUI O AD
Gr
I NC
?3\
eyAt ?? '
SS U
OSRTALS DEAN E. SMITH CENTERI
STUDY AREA
LIMITS
TIP U-2807A
EXHIBIT 1
HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE STUDY LIMITS US 15-501 STUDY AREA
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Natural Systems
The majority of significant wetlands, 100 year floodplains and natural areas are located
along New Hope Creek, Sandy Creek and Dry Creek. These areas are relatively
undisturbed due to the topography and floodplain and provides unique urban wildlife
corridor between Duke Forest, Eno River State Park, and Jordan Lake. Construction in
this area should be minimized as much as possible. Bottomiand hardwood wetlands
along New Hope Creek should be disturbed as little as possible. A section 404 Permit
for wetland disturbance from the US Army Corp of Engineers and a Section 401 Permit
from the Water Quality Section of the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management will be necessary for construction activities within these wetlands.
No recorded threatened and endangered species exist in the study area at this time.
However, since the threatened and endangered systems list is dynamic, it is
recommended that prior to final design approval of any improvements, the inventory
currently being prepared by Steve Hail of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program be reviewed.
If threatened and:endangered species are found, avoidance of this area is recommended.
4.2 Cultural Resources
Four (4) historic structures and twelve (12) archaeological sites have been identified within
the study boundaries. None of these structures or sites are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
One historic structure, the Wm. N. Patterson is listed on the State Study List with notations
that it would be eligible for inclusion on the National Registry. This structure and its
surrounding area should be avoided in selecting locations for transportation improvements.
16
All archaeological sites identified within the study have not fully evaluated to determine
National Registry eligibility: Therefore any archaeological site affected by US 15/501
Transportation Improvements should be evaluated by an archaeological reconnaissance
to determine National Registry eligibility prior to construction of the improvement.
Many greenways and three (3) parks are proposed for the study area. It is felt that these
greenways and parks can become an asset to the communities of Chapel Hill and
Durham, and if developed properly could provide not only recreational facilities but also
a safe, energy efficient, and healthy means to travel about the study area via walking or
on bicycle. It is therefore recommended that any traffic improvement design investigate
this alternative means of travel.
One (1) school, two (2) churches, and four (4) cemeteries exist within the study boundary
and should be avoided during routing of any transportation improvements if possible.
1 4.3 Underground Storage Tanks
Eleven (11) underground storage tanks have been identified within the study boundary.
The age of the tanks and their physical composition have also been identified however,
exact location and structural integrity of these tanks have not been determined. It is
recommended that during the preliminary design of the selected transportation
improvement alternative, all effected properties possessing underground storage tank(s)
be screened and that the tank(s) be located and tested to determine if they are presently
leaking. Past evidence of leakage should also be determined by the collection and
analysis of soil and ground water samples in the vicinity of the tank(s).

17
4.4 Social Concerns
Section 2 of this document describes factors which illustrate the need for improved
transportation system in the Durham/Chapel Hill study area. Traffic pattern and volumes
indicate that the existing US 15/501 Corridor between the Franklin Street Interchange and
the Durham Bypass Interchange is experiencing undesirable levels of service. The
existing 1-40/US 15-501 Interchange coupled with the availability of undeveloped land
along US 15/501 provides desirable areas for commercial development which will
undoubtedly increase traffic in the area even more.
Area residents are already experiencing the results of traffic congestion along US 15/501
due to the increased volume of 'cut through' traffic in residential areas. Associates with
this increase traffic is the increased speed of vehicles moving through the neighborhood.
Since the majority of the study area is without sidewalks or bicycle lanes pedestrians and
cyclists are concerned for their safety when using roadways in the area.-
Residents request that any transportation improvements proposed for the area consider
eliminating 'cut through" traffic, installing sidewalks and bicycle lanes to enhance public
safety and consider aesthetics in the design so as to minimize loss of property valves.
l
_ 18
NOV 15 '96 11:57AM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LRKE TEL:919-52U-9839
Nov 07'95
P.2/4
7:33 No.004 P.c5
Nortfh eno? = Wildlife Resources Co icon m _
512 N. snusbury stmct, 56 h, Nora CBtiab& 27604.1188, 919733.3391
Charles R. nliwcxad, Ex=dve Director
MFMORANDZ JM
TO: Mclba Mc(jcc
Office of 1,08414tive and Intergovernmental Affairs, DH NR
FROM: David cox, Highway Project Cao tar
Habitat Conservation
progr
DATE: November 7
199cS
SUBJECT: Requast for information from the N. C.')eP t 0n1 Of Transportation
(NC;DOT) tegardin fish and wildlife Mcerns for US 151501, between
Durham and Chapel Hill, Durham and Orange counties, North Carolina,
TIP No. U-2807A, SCH Project No. 97.0277.
This memorttildum responds to a request from Mr. U. Franklin Vick o! the
NCDOT ror our uoncerns regards q impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
tha subject project. Biologists on the Staff Of the N. C. Wildlife Resources CoMt1liSYion
(NCWRC) heve reviewed tdio proposed improvements, and Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Natimigi Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish acid Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amcndcd; 16
U.S.C. 661.6674).
After attonding the so4p111g mccting for tl,fs project and reviewing the information
provided, we have the fallowing comments.
The New Hopa Creek Corridor is a very important wildlife navel corridor.
This stream system and vegetated riparian buffer links thip Now dope
04mlolunds with Dukc Forest. We would expect use of this Corridor by mink,
muskrat, otter, least weasel, be4v0r, raccoon, opossum, gray fox, whitc-Lailed
door, and possibly bobcat. Forested fluodplaiins are also very importri.t for
amphibians and reptiles. These wooded stream Corridonq are also the pref=Ted
lsabitat ofmany species ofnoutropical migratory sangbirds. The impacts of
any now k,catimi altarnativos on these smas should be thoroughly cv4tluatod,
]'pore are two gr"11-tree waterfowl impoundments within the study area,
These are located oil tho Jordan ganiclands on Little Creek said Now 14ope
CrcoIs. These areas should be avoided, They receive cungidorrable use by
watorfowl hunters in the fall and winter, If the project crosses any portion of
NOV 15 '96 11:58AM EHNR•PUa-IC AFFAIRS P.3i4
NCWR , HCP , FRLLS LRKE TEL : [phone] Nov 07 ' 96 17:34 No. 004 P,07
Memo
November 7, 1996
these impoundments, the noire from the rail 1iliC would likely cau,5e aterflaw!
to
avuid the area,
3. WO anticipate (hat wetland in'Pacts would increase if the project wore
constructed through the Corrpps of Engineers (Cpl) ppro arty associated with
Jordan Lake, NCDOT ahei, d investigate the COP, 1, that lies within the
study area to see if this property was acquired as mitigation land for the
construction of Jordan Take, If this is the case, we will appose any
CncraachMCM into this Property.
4. NCDOT should avoid the area known as the Mason Farm Proserve which is
maiumined by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as part of the
botanical gardens,
In addition to the s Oeif c concerns and recommendations stated abovo, c)ur
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of f'sshery altd wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of tederally or state designated threatenW, ondangored, or
special concern spc:ojes. Potential borrow areas to be used for pro ject
construction
%'hould be included in the inventories. A listing cif designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Prograrn
N. C. ,bivisiOn of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA? Plant Conservation Program
P. C, Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Doseription of any Strc=s or wetlands affected by the project. The nood for
c:hannelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the
activities extent of such
.
3. Cover type maps Showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland €lureage5 should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of dito:hing, other drainage, or filling for project
Construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S, Army Carps of Engineers (COE). If the CO is
not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing wroages of upland wildlife habitat impacts tl by the
Proposed paliect. Potential borrow sites should be itlcl«ded,
5. The Cxtent 1.o wiliah the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
NCEIJR_NOVr1o t96 of-MLEHNR L;Y19_,v-9FF339
.. Menlo
P.4/4
Nov 07'96 17:34 N0.004 P.08
3 November 7, 1996
6. Mitigation for a itat
do radatinn i q minimizing Qr compensating for direct and indircc:t
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. a cumulative itupact $sscssment soodorl which analyzes the onvironmentaI
effects Afhighway COUBEWctiOn and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to cnvirornnenral degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources whicl3 wi II Yewit
from secondary development i'aGjlfWed by the improved road access.
9- "'cor strue"On of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development pwiects, a description of these projects should be -
included in the onvironmental dOGtu Ont, 9md all proJcct SPO"sors should be
identified.
Thank yot: for the uppartunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
tills pr+ aML if WO can furelarr assist yoiu
Project Coordinator,at(9l9)528-9$$6af#iae, please Contact David Cox, Highway
,
cc-': Hownrd IlLil I, U, S. Fish and Wildlifo Service, Raleigh
O ? ? A
0 01a
?gA;
c
n
c a 3 O) : a
CD
a ?
a
° c
'? cD
_a A+.. .. O Q -
CL? C
= O
O
M Co g
?p 0 co 'a* O C
3 .. cD rt- C71
IV ncd? O in O? O• Z
0 o'
1 a psi o CL cCD V1 0
CL r4 G)
O N y CA 0
y
O ?.
.h 0 o O
0-4 p0
w Z
w ??
3
24
W N
?O N
O
C _
M -1
M CO
Z o c0 0
Z ow 0 a
?y ?` $.
X tD O ?O ,
Coco
-a ML CL
N N
O
8= c Ur) 5 naga s EX Om -1008 C
53 Q C:3° ° (° V, ?y
n co O O O n
m
C
? ,
,p Z C
Z O O p p C 3 O ..
m
o,a g o m y m,m CD M W
0
? ?, O
CO
co)
oo ? -1 =
&C ° ?- 3
o O ;
3'0??.
? ??a? 8 Q ; ??=? 8oz
M( ? M

a

O)

?0 to - w°a p U) 0 •°n93-°i ?&?
CL Q o? O •` Z
G? c?? ,? cNmm O
=
?D A Z
(D
=5D = =(o ma aim 0 MOOR
°? o
c a a -4° O -
6
0 c
y CD r z cv c 9QO O A
m CD O O

O z
0
f fD (p o v o, y
N
m ?m ?
m Qca
=?
r.L
O
_ ?. N Y /^/
P? m L?
m
m? ? •n° n •» m a m -C
Em
-
? 117?177
C
CO) a O
co 3
?? O
c°
D
C TODD ac W
(D CD
C!
3 S y
5 S . e a a$ ai >5
?cD c
__.
?.
O
Z
0
O C p, m? Ul m .< O
a s Rqa .M < aB_? v
..<..`0
n,Q8

y
/
O
<
Q 0 :1 (i5
M
gi
F.. 3 8 m
a
0.33. a CD
_
O
s
oo
, 9
FY 0 (A
m am a? c n< Z a? nm a? ?° O <c n
_ ^
YI
a c m 200
O?C<L S1zo ? m
0°.-D fl-
B
n•
<
ac p3° o
o m _
m 0 tD O
.
?
,
3
"
_°-N'a cra m 'a g N ?? Py N
0
° 3 ?<p 0 p C p? m O
Q p n O C 13 fr3 y 3. m O? .p?. m (C O
a y r?y.
a O C' (Q N. p m O °?' m `.y
d V
O
O
_
(I DD ?? D m = °

=r r-L
- j
p°
8 0 12 a?° 2 n > a as o -3 ° N cC) CO
cp

?
:3
W, o
n o
er zpaa 2L
i3

n
5a
a?
3
"

...
A)
CL

?.
`
s
m???. .<
M
a o o m
m = a O
m
c,
n
N ?•
r. ul
0
a
z
M
b
I'
a (1)
Cl)
?. r
00
i-+ M
W
N
r
O
(al 1
n '
b
0
rno
N
O

4- = m
oC`° >
t o
°
?
N

l
cv
N
u
?
c
o
e
C N
O > Q) . +
t `?-
?C a N CU O

C
'? •tr 'a„ g N m cLa 0'
1 - O
l O >? c cu m
m cu o? te
a`) E %
3-6 o
N N
=O
W
$? W O =
= cu
cu 2
?`4 I E
? ¦ °
' j.:., a>
H mo wo??
a) ro 2 ,-
NcO m?
gc+ ' 00 N t t3 U?
1
a) N H
E c>? Vi O 0 O N 40 -
cu m *?' >> (D E? a) _= L 3 N C t0 +?0. y C a A CO C O
r. $ w sa
C ca Q) m to O Qj
> p E a) m a) N 3 'Q F- ° a E C
ca ?«- > 3 O a C iv cp c t0 ¦) ' ar Q `o •• W W S m Q ' E C a
N aNi??a3c?_ 'o,mtum°i me °?c o?ccu?c
O ca t... C
> •E o= a) •? > t?6 r Z O W N -. C :U1 C'C C _. m Q. a a>
??co 04 O .5; "•.8 4 °°>?E• EcL E no(
tn«-cco c?=m9 aEiaQi ?'O,?+ viQ.?' v°', c aci3? om?ov BCD
C o o` > Co Ewa cv c c ar m c?c
V a
N m N Q) ca L ;? 10 V t 'E' 6 c t c co Q) N 0 F-
c .. m G. C S c a, a p m a? w
?L, •E m.c• c N Ny E 0,09 cc N ?yp?C LL Wa Ea o EE. nca 123 ?nE?t8
co?.3MoEc?'> mwtn?? Ea? E o?veDl a, of E?Z occ.a.e a>o
?•• °cN a a°m oO?a=?3 0? a? ?,c?,.? t ..c ?? u>Ogac>a
n .• = O vi w N N ?, •- ;= M. oO O ft > +I= jZ. D w w U m e °= c >? L6 U C? E
C6 ?j E LA = N O O I. W fl. n+ C C? 4r W w C ° '? C
C 4_ O Q) > E N O c_ N . o Q O Q m W a fn rA >-
p LJ' e C O E o ?i to oc 3 ca n_ G~ d m R- m >,g o m o0
c: t. Lo
(D 8 'm 0- 8 0 o d E' ? Q wt C o
?._ E? c??._>tn jE 1V
oa c4 0 I-.. Lb cu E 6
aE._.-
N p m
m > m o ° y
fl +r I? O O Y O E L I
CD I
U p E 0) E ; C o Q CD
a
cu > w a o° ?i c E c cca 'm
CL n m m c >a p t S
-i-ww p •+ °
c as E
v I
2 .2 cu LD
m amaa O 3 O C ccO
?N? =r°8E cNE Z C ?' °? vim
C t>
., c0 .0 C C t0 y p 1
2 "J
°? QaNiamEiE ?O So I?
(n CU l*_
CU CU CL
mL ° ?p °N
CD D t.>?,a
o_ Z E,c .0
c
C '- to Nj t0f Or .? C Z I Cl)
•rta
0 0'o ° HL? c 3 O J:F I4w
N
S2 (D i5
0 -C .0 J
4- C,
a 's o '. 0 Lo CL
Z m cr3 >•r
'mCu?? L O w O? CL E
W 0-0 Co v I
y rn Q,l?nt 8 o I?
v°?(DQd) oa) z)E O a??o I ?
E > c a) ? ?' .E z.? c ca NCO I _
t o LC = E ?C p .a O '? C E Q N N I L 41 4)
L
W fl m 3 8- 0 C(DM - N U O § O_ O ,O a.? L to Q, 10
> Co Zco? c as •a OO N? wrn I•?
05 CU EL E E >, CL cr-u
'D cu
CL 0 %E
0 o C 8 a cio?rna? C9?QiEG.JS J?°cmr6
:E E W)
(D 0) t5
z w = ILp z
N ,? N Z C) I r
c -? u5 c-
ca Y
o ' in ? t c Co N a) o c p Cd LO
`n _ o
°? ° m
cu
m ca '? La?c Q ? I
?-o mCD o N E m e Cc u? I
c a? a ,r E rno c°3 a> °E.`o I
cgt
CD - ?Nto ;? •°aNN 9 Na?cE OO
(D 2 cu 0
a) m - 0. CLF- -0 (D CL Cl)
O
?a???F-c`2 cui?o?? c c?E? °Z° I c
3 ctx
(0 E -W c ;v a-g c • E cL I c
E? v°i EL a o
Cc m.. c ,:5 m m i.c c a? 40c c ca >- I c
2
> ?[ b M Q o. co cca O C C .0 > m
0) -p CU cu cc U) (D 3m v I cQ I &
L O C y C E O O_ QC N O cu = I a V0. r .
4 O p O E E Q ca m `.• V M Q i9 :g I O m
E N
v o,,•N? €o.0E Ea'aa? o E o
¢° Efl?w ?Ev caa'nc?a alc Fp?E -Z 0 a
L------ - -

o
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
cl
01
L) aJ