U-3105

N. C.-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO
• - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
1h
n -Y
L
FROM.: `- REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE '.? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? 'NOTE ANp RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS. ? FOR YOUR. APPROVAL.
?NOTE AND SEE .ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNA TURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION' ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

n ,,??++}}ems pro
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
February 26, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NoRRis TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 APPLICATION TO IMPROVE THE
INTERSECTION OF SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD) AT SR 2220 (CHAPEL
HILL ROAD) AND WIDEN CHAPEL HILL ROAD EAST TO THE MULTI-
LANE SECTION OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE IN DURHAM, DURHAM
COUNTY, TIP NO. U-3105.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to improve
the Intersection of SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road) and widen Chapel
Hill Road east to the multi-lane section of University Drive in Durham. The total project distance
s 0.73 miles. The analysis of alternatives and the environmental impacts are discussed in a
Categorical Exclusion Planning Document signed, March 3. 1997 by the Federal Highway
Administration.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands. The project will impact one small 0.06 acres wetland.
Vegetation in this 10 by 30 foot area is composed of beakrush, seed box, and black willow. No
mitigation is proposed for this impact.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters will occur at three
sites and total 190.24 linear feet. The streams are itemized in Table 1. None of the impacts will
exceed 150 linear feet. No mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
I ABLE 1. U-3105 Surface Water Impacts
Site Water Body Channel Impact (linear feet)
C 1 UT to New Hope Creek 65.6
C2 UT to New Hope Creek 26.24
C3* UT to New Hope Creek 98.4
Totals 190.24
* Stream C3 was not located in the CE Document. Its location is shown on the attached map.
fir
666! r 8VW _.<
t

Threatened and Endangered Species. As of January 15, 1999, the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) are the only federally-protected species listed for Durham County. A search of the
NHP Database of Rare and Protected Species and Unique Habitats revealed no record of the bald
eagle within the project vicinity. Also, due to the narrow scope of the project, prior disturbance,
and lack of large water resources in the project area, nesting and foraging habitat for the bald
eagle will not be affected by construction. A plant-by-plant survey for the smooth coneflower
and Michaux's sumac was conducted on November 15, 1996. No individuals of these two
species were found during the survey.
Cultural Resources. There are no historic or archaelogical sites within the area of
potential effect for this project. The N.C. Department of Cultural Resources recommended that
no further investigations be conducted.
It is requested that these activities will be permitted under a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 23. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting the appropriate 401 General Water
Quality Certifications from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact Mr. Tanner Holland at [phone].
Sincerely,
i C- ?? ??
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/teh
+.c: w/ attachment
1,1r. David Franklin, COE. Wilmington
vlr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. William Rogers, P.E.. Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whitt Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Ms. Beverly J. Grate, PD&EA
r

?1 h
?. yya
b pf

I
I

i ro
b
?
a
i
I
iC

N n

$ r?
o°

I
I
a b
0
,moo ti
o 'y
0
0
O
i
i
I
n?
I
h I
l I
1
1
I

$ + 1
vv
1

11
I.
I
I.
1
1

,
i

w
Durham County
SR 1116 (Garrett Road)
at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road)
Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6)
State Project No. 8.2352101
TIP Project No. U-3105
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Categorical Exclusion
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
2-28-97 t
Date for H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
,3/3/17
Date 0cholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Durham County
SR 1116 (Garrett Road)
at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road)
Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6)
State Project No. 8.2352101
TIP Project No. U-3105
Categorical Exclusion
February 1997
Document Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
??k' U , P"- Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
R'
1H CAR01,•
E AL
17282
oa, ••,•G/ WE,,.. o?
a It lost
i
TABLE CONTENTS
Page
.......................................................................................................... i
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 1
SUMMARY
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ....................................................................... 1
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements ............................................... I
I. Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 1
2. Capacity ....................................................................... 2
3. School Bus Data ................................................................... 2
4. Accident Analysis ................................................................. 2
5. Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................ 2
B. Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 3
1. Length of Roadway Studied Section ..................................... 3
2. Route Classification .............................................................. 3
3. Existing Cross Section .......................................................... 3
4. Existing Right of Way ........................................................... 3
5. Utilities ....................................................................... 3
6. Access Control ..................................................................... 4
7. Speed Limits ....................................................................... 4
8. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ................................ 4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. 4
A. Length of Project ....................................................................... 4
B. Cross Section ....................................................................... 4
C. Alignment .......................................................................5
D. Design Speed ..............
E. Right of Way ....................................................................... 5
F. Access Control ....................................................................... 5
G. Intersection Treatment ...................................................................... 5
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations .......................................... 5
1. Cost Estimate ....................................................................... 6
TABLE CONTENTS
r
Page
V. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION ........................................... .. 6
A. Design Alternative ..................................................................... .. 6
1. Cross Section ..................................................................... .. 6
2. Alignment ..................................................................... ..6
B. No-Build Alternative ..................................................................... .. 7
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................ .. 7
A. Land Use Planning ..................................................................... .. 7
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ...................................... .. 7
2. Existing Land Use ............................................................... .. 7
3. Existing Zoning ................................................................... .. 7
4. Future Land Use ................................................................. .. 7
5. Farmland ..................................................................... ..7
B. Social and Economic Environment .................................................. .. 8
1. Relocation Impacts ............................................................. .. 8
2. Social Impacts .................................................................... 10
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 10
D. Natural Systems ..................................................................... 10
1. Biological Resources ........................................................... 10
2. Water Resources ................................................................. 14
a. Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface
Waters .................................................................... 14
b. Best Usage Classification ......................................... 14
3. Water Quality ..................................................................... 15
a. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network........... 15
b. Point Source Discharge ........................................... 15 .
I
TABLE CONTENTS
. Page
4. Anticipated Impacts: Water Quality ................. .................... 15
5. Special Topics ................................................ .................... 16
a. Waters of the United States ................. .................... 16
b. Characteristics of Wetlands ................. .................... 17
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......... ..................... 17
d. Permits ................................................ .................... 17
e. Wetland Impacts Avoidance ................ .................... 18
f. Impact Minimization ............................ .................... 19
g. Wetland Mitigation .............................. .................... 19
6. Rare and Protected Species ................................................. 19
a. Federally Protected Species ..................................... 19
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
Species .................................................................... 20
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Involvement ............................... 22
1. Physiography ...................................................................... 23
2. Geology and Soils ............................................................... 23
3. Hazardous Material Inventory ............................................. 24
a. Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Facilities .......... 24
b. Other Potential Hazards .......................................... 25
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis ............... 26
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ............................ 26
H. Geodetic Markers ..................................................................... 27
I. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................... 27
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....... 27
VII. CONCLUSION .....................................................................27
FIGURES
APPENDIX
TABLE CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Existing Lane Configuration
Figure 4 Alternate 1 (Recommended) Intersection Configuration
Figure 5 Alternate 2 Intersection Configuration
Figure 6 1998/2018 Estimated ADT
List of Tables
Table 1 Federally Protected Species for Durham County ............................. 20
Table 2 Federal Species of Concern, Durham County .................................. 22
Table 3 Soils Occurring in the Project Area .................................................. 23
r
Durham County
SR 1116 (Garrett Road)
at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road)
Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6)
State Project No. 8.2352101
TIP Project No. U-3105
SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to improve the intersection of SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road) and
widen Chapel Hill Road east to the multi-lane section of University Drive in Durham.
The 1.2 km (0.73 mile) project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for fiscal year
(FY) 1997 and construction in FY 1998.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $3,200,000 which includes
$1,025,000 for right of way acquisition and $2,175,000 for construction. The TIP cost
includes $1,900,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,800,000 for construction.
Two alternative designs were studied for the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road
intersection. Alternate 1 has been recommended due to the requests by the City of
Durham and its added benefits to the intersection's capacity. See Figure 4 for the
recommended intersection configuration.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Widening Chapel Hill Road east and improving the intersection will have a positive
impact on the Durham area by increasing the traffic carrying capacity of the subject
intersection. Based on preliminary design, up to seven residents may require relocation.
As more accurate designs are prepared, efforts will be made to reduce the number of
relocations. No relocation of businesses is anticipated as a result of this project. No
recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be
involved.
3. SummgU of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical and
standard measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts as well as impacts
to the human environment. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management
Practices during construction. As further design is developed, efforts will be made to
minimize relocation of residences.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of this project:
Typical Section
As shown on Figures 4 and 5, two alternative designs were studied for this
intersection.
The basic difference in the two designs relates to provision of additional through-
lanes. Alternate 2 has additional through-lanes only in the eastbound direction. Figure 4
illustrates the recommended design of the intersection (Alternate 1). This involves
additional through-lanes in each direction.
Garrett Road and the west leg of Chapel Hill Road are two-lane facilities. The
widening of these facilities is not currently funded in the 1997-2003 Transportation
Program. Therefore, an alternative design (Alternate 2) was considered which does not
provide additional through-lanes in these directions. Figure 5 illustrates Alternate 2. The
recommended design provides additional through-lanes which will terminate within 213
meters (700 feet) of the intersection.
Construction costs for the recommended design are $350,000 more than Alternate
2. Alternate 1 has been recommended due to requests by the City of Durham and its
added benefits to the intersection's capacity.
No-Build
The no-build alternative was rejected because the existing facility will not
effectively serve the high volume of projected traffic at the intersection of Garrett and
Chapel Hill Road.
5. Coordination
project:
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U. S. Geological Survey
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
Triangle J Council Of Governments
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Durham
A citizens informational workshop was held on August 29, 1996 to obtain public
comments on the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
Durham County
SR 1116 (Garrett Road)
at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road)
Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6)
State Project No. 8.2352101
TIP Project No. U-3105
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to improve the intersection of SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road) and
widen Chapel Hill Road east to the multi-lane section of University Drive in Durham.
The 1.2 km (0.73 mile) project will require approximately 30.5 meter (100 feet) of
right of way at the intersection to accommodate improvements.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for fiscal year (FY) 1997 and
construction in FY 1998.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $3,200,000 which includes
$1,025,000 for right of way acquisition and $2,175,000 for construction. The TIP cost is
$3,700,000 which includes $1,900,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,800,000 for
construction.
Two alternative designs were studied for the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road
intersection. Alternate 1 has been recommended due to requests by the City of Durham
and its added benefits to the intersection's capacity. See Figure 4 for the recommended
intersection configuration.
H. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the
subject intersection.
Traffic Volumes
Projected traffic volumes for the subject intersection of Garrett Road and
Chapel Hill Road for the year 1998 range from 17;023 vehicles per day (vpd) on
Chapel Hill Road west, 13,346 vpd on Chapel Hill Road east, 16,677 vpd on
Garrett Road north and 11,692 vpd on Garrett Road south. Traffic volumes for
the year 2018 are projected to increase to 25,638 vpd, 21,577 vpd, 25,062 and
20,154 for the respective locations mentioned above. Projected traffic volumes,
major'turning movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 6.
2. Capacity
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed improvements to
predict the level of service (LOS) of the intersection. The existing intersection
currently operates at a level of service F. Without the proposed improvements this
intersection will continue to deteriorate.
Construction of Alternate 2 (Figure 5) would result in LOS D in 1998.
The recommended design (Alternate 1, Figure 4) yields a LOS C in 1998.
By the design year (2018), the recommended design is predicted to operate
at LOS C. Widening Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road west will be required by
this time.
3. School Bus Data
The proposed project will better accommodate the volume of traffic
accessing by Githens Middle School and Jordan High School.
Approximately 20 school buses use Chapel Hill Road and 12 use Garrett
Road with each bus making two trips per day.
4. Accident Analysis
Accident rates for Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road were analyzed
including accidents occurring within 45.7 meters (150 feet) of the intersection from
January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995. The accident rate for this studied
section is 1954 accidents per one hundred million vehicles miles. In comparison to
the statewide rate of 317 accidents per one hundred million vehicle miles for a two
lane undivided urban secondary route, Chapel Hill Road and Garrett Road are
significantly above the statewide rate. A total of 77 accidents occurred during the
three years mentioned above. Of these, 32 were rear-end type accidents occurring
at the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Garrett Road.
By improving the intersection's capacity the project should reduce its
accident potential.
5. Thoroughfare Plan
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was
adopted in 1991 by the City of Durham and 1992 by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road are both
classified as major thoroughfares on the Durham-Chapel Ell-Carrboro
Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed improvements to the intersection and the
widening of Chapel Hill Road east are in conformance with the thoroughfare plan
and construction of this project will be a step toward implementation of the
thoroughfare plan.
B. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Studied Section
The length of the studied section is approximately 1.2 km (0.73 mile). This
includes approximately 180 meters (590 feet) on each approach of Garrett Road,
includes 280 meters (919 feet) on Chapel Hill Road westbound, and 540 meters
(1772 feet) on Chapel Hill Road eastbound.
2. Route Classification
Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road are both classified as Urban Minor
Arterials on the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
3. Existing Cross Section
Both Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road are two-way, two-lane roads,
each with a pavement width of approximately 7.3 meters (24 feet), that has been
widened at the intersection.
At the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Garrett Road each leg is
approximately 11 meters (36 feet) from face to face of curbs. On Garrett Road
curb and gutter extends approximately 30.5-45.7 meters (100-150 feet) from the
intersection. On Chapel Hill Road east, curb and gutter extends approximately
121.9 meters (400 feet).
Beyond the curb and gutter Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road both have
grass shoulders varying from approximately 0.3 to 2.4 meters (1 to 8 feet).
4. Existing Right-of-Way
Existing Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road have approximately 12.2 to
18.3 (40 to 60) feet of existing right of way.
4
Utilities
The City of Durham has water and sewer service along Garrett and Chapel
Hill Road. There is a sewer outfall line along the creek just east of the intersection
of Garrett and Chapel Hill Road.
General Telephone Electronics (GTE) has underground telephone and
aerial services in this area. GTE also has fiber optic cable along the south side of
Chapel Hill Road east of the intersection extending south along the east side of
Garrett Road.
Duke power has aerial electrical service in the area along Chapel Hill Road
and Garrett Road. There is a major aerial utility pole located in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection that will require revisions.
Public Service Gas Company has a gas line along the north side of Chapel
Hill road west of the intersection and along the west side of Garrett Road north of
the intersection. There is a gas metering station in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection.
The utility impact rating is medium.
6. Access Control
No control of access exists along the project.
7. . Speed Limits
The current posted speed limit along Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road is
65 km/h (40 mph).
Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The existing Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection is signalized. Old
Chapel Hill Road intersects Chapel Hill Road east of Garrett Road. Old Chapel
Hill Road is currently stop sign controlled.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 1.2 km (0.73 mile).
B. Cross Section
The proposed cross section will consist of two through-lanes, one left turn lane
and one right turn lane on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches of the
subject intersection. The eastbound approach will consist of two through-lanes , one right
turn and two left turn lanes. Curb and gutter is proposed as a part of the recommended
improvements with a 3 meter (10-foot) berm along Garrett and Chapel Hill Road. Along
Garrett Road on both approaches and Chapel Road West, the curb and gutter section will
transition into a 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulder section (1.2 m (4-foot) paved). See Figure 4
for the recommended lane configuration.
Chapel Hill Road will be widened to a multi-lane facility from Garrett Road to the
existing multi-lanes on University Drive. A five lane section will be extended from Garrett
Road to Old Chapel Hill Road. North of Old Chapel Hill Road, the facility will transition
to match the median divided section of University Drive.
C. Alignment
The alignment for the project will be designed to facilitate future widening and to
minimize damage to adjoining properties.
D. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 70 km/h (45 mph). The posted speed limit is
expected to remain 65 km/h (40 mph).
E. Right of Way
Approximately 25 to 35 meters (82 to 115 feet) of right of way with construction
easements will be required to accommodate improvements to the intersection and the
widening of Chapel Hill Road.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
G. Intersection Treatment
The intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Old Chapel Hill Road is currently stop
sign controlled. A signal will be provided at this intersection with a left turn lane provided
in the westbound direction on Old Chapel Hill Road.
The existing signals at the Chapel Hill Road /Garrett Road intersection will be
revised to accommodate the new lanes.
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
AASHTO standard 4.26 meters (14-foot) outside lanes will be provided on the
curb and gutter section throughout the project limits. In areas of a shoulder section 1.2
meters (4 feet) paved shoulders will be provided for bicycle safety.
All disturbed sidewalks will be replaced as part of this project. New sidewalks will
be constructed on the northeast, and southeast quadrants of Chapel Hill Road extending
continuously from Garrett Road east to the project limit along University Drive.
Sidewalks will also be provided along Garrett Road fronting the BP and Circle K
convenience stores. Sidewalks will be placed as far back on the berm as possible.
Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements is $3,200,000 which includes
$2,175,000 for construction and $1,025,000 for right. of way acquisition.
1V. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Cross Section
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, two alternative designs were studied for this
intersection.
The basic difference in the two designs relates to the provision of additional
through lanes. Alternate 2 has additional through lanes only in the eastbound
direction. Figure 4 illustrates the recommended design of the intersection
(Alternate 1). This involves additional through-lanes in each direction.
Garrett Road and the west direction of Chapel Hill Road are two lane
facilities. The widening of these facilities is not currently funded in the 1996-2003
Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, an alternative design (Alternate
2) was considered which does not provide additional through-lanes in these
directions. Figure 5 illustrates Alternate 2. The recommended design provides
additional through-lanes which will terminate within 213 meters (700 feet) of the
intersection.
Construction costs for the recommended design are $350,000 more than
Alternate 2. Alternate 1 has been recommended due to request by the City of
Durham and its added benefits to the intersection's capacity.
7
2. Alignment
Because the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to the adjacent
properties, no alignment alternatives were considered.
B. No-Build Alternative
The existing lane configuration for the subject project currently operates at a
LOS F. With the no-build alternative and anticipated increase in volumes, the level of
service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel time. Therefore, the
no-build alternative has been rejected.
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planning
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed intersection lies within the planning and zoning jurisdiction
of Durham County. Durham County and the City of Durham adopted the Durham
2005: Comprehensive Plan in 1985 and adopted the Durham 2020 Update in 1995.
The County enforces zoning and subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is composed of a neighborhood and businesses. There are
convenience stores and a service station near the intersection. Residential uses
extend out from the project area. A trailer park is located behind the convenience
store on the southeast corner of the Chapel Hill Road/ Garrett Road intersection.
Single-family uses are located around the project vicinity.
Existing Zoning
The project area is zoned for Neighborhood Commercial uses on all
corners of the intersection except the southwest corner which is zoned residential.
4. Future Land Use
According to local planning officials, the project area is anticipated to
experience limited commercial growth. A drive-through Chinese restaurant is
proposed to be constructed in the project area. More residential growth is
expected around the project area.
Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact on prime or important farmland of all land
acquisition and construction activities. Because the land to be used for the
proposed project has been committed to future urbanized development by Durham
County, further consideration of farmland impacts under the Act is not required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
Relocation Impacts
The proposed action will require new right of way with the possibility of
seven residences requiring relocation due to the widening on Chapel Hill Road.
Relocation impacts are based on preliminary design and are subject to change upon
completion of a final design. During further design, attempts will be made to avoid
relocating residences; this may substantially lower the relocation count.
To help minimize impact of relocation NCDOT has a policy to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistant Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of
homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
displacement that will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of
higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership), the
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250
to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
9
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time prior
to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-
day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced
persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sales prices of replacement property
will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will
be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will
also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenants and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of
replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting
to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under
the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable
incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees,
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments,
and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except
under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
to
will be considered as income for the purposes of determining eligibility or the
extent of eligibility of any person assistance under the Social Security Act or any
other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation
by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since there appear
to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer facility for all users. In
addition the improvements will make a safer facility for the school traffic and other
commuters. Then proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion. It will
not interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources conducted a search of their
files and no structures of historical or architectural importance was found within the
planning area. Therefore, no survey was recommended for historic architectural
resources.
The N. C. Department of Cultural Resources also stated there are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based upon present knowledge of
the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
They recommended no archaeological survey be conducted as part of this project.
D. Natural Systems
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Communities
Two major terrestrial community types, disturbed and secondary growth
forest, exist within the project area. The disturbed communities, which include
roadside shoulders, utility corridors, agricultural fields, residential lawns and urban
landscapes, vary greatly with regards to vegetative composition. The disturbed
communities within the project area are dominated by a maintained roadside where
the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state, and includes a
11
variety of the residential and commercial landscaped areas. There are a few small
areas of secondary growth forest dominated by large trees which will also be
impacted by project construction.
Man Disturbed Community
The existing roadside shoulders throughout the project area vary in width
and thus in vegetative composition. These shoulder areas are regularly maintained
through mowing or herbicide application, and are dominated largely by fescue and
crabgrass. Occasionally this community grades sharply into a less maintained
community choked by Japanese honeysuckle and populated by forbs and shrubs
including broom sedge, privet, goldenrod, fleabane, rabbit tobacco, and dog fennel.
Occasional small saplings such as sweetgum, loblolly pine, and red cedar also
occur on the roadside.
Just inside the right of way (ROW) limits the disturbed roadside
community grades into a disturbed second growth forest containing occasional
larger canopy trees including dogwood, American elm, winged elm, black oak,
southern red oak, white oak, and loblolly pine. Sparse riparian vegetation includes
sycamore and willow oak.
One small area of disturbed roadside habitat meets the requirements for a
jurisdictional wetland.
Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat, however numerous opportunistic animals use this area as
long as a foraging zone, or as a passage-way between forested habitats. Species
found here are able to adapt to the "edge" habitat created by human activity. This
edge is actually an ecotone between communities.
Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds, berries and insects.
Some of these species include: the northern cardinal, American robin, and white-
throated sparrow. Snakes such as the black racer and eastern garter snake may
venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon*, frequently forage nocturnally in these
habitats, or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often
roadkill victims. Consequently roadkills attract a large number of scavenger
species including turkey vulture and common crow, as well as domestic dogs and
cats.
12
Terrestrial Communities Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due
to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of the
community area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect
the relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Approximately 2.2 ha (5.5 ac) of the disturbed roadside community and 0.4 ha
(I. I ac) of the secondary growth forest will be impacted by project construction.
Estimated impacts are derived based on the total length of the project 1.6 km
(1 mile) and the entire proposed right of way width of 25 to 35 in (82 to 115 feet).
However, project construction often does not require the entire ROW; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
The plant communities found along the project alignment serves as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat
initially displaces fauna from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a smaller
area, which causes over utilization and degradation of the habitat. This ultimately
lowers the carrying capacity of the remaining habitat and is manifested in some
species as becoming more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals closely associated with
the ground (snakes, small mammals, etc.), from construction machinery used
during this project. Because of their visibility, highway mortality of game species
such as deer and rabbit is well documented. However, reptiles and amphibians as
well as birds and small mammals are very susceptible to roadkill. Although
roadway mortality is generally not believed to significantly effect animal
populations under normal conditions, if the population is experiencing other
sources of stress (disease, habitat degradation/elimination, etc.), traffic-related
mortality can be significant to the population demise.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, Piedmont Intermittent Stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Community composition of this community is
reflective of physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of the
water sources. Community structure is also greatly influenced by the adjacent
terrestrial communities.
Intermittent streams which have interruption of flow during dry intervals,
however most retain pools somewhere along their course. In the southeast United
States, these dry periods are usually associated with summer months. Faunal
composition of these streams is greatly influenced by climatological events, and
can vary from year to year.
13
Despite being dry for considerable periods of time, many of these streams
have diverse communities. Animal species which populate these streams have
adapted several mechanisms to combat drying conditions. No aquatic species were
observed during the site visit due to the time of year and the low air temperatures
on the survey date. Many early-emerging insects which have aquatic life stages
utilize intermittent streams. These insects lay their eggs early in the wet seasons
(late fall-early winter), to ensure that developmental stages take place while the
streams still carry water. These species complete metamorphosis and emerge from
the stream before it dries in the summer. Other insects have eggs or nymph stages
which can survive long periods of drought, and can aestivate, or remain dormant
during the summer months.
Other species survive by borrowing down into the substratum. These
include flatworms, nematodes, crayfish, snails and other invertebrates, as well as
salamanders which burrow in dry months, or move to wetter areas.
Some areas of these streams may retain water during the dry months,
however without continual flow, these pools become very warm and have low
oxygen concentrations. Species populating these pools, which include crayfish,
snails, flatworms and some fish (bluegill), have some physiological adaptations to
withstand extreme temperatures and low oxygen levels.
Many fish will move into intermittent streams when water returns, often to
spawn. Bluegill, creek chub and some shiners are often the first species to re-
invade a stream once water returns. Spawning in these streams runs the risk of
young being stranded when the streams dry out. Therefore intermittent stream
spawners usually spawn early, or they are able to survive in low oxygenated pools.
Aquatic Community Impacts
Research in North Carolina Piedmont streams has shown that water quality
and biota is greatly effected by land use. Streams in urbanized settings have
comparatively lower water quality and corresponding lower biotic diversity than
streams in forested areas.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial
organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles and
amphibians. It also serves as a means of predator avoidance for many animals.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro and
micro alga, are particularly sensitive to construction activities physically disturb the
substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of these aquatic
organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area, because they require a
stabilized substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to
develop, therefore, changes in community composition will occur.
14
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food
chain, can be greatly effected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended
particles in the water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing
available light. Clogging of the feeding apparati of suspension feeders and burial
of newly settled larvae of these organisms, are other effects of siltation. These
species are often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major step in the
aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may directly effect organisms
higher in the food chain, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some effects of siltation, however
gills of fish, crustaceans and larval amphibians and insect forms can become
clogged and dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for
these mobile species may become filled with sediment, diminishing reproductive
success and inevitably reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic
ecosystems. Best management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters,
must be strictly adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies
impacted by this project.
2. Water Resources
Physical Characteristics of Impacted. Surface Waters
Two streams, both unnamed tributaries to New Hope Creek, will be
impacted by project construction. C1, the southernmost creek, originates
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi.) upstream of the project and flows in a
northwesterly direction to its confluence with C2, just before it joins New
Hope Creek. C2, the northernmost creek, originates with two smaller
creeks which both have their origins approximately 1.6 km (1 mi. )
upstream of the project crossing. Each stream flows underneath the
project through reinforced concrete pipe. Both creeks, at their project
crossings are 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) wide and have substrates composed of
sand riprap, brick, concrete, metal and pieces of glass. Substrates
elsewhere in the creeks were dominated by sand and gravel, with some
cobble. The flow during the site visit was minimal, and the stream was
highly degraded. Riparian vegetation was sparse and was dominated by
sycamore.
b. Best Usage Classification
. Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ, formerly the Division of Environmental
Management). The best usage classification for unnamed tributaries is the
same as that applied to the named section into which the unnamed
is
tributaries flows. This classification scheme allows for protection of waters
downstream from the unnamed and intermittent streams. The Best Usage
Classification for the two unnamed tributaries crossed by the project is C
with the supplemental classification NSW. Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters)
refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs).
3. Water Quality
a. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
managed by DWQ, is part of an on-going ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring site throughout the state. Such
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality; thus,
the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections
of water quality. There are no BMAN sites in the project area; however,
within the project vicinity there is one sampling site in New Hope Creek,
approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi.) downstream of the project at the SR 2220
bridge. This site received a BMAN rating of fair in March 1987.
b. Point Source Discharge
Point source Discharges located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
There are four NPDES permitted dischargers present within the project
vicinity. All four are single-family residential permittees and discharge into
unnamed tributaries to New Hope Creek, however, none are located on
either of the two streams passing through the project area.
4. Anticipated Impacts: Water Quality
Potential Impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation,
decreases of dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature which may result from
constructed in and around the water bodies in the project area.
Sedimentation is the most serious threat to waters impacted by the
proposed action. Studies have shown that during roadway construction, there is
direct correlation between the amount of suspended particles in the stream channel
with the amount of clearing and grubbing activity, embankment modification and
project duration. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to aquatic flora and fauna,
16
but even small accumulations of material can change many of a stream's physical
characteristics. Sedimentation of the stream channel causes changes in stream
course and discharge, which may lead to increased streambank scour and erosion.
Sedimentation also leads to increased turbidity of the water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation
result in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is crucial for maintaining
streambank stability, controlling erosion and buffering water temperature, as well
as contributing a significant food source to the stream ecosystem.
Additionally, modification of the forested communities adjacent to the
water bodies crossed can disrupt the hydrological continuity of those stream
systems and increase the amount of toxins in the water. Clearing and grading of
these communities will cause changes in ground and surface water exchanges
between the associated streams. Landscape modification of the forested
communities will reduce the natural storage and infiltration of rainwater in the
community, which leads to increased peak stream flow and a greater potential of
toxins reaching the stream.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including
various metals (lead, zinc, iron, etc.,), nutrients (Nitrogen, phosphorus) and
petroleum. The sources of these runoff constituents range from construction and
maintenance activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway runoff to
aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood. Some species demonstrate little
sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while other species are much more
sensitive. The levels of toxins and the duration of the exposure are major factors
determining the ecosystem's response to runoff. Pollutant concentrations of
receiving waters are directly related to traffic volume. It is apparent that highway
runoff can significantly degrade the quality of the receiving bodies, which in turn
significantly affects the ecosystems present.
Special Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 in accordance
with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
One wetland and two small streams will be affected by project
construction.
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications
must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma), 2) presence of
17
hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including ; saturated
soils, water stained leaves, oxidized rhizopheres, matted vegetation, high
water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
b. Characteristics of Wetlands
One small 0.03 ha (0.06 acre) wetland is present within the project
area. Vegetation in this 3.0 by 9.1 meter (10 by 30 feet) area is composed
of beakrush, seed box, and black willow. Soils presented hydric indicators
including low chroma values and mottling. Soil colors were 10YR3/3 from
0-4 in, 10YR3/2 with 10YR6/8 mottles from 4-8 in , and 10YR7/1 with
10YR8/8 and 3/2 mottles from 8-16 in. Standing water was present at the
time of the site visit, and there is a ditch along Garrett Road that feeds the
wetland.
C. Summary, of Anticipated Impacts
All of the wetland area of 0.03 ha will be impacted by project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived based on the total project
length of 1.6 km (1 mile) and the entire proposed right of way width of 25
to 35 m (82 to 115 ft). However, project construction often does not
require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
d. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the project.
This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency
or department where that agency or department has determined the
pursuant to council on environmental quality regulation for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
18
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will also be required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of
the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
The COE District Engineer is required to determine whether any
activity, covered by the General Permitting Process, will result in more than
minimal adverse environmental effects. If the District Engineer determines
that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then
the engineer will notify the prospective permittee either:
(1) that the project does not qualify for authorization under
nationwide permit and that the permittee seek authorization under a
pre-discharger notification (PDN) or an individual permit, or;
(2) that the project is authorized under the nationwide permit
subject to the permittee submitting a mitigation proposal that would
reduce the adverse environmental effects to the minimal level.
e. Wetland Impact Avoidance
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must
be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According
to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should
be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Impact to the study site wetlands is unavoidable. No
alternatives have been planned.
19
f. Impact Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Additional means to minimize impacts to the waters and wetlands
crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of BMP's for
the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project;
reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas;
reduction or elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of in-stream
activity and litter and debris control.
g. Wetland Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
appropriate impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of
wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has occurred. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United
States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site.
Project authorized under Nationwide Permits usually does not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency or the
Department of the Army. The final decision on permit requirements will be
made by the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna or flora have been, or are currently, in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with
human development. Federal law (under provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Information concerning the occurrence of
20
federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS
list of protected and candidate species (23 August 1996). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with the federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Three protected species are
listed by the FWS as occurring in Durham County (Table 1). A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat of each federally protected
species follows Table 1.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle T
Echinacea laevi ata smooth coneflower E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E*
"E" Endangered: a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
"T" Threatened: a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
"*" No specimen from Durham County found in the past twenty-three
years (1973-1996)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) T
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to seacoasts, rivers and
large lakes. They usually occur within a half mile of open water, in the
largest living tree area. The nesting trees usually have a clear flight path to
the water, and open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can
cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season
for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Due to the narrow scope of the project, prior disturbance, and lack
of large water resources in the project area, nesting and foraging habitat for
the bald eagle will not be affected by construction. In addition, a search of
21
the NHP Database of Rare and Protected Species and Unique Habitats
revealed no record of the bald eagle within the project vicinity. This
project will not affect the bald eagle.
Echinacea laev_ igata (smooth coneflower) E
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or
branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The
basal leaves are the largest, and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough,
tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves
have short or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are
light pink to purplish in color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually
droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows,
open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights of
way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil
derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are
found in soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock.
Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition
from other herbaceous plants.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
A plant-by-plant survey for the smooth coneflower was conducted
in potential habitats within the project area by NCDOT biologist Tim
Savidge on 15 November 1996. Prior to this survey a known population of
smooth coneflower was visited to determine if identification was possible
from remnant plant material. Plants in the known population were easily
identified by the dried seed heads, which still remain on many of the upright
stems. Although habitat for smooth coneflower does exist within the
project area, much of it is regularly maintained through mowing and/or
herbicide application. The search for this species was concentrated in those
areas where disturbance was less intense. The survey revealed no smooth
coneflower plants within the project area. In addition, a search of the NHP
database revealed no records of this species in the project vicinity. This
project will not effect the smooth coneflower.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Michaux's sumac is densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color.
Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a
red densely short-pubescent drupe.
22
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac
is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its
habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand
or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other
species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the project area. A
plant-by-plant survey of the project area was completed by NCDOT
biologist Tim Savidge 15 November 1996. No Michaux's sumac was
found during this survey. In addition, a search of the NC National Heritage
Program Database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no
records of Michaux's sumac within the project area. The subject project
will not effect this species.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 2 lists Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Durham County,
the species status (if afforded protection) and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. FSCs are species of concern
which may or may not be listed in the future, but are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as
Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Special Concern (SC), or Candidate (C)
by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection or monitors under the State
Endangered Species Act and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern, Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic i oe T n
Gom hus se tima Se tima's clubtail SR n
Lam silis cariosa yellow lam mussel T n
Lasmi ona subviridis green floater E n
Somato rus vir inicus panhandle ebblesnail SR n
Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur E-SC n
Monotro sis odorata sweet inesa C n
Pla iochila columbiana a liverwort C n
23
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program data base of rare and protected
species and unique habitats revealed no records for the above listed species in the project
study area. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed.
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Physiography
Durham County is located in north-central North Carolina, in the Piedmont
physiographic province. The topography of the county is predominantly rolling,
but also exhibits steep slopes parallel to major streams. The average elevation
within the project area is approximately 82.3 m (270 ft). Current land use within
the project region is primarily urban/suburban and commercial.
2. Geology and Soils
The soils within the project area are all part of the White Store-Creedmoor
association. These soils can be generally described as gently sloping to moderately
steep and well drained with the subsoil consisting of dominantly firm and very firm
clay. This soil association is found in upland areas. Table 3 provides an inventory
of the specific soil types which occur in the project area. A brief description of
each soil series is also provided following the table.
Table 3. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map Unit
Symbol Specific Mapping Unit Slope
(%) Erosion
Hazard Hydric
Class Site
Index'
WsC White Store sand loam 6-10 slight NH 70
WsE White Store sand loam 10-25 slight NH 70
CrB Creedmoor sandy loam 2-6 slight to
moderate NH 80
Note: NH indicates Non-hydric soils
1 Site Index is defined as the expected average height in feet of the
dominant trees in an even aged stand at 50 years of age. Site index
given is for loblolly pine.
The White Store Series consists of nearly level to moderately steep,
moderately well drained soils on uplands. The landscape is one of rounded divides
and steep side slopes. The soils formed under forest vegetation, in material
weathered from Triassic Mudstone. The major limitations for use of this soil are
the erosion hazard from runoff, very slow permeability, steep slopes, high shrink-
swell potential, and a perched water table.
24
The Creedmoor Series consists of gently sloping and sloping, moderately
well drained soils on uplands. The landscape is one of rounded divides. As with
the White Store Series, these soils formed in the residuum from Triassic Mudstone.
The major limitations governing the use of this soil includes wetness, very slow
permeability, and the erosion hazard resulting from runoff and slope.
3. Hazardous Material Inventory
a. Underground Storage Tank UST Facilities
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted on all legs of the
existing intersection of SR 1116 (Garrett Road) and SR 2220 (Chapel Hill
Road). A survey was also conducted along existing SR 2220 (Old Chapel
Hill Road) from east of the Garrett Road intersection to the existing multi-
lane section of University Drive. A file search of all appropriate Federal
and State Agencies was conducted to determine if any known
environmental hazards are currently present along the proposed project
alignment.
Site 1
Circle K # 4656
4161 Chapel Hill Road
Durham, NC 27707
UST Owner: Circle K Stores, Inc.
P. O. Box 52085
Phoenix, AZ 85072
Facility ID #: 0-015071
This operational gasoline station/convenience store is located in the
southeastern quadrant of the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection.
According to the field reconnaissance and the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) files there are currently four USTs in use at this
facility. These tanks are constructed of steel with cathodic protection.
They contain gasoline and have storage capacities ranging from 6,000 to
10,000 gallons. The tank bed is situated approximately 21.3 meters (70
feet) from the centerline of existing Garrett Road. This site does not
appear to be under remediation at this time.
Site 2
Abandoned Gas/Service Station
4203 Chapel Hill Road.
Durham, NC 27707
25
UST Owner: Edith D. Darnell
4211 Chapel Hill Rd.
Durham, NC 27707
Facility ID: Unknown
This non-operational gas/service station is located in the
southwestern quadrant of the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection.
The field reconnaissance suggests that at least two (2) USTs are currently
on the property. This is evidenced by the presence of fill ports, vent pipes,
and former dispenser pump locations. The DEM files were consulted for
tank information, however, none could be found. The closest UST is
approximately 7.6 meters (25 feet) from the existing centerline of Chapel
Hill Road. This site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
Site # 3
Hope Valley BP
4148 Chapel Hill Road
Durham, NC 27707
UST Owner: M. M. Fowler, Inc.
P. O. Box 1090/600
Durham, NC 27703
Facility ID #: 0-033691
This operational gas station/convenience store is located in the
northeastern quadrant of the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection.
According to the field reconnaissance and DEM files, there is currently one
(1) active USTs at this site. This double-wall tank has a storage capacity
of 20,000 gallons and contains gasoline. The UST is situated
approximately 21.3 meters (70 feet) from the centerline of Garrett Road.
The site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
b. Other Potential Hazards
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated
landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should
be no further environmental conflicts, other than those mentioned in this
report, which should impact this project. To the extent practical, Roadway
Design will avoid or limit the proposed right of way encroachment at these
sites because of potential environmental liabilities for proper cleanup and
remediation if contamination exists. If these sites cannot be avoided,
"Preliminary Site Assessments" will be performed prior to any right of way
26
acquisition. This will establish the existence and the extent of any
contamination. These assessments will also be used by the NCDOT to
estimate the associated clean up costs.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis
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 June 17, 1994, "maintenance" for CO on
September 18, 1995. 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 1996 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) have been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) approval date for the TIP is August 9, 1995. The USDOT
conformity redetermination date is February 7, 1997. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule 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.
An intersection analysis was performed using MOBILESA and CAL3QHC for
years of 1998, 2003 and 2018. The 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are below the
National Ambient Standards. Based on past project experience, the project's impact on
noise and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
Durham County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. This project does not cross and identified flood hazard areas. This project is
not in a water supply watershed, nor a high quality water zone; therefore, erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing drainage
patterns will be maintained, and perhaps improved, to the extent practicable. As little or
no excavation is expected, groundwater resources should not be affected by this project.
27
No major streams are crossed by the project, and Durham County Maintenance
Personnel report that there have been no problems with drainage at this intersection.
H. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated that this project will impact two (2) geodetic survey markers.
Section 4(,f) Resources
No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project.
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On June 17, 1996 a letter was mailed to the following federal, state and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning proposed
project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies who respond to this letter):
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Mayor of Durham
Chairman of Durham County Commissioner
Triangle J Council of Governments
On August 29, 1996 a citizens informational workshop was held in Durham
County. This workshop was held in order to obtain comments and suggestions about the
project from the public. Approximately 40 persons attended this meeting. Most of the
citizens in attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Many of the questions and
comments concerned impacts to individual properties and questions regarding the
configuration of the proposed improvements to the intersection. Other comments
concerned the schedule for proposed action.
VII. CONCLUSION
. Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
BG/plr
FIGURES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT O
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
rim) I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ERANCH
SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD) AT SR
2220 (CHAPEL HILL ROAD)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY, SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS AND WIDENING ,
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3105
FIG. 1

3
"JOL
i

EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
D
m
O
I I' 10' 11' D
CHAPEL HILL ROAD
10' 10' I I'
FIGURE 3
ALTERNATE 1 (RECOMMENDED) INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
1 1 1' 1 I
I I I' 1 I
I I I I
I I I C I I -
1I I '; 1 1
- 1 1 1, 1 I e _
I l l i l I
0
I I l i l I
424
I I l i l 1
I I I I I
J?l?l?l?il1 ` OVD0H111 Rd.
------ ------------
- - - - - - - -----------
-----------
-------------
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - ------
1?i?i?t)
I I I I I
111 I I i '
I l l l l i
112.1
(30' l 1 1 1! 1 1 I
' I I C I I I
I l i l I I
I I? 1 I I
I I C I I I
I III I I
I i ? l I
U-3105-
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5

Q O
Q
O 4
O
L n
O -,j Lu

QZ ? --I (Y) W
QZ
?? o
o
?v
oo Qz
?
:;E LLJ
O
NNW Q

ANC

k
ti
3
O ^
W Z
r
J
O
r
J
y r
?
O
Q
m
Q >
rW N
d J
z } r Q
_j v)

W (x O O
M O
O O Q O

W O Z F
? ?

J
at U U
°
Ws?
o o
Lr
O „
> > o o
o = =
o c C o
ss
Ifl N
Q+
ti
N T

N N
m
r r
N Qt

C,j
tn
?

N
l0 f?
N V Q N
N ~
t0
- O
N -
_ N
co rLn O O
N
M N - t0 (1,0)
I
? SSF-??
Wd
M?
N M
N M
0
N
N
N
N
O
J
_J
S
J
W
a
xx
u
(9111 as ram 113aaV0
co 0
N N
N M
tD ?`
v Ln
M Ln
M N
LQ
cl:
V
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
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.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office Normal- Process
.
C
11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters- technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
,water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 daysl
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition- Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800. \U C7L?CCrV({;J? ISM /?>`/ Z?
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
davs before be inning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 davsi
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit. - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days-before actual burn is plannea.'
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans- 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR aoprcv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing me based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be require,*.::aon completion
as ro;
A-1
Continued or. •everse
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. f
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
? State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
? 60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application i
(150 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
? Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. a5 days
(N/A)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, bei
g certain to cite comment authority).
n
?/ i nn
ctir1T+ i'?rCC70-,I's /?jPfc'G,f? r?iG/'-?A?? . /is ?-+1'.-`! Sk"G;•/?=o ? iris.

S Z 'D!'-t..+ v.4-?? L Ct+!J ?.?y /'?/'4t? °t D?/"L-fL-i f ,
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office u Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
A-2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs - -
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ® ? H N FZ
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
J
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 96-0828 Scoping Proposed Improvements to Garrett Rd. and Chapel Hill
Road, Orange County
DATE: July 29, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review. More
specific comments will be provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation of the
environmental document, additional information is needed, the applicant is
encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
attachments
RECEIVED
111 2 9 1996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, W * FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 NV* C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50°k recycled/10°k post-consumer paper
A-3
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2D .0800
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994. for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976; -
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
®revetd IGHWAY PROJECTS
onmental assessments regarding highway projects shall be
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
h Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no assessment,
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in complying with
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental impact
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not result in
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy, and will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, then
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway if that
highway will result in a contravention of ambient air quality
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway with an
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour or
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and have
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600 , and shall
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
D-800-2
A-4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Re
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REViEw Comm=
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: 4f;" County:
--qEHNR
519%
r
LAND QUA
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
_L,t?This project will impact survey markers. N. C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic survey office at [phone].
Reviewer !?l^ Date
?l
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land= disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
V"' The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box Z7687 • Melgh, N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Z geodetic
A-5
i? Forth Carolina WAdhfe Resources Commission . s?i_
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, DEIINR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C nator
Habitat Conservation Pragr -
DATE: July 18, 1996
SUBJ1; CT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for intersection
improvements at SR 1116 (Garrett Road) and SR 2220 (Chapel I Ell Roa(r)
also to include the widening of SR 2220 east to multi-lanes, Durham
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-3105, SCH Project No. 96-0828.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting front
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided ill
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
A this time we have no specific comments or concerns regarding the subject
project, however, our general informational needs are outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for protect
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant 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]
A-6
Memo 2 July 18, 1996
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
ehannelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. 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
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COF). If the COF.
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and.
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussiun of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
he identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If I can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
A7
Project located in 7th floor library
Office of.Legisiative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Pcojsct Review Form
Project Number: County: 1 ' Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
. ?r_o?,:.? ? ?.?rln??-1?' .• SQr 1 l.t.? C..T S?2 Z2L? ?"--???? -- S' v J
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional OfficelPhone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville DAll R)O Areas C Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
D Fayetteville Air O 'Coastal Management C Water Planning

il
El M ::Water. ? Water Resources C Environmental Health
ooresv
le
Q.Grounowater
-Wild!ile ? Solid Waste Management
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources L Radiation Protection
11 Washington DRecreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Fome•

Wilmington ECoasial Management Consultant
` YSIParks and Recreation :,)Other (specify)
F
7 Other.
w
? Winston-Salem
PWS ' r

j
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Da : In-House RevieweriA ncy: "
Response (check all applicable)
V
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
E J No objection to project as proposed
M No Comment
? Insufficient information. to complete review
? Approve
?Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
G Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for turther'development If specific & substantive-,
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthoiity(les) cited)
-in-House Reviewer complete individual response.
Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (awhority6es) cited)
Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
rC_ Project Controversial (comments attached)
-C ConsistenCy Statement needed (comments attached)
[? Consistency Statement not needed
Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
?<_Ot er (specify and attacn comments)
RETURN TO: J _/
Melba McGee . Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
vs•+a
A-8
o• SiArF o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transp ation /
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Intersection improvements at SR 1116
(Garrett Rd. )and SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road),
Durham County, U-3105, Federal Aid Project
STP-0505(6), State Project 8.2352101, 96-E-
4220-0828
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CE
JUL 4 1996
Z
D4VISIC'v 0:
HIGHWAY,.
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. Therefore, we recommend that
no survey of historic architectural resources be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Durham Historic Preservation Commission
A-9
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
GAMMONCf EPrAugust 8, 1996
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:
Q CEI\
AUG 1 2 1996.
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of June 17, 1996, requesting our comments on
"Durham County, SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road), Intersection
Capacity and Safety Improvements to include widening Chapel Hill Road east to multi-
lanes, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6), State Project No. 8.2352101, TIP Project
NO. U-3105" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602436).
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,
e- F. C/??9'z -
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
A-10
August 8, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
Durham County, SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road), Intersection
Capacity and Safety Improvements to include widening Chapel Hill Road east to multi-
lanes, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0505(6), State Project No. 8.2352101, TIP Project
NO. U-3105" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602436)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Durham County and perhaps partially within
the jurisdictional limits of the city of Durham, both of which participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 153 and 154 of the February 1996
Durham County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, the
project site is not located within an identified flood hazard area. This is verified by a
review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey 1:24000 scale topographic
map, "Southwest Durham, N.C."
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Ms. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the subject document and has provided the
following comments. A review of the information provided and available maps indicates
that there may be impacts to several unnamed tributaries to New Hope Creek. Any
discharge of excavated or fill material into these streams and/or any adjacent or
isolated wetlands that may be present will require Department of the Army (DA) permit
authorization, which may include various Nationwide Permits (Numbers 14, 18, and/or
26), depending upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and their
associated wetlands to be impacted, and the type of construction techniques to be
employed.
Due to the limited information provided regarding the extent of jurisdictional
impacts associated with the proposed project, we will be unable to provide specific
comments regarding DA permit requirements until additional data is furnished. This
data should include the number of wetland crossings and the amount of jurisdictional
impacts associated with each wetland crossing along the corridor. When this
information becomes available, it should be forwarded to our office for review and
comment as well as a determination of DA nationwide permit eligibility.
Any questions related to DA permits for this project should be addressed to
Mrs. Manuele.
A-11
QPP??E,ST OF Tye United States Department of the Interior
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
?4RCH ??aA Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 15, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Improvement of Garrett Road-Chapel
Intersection and Widen Chapel Hill
3105, Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:

O
JUL 1 % 1996
Lw1810 ,,
Hill Road
Road, TIP No. U-
This responds to your letter of June 17, 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 proposed project would consist of
improving the intersection of Garrett Road (SR 1116) and Chapel
Hill Road and widening Chapel Hill Road east to a multi-lane
section.
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. 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.
A-12
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;
A-13
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 page identifies the Federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Durham County. 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;
A-14
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. Species of concern
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. Species of
Concern 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.
Sincerely,
A44
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:7/15/96:WP:A:U-3105.796
A-15
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND FEDERAL SPECIES,OF CONCERN
(revised April 1, 1996)
DURHAM COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Panhandle peeblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Plagiochila columbiana FSC
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.".
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-.
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the species observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
A-16
II RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR r'? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2352101 COUNTY Durham Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3105 F.A. PROJECT STP-0505 6
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1116 (Garrett Rd.) at SR 2200 (Chapel Hill Rd.) widening, Durham
'.fi??:,;:;::r:::::::vyi:, v:?:::;"::?:riiG}:,`•5`?:::::r?:;$::::.
;1;{•?v?:\i n?'v n^M1?:tt•'::+.?+'S ^ i i+yj ::'•,'.+'.:i':i: \ :tilt ni ::t ? ..`,:y:}:i::.
.. ESTI111lATE13 DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 3 4 7 2 0 7 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0
!YAt:tJE OF
)WELLING
DSS DWELLING A11atLA8LE ,
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M p $ 0-150 0

.
=ANS1111f
R7tLi.;QtIESTbNSi 20-40M 1 150-250 2 20-40M 0 150-250
0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 2 250-400 2 40-70M 3 250-400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.500 0 70-10OM 50+ 400.600 15
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 100+ 600 uP 25+
displacement? TOTAL 3 4 163+ 42+
X 3. Will business services still be available after AEMARKS:(kespond by Number) ..
.......::,.,::::::...
project? 3. No effect on businesses other than reduced parking
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, areas of two service stations at the intersection.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, newspapers, property managers.
employees, minorities, etc. 8. Due to poor condition of dwellings and high cost of
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? replacements, Last Resort is a high probability.
6.
.. Source for available housing (fist). 9. This is always possible on any project.
7.
X Will additional housing programs be needed? 11. Durham has public housing and highway displacees
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? are given top priority.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. Housing is plentiful, but expensive.
families? 13. Incomes usually predicate housing conditions, so I
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? believe so.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing NOTE: Four displacees are older mobile homes. They are

... housing available during relocation period? extremely hard to relocate in urban areas, including
13.
X Will there be a problem of housing within Durham. If these can be avoided, plans should leave
financial means? them clear of right of way and easements.
na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete

?.:..
RELOCATION? 9
ak z
Stxs?•::w:s
I `
mil -w 9-6-96
Relocation A nt Date `:~'9> Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
original s i copy: state Reiocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-17
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
r
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: 3>k"r-Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
74, `D0 Gad ,:a 4 X
?0? ; - rp-? ?a-?- C'n . S 2 l t Z b a,T S CL ZZY.d a -?-? (j - !
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
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
N Water El Water Resources 11 Environmental Health
El Mooresville
?Groundwater
Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
Raleigh 'Land Quality Engineer ?Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant N Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant XParks and Recreation El Other (specify)
El Wilmington
? Others
get,?et
Now
? Winston-Salem PWS
0
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Dat In-House Reviewer /A ?ncy:

Response (check all applicable)
V
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) , 1.4 ,
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 104
-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)
?FConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
XOther (specify and attach comments)
(YI ??i?r Sl' tS7?l?"LLw? 'iyl.('t / Otit .
Office of Legislative and InteAtiterfr?et?AA6ffairs
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
6 T- ty
TO: 1_
{{{???///////// (/?" ? ??jII (//? y?(J/(??/,?j /y/y??/?
REF. NO. OR R OM, BLDG:
M:
F REF. NO O ROJ_BLDG.
.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FI E ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS D FOR YOUR APPROVAL

? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS W -FOR YOUR INFORMATION
"?
? PLEASE ANSWER OR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
'SrAm° RECEIVED
MAy 1 v 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 8, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section / , /-
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager // `?
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at
SR 2200 (Chapel Hill Road), Intersection Capacity and
Safety Improvements to include widening Chapel Hill
Road east to multi-lanes, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0505(16), State Project No. 8.7301001, TIP Project
No. U-3105
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 31, 1996 at 9:30 am in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Beverly Grate, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
BG/pl r O-3o6
&
Attachment
Z_ w
?3?94 ?d
11?4 V

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # U-3105
PROJECT # 8.7301001
F.A. PROJECT # STP-0505(6)
DIVISION: 5 COUNTY: Durham
Date: May 8, 1996
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
? Programming
® Planning
? Design
ROUTE: SR 1116 (Garrett Road) and SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Urban Minor Arterial
LENGTH: 1.0 mile
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To increase the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the
Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road intersection
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The subject project proposes to improve the intersection
capacity at SR 1116 (Garrett Road) and SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road) to include widening
Chapel Hill Road east to the existing multi-lane section at University Drive.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Categorical Exclusion
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: CE to be completed - December 1996
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes ? No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full ? Partial ? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: Two lane shoulder section on Garrett Road and Chapel
Hill Road with a three lane curb and gutter section at the
intersection approaches.
Proposed: Five lane curb and gutter section on Chapel Hill Road
east and multi-lanes on all legs of the intersection for
approximately 700 feet.
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1999): 17,096 vpd (Garrett), 17,453 vpd (Chapel Hill)
Design Year (2019): 25,481 vpd (Garrett), 26,029 vpd (Chapel
Hill)
% TTST 1% DUAL 4% DHV 10%
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ? 3R ?
DESIGN SPEED: 40 mph (64 km/h)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 2,746,730
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utililities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 1,900,000
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $ 180,000
Total Cost ................................... $ 4,826,730
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 1,800,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 1,900,000

TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 3,700,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 132,030
®Base........................................... $ 494,520
? Milling & Recycling ............................... $
Z Turnouts ....................................... $ 15,000
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthern ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 457,475
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 82,880
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 2101,000
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
? Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x .......... $
? New Bridge x .......... $
? Widen Bridge x .......... $
? Remove Bridge x .......... $
? New Culvert: Size Length .......... $
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
® Retaining Walls .................................. $ 28,875
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures ............................. $
® Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $ 103,800
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
? Guardrail ............................................ $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $ 17,150
? Landscaping .......................................... $
? Lighting ............................................ $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 95,000
? Signing:
? New .......................................... $
? upgraded ....................................... $
® Traffic Signals:
® New .......................................... $ 65,000
? Revised ........................................ $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
? RR Signals:
? New ........................................... $
? Revised ......................................... $
? With or Without Arms .............................. $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings: 24,000
? Paint .......................................... $
® Thermo ......................................... $
® Markers ......................................... $
? Delineators ....................... :................... $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 646,000
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $ 2,371,730
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 3751000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $ 180,000
Force Account ............................................ $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 2,926,730
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: varies 40 to 60 feet
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No
® New Right of Way Needed: Width 40-60 feet .......... $ 1,770,000
? Easements: Type Width .......... $
® Utilities: ....................... I ....................... $ 130,000
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .................................. $ 1,900,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 4,826,730
Prepared By: Beverly Grate Date: 5-8-1996
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
?t Rou emom
I
I I`a
L.1
' Bahama i 1
? r
r s
?l
1 57
l= \
„ an? ii
Dui
_^
151
z * 2 5 \ , -? 98

j
OiKGrove
1
f
8
147 ih0 a
55j .or

I
c - P
Owes^f0!
R
r .l. A V ?•. h / o,..A
1, I
/ 77:7
777,
22282
Ao J?
`\ 7e I7a ??
SCALE
1 0. 1.A4Kf

1
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
a BRANCH
SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD) AT SR 2220
AT SR 2220 (CHAPEL HILL ROAD)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY, SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS AND WIDENING
DURHAM COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-3105
a J
K
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP /
TO:
f} -
F- 4 (/ C41iPa4nb REF. N[D OR OM, BLDG.
FROM: - N
REF
.
O OR ROOM, BLDG:
?
)
("/
/(
f L
ACTION
? NOTE AND LE '. ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?NOTE AND RETURN TO ME - ?PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE. AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?
t:. R YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: -
June 24, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: File
Beverly J. Gratd?` ?02?
FROM:
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1116 (Garrett Road) at SR 2220 (Chapel Hill Road),
Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements to include
widening Chapel Hill Road east to multi-lanes, Federal Aid
Project STP-0505(6), State Project No. 8.2352101, TIP
Project No. U-3105
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470) on May 31, 1996. The following
persons were in attendance:
Wesley Parham City of Durham Department of Transportation
Tim Saunders City of Durham Department of Transportation
Terry Gibson Division 5 Construction Engineer
Whit Webb Program Development
Van Argabright Program Development
Jimmy Capps Program Development
Doumit Ishak Signals and Geometries
Kristina Lorenz Transportation Engineer Associate
Susan Tedder Hydraulics
Mark Stafford Hydraulics
Dewayne Sykes Roadway Design
Roger Thomas Roadway Design
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
Parks IcenHour Location & Surveys
Derrick Lewis Traffic Engineering-Congestion Management
Don Sellers Right of Way
Susan Rose Right of Way Utilities
Phil Williamson Photogrammetry
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
Sonya Sykes Transportation Engineer Associate
Beverly J. Grate Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting and through
written and telephone comments.
The Purpose and need for this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity
and safety of the subject intersection. The draft Thoroughfare Planning Report
recommends widening Chapel Hill Road to multi-lanes from US 15-501 to University
Drive and widening Garrett Road from US 15-501 to NC 54. Improvements are also
needed to accommodate the volume of traffic generated by Gibbons Middle School and
Jordan High School.
Project Termini
The limits for the subject project will include the intersection of Chapel Hill and
Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road east from the intersection to University Drive.
Typical Section
Both Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road are two-way, two-lane roads, each with a
pavement approximately 24 feet wide, that has been widened at the intersection.
At the intersection of Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road each leg is approximately
36 feet face to face. On Garrett Road curb and gutter extends approximately 100-150 feet
from the intersection. On Chapel Hill Road east curb and gutter extends approximately
400 feet. On both roads shoulder widths vary from approximately 1 to 8 feet.
Initial recommendations for the proposed improvements were made as part of the
a 1994 feasibility study (see Figure 2). This proposed design will be reevaluated as part of
the current project study.
Due to funding considerations, a downscoped design will be developed eliminating
through-lanes which would terminate soon after crossing the intersection.
Other Intersections
The stop sign controlled intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Old Chapel Hill
Road is located 919 feet east of Garrett Road. Upon receipt of traffic volumes for the Old
Chapel Hill Road and Chapel Hill Road intersection, the need for a signal will be
investigated.
Right of Way
Existing Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Road has approximately 40 to 60 feet of
right of way.
Approximately 100 feet of right of way will be required at the intersection to
accommodate improvements.
If a downscoped design is recommended (eliminating certain through-lanes), right
of way will be purchased for the ultimate design at this intersection.
Right of way has been dedicated by the BP station for proposed improvements.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office commented at the meeting concerning this
project. It is anticipated the no architectural or archaeological sites will be affected by this
project. No archaeological or historical survey is required.
Natural Resources
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) commented by phone
concerning this project. Two unnamed tributaries to New Hope Creek may be impacted
by this project. These tributaries are classified as WS-IV. The DEM recommend that
High Quality Soil and Erosion Control Measures be used to protect these tributaries.
Utilities
Overhead power lines, telephone lines, water, sewer lines and gas mains are all
located in the project area.
The utility impact rating for this project is medium.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommends that AASHTO
standard 14 foot outside lanes be provided on the curb and gutter section throughout the
project limits.
All disturbed sidewalks will be replaced as part of this project. The City of
Durham requested new sidewalks be added on the southeast and northeast quadrants of
the intersection near the businesses to accommodate pedestrians. The City requested
sidewalks be placed as far back on the berm as possible.
Hazardous Material
Based on a reconnaissance survey, two operational and one non-operational
facility with the possibility for UST involvement were identified.
1. Circle K #4656
This operational gasoline/station convenience store is located in the southeastern
quadrant of the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection. According to the field
reconnaissance and Division of Environmental Management (DEM) files there are four
USTs in use at the facility. These tanks are constructed of steel with cathodic protection.
They contain gasoline and have storage capacities ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 gallons.
The tank bed is situated approximately 70 feet from the centerline of the existing Garrett
Road. The site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
2. Abandoned Gas/Service Station
This non-operational gas/service station is located in the southwestern quadrant of
Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection. The field reconnaissance suggests that at
least two USTs are currently on the property. This is evidenced by the presence of fill
ports, vent pipes, and former dispenser pump locations. The DEM files were consulted
for tank information, however, none could be found. The closest UST is approximately
25 feet from the existing centerline of Chapel Hill Road. The site does not appear to be
under remediation at this time.
3. Hope Valley BP
This operational gas station/convenience store is located in the northeastern
quadrant of the Garrett Road/Chapel Hill Road intersection. According to the field
reconnaissance and DEM files, there is currently one active UST at this site. This double
wall tank has a storage capacity of 20,000 gallons and contains gasoline. The UST is
situated approximately 70 feet from the existing centerline of Garrett Road. The site does
not appear to be under remediation at this time.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research shows that no regulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the
project limits.
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections for Chapel Hill Road and Garrett Road have been received and
were made available at the scoping meeting. Updated volumes have been requested to
include the intersection of Old Chapel Hill Road and Chapel Hill Road.
Additional Concerns
The City of Durham indicated a Chinese Restaurant has applied for a permit to
establish business in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. This application is `
pending approval.
The project will include widening a portion of University Drive. University Drive
is not on the state system, therefore, NCDOT cannot pay for constructing that portion of
the project. A preliminary estimate indicates this section of the project will cost $300,000.
A municipal agreement will be developed to arrange City participation with the University
Drive section and with sidewalks.
Tentative Schedule
Functional Design mid July 1996
Citizen's Informational Workshop late August 1996
Categorical Exclusion December 1996
Public Hearing March 1997
Right of Way Acquisition FY 1997
Construction FY 1998
r 1
a m/ V
1 ? ?L / rs
R vA ? / ?N
400
I _ I •
1 e /
' e 5 \ 4S ?1e 9??
B zse /J,\ ? R
'000 ?5
cce ? .?e 11e
??? n is , »OY? ?
N \ J ?
r m ?\ 3 _ _ ?. `1 I ?O

a tIN

1 1

c I 'ir _

1
1

' l\

s J

i
1
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
3 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
,. BRANCH
SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD)
AT SR 2220 (CHAPEL HILL ROAD)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY, SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS AND WIDENING
DURHAM COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-3105
FIG. 1

7
\ \ A
NI
1
i
NOT TO SCALE
FEASIBILITY STUDIES UNIT
FIG. 4. SKETCH SHOWING
PROPOSED LANES
INTERSECTION OF
GARRETT ROAD (SR 1116)/
CHAPEL HILL ROAD (SR 2220)
DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY
DIV. 5 U-3105 FIG. 2.