R-2630 R-2631

` . State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources A4607
Division of Water Quality James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 1, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
From: John Hennessy _11 r_
?i
Subject: Comments on the EA/Feasibility Study for the Northern Durham Parkway, Durham
Northwest Loop and North east Corridor Study, State Project No. 6.358001T, TIP Project
No. R-2630 & R-2631, DENR Project Number OOE-0533.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result
in impacts to multiple jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based
on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The alternative as presented do not appear to function in a manner consistent with the stated
purpose and need. The stated purpose and need states: "... provide an additional east/west facility
in northern Durham". The alternative, as presented, provides for an upgrade of US 501 (a
north/south corridor), then provides for a new location facility that redirects traffic southeasternly
to I-85. The alternative does not move traffic in an east/west direction. Due to the circuitous route
of the proposed project, the DWQ believes the project lacks independent utility.
B) The upgrade of US 501 may be appropriate as another independent project to improve north/south
movements due to traffic deficiencies. However, the DWQ does not believe that the proposed new
location segment will provide any tangible traffic improvements relative to the anticipated impacts.
C) The new location segment of the proposed alternative would have significant deleterious impacts
to natural resources. It would involve impacts to municipal water supplies including Falls Lake
and Little River Reservoirs. The project would require significant impacts to Neuse Riparan
Buffers. Moreover, the project would require a new crossing of the Eno River and would impact
existing State-managed Gamelands adjacent to Falls Lake.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
06/13/00
Page 2
D) Prior to impacting high quality natural resources, we need to ensure the transportation benefits
derived from the project are sufficient. To that end, further analysis of the proposed alternative
should include a discussion on the existing traffic deficiencies the alternative is designed to
improve. A discussion on the desired objectives and goals for the road system in North and
Northeast Durham and how this project fits into the long-range plan should be integrated into the
discussion. The discussion should include a comprehensive discussion on the anticipated Level-
of-Service for the entire road network for design year. The discussion should include both the no
build and build alternatives.
E) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical.
Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation will be required for this
project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be
required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
F) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the
Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
G) In accordance with the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules f 15A NCAC 213.0233 }, mitigation will
be required for some to Neuse River Riparian Buffers. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance
with the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules ( 15A NCAC 213,0233 ), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as buffer mitigation.
H) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
I) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
J) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
K) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
L) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical,
it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
M) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
impacts with corresponding mapping.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
06/13/00
Pale 3
N) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams will require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will requite the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any
approval will be continent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Steve Mitchell, NCDWQ Regional Office
Personal Files
File Copy
C:\ncdot\TIP R-2630\comments\ R-2630 comments.doc
H
80

LA A W N 77 O
O
A O
„7

A
• •
tl?
O w
N N
W (7 O
r
d
?z
O O v oo r O

0

~z
?o

r
0
w
S v,
8 ? r
b ;?

a

?
a
0

a
r
r

8 S S 8 ??
n
b
CD ? ri.

d
n a. .
b
, a o
.
:3

o' .
r) O y '?U
O

d
N
z
0
y
t
-

razz

v? o

g?
00
r
H
'
°
O

O

d
O

y

i
1
?n
N
n
C
b7
rN. G7
O b]
?O Ui
00 W
J W
a? G1
n 07
l? W
N Uy b
p W
?O W
oo b7
G\ W ai
w Gi
N W
?- H c?
N
O
a 0
0
?d
N N V? N A A A '~. N W N O -4 O LA O O 0
h7 '
r
dd"
C?7
O O O O N A W W m w LA r O

C)
cn
w
r.

cn
'r1
r

8
8
LI)
8 0
0
b

?o

r

8 8 ??
r
n
x ?
?r n
O O a. 0

NCV? < per. n
O P'y

W

LA A W N

a
?-+
W N
O N N n 0
m•
d
LA 0

M
En
C
En
W 0

r
0
0
dr

a
N N t
?
-+
r ?
r

?b

n
x x
0
' 0
'
0
0 0
0 ?

`i
A
?v c a
v W N ??y
W N O ?o 00 (7N t.A
O
a
N A N A A NA W N J (-)O
E .
d

o
v.
m
o
o
?-
?
w
w
?
?-
N ?z
r O

cn
t?
?z

'•r1
r
, o

8
8
8 o
b

it
z

a

n
r
b?
ab

r

x x
s
o s
0 o

W.
0 ?z
0 z

Ln
° ?c "

d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d o
>19
"'o r

C)
?N O DD J Q? ? p \D 00 J °, LA W N ' 0 O H s

a
o.

W V1 LA J O? •- ?D Q\ w °N U N w S LA '~+ O
Crr1 •
UI

N N J w LA O ?-. O O O M - C) N r ?

4/
G7
C
y
'
t
j
j

En
r
O

8 pQ?

O
00
00
S
O
b ;11

n

r

8

x x x

0 0

0 0 o g _ o
• °,
rn -.0
n
H o' 0' -G,
. C?
°
:3'
.

'
°
°
G 1
yi
M
?
P G G n 0
't1
O b
O ? b
.-. O
G3.
m
O Y

w
N
b7
p
oho
v M
N a
? O z?
C%
a z?
z
8
b
n z
A O N J Vi (7) J W N W

d
? z
i? W O O N O N O ?- O O N ro

bd

r4
.,y
O

S
S
S
O
$
S O
?d r1

`C1

N ()o

r

S g
r
C)

:Lr
°
°

°

b
°
ti
(

9
o n m o n o C o m m n? ? '1 '71 ql
"D 00 J (31 V1 pi W N ?-• 10 ?o ? W n
00 CL
O
b

O
J
N
O c3N
00
LA LA
01
J
C)0
m .
r

W CD to O N O w O w O W O (71

C)
En
td
ci

LLL
»]
L7?
[i1
"t9
r
o
1a
8 _
$ cn
8 N
8
0 N
0
? Q
? A.
o O r
T1
ro
;
a

r

>b

C)
b
0

b
z ?•
?
x
ca, o

P-
0
03

7 a
x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C/)?
O ?,D 00 J V1 A w ?- p "O Oo v C? ? P. W N '--
Q
po
O

'A ?--
J cn LA
00
? N
U N
%O ~
W N
OA N
N r--
?--•
O
? ~
oc ? O
r
d

O W N W r C W ~O W O N V1 N Q\ O O O N
ro

b7
C,
0
~
En
r
0

g
o
g
o
g o
b

a
0

r

?b
?
y
C)
b
0
N
Q
F CD
^~
J b
0 \ I
n .r
? b
P'y OO
j
[17

N b

1
?l
i
W
o
99
f.i fy it i
Y Gl
w w 7d 0

b
o w n O
m
r
d
z
00 00 00 00
ro
rZ•
c?
V3
r?
c
c_
o
cn
m
r
0
W
8 ?,
S o r
b :?

aEn
xd
0

r

S
S co
S LA
S
??
r

b
CD
M
0
c a " E3
?0
p O

b . o
cn cn
C 0
H c?
N
b
w 0

R.
1 r
0
i
W

,. w
CD

w
CD

.

w

O
p

N

N ?+ O

N N N

J N

J
w

p W
N
W vy
r

W
?
lD
CD ..

G?
J ""' .
-. i
-. W W w
00 r-- tJ ?--• N .... 00 _ 00 jJ
LA +r--. V1
-
C7, N C,/1
- p
V1 ?D 00 P 00 O O
?O r- ..
4
b

N J L. 000 000 W ? J O Vii

"'
Q?
Q? N
N N
N rr
r-. ?.
.
A L!1 W
Vl N
O W
-1 N
-1 N O

V]
b7

En

N N N N W Cn N O
N

O

S p
O p
O p
O p
O w
p
O U)
p
O p.
p
S 0
? ;?

a

aEn
H
v? n •- ?- ?- ?- w w w w n 0

a
r
r

8 S 8 8 ??
r
n

Vl Vf ?, ?, n ? ?
O O O O .`1 :S' G'

x x o x
0
G
H 0
G
y
G
ti
H 0

C

A

Q

p O .

.

.
9 n n n F• ~ ~
n n n
?
0 0 G 0 ? Gf H ti
> Y
C? d y
C? d r
Nn
C? d
,
?j ,. ?y ?y b 'S! b

N ? ? A

C !D
G
G f
D
G C
D

N
N ?
+
N
p
N
?o C)
W ? J W N v' .C?
00 00 cn LA ??- O
O p

ao
ro
N
N Q?
J ?--•
tl1 •-+
W O?
r--• O?
? W
J ?
1
(? Q
h7 '
r

Q?
A
v, d
z
LA C\ LA t- o

c?

07
•- N N

rli

p
O
p
O
pp
O
p
O LA
p
8 0

b ;?

?

N O

r

?b

x x
N
0 VI 0
n 0
n

0 0
i
1
I
N
C7 tv d O ° o
4 v oo ? o0 0o d
N d
N d
i--. O p•
3 ?

'+
r• C
. O z
00 O ~O pp ? 00 ? J J O O

rn v oo v ?o 0o LA r (? p
m•

v

oo N ?o .-• oo ul w O

tz?
C

•-•
?-•
W
W ~z
? O

oil
rr
0
S 8 ? 8 ? 8 d

?
a
?
N N N N N N W N N (
'? ?

r
ro :T,

cn r
n
x x x

c ?
° Cn
° C4
°

a
R. y
0 H
0 a 0
0 0 a
0 a a.
0 O
0 0
x x 0 0 0 0
Vf in x x x x G G G N
n • 0 H w y
CD C
D

ro?
:E
ro

o?

x x
G 0 b
CD b 0 b
=
0
- o
:
o

FA
Li

? O "

171
ql C
o
_
[r1

_ t

G?
A ?. .. 0 0 N _O N
00 o_ ? ? >1

? W w
b
N
?O N
O? N
CN W
4? N
V1 r--•
O\ W
D\ ?-
J W
Q\ N ? 7-+
n O
by '
r
d
7
O ?O O\ -1 LA W t!? W 00 A '
rO

M

G7
C

?. En
~z
O

o
o S g o g o S o br

YV)
?
ma

N .
y
??1 L=i
(7

r

N P
t-I
C)
?
0
V
? 00
t0'
O O
n 0
CD n

+
?, O O iC
17y

92.
b
O
O

L7

r •• oo
?O 00
?p
N
N

00
O

J

?

A

N

?
o~o ?' to 0 p -00 w oo w oo
ono w
CL
?o L4 cn S

a
w vii o m W w -P. LA LA
(?? p
m.

G
d
oo A rn 0? oo rn z
r o
z

En

C

6 z
o

0
LA
g `D
g O
o N
g w
o
S V1
g O
o .~p
o w
g r"
b
fi
,
a
z

acn

r

b

n
?,b b b
n 0 0 0
N N y
G

C
CD

(
(D

?
CD o
?? b W W h7

'C w
' to
' ?.
w 5
?' N
N ?
H
N 0
N
V1
- rh/ f
DOCUMENTATION FORM
DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
T.I.P. I.D. NO.: (R-2630) & (R-2631)
NCDOT Project NO.: 6.358001T
MINUTES
STEERING COMMITTEE AND INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETIN
May 13, 1992
Steering Committee Members Present:
Cindy Sharer - NCDOT Planning & Environmental
Gail Grimes - NCDOT Planning & Environmental
Dewayne Sykes representing John Alford - NCDOT Roadway Design
Dan Thomas - NCDOT Statewide Planning
Owen Synan - Durham DOT
Amy McBride representing Paul Norby - Durham City-County Planning
Gene Bell representing Marvin Collins - Orange County Planning
Steering Committee Members Not Present:
L.F. Stegall - NCDOT Division Engineer
J.W. Watkins - NCDOT Division Engineer
LIXT1 ANDS 6141110
Environmental Review Agency Representatives Present:
Dennis Stewart - NC Wildlife Resources Commission
David Yow - NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Galamb - NC Department of Environmental Management - Wetlands
Delores Hall - State Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Mike Crocker - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eric Alsmeyer - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory
Mickey Sugg - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory
David Foster - NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Roy Bruce - H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Wilbur Efird - H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Karl Kratzer - H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Bryan Kluchar - H. W. Lochner, Inc.
Other Persons Present:
Frank Vick - NCDOT Planning & Environmental
Randy Turner - NCDOT Planning & Environmental
Wesley Parham - Durham DOT
Mark Ahrendsen - Durham DOT
A copy of the attendance sheet from the meeting is attached to these minutes.
A Steering Committee and Interagency Review Meeting was held for the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop Corridor Study at 10:00 a.m. in Room 470 of the Highway Building on this
date. The purpose of the meeting was to present the preliminary corridors to the environmental
review agencies and to solicit their assistance in identifying reasonable and feasible corridors for
detailed study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement based on their individual areas of
concern. The agenda and handouts for the meeting are attached. The following is a summary
of the meeting for each agenda item:
1. Introduction of Meeting Participants - Each of the persons present at the meeting
introduced themselves and what agency they represented.
2. Project History and Description - Copies of the handout from the second Citizens
Informational Workshop were distributed to those persons that were unfamiliar with the project
as a basis of reference following the meeting. Roy Bruce then gave an overview of the project
which included the project history, need for the project, applicable typical sections, preliminary
corridors being evaluated, and project status. Bryan Kluchar presented the public comments
which were received after the second Citizens Informational Workshop (summary handout
attached).
3. Review of Environmental Issues - Karl Kratzer presented the environmental issues relative
to the preliminary corridors. He described these issues as acetate overlays were being placed
on top of the preliminary corridors aerial photograph display. Environmental overlays consisted
of wooded areas, floodplains, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, community facilities,
publicly owned lands, and parks. A composite of all the overlays was also presented.
4. Discussion of Alignments/Corridors for Further Study in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement - The environmental review agency representatives were invited to discuss
the preliminary corridor segments and their impacts with the steering committee. The following
items were discussed during the meeting:
O Dennis Stewart (NCWRC) indicated a preference for roadway corridors that followed
existing highways so that additional wildlife habitat fragmentation would not occur. He also
indicated that typical sections that minimize acreage requirements would be preferable to
use. For this project these would include the two urban typical sections.
o David Foster (NCEHNR) commented that good stormwater filtration and water quality
treatment would occur along the vegetated median and ditches of the four-lane rural typical
section. Therefore, better stormwater management practices would occur with this section
and would result in environmental benefits over the urban typical sections.
e Dewayne Sykes (NCDOT) and Wilbur Efird (HWL) stated that the 150 foot right-of-way
required for the four-lane rural typical section would only be cleared and graded for the
width needed for construction and clear zone requirements.
o David Foster (NCEHNR) requested that quantities of impacts be provided along with the
acetate overlays showing the potential impacts. An impact summary by preliminary corridor

segments was distributed to each of the review agencies. Frank Vick (NCDOT) requested
that impacts to wetlands and wooded areas be added to the summary. He also requested that
a small scale map be provided with the minutes that shows the segments and their numbers
(a copy of this map is attached with these minutes).
e Dennis Stewart (NCWRC) stated that the proposed crossings of the Eno River east of
Penny's Bend would impact property that has been used as mitigation areas from the
impoundment of Falls Lake. He indicated that he would be opposed to any use of these
mitigation lands for a new highway. Mr. Stewart did state that corridors north of the Eno
River did follow much of Umstead, Latta, and Infinity Roads and would be advantageous
from a wildlife habitat fragmentation viewpoint.
e Eric Alsmeyer (COE) indicated that the Corps of Engineers would not like to see any
crossing of the Eno River.
0 David Foster (NCEHNR) provided a general consensus that Eno River crossings would
not be well received by the environmental review agencies and should be eliminated from
further consideration for the following reasons:
- impacts to mitigation lands associated with Falls Lake
- potential impacts to important natural areas and areas containing protected species
- impacts to forested areas within or soon to be within the Eno River State Park
- potential water quality impacts to the Eno River
o Additional Eno River crossing locations were considered in the meeting. However, none
of these crossings could be supported by the environmental review agencies.
e The environmental review agencies agreed that all preliminary corridors north of the Eno
River and any preliminary corridors connecting to them should be eliminated from further
consideration. This includes the following corridor segments: A-1, A-6, A-5, B-19 B-2, B-
3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-8, B-24, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-16, D-17, E-1,
E-2, E-6, and E-9.
o Concern was expressed by several agencies relative to preliminary corridors (E-9, E-10,
E-11) that are in close proximity to the Durham City/County Sanitary Landfill. Agency
representatives were informed that the proposed corridors would skirt the land fill property
and would not impact the landfill directly. The landfill area adjacent to the preliminary
corridor is designated for a landfill borrow site and no waste burial is anticipated for this
area.
Y Wesley Parham (Durham DOT) indicated that the I-85/Glenn School Road interchange was
zoned for future industrial/commercial development, and the preliminary corridors (E-13,
F-4) associated with this interchange should be retained for further study.
o The Hebron Road corridors (D-11, D-18) minimize the impact to the wooded areas located
to the south (D-10, D-14), therefore, it should be retained for further study. Concern was
expressed by Dennis Stewart (NCWRC) about segments D-10 and D-14 but felt they should

be retained for further study.
Y Mike Crocker (FWS) preferred the Mineral Springs Road corridors that connect to Miami
Boulevard since they did not impact environmentally sensitive areas to the east.
O The environmental review agencies agreed that the westernmost corridors that terminated
at Mineral Springs Road (G-10, H-15, H-17) should be eliminated due to their impacts on
the environmentally sensitive areas associated with the Little Lick Creek. The corridor
which parallels the abandon railroad tracks north of Cheek Road (F-3) should also
eliminated, as this is needed only as a connection to get to the westernmost corridors into
Mineral Springs Road. Additionally, segment F-3 could have a longitudinal impact on the
Panther Creek floodplain.
0 The environmental review agencies expressed some concern about the northernmost I-85
interchange and associated corridor segments (E-7, E-8, F-1, F-2, G-1, G-2, G-5). They
felt these segments would have more potential environmental impacts on floodplains,
wetlands, and wildlife. Additionally, these segments are located closer to the Falls Lake
watershed.
e The easternmost corridors in the vicinity of Stallings Road (G-3, G-6, H-1, H-2, H-20)
were also of concern to the environmental review agencies because of potential impacts to
large forested tracts of lands, wetlands, and floodplains. The agencies acknowledged that
there could be other factors that warrant retaining these corridor segments for further study
and evaluation.
v Corridor segments involved with connecting from Mineral Springs to the two eastern
termini for the project at U.S. 70 (H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, H-9) were also of concern to the
review agencies. These corridors also cross large wooded areas and would therefore be less
desirable than segments connecting into Miami Boulevard. Again the agencies indicated that
there would likely be other factors that require that these segments be retained for further
study.
e David Foster (NCEHNR) stated that an acetate overlay showing future land use would be
helpful in understanding what might happen in the urban fringe areas in the future.
O Eric Galamb (NCDEM) stated that this was the best and most productive NCDOT meeting
he has ever attended. David Foster (NCEHNR) requested that future NCDOT review
meetings should be conducted in the same fashion.
o All environmental review agencies present requested that they be added to the project
mailing list for newsletters and future project related information.
Distribution: R. Bruce (HWL)
C. Sharer (NCDOT)
All Steering Committee Members
All Environmental Review Agencies Present
it
E- Al
i r
- - - -- - ------ f?t/Nts?? /\/c cJ iL X33 - 126 3
--'Dz)Lo,eis ?t--- - ---- -l?/?? aco6Y yN?57-PAC' P a,?/ 733-73?Z
w,1dl:.
Z-RD-4=A-L --p -
P CIA
y
Z-?S,?eyP??y
COr? ? D ? //1CC?3-' ? ?- ? 79
-----
I Nb ?? S1tPr2E/z IV_? p?T_n E 7s 3 -?? l z
----
R-A
--- -- -- ------------?cau ??r•, ?a'S -- - --- --- !YC?o ? STq.T'W/Dc: ?L'?r.??n.G 7? ?- ?70?'
IMPORTANT
To l /U L C'
Date
Time
M / WHIL?YOU WERE OUT
_C n
Y
of
Phone 2 5 0 - 110 1 (0
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
trMes?a
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
V-I5
rY o...r„n ..., [lar.rrlnA Pinar
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
State Project No.: 6.358001T (R-2630 & R-2631)
Durham and Orange Counties
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING AND
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
May 13, 1992
AGENDA
1. Introduction of Meeting Participants
2. Project History and Description
• Thoroughfare Plan
• Typical Sections
• Preliminary Alignments /Corridors
• Review of Public Comments
3. Review of Environmental Issues
• Wooded Areas
• Floodplains
• Wetlands
• Parks, Greenways, Public Lands
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas
• Historic Sites, Community Facilities
4. Discussion of Alignments/Corridors for Further
Study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5. Additional Items of Business
O
zW
W
n 8
N W
N
N
?o v m
m m
N 2
N Z o
z
o
? n m d
z
o
N
V -•
? O1-
N =
.? W99
7
.t v

o 0
? Q.
o
O
CD
? a
?z
O
b
I
V./ Y
3 3 0 m
:3
-c3 -0 F.
Cv Cy CD ;•
r y °> >
0 o m
O CD
CL w
0 0 N d
S
0 D
o o m
3 O N H
CD
r+
N amCCDD
'-*• CD 0 74,
o 0 0
3
O O
CD
< d -'
0 CD m
0
3or:
CD 0
3 °1
? a
Cn Cl) :71o
CD C1 N CD
2. O 0 y
CD CL 0 F
cn ?, O O.
2- N O cl- -n
O (D N
3 m a
'; 0 + °, co)
0 0 CD F+
CD3?cD
x_.3v,ct
j'm
;+•N O_y
c0 y 1 O CD 0 :3
O c_ y,
Cn :3 0 r+
CD 0 0 c
m °c i ' <
< O. O
CD 5' :3 CD =*
(n 0
N [v M
C
0 CL o
CD o Cn m
o0
Cs. W Co
y
i' m EA o c
I
C y ' c 'g CD
3 =ioo'"? y
? °' ? ara " no U ? ? ?
.a??°??• 3neD?
,?•• CAD 0=Q ? y ? ° ' Gn
V1°• y cae? ?'??
?°°b?•,eD,??,?o a.
r. C7
W o? p°aj L CL A ?.y
d G RR bpdCp o C ?i
J b a W c ?' ? C? ?
eD a o? o?? o? y
d a
d b cD b O° d G G
? cD "d m < ? cD
con rA 0 E.,
LID-
O ?i o o Q v,,
3 ac°o °0. cD
o 0. a
G 'b c o o
c ?. N x UQ C C Ev 'Cy ep
o P C° oM
UQ "tz CD CD
M. CD
d?8
0 C,
CD ¢ CD
0- CD 0
w `c El 5 co ?' CCD
0. COD
H ° G?°. dO t?1
O _ CD a cD ° COD v,
N N o
CS. ? -i
0 0 m
C
3(D Qo
CD m -
CD o CD m
cu 3
° ct) 0
0 O.
0 r+
:3 CD 0
(A CA y
CD CD d
CL 0) 3
o. o c• CD
o_
a. ? CD 'v
z
CC - n <
?o °°-
m Oy
C C + O.
O_ CD c 1.
< r? O. 0
O '•< r+
N N Or D •
o y' m.
cC(A
CC CD CO
CO) o d
d y ? cr CD =r
N N o C =. CL o 0 C
C1 (A O' 0
CD 3
U) 10+ 0 (D
3
D) 3•=d
Z=
o C
C ° o d
?'D3ao
3 °-'
CD
CD <_. m
ct c o
:3 CD
CO W CO m
N _
0 O C O_
Cl)
O
O O N
CT ? rf r•1
CD O. O 7
< c m m
o a
.D
W
? o r+
m 0 ?.oaQ
n CD
r+ 0 co
n 01'D N
< 0. 0 O 7
Cn CD ,-. 0
o :r
CODA 7' N CD <
0
°
coica?CD
C CD 0 .O.*
CL -
o m c
D o -D
m r co
o o d
r? d-0 3
d
0 m 0
c < d <
Q m ?-
0 7' CA
o
z W >1 :4 z 0 z
N •i`'' R? OO 0
?bll?? C7 g ??
II11 "' 1 0
CD Z
oo ?. 0
In.
? °
y
0
R
Y
!ll
•v3 ° ? d a a. ?
'C
C,s*• O ? ?, • a'?y O
CD 0 •O N `.7 O
CD CD
cD coD o CPD
G.Gi?•O ?? ?,
?a z ? ? cD ? ?• ? y
O.? ,r*y O G O
CD
° CD
M CD
o'• 0 0
Al
? D
o ? (IQ
ITi C
t=i ? 7d ? tt'1 ? c. ?
< ?' o•n
<to'? AL''O pC: G
?O tl':? •OnG C ?N C
e p o ?y
O Fy; n ? a 7'ti Kl y F, -
o:ya gyp U x?A oaaWact C.ao?p?r
tri
~ `d a.°o v°
9 ;%
?b
a
tro
o
CD y.
CD
N
F 5'
CAD
a
0
M
O
70
z
m
Cl)
r
m
mmi
m
z
0
N
g cr CA
'c ? co 0
0 cr ITI?
CD a o
0
C
gQQ
f?D
CD
w. (D C
M rd
CD
CD
W W
a y '?
v b CD
CD
o?
a
O?
cD? o
M C b
M• ?
K n
OK
M o'
p `C .°+,

r+ O M?
A
d
0 0
000 y
g

V
zz
R° I?1
N
W
0-7
two
b
3 N .0 M O N O M O 4-

..
o C
al a)
N b
p ?.

¢

?'' C) o

a) 0
cy
w x
d p
0
a) O +-'
a p
O O

i
" En
U o? U
O'
'?
O ? a (1)
??
;gip a 0-4
q,?4
w a? wt)D cd

a
?
LJ4
cn 00
d a s
c
to
co
V o p .°n o o a 3 C7 b a
a
, - ?ao° o r. .r aao??u pp °r o
Sw°¢W?l ?x o o a?
d U ? :: o «?
.? U a) a? a
0 "o _ o
° o ?4. >,P4 c 0 ?p4 xP4
N a? °b o
0 0 7q~?P4o0
ovi
? o o ?o b ao°P4P4?
K o
4. ca
o a? U q o 0 O ce a a?
° .. 3 E o Z, O o ° x C7 ? ? .+ Cq a
W a o
„y U a ° o a"i o o Qn
L4 N 00 2 `a3 . V > N a p ;? co p °1 w En 'b
a? b G7 y > a? a aU P4
0 CIS V ??? «s N y cd ° p p a) p ?. a
Q '?O 0 .5 cd 0 G q G '?' O O 0000 O D p a) cdA
mO ?. max ?0.0.?a?P4 ?3a
a' a o °
' a
ai o ca o •:, a? .?
a O O c?N R' c? 4? b
>' U A c? a .a a) N
a)
i< "ap O
Z p 2 d cd wo p O
a o? o a a° b
A ?. a cd b vi
w A' 3 O b O a`? *?[ a?i O
O
a>i o 4 b
?.
to ?o R. S.
=s 3 ?' U 'cd cd " N O `" a) C b b
ca CL)
ca to o
a) lu 4) U •Z" N
-d a
o 'b o ° a o 3
p ¢ m a? ?? ° /yam < ... a> w w
w C4? C's &n
ti rA ++ w. b
a) O? bA g
d v? Oq ?' +'S y d a -O a t5l
3 a1 F" C ? Zn -g 3 ,o v q ? .? ,?
40.
xwlii
C) W)
A
p??
>N 1-4
p Q a i' w, . O 3 b cd
.. O a y .,
Z 4-
a>i u Pa 3 „ r b 'o
a°' ?c°.' °°
H s .? a t'' w ?o 6-4 0 O iew y g 3? ??
u C) C, C, 0
Z?4 o ... a o. aqi o a
o 1-0 b o
rA t:
o a p
a?i •b `? a? o ,q
a
Q 00
4ob?Cd
Z .
a '? a a

? a0 '.?. rn b "a
V cd o .a
y " a
cv
Q o
.+
I
a o a?
a
44
o
w y
o O U o a? a
'r. (5 o?C1 bC) = C)
b> P4 a. o?2 o a a a
cl a.a ab b?P4~O a)b c O
o o n o °O q~ o 3? U
P4 b U p a ... 10 A, cd a)
cd r, ca b U H p y p r N O P4
a
(U to
Oa P4 cd a
i o o o a a d w o to Cd
'? a ai c? 3 c`°i o a' cXd a?i o
UvaP4 3P4E?x ° a??? ??
It m
O •,
c
zW ?z E
A $ a 4 j
J
?W zE
N
y
?a
?z

a j v m
v m
N S
N Z 0
Z 70
10 O G7
s m m
s ?. 3
z
C7 N l
O
N y 7
g ? 7
N 3
K
I
.r <
t t t t t O
ad m m d?!
m ao

G1 0. 0)

CD OR 0 CD

< co

d ?D y k
)
m
7 cp :L.
c c O m VF '? 3 A O a
r. a to v m a ?y an a
- Q

m
3?
o a m
M 0
?
Q
aM a N 1 3
L
° m
m a?
a c aay
CD c ?
m o
N y p o co y

' y 2 _
o
' a y
nom
0 0
c o m
'', «
-
?
° oomo
2 o cn cn
cD a o m
O n cD y y

0 0 3
3 m n
3
O Ol
v ? am Q

w 0
CD
2. o
w
CA r+ O
0
0• o rvo s ??o ?do
.?
y °; m 0. d a w y
T
H-•
80
v
d A
O
o°
a ?-
xa
Z
coo ??•
o
.r
ITI
(Mp
N
?o do
?°•gdi?
n ? A:9
n WWo p O

N 0
o
M a

Cy

b
p, y
tJi p, r
r
e.3 ,3a C
A L Amw y
Ow 8 fD f?D 3. C v' A
d O ?.?.
mmm
a ?* W
ems ?« o o`? ^ 2rTM
•? a S. o 'oS. m
o ? 9 c c 0
p? '4 V. C "?• ?••I C1
C n ayj3 a "O O ??
{y
ao aoam o. r4 CL
R, w
° o
Z
Co Q. CD
V~1 O a r+ .7 U5Q E3 ?' p Fn' ?. r0 fD g R cD O
10
00 CD CD E?
?1. S-8
t c p " y ?' a tr ,d a• ,4 2. C Al
V? N b ? y M ? y
CD CD 9
c Q z ?r o a. co a d co
o° a C7 •- n ?' a $ $, Err ?' ?!
0
o? ?,a,•o
c (D
o E? r'' $ ?••jo y? coo as b? ? $ c +?
A ? vyi ? .M O ?C cD ? N ? ? ?' t3. (?D ? Fn G. N ?C S p
•.? ici *1 n ..
(r
d
n
C!7
717

Z
m
cn
r
m
m
O
r
3
O
y
l1
Mh; O
o
?o
g
y ''C
I I
a
o O
N F•?

z
0
z
z
0
z
r
b
.4
0
co
co
V '? o
cr a
-go
'V
Z ?
o
a?
? oA :b
a
.a
a

I 19., __
U

a
a

U a
w
w •?'?
a ro
? ? a •g
U
a??o
a
a
? o
U
W ?w
o
QI
?a
a
r?
a $ ., y
°` U°
°N
1-4
iL
co •b a ° 1a
W ..° 3 .5.2 as
" 3 b c4 °' °
aU o
cv)
W
o
4. p
Q o al mac. o
4..
Ul bb
to.
W c cg a aai a?i cd `a`? 04 E-+
bA b d N w of tq rA N 4? rn 7a
4 ? q -0 4 c? b
-S 75
04 I= (1) g S
4 b g 3•° o o... .°.? ; 3 °w a a0 o _o 3
dab a°' ?y? to
co
5 .;5 a °' `? ?•? aix o ?•b c
C3 0,
4) 00
-?: ca ° 3 ° ° a a b ?a 3 6',0
a.. a ?_'> .,• .,? o o o?'? a -d¢ ate' a
Q 3 ? •b °' W c o a 'S En > g
o?O? ow ?b? 60UOVO S.b •E o ^'?
n
a b'? " a a?'? >, •? >? r?? W i °' `?r.? o N ai pA' °r- o ° c a c oIL)
„?.•b a a?ao ova ?a?? x?ao 3v
;? a . •b dz o a b O .? o w a?i aai 'd o `+ o " a?i cv •Y a? ° a??i
°' o b ao o a? o > .. •? v ° to o w 'D
c o > 0 aai a'u •o o .a .ti o A 5 b y • '? `? o M
1o,? oaw'?a..?N,, oaac3 IL,°m
lo? 0 b4 1-4 -,o s
U o aai •N a o o u a? o v.r. o 4° ?,, a?
W ?$:g zb a° b obi 10.' b ?, 3 2° a o
d) ba to it J?
41 o U? to ? oo:?b rxo? a
?w to 0 a w o o •? a? ?3
'3? 'o'?•??? ? o o? ? ? ? ? :° p,o? o ?:° ;o ?"" o,? ? ? ? a? a ?
*E Ej
o on°o c°'ooo °8 0 j •° ob
75 0
8-6 aai w° ? U V. a G 6 • ".4 w w w U 9 x A4 • M y U • 1. • Z .? 0 a.
Q 3 .? b Ga 3 A4 v?
AL ine aarx, cola montn or rebruary
is when the tiny seeds that will one day
become North Carolina's famed flue-
cured tobacco are sown. This year, there
are more than the vagaries of weather
and prices troubling local farmers. It
does not take a weatherman to tell them
that the winds of change are blowing
harder than ever.
"The end is coming," third-generation
tobacco farmer David Griffin of Spring
Hope told The N&0's Bob Williams last
week. "And it is coming soon."
Griffin's dire prediction is heard more
and more these days from realistic
tobacco farmers. They know the
chances their sons and daughters will
follow them into the once-lucrative fields
are withering as the nation steps up its
war on the tobacco industry in general
and teenage smoking in particular.
Declining demand for the bright leaf
that once made North Carolina king and
American-made cigarettes the envy of
the world - coupled with political pres-
sures to kill off the price support sys-
tem that guaranteed a profit for those
who grow tobacco - have made it obvi-
ous to all but the most stubborn that the
sun is going down on the glory days of
Tar Heel tobacco.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington
unveiled their plan to curtail teenage
smoking last week. It is a hard-edged
attack far from the sweetheart deal the
tobacco companies wanted. Under the
tobacco companies woula not nave
immunity from the potentially crippling
lawsuits lurking in the shadows.
The plan, as tough as it is, offers tobac-
co farmers a glimmer of hope that they
will come out of this mammoth cultur-
al and economic transition relatively
intact. The Democratic plan earmarks
$28 billion to be paid out over 25 years
to help farmers put aside the tradition
and tools of tobacco-growing as they
seek new crops to let them stay on the
farms they love.
The worst that could happen is for
Congress to do nothing. Farm families
- unlike the tobacco companies, whose
ploys to hook young people on their dan-
gerous products are finally coming to
light - still have some degree of sup-
port in Washington, at least for now, but
there are other forces are work that
would show no mercy.
Price supports have made it impos-
sible for expensive American tobacco
to compete on the world market where
cigarette consumption is actually
increasing. The longer the program
continues to keep prices artificially
high, the less the world will want the
local leaf. And make no mistake, there
are activists at work who have no sym-
pathy for farmers seeing their world
turned upside down.
Meanwhile, there is a crop to be start-
ed as the winds of February blow cold-
er and less friendly than ever before.
A signal on loop roads
nere was a hopeful signal embed-
ded in Norris Tolson!s promise last
T
week that the state would not force
the Eno Drive loop road project down
Durham's throat. The state -Highway
Trust, Fund approved by the General
Assembly mandates construction of
Eno Drive, sections of which are
opposed by many Durham residents,
and implicit in the transportation sec-
retary's pledge is his apparent willing-
ness to ask the legislature to take a sec-
ond look at that law.
A second look is appropriate now. The
9-year-old Trust Rind, financed by taxes
on gasoline and car sales, is reserved
for construction of loops or bypasses
around seven cities, including Raleigh,
Durham and Charlotte. The rationale
in 1989 was that the cities needed the
roads - perhaps even as much as
developers wanted them - and strict
'rules would protect the fund from raids
by ingenious transportation officials or
legislators. As it happens, it was that
willingness to channel cash to projects
favored by insiders that is largely
responsible for the Department of
Transportation's current troubles, with
state auditors and federal investigators
on the march. Governor Hunt hired
Tolson as the reformer, and he is under-
taking a long-overdue review of the
department's structure and mission.
In keeping with that effort, legislators
have a chance to review the wisdom of
the Trust Flind loop roads. The DOT of
course must concern itself with the
state's wider needs, but not in a way
that tramples local concerns.
This period of introspection also
allows the legislature to decide if Trust
Fund money might be better spent on
backlogged maintenance and safety
projects. The chance to review the law
is too good to pass up: The hope is that
legislators catch the signal.
Focusing on Babbitt
Bruce Babbitt, the U.S. interior sec-
retary, finds himself in the throes
of investigations of 1996 campaign
finance practices. Babbitt is a sympa-
thetic figure amid Washington's preoc-
cupation with political big-game hunt-
ing, a man who was a fine presidential
candidate a decade ago and who is a
real authority on environmental issues.
But there's reason to let the investi-
gation go forward. Attorney General
Janet Reno found enough evidence to
request a limited independent counsel
investigation of whether Babbitt may
have testified falsely before Congress
about alleged White House pressure on
a 1995 decision to reject an Indian casi-
no license. Tribes opposing the casino
later contributed at least $286,000 to the
Democratic Party.
Republicans are poised to push for an
expanded investigation, and the inde
pendent council law allows it - witness
what's now happened to Kenneth
Starr's investigation of a failed Arkansas
land deal. Expansion is especially
tempting to Republicans because Sen.
Fred Thompson's committee hearings
on campaign finances last year turned
up smoke, but not much fire. (The final
report from the committee may show
plenty of ethical lapses, but illegalities
appear hard to find.)
An ever-widening investigation by an
unrestrained prosecutor could eat away
at Americans' time and money, and
expansion of such probes can cause
them to lose focus on the issue at hand,
which in this case is solely Babbitt's tes-
timony before Congress. That is a pru-
dent reason to limit the scope of the
Babbitt probe to pertinent legal topics,
not inflammatory political ones.
Good morning
Opponents of a Federal Express hub
at the Raleigh-Durham Airport - they
say the noise will be excessive - are
mustering plenty of decibels themselves.
`THE OLD RELIABLE'
PUBLISHER ..............................................................................FRED CRISP (FCRISP tt NANDO.COM), 829-4651
EXECUTIVE EDITOR ...............................ANDERS GYLLENHAAL (ANDERSG c@i NANDO.COM), 829.8958
ASSOCIATE EDITOR .......................................STEVEN FORD (SFORD a NANDO.COM), 829-4512
MANAGING EDITOR. ........................... MELANIE SILL (MSILL«7i NANDO.COM), 829.8986
DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR..... WILL SUTTON (SUTTON I)NANDO.COM), 829-4530
DEPUTY MANAGING EDIToR ..............MIKE Yom ([e-mail]), 829.4543
SALES AND MARKETING DIR....... DICK HENDERSON, 829.4652 CIRCULATION DIRECTOR .............................................. 8294718
TREASURER ........................ROBERT WORONOFF JR., 829-4859 ADVERTISING DIRECTOR.;.................. JIM MCCLURE, 836-2822
CLASSIFIED ADVERTI m DR1.....DURWOOD CANADAY, 829.4585 OPERATIONS DIRECTOR ..................DANNY COLLINS, 8294782
A MCCLATcHY NEWSPAPER)
Bashing
I often tell my stud
journalists are some
ful people in the coun
the ability to influent
I am troubled, though,
comments in The N&
Broughton High Schoo
negative influence the
First, on Jan. 23 you
("Rumors draw mansio
tors to high school; Auth
proof any Broughton stu
involved") about the in
burned down in Raleigh,
Broughton students had
do with that fire. Your art
facts, yet you felt it proper;
Broughton students for p
Were no other schools floa
your rumor mill? Is it soli
to print rumors?
Second, when reporting
about the article that appe
February issue of GQ mag
Broughton was mentioned,
quote the author Robert D
completely. In "Helms aga'
Broughton," you only repo
GQ Helms said he stands b
mer comments concerning
tion in general and the loss
at Broughton in particular.
You failed to complete Dra
vation. Unlike Helms, Drape'
days at Broughton and in his
that he "came away wonderin
senator had eaten for breakfa
his interview" Despite the sen
comments, the school is not oul
Please don't forget the powe
words to harm as well as help.
Raleigh
The writer teaches
Broughton.
Suit doesn't
In regard to the Jan. 26 art1
bug may lead to lawsuit" I find
laughable that state Attorney
Mike Easley would even consi
There are quite a number of re
this lawsuit is ill-conceived:
1) Most recent commercial c
programs have already been in
account for the year 2000.O1de
programs that were created by
hired permanent or contracted
programmers were created d
time when the standard accept
tice was to use only two digits fo
year to save memory. Most of th
grams have outlived their expec
time by being patched and nurse
instead of rewriting them. They
tally old COBOL language datab
custom-designed report program
2) While it is tempting to go afti
"deep pockets," the onLv people w
benefit from these lawsuits are th
lawyers. The bill will still end up b
paid for by the consumers/taxpay4
the lawsuits are successful againe
computer companies, the costs wl
passed on to us in increased price
software and hardware.
3) How liable should programm
to 20 years ago be for coding prog
the best way they knew at the time
4) Regarding any parallels to
smoking, just as tobacco companii
argue that smokers have known fc
years that smoking is dangerously
unhealthy, users of these program
known about this problem for mar
years. They have simply chosen ni
pay for the changes necessary to f
until it actually creates a problem.
all, these changes do not enhance
functionality of the programs; they
only prevent possib a problems.
OHN BERGII
COY
An Evening in New Orleans
Saturday, February 21
Croasdaile Country Club
Durham
10
arty and
?; in the
arvices for
with HIV
have any
.1-1 . wl)
you like.
UN while
nong your
coworkers
ile raising
,'time in March
;r your guests
la no matter
rty. The Gala
a. to 11 p.m. on
th Carolina
n Raleigh.
)S Community
i, AIDS Service
Service Agency
I Triangle AIDS
at 990-3967
efit Banquet
17 - 6:30 p.m.
h Hilton
rest Road
be Kelly Wright,
ZAL TV. Master
e Charlie Gaddy,
tbruary 11.
ar guest!
cation please
x(919)828.9014
.o
o. .
Children"
tome Tea
-.bruary 20
Jt to help families.
sor membership in:
ents as Parents
Solo Parents
:nt Not Home
Program
be mailed to all
your gift is received.
cur donation/gift
able to:
ursery School
havis Way
, NC 27601
lformation call
r Fax [phone]
Come join us for an elegant and fun
evening! Mardi Gras masks and
theme, food, cash bar, gaming tables,
live and silent auctions are included.
Yolanda Hall, vocalist, will provide
the entertainment with her band.
Tickets are $50 per person. Proceeds
to benefit the Durham Symphony.
Reservations can be made by calling
the Durham Symphony Office at
[phone]
i l??
,r l r dili;rr
W
2nd Annual Casino Night
Saturday, February 21
Gaming 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Prizes awarded from
10:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
YWCA - 1012 Oberlin Rd., Raleigh
Enjoy casino games, hors d'oeuvres,
desserts and coffee. $20 per ticket.
All proceeds benefit programs and
services at the Oberlin Road branch o
the YWCA.
For more information or to reserve
advance tickets contact Gwen or
Robin at [phone]
13th Annual
Toast to the Triangle
Sunday, February 22
5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Tickets: $40 per person in
advance, $50 at the door
North Raleigh Hilton
3415 Wake Forest Road
32 area restaurants, wineries and
business will offer their finest dishes,
tastiest desserts and beverages for an
all-you-can-eat buffet gala. Proceeds
to benefit the 'Mammy Lynn Center for
Developmental Disabilities, which
provides services to children
and adults with special needs.
For ticket information
call Sarah Cope
[phone] ext. 101
E &
4th Annual Art, Crafts
& Antiques Auction
Sunday, February 22 - 3:00 p.m.
The Barn, Fearrington Village
Auction items include: pottery,
sculpture, furniture, textiles
antiques and much more.
Admission $10. Scrumptious hors
d'oeuvres, wine, beverages and live
entertainment included.
Proceeds from the auction will be
used to support the programs and
services of FVRC and its shelter for
battered women and their children
The Garden Place.
For further information call
[phone]
k,

00
4th Annual Black Tie Gala
"A Wishful Affair"
Saturday, February 28
7:00 p.m. - Midnight
North Ridge Country Club
Tickets: $75 each
The evening, to be emceed by Mayor
'Ibm Fetzer, will feature live and silent
auctions, heavy hors d'oeuvres, and
dessert and cash bars. Music will be
provided by Liquid Pleasure.
The Make-A-Wish Foundation of
Eastern North Carolina is a non-profit
organization whose sole purpose is to
grant the favorite wishes of children
under 18 with life-threatening
illnesses. Since 1985 the chapter has
granted more than 500 wishes.
'Ib purchase tickets please
contact the Make-A-Wish office at
1.800.432 WISH or [phone]
/ !i???)
?r,??l?i!/, i l; ! , r •. r ;r r i ii/ i
13th Annual Eyes of March Gala
Friday, March 13 - 7:00 p.m.
Carolina Country Club
Seeing Is Believing ...a storybook even-
ing filled with fantasy and enchant-
ment honoring Mary Brent Wright
and The honorable George F. Bason.
Dinner and dancing to music
by "The Breeze".
Silent and live auctions with all
proceeds to benefit Prevent Blindness
NC and their fight to reach people
before blindness strikes.
Tickets are $300 per couple. For
more information call co -Chairs
Tricia Arnett or Beth Betts at
[phone]
YMCA Partners Program
1600 Hillsborough St. - Raleigh
The YMCA needs adult volunteers
for mentor partnerships with youth
ages 10-17 who could benefit from
additional guidance. Volunteers com-
mit three hours per week for one year.
Complete training is provided.
To learn more about the program and
to register for the next information
session call YMCA Partners at
[phone]
GARY RAT CLUB
4th Annual 10K Run
Saturday, March 7 - 9:00 a.m.
Downtown Cary
East Chatham Street
The run will be held in downtown
Cary and begins and ends at BB&T
on East Chatham street.
Proceeds of the race will be used for
several Rotary projects including the
Cary Family YMCA, the Kids
'Ibgether Playground and our annual
Fourth of July ice cream social for
senior citizens.
828-1140
published each Monday to list upcoming fund raising events and to provide readers
what is happening in the Riangle. Criteria for listing the fund raising events of a
;anization may be obtained by writing to:
The News & Observer/ 360° Community Calendar
P.O. Box 191, Raleigh, NC 27602
or fax to: [phone]
2 ?i

r? lC ?• icy r?i 1
C
) rQ
k'j'" /p (cp
y, V1
?". ?y p C Oq c
O C O, ' K
n
5 CD

N
y CD CD
b
?. CD C?. cl)

° C Co
.? o CD a CD •,
CD a o O
4 ID
o 0
? ci. EL
cr o ?.
102.
y o a O' W
C7 n
r e: '0 °, C'D CD
a
5a
CD

? o< W ? ?. cRD p p
'...o cD a.1 a
cD y ? cD
a on 'r
5y"A+ mates
Q `C '+ Q. y
cr
ao
?• C

o CCD o

O.
M CD
o'
er
CD

Q O ?' 7d F
? ?
z
q 0 CD
`D?
?b

? ?, CD
o o ? ? CD
0
2
.
n p d

l
pop+
0
° 9? ?o
on
P+, 9 41 9
° c c ° c
?fD g (D
t`s ? e
CD (D
0 : ? tTj ? (D fD M ? C
o =° G p" cD
Z 0,0 CD
d?mg'ao8- " aao'
ID M- W,r
q?W =cD Cco "•p
as Sao??'? ao R
o CD 0'<'?i
"
0 CD 0"
5i < CD
CD RL
y ?' F CD
bod cD
CD A, +1
CD CD
t2l
Q '* o p (D O
?* w
o N (DD 0 0
y : c?
a
w ELI)
co cD I. `e a'? ? p' ?p
N E 0 CD + y p' Oq Cy pi
agz1on
V- El
Pal
MP 1% CD
pCp7 O.

fD O
a

a

`
?.
Z ?
N c ...
o
o a c? °

?. a
c?
ry
? y M y

0 OQ ?.

O
,n •??
N O O y cD
p
-

0
C M
OQ ?
.
'
O tu
?,
cD
O CO

VJ y M
r+• O
0 OOQ ?•

C
y
y
C4
W O n
? O
M ?
05Q am

y •
b

3 - - _ _ 46 a
N ? cD
C
c a
W
N
O ,
?• c
?
1n ? Cy
?
OQ CD
Q
r
"n W

S' b ?.

r pis
Q " A
O O
0
0
?*
O
a

a' w ccD (DD g
p
o cL
0.
E as
?. a . 00
y
V
O

O
C
O
V
cc
Z
W
O
O
rz
V

.. •? A0 w ?a
Z 0.-
as
o n av ?o a33°q p ?, >,`? 0.0
42
9 94
&; 12
o wx c p S'8
? ? a n S ?? roa4 c W a ? W aA
W ?? a ,ti a a a C o a g ?:.
w ?
> a UawU '' > '? 3 0 ° E, 'o
v??" Use U a a d = ?'' ?a ,?
a b w x w? > °? a ° '° 0- 0 w o .? a dab
0 a) a ? •b a 0 b ?0 po 44 0 A
O r 0 .? ?., eA •"" 1. N N 3 w c 4jr O o4 I v] vi
a w pjp e> v .r aui °) c '? pq c w O Q O O O v -D "D 8
s 42 d) 1-.4
A b "b ? a? " ? '" y z a 0 •- to .° ? o ? o x a ?, o a
-0 A
cg w ?• >4 >, b 3
oS r,,o-•d)°°o ta'voao? 3 o 03
wa>i c0
42 0 -A .0
;o.%-00 w Qv 3 '°a av? e?w o ?•c ?-a 0.2 ?s 0 0 0
00 9s 0
ca -0 :3 1.4
??a ooba'> aE- 34° aD oaiow
§ z ado 4?O,r °' °•a a„•c a°' a•o
eon oo> p°i0 0'o^ w A 6"8 . °A 5 b
° o? 4C2 w
:? ° P4 ° 4d G1 ca G. ° oat d y z o `" •? °' w •° C a0i ° v
4A m
0 00 06, -0
4.4
a oo U 0 > ? gb r
.4 C,
a :g o a v .c w a, a$> o w 0 b o h a? a a? ° N o +? .? a b •v
aai a a eG .? v? .° a°i 3 3 w c °° o '" ``" '[ O o o `? x w •? Q 3 •b
a .., w a y .n v w o w ?? (L) rA W

OR R
3? >p3w o .c0W
y ? a? y C w ? a? ' D a0i ~ °> ?
h 0 off
°
's iw
w ? b ?'O ?p e? y 0
w v 1 o u
a 1 4-
0 $ oq 'n a 0 a U "
-6 64 h .-
°oa>i 0b°?Soa?ooA
3? ?w° c?
om
w pp •49 4, w v D ?, a?
O o ° g :c cu
° aA
??'a~i ?A tz 0 „ ao
V U is
O V U ?
0 U U
w ed y b ? •c Q
ao?}}3;-;?? s?o
44
3 .? p a a 4 c o a ?" a b
?? ?? ?o°?a?aa boo
o> 'a
w v 4i 3 o V ,6n w
c 14 woo IOU cn a)
O
W

? 3Q
4'
? b

3 v ?
C" o
a?
U
p N

a?

A
•c
LL
-
? ? H
b N r

b>
3 ++" T
A
E
U
_
o T
0- --- - - - _ - Z
ba of _

0
F,l
41
W
O
>
y O
p T
ro
o

°

o
a?
0 3

4 OR
° ccp, ... ?, y a a ?°-
_ w y p ?
OQo
F CD UQ OQ OQ4...
? ?Tj
?• o o CD a C,
o
a a °
CD OQ 0oQ
El. n Cy C CD
O Q
•2 CD W W ... O CD
El CD o o ? w cD °
O Cop ? ?••? ?'
y co CDD' (7'

n
5
c
0
"o
G
a
n
O c~D ? ?
ax e ??a
m. czo

J 4
C D

' °Q

W O -• tj 5
.L1 OwC
C 'O'?.
o C?c
O
f7 ~ F"., n
co
C, w w p; ti
? ?COrc ?
E? :3 CD
c?_D rn' b o Gi o °, (DD
MS Z qd rte. ? .8
CtQ G) 0
(D X &0
Q, or
(rQ
CD O
CD
O
., in,
w
cD c w o ° c a.
°• Oga
c(D ?° O o
w
CD 0
5 E? o `c p ? , co
CD w C CD
0
o .,
C)' co ^.+ o
a. "
o ?• w ? yy ? S co
0 CD
C) CD fnD
vo' :.
(D
owcr b coo UQ o? ?
o
< CD
? C? co w p. ° P,
o c
F OQ
° cD CD N
R.aco ? ?'?t?D P
CD E3 O fno a
^ N
a o'
0
b
r"-

C)
O
C)
y
y
(0 S or
~ o $' Caro
O ° "3' 0

a CD
o
c ? 'C7
0
^
c
D
5 ?•
(IQ ? c r.

0
0 o?a (V' o

G7

M5'IS,?
coo a ?. ? ?' rsa'.,
O ? O ti O
-I o
C gr ., o
° o
r. r, ?' co cD
vj O ?. rS• ? £i
a ?.
cD coy
Co
CD r+ r? p,
C
0
(> CD OQ r.
0. O S E'
p L'- cD rCDf
04 p
-W
as 0 C
l..
o °
rd rn CD ?
d
CD "
CD
rip
S
All w ?. CD
CD
F G' O C
N

C
a
C, 0 M o
oroo„ tn ?

'

• W
b
CD
??' 'CJ ?' CD
G7 M 'C,
'
o
CD v? ?
O
o
co °'* CD 0.
M o a aroQ Q• `° ?
dap
R. CD y CD
a'
,b ?. o 0 coo
0ty o OQ 9 5
• CCDD Q• CD b y
UQ p, w $:
PL n- oQ
10
(IQ
OrQ O CD 0 QQP °
r O?" .7 ?•
$ w G
n cD ?,
CD
N

0 ?5o?rc
aro ara ?
CD Fi O CD

< ^1 O CD
?
o t CD r. F
t
cD
cu,
? c Cy OQ
V E C.
cD
G CZo ?
.
? 'd o a: o
.
y6?
OQ
M ? cD
a ca,
y8b •1v
io
b .d CD
o ((DD C CD Cr y z5'b b w °
?? f7 ,? ., vQ C co o ..
° OCCD ao 0 0 a? ??
?• H 'b ?° CWD b crr'.r co
'-' n R. ? ? y cD cD a
ob
?pyf 0 CD
p P 'dy
O G
CD
5zyow b'dw?ri
a 0
_ n a 0 arQ 0 f 1
decor ??
o rQ
H
Y o ?° coo b OQ
wao OrQ prpy,? o p y g d
° a `r n y O
? CD
CCDD c Ooro ° 1 O q
w
O 0
O CD ," CD 6?? ??^pp O
?n n CD ? ?. R. v' ?• CD CD H
?' ?• a ? 'd .c e• v c ? o ?,
5 ? c' n' o 0 A„'b
OQ cD y' "" ' F CD
rA C)
C C b G' Ch 'L7'
CD C3 O OQ CD (?D
oal 'd g
E; E ?
0 02.
'o c,.D
° y r"1
0 ;
?F?i, O• v? oo ??
?oryy ?D E'
O r77 ?p ? ?
(IQ ..
cD
O G7 y ?
o, o
n
21-
??pp
G. ?- S
Er d ,c?4 c=D trigE?10= ? coo c~o c E+r '° -J'CJ?j;y5'- °'Po' Gmt -j
F CD
?. a O ?a O O co Q OQ O (DD n b n c Oti CD .?? a C O Q• cD
o aQ 5 o C7 ?' o o cD o ? d
o ?y °' cD QOQ ms pms f?QQ Q?c?Dya S'I'D zG
00 o O~ " CD a y o b w Q O F O M i? v o o ?? ?yby'
~ A• nay ?'y??• ' O' CD (? r* Q. CD G: rA ~ ? MO CD ''''ff cD RD w ? ? f••?
0-4 CD ?' y r7 '? b C • M°•? Q7 Q' Q' O CD OQ 71 b ^J N 'Ly }'? (?7 O
?• ,o?" y ?. p M ? S' CD Pte' E,+ v°? ?i,O ? W mr .7
(coo
(D C) •. SD ofD Sao ?? ? w a
CD 11 El ('D OQ 0
C (pp z° 00 w JQ a 0 0 0 0
r wD
CD
CD
<D CD
cD ,«Gy, o o }?.•,•1
O L3. n o ((app CD 0' Q LI)
9 LA CD R. I'd OQ b ?,,, ?, c?D O
CrQ
Ev'? CCD p ° °wry? rte.
n co ty'
a ° ?° CD :° o
CD O CD
c?D cD cu Cali cD (IQ
cr. E3 E+r 0
qQ 'I CD 01
G a d ?° o a o° ?O tr1
06 0 Do '00
0 CD
rn co d o' 0 0
o o? a ?CD
C7- . P.C o a?0o' w g o$ O d
(C,) C, CCDL CD CD
CD ?OrQ'? C7a•?-- a OW Mod a"
c CD C Kai' CD Oq ° a o y ^* $ y M wr , . ?'
0
CD
CD R
M 49 ?o cD o a o O a,
C) cD<D'cy?"i?oo`cyo?Ob'pl? C_? ? ?.
CD CD
cl CD CD ca.
c", (D CD
PI QQ
w w o '* (? ?' o c .c 7d o r, w o w ?
CD Lm (-D
O y cD co
~~ c
o a 0.
AQ , E; - .o - - , o oOQ?o M o 94 le
b 'c 0 tiy vi CD lt? cD 0 0 G W (?D `C CD C3 to ?? E 0
C
ftk%
n
O
y
O
C)
C6
O
;E5 4
a?•vb°?a?oNBooo
U ?b a a a a 3
?0
en ..
41 -= -a A 0
0 54-
0 En 1-4
0 >1 0.0
24
Q•baQicV.5a?'o?
6.2
Win w a ° a pti as a`? Fx ac??
>abrA
tz 3 won v tz °
a a>i 'o ?' .? cv
'Mr a it ??. ? ? U ? ? y
W O .., A b O b Gv+S
•9a a? ''fib o
a? a •d
0 8 0
w0 N o
0? b??a
ao b 0
> .??.bO A 'C a ao b3 ?
E O 0 sb5
Z (D 1-4
U
°
a .G v° b .? N a O
1.4 ?+:,o,
?A ? bo
io)
?cna?,?0 0 005>, >8>,
pp
0,0 o o Ow °
v? R 684 8 W w UV., O Ac=, `? A?
•v ;b o .a
•5 a? a >, -v
•b? •???a,.r?-da 30
9 0
??, U N
ed y" b b N 0
4° 3b ;?
0 C3 .;
m -C CD 00
? o ca 4.•r?
z 040. 0 (D
4? .2
O Q v 8 11". O O ,OO U
>3'?' _aen8 °3a
o
a w .0 ID U o a u a b
U 'H N
42
" °
AGboE?r ID
N 3 ?' a vni O ? 2
d en o o o
? aai ° ? 3 a a b ?••? •'..•• 8 .? ? a v
a e? w 'o aai a a '? t)Q J..4
64 1., bj) O
0 04
o .° 4° o .? o ' w
H '? •? ? ° ? ? o o W a 'D ?
0 75 2 0.
cai cd a a .1 cC9 8 cNd ° 8
bq w b a>i A
.0 0 0 0
41 W 4).2
A .?b ao ? g
3 0 0 8
o a > 8 a? 0 a '' ??. a U °?+'
r,03 0
a 46 =J" 4? 1-0
? e
L? ? aai ° W 4
Z
cit
0
?C
C4
O
Z
O
Lk
a
O
a
H ?
b
o ?
bb
•? N
a
o C-4
A U `°
a? aNN
z
?z
ti U pq 't
O a?
?zQzaa
_.,
3 w
Q U '? U O p4 ?+ '3
a •b ° p
a
00 0 u
° a od) o
C) C -
?,
Z;l
CO 5a
bi) "o
a .' 3 °
a3 a a o
Q 0 3 ~•2 0'0 A?
W ' m ou m 0 i s
b $ a 4?
A °
a?.? a a o??z *b o
?I ?0?oa??•m 3$
U > oo w = •v >o °
3 b oo A 3 a o p4
j a c`? w Z b Q a
b ° > x °
> C13 A o
o b
b
0 0° "w° aS a o ba b
° ow 8 P. I'll
ow !? 0 o ma
E Q Fu' ? ° '8CQ o ° a
a?+ N U vii U c? ?°. 14 'b
83
C-d Hw 3 U'M oo aH 3
w
a?
o •?
z o
w
0
z t
°
§U
a
UAg
CN
d'
00
W)
9
00
,
0
y
?i
a
w
?c
N
0
x
0
b
N
Z
O
O
yZ
t"
4w,
CA
c?
?n70d
o, O
? O y
g z
y ? 70d
?Z
N O
O tv ?
? y
7d ? O
N O
W
OA
?ol
d
Cl
t3d
b
0
Oil
z
H
ri
0
z
z
0
z
A
O
r
z
e:, (1) a) a) >, -? 3 0 o a) o
'? •? ;•? ?'? o ??_,"°,a'.r ?w•.?? 'fib 3
.O ? cC ?• cd c+••' 4.
d) C)
44
1") 4
t/}` a? r' t7 a r/y? .' .? 0.0
a
/?
3 o a o o. ?, .? 1? Q a, ?o o
O 2 0 - 1•. 1-o ? U o o x o 1 s.. .• ON
.c r? .a .d > N o en 8 v? w of x c a 'u
°'
03
o o?°'qa ,¢ d?? ?. a? ?? "'xd ?o o? O ° °' b
o v, o 'w" a? v d? 'd bq a) a>
>1 c,3
04 6,
?., >, L `" p a c° .? Qr •?. o" i a 0672° QI U o i? (D G c Z W 3 ?; ?; -o °[' 3 z v
ay8??c W?'>F ?0 3 o as f3, °>? A•? ai? Ova 12
' o $ a>a? a r oa,U ?? ° wow ? a' ,.0 o oA? a> ca" c°
?, U F, U.? >x v >?; y ° b W ,? to
.A.'>
a a oG 4 a a? a? z o a? a°i
"n b a a?i W a a rn W ?? o o " `" bq C c? ^O 1'. 4
E (p
_U
LP ? 3 ? .? A ? an U c o a. w .? ... ?. •? o ? w A .o
a+ ar a+ y w +-' >•, +-' N G) M '.' M .--? p •b M N >+ ~ w
CL) CL) 0
00
ba 4.
75 cli
..Z C) Un
.d o v o A a`?S ,? a?i w .'.` CO a.) cqs Ln
p 3 °o •?° •3 CJ `?° a°?i Ow
C,4 ce)
w a
N
w° °' 3 b o ° a 3 0
ml -0
c C\
61 -4?
I-w "5
X o 'pr a? °` o -o a? c 45 o, o > ° a ° 4"
cts
Q :j cd ,? ...+ U c? F. •?_' N N O •,., ° `c? c? w •?" w ?., U 3 py 'b cn Q CL 'n Q' U
d) "an) l
-O bD VO G w" y V Vi +- u?i A+ . ?, ?+ ° N O O cd G7 GL
al (1)
. p p '? af7 O cis
M bA n w +- O cV
E3 0 .-
in Z: p p .-
7i 00 d) U
C4-. C43 W)
• 3 o W) N o p O a O 3 cd w 'o .. Z o
W. C-4 Cis "tz$ "0 m -5
In Q
2:.' M p .d N n b b I.. 3 ce as to N 0 Moo O U
"C3 W) 64 C) 0 4, t
r. W) 0 to 0 CD
N , -- N
O C cd M `? •-+ O :. O ° M ° O O N V "al 3 M N `?? 1.12 ow
> ° a? °' a> O a? °? a? t a> a`3 w p `" o a> v? a? a? . v a`3 ° ° e? ays
:t4 w
CC3+,? a+ (?..r +-+ N ++ 4? o ?p Q 00 a+ O Q' cy ar w t? a? ?. O O O ° ?.' •O ?' w ??' ?' cV
. 3 ... a? pG Q -? o a Q o ?. A CS, Q o a 3 .? Q Q w n N 3 Z c? A Q o P. Q Q a.
403,
I//-
Id
o alz
K
K
CIQo o
zcW V]O
N
coo
? a
?z
0
?r
O
b
m T v m
a m ,
-
n

0
S I m Ci
S
z
n
N
ppV,
-1 d
y =
I
rt
-, c..

o a1 o)

Affm
tC
L o E, a a v 11? '
00 F n O 0. ?j
' '
va ? a; o o ? O ti Cn ? '? ? ?
CD a ? 0 0
Co
O Gt a:

r
ci

.O
i>

G
UQ
O

w C
CrQ
D
(
r'A
t3
b O p
?
RD _
T?
rnn r4
TJ ?y
.
A.
n,i
w p O
i
R
M b (D HO ti n 00 y
cD cr O • r?°
. i
N Apr q .ti v
pp??
7
f*

r-r,
O
?
? CD O (D y
z 'Ly y p
Cn .1' O
'• • O
? ? •_' w CD i•q

c
?'
y 77
R'o
p I ?
~ c?
?? (D
n

o o
voa o
y , cD
co~? Q

D
o ? •
R?. tii
j=
a o
g

? j C
a
CD
9T o

o
o
?
. ao n o o R u
Q
o
CD w° CD O a ?:
w
o Y 7 ?? <D
o
w '
O .r G3. :3 CD
? ? ??
a? w>
n aQ (p C
C/2 O CD
cD o aCD
p.
(D CD y
n 'CD?" W ?n (?.A t -1 CD
w [? w O a• "
p

(D
(D CD m E' -
v
i (
D CDw O `C N v' QQQ (D CD
??
S? CD
010
?? ~ O
a
O
a
00 o
a
G
zF°n -;1- 050::? 'I
;4* 0 tTj 2.
C' g
o (D ID pt 0
CD =
Z C4
CD <D cr
CD CD
cr ' , 0p n- fC3. x ?- (D c
??.
CD cD o a -• 51 . o. CD
O nb ob ??OQ
ate'., + ° w t3
o0 o O o CD
o R cD
?. o g o CD
p c? Eu m •c
W PI
CrQ o o. o o x ?
coo)
0 ° C CD a. o. C-D
0 t3
:3 CD
?, <•? o ? n ? o CD R. ? x
CD CD "W 0 CIA Uq
?bzt7z n
r? 05,n ?• H H O
c? td cD >w d r- CD ?.
r
Z Z ?? o
' 1y fD
ON CD C)
CD a,
a
CI) o x
=r
•'°?-u O (IQ
CD
a (?D
0
IV' ? ox b
g
(UQD o ° = .a C ?i"'7i C off
CD -.4
cr ° (p cr Q °? w ?J gy m!
y ? a a a o cr
p to V 'w -h CD cl,
gib-.fD
CD 0
CD o ti a o a. ?.
cD
w o `c oo w ID
E3 3
CD CD
CD V r.
'7 .? R f1
b
° CD CL m
a coo CL o K
CDM
C '
a? x
? ? OQ
o? vA
' O
? H ^1
x DO
o- uw' "d
0
ova°O5 :? O'12-1 C)
O ?' o a n
) O7y O
? O Qq C?D ? ? ? CD • ?•" ?
CD (' R. vii• CD . CD
ni E? d? z oaq
cCDD ? `c w O
62 :E
N iw1 (CD ?a y
CD (-D •
CD Ej W (D
qQQ C ° d
CD rA
0 0 CD (D
Cf?q (?D O CD "°.? N CD n CD
:3' x CD 0 (D ;v C5. n ? z tv,
da C4
?D V QQ aq O cr
O w . O
0 (D CrQ
o c d d bd o d O 'b H '
a? R) C) CD
(IQ CL CD
:mr CD w O cD
CD (D
° Er y CD
M
8 'w' H N O
M C) ??.yn w cn
d Q: ?: p (CD
L cn
(CD ti °' ?'i w n'
° CD c
' n O `C pN CD
CD CD CD
I-+
n J ,^y n
W
C O °
Q
CD a
O a ~
CD ?.
O
((D ? .
oUQ
n• ?, O
o. ?
O CD
a
Er tr
CD
O n O)
rrr 0 G
O CD poi
CD E °
? UQ
UQQ n' .
qQ C
CD aqq
Z
m
Cf)
r
m
m
z
0
-PA

d
? l 1
ID Z
CO. I ?
e", d
z0
O
a U) i
W V1
000 y
y?
?ZZ
N O
OO
W
0
R°
w ?
y
b
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199501068
January 25, 1995
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E,. Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
We have reviewed your letter of November
information for the alternatives described in
Statement (DEIS) for the Durham Northwest and
of Durham to US 70 East of Durham, Durham and
TIP Nos. R-2630 and R-2631, State Project No.
? N-\I-- '\
U? V?
30, 1994, requesting
the Draft Environmental Impact
Northeast Loop, from I-85 West
Orange Counties, North Carolina,
6.358001T.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of excavated
and /or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps of
Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic
environment prior to issuing Department of the Army permits. Authorization of
fill activities within the waters of the United States requires that the
project be water dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are
available. Our initial review emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the
impacts to waters and or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects
of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered
to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic loses
may be chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the
memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied prior to the final permit
decision.
Three primary build alternative alignments for the project were
described in detail in the aforementioned Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) document. All alternatives involve the construction of a four-lane
facility partially on new location, within the Neuse River Basin. All
alternatives begin at I-85 near the Orange/Durham county line, extend around
the north and east side of Durham, and end along U.S. Highway 70 between Page
Road Extension and the Durham/Wake County line. Alternate 1 is generally
located north and east of the other build alternatives, while Alternate 2 is
situated south and west. Alternate 3, for the most part, follows sections of
Alternates 1 and 2. Your preferred alternative is to be chosen following the
Corridor Public Hearing.
Based on our review of the aforementioned document with regards to
impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States, Alternate 3 is the
least damaging alternative. Alternative 3 also is the least expensive of all
alternatives and impacts the least amount of floodplain. Once further
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
-2-
information becomes available regarding the alternatives, please provide the
necessary information to our Raleigh Field Office for our review. As your
planning process continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization
of impacts to waters and wetlands should be maximized as much as practical.
A conceptual mitigation plan should be included in the Final EIS with
potential sites and options. Although specific mitigation sites may not be
known at that time, the Final EIS should include those concepts of mitigation
considered for the preferred alternative, the proposed ratios of compensatory
mitigation, and the acreage of mitigation proposed according to wetland types.
Mrs. Jean B. Manuele is the point of contact for processing of your
Department of the Army permit for the proposed project. Should you have
questions, please contact Mrs. Manuele, Raleigh Regulatory Field office, at
telephone [phone], Extension 24.
Sincerely,
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
'Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
Management
of
27611-7687
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management Mr. Robert Lee
North Carolina Department of District Engineer
Environment, Health and Federal Highway Administration
Natural Resources 310 New Bern Avenue
Post Office Box 27687 Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Mr. Larry Hardy Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pivers Island Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-4 ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources &14
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary iD E ?--? N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 23, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb&,-
Subject: DEIS for Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop
Durham and Orange Counties
State Project DOT No. 6.358001T, TIP #R-2630 and R-2631
EHNR # 95-0378, DEM # 10805
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that over 9.7 acres of waters including wetlands will
be impacted.
All bodies of water in the study area are classified as WS-IV (page 111-37). DEM
requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at all water supply stream
crossings. The stream crossings may be outside of the critical area but DEM still
believes that hazardous spill catch basins at these locations will provide extra
protection at minimal cost. Bridge deck runoff should not drain directly into the bodies
of water. All stream relocations should adhere to DOT's Stream Relocation/
Channelization guidelines. DEM requests that DOT utilize HQW soil and erosion
control measures to protect the water supply.
The 36 foot median for rural sections is unusual. Please explain why a 36 foot
median is proposed instead of the standard 46 foot median.
Why has DOT not proposed full control of access? It is our experience that roads on
new location especially near urban areas without full control of access will require
additional facilities and thus more impacts to wetlands and water quality.
A modification of Alternative 3 is DEM's preferred alternative. DEM's alternative would
follow the proposed Alternative 3 from Sparger Road to NC 98 and then follow
Alternative 2 to the intersection of US 70 and Page Road. This alternative would
minimize the impacts to wetlands 9 and 23. If DOT must impact wetland 23, what
design modifications would reduce wetland impacts?
DOT should coordinate wetland mitigation with DEM. DEM encourages DOT to
further investigate wetland enhancement at Ellerbe Creek and near the confluence of
Cub Creek and the Eno River.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee Memo
January 23, 1995
Page 2
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an DEIS by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: John Dorney
Cindy Sharer, DOT
Raleigh COE
durnwlop.eis
A
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date:
9 '?-- 03 -7
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
? Project located in 7th floor library
I?5015"
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
I
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
???

ill
t
? Air ?Coastal Management Water Planning
e
ev
Fayet
Water
? Water Resources nvironmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater 7` Wildlife Solid Waste Management
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

t
hi
? W Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as
? Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington Others vironmental Management
? Winston-Salem C '_k
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment ?Applicant has been contacted
?Insufficient information to complete review ?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ? Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited) RECF#P?p
ocTi?ou Tn• S 199',
Melba McGee
Ny/TYG "'"Office of Policy Development OYCES
PS. I G
0
N
a
A
0
Z C) G
?z
Z
o?
A
Ln
C
2
ui
H
FM
LLJ
J
cn
ui
Z
e9
0
p cc ?, a? o o `d a`?i ?i ai
o .o o d '? ? ? •3 ? N .? 20
c ?? O cad dl N
?wwwnnn3 U
.0 co? •?
o?bo goof .0?ba°b?
b 00
C O F" ?N+ Qj w 0 N "" vii 27 0
cG?i ed v .. O d O v? a+ " N
cn OW
o 4,
'o 0
off' H ?, °' " 3 a 0
?A 0 a?
t"wz
?wA o tj a a? 3 a?io
p G o w u O 0 o w°
a? p o ? U g 0 o?
14 -a" F
.00
o
U z to v o x
a?
2,0 lo? =0 cd
42
cd yp ebb ~O ?w L? QO
p O
U O C 'Cl
U g °? v
a? o o 6
4.1 b?o
o
o n U_ A o. o o b '3
(' o f a? b° v U o o 3 z
o
p w A° a ,b p aai a? d
0
O F-4 o S, A ° W 0 .5 x u A E- U 9 w 3 °° .?
4-1
?aUZ ? ??pp'?? cy a?
b A. y M? O'T? p C
.?U'Z? o a? aC'?
yV,?? ?y p?? O? O
a° U o c a
o •? .g g ?
1.y :A ao 0 ? O w
cv '- V
° 8 v 3 0 on +o5?n
00 r. -0 C, 0
0 p? a a o
y o° p a c° R
o ?a bF,w p.6.5 0
z?•+°zai ?'p3
W M 'S a • lu 7a
O
o :1
a? cd {???..y11
A?¢•? ° 3. ° V 2
10' 0
ao? ' ?oo"o ?b 0
cu 0
0
QoWa`4aw
40- •? 0 o 0
o o a) p?? a z N
04 °p o
o '1Z
c
4, aoa?'A 9-42)
0 L6
o
414 7g
U >~ °V) o I= 4d
84, o
ed h cz,
i?z•va 3 a
p
0
? b

° o
H

o N
?U
0
N t?r11 N.
t
z° ° z

°
6
U
?z 0 0
Azg;
4 ?
nrMal! 0
zo
bx
3 cn
0
zE^
U c%
0?
0
?n
i
g
r
p i
,
IV
0
0 .!E cd O
0 ? 3 a
,e o o" 0
a °' 3 4
"no a N tax
.d B
? 6
.0 0> 0
94 4- 0
w o w b
a?
w -E
.,
'o 0
b-d 0 0 °U a
:z 0 49 U yp
0
9
.? p 3 0? ? 0 .b cd o 'cl
Os u °a>ia?.a
WATER QUAbiY SE07DON
Non-Qischarge Compliances Ent

a
0
0
w
z?
?z
3 ? M N
z? z
b 0 ? ?
Avl ark
0
V
v
E
rn "
T
N 7?
Cyy .O
E •- 1?
CC ? N
N U
2
C V
m w L r
U o OI
u ix
z Z
? w m
w o .n c

z n ?. n a ?-::r
CAD 9 iD ° O G CAD n N ?' .?.• G ?• ?,,,? tn•'C N N O~ ?--h-- b b fD
p .7
G
8- o
E w °; W a w loo 5 p° o o io' w q iu' w oo n o y
a v b n CD 00 C", a^« CD ?' F° rn y y CD
w CD
ccro (w?. Vv(u N cu ro o o' C. CD co O i
CD ?'i < CD
O
w W '+ N "?O w CD) ° W b o y °O• ?' p. .?+' 41 N ?°I cn '""' fp cu CD rp d ?n O
r y M n ?-. M ?' w "-h N ?C Fn r'' .O-.• Q' ?.' Q" Q' ?" v? to
w '•+ O CD ~
CD w n CD ?,', C9 •P C'1. 0 o p rte-.
w °G PO G C7 f]. ?'. ?. 0 `•+
o ° w n Q' ay F ?? ?5.? ?5 ao.5 a s as wo C7_ o 6A. 5
aQ o N `c a ti p' ,ty °' 0 iu. '" cpu p, p i? cu o '?i
C, (D
t3 CD CD En w
Yp
(OD
W5'? o? n ?• G G cp °°?? 0 5ro
< U,
? ?„ ro a o F; ? `o^ a F?l o o° o C, a cD a s n G• C aw D o .
C"D 00
"0 O w "d N Ci y p? `C "O O a G N°
P 'o,
?y "y n n 5 Cp Cp n p a v ., ,°.ti Cy p C p Cp -? ?C) n .. ?' O
P) 0 C)
co >
M,
CL CD Y? O Cy n I 5. ° .:. p 00 o ] W u w °
Fl- ?• w C N ?' a 0 a O 0:z ' G 1' "D C U° y 0 ??. ??.' 4 oq0 0' (J W A, N
c3
a ,? a ti. n' W A r-L
N Ory ?. OM p- C z 91
CD
> - CiG V) U Cwi w r. lJa "nO O' C .,, C y y ' CvQ
.. CD ?, O ?• n 0, C•) o ' a a n o ci In v, w 5'
5
a w "d o CD o o o 0 0. o. .? ? 5 0 .p?. ti M
CD Q. v UOq rn, R. ?+ Q `C C ti ,-. "°° G '.' . CD w f9 CD O ^p „7 '*+ ,'?'
n, ro
rfi Q. CD n Z`° Wy-. n G]. a. Uo
n b y b a T'
5 n 5 0 W O CAD C ." ?. O O "J
?. Cn - CD b ?' C) VO ry CD AM CD
0 O N vi 'C
"d O rn O O O
.
p' C w- 0 c, oz O a 00 n o o o' Con
CD 1- E N ti 5' ti C1 Q ??*h rn 9y tTl G. ?R? g
..• O0 C/) n `? "d < N G - _? w. d
p CD n O, h11 CD n n M
n ,, Fin "G 5 z n ru x ° .-3 pti
^ " < 0 r• n C CAD < n y ?' ° + ?° n Cu O
CD r" ~ N G
d ° K ' _ P G C C)
w p O ?' z cL O n CD O Q ° roro A b C n vn?
CD CD " °y ?G' H o o t ??dy ° z .0 ° 5'P•'F0 °y a- ^. ti
0o ?"b ...
Q
G, w p' '•? (?? y,
a `C cn ,Y CD v tro o 0y CD O CD q
y ti a° ti 1 U °„ o n
CD cp C,
0 0 Cv] n 0 n w a CD y < °, '' '' V) CD " G ti W "? q p to ?i c E.
p,- W
, CD A 5' d w -+ C w 7?1 - w *, ?v z C ° CD
w c CD ?' F CD CS7 tr1 o Crl C?J n
?, 5+ G < cro ro N ?. 'U ro ? a 5' ° ?; ? ry v? o o ? t ro ? a'
0 5 vpi n ?'? v n' Y ~ , n ?va fit in cn P. o W C7 ? N irpq p ~ ?_ .O^_.
0 ("p G3 Cep" Nn .0 o 'o w C1 av ° n ° G a c?i ° 5.
C3. ? Cn`?p C!] ?i ? ? <• Cj ? ? '? f9• ? ?. f•-p ? p ?.'ro' ? ?„ p C/? ? C ? U ?
-. CD CD
ke,
CD C?7 CD O C7 a °° o o ]' ?? ??
o x d 0 Q w. a o oo a
tj 0 0, c)
a ° C(D CAD o CD $. °'° CD ??' ?C Vi y `C - v A R VQ '

y o° a.
a o
°, o ~• a ° ?1 p n,
ria°q o ?`< rOOOO... a.co p0 c o z
CJ CD 0" n wR CD
CD (-D Cl) w H y ro~?
CO g
CD 5
O t? CD C
ocs CD llz$ 151,
CD 0 -h
a5. 0W°'Q a HOB'^
o 9-4 K. ,
cD CD o a. 5'?ob 5•yg o
a O 5. p ??
N n C "C7 p G. 0
G1. oo ti .1 0
r. _
p o CD rA
O CD o g C1 p' n0 C7 C w O
a r, C? r? a r, ?+w -n w
•"' CD O O CL CD n rny CD CD CD ° CD ?C
? A
o? G??? o o "d o v a TJ
n o 0 0 10, ryry P°
P 2- CL
r- r-L o o ?a a
Co R, n
5 w a a n L 0 7
5• r ° CD 7v
p p ~ o
CD a Q (D O 1.
a o 0 CD 17' _ 5+
o ?G 5' nod
w v E? iD `D o rD ?' ,mow.,
o ? G
0
(D p CD p O CD
r O r5 5 CL O, b b
n x o w w° ~ w a.
PvG `.?N 2
n0 b O n
G tow n 5 N ;? CD °. ?
a cra H ti n r.
p y C/1 CD r O w C(D
O
CD 0-
o c- o
? orytiyD
CCD CD C-D 2. N tj fD w. Cep
?? A
p y ?+ y n n ° h ti ?+ < y Z
o° on ? 5 ° o° I o 'J o o n co
C~D
z a;
O C) ° O O O n
o UOGG O A) O G O• M JnR V50 ,. Un z
n CD qQ p (D ,-. CD ppa? fD n CD (7
CD w q a• W Oryw h n p A. n p fir'. R. ? CD
CD 00
CD ":J
C) CD
P) CD :z 0 CD M
o a pia' o o E<
y a 5 n ro
-TI
o p O (D h O (-D f7 b E' O" CD CD o r -L
(3 r? C)
rp. a °' h '? CD ow N 0 n0 °
D o H a .b o p°p?? d
C)
:a' ro 0 5
CD C
pgo "? pC o n no ° ' a
n O G C~D ? 5 a CCDD (9 CD tr n A G? C ~ (D 5 0. p. CD C3 K- O
h :z ?. Q o 5" o d
G O o ?' ac o, o o a• n :s: 0 A ? A
zo ?'°' CD aC7o x,r-'p n c?nz?D rf?
o° < °Q. oc O 00 w g o
"d ° r--.yao?'o \o? 5•? o. ,nib ? p
00 _
(D k-? 0 CD
?ts p 0 y a, IJ`Co 0
b ut Oz A cD c? E+ 8 p r w p r+
,0 0 CL ',I CD o
0 a, CD t:r
?o..
o cn w -. o an JfD p L-1 CD
•, CD O CD o' z w a w p
ti° C]. o C9 p a n `c ?Oy
M ??D O p w p p ?v? ?n C O, rb
R "d Uq r n O p
p n d p o ... epe 00 CD r?
0 CD CD Cap `c n .°U
.. pr o 00 5 c o y CCC n o * R
? ? ? • ,? n O Coo •p `?' y o a.
z? ° n 5. z.,
0 0 a
0 b° ~ n O°
0 5' p0 zi'.0 p
R CD E b N + CL
N b CAD ' CD 0 p CCDD ny
(D cp
n "t n G' .y CD CD n
o n z 0-0 n" ry.... `< o :°..' v, v5o 00 VVV111
CD F-. r`?•* O fn Q" 1-y C' H QQ Ord' n CD y O r?i.
?/ po
C"D
o yo o ? Ow c~i N n ^?? o'?,'? •A?.?c?D `° 5 Ha?O
o w p 5 `? a.
rA CD CD LID.
v? ,b Q' O RD N C „y ? O a. d5Q O
d o ti y 5~ ~? CD z p a n a
CD R C ry w W O `< o b `"' n E `i ' ro O p '- G
o a (gyp o ?' G< r* w S0 7 w
`G1 CI 'C pn? CD m -. w C? - Uq ?? ?p
I'D W 14?n " p n
, Li C?' (D O CnD G. C+
CD 51 ,c po, n n CD v, A ?, C C a A. 5'
CD 0" 0
02.
C7 o v w o. U5a o0 0, o
RD 0 0 CD
coo y v' w o °° tr a r- ,nY R "
o ?' r» 10
noc p 41? O w o p ITJ
CD
r, w C ? y O
CD 10
'
to cGD
N °?, bo0 n R. CD CO 0 `O (?D Z 0 "31 b ?n A.
i i o H a? ?, cd v a? 0 °' oa a a.
J. 0 w > O O >, o
o 3 o o .r o o n a? O a ,c
0 AUK aU
0 0 o aai A, v 'N a 3 .? a? ° Z' Z °° o o
3 y O o b U > U M° 1 o w ., Z ?, id d >r a
p „ O u o •o $ b o o fit, a a?
O •? 3 3 0' .., .. v .O E- ,? "? con H o o a d ° Z
a ° a, °' °' c o a oA U '? N
? '8 '9 •., 3
o o bA a a? a ?, "C7 c, b„ 3 a ti>
?, bA ° o a b b .? °> a a w° w a
Cd C's
?? a °°'' °' ' n '•-• . O o N C,' Z r" o pq bA >, .-, a o o p. Z W a a 0
n y ,a o
Cd. cd U w y a U d-, a y
•° o ?' oA O vi b O 5 U G o o w o ?: a
"
15 a ` 9 ? N -ig d.... ?, >> bA " a w o o a x p 0 0 3 w b `'-° 3 d
cd a .> "o w a bA a, o N O 'o 4.., Z p., N o 0'- 0 o ° ? -2 a)
?-•? ?] 4w, ??y ?, o a o •? O •-, a a? .??• V .a O a? O - 4 U a ?a v=,
4- V 40. 0
a? 3 y bA oC p+ a 0 r? O p w E _ ?F > $ .?
?, .a O a o V id
6, r.
ar o '4 >,o a•? 0 ?U o ff" ai oA oU o $;? U 1.4
bA N .r «? °? w U?! 'a:. U O •? a ,? w, w '3 U w O H v,
•D Cy" ••o ? '? 'L7 .'_' ° 'b ? '? q O +? a? '-' b O • •-+ O
>i '•C7 to od Q+ N O > 0 aJ N
N U '„ N 0` U O U bA N ° .> O w N In N w N a ed A a a
G b °' o .. o p z a) w .0 0 0 0°
o U `? " y ..-r w a ''.' U U C13 a a a N.i N + N N N O .? - O 3
. N o N U °
O
a v w 3 0 0 O p
U U bA a a W vo V o
?¢ 3 0 a? w O o .G C 3 U U a i Z
F-Z 15
u C6 C-1 4?
O a s o w o a? o °' a ed b a ^d °' ~
a? c a a.? 0' U ,? O" o
2) 2 2.5 40. 'U .5
a Li 0 ° -0 V? Id •: CID °U Q' •N ?? x] cd 4cd bN 0 U
r? U cd bb o N 0 -0 N n vi .
7s 0 5 .0 y
v O +? 3 ' y fem. 0 y, c,? o id a a? V b ' 0 Q+ c'Oi w pbA y3j .?,
?? '`? a vi O L^f H N CY a> U U ?+, p
O ?d O U .d
0 3 U y ?i w «3 o aA w, aai ~ O a? .o a"'i C
o
'In
U O ,r; ° U O v y, b a ?i 0 .? cd 0 H o bA b ..a bq ed ?; a?
0 A. rn " o' I 42 ° v a 0 C) a? 0 a? a, o .a .? b bA
° O o n. w E b ?• -8 b p bA A 4-. ? ao ? w g =>
U z J .5 a+ o ° cC a+ '?? °U O (° o
?" y a+ -+ +~' U N cd 4, ?^ a uj ?Ny U y p ?+ rGQ
V, a b y a 0 U O y C k? bA 4, bA h y N ?•' O "d b ct1 41 fn a R . a
N M U G v, N w F4 0 "" bA .. cd
a? a,? b `" °' a O abb'N bA= 3 0 u O y. q.?
U '? d c $ 3 °?' ? U ? 0 U
>
cd m .0 ..
75 U
o a u b O :? $ o n b o a r. u .0 4?
a a U ?r a 0
O a U p o N a1 . cd 3 O U F" ? a -0 bA
a v, Y. p o N «+ C. m a p O Lr. U p U N b U w
bj) PC w, ¢? cd «, bA 'v v, a? ti v
80- ado a?c?y ?aa?d-d? ° coooar
U? U 3 A° a GW oA 3 w° Z ° w a. w a. ? w 2 C, w? 'o,o S ° 3 as b°o w a°Ci ?w V w o
• f. % f •. d 11
1Ln N a? o w v bA cd U p o v cn In In a? ca ro w V ce ° ,, " -0 o ? a4 -1= W
mg 0.8 C-- -0
O O o > ?-0 a bo000 a 0 ?C7 0 V. a o caw ?, ?, o o a
sn g .4 4.
3 b .??b O ays y b '- ti a? a? R.a mow,
° ,
?+ U .u+ y O U ,? v .O b?
'? '? a O G U O U 4 O 3 O ?' > cct '?v, cd `. O
?v 03 3z o a?40' A ° oA b 3' ag 0
° U
C1, 0
?y
y a a> y cd '. A w rl , cn a? as a? 1. cd
y w a? . o a? C7 0 ' «i ° .o d o .
04 y A, O a M } O ++ . ° 3 a "" 0 vi y 0 0
$
? g ? t
(j
o d ,d °3 ? ob p ? 0 ? 0
,.7 a? vo O ° a??i °
c a ai a? d .0 a o ° ' O 'u 'd cts °
U p O cd U z 0" ?' orn p p u p Q) O ?' ? b a? ?>?? ° o : 0
cli
U? a? ?C7 a 14 a o ?w •? ° a? ?• „ a $ °: b a>, u a ?0
° ?: b o b b a, ro ;; 0 3 0 'o o z° w w a
84.-
o? .? a a 0 av,o00 "p cd td?8.aa ?? Fi ?l? 2
? ?
O 4. p b
- a? a a O o ? o .s o
z b 3 .2 >, U N CL cd b b p cd 1. w U >, N i7 v? i.
y U' Q. ++ C 3 G N cn b N O N W ro ?? cd ? b bA J ?, b w
O F'r y cOd ?i O .a p ?, y?j fli ° w a? '- " pp UN «' ,?•+ U a ,rrNa? p g O
U " bA
p4 0 o o" a s 0 o o
U a > c" -0 ¢ w c• b ?° paq 'o E? 3
ce) A a? x a b a°
44 bA as $z w°R. Li ?, Q?; a 3 p 3'd a0 3z" 00
8 a
?, ?
G7 w ai > cad U b ~ ? 00i >' > ? y t = 0 ? ° ? ? ? ? cbd a O ?a>' E " o o ? u 'A
w O ° ° O O U a O> o b
Z a p
a?U Or. o?w
cn ?r o 3 3ao4 c,? w bA? w v a SU?.,rx
a ? a? a ? arc
04 -0 b>, ?•a V 4, ?ww_o
0-4 ov° 3 ?? o? FhY" o•ocv.3 0 i o $ y?iN
ai 0 S G, A 4 j bUA P4 0 y , ?byA g
a
"Icl ,p $ $ p o ° A A ?, a z ° p. ..a •? 'w >, O U 0 0 -• cd v, O ° A4
04 °' 3° 3> 0 O O O >, a d -v .? O 0' a3i ?A v boo ae°i a? vim, o
0 46J ?A cdx °a 3 o x n`n'~ o. .? o
a ?? 3 o 0 °z V bo .Q oz >,.d U 0 c
*cg 11 E .1
5
U „Ag x o o I? 8 v `>d'0aN J?i o "$ v ww o?bTQaJ7 o
V p b w p w '? p CC
7 c0 f 0= ,,
U Cs. n G o cCd cd ? U p F. 0 00
p > O t? a? v, .a .o o ? ? is
'u oo o
u a °' o o? a -o .o U
b aai °' a a :^' ' ° a .? o a ai u
y u cC •? a.+ a.?
0 f
°O w z a0
V 0 3
3¢ ca ' 00 .? d' w U b 'won a? 3 Z .' `? a Y a 00
g w w b a 0 Cr b o ;o m o b U p °° o 0 ro .? ° z .c g
b y Z A a? 4A a? q O 7S .a °" Z U 0 b U N
0 c13 Q. r. z
to, ' .ti N o o a U a? v a o U .a r? gq
^? .. ° U a? ?A a? cd 0o>,'Fo
Q,w acv >? o u V
z. Q a? aai °'?; °c° o? CIS 0010 1. S?aH °N? Q 0 0 ? a.°o
a ? a ? a ? a
'D

O
•
CD

CL
v a. n

-• roll

? CD
O
w
rml-
!D

-nDZ D Z ?Z 0m

C Z= Z
T ;u
;u =
? v D

mcn m

D r ? rn
r
cnm0
0 r
?o
?o D
v
m
D
D m
-< ? D
m m
v
CD
opt"
?r?
O ?
r.L
O
-I 0 Z
CD 0
Cl)
0 3 n
;? CD
W :3 O
O p ?:3 -h v
^?yraaa • sp
rf
yr O
y? a
A ;
O?
+?
$?r4rlON . 4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DAVID MCCOY
S EC RETARY
April 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
c
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager d/?????,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: Feasibility Study for the Northern Durham Parkway, Durham
Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor Study, State Project
No.: 6.358001T (R-2630 & R-2631), Durham and Orange Counties.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has initiated a study to determine if a
new route developed for the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is a reasonable and feasible
alternate. This new alternate, the "Northern Durham Parkway", was developed by the Durham Joint
City/County Planning Committee following the completion of the State Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments on the Northern Durham Parkway and to request,
updates to your comments regarding Alternate 3 presented in the DEIS. Subsequent to the DEIS,
Alternate 3 was selected by NCDOT as the Preferred Alternative for the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop, from Guess Road (NC 157) to US 70 at the Wake County line. West of Guess
Road, additional corridors will be investigated to minimize or avoid impacts to the Eno River State
Park.
If the Northern Durham Parkway is determined to be a reasonable and feasible alternate, a
Supplemental State DEIS will be prepared. This Supplemental State DEIS will re-evaluate the
Northwest and Northeast Loop Alternate 3 and the Northern Durham Parkway Alternate to identify
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternate.
To assist in this review, this letter includes information regarding the project history, purpose and
need for the project, scope of the study, project area description, and project alternates. Exhibits
showing the general project area and the alternate corridor locations are also included.
RECEIVED
A PR 1 , 2000)
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
2
Proiect History
In 1991, the NCDOT retained the private engineering firm of H. W. Lochner, Inc. to prepare a State
DEIS on the proposed Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop. The formal agency scoping
comments and coordination for this project was initiated in October 1991.
During the initial development of the project alternatives, concern regarding the Eno River and the
Eno River State Park was raised by state and federal agencies, the City of Durham, Durham County,
local interest groups, and private citizens. Several build alternates, north and south, of the Eno
River were developed and evaluated for the project. The project coordination, study alternates, and
evaluations are included in the State DEIS approved October 26, 1994.
Following the Public Hearing and the review of public and agency comments, the NCDOT
announced the selection of a preferred alternative in September 1997. As a result of changes in the
Eno River State Park boundaries, the NCDOT determined that further corridor studies would be
undertaken for the western portion of the project from I-85 to Guess Road. For the portion of the
project east of Guess Road, the NCDOT selected Alternate 3 as the Preferred Alternative.
The City of Durham, Durham County, and several interest groups expressed their continued concern
regarding the potential impacts to the Eno River and the Eno River State Park. In order to organize
and resolve these concerns, the Durham Joint City/County Planning Committee (JCCPC) met and
developed a build alternate they believe will best serve the Durham area. This alternate, called the
Northern Durham Parkway, was endorsed by resolution in June 1999 by the Durham City Council
and by the Durham County Board of County Commissioners. In late 1999, the NCDOT in
conjunction with H. W. Lochner, Inc initiated a study of the Northern Durham Parkway to
determine if it is a reasonable and feasible alternate requiring a more detailed evaluation.
Scope of Study
The scope of this study will consist of a "fatal-flaw" investigation of the Northern Durham
Parkway. The study will develop the corridor following the approximate location outlined by the
Durham JCCPC. The potential impacts to the human and natural environment, will be quantified
based on available data and used to determine if the corridor is reasonable and feasible.
Purpose and Need for the Proiect
The Northwest and Northeast Loop is needed to reduce existing traffic congestion in and around the
urban areas of north and east Durham and to increase the overall system capacity of the existing
traffic network based on future projected travel demand. The project would provide a more direct
route for commuter traffic originating in northwest and northeast Durham and destined for Research
Triangle Park and the Raleigh Durham International Airport. The proposed roadway would provide
an additional east/west facility in northern Durham and a north/south facility in eastern Durham for
through traffic to bypass or circumnavigate portions of the City of Durham.
3
The Northern Durham Parkway Alternate is also intended to improve existing traffic congestion in
and around the urban areas of north and east Durham while minimizing the impacts to the Eno
River State Park. This Parkway would provide a more direct route for traffic traveling in northern
Durham County to I-85 and US 70.
Description of General Area
Durham County is located in the piedmont physiographic province of north central North Carolina.
The topography of the area is slightly rolling with creek and river valleys incising the landscape.
These valleys generally confine the associated floodplain and wetlands to the stream channels.
Major water bodies in the project area include the Little River Reservoir, Eno River, Little River,
and associated tributaries, Crooked Creek, Ellerbee Creek, Little Lick Creek, Lick Creek, Panther
Creek, and Chunky Pipe Creek. Each of these water bodies flows into Falls Lake, an impoundment
of the Neuse River constructed to provide drinking water to neighboring Wake County and the City
of Raleigh. Falls Lake is located northeast and east of the project study area.
The project area is located in the northern portions of the Durham urban area that includes portions
of the City of Durham and Durham County. There are four north/south-oriented roadways from the
City of Durham that traverse the Eno River. Along these roadway corridors exist a mix of
residential and commercial land uses. Between the developed roadway corridors, open space and
agricultural land uses occur. Along the Eno River, a system of state and local parks have been
established. Also located within the study corridor are small pockets of light industrial land uses
and a gravel quarry. North of the Eno River, residential development is the dominant land use.
Treyburn, a large residential and industrial community, is in process of developing at the crossing of
Old Oxford Road, Teknika Parkway, and Red Mill Road just south of the Little River Reservoir.
Residential and industrial sites are currently located in this area.
East of the project area, agricultural and low-density residential land uses occur. Southeast of the
project area, and in close proximity to the east project termini, is Research Triangle Park. Also
close to the project study area, southeast of the east project termini, is the Raleigh Durham
International Airport. West and northwest of the project area is open space associated with the Eno
River State Park system, low density residential housing, and agricultural land uses.
Description of Alternates
Attached for your use is a map showing the corridor locations for both the Northwest and Northeast
Loop and the Northern Durham Parkway alternates. Both alternates are proposed as four-lane
arterial type roadways with at grade intersections at major road crossings and interchanges at
interstate crossings. An interchange is also proposed at US 501 for the Northwest and Northeast
Loop and will be evaluated for the Northern Durham Parkway.
The Northwest and Northeast Loop extends around the northern side of Durham from I-85 to
US 70. From I-85 to Guess Road, the three build alternates, Alternates 1, 2, and 3, described in the
State DEIS are still under consideration and may include future modifications to minimize impacts
to the Eno River State Park. The general location of these alternates begin at I-85 west of the
Orange County Line, extends north across the Orange/Durham County line, turns northeast
4
paralleling a portion of Sparger Road, and crosses Cole Mill Road. The Loop continues west
crossing Rose of Sharon Road and Hillandale Road to connect with Guess Road.
From Guess Road to US 70, the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop will follow the location of
Alternate 3 described in the State DEIS. Alternate 3 is the Preferred Alternative for this portion of
the project. The Preferred Alternative begins at Guess Road, crosses U.S. 501 and proceeds east
parallel to Hebron Road. The Loop continues across Old Oxford Road and an unused "L-Line" of
the Norfolk Southern Railroad before turning southeast to cross Hamlin Road and Ellerbee Creek.
The loop then turns south extending across 1-85, Cheek Road, Freeman Road, and parallels Mineral
Springs Road across NC 98. From NC 98, the Loop continues south crossing Holder Road, Sherron
Road, and Leesville Road to connect with U.S. 70 at the Wake County Line.
The Northern Durham Parkway begins at existing I-85 and extends north following Duke Street or
Roxboro Road to where they merge into a single roadway north of Horton Road. The Parkway then
follows existing Roxboro Road (US 501) to just north of Snow Hill Road before extending on new
location east to tie to and follow existing Red Mill Road across the Eno River to Hamlin Road. The
Parkway continues along existing Hamlin Road to connect with the proposed Northwest and
Northeast Loop. The section of the Parkway from Hamlin Road to U.S. 70 will follow along the
same location as the Preferred Alternative for the Northeast and Northwest Loop.
In order to investigate all social, economic, and environmental factors which may be involved with
the alternates, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is distributing this letter to obtain
any comments you may have relative to your area of expertise and concern. All input received will
be considered in this feasibility study to determine if the Northern Durham Parkway is a reasonable
and feasible alternate. Your updated comments on the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop are
also appreciated.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation would appreciate any comments you may wish to
make on this project by May 12, 2000. If further information is needed, you may contact Mr. John
Conforti, REM, NCDOT Project Planning Engineer at [phone], extension 208.
WDG/jc
Attachment
F
0
0
?f?15 DEP&
,v
C
O
U
Z
O
a)
E
cu
a
0
O
cu
0
cn
I-
Ct cn _C
cn . U
p p p o

NOIlI
?? ado l^l
o
Q
is • ocvrz Q?
Z O
O ?••-r
4- C: i
Z
U) Q L
W U)
O O V! O
0 ;..4 ct
U E Q z 0? 0000
00
Q
h--? a z z
oaf Z°O 4 m
z o ?-
zA /
~? . Tl

?J(

d

S i
0
o3 Lo
(s • OEP AR
LL w z O V
C) 0
p CC3 +, z
O v ?cnw
O w Q
0 < 000 U) <
cu co
0 (1)
ZQ
86u8jp -

w

I

J

i]

F

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
A. Proposed Action ................................. S-1
B. Other Major Government Actions ...................... S-1
C. Alternatives Considered ............................ S-3
D. Major Environmental Impacts ........................ S-5
E. Areas of Controversy .............................. S-7
F. Other Government Actions Required .................... S-8
G. Environmental Commitments ......................... S-8
1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ........................ I-1
A. Project Status .................................. I-2
B. System Linkage ................................. I-7
C. Capacity and Transportation Demands ................... I-10
1. Existing Traffic Conditions ........................ I-10
2. Deficiencies and Needs Analysis .................... I-10
3. Design Year Traffic and Transportation ................ I-17
4. Design Year Level of Service ...................... I-18
D. Social Demands and Economic Development .... .. . . . . .. ... I-22
E. Model Inter-Relationships ........................... I-24
II. ALTERNATIVES .................................. II-1
A. Development of Alternatives ......................... II-1
B. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated .................. II-1
1. Transportation Systems Management Alternative ........... II-2
2. Mass Transit Alternative ......................... II-3
3. Improve Existing Facilities Alternative ........... ... .. . II-6
C. Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study ................ II-8
1. No-Build Alternative ............................ II-8
2. Development of the Build Alternative ................. II-9
a. Design Criteria and Typical Sections ................ II-9
b. Preliminary Corridors Development ................ II-11
c. Corridor Refinement .......................... II-12
d. Selection of Build Alternates ..................... 1I-12
3. Build Alternates ............................... 1I-21
a. Alternate 1 ............................... II-22
b. Alternate 2 ............................... II-30
c. Alternate 3 .................. ........... . . II-31
d. Connectors 1I-32
D. Design Elements and Cost ........................... II-34
1. Interchanges and Intersections ...................... II-34
2. Right of Way Costs ............................ II-35
3. Construction Costs ............................. II-36
E. Summary of Proposed Action ......................... II-36
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................... III-1
A. Social Environment ............................... III-1
1. Population and Growth Characteristics ................. III-1
a. Population Characteristics ...................... III-1
b. Growth Trends ............................. III-1
2. Land Use Planning ............................. III-6
3. Community Facilities and Services ................... III-9
a. Neighborhoods ............................. III-9
b. Utilities ................................. III-10
c. Schools .................................. III-13
d. Libraries ................................. III-14
e. Emergency Services .......................... III-14
f. Other Community Facilities ..................... III-14
g. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ................. III-15
4. Transportation Facilities .......................... III-20
a. Railroads ................................. III-20
b. Airports ................................. III-21
B. Cultural Resources ............................... III-21
1. Archaeologic Sites ............................. III-21
2. Historic Architecture ............................ III-22
C. Economic Environment ............................ III-25
1. Labor Force and Employment ...................... III-25
2. Income Ranges ............................... III-26
D. Natural Environment .............................. III-27
1. Biotic Resources .............................. III-27
a. Vegetational Communities ...................... III-27
b. Wildlife ................................. III-28
2. Physical Resources ............................. III-30
a. Soils ................................... III-30
b. Water Resources .................... ... ..... III-31
c. Water Quality ...................... ...... .. III-37
3. Jurisdictional Topics ............................ III-39
a. Wetlands ................................. III-39
b. Rare and Protected Species ...................... III-41
c. Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas,
and Natural Communities .................... III-46
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................... IV-1
A. Land Use Impacts ................................ IV-1
B. Social Impacts .................................. IV-2
1. Community Cohesion ........................... IV-2
ii

t
n
C.

I
ri

s

t

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
2. Community Facilities and Services ................... IV-6
a. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ................. IV-6
b. Land and Water Conservation Funds (Section 6(f)) ....... IV-8
c. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10
d. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................. IV-12
e. Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13
f. Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13
g. Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 14
h. Emergency Services .......................... IV-15
i. Commuter Services .......................... IV-16
3. Accessibility and Travel Patterns .................... IV-17
4. Joint Development ............................. IV-17
C. Relocation Impacts ............................... IV-17
D. Economic Impacts ............................... IV-25
E. Farmland Impacts ................................ IV-26
F. Air Quality Impacts ............................... IV-27
G. Noise Impacts .................................. IV-33
1. Potential Noise Sensitive Areas ......... . ........... IV-33
2. Existing Conditions ............................ IV-34
3. Design Year Noise Levels ........................ IV-34
4. Noise Impacts ................................ IV-39
5. Consideration of Abatement Measures ................. IV-42
a. Shifts in Highway Alignment .................... IV-43
b. Traffic System Management Measures ............... IV-43
c. Sound Barriers ............................. IV-44
6. Construction Noise ............................. IV-49
H. Natural Resources Impacts .......................... IV-49
1. Biotic Resources .............................. IV-49
a. Vegetational Communities ...................... IV-49
b. Wildlife Impacts ............................ IV-50
2. Physical Resources ............................. IV-51
a. Soils IV-51
b. Water Resources ................. . . ......... IV-51
c. Water Quality .............................. IV-52
3. Jurisdictional Topics ............................ IV-54
a. Wetland Impacts ............................ IV-54
b. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization ..... . ... ... ... IV-60
c. Wetland Mitigation .......................... IV-61
d. Rare and Protected Species Impacts ................ IV-61
1. Permits ...................... . ..... .. . . ... ... IV-65
J. Floodplain Impacts ............................... IV-66
1. Floodplain Encroachments and Risk .................. IV-66
2. Floodplain Values ............................. IV-71
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
3. Floodplain Development ......................... IV-72
4. Mitigation .................................. IV-72
K. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................ IV-72
L. Cultural Resources ............................... IV-73
1. Historic Architecture ............................ IV-73
2. Archaeologic Sites ............................. IV-74
M. Energy ...................................... IV-74
N. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites ..................... IV-75
0. Visual Impacts .................................. IV-84
P. Construction Impacts .............................. IV-86
Q. Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity ............ IV-88
R. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........ IV-89
V. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................... V-1
VI. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO
WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT .......... VI-1
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................... VII-1
A. Early Coordination ............................... VII-1
B. Public Involvement Program ......................... VII-2
1. First Citizens Informational Workshops ................ VII-3
2. Second Citizens Informational Workshop ............... VII-4
3. Pre-Hearing Open House ......................... VII-4
4. Corridor Public Hearing .......................... VII-4
5. Small Group Meetings ........................... VII-5
6. Mailing List ................................. VII-7
7. Newsletters ................................. VII-7
8. Hotline .................................... VII-7
C. Public Officials Meetings ........................... VII-8
D. Interagency Review Meeting ......................... VII-9
E. Steering Committee ............................... VII-9
F. Citizens Advisory Committee ........................ VII-11
VIII. INDEX ........................................ VIII-1
APPENDICES
A. Pertinent State Agency Comments and Coordination
B. Pertinent Federal Agency Comments and Coordination
C. Pertinent Local Agency Comments and Coordination
iv
a
i
i
t
LIST OF EX HITS
I-1 PROJECT VICINITY ............................... I-3
I-2 PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................ I-5
I-3 THOROUGHFARE PLAN ............................ I-11
I-4 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - 1992 ..................... I-13
II-1 TYPICAL SECTIONS ............................... II-13
II-2 PROJECT STUDY WINDOW .......................... II-15
II-3 PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS .................. II-19
II-4 CORRIDOR SEGMENTS RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY ... II-23
II-5 NORTHWEST BUILD ALTERNATES .................... II-25
II-6 NORTHEAST BUILD ALTERNATES .................... II-27
III-1 CENSUS TRACTS ................................. III-3
III-2 FUTURE LAND USE ............................... III-7
III-3 NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ......... III-11
III-4 PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ......................... III-17
III-5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................... III-23
III-6 WATER RESOURCES . ....................... ...... III-33
III-7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS .. .... . ......... III-47
IV-1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SITES ...................... IV-29
IV-2 NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS ..................... IV-35
IV-3 SOUND BARRIER LOCATIONS ....................... IV-45
IV-4 WETLAND LOCATIONS ............................ IV-57
IV-5 FLOODPLAIN LOCATIONS .......................... IV-67
IV-6 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LOCATIONS ........ IV-79
v
LIST OF TABLES
S-1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY ......................... S-6
I-1 ROADWAY CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES .................. I-16
I-2 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND MULTI-LANE
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............. I-19
I-3 2015 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ..................... I-21
II-1 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................ II-10
II-2 EVALUATION OF ELIMINATED
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS ................ II-22
II-3 RIGHT OF WAY COST ESTIMATES .................... II-35
II-4 BUILD ALTERNATES COST COMPARISON ............... II-36
III-1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ..................... III-2
III-2 GROWTH RATES AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ......... III-5
III-3 EMPLOYMENT: DURHAM COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA .. III-25
III-4 INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK:
DURHAM COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA ............ III-26
III-5 STREAM CONNECTIONS ........................... III-32
III-6 SUMMARY OF POND SIZES ......................... III-36
III-7 FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES ...................... III-42
III-8 STATE PROTECTED SPECIES ........................ III-43
IV-1 SUMMARY OF PARKLAND IMPACTS ................... IV-7
IV-2 UTILITY IMPACTS ................................IV-11
IV-3 SUMMARY OF RELOCATION IMPACTS ................. IV-18
vt
t
r
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
IV-4 MAXIMUM PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATIONS .............................IV-32
IV-5 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ........................... IV-37
IV-6 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ....................... IV-40
IV-7 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTIES ........... IV-41
IV-8 EVALUATION OF SOUND BARRIERS .................. IV-47
IV-9 SUMMARY OF VEGETATIONAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS ..... IV-50
IV-10 SUMMARY OF POND IMPACTS ...................... IV-53
IV-11 SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS ................... IV-60
IV-12 SUMMARY OF FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS ................. IV-70
IV-13 SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
RISK ASSESSMENTS .............................IV-77
VII-1 DISTRIBUTION OF SCOPING LETTER .................. VII-2
VII-2 AGENCIES REPRESENTED AT THE
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING .................. VII-9
VII-3 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ................... VII- 10
VII-4 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ........... VII- 12
VII-5 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY ... VII-13
Vu

L?

H

1

1
SUMMARY
A. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project, the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop (known locally as Eno
Drive - Gorman Road), consists of constructing a circumferential transportation facility or
loop that would extend through the northern and eastern portions of the Durham metropolitan
area in Durham and Orange Counties. The project is needed to address capacity demands
of the current roadway network, future economic development, and constrained regional
accessibility issues. The project begins at I-85 near the Orange - Durham County line,
extends around the north and east side of Durham, and ends along US 70 between Page Road
Extension and the Durham - Wake County line. The project would be approximately 18 to
20 miles in length and would be a four-lane arterial roadway with varying typical sections.
The first typical section would be used in urban areas and would consist of four travel lanes
separated by a 30-foot raised median. The second typical section would be used in rural
areas and consist of four travel lanes divided by a 36-foot depressed median. The third
typical section would also be used in urban areas and would consist of four lanes separated
by a continuous two-way center left-turn lane. The minimum right of way width for the
project varies from 100 to 150 feet.
B. OTHER MAJOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 1995 - 2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) lists several facilities in the study area to be improved. These
include widening I-85 with additional through lanes and auxiliary lanes from the Orange
S-1
d
County line to US 70 east of Durham; widening Guess Road (NC 157) between Carver
Street (SR 1407) and Umstead Road (SR 1449) to a multi-lane urban facility; and upgrading
the intersection of Mineral Springs Road (SR 1917), US 70, and Miami Boulevard
(SR 1959).
The Triangle Transit Authority is currently evaluating the future of regional mass transit
in the Durham - Raleigh - Chapel Hill area. In the Triangle Fixed Guideway study three
alternatives were identified. Phase III results were made available in August, 1994. If
regional mass transit is feasible, a Preferred Alternative could be selected in one to two
years.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is studying additional water
quality control measures for the Eno River. Because the Eno River is inhabited by five state
protected freshwater mussel species, the WRC is proposing to designate portions of the river
as critical habitat areas for these rare species. Waters defined as critical habitat areas by the
WRC may receive a supplemental classification of High Quality Water (HQW). Rules to
protect HQW were developed by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
HQW rules do not specifically address roads or transportation systems. However, under the
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, a set of guidelines more stringent than
the NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" are applied to
land disturbing activities within HQW protection zones.
S-2

II

Currently, the WRC is coordinating with the DEM to define the limits of the critical
habitat area along the Eno River. After the critical habitat is defined and reviewed by the
two agencies, public hearings will be held to present information and receive comment from
interested parties and affected property owners. Final determination of whether to provide
a supplemental classification of HQW will be made after the public hearing process. A
resolution of the proposal to amend the classification of the Eno River as HQW is expected
in late 1994.
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Various alternative actions were considered for this project. These included the
Transportation System Management Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, the Improve
Existing Facilities Alternative, the No-Build Alternative, and the Build Alternative.
Only the Build Alternative will meet the capacity demands, economic development, and
regional accessibility requirements of the project. Although the No-Build Alternative would
not meet the requirements of the project, it was retained for further consideration as a basis
of comparison with the Build Alternative.
This project is in the corridor location stage of the highway planning process. As such,
corridors for the Build Alternative are 500 feet wide in urban areas and 1,000 feet wide in
rural areas. Conceptual right of way limits are used for planning purposes but the actual
right of way limits may shift within the corridor, depending on particular design factors or
the need for impact mitigation.
S-3

Within the Build Alternative, there are three build alternates. These build alternates are
described in detail in Section II. The typical sections and design criteria for this proposed
highway would vary depending on the existing land uses in proximity to the roadway.
Typical sections and design criteria are also described in detail in Section II.
The three build alternates are labeled: Alternate 1, which is located furthest away from
the City of Durham; Alternate 2, which is closest to the City of Durham; and Alternate 3
which represents the current Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan alignment. In addition to the three build alternates, nine connectors were developed
that would allow a transfer from one build alternate to a second build alternate at locations
along the length of the corridors. Each of the build alternates would include an interchange
at the following locations: I-85 near the Durham - Orange County line, Roxboro Road, I-85
northeast of Durham, and US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line. Access would be
I

J

controlled only at the interchanges. All other major cross roads would be at-grade
intersections with signalization.
The estimated right of way and construction cost for Alternate 1 is $143,862,000.
Alternates 2 and 3 are relatively similar in the total costs at $126,369,000 and $126,188,500,
respectively. The 1995 - 2001 TIP estimated cost is $100,860,000.
Following the Corridor Public Hearing, a Preferred Alternate will be identified and the
proposed right of way and construction limits will be established within the corridor through
preliminary design on the selected alternate. Various configurations for the Preferred
S-4

11,

rill

L

17
t

Alternate would be evaluated within the selected corridor and a second public hearing, the
Design Public Hearing, would be held before the final right of way is established.
D. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Details of the specific impacts associated with the three build alternates and the No-Build
Alternative are included in Section IV. Table S-1 contains a summary of the quantifiable
impacts of the build alternates.
Depending on the build alternate considered, the proposed action would relocate 86 to
100 residences, 8 to 26 businesses, no farms, and 2 to 4 non-profit organizations. Noise
would impact between 188 and 283 residential properties and one industrial complex. There
would be no impacts to air quality. Each of the proposed alternates would have an
involvement with lands protected under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act. Prime, State, or locally important farmlands are not considered to be present
within the study area since the project is within the Durham Urban Growth Area Boundary.
Wetland impacts within the conceptual right of way would range from 10 to 16 acres.
Federally protected plant species are located within the corridor limits of Alternates 1 and 3
but would not be affected by the conceptual right of way limits. Floodplains and regulatory
floodways associated with the major drainages in the study area would be crossed. Between
19 acres and 26 acres of floodplain would be impacted by the conceptual right of way of the
proposed alternates. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic standing
structures, properties, or districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places would be
directly impacted by the build alternates. The West Point on the Eno National Register
Historic District is located in the West Point on the Eno City Park. Alternate 1 would be
S-5

TABLE S-1
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
BUILD ALTERNATE
CATEGORY UNITS
1 T 2 3
Corridor Length miles 19.7 17.8 18.7
total 86 100 95
Family Relocations minority 25 41 35
Business Relocations total 15 26 8
minority 0 7 2
total 4 2 2
Non-Profit Relocations minority 0 1 1
Right of Way parcels 443 539 503
acres 558.3 474.8 505.1
Potential Hazardous each 9 11 10
Material Sites
Ponds Impacted number 7 6 4
acres 2.8 4.1 1.8
number 12 11 13
Wetlands acres 15.9 11.2 9.7
Floodplains number 12 10 11
acres 25.5 24.5 19.1
Forest Impacts acres 342.5 189.6 289.6
Parklands acres 5.3 0.4 0.9
Air Quality carbon monoxide 10.5 11.2 10.2
1-Hour Concentration parts per million
Air Quality carbon monoxide
6.4
6.8
6.2
8-Hour Concentration parts per million
Noise number of impacted 189 283 190
properties
Noise Barriers number of feasible 3 3 1
barriers
Utility Impacts number of crossings 22 22 24
Right of Way Cost dollars 50,937,000 46,744,000 42,363,500
Construction Cost dollars 929925,000 79,625,000 83,825,000
Total Cost dollars 143,862,000 126,369,000 126,188,500
S-6

1
I

t

I located immediately south of the historic district boundary. Depending on the alter

F]

fJ

IN
between 9 and 11 sites or businesses handling hazardous materials would be located in or
near the corridors of the build alternates.
Long-term environmental impacts generally would be similar among the three build
alternates. No substantial impacts on future land uses, water quality, terrestrial ecology,
wildlife resources, and fisheries resources would occur under the Build Alternative. No
impacts to these resources would occur under the No-Build Alternative.
E. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Coordination with various governmental agencies, property owners, and local groups
have identified several areas of controversy. Residents in neighborhoods throughout the
project have expressed opposition to the build alternate(s) that would be in proximity to their
respective neighborhood.
Agencies and local groups have expressed concern over the preservation of water quality
in the project area. Except for one stream, all drainages in the project area lead to Falls
Lake which is the primary drinking water supply for the neighboring City of Raleigh.
Concern has been expressed for the treatment of water as it drains into the Eno River and
Falls Lake. Government action concerning more strict water quality protection measures for
water draining into the Eno River is pending.
I S-7
'or I
F. OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED
A Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for construction of the proposed facility. A Section 401 Water Quality
Certification Permit and NPDES permits will be required from the North Carolina '
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Section 6(f)
coordination will be required with the Department of Interior, National Park Service and the
Division of Parks and Recreation of DEHNR. Should a land transfer from the Eno River
State Park be required, the North Carolina General Assembly will have to approve the ,
exchange of property.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS 1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will make every effort to minimize
'
impacts on the natural environment. Impact minimization will be accomplished by adhering
to strict guidelines and specifications adopted by the State of North Carolina. ,
1. Impacts to Critical Watershed Areas and the water quality of all receiving waters
?f
will be minimized by strict adherence to the North Carolina Department of
.\ Transportation's, "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters,"
June 1991. Additionally, every effort will be made to minimize natural water body
impacts during final design.

2. Areas containing protected species will be avoided if possible during the design
phase of the project.
S-8 ,

3. Wetland avoidance is considered during all phases of the project. If wetlands
' cannot be avoided, every effort will be made to minimize the impacts through the
location and design of the roadway facility within the selected corridor. Mitigation
of unavoidable wetland impacts will be coordinated through the appropriate state
I and federal agencies.
1 4. Although no pedestrian facilities are a part of the Northwest and Northeast Loop,
' there would be a need for a pedestrian overpass east of Roxboro Road under
Alternate 1. The pedestrian bridge will be considered during final design, if
Alternate 1 is selected as the Preferred Alternate.
5. Sound barriers corresponding to the selected build alternate will be investigated in
' more detail in the design study Phase of the project. Five sound barriers were
' determined to be feasible during the course of this study.
6. Bridges will be designed to assure that there will be a minimal increase in the water
surface elevation during the base flood. Additional hydraulic surveys and analyses,
' for both major and minor stream crossings, will be performed during the design
phase to accurately locate the stream channels, tops of banks, and other topographic
features. The effect of the new roadway on stormwater discharge will be evaluated
to ensure no substantial increase in downstream flooding will occur.
' 7. When the final proposed centerline is established and right of way determined, a
' hazardous materials site assessment will be performed to the degree necessary to
' S-9
1
determine levels of contamination at any potential hazardous materials sites along
the preferred corridor. Resolution of problems associated with contamination will
be coordinated with appropriate agencies.
8. Measures to minimize visual impacts will be taken into consideration during design
of the roadway. Overall, visual impacts may be mitigated through a variety of
actions such as alignment modifications during design, landscaping, screening,
embankments, and selective clearing of natural materials.
9. The known populations of the federally protected smooth coneflower along Hebron
Road will be avoided to the extent possible. If Alternates 1 or 3 are selected as the
Preferred Alternative, prior to the Record of Decision, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be consulted to develop a plan to minimize impact to this plant species.
10. If a build alternate is selected as the Preferred Alternative, an archaeological survey
of the preferred corridor will be conducted. This survey will be coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Office.
S-10

t

t

11
1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of this study is to evaluate possible roadway corridors for a new circumferential
transportation facility or loop that would extend through the northern and eastern portions
of the Durham metropolitan area in Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. The
proposed loop would consist of a multi-lane arterial street facility partly on new location with
an approximate length of 18 to 20 miles. Exhibit I-1 shows the general location of the
project study area in relation to the surrounding highway system, and Exhibit I-2 shows the
project study area and the local street network. The project study area for the proposed
facility begins at I-85 near the Orange - Durham County line, extends around the north and
east sides of Durham, and ends along US 70 between Mineral Springs Road and the Durham
- Wake County line.
Along with the proposed facility, the concept of a circumferential arterial street around
Durham could be continued with the possible extension of an existing roadway at the western
terminus and either an existing roadway or an extension of an existing roadway at the eastern
terminus. In the western portion of the project area, NC 751, which provides direct access
to Duke University and Duke Medical Center from the west, could be extended in the future
from US 70 to connect with the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop at the proposed I-85
interchange. In the eastern portion of the study area either: Page Road, which provides
access to Research Triangle Park, could be connected with the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop at its interchange with US 70; or Aviation Parkway, which provides access
I-1

to the Raleigh - Durham Airport, could be extended to an interchange at US 70 with the
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop.
The need for the circumferential facility, officially known as the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop, is based on a combination of factors including the enhancement of the
capacity and level of service of the existing transportation network, social and economic
development considerations, and modal inter-relationships.
A. PROJECT STATUS
The need for a transportation facility in northern and eastern Durham was first identified
in the preparation of the 1967 Durham Urban Area Long Range Thoroughfare Plan and was
known as Eno Drive - Gorman Road. So that local planning authorities would be able to
plan for the facility, conceptual design plans were prepared in the late 1960's. The proposed
location of the Eno Drive - Gorman Road corridor remained relatively unchanged throughout
the years and was incorporated into each of the Durham Area Thoroughfare Plans from 1967
through 1985. The project was never advanced beyond the thoroughfare planning stage
because of a lack of available funds to construct the street.
In the late 1980's during the development of the current Thoroughfare Plan, the Durham
City Council suggested that additional corridors north and south of the Eno River be taken
into consideration for the location of the proposed loop. The Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop is one of several urban roadway loop facilities, contained in the North
Carolina Highway Trust Fund legislation of 1989. In 1990 the Durham City Council passed
a resolution requesting the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepare
I-2

1

J

r

Cam= 1 = -

O - ? s
---' ??
a ?. -•- -•-•-•-._._. .? _-__
•?• ?o

1
Ir

o
NTY m
•
° RUSSELL RD
0

o
-
GE COU
pgAN -l- TY
iAM COUN
•
?• No ? ? ? ? •
oo Rtes ?.' ?
0
?•
n
tIRI
D ?
n ^
?
Co
?, ? .,? Croak r g `
o ,
RO °
`J

o O? Oc
SHA ;N RD V
as Ss?n
cry
Mud
` y
• O

m
o? (n? •
,
• RD A
1F CRiS r r ?
D `• O?
y
D i
ScrrdY Creek P
n
f\\LL?D Sc,3n`?oCY o k8 O?pTj
wo,
a

t? ? C?
o
C
CD
"D
("D

•
M
0
?•
` o
C-+1
30VOV
W z

•
0

<
04 p?6 15 3r?°
15
o z

--3

-.
n r^
S i
y . DENF/
lid k D sr o ?
.
C? co
?C
HOPE VALLEY RD o
N S S
??° Q
s ?
<<
m Noso
1
00
???
k ?s ---
Q
C/
NN O d1
o
?O ? 2 Cab Cft3e
M ONS
?
ERS
DR OF
oR0
°?
MANGUM ST
Rp
?

?SEVILLE ST c`GO • z~

6
?
(Inactive) L-Ulne
?
(')n
lull! \\U FAYE L? •?
? ? ? Norfolk Southern •
--•
ALSTON AVE 0 0?0
10 R0 RD

Ln
p Crgo?, /
r
R/?
7
?.
41
Co
•

N V
4 O C
FF
GLENN Ro F

•
0?
O? p
Sr
00Z
,
o z
1 • O??
/
nos?\a?,aN ??
JUNCTION ?O pa 0101 Qv
fir' a[1°
°
M? j WdH
o? ?
•ut"1-o : 'QELI
? ?' RD •
?
\
?

woo SMS
SON som

4-# 0 Co

FS? cn
•
OWNS
F
• ?,o

SPRINGS
•
O ?? 66
.o
o

IBLVO MINERAL ff.
i RFD
?

?yF w00
?•?bd
?'? D
y?
?
•
? ?
R
? ?
? ?R
0
V ??o
o
s
C
•' p

0
.7
Co
O J
w :s- SON
?

g
PIV --3

C
y
Uck Crock
d ?
)

`° pa god ? • ? ?

900
DURHAM COUNTY ^ oYAa 00
-- ?
•
WAKE
/
COUNTY ; OLS RD
•-•' • DOC X10 F 1
0??
BAPTIST 331NVS L, 1
•?
o m ?
1 ??J
0
7

O O O m O

p
`.

m ?

C--+- c-t- Cn w zr

-p 14
r- zC:
?
??? 0
?• CCDD W
o
Cr r-4. O O -

F? ??1yva3a . $
T?rF
O r
CD n
op,no • v?Co

J

7

an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the most feasible corridor location for the
proposed roadway.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division of Highways initiated a
corridor planning study and Environmental Impact Statement for Eno Drive - Gorman Road
in 1991. Eno Drive - Gorman Road is listed in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as R-2630 and
R-2631 and labeled the Durham Northwest Loop and the Durham Northeast Loop,
respectively. Project R-2630, the Durham Northwest Loop, extends from I-85 west of
Durham, near the Durham - Orange County line, to I-85 northeast of Durham. Project
R-2631, the Durham Northeast Loop, extends from I-85 northeast of Durham to US 70 near
the Durham - Wake County line. In 1994, Governor Jim Hunt introduced "North Carolina
Transportation 2001", a plan to accelerate improvements to the state's transportation system.
As a result of the Governor's plan, construction would begin on the Durham Northeast Loop
(Project R-2631) one year ahead of schedule, in the year 2001. The Northwest Loop
(Project R-2630) is not scheduled for construction until sometime after 2001.
B. SYSTEM LINKAGE
The project area is served by several major roadways that include I-85, I-40, US 70,
US 501, and US 15. Locations of these major roadways are depicted in Exhibits I-1 and I-2.
I-85 extends from Montgomery, Alabama to Petersburg, Virginia, bisects the City of
Durham, and is one of North Carolina's principal north - south roadway facilities. I-40,
from Barstow, California to Wilmington, is the state's principal east - west roadway facility
and is located south of the study area. US 70, an east - west principal arterial, joins with
I-7
I-85 in eastern Durham and through the city, then separates from I-85 approximately one
mile east of the Durham - Orange County line. US 501 (Roxboro Road), a north-south
principal arterial, extends from the South Carolina - North Carolina state line northward
through the center of the City of Durham to Virginia. US 15, also a principal arterial,
shares the same roadway as US 501 for much of its location within the City of Durham, then
joins with northbound I-85 for approximately 10 miles before separating from the interstate
northeast of the project study area. Each of these major roadways, with the exception of
I-40, crosses the project study area.
In addition, there are several radial arterial streets that extend outward from the City of
Durham and cross the project study area. As shown in Exhibit I-2, these radial arterial
roadways include Cole Mill Road (SR 1401), Guess Road (NC 157), Old Oxford Road
(SR 1004), Cheek Road (SR 1800), and Wake Forest Highway (NC 98). Cole Mill Road,
a two-lane minor arterial, and Guess Road, a north - south principal arterial, both
interchange with I-85 near the western portion of the project study area. Old Oxford Road,
a two-lane minor arterial, begins at US 501 just north of I-85 and extends northward through
the project area to Treyburn, a 5,200 acre multi-use development area north of Durham.
Cheek Road is a two-lane minor arterial in the northeastern portion of the study area that
parallels I-85. Wake Forest Highway, an east - west principal arterial, interchanges with
US 70 near the eastern portion of the project study area. Wake Forest Highway transitions
from a four-lane to a two-lane facility within the study area.
Several of these radial arterial roadways traverse the Eno River, a natural barrier that
divides development in the north Durham area. The Eno River is a tributary of Falls Lake,
I-8

a 12,000 acre drinking water supply for the City of Raleigh in northeast Durham County.
The only east - west oriented multi-lane facility in the vicinity of the study area is I-85.
North of I-85, there is no continuous roadway facility that provides connectivity or, more
importantly, access between the radial routes that would enhance mobility and traffic
operations to major employment and residential centers. North of the Eno River three two-
lane roads, Umstead, Latta, and Infinity, do form an east - west link between Cole Mill
Road and Old Oxford Road. South of the Eno River, a connection to Old Oxford Road can
be made from Guess Road via Horton Road, Denfield Street, and Hebron Road. Neither of
these corridors, however, provide access to the major facilities such as I-85.
provides direct access between I-85 north and US 70 east. There are several two-lane routes
In the eastern portion of the project area there is no north - south oriented facility that
that can be combined to form an indirect connection between I-85 and US 70. These include
Red Mill Road, Geer Street, Burton Road, Fletchers Chapel Road, Stallings Road, Wake
Forest Highway, Olive Branch Road, Doc Nichols Road, and Leesville Road. A similar
connection can be made along Glenn School Road, Junction Road, Cheek Road, Freeman
Road, and Mineral Springs Road.
The Durham Northeast and Northwest Loop would be an additional multi-lane urban
arterial street that would provide access between the radial arterial roadways and allow
residents and businesses in the northern and eastern portions of the Durham metropolitan
area more direct access to major employers east and west of the City of Durham.
I-9
C. CAPACITY AND TRANSPORTATION DEMANDS
1. Existing Traffic Conditions
The existing roadway network in and around the study area is composed of a variety
of routes including two interstate freeways. I-85 links Durham with Charlotte, North
Carolina to the southwest and Petersburg, Virginia to the northeast. I-40 merges with I-85
southwest of Durham in Orange County, providing access to Wilmington, North Carolina
to the southeast and Asheville, North Carolina to the west. In addition to the traffic
generated by the two interstate freeways, the highway network is influenced by the three
cities forming the "Triangle" area: Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill. The Durham
Northwest and Northeast Loop would connect radial routes from northwest to southeast
Durham and is a component of the adopted thoroughfare plan.
The Durham County portion of the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by the City of Durham in November 1991 and NCDOT in
January 1992. The thoroughfare plan is shown in Exhibit I-3. The proposed Durham
Northwest and Northeast Loop is shown on the thoroughfare plan as Eno Drive.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the existing roadway network, for the year
1992, are shown in Exhibit I-4. The traffic values are given in terms of the average number
of vehicles per day on the roadway at that location.
2. Deficiencies and Needs Analysis
An analysis of Deficiencies and Needs was completed in the middle 1980s for the
Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. This analysis included
I-10

' •;?I?I?R'RI..-L'? It i tY, J '',^^ ?f!?'^.$^". M.' :G!nAss":..R" 7+6M'/{'@tOxN,IY
/lr 1.
'r• I ! --_"-: ;[rte' oxen eT
%
Ill I 1
1 ?\ \ •-?
P L NIFI eT. H
! ?' $
f ? ?,, ¦8 of
/ / ? "aE
L ,Ct ` ?? _ _'._ ?"KEW Aft
"°O}fono CBD INSET
\U
?W "0. _ EIAC,r(Pr PO. rREY14\?`
of 'EY[?IYI--- -
FIGURE 2
J E d
...
Td `d ORRNVILLE CO
DURHAm co.
.r
• RB
+, 1 nn
\x`? N011TON IRO J-
jI
otif 1 [ ,1 • ?1L? ??-
e
1
IN
runner A. ,? \x - / - V? J_ J
CA.MV
stir > O N I ? ¦ _i-{ =--' I? ?? ?//???_?_lY???\? / ? \\? / l
P ?') __ : , ° I"RR,CF ? ? Cam' ? - y Tim ? J J 1
? ? - ?'I?I _ e? ? Pw • f?
i,,AKOR g uoweY ° - R ? ? 7- .. `L. ? -l`/lJ? -\1 ?=\ \\
{ ' ? 1 1/J I 1 ? //? ? J
" P EEINWY rj[ ? ' 1
dry N - ?
ra n ? RQ I ? >. /
s °
I - CNxrE 1NLL _ I-i•W '- ? .; ti r 1 `? ` `J? ¦ ?
\ ee % ,r s`?. IJ p ddX"
r l? _ p
F CIIAO
FL .?' ??l IirNEP .. 9 I- y - Cy. 1,-_.. LEEenuE
N llno j 1 I c1?
`rte
J I 1 \ ._? 0}0°PO°' _ I - ?._.. ,??;K J??"f GP.tf.F P}Wy! > Q - _ _ I • _-? .1
yy ,
TCN gOV - a. ? i.. ? m ? ??? ? 1 ? w ?•? - 0
%
1 I ? '{••'y.T- - °cPOfT rrwr ` [ c° i• ) ?? •W ,[E# ^tiP..,, DU?N?O ? fw? 4 - ? l
I,? W{r? f 1 { 'Rp0 BWW , _ ?? ,NO w,Rf CO. -ft
r- too 00
° ? 1 ? r'?}CNRPCL Q ? I c"'wPx°tno n.If O???
o , !I
} . ° F Pl. d
g a _ 8 8?1
1
econ RINI Ro. . ,? ?_ No oN Ro. ab ?
u!HAm
Lw?
IIFE:--?.?.( ?e OVRTNAY CO •^ `• ^,_ WAKE CO ? \ ... -Y I IRIMAr "RIPORT _ • ,\I` -?--
i
MA NAIF*? %
- ??-7•--- ??•_`? i ?; 'r ? `\ ? ? ? it .._-1
v"k W,
y
%
? 'r ?? t- 1 ? L
DURHAM COUNTY PORTION OF
nKXdiR"v : THOROUGHFARE APPROVAL DATES: LL aeE DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO
r7a ,...,,,,. , x,„ •? unannrxxLS Lnuuec tearasLU
PUPIIf-IIEIIRIN°DATF9 URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Ru.cP
N°RTH CAROLW
arv ar ounNxr nnElr x xr Axcl ? (? OCTOBER 2, 1991
srAILWIDE PLIINNIN; zn 91R1
ex.nl aauel mx r
PRANCH r."? . /%A
NCDDI
_ ?, ux rru,rnr .urn .u.
- _ -__ - .vur. atrmmvr ? r,au,..r.u.ernun...
- Thoroughfare
- Plan Exhibit 1--3

o I
0
c
z
o -
o ORANGE COUNTY
DlTR1lA? COUNTY
O? J W3CN Od
VALLEY RD
0
UNI ?ERSITy DR
EV\LLE ST
FAYE??
ALSTON AVE
v N
p 00 J( N _ --- - - - - \lp?
O
O O O
?a
n? ??0 N Lt ~ti G a RUSSELL RD
OHO
L' Od
cJ SLLd M
05 0330
? N
o y?
rn
W
O
O
O
MANGUM S\
0
f?
0
A? U)
^? 1
0?5 ?N?nO
?,M83
BLVD
N
O
O
pa ??d d
DURHAM COUNTY
WAKE
COUNTY
I o
O
I
I
MINERAL
S
o v tiFRR
(J"
O
O
O p
lO N
O
O
m
? m
o ?
JUNC HON
s
00
O

Q;

T
O fn
P Ro
co
°
O

° ROSE OF 'Vt N
RD `r
N
O
°

0
30
SHARON - N pig 55
O J
N
W O Z O
O
OD
Oy
° ' ?

W A
O D
1 Q

° v'
°° \\\?\ ?'°? RD
? ,S?nO vI m D
o p0?ptj
O ?
o °
C)
7P
z O o W

O
00 o
(7) _ ? z N
O -J /

O O n
-" W O
0
- \p p ?O Z
`
l?NF LDS `..., ° o
v ?
v O O
OD o \o C3
°d\
.133
?
0
A 0
- r) O
MONS
o
O yFaRD N
to p

A'D o
O
O
G
$

?' .. O
T .P O <p
p OD O kFORO RD
O
- per
O W ?N y 2
6-4, rA
O
N
0
N O O?
O O O?
AG5
Ln O
? O O
L4 co
° O f
O /
V
0
O
O? Np\1??N
N
O
O
??? spy
Q?
N
0 \13
Qp is c)
°O F
O?3 SDN ,.,.
OD \d 6 \
O V
O 01) o
?isro ? w
°O o o
2D X10 O
r ?
O "33 LNdS
BAPTIST p?
O V`0 `P?
a y ??

1W c
b
D
CCD
(Q
CD
? N
?GJ
1
00
0
0
pc

o

o

1 o z
O O O CD 0
?? ?Zt
rt '0 -:?
3 n
W
O ? 0
C'D
O
-
C/ :3

?i d a.
+rF

O Yi U
O ? P
S
O
RD ^
>
01
> O 1 \\W G
W
O
'SL 10 O
? o

J

L

a review of the existing and future land uses, an inventory of the existing roadway network,
and an evaluation of the operations of the planned roadway network when future
development began to generate traffic. The planned roadway network included roadway
facilities that were under construction or were programmed by NCDOT to be improved. In
the project area, these facilities included widening I-85 to six-lanes between the Orange
County line and US 70 east of Durham; and widening Guess Road (NC 157) between Carver
Street (SR 1407) and Rose of Sharon Road (SR 1404) to a five-lane urban street.
The deficiencies and needs analysis assumed that no improvements would be made
to the area's roadway network, other than those programmed, and assessed the deficiencies
of the roadways based on forecasted traffic volumes that would likely be found on the
roadways for the years 1985, 2000, and 2010. Results of the study indicate that the traffic
capacity of several roads in the project area were inadequate to accommodate the 1985 traffic
volumes and several more would be incapable of accommodating future traffic volumes.
Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles capable of traveling along a section
of roadway during the peak travel period based on physical and operational conditions
relative to the road. A summary of the results of the Analysis of Deficiencies and Needs for
roadways in the project area is presented in Table I-1.
When traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the roadway, operating
levels of service (LOS) are diminished and congestion results. Simply defined, level of
service is a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions of a traffic stream
along a roadway or at an intersection of two roadways. Six levels of service are defined
from A to F, with Level of Service A the best and Level of Service F the worst.
I-15
TABLE I-1
ROADWAY CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES

FACILITY
(Location) AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
(ADT)
1985 2000 2010
R
ds Guess Road (at Eno River) 13,700 17,000 24,000
oa
Deficient NC 98 (East of US 70) 20,400 24,700 36,600
in 1985 Mineral Springs Road (North of US 70) 6,500 16,300 30,400
Cole Mill Road (at Eno River) 5,700 16,400 25,400
R
d Roxboro Road (at Eno River) 25,600 39,500 50,700
oa
s
Deficient Old Oxford Highway (at Eno River) 2,800 22,200 31,200
in 2000 I-85 (Northwest of US 70 East) 22,200 43,300 59,500
US 70 (West of Mineral Springs Road) 28,000 52,200 70,300
Cole Mill Road (West of Umstead Road) 700 8,400 13,600
Roads I-85 (West of US 70 East) 50,200 72,200 97,800
Deficient
in 2010
Sherron Road (East of Mineral Springs)
2,300
7,400
15,400
Leesville Road (Northeast of US 70) 600 6,500 11,000
Source: Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area Long-Range Thoroughfare Plan,
Analysis of Deficiencies and Needs, 1987.
Traffic volumes shown in Table I-1 for Guess Road at the Eno River, Wake Forest
Highway east of US 70, and Mineral Springs Road north of US 70 indicate that these
facilities were approaching or exceeding their capacity in 1985. As traffic volumes continue
to increase on the these facilities, congestion and travel delays will escalate.
By the year 2000, forecasted traffic volumes indicate that several additional roads
in the project area would become deficient, including Cole Mill Road, Roxboro Road, Old
I-16

Oxford Highway near the Eno River, I-85 northeast of US 70, and US 70 west of Mineral
Springs Road. In 2010, Cole Mill Road west of Umstead Road, I-85 west of US 70 east,
Sherron Road, and Leesville Road would become deficient. By the year 2010 almost every
radial route from the City of Durham through the project area would be inadequate to serve
the forecasted traffic volumes, thereby, resulting in congestion and travel delays.
An expanded and improved transportation system was developed to address these
identified existing and future transportation needs. This system is reflected in the currently
adopted Durham County portion of the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan.
This plan was developed based on local land use plans and was approved by both the
Durham City Council and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The Durham
Northwest and Northeast Loop is part of the adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Its function is to
relieve congested radial routes of traffic that can be better served by a circumferential
facility. Sections of the radial roadways inside the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop,
toward the center of Durham, would have the greater reduction in traffic volumes and
congestion as compared with sections of these same radial arterials outside the proposed
facility. The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is not the only circumferential roadway
in the Thoroughfare Plan. The Durham Northern Freeway is a fully controlled access
facility planned for north of the Eno River, further removed from the urban area. This
roadway would connect Roxboro Road with the Northern Wake Expressway near US 70.
3. Design Year Traffic and Transportation
Traffic Levels of Service were determined based on projections of future anticipated
traffic volumes in the study area. The Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity
I-17

Manual, 1985 was the basis for which the Levels of Service were determined. The projected
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along the proposed roadway for the design year 2015
are shown in Table I-2 and range from 12,900 to 29,500 vehicles per day. Design year
traffic volumes were prepared based on travel demand modeling for the current local
Thoroughfare Plan and reflect the full implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan
improvements by 2015.
4. Design Year Level of Service
The Level of Service (LOS) provided by the proposed facility (Build Alternative) is
partially determined by how the projected volumes of traffic are accommodated. The
minimum desirable level of service for this project during the peak periods of the design year
is LOS D. Two categories of traffic analysis were utilized to determine if existing
intersecting routes and the proposed roadway would function at the minimum desirable level
of service with the forecasted design year 2015 traffic volumes. The analysis included multi-
lane highway and signalized intersection evaluations.
The multi-lane highway analysis was performed along the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop to determine if the proposed number of through lanes would satisfy the
traffic volumes that were forecasted for the design year of 2015. The analysis was
performed in segments along the facility between major intersections. Table I-2 shows the
level of service for the various segments of the roadway.
I-18

LI

I

I

TABLE I-2
2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND
MULTI-LANE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Northwest and Northeast
Loop Segment Average Daily Traffic
For Proposed Facility
(Year 2015) Design
Speed
(mph) Design Hour
Level of
Service
I-85 South to Cole Mill 20,100 50 C
Cole Mill to Rose of Sharon 12,900 50 B
Rose of Sharon to Hillandale 16,700 50 B
Hillandale to Guess 14,400 50 B
Guess to Stadium 24,400 50 C
Stadium to Roxboro 22,500 50 C
Roxboro to Old Oxford 26,600 50 D
Old Oxford to Hamlin 29,500 50 D
Hamlin to Glenn 24,500 50 C
Glenn to I-85 North 28,600 50 D
I-85 North to Club 15,400 50 B
Club to Cheek 14,500 50 B
Cheek to Wake Forest 12,900 50 B
Wake Forest to Sherron 20,500 60 B
Sherron to Leesville 17,100 60 B
Leesville to US 70 17,100 60 B
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum
Traffic Analysis, November, 1992.
For the proposed roadway segments between I-85 west of Durham and Roxboro
Road a LOS C or better was achieved. Between Roxboro Road and I-85 northeast of
Durham the multi-lane highway analysis yielded a LOS D, except for the segment between
I-19

Hamlin Road and Glenn Road which resulted in a LOS C. Multi-lane analysis between I-85
northeast of Durham and US 70 resulted in a LOS B.
Each of the proposed interchange and intersection locations were evaluated based on
forecasted 2015 traffic volumes and turning movements. Major intersections were studied
as unsignalized intersections in order to evaluate the traffic operational characteristics of
various turning movements. A satisfactory level of service could not be obtained at any of
the unsignalized intersections, therefore, all were evaluated with signalization.
The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop would contain 20 signalized intersections
along the facility. Signalized intersections would be located at interchange ramp terminals
and at local streets along the build alternates. Each intersection was first analyzed for a base
condition. For the proposed facility, the base condition included two through lanes, a single
right-turn lane, and a single left-turn lane. For the intersecting streets, the base condition
consisted of the existing through lanes and existing left and right turn lanes. If the
intersecting street was programmed for improvement, the planned lane arrangement was used
as the base condition. The proposed facility was analyzed at each intersection using design
year morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes. At locations where the base condition
did not yield a desirable level of service, intersection modifications were included to enhance
traffic operations. These modifications included added through lanes on the intersecting
streets or added turn-lanes on the intersecting streets and on proposed facility. Total
signalized intersection level of service for the interchange ramp terminals and local streets
are shown in Table 1-3.
I-20

I
I

TABLE I-3
2015 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

F
L..'

I
i
u

J

INTERSECTION MORNING PEAK HOUR
TOTAL
INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE EVENING PEAK HOUR
TOTAL
INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE
I-85 South (North Side) a B B
I-85 South (South Side) a C B
Cole Mill (B) (C)
Rose of Sharon B B
Hillandale B B
Guess (D) (C)
Stadium A B
Roxboro a (D) (C)
Old Oxford (D) (D)
Hamlin (D) (D)
Glenn D D
I-85 North (West Side) a B B
I-85 North (East Side) a C D
Club B B
Cheek B B
Wake Forest D D
Sherron B B
Leesville C C
U.S. 70 (North Side) a C B
U.S. 70 (South Side) a B B
A = Base Conditions
(A) = Intersection Modifications Required to Improve Level of Service
a = Intersection is at an Interchange Ramp Terminal
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -
' Traffic Analysis, November, 1992.
1 I-21

D. SOCIAL DEMANDS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Durham's continued economic development will require a more efficient means to move
commuters from residential areas to major employment centers and goods produced at these
employment centers to points beyond. Durham represents the northwest corner of "Research
Triangle", an area known nationally for high technology industries, medical facilities,
universities, government agencies, and the arts. Research Triangle Park (RTP) is an
industrial development located in the southeast portion of Durham County, immediately south
of the eastern terminus of this project. RTP is the world's largest research and technology
park and employs more than 30,000 people in various governmental, corporate, and
academic research facilities. A direct connection from I-85 northeast of Durham to US 70
southeast of Durham would enhance access to RTP.
Treyburn is a relatively recent 5,200 acre mixed-use development that is competing with
RTP to attract new high technology industries. It is located north of Durham and the project
area. Upon completion, Treyburn is anticipated to accommodate 4,000 residential units and
40,000 jobs. A circumferential route between Roxboro Road and US 70 would provide
improved access between Treyburn and major transportation facilities as well as provide a
connecting road between Treyburn and RTP. In addition to the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop, the current Thoroughfare Plan includes the Durham Northern Freeway.
The Durham Northern Freeway would connect Treyburn with Roxboro Road to the west and
the Northern Wake Expressway near US 70 to the east.
In the northeast portion of the study area along Hamlin Road is an area known as Eno
Industrial Park which contains such industries as Fruedenburg Spun Web and Mitsubishi
I-22

1

7
I

Semi-Conductor. The Durham Public Schools warehouse and vehicle maintenance facility
is also located in this area. Future land use plans for Durham County include an expansion
of this industrial area. The proximity of this industrial park to I-85, US 70, Roxboro Road
(US 501), and an existing railroad line make expansion of this park likely. The Durham
Northwest and Northeast Loop would provide more direct access to the industrial park from
I-85, US 70, and US 501.
Another industrial development area is located in the vicinity of the interchange between
I-85 and Glenn School Road. This area is planned for additional industrial development in
the coming years and benefits from access to I-85 and a Norfolk Southern railroad line. The
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop would improve access to this area from US 70 and
Roxboro Road (US 501).
The proximity of the circumferential facility to I-85, US 70, and US 501 would provide
improved access for workers, raw materials, supplies, and distribution to businesses at RTP,
Treyburn, along Hamlin Road, and along Glenn School Road. Businesses and residences
throughout the project area would also benefit from a more direct connection to the Raleigh-
Durham International Airport.
Immediately southeast of the western terminus of the study area is Duke University
Northwest Loop in conjunction with the extension of NC 751 would provide more direct
Campus and Medical Center which employs more than 20,000 people. The Durham
access to this major employment center from the north and east.
I-23

E. MODAL INTER-RELATIONSHIPS
In addition to the roadway network, the project area is served by airline, bus, and train
services. The Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) airport is located between US 70 and
I-40, seven miles southeast of Durham, near the eastern terminus of the project. RDU,
which is currently served by six major air carriers and two commuter services, handled over
9.6 million passengers in 1993. American Airlines, one of the major airline companies, uses
RDU as its southeast regional hub. The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop in
conjunction with the extension of Aviation Parkway would provide direct access between
RDU and major residential areas and business centers in northern and eastern Durham.
Bus service within the study area is provided by the Durham Area Transit Authority
(DATA) and the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). DATA currently has one bus route that
extends into the study area of this project. DATA Route 4 extends from the central business
district (CBD) to approximately the Eno River along Roxboro Road. The Triangle Transit
Authority provides bus service between the Durham CBD and Research Triangle Park. The
Triangle Transit Authority also operates Tri-a-Ride, a regional ride sharing vanpool service
that serves commuters in Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties. The vanpool service is
growing in popularity and is presently expanding this operation to connect adjacent counties
with major employment centers within RTP. The Triangle Transit Authority is currently
conducting a study to assess the feasibility of a fixed guideway system in the Chapel Hill -
Durham - Raleigh area. One option of the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study, Alternative C,
would enhance bus services along existing and proposed roadway corridors. Portions of the
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop between Roxboro Road and US 70 are identified in
Alternative C as a potential link for this service.
I-24

J

f

e
Currently commuter train service in Durham is provided by AMTRAK which maintains
a passenger rail station in the CBD of Durham. AMTRAK's "Carolinian" makes two stops
in Durham per day. Two additional stops will be made in Durham when AMTRAK's
t "Piedmont" begins operations. The "Piedmont" was scheduled to start in October of 1993
but has been rescheduled for the winter of 1994. The proposed Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop would provide indirect access to the AMTRAK station by linking the radial
routes that lead to and from the CBD.

Freight rail services in the project area are provided by Norfolk Southern Railroad which
I maintains the "D-Line" and the "L-Line". The "D-Line" parallels I-85 north of the Glenn
School Road interchange and is active. The "L-Line" parallels Old Oxford Road, north of
Hamlin Road, and is currently unused but could be activated by Norfolk Southern should the
need arise. Industrial development areas are planned along both of these rail lines in the
project study area. The construction of the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop will
provide improved potential for intermodal connectivity between rail and road at these
' industrial sites.
e
f
e
V

I-25

REFERENCES - SECTION I
City of Durham Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Durham 2005
Comprehensive Plan, City of Durham, North Carolina, October 1985.
City of Durham, City Council Resolution #7356, December 1989.
Durham County Planning Department, Durham County, North Carolina, General
Development Plan 2005. Durham County. North Carolina, September 1987.
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing. Durham City and County, North Carolina, October 1991.
Durham Area Transit Authority, Short-Range Service Development Plan, Final Report,
August, 1993.
Durham Urban Area Long-Range Thoroughfare Plan, 1967, 1980, 1985.
Durham County portion of the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area Long-Range
Thoroughfare Plan, 1991.
Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area Long-Range Thoroughfare Plan, Analysis
of Deficiencies and Needs, 1987.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Transportation Improvement
Program - 1995 to 2001.
State of North Carolina, Highway Trust Fund legislation, 1989.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, 1985.
Triangle Transit Authority, Triangle Fixed Guideway Study, Transportation Analysis and
Planning. Proposed Land Use and Transportation Alternatives, Draft, March 1994.
I-26
I

f--1
t
I

F1
1
s

s
t

I II. ALTERNATIVES
I
This section presents the alternatives considered for the proposed Durham Northwest and
' Northeast Loop. The process through which broad ranged alternatives were developed is
presented first, followed by a discussion of alternatives eliminated from further
consideration. Subsequent paragraphs address the development of design features and
potential corridor locations for the Build Alternative. Elimination of some of the preliminary
' build alternate corridors is also documented. A decision with regard to a preferred
alternative will not be made until the comments received through the circulation of this
report and through the Corridor Public Hearing process are fully evaluated.
A. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
' At the initiation of this project, five broad ranged alternatives were established for
' consideration. These broad range alternatives include: a Transportation Systems
' Management (TSM) Alternative, a Mass Transit Alternative, a No-Build Alternative of
maintaining the existing roadway network, an Improve Existing Facilities Alternative, and
' a Build Alternative involving the construction of a new roadway through portions of northern
and eastern Durham.
1 B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
' Because the transportation needs of the Durham metropolitan area would not be met by
some of the broad ranged alternatives discussed, three were eliminated from detailed study
' in this report. The eliminated alternatives include the TSM Alternative, the Mass Transit

II-1
Alternative, and the Improve Existing Facilities Alternative. Reasons for the elimination of
these broad ranged alternatives are presented in the following paragraphs.
1. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
The TSM Alternative includes limited construction activities designed to maximize
the use and energy efficiency of the present transportation system. Possible TSM
improvement options within this study area include adding turning lanes at intersections
experiencing substantial delays, improved signing, and traffic signal optimization.
Durham currently utilizes a computerized signal system to maximize traffic flow for
portions of the downtown area. The system does not extend into the project area. A
feasibility study is currently underway that would extend the system along some of the radial
routes to the study area and points beyond. The results of the feasibility study are expected
in February 1995. Maximizing the traffic flow through signal timing optimization will
improve the level of service at specific intersections in the traffic network but will not add
capacity to the street system.
Intersections operations, like roadways, have saturation levels or capacity levels, at
which they can no longer operate at an acceptable level of service. Generally, if traffic
volumes exceed the capacity of the roadway, then minor roadway improvements or signal
optimization will not improve the level of service.
Although TSM measures at existing unimproved intersections would improve traffic
safety and operations, they would not increase the capacity of the roadway network such that
II-2

new lanes on existing roadways or new roadway facilities would be not required. TSM
measures would also not increase the accessibility between the major residential and
employment centers. TSM techniques along the existing routes in the study area do not meet
' the purpose and need for this project and were eliminated from further consideration.
2. Mass Transit Alternative
' The Mass Transit Alternative includes such options as expanding the existing bus
' service, implementing a light rail or fixed-guideway system, or a regional rail service so that
the number of vehicles and subsequent roadway congestion would be decreased. The
Durham area is currently served by two bus transit authorities; the Durham Area Transit
Authority (DATA) and the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Currently, DATA utilizes 32
buses in the Durham network and the Triangle Transit Authority utilizes 20 buses to service
the Triangle area. DATA has one bus route that extends into the study area. DATA
' Route 4 extends from the central business district (CBD) to approximately the Eno River
along Roxboro Road. The Triangle Transit Authority provides bus service between the
Durham CBD and Research Triangle Park but has no routes in the project area.
Public transportation is most effective when pick-up and drop-off centers are
' conveniently located to residences and businesses, and when the service provided is as
' efficient and economical as the private automobile. The relatively low population density
' of the majority of the study area (less than 2,000 persons per square mile) coupled with the
multiple major employment centers of Durham (RTP, Duke University, Duke Medical
' Center, Durham CBD) make expansion of DATA's bus transit service into the project area
' cost prohibitive. Additionally, the campus like settings of the major employment centers,
II-3
such as RTP and Duke University, inhibit convenient drop off locations. Furthermore, these
employment centers would require an internal distribution system that would likely require
a rider transfer. Transfers are perceived to be mass transit disincentives for potential riders.
Current and proposed mass transit operations by DATA are radially oriented
systems. That is, pick-up and drop-off centers are located along the radial roadways and
riders are returned to a central location downtown. Travel between the radial routes is not
now possible without first going downtown and transferring to another bus to travel along
the other radial road. The future transit system is anticipated to operate in the same or
similar manner.
Current mass transit operations do not provide a more efficient and less expensive
mode of travel to potential riders. The existing radial routes do not have exclusive bus lanes
or priority signals that would reduce travel times for transit users. Instead, current transit
users sit in traffic as long and sometimes longer than private vehicle users. Also, there are
no vehicle disincentives such as limited parking spaces or high parking fees to dissuade
potential mass transit users from using their personal vehicles. The mode split for transit
is approximately two percent of all trips in the Durham area. Throughout the project area,
the private automobile remains the chief means of personal transportation.
The Triangle Transit Authority is currently evaluating the future of mass transit for
the Triangle area by conducting the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. The Triangle Fixed
Guideway Study was initiated, in part, by the Triangle Express rail transit system proposed
by Save the Water, a Durham based conservation group, in September 1989. Phase III of
II-4
r
the guideway study, Alternatives Evaluation, was completed in August of 1994 and the
Triangle Transit Authority may receive approval to begin Phase IV analysis in early 1995.
Phase IV activities will develop station areas and provide detailed descriptions of the areas
' surrounding the stations. After Phase IV is completed a preferred alternative could be
I selected in one to two years, during the Environmental Impact Statement process.
I Three alternative transit systems are being evaluated in the Triangle Fixed Guideway
study. Alternative A includes a light rail or fixed-route bus operation on a fixed-guideway
system. Alternative B includes the use of existing rail lines for a regional rail system.
Under Alternative B, Norfolk Southern's "L-Line", which parallels Old Oxford Road
through the study area, is identified as a potential rail corridor. However, the "L-Line"
corridor is considered a long-range planning option that may become viable in 35 to 50
' years. This is beyond the 2015 planning horizon being used for the evaluation of this
' project. Alternative C includes enhanced bus services and the use of High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The portion of the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop between
Roxboro Road and US 70 is identified as a potential link in the Triangle Fixed Guideway
study for Alternative C.
I
Mass transit operations are compared to other forms of travel by capture rates or
j mode splits of person trips. That is, the number of times people use mass transit for travel
in the area (going to work, shopping, school, etc.) rather than using the private automobile.
Currently, the mode split for existing transit operations is approximately two percent of all
1 trips in the Durham area. Initial findings of the Triangle Fixed Guideway study indicate that
adding any of the three alternatives to the area's transportation network would boost the
II-5
transit mode split to slightly less than three percent. In the year 2020, the mode split may 1
reach three percent. Compared to other urban areas, the three percent mode split is
relatively low.
Although the expansion of the mass transit services in the Durham area would aid
the roadway network, mode splits of two percent and three percent for existing and proposed
transit operations do not and would not attract enough riders to remove a sufficient number
of vehicles from the north and east Durham roadways to eliminate the need for additional
capacity in the form of a new roadway. Therefore, the Mass Transit Alternative is not a
viable solution to meet the purpose or needs of this project and was eliminated from further
consideration.
The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, instead, may have a positive impact on
existing and future transit operations. As well as being identified as a possible link for
Alternative C in the Triangle Fixed Guideway study, Alternative B would also benefit from
the enhanced access to Norfolk Southern's "L-Line" provided by the proposed roadway. A
rail station is proposed along the "L-line" at Old Oxford Road. The proposed roadway
would provide improved access for park and ride facilities at this rail station. Additionally,
existing bus transit operations would benefit from reduced congestion on the radial routes
thereby enhancing their services.
3. Improve Existing Facilities Alternative
The Improve Existing Facilities Alternative includes the modification, expansion, and
reconstruction of existing roadway facilities to meet current and future travel demand. This
II-6

would include the reconstruction and reconfiguration of existing intersections as well as
widening existing radial roadway facilities.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) lists several facilities in the study area to be improved. These
include widening I-85 with additional through lanes and auxiliary lanes from the Orange
County line to east of US 70; widening Guess Road (NC 157) between Carver Street
' (SR 1407) and Umstead Road (SR 1449) to a multi-lane urban facility; and upgrading the
intersection of Mineral Springs Road (SR 1917), US 70, and Miami Boulevard (SR 1959).
As described in the Section I, these improvements were taken into account while
performing network capacity studies for future traffic volumes. Even with the proposed
improvements in place, the existing and projected traffic volumes would exceed the capacity
I of the network such that travel would be inefficient and would result in increased travel time.
Widening of the existing radial routes would not improve access in the northern or
eastern portion of the study area between the residential and employment centers. The
expansion of I-85 is the only planned improvement to an east-west facility in the study area.
This improvement would not help relieve congestion on the radial routes leading to the
interstate. Some roadways in north Durham such as Umstead, Infinity, Latta Roads could
be widened to provide improved east-west travel. However, this would only provide
improved travel for a portion of the study area. New roads on new location would be
' required to complete the link between I-85 west of Durham and I-85 northeast of Durham.
In the eastern portion of the study area, Mineral Springs Road could be widened to provide
II-7
improved north-south travel. However, like Umstead, Infinity, and Latta Roads, widening
Mineral Springs Road would only provide improved north-south travel for a portion of the
area and new roads on new location would have to be constructed to complete the link
between I-85 and US 70.
I
Widening the radial routes and neighborhood roads to meet the capacity requirements
of the forecasted traffic in northern and eastern Durham would result in substantial impacts I
to adjacent residences and businesses.
Because improving the existing radial facilities would cause severe relocations and I
because Durham has no continuous east-west and north-south facilities in northern and
eastern Durham available for expansion, the Improve Existing Facilities Alternative is not
a viable solution to meets the needs of this project and was eliminated from further study.
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETAILED STUDY
Of the five basic alternatives considered for this project, two were retained for detailed
study and evaluation. These include the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative.
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative consists of not implementing the proposed project. No
major improvements to the existing routes except those currently planned or programmed in
the TIP would be included under this alternative. Continued roadway maintenance and
minor improvements would be part of this concept. The No-Build Alternative would not
II-8

' meet the purpose or need of the project; but, was retained for evaluation comparison
purposes.
2. Development of the Build Alternative
In order to assess the type of facility and potential locations for the facility, several
build alternates were developed under the Build Alternative. The process for generating the
' build alternates involved the following: establishment of design criteria and typical sections;
development of preliminary corridors; refinement of corridors; and selection of corridors for
detailed study.
' a. Design Criteria and Typical Sections
Prior to the development of potential corridors for the build alternates, design
criteria and typical sections were established for the new facility. The design guidelines are
based on desirable roadway design standards established by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation and design guidelines developed by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Table II-1 summarizes the design
criteria.
Because the proposed facility would cross rural and urban areas, three typical
sections were developed. The first typical section would be used in urban developed and
developing areas and would consist of four travel lanes separated by a 30-foot raised median.
This typical section would have curbs and gutters for drainage. The second typical section
would be used in rural areas and would consist of four travel lanes divided by a 36-foot
depressed median. An open drainage system consisting of swales and ditches would be used
II-9
TABLE U-1
DESIGN CRITERIA
Functional Rural Arterial and Urban Arterial with limits of each classification
Classification determined by alignment selections.
Design Speed 50 MPH Urban areas and 60 MPH Rural areas.
Typical Four-lane rural divided section with 36-foot median along new
Sections location in areas of light development and agricultural land. Four-
lane urban divided section with 30-foot median along new location
in developed and developing areas. Five-lane urban undivided curb
and gutter section along existing roads through developed
neighborhoods.
Lane Widths 12 ft. (14 ft. outside lanes in urban sections).
Usable 10 ft. in four-lane rural divided section (4 ft. paved).
Shoulders 8 ft. berm in four-lane urban divided and five-lane undivided
sections.
Horizontal 6.75 degree maximum for 50 MPH.
Curvature 4.75 degree maximum for 60 MPH.
Super .08 ft./ft. maximum in four-lane rural divided section.
Elevation .06 ft./ft. maximum in five-lane and four-lane urban sections.
Vertical For 50 MPH use K factor of 160 for crest vertical curves and 110
Curves for sag vertical curves. For 60 MPH use K factor of 310 for crest
vertical curves and 160 for sag vertical curves.
Grades Maximum grade 6% for 50 MPH and 4% for 60 MPH.
Control of Full Access Control is planned for interchange areas. Access along
Access the majority of the road length would be controlled by local site plan
approval and control.
Median In the four-lane urban divided section - 30 foot raised grass median
Treatment with curb and gutter. In the four-lane rural divided section - 36 foot
depressed median with 2 foot paved interior shoulders.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Roadway Design Manual, 1993.
in this typical section. The third typical section would consist of four lanes separated by a
center turn-lane. This five-lane typical section would be used in developed areas where an
existing road would be incorporated into the facility or in urbanized areas where limited right J
II-10

of way would be available. Exhibit II-1 shows the three typical cross sections developed for
the build alternates.
b. Preliminary Corridors Development
Preliminary corridors development began with the creation of a study window.
The study window represented the general area for the Durham Northwest and Northeast
Loop that would most effectively meet the purpose and needs of the project. Although the
boundaries of the study window were not finite, corridors located outside of the study
window would generally not meet the project goals as effectively as those located within the
?j study window. The study window boundaries were developed based on suggested locations
' for the proposed roadway since the 1960s. Exhibit II-2 shows the study window established
for this project.
Using the design guidelines and the study window, several preliminary corridor
segments were developed. Corridor segments consist of those areas between major cross
roads such as the radial routes. These preliminary corridor segments were based on previous
corridor concepts developed by city, county, and NCDOT thoroughfare planners.
Recommendations received at Citizens Informational Workshops, local elected officials'
recommendations and the results of preliminary field investigations were also used to
generate preliminary corridor segments.
For study purposes, corridor widths were set at 1,000 feet for rural areas and 500
feet in urban areas. Although the typical sections used in these areas would require much

II-11
r
less width, a large corridor width was established to allow for alignment shifts and
adjustments during the design phase of the project.
c. Corridor Refinement
To refine the number of preliminary corridors, a land suitability map was
developed that contained information regarding the human environment, natural environment,
and engineering considerations. Some of the information on the land suitability mapping
included community facilities, neighborhoods, existing and planned land uses, recreation
areas, historic architectural properties, archaeological sites, agricultural land uses, rare and
9 protected species locations, floodplains, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and geotechnical
\ limitaEach of the preliminary corridor segments was compared to the information
compiled on the land suitability map to identify issues that the preliminary corridors would
encounter. The focus of the comparison and evaluation was to identify and eliminate those
corridor segments which would likely involve unacceptable high costs or substantial social
and environmental impacts.
d. Selection of Build Alternates
The results of the initial corridor refinement and evaluation process were the
determination that several corridor segments would be eliminated from further study because
of high residential, community facility, environmental, and business impacts or because of
engineering considerations. With the elimination of these corridor segments, associated
connecting segments were also eliminated.
II-12
r w m r ft rr an m m m? m. ?? r an Im w

N
r
m
<
°
W
0
Tl
N i
O U)
N r
O

z ?m
MITI
O<
-

U) r -' m
N
N O
i -0
? r*1
O<
rn?
?N o D

i
p
? I
o
? O
-
N

0 N
,I p _ O
N_ N Z O
- I
O

p ?+
= \
f N
Z

O _
N O Z7
O
=
Z
O
N

N
i N
-

-n

•
"'

O O
-n

O N

-i O?
o
-n
O
T_
<
CD Ul
I
U7
O
-i
?

-
N
=3
9-1
Ci1 ?T W
o
f
CD
O CD CD
c 07
'a
O
W N

O
v
C2 i

c

(A <
4
p
=
„ -?-I N
i N
O
= Ll
O
i
N

O
N i
O

O
? Z N O
\
O i
=
i
- \
a ? i
O =

I <
?
\ O
r
N p ~

?m
O <
rn?u

fN
Z
0
?
v,
I
O

NO
-p
_ -i m
O <
rnpA

p
z

c
q)
i
O m
U7

i
rn
< r
po O
v
mm

o z
O p Q1 CD O

C/) 70
::)7
-0 ??-

O OR
r

CD
C-D

1
?•'F:
CID C/)

C/) O
O ? y
P F
=

m m m r " m " m = m s = r = m m ? r m
0
Z
cy)
°o COUNTY - "
COUNTY
I Ou AI C)
-a ?
Rll
milli
?• d
CD
9 CD
0? 1.W30'ID'd OG?
VALLEY RD
y?
U
DR
A
?O\LLE ST
AYE
ALSTON AVE
O'''ff 1`MNj yydNN?O

!
(BLVD
Pi •
CD

,I T
?

ti
m

w .
?
o

CD Qa ??? d•
OUNTY
DURHAM C
WAKE
COUNTY ;
. I

- - ON

RUSSELL R

?

a
? n
po < T • D
?
o o a •
N .?°p R as ?^ `•
Crayk ?j `
?? -ap 'Pp •
o RD
SNA ?N RD
,•?
ON Ss
4
` py
`
r ; s
p,3i
RD O??PN ?' D •
wow, . Oa

y o
A
F? • Z `

cc)
O? tiJ o •
is ?Ob9 S ?y?0 o 0
i • DENFI ?O z
,
id M DST
S NOSOC) o 1 -?

Cub Cr?K
lQ ' y MONS
-p X1\1 ¦
OXFORD i RD o O?
mWGUM ST '
GAB Qnaotlv.) L-Un. '
(`0 •? Norfolk Southern ?
F • 0 O<p
? ? R' t?9 F ? -FOR
Ord ; ?s rA O 'b I D RD
R/vs,
JUNCTION
. ! • ? N
.?•
NNW
MINERAI- SPR1N0 ?? /
I**
i .'•
000
D ?O
• DOC
m
rT1
1-0 (n
O

ST 'Op
m
• u0Z
? 2j
OZ /
oc, Ntf ? ?? °? ??1W °
Oa Np1i0 A\aa)oN ? B
•
TIST
O z
,A 0
/ X00
y
?yv a°o ?? s
ct,
1O

?I C
O CD 00
CD cl) cr) =r
c/) z
w -I CD
Q Q c: z OR
CD a
53,
$ CZ) c--? ?
N
r+r?
u ?El +y *s
Q LQ
O Q p
^ s n

After the first refinement and elimination of preliminary corridor segments was
conducted, the remaining corridor segments were revisited and reevaluated. Exhibit II-3
shows the corridor segments remaining after the initial elimination. Corridors shown in
Exhibit II-3 represent generalized potential locations for the new facility.
Following the second refinement and evaluation process, several additional corridor
segments were eliminated from further consideration. Comments received from citizens at
' the First and Second Citizens Informational Workshops were used during the refinement and
evaluation of preliminary corridor segments. The elimination of corridor segments was
' coordinated with the project steering committee.
I
Corridor segments crossing the Eno River, and subsequently, those north of the Eno
River were eliminated following consultation with representatives of federal and state
agencies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Environmental
' Management objected to corridor segments crossing the Eno River because of impacts to
associated wetlands, floodplains, and protected species habitat. In addition, environmentally
sensitive areas such as the Corps of Engineers mitigation lands for Falls Lake which contain
high concentrations of Federally listed protected plant species were of particular concern to
the agencies. The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation expressed concern for
I the potential impacts to the Eno River State Park in the western portion of the project area.
Advice from local elected officials was also considered in the elimination process.
The Orange County Commissioners expressed opposition to the highway crossing of the Eno
II-17
i
River in Orange County because the road could pose a potential threat to the integrity of the
Eno River State Park, would impact wildlife corridors, and would cross an important natural
area with steep topography. The Durham City Council has adopted a resolution in support
of the current thoroughfare plan alignment for Eno Drive. This alignment does not cross the
Eno River. Previous city council action favoring an alignment north of the river was
rescinded by more recent council action. The Durham County Commissioners were opposed
to any alignment of Eno Drive north of the Eno River. They have also endorsed the
alignment shown on the thoroughfare plan. Comments and coordination with these parties
are documented in Section VII of this document.
Preliminary estimates used during the evaluation and refinement process indicated
that a substantial number of relocation and neighborhood impacts would result from corridors
north of the Eno River. With the greater length of these corridors and with the requirements
for two bridges over the river, construction costs and right of way acquisition costs would
be greater than for corridors south of the Eno River. Improving the existing crossings at
Cole Mill Road and Old Oxford Road was not feasible because the combined traffic from
the proposed roadway and from Cole Mill Road and Old Oxford Road would result in
constrained traffic operations across the existing or widened Eno River bridges.
Remaining segments associated with Horton Road were eliminated because of high
numbers of relocations from impacts to residential and apartment complexes, and because
of impacts to the Willowdale and Crosscreek shopping centers.
II-18
m m r> ft? m m m m m m m m tit m m m m

0
Z
z
10 0 ORI+NGE COUNTY - " -
_ DUgBAM COON f`fn
-- W3CNOV
06

o? s

\ RUSSELL RD

Pri 0
•
`•
N `?
`•
?? C? `
/?
OD ?
r
•
r

•
O RD OF
SHA ON
RD ??

?

S53n0
G,6
• J
OY
S
OAF •RD
O? s53? m
A n •
° dad
?
00X0?
. a0?
O
`
o
O?
r
?1
,
0 •
f
15 p.{ a is 15 3?pG ?O Z
OENF o
LS Syyd M ; DECD ST ?d .
NOc-c) O `
Ls yip ??
% 1
o CJb Cr?K •
JN/V o °?0 1 y
MONS
ER •
OXFORD 3
DR
MANGUM ST ¦ RD
c?G
FAYEITEV\LLE ST eB
DLO ?
ALSTON AVE OrFp04D
RD
o Cry , RNA
00
P
of cFF? GLENN RD
WV
114?0)oo N6OO
'
MI BL VD

?f
pz
0 ?
m .
0
•
oa ?ada?
DURHAM COUNT
WAKE
COUNTY ;
•
.?
iL• ?•
1
JUNCT 01 N
0,00

sT
Np\10N?f '
06
•
I
II
6;6 ?av
•'? Off' ??0y ?
5?
O6115W O1
0
? o
000
000
D 10
DOC
m
N O
r
BAPTIST O? 331NVS
?O
y

VALLEY RD
n

O
? T
O CD
Cn 3.
(c 0.
3
'?-
VJ
cn
6 to
Z..4
?j z
C
O C)
O O

CD CD
r-+
O

c/) C'D

=
O

-
-.
c- C4

I

1

I

r

L?
1

Corridor segments terminating at Miami Boulevard along US 70 were eliminated
because of the need for an interchange between US 70, Miami Boulevard, and the Northwest
and Northeast Loop. The substantial amount of right of way required for an interchange
would result in adverse impacts to many of the commercial properties in the area.
Additionally, the alignment of roadways in this area would make interchange design and
construction more difficult and costly.
Table II-2 summarizes the reasons why these preliminary corridor segments were
eliminated from further study. Eliminated preliminary corridor segments are highlighted in
Exhibit II-4 as dashed lines. The remaining corridor segments, shown as black lines in
Exhibit II-4, represent the corridors that were retained for detailed study.
3. Build Alternates
Three continuous build alternates were developed out of the remaining preliminary
corridor segments. The three build alternates are labeled: Alternate 1, which is located
furthest away from the City of Durham; Alternate 2, which is closest to the City of Durham;
and Alternate 3, which represents the current Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan alignment. In addition to the three build alternates, nine connectors were
developed that allow a transfer from one build alternate to a second build alternate. The
three build alternates and nine connectors are shown in Exhibits II-5 and II-6.
II-21

TABLE II-2
EVALUATION OF ELIMINATED PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
CORRIDOR EVALUATION FACTORS
SEGMENT AREA
? Impacts to the Eno River, state and local parks along
the Eno River, water quality, wetlands, Falls Lake
mitigation land, environmentally sensitive areas, and fish
and wildlife habitat.
? Impacts to neighborhoods, community facilities, and
North of and Crossing businesses.
the Eno River
? Additional cost of a longer route with two bridges over
the Eno River.
? Inefficient traffic operations by combining Durham
Northwest Loop traffic with Cole Mill Road and Old
Oxford Road traffic.
Horton Road ? Impacts to shopping centers, businesses, apartments,
residences, and traffic operational considerations.
? Impacts to Little Lick Creek and adjacent residences.
? The intersection of US 70 and the Northwest and
Terminus at Miami Northeast Loop at Miami Boulevard would require an
Boulevard interchange to operate efficiently. An interchange at this
location would have substantial impacts on commercial
property with high right of way costs. Additionally, the
alignment of U.S. 70 and Miami Boulevard at this
location would adversely effect the interchange geometry.

I

11

1
a. Alternate 1
Alternate 1 is located to the north and east of the other build alternates and is '
approximately 19.7 miles long. The alternate begins along I-85 west of the Orange - t
Durham County line, extends north crossing the Orange - Durham County line, and turns I

II-22
s
C 1111111111 IN 1/1,.
RUSSELL
0o COUNTY G \ G RD
o OgpNGE CoUN,vy J °Nv N
0A 0
ROSE OF
o
SHARON RD N G? 553n
Z
it,
Creek
G? J`W3G'dOV vG??
LS ? ore
m
7'0?` VS 511d M
ti? ?o S NOSO
CO 1
?L
O
l??V ERS
DR
MANGUM ST
-AYEll Ev`LLE ST
ALSTON AVE
VALLEY RD
A
N
--1
11 ^^? J JUNCTION G'3 ?40\ l01
?? QO
NOl?d?O
1111111111111111111 • p
`11 ,'''••11
O?G
11111111111
D
-I
RD >
D
68
o
LS%
-.., ,tLD ST d
??G m
d? 0?0o Cub CreeK
2
a
DRD
Rp
11 ?
11
A
?- 111
111111111111111
boy
C
0
r
08
MONS
0?? 0<0
ORp RD

BLV= J_
G18
0
023 30d d
DURHAM COUNTY _
WAKE
COUNTY
I
? o
H
OLS RD \^o?
G? ?'? T O 1Nds
DOC BAPTIST -a 33
m
11 p y o

1 C ?oz
C7 - i 0 0 0 CD O
CCDD 60 0 0 c/)
CD 2 ?' a :X) ? ZO 0 3 0
0 :U
< CD
0 0 c> ('D
cl)
a CD CD
ST,r
a ° CD
,< F
cl) O
A? ? mwm? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? m = ? No,,
m r m ? r m m? r m m = ? r m m m= m
w
07
?o
?o
D?
JW
Cl)

0?
?6 z?
g? z
0 0 C
"I
C
o

o N

70
? ?
;I

CD
0 C
a ?
O
'-? C/)
p
o
53•
cn =3

• r?o?
?7
u

east crossing Cole Mill Road (SR 1401) north of Sparger Road (SR 1400). The alternate
continues east across Rose of Sharon Road (SR 1404) and Hillandale Road (SR 1413), then
crosses Guess Road (NC 157) between Rose of Sharon Road (SR 1404) and Horton Road
(SR 1443) and continues east. At Roxboro Road (US 501), the alternate crosses north of the
JFK Towers then proceeds east paralleling Hebron Road (SR 1656), crosses Old Oxford
Road (SR 1004), and the unused "L Line" of the Norfolk Southern Railroad. The alternate
turns southeast and crosses Hamlin Road (SR 1634), continues east across Ellerbe Creek and
(SR 1675) and Red Mill Road (SR 1632) interchanges.
Glenn Road (SR 1636), then turns southeast across I-85 between the Glenn School Road
After crossing I-85 Alternate 1 continues south past the "D Line" of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad, Geer Street (SR 1670), and crosses Cheek Road (SR 1800) near its
intersection with Carpenter Road (SR 1822). From Cheek Road (SR 1800), Alternate 1
extends south across Mineral Springs Road (SR 1815), parallels Stallings Road (SR 1814)
to the west and crosses the Wake Forest Highway (NC 98) west of its intersection with
Sherron Road (SR 1811). The alternate extends south past Sherron Road (SR 1811), crosses
Leesville Road (SR 1906) between US 70 and Doc Nichols Road (SR 1908), then terminates
along US 70 in Wake County, near the Durham - Wake County line. Interchanges along
Alternate 1 would be located at I-85 near the Orange - Durham County line, Roxboro Road
(US 501), I-85 between the Glenn School Road (SR 1675) and Red Mill Road (SR 1632)
interchanges, and US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line.
II-29

b. Alternate 2 ,
Alternate 2 is located to the south and west of the other build alternates and is
approximately 17.8 miles long. It begins along I-85 in Orange County, continues north '
across the Orange - Durham County line, turns northeast paralleling a portion of Sparger '
Road (SR 1400), and crosses Cole Mill Road (SR 1401) in the vicinity of Sparger Road
(SR 1400) and Rivermont Road (SR 1402). Alternate 2 proceeds east crossing Rose of
Sharon Road (SR 1404) and Hillandale Road (SR 1413), crosses Guess Road (NC 157) '
between Rose of Sharon Road (SR 1404) and Horton Road (SR 1443), and crosses Roxboro
Road (US 501) in the vicinity of Monk Road. The alternate continues eastward along
existing Hebron Road (SR 1656), and turns southeast prior to the intersection of Hebron
Road (SR 1656) and Duke Lane (SR 1648). From Duke Lane (SR 1648), the alternate
parallels Thompson Road (SR 1657) to the northeast, crosses Old Oxford Road (SR 1004)
near its intersection with Hamlin Road (SR 1634), continues past the unused "L Line" of the ,
Norfolk Southern Railroad, crosses Ellerbe Creek, and parallels Glenn School Road '
(SR 1675) across Glenn Road (SR 1636) and I-85.
After interchanging with I-85 Alternate 2 extends south past the "D Line" of the ,
Norfolk Southern Railroad, continues beyond Geer Street (SR 1670) and Ferrell Road
(SR 1671), and crosses Cheek Road (SR 1800) between Junction Road (SR 1675) and
Carpenter Road (SR 1822). Alternate 2 extends south across Freeman Road (SR 1846) and
parallels Mineral Springs Road (SR 1815) past the intersection of Mineral Springs Road
(SR 1815) and Wake Forest Highway (NC 98). From Wake Forest Highway (NC 98), the
alternate continues south across Holder Road (SR 1911), Sherron Road (SR 1811), and '
Leesville Road (SR 1906) then terminates along US 70 at its intersection with Page Road
II-30

f

I

Extension. Interchanges along Alternate 2 would be located at I-85 near the Orange -
Durham County line, Roxboro Road (US 501), I-85 at the Glenn School Road (SR 1675)
interchange, and US 70 at Page Road Extension.
c. Alternate 3
Alternate 3 generally follows the route portrayed in the current Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is approximately 18.7 miles long. For the
most part, Alternate 3 follows sections of Alternates 1 and 2. Like Alternate 2, Alternate 3
begins in Orange County along I-85, continues north and crosses the Orange - Durham
County line, turns northeast paralleling a portion of Sparger Road (SR 1400), and crosses
Cole Mill Road (SR 1401) in the vicinity of Sparger Road (SR 1400) and Rivermont Road
(SR 1402). Alternate 3 proceeds east crossing Rose of Sharon Road (SR 1404) and
Hillandale Road (SR 1413), then crosses Guess Road (NC 157) between Rose of Sharon
Road (SR 1404) and Horton Road (SR 1443). Alternate 3 continues along Alternate 1 until
just before Roxboro Road. Alternate 3 crosses Roxboro Road (US 501) south of JFK
Towers. Afterwards, Alternate 3 and Alternate 1 share a common corridor and parallel
Hebron Road (SR 1656), then cross Old Oxford Road (SR 1004) and the unused "L Line"
of the Norfolk Southern Railroad. The alternate turns southeast and crosses Hamlin Road
(SR 1634) and continues east. Alternate 3 separates from Alternate 1, crosses Ellerbe Creek,
turns southeast, and shares a corridor with Alternate 2. Alternate 3 then turns south to
parallel Glenn School Road (SR 1675) across Glenn Road (SR 1636) and I-85.
After crossing I-85 Alternate 3 extends south past the "D Line" of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad, continues beyond Geer Street (SR 1670) and Ferrell Road (SR 1671), and
II-31

crosses Cheek Road (SR 1800) between Junction Road (SR 1675) and Carpenter Road
(SR 1822). Alternate 3 extends south across Freeman Road (SR 1846) and parallels Mineral
Springs Road (SR 1815) Past the intersection of Mineral Springs Road (SR 1815) and Wake '
Forest Highway (NC 98). From Wake Forest Highway (NC 98), the alternate continues '
south across Holder Road (SR 1911), and Sherron Road (SR 1811). Between Sherron Road t
(SR 1811) and Leesville Road (SR 1906) Alternate 3 separates from Alternate 2 and
reconnects with Alternate 1. The alternate then crosses Leesville Road (SR 1906) between '
US 70 and Doc Nichols Road (SR 1908) then terminates along US 70 in Wake County, near
the Durham - Wake County line. Interchanges along Alternate 3 would be located at I-85
near the Orange - Durham County line, Roxboro Road (US 501), I-85 at the Glenn School ,
Road (SR 1675) interchange, and US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line. I
d. Connectors
In addition to the three build alternates, nine connectors were developed that I
would allow a shift from one build alternate corridor to another. Connectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 9 are located along the Northwest Loop and Connectors 6, 7, and 8 are located along
the Northeast Loop. The locations of the connectors are shown in Exhibits II-5 and II-6. i
Connectors 1 and 2 are located east of Cole Mill Road near Rivermont Road
,
and west of Nancy Rhodes Creek. These connectors are entirely contained within the ,
corridor width of the build alternates. Connector 1 is 0.22 miles in length and allows a shift
from Alternate 1 to Alternates 2 and 3. Connector 2 is 0.14 miles in length and allows a
shift from Alternates 2 and 3 to Alternate 1. i

II-32

Connector 3 is located east of Rose of Sharon Road and south of the Marywood
Drive intersection. This connector allows a shift from Alternates 2 and 3 to Alternate 1.
Because of geometric constraints, there are no connectors from Alternate 1 to Alternates 2
and 3 at this location. Connector 3 is 0.37 miles long and is located, in part, outside the
corridor width of the build alternates.
Connector 9 is located east of Guess Road, near the end of Prison Camp Road.
Alternate 3 provides the converse connector at this location. Connector 9 is 0.47 miles long
This connector crosses Warren Creek and allows a shift from Alternate 1 to Alternate 2.
and is located within the corridor width of the build alternates.
Connectors 4 and 5 are located along Hebron Road between Denfield Street and

77
L'
1

Duke Lane. These connectors are entirely contained within the corridor width of the build
alternates. Connector 4 is 0.20 miles in length and allows a shift from Alternate 2 to
Alternates 1 and 3. Connector 5 is 0.23 miles in length and allows a shift from Alternates 1
and 3 to Alternate 2.
Connectors 6 and 7 are the longest of the connectors and are located between
Cheek and Mineral Springs Roads, near Chunky Pipe Creek. Both of these connectors are
located outside the corridor width of the build alternates for much of their length.
Connector 6 is 1.41 miles long and allows a shift from Alternate 1 to Alternates 2 and 3.
This connector crosses Chunky Pipe Creek, and intersects with Freeman Road prior to
Mineral Springs Road. Connector 7 is 0.89 miles long and allows a shift from Alternates 2
and 3 to Alternate 1. This connector is located near the southern end of Arvin Road.
II-33

Connector 8 is located north of Leesville Road and allows a shift from
Alternate 1 to Alternate 2. The converse connector in this area is along Alternate 3.
Connector 8 is 0.45 miles long and is entirely within the corridor width of the build '
alternates. '
D. DESIGN ELEMENTS AND COST
During the corridor location stage of this highway planning process, the build alternates
range from 500 to 1,000 feet in width. Within the corridor for the build alternates, I
conceptual right of way limits were established for planning purposes only. The final
roadway location and right of way limits may be shifted within the corridor depending on ,
the design of the facility or the need for impact minimization. The final roadway location
within the corridor will be established following the Corridor Public Hearing and the
selection of the Preferred Alternative. Conceptual right of way limits are used for cost
estimate purposes.
1. Interchanges and Intersections '
The proposed build alternates would have interchanges at four locations and '
signalized intersections at other major and minor cross roads. Two interchanges would be
located along I-85 one near the Durham - Orange County line and the other in the
northeastern portion of the project area. The interchange proposed for Roxboro Road would
be compressed to reduce right of way impacts and cost. Another interchange would be
located along US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line at the eastern end of the project.
i
L
II-34
1
2. Right of Way Costs
Right of way costs for the project are summarized in Table II-3. These costs are
based on the conceptual right of way plans that were prepared for planning purposes. Utility
relocations are considered under right of way costs and would generally be the same for each
of the build alternates. Utility relocation costs are estimated to be $400,000. As shown in
the table Alternate 1 would have the highest right of wa cost at $50,937,000 followed b
way Y
' Alternate 2 at $46,744,000. Alternate 3 would have the least right of way cost at
$42,363,500. Alternate 2 would affect the most number of parcels at 539. This would be
followed by Alternates 3 and 1 with 503 parcels and 443 parcels impacted, respectively.

TABLE II-3
RIGHT OF WAY COST ESTIMATES'
ELEMENT ALTERNATE1 ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
Number of Parcels 443 539 503
Acres of Land 558.3 474.8 505.1
Residential Relocation $960,000 $1,116,000 $924,000
Business Relocation $120,000 $420,000 $165,000
Land and Damage $45,027,000 $39,418,000 $35,844,500
Utilities $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
Acquisition $4,430,000 $5,390,000 $5,030,000
TOTAL $50,937,000 $46,744,000 $42,363,500
This estimate was not based on final right of way plans or final design information.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Right of Way Cost Estimate,
June, 1994.
II-35
3. Construction Costs
Construction costs for the three build alternates were estimated based on the
conceptual right of way limits. Alternate 1 would cost the most to construct at $92,925,000
followed by Alternate 3 at $83,825,000. Alternate 2 would cost the least to construct at
$79,625,000. Higher costs for Alternate 1 are attributable to its greater length than
Alternate 2 and 3. Construction costs are shown in Table II-4 along with the right of way
acquisition costs. Total costs for the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop show that
Alternate 1 would be the most expensive to build at $143,862,000. Alternates 2 and 3 are
relatively similar in total costs at $126,369,000 and $126,188,500, respectively.
TABLE II-4
BUILD ALTERNATES COST COMPARISON
COST FAALTERNATEI ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
Construction $92,925,000 $79,625,000 $83,825,000
Right of Way $50,937,000 $46,744,000 $42,363,500
TOTAL $143,862,000 $126,369,000 $126,188,500
Sources: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Right of Way Cost Estimate,
June 1994. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Breakdown
Estimates for R-2630 & 2631, June 1994.
E. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
Future land uses and population growth trends in the Durham metropolitan area show
the need for additional capacity in the roadway network and enhanced access between major
residential and employment centers. Five broad ranged alternatives were investigated to
meet the purposes of and needs for this project. These include the Transportation System
II-36

Management Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, the Improve Existing Facilities
Alternative, the Build Alternative, and the No Build Alternative. Of these five, only the
Build Alternative meets the purposes of and needs for the project.
The Build Alternative would be a multi-lane arterial street approximately 18 to 20 miles
in length. Full access control would be provided at interchange locations. The facility
would have interchanges with I-85 near the Durham - Orange County line, Roxboro Road
' (US 501), I-85 in northeast Durham, and US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line. The
type of access control to be provided along the proposed facility between interchanges will
be determined during the design phase of the project. Within the Build Alternative, three
' alternate corridors were identified for detailed studies. These alternates are identified as 1,
2, and 3, respectively. Additionally, there are nine roadway connector segments along and
between the three corridors. These connectors will allow for combinations of the alternate
corridors during the selection of a Preferred Alternative.

1

II-37

REFERENCES - SECTION II I
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials P '
, ?i? Policy Qf
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990. '
Durham Area Transit Authority, Short-Ranee Service Development Plan, Final Report,
August 1993.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Roadway Design Manual, 1993.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Transportation Improvement '
Program - 1995 to 2001.
Triangle Transit Authority, Triangle Fixed Guideway Study Transportation Analysis and ,
Planning, Proposed Land Use and Transportation Alternatives, Draft, March 1994.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Breakdown Estimates for R-2630
& 2631, Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, June 1994.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Right of Way Cost Estimate,
June 1994.

II-38

I M. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section provides a description of the existing social, economic, and natural
' environments of the area affected by the proposed alternates. The descriptions are general
in nature and address the entire project area rather than providing a separate description of
the area as it relates to each build alternate.
A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Population and Growth Characteristics
1 a. Population Characteristics
The project study is located predominantly in Durham County with small portions
located in the City of Durham and Orange County. Based on the 1990 Census of Population
data, Durham County had a total population of 181,835 people with 136,611 of those people
' residing in the City of Durham. The population density in all of Durham County was
approximately 625 persons per square mile in 1990. The build alternates would cross nine
' Durham area census tracts. The census tracks are shown in Exhibit III-1. Information on
population and ethnic composition for each of the census tracts crossed by the build
alternates is provided in Table III-1.
b. Growth Trends
' During the period from 1980 to 1990, Durham County experienced a growth in
population of 19 percent compared to North Carolina's growth rate of 11 percent. Projected
' populations for Durham County show a 19 percent increase for the decade between 1990 and

III-1

?U
a
?z
H ?
d'
W
N O O M ?f M N -+ .-? ?
O O O O O O O O O O
U
O INO N O O w m M N M

C/1 ? M 00 M O 00

?V $? •-+ O C M r-+ O O O G
en tn M W) ?10 M O M
cri
f/1
W N
O N
O d
O lt
O M
O N
O
O M
O O
O N
O
?U
d
N

N ONO N M N .N? M 4 M
VV

M
N
C14
O
r
M 00

ON 00 lry ?O N O? G? V1 !r
ID r- W 0\ C?
00 l?
,
^ N
?
.? $ 00 M
.i N
,--i 00 00
;
^
o i?
W) - r-
N "O
n, N 00,
M 'O
--I
d N c .

O
d ?
- g r-
r- 0'
M
O C
1
er M M N I tn M --? 00
Ha

?
r'i V ?
r o
t? ? °
t? ? o
Oo ?
00 rn
00
.--i g
a?
-4
O
A U
0
U
z
p?p
?l
N
t?' O
e3 U
N
A
a a
V'
?z
U
U
A
U
O
N
III-2
- ?6?06
o GE COUNTY cn
0o pTtAN .- - -
ld COUNTY
-?" DURKA n ?
Mud cr.? O
S0?
° J.W3QdOd
VALLEY RD
s?
UN??ERS
DR
EN\LLE ST
ALSTON AVE

O'4Ob9
15 /-
S11y M
Nps%
MANGUM
fN
JUNC TION
V ' P O
C
O { /• • . ... 1 1

'•.,?•
• Np1?y?0
0?
??,,....?..• INGS ? ?O
- SPR
MINERAL ?C
IB?VD
Sy?
o R'QO,?,
? ? a a
_
? OD a
z

pa°d D t ??
DURHAM COUNTY?41
-
?
WAKE
COUNTY „ L R ^O
o c Co
O
C9 00
N 1S 0
c
rn o
?JS
T O? 331
T
cr
n
C

?n'
i RUSSELL RD
J! O
ROSE OF
SHARON RD
i
r
D
--I
Py RD m a
O
V
at
Q '? V z a> t
?PJ, .y u w
cc) pa
15 3?Oa
D S 11
O ?n
co
i
d'O
cuo ti
I d1 v '?y Cry,,'.
O?
O
0 C) r.' o
"j ORD RD p
c?
DLO .' .L
a
°16

m O c_
7D 6
c
c g?

v?

O "J n0
(18 66
MONS
0?' O<O
O
RO RD
ti
a
»
1
O O O

i i

O CD ? ?
'-? ? ('D ?=v

ct !?
? O 51)

?U C O

V
0
C 0
CD ID
O
X-1.
O ?

a.s

1 S
?

2000, and an additional 16 percent increase for the decade between 2000 and 2010. In all,
over 250,000 people are projected to live in Durham County in the year 2010.
Comparatively, the state's projected population increases for the same two decades are 11
percent and 9 percent, respectively. Growth trends for Durham County, Orange County,
and the State of North Carolina are shown in Table III-2.
TABLE III-2
GROWTH RATES AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
POPULATION

YEAR TOTAL RATE OF CHANGE
FOR PERIOD
PERIOD CHANGE
1980 152,235
1990 181,835 1980-1990 19%
Durham County 2000 216,810 1990-2000 19%
2010 250,456 2000-2010 16%
1980 77,055
1990 93,851 1980-1990 22%
Orange County 2000 111,481 1990-2000 19%
2010 127,925 2000-2010 15%
1980 5,880,095
State of North 1990 6,628,637 1980-1990 13%
Carolina 2000 7,372,587 1990-2000 11%

IL- 2010 8,000,310 2000-2010 9%
Source: Office of State Planning, 1980 and 1990 Census Population by Age Group and
Projected Population by Age Group By County for Years 2000 and 2010
III-5

2. Land Use Planning ,
In July, 1988 the Durham City Council and the Durham County Commission merged '
their separate planning functions and formed the Durham City - County Planning
Department. Prior to the merger, the City of Durham adopted the "2005 Comprehensive
Plan". This plan encompassed the city limits, the Extra Territorial Areas (ETA) and areas
under county jurisdiction which were expected to become urban in character by the year
2005. Similarly, the Durham County Board of County Commissioners adopted the "General
Development Plan 2005" for Durham County in September 1987. The county's '
comprehensive plan, like the city's, outlined goals, objectives, and recommendations as the
framework for future government development and planning functions. Both comprehensive '
plans contained a future land use map that depicted a concept of what Durham might look 1
like in the year 2005. The merged Durham City - County Planning Department recognizes
'
the goals established in both comprehensive plans and future land use maps. Currently the
Durham City - County Planning Department is working on a updated Comprehensive Plan '
and future land use map that will cover all of the areas within its jurisdiction. '
Although the project area is almost entirely in Durham County, it was included in 1
the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use map adopted by the Durham
City Council in October 1985. Exhibit III-2 depicts the future land uses of the project area
as portrayed on the comprehensive plan map. Existing land use maps do not exist for the '
project area. Much of the area shown in Exhibit III-2 that is planned for low density '
residential is currently undeveloped or in agricultural land uses.
1
I11-6
? m m m m m m m r = m m = ' = = = m
o \
0
Z
1
'?+
C"
4
O O CpUNTY Fa?4 W44 1444
0
°- ORpN?GE+t*44 NTY
. r•+ CO
aN-'+ D?JRgA1L n
F•a
rrM' F•a+ ,++, ''? F ?
Rai ?? 2
0? 1.W30d0`d
UR??eRS17'y DR

r
,*4.

° RUSSEL
p? '/¢ c • L

00

0a6
15
C SyLdM
NOSE
MANGUM
VALLEY RD
0
AYEISEN\LLE ST
ALSTON AVE
Y?
O'??Nbe0 lezozl_ )'W10
BL VD
•
f
°
m
A
G8 IJ
.Well
woo •

WAKE I ?@ .
COUNTY i ?.?• DO(
= p (nn
x r17
o Ro OF
SHA ON RD '?? ?• p? CG'S V
W •
z oy?
z ?
F, RD D ,•
08
x
o s
N
7fCD S °
DRD I RD
t
1 • N
+1 1
i
.•: >: >
. • MONS
:•r
k,?°?o RD
:r
., , Rear
zI

cFF? GLENN RD t
Sr
Oa NO\lONnf r I

?
L

7 R
•

,r

m ea
.'p3
y ?y RD
s0
o' , ... ?/MME
NOS??yyd d
-00 '
D ^o V\
N0??0 0BAPTIST O? 331N
o y?? ?'o

? o

3
Q
N
c
rm+
CD
CL
0)
CD
r-1 1077771
o c 0
00 o Az °' m c
cD
00
00 (D O S .n m - p
0 0 r m 8?
a0 Q SZ m Z
U) -0
(D
m
(D m
0- ir D Z Z n
0 (D < f/)
m
r+ D 1• V/
(D L0• 0
a <
CD m
F (
O p Al O

?•
d c
0
3 :37
,? 0
CD
r?-r O0

O
i
o
.?.r oh
V
1
Exhibit III-2 shows the predominant planned land uses of the area rather than the
specific zoning category. As shown, the predominant future land use is low density
residential with less than six units per acre. Enclaves of higher residential land use, greater
than six units per acre, are located along some of the major arterial routes.
Future land use maps show that the study area contains two large areas planned for
industrial land uses. Both of these areas are located on the outskirts of the existing urban
area and are in proximity to rail facilities. Some industry, such as Mitsubishi Semiconductor
and Fruedenburg are currently located in one of the industrial areas along Hamlin Road and
Old Oxford Road. The second industrial area is planned adjacent to the Glenn School Road
I interchange area where there would be access to I-85 and railroad facilities.
To a smaller extent, the project area also contains small enclaves of Commercial,
t Office, and Research land uses. These land uses are generally located near major
intersections such as the confluence of Duke Street and Roxboro Road. In their efforts to
protect drinking water supplies and provide open space, the future comprehensive plans have
' zoned the floodplains along tributaries to Falls Lake as Recreation - Open Space -
Floodplain. Examples of this land use category include the linear park system along the Eno
River and zones adjacent to other major tributaries to Falls Lake.
3. Community Facilities and Services
a. Neighborhoods
The study area encompasses a large portion of northern and eastern Durham and
contains several older established neighborhoods and some newer recently completed
III-9

subdivisions. Over thirty neighborhoods and subdivisions are located in or near the build
alternates. Exhibit III-3 identifies and shows the generalized locations of neighborhoods in '
relation to the build alternates.
11
L
b. Utilities
Electrical power is supplied to the study area by Duke Power Company, Carolina
Power and Light, and Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation. Although telephone
service is provided by GTE South, AT&T also maintains underground telephone cables in
the study area. Natural gas service is furnished by the Public Service Company of North
Carolina and cable television is provided through Cablevision of Durham.
7
L
Water and sewer service within the study area is provided by the City of Durham
and private water wells and septic systems. The City of Durham provides the majority of
the water and sewer needs in the study area, while private wells and septic systems are '
generally used in areas further away from the city and in less populated areas.
Raw water for the City of Durham is received from the Little River reservoir and
Lake Michie, both north of the study area. Water treatment within the study window is
provided by the Brown Water Treatment Plant on Infinity Road. This facility is shown on
Exhibit III-3. ,
I
The North Durham Water Reclamation Facility, previously known as the
Northside Wastewater Treatment Facility near the corner of Glenn Road and Club
Boulevard, is the only wastewater treatment plant within the study area and is also shown '
III-10
NOM m m m m m m m m m w m m m W m' m
T
Q'
O CCDD
3 (a"
3 =T
c cy,
O
` O
-n O
w a
l J Co
CD C)_
C
c,?
0 0 0 0®•?¦ o
-D w 0 0 z 0a)
D 0 oo m 0C 2 m c0 0 C
o 0 M _ ?6
r r D F y m r 2 0 0
? 3)
? 0
z z? Z 0 g
m
? o z
O O ? -0 0
;4
'? c--r c--?-- ?
? 3
O =
cn CD O 0 5.
c--F- cn u? 0
•
l d 0 *ST
O r?
Q y
~7?

on Exhibit III-3. The North Durham Water Reclamation Facility was recently expanded and
is now handling wastewater previously treated at the Eno Wastewater Treatment Facility and
the Little Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Eno Wastewater Treatment
Facility, located south of the Eno River and north of Hebron Road, and the Little Lick Creek
Wastewater Treatment Facility, located immediately west of Stallings Road, were converted
into pump stations.
c. Schools
Several schools within the Durham City - County school system are located in
the vicinity of the project. These include Riverside High School, located north of Rose of
' Sharon Road; Easley Elementary School, located east of Guess Road and south of Latta
Road; Carrington Junior High School, Eno Valley Elementary School, and Northern High
L School located north of Latta Road and west of Roxboro Road; Holt Elementary School,
located immediately west of Duke Street and north of Horton Road; Glenn Elementary
School, located near the Glenn School Road - I-85 interchange; Southern High School,
' located northeast of Freeman Road; Oak Grove Elements School, located at the corner of
Elementary
Mineral Springs and Wake Forest Highway; Neal Junior High School, located north of Wake
Forest Highway and immediately east of Baptist Road; and Bethesda Elementary School,
located east of Miami Boulevard. The Durham City - County school's warehouse and
maintenance facilities are also located in the project area along Hamlin Road. The location
I of these schools are shown in Exhibit III-3.

III-13
d. Libraries
Two libraries are located in the study area. The North Durham Library is
located on Roxboro Road immediately south of the Eno River in the Riverview Shopping
Center. The Bragtown Library is located off of Dearborn Road south of Old Oxford
Road.
e. Emergency Services
Eight emergency facilities are located in the vicinity of the project. These
include: Durham Fire Company Number 10, located west of Cole Mill Road, near Rose of
Sharon Road; Lebanon Station Number 1, located west of Roxboro Road, near Eno Valley
Elementary School; Durham Fire Company Number 7, located immediately adjacent to Holt
Elementary School; Durham Fire Company Number 9 located at the corner of Glenn Road
and Club Boulevard; Redwood Station Number 2, located on Hamlin Road; Redwood Station
Number 1, located north of Cheek Road, east of Redwood Road; Redwood Station Number 3
located at the corner of Wake Forest Highway and Baptist Road; and Bethesda Station
Number 1, located west of Miami Boulevard. These facilities are also shown on
Exhibit III-3.
f. Other Community Facilities
Other community facilities in the study area include a state prison facility off
Guess Road and a North Carolina Department of Transportation maintenance facility adjacent
to the state prison facility. The Durham Regional General Hospital, located on Roxboro
Road south of Carver Street, is the closest hospital to the study area. The Durham
City/County Sanitary Landfill is located along Club Boulevard, west of Glenn Road.
III-14
it
g. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
An extensive system of parks and recreation facilities are located along the Eno
River near the build alternates. The parks immediately adjacent to the Eno River include
the Eno River State Park, West Point on the Eno, River Forest Park, and Old Farm Park.
Other park facilities in the study area include Valley Springs Park, Holt School Road Park,
and an undeveloped park located at the end of Kinard Road in the eastern portion of the
t study area between Doc Nichols Road and Sherron Road. Exhibit III-4 shows the location
I of the park facilities.
I Eno River State Park contains over 2000 acres of land and water for recreational
activities. The state of North Carolina established the Eno River State Park in 1972. Efforts
to add the Eno River to the state park system were fueled by the Association for the
Preservation of the Eno River Valley (the Eno River Association), a local group of
I concerned citizens, organized in 1965.
Within the study area, access to Eno River State Park is provided at three
locations identified as the Cabe Lands, Cole Mill, and Pump Station access areas. The Cabe
Lands access area is located west of Sparger Road and north of I-85, the Cole Mill access
area is north of the Eno River and west of Cole Mill Road, and the Pump Station access area
is located just east of Cole Mill Road, south of the Eno River. The Cole Mill access area
includes hiking trails, canoe access, and picnicking opportunities while Cabe Lands and
Pump Station access areas contain hiking trails only.
I?
III-15
West Point on the Eno, a Durham City Park located along the Eno River
immediately east of the state park, contains approximately 370 acres of recreational
opportunities. In addition to the West Point Mill and other structures, West Point on the
Eno City Park provides picnic facilities and approximately 15 miles of established hiking
trails. Park programs and events held throughout the year include craft workshops,
demonstrations, and concerts. Much of the proceeds from the annual "Festival for the Eno",
held on the Fourth of July weekend at West Point on the Eno Park, are used for the purchase
of additional parkland along the Eno River for the state park. Planning for Eno Drive was
included during the inception of West Point on the Eno City Park. On the application for
United States Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funding (Land and Water Conservation Funds),
Eno Drive was allocated land within the southern edge of the park.
River Forest City Park is located north of the Eno River, east of Roxboro Road.
The park contains a soccer field, playground, and scattered picnic tables. There are no plans
for additional development.
Old Farm City Park is located south of the Eno River, east of Roxboro Road.
Within the park are two basketball courts, a picnic shelter, restrooms, and a baseball field.
Additional development is not planned in the future at this facility.
Valley Springs City Park is located west of Rose of Sharon Road. Activity areas
within the park include three baseball fields, one soccer field, a playground, and picnic
shelter. Future development plans include the construction of a recreational center, pool,
and tennis courts.
III-16
100 an an Man MM an MWIN M m mom Manus Mom
0
0
0
C
Z
O I
°o COUNTY
° _ ORRA COUNTY `
DU `?
- ? -ate
5-XV430VOV
VALLEY RO N
n
l?
<L
UN?V o
7 -y DR
0
FAYEZ?ENILLE ST
ALSTON AVE
.
?s m
019
1S
S S11d M
1

0
?O
RU-ELL RD
ROSE OW '
SHARON RD cn
F, RD ,
D
N\?`?op?, a,6SS3a-
? o
,
at
Ya ? r
?•p °z rv ( L
sT 2 0 `° L ?`? ? by
r
co) + T?
DENF?eLD s
m

pa
/ o? ,•• y??• ?pNS
okFDRD ? O
MANGUM ST

,

t

0?5 yldNan°
? W?
,JUNCTION
Np11d'10
•••• ?
r
?'
t +d
Oa bpd L ?
Z ## •.0 ? ttp
DURHAM COUNTY-
WAKE
--COUNTY ----DOC ?\GHOLS RD 6 ???^O
m
It o c o
f f,
i
G'6 NO
612
O
? o y
°)
m
-
BAPTIST O? 331S,, .
??
k
r
m Rd 0

RD

cF C ?
c
,
L
FpsT co r
L ?Jt
j
.

000 m
i RD 1,
O 4
• 1\
,
1
T
Q
MINERAL
VD . ?
ID
cn
c:
?Q
YI
- O ? \,G j) ®O ~
m z-n 8 D m Z ?o p p < m 00 C
o v 70 ?Z o 6, m4 o m 6
C8 :X) - m
o cn m -n m p? C/) o
v T m m m o
?2 ITI oz O ;K Z? D o A
F
1 0 Z
O O O CD
70 O
e?

?-, 0 3 0
C) =

o?
O
C) y t

it

I
fl

Holt School Road Park is located west of Roxboro Road and north of Horton
Road. The park facilities include a picnic shelter and playground. There are no plans for
additional development at the park.
Also located in the study area are public lands that are used for passive and
active recreational activities. These include Penny's Bend Natural Area, the Eno Greenway,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Falls Lake property.
Penny's Bend Natural Area is situated on 84 acres within a bend of the Eno

River, west of Old Oxford Road. The natural area is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and managed by the North Carolina Botanical Garden. Many rare and endangered
plants, more typical of the midwest United States, are found within its borders.
The Eno Greenway is located north and south of the Eno River, west of Penny's
Bend. The greenway provides unrestricted foot travel along the Eno River between the city
parks and Penny's Bend Natural Area.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property associated with Falls Lake is located
east of Penny's Bend and Old Oxford Road. The property provides fish and wildlife
conservation, flood control, and recreation opportunities.
The Durham City - County Planning Department has established the Durham
[1

Urban Trails and Greenways Masterplan in which a series of trails were conceived for the
greater Durham area. Most of the trails planned for the project area will be located adjacent
III-19

to creek or stream valleys. Although none of the planned trail facilities are constructed in
the project area, the trail having a terminus near the intersection of Guess Road and Horton
Road is currently in the preliminary design phase. In addition, funding was allocated to the
proposed trail crossing NC 98 in the project area. A portion of the proposed New Hope a
Creek bicycle and pedestrian trail would follow the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop
near I-85 in Orange County. These proposed trails are also shown on Exhibit III-4.
F]
4. Transportation Facilities
a. Railroads
Durham is served by passenger rail operations through AMTRAK's "Carolinian"
train. Currently, the Carolinian makes two stops in Durham each day. The number of
AMTRAK passenger stops will increase to four as soon as an additional passenger train route
called the "Piedmont" begins operations. The "Piedmont" is scheduled to start in late 1994.
I
Freight rail services in the Durham area are provided by the Norfolk Southern
and CSX Railroads. The unused "L-Line" of the Norfolk Southern Railroad extends from
Durham to Timberlake and parallels Old Oxford Road in the project area. The future of the I
"L-Line" is uncertain. The line could be reinstated or may be used as a nature trail or a
fixed-guideway corridor. Norfolk Southern also operates the "D-Line" which parallels I-85
in the northeast portion of the project. The "D-Line" is located between Durham and Oxford
and currently has four trains per day on the rail line. These trains average about 50 cars in
length. Railroads in the project area are shown in Exhibits II-5 and II-6.
1
III-20

b. Airports
The Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) is located between US 70 and
I-40 southeast of the City of Durham near the eastern terminus of the project. Six major
` airlines provide services at the airport with one of the airlines operating a southeast regional
hub. There were 275 scheduled flight departures per weekday in March of 1994. Of those
275 weekday departures, 156 were on major carriers Oet aircraft), 109 were on commuters,
and 10 were all cargo flights.
I
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project area contains one historic district listed in the National Register of Historic
Places and several historic properties and archaeological sites on the Durham County historic
inventory and the North Carolina state study list. Historic properties and archaeological sites
listed in the National Register of Historic Places are protected under North Carolina General
I Statute 121.12a. Historic properties on the Durham County historic inventory represent
structures that are 50 years of age or older. A few of these historic properties are also on
' the North Carolina state study list. State listed historic properties and archaeological sites
M may be reviewed for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places at a later date.
Resources listed on the county inventory and state study list are not protected under state
preservation law. National Register and state study list resources are shown in Exhibit III-5.

1. Archaeologic Sites
There are no archaeologic sites recorded on the National Register of Historic Places
in the study area. However, one archaeologic site, the Guess Road Mill, located near the
Guess Road crossing of the Eno River, is listed in the Durham County inventory and the
III-21

state study list. Additionally, within West Point on Eno National Register Historic District,
there is a high probability that archaeologic remains are located in proximity to the standing
structures on the property.
2. Historic Architecture I
A portion of West Point on the Eno Park is listed as a National Register Historic
District. The district is approximately 25 acres in size and is entirely within the eastern end
of the West Point on the Eno Park boundaries. The district is located adjacent to Roxboro
Road, immediately south of the Eno River. The district includes all of the buildings located
in this section of the park. Other than the historic district, there are no other National t
Register listed or eligible properties within the study area. I
Durham County's inventory of historic structures includes the following state study I
list properties: the Doc Holloway Place on Rivermont Road; the Croasdaile Tenant Farm #4 1
off of Rose of Sharon Road; the Kinchen Holloway House east of Guess Road, immediately
north of the Eno River; the Lyon-Belvin House south of Hebron Road; George Clements
Farm east of Old Oxford Road near the Eno River, the Thompson House and the Catsburg
Store near the intersection of Old Oxford Road and Hamlin Road; the former Hebron School
off of Hamlin Road; the Glenn - Veazy Farm off of Glenn Road; the Needham Clay
Freeman Farm off of Freeman Road; the Dr. William Norwood Hicks Farm on Mineral
Springs Road; and the Fendel Beavers House off of Leesville Road.

1
III-22
mm m m m so m m m W ? m r r ? w m r m
-? o z
O C) C) ? CD 0

3 0
O O O
?-? C/) 0 5'

C+
Y r

r
,
n

c

CD
CD
0
CD
CD
Cn
0?°o°o v oc
?c ?? °O o6
o ?? o
Cl)
CCm 0Cm
co) 0.
Cl) ??

C!

1

n

C. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
1. Labor Force and Employment
Overall employment figures and industry employment by place of work for Durham
County and North Carolina are shown in Tables III-3 and III-4. As shown in Table III-2,
Durham's population grew 19% during the decade between 1980 and 1990, while the
county's overall employment force grew 17%. Comparatively, the State of North Carolina
overall employment figures increased 19%. Durham's unemployment rate decreased
approximately 52% compared with the state's rate of 36% for the same time period. As
shown in Table III-4, manufacturing represents one of the largest areas of employment for
Durham County. Further breakdown of the manufacturing category (not shown in the table)
shows that industries that manufacture chemicals, non-electrical machinery, and electrical
machinery employ the majority of individuals.
TABLE III-3
EMPLOYMENT: DURHAM COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA
1980-1990
1980 1990 % CHANGE

DURHAM STATE
DURHAM STATE
DURHAM STATE
OF NC OF NC OF NC
CIVILIAN 88,130 2,855,000 103,190 3,401,000 17.09% 19.12%
LABOR FORCE
TOTAL 83,750 2,668,000 100,720 3,262,000 20.26% 22.26%
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL 4,380 18,700 2,470 139,000 -43.61% -25.67%
UNEMPLOYMENT
UNEMPLOYMENT 5.0% 6.5% 2.4% 4.1% -52.00% -36.92%
RATE
Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, Civilian Labor Force
Estimates for North Carolina, 1990.
III-25
TABLE III-4
INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK:
DURHAM COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA

EMPLOYMENT AREA DURHAM
COUNTY
% STATE
OF NC
%
Construction 5,030 3.8 165,000 4.8
Manufacturing 30,460 22.9 862,000 25.0
Trans., Comm., & Public Utilities 4,080 3.1 152,100 4.4
Trade 20,280 15.2 718,300 20.8
Financial, Insurance, & Real Estate 4,710 3.5 134,500 3.8
Service & Miscellaneous 44,450 33.4 597,100 17.3
Government 17,810 13.4 493,600 14.3
All Other Non-Agricultural 5,730 4.3 267,200 7.7
Agricultural 490 0.4 66,200 1.9
Totals 133,040 100.0 3,456,900 100.0
Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, Labor Market Division,
Civilian Labor Force Estimates for North Carolina, 1990.
2. Income Ranges
The 1990 Census reported that the median household income within Durham County
was $30,526. Thirty-five percent of the households in Durham County reported earnings
within the $25,000 to $50,000 per year range. Family household income includes a
householder and one or more persons living in the household who are related to the
household by birth, marriage or adoption. A non family household may contain a group of
unrelated persons or a person living alone. The median family income was $38,578 with
37 percent of the families in Durham County reporting an income within the $25,000 to
$50,000 range. According to the 1990 Census, the City of Durham's median household and
III-26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1

t

1

family income were $27,256, with 34 percent within the $25,000 to $50,000 income range,
and $35,024, with 36 percent between the income range of $25,000 to $50,000, respectively.
D. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Biotic Resources
a. Vegetational Communities
The undeveloped and non-agricultural upland portions of the project area are
classified as a Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory vegetational community. This vegetational
community is located throughout the Piedmont on slopes, low ridges, and upland flats on a
variety of acidic soils. Several upland areas in or near the Eno River State Park best display
this forest community. Oak and hickory trees dominate the canopy with White Oak (Quercus
alba) the most prevalent species along with Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Mockernut Hickory
(Carya tomentosa), and Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra). Common scrub-shrub species found
in this community in the project area include Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sourwood
(Oxydendron arboreum), American Holly (Ilex opaca), and Arrowwood (Viburnum
rafznesquianum).
The majority of the project area exhibits varying stages of succession of the Dry-
Mesic Oak--Hickory forest. These stages range from recently logged areas; areas with even
aged old field loblolly pine (Pinus taeda); planted pine stands; and areas with oaks and
hickories sharing the canopy with the pines and more weedy hardwoods such as Red Maple
and Sweetgums (Liquidamber styraciflua).
III-27

The floodplains along the river and streams in the project area are classified as
Piedmont Alluvial Forests. The canopy of this forest type consists of River Birch (Betula
nigra), Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), Tulip Poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American Elm (Ulmus americana), and
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Scrub-shrub species commonly located include Blue
Beech (Carpinus caroliniana), American Holly (Ilex opaca), and Pawpaw (Asimina triloba).
The best examples of this forest community in the project area are located in the Ellerbe
Creek and Little Lick Creek floodplains. This community also characterizes the forested
wetlands located throughout the project area.
b. Wildlife I
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation has published "Wildlife of
Eno River State Park", a list containing all known species in the park or that are likely to
occur in the park. Many species found in the park are also expected to be found in the I
surrounding project area, particularly the other forested streams. Within the park, 14 species
of amphibians and 27 species of reptiles, including 14 species of snakes, were documented.
Twenty-nine species of mammals live or are likely to live in the park. These include ,
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews (Blarina caroliniana, Cryptotis parva), moles
(Scalopus), mice (Peromyscus leucopus, Ochrotomys nuttalk), and rodents, such as the
chipmunk (Tamias striates), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and beaver (Castor
canadensis). Carnivores include the red and grey fox (Vulpes vulpes, Urocyon
cinereoargenteus) raccoon (Procyon lotor), weasel (Mustela frenata), skunk (Mephitis

III-28

1

I

LJ

L

mephitis), and bobcat (Fells ruf is). The largest mammal found in the park, other than
humans, is the white-tailed dear (Odocoileus virginianus).
The park and project area also contain 152 species of birds with 62 species
known to nest within the park system. Some of the species commonly found or heard in the
project area throughout the year include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), northern
bobwhite (Colinus viginianus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), barred owls (Strix
woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus), and flickers (Colaptes auratus). Birds commonly found
varia), belted kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon), red-bellied (Centres carolinus) and pileated
in the urban areas as well as the park include the bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata), tufted
titmouse (Pares bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus caroliniensis), wrens (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), robin (Turdus migratorius), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). During
winter migration, 31 species of warbler are reported to pass through the park system.
Along with the amphibians and reptiles that live along the Eno River, 56 species
of fish are known to inhabit its waters. Common species known to recreational anglers
include the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), red-breasted sunfish (Lepomis autitus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and chain pickeral (Esox niger). Smaller species include
killifish (Fundulusi), mosquitofish (Gambusia sp. ), darters (Etheostoma sp., Percina sp. ),
and shiners (Notropis sp.). Many of these smaller fish are pollution intolerant species.
Their presence is an indicator of good water quality. The 56 fish species recorded for the
Eno River represent 25 percent of the species known for the state. Conversely, fish samples
collected along Ellerbe Creek, above and below the wastewater treatment plant, recorded
III-29

only three species of fish with no darters, shiners, or pollution intolerant species. Their
absence indicates poor water quality. Samples collected further downstream of the Ellerbe
wastewater treatment plant recorded seven different fish species indicating a slight
improvement in water quality.
2 Physical Resources
a. Soils ,
The project area extends over five different soil associations in Durham County.
These soils associations include the White Store-Creedmore association, Mayodan-Granville-
Creedmore association, Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree association, Iredell-Mecklenburg
association, and Georgeville-Herndon association. The White Store-Creedmore and
Mayodan-Granville-Creedmore soils are generally found in the upland areas, are well
drained, and are formed in shales and sandstone. Soils in the Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree
association are poorly drained and formed of alluvial material. The Iredell-Mecklenburg
association consist of well drained soils derived from diorite. The Georgeville-Herndon
association are also well drained soils formed in material derived from slates.

According to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources Division of Soil and Water Conservation the project area contains suitable soils
for Prime or Unique farmlands as well as State and Locally Important soils. However, since r
the project area is within the Urban Growth Area of Durham and the lands are planned for
non-agricultural uses, these soils are not considered for their farming potential. Exhibit III-2
shows the boundary for the Urban Growth Area. '

III-30

a

b. Water Resources
The project area is located entirely in the Neuse River drainage basin. Local
water bodies include the Eno River and it's tributaries, Ellerbe Creek, Panther Creek, Little
Lick Creek, Chunky Pipe Creek and Lick Creek. These drainages flow east to Falls Lake,
an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers impoundment that serves as the primary drinking water
supply for the neighboring City of Raleigh and portions of Wake County. Table III-5 shows
the stream connections and Exhibit III-6 shows the locations of the water courses in the
project area. The following paragraphs provide summary information on each of the water
courses in the project area:
Unnamed Eno River Tributary #1, - This tributary is located to the west of
Sparger Road and immediately west of the Durham - Orange County line. The
drainage basin of this tributary is approximately 211 acres and is composed mostly
of residential housing. This stream has a width of 15 feet with a average depth of
10 feet. The streambed is comprised of bedrock.
Unnamed Eno River Tributary #2, - This tributary is located west of Cole Mill
Road and crosses Sparger Road. The drainage basin is approximately 115 acres and
is composed mostly of residential development. This tributary was impacted by
residential development, and the location of a sewer facility along the channel. This
tributary has a width of 10 feet and a average depth of 4 feet. The streambed is
comprised of alluvium.
Nancy Rhodes Creek - Nancy Rhodes Creek has a drainage basin of approximately
960 acres of which approximately half is in residential land uses. The creek is
located northeast of Cole Mill Road and was slightly degraded by a sewer line
paralleling the creek. The width of this creek is approximately 20 feet with a depth
of 5 feet. The bottom is comprised of rock and mud.
Warren Creek - Warren Creek is located east of Guess Road. The drainage area
of this creek is approximately 4.3 square miles at this location. This creek has a
approximate width of 15 feet with a depth of 3 feet. The streambed is comprised
of rock and mud.
Cub Creek - Cub Creek is crossed by Hebron Road and has a drainage basin of
approximately 2.4 square miles. The majority of this drainage basin does not have
urban development. Cub Creek has a approximate width of 10 feet with a depth of
4 feet. Its streambed is composed of rock and mud.
III-31

TABLE III-5
STREAM CONNECTIONS
Neuse River Basin
Neuse River' Falls Lake' Eno River' Unnamed Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Nancy Rhodes Creek
Warren Creek
Cub Creek
Ellerbe Creek Unnamed Tributary
Panther Creek
Little Lick Creek Chunky Pipe Creek
Tributary I B
Lick Creek Tributary 1
Crabtree Creek' Little Brier Creek` Unnamed Tributary

1

Water courses that are not directly affected by the proposed facility.
Source: State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, March 1993.

Ellerbe Creek - Ellerbe Creek has a drainage basin of approximately 21 square
miles at the proposed crossing sites. This drainage basin contains a substantial
portion of the City of Durham. Immediately upstream of the proposed crossings
is the Durham landfill. This creek has a approximate width of 75 feet with a depth
of 12 feet. The streambed is composed of alluvium.
Unnamed Ellerbe Creek Tributary - This drainage is located east of Glenn Road
and has a drainage basin of approximately 512 acres. The drainage basin is
composed mostly of undeveloped and agricultural land uses. This creek has a
approximate width of 20 feet with a depth of 4 feet. The stream bed is composed
of alluvium.
Panther Creek - This creek system is located southeast of I-85, between Ferrell
Road and Cheek Road. The drainage basin of Panther Creek is approximately 205
acres where it is crossed by Alternates 2 and 3. This crossing is composed mostly
of undeveloped land. The streambed is comprised of rock and mud. '

III-32
4F kp
o .-
0
,Vr rn RUSSELL RD
0 o ANGE COUNTY N o
pg _ a
DUgfIA? COUNTY o v 00
'>i^°? C euk';' ?CIA
j
-- F? =tea ? i , s' y Ro
ROSE OF 'Vt O
SHARON RD ?+ (3'8 55'0
"tki
RD s, rn
?^ LF? Z N w ,, L ? 2 0
J•? ? T r
m DFNF? ? ? o
nS? ?°?, 15 511dM ELD S7 • Qa
HOPE VALLEY RO OS0 o
0 41 ?0o CUD Creek f hONS
?Ni fo to ^^???
V/
?, Rs DR OkFORO o oa O? ?...
MANGUM ST c! Ro r?? ? ?,
d Le • A ?
j?Ed1LLE ST 6! V
FAYE Lo ?'
t,, ?. ?• .4 c`
ALSTON AVE 0
f Ddb,
a„ OD r . ?
Cr?# f ' f /y? 1?If
01
OD ` 10 %kk• ?•
Ln O `
FF? Z GLENN RD r
^0 i sr
iONUC
JUNCTION °? NO\ N ?,, ???? `??
i'F'ELL!
OG CID
O'? v 5 ;;'`4 fFP I v rJ /
d10
?Ao
66
o
. C
MINERAL SpR1NOS ? -.14 ?
N '?' '' r r
RFp 0
NN
)BLVD m N ?? ??? HOOD ?^' p A FA \\
o
o
41,
w tom.
° w f A° U?e Greek j • b • 6 ,i
• _ Q
cl)
r
cn • Na ?,, • ? 1
a Zed • .? •?wso
Od
DURHAM COUNTY
WAKE ` \GHOES RD ???^ ? 1 7 , 1
COUNTY DOC 0 X31 w... r L •?.t1
BAPTIST p; ,4"'•7 ` ?_ I
m .011111111
CA)
ok
1 o z
O O ? 0

C/) C.D
0

y O*YY
tl
O ? y

w
rn
CD
O
V/
co
?K -0 !5 OZ? pC
oz? ?6
m $?
pr 0 Z
D m :X)
0 co
D D? z r?r ? ?W0
z m ?v z ?
cl) z n -n? ?r,
m ?O
° N m
cf) O
m z z
m

' Chunky Pipe Creek - The crossing of Chunky Pipe Creek is located behind
Southern High School north and east of Freeman Road. The drainage basin of
Chunky Pipe Creek is approximately 435 acres and is primarily composed of
residential development. This creek has a approximate width of 15 feet with a
depth of 4 feet. The streambed is comprised of mud and rock.
Little Lick Creek - Little Lick Creek would be crossed by Alternates 2 and 3 at the
current Mineral Springs Road crossing immediately north of Wake Forest Highway.
This creek has a drainage basin of approximately 10.5 square miles. The width of
this creek is approximately 20 feet with a depth of 6 feet. The stream bottom is
composed of alluvium. Alternate 1 would cross Little Lick Creek west of Stallings
' Road. This crossing is immediately below the confluence of the main channel of
Little Lick Creek and a major tributary of the creek. This section of Little Lick
Creek has a width of 25 feet with a depth of 6 feet. The bottom is composed
primarily of alluvium.
Little Lick Creek Tributary - This water course is located east of Mineral Springs
Road and south of Wake Forest Highway. This tributary has a drainage basin of
approximately 1.6 square miles. The width, depth, and streambed of this creek are
unknown due to flooded condition during the field review.
Lick Creek - The build alternates would cross Lick Creek at two locations east of
Sherron Road. Alternate 1 would cross Lick Creek just west of Doc Nichols Road.
The drainage basin of the creek at this location is approximately 1.9 square miles
and is composed of undeveloped and agricultural lands. The stream width, depth,
and substrate at this crossing is unknown due to flooded conditions during the field
' review. Alternates 2 and 3 would cross Lick Creek further upstream than Alternate
1. The drainage basin of Lick Creek at this location is approximately 580 acres.
The stream width at this location is 20 feet with a depth of 5 feet. The bottom is
composed of alluvium.
Tributary to Lick Creek - The drainage basin of this creek is approximately 1.1
square miles and consists mostly of undeveloped land. The proposed crossing of
this tributary by Alternate 1 would be located west of Doc Nichols Road. The
width of this tributary at this location is 15 feet with a depth of 4 feet. The
streambed is comprised of mud and rock. Alternates 2 and 3 cross this creek
system further upstream. The creek width is 15 feet with a depth of 4 feet. The

1
P

streambed is comprised of rock and mud.
Unnamed Tributary to Little Brier Creek - This tributary flows to Crabtree Creek
and is located immediately north of US 70 near the Durham - Wake County line.
The approximate width of the tributary is 20 feet with a depth of 4 feet. The
streambed is comprised of rock and mud.
IIl-35
In addition to the identified rivers and creeks, the project area contains numerous
ponds. Generally, these are residential and farm ponds of less than two acres in size with
small drainage basins. Thirty-six of these ponds are located within the proposed corridors
of the build alternates. Table III-6 gives the approximate size of each of the ponds in the
project area. The locations of these ponds are shown on Exhibit III-6.
TABLE III-6
SUMMARY OF POND SIZES
POND
NUMBER APPROXIMATE SIZE
(aces) POND
NUMBER APPROXIMATE SIZE
(acres)
1 0.6 19 0.1
2 0.3 20 0.2
3 0.9 21 15.2
4 1.1 22 3.7
5 1.0 23 0.6
6 0.7 24 0.4
7 0.5 25 1.5
8 0.4 26 0.3
9 0.7 27 0.2
10 1.6 28 0.2
11 2.2 29 0.3
12 2.7 30 1.0
13 3.2 31 2.1
14 0.4 32 0.2
15 0.3 33 0.1
16 0.9 34 0.1
17 0.4 35 0.7
18 1.6 36 0.6
There are no Federally listed Wild and Scenic Rivers in the study area. The Eno
River, however, is listed as a Scenic, Natural, and Recreational River in North Carolina and
may be studied for inclusion on the Federal List of Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Eno River
III-36

J
is on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory for future consideration as a wild and scenic river.
The project area does not contain trout streams.
c. Water Quality
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR), Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has published "Classifications
and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin" (North
waterbodies and establishes minimum water quality standards that these water bodies must
Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 213.0315). This document classifies sections of
meet. All of the water bodies in the study area are classified as WS-IV. Class WS-IV
waters are defined as "waters that are protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds; where point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted; where local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
discharges of pollution are required; and are suitable for all Class C uses." Class C uses are
defined as "waters that propagate aquatic life and survival, fish, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture". In addition to the WS-IV classification, waters in the project
area are also considered Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), which means that there are
limitations on the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen (fertilizer) that can be discharged to
the receiving waters.
supplies, land use policies have also been established to further minimize the degradation of
In addition to the water quality standards established to help protect drinking water
receiving waters. The land use policies contain provisions for the establishment of a Critical
Watershed Area around the drinking water supply. These policies also regulate the type and
III-37
density of development within the Critical Watershed Area. Developments that are allowed
in these areas generally must provide stormwater treatment measures greater than those
which would be required for a development outside of the Critical Watershed Area.
DEHNR defines the Critical Area as one-half mile beyond the limits of a drinking water
supply. Durham County uses both a one-half mile and a one mile area beyond the limits
of the drinking water supply as the boundaries of Critical Watershed Areas for planning
policy purposes. Two drinking water supply sources are located in the vicinity of the build
alternates and each has defined Critical Watershed Areas.
One Critical Watershed Area is located north of Hebron Road along the Eno River.
Because Durham maintains an emergency water intake valve at this location, a Critical
Watershed Area was established. A second Critical Watershed Area in the vicinity of the
proposed project is around Falls Lake. The limits of these Critical Watershed Areas are
shown in Exhibit III-6.
Additional control measures are also being studied for the Eno River by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Because the Eno River is inhabited by
five state protected freshwater mussel species, the WRC is proposing to designate portions
of the river as critical habitat areas for these rare species. Waters defined as critical habitat
areas by the WRC may receive a supplemental classification of High Quality Water (HQW).
Rules to protect HQW were developed by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
The HQW rules do not specifically address roads or transportation systems. However, under
the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, a set of guidelines more stringent
I11-38

'L?

I?

than the NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" are applied
to land disturbing activities within HQW protection zones.
Currently, the WRC is coordinating with the DEM to define the limits of the critical
habitat area along the Eno River. After the critical habitat is defined and reviewed by the
two agencies, public hearings will be held to present information and receive comment from
interested parties and affected property owners. Final determination of whether to provide
a supplemental classification of HQW will be made after the public hearing process. A
resolution of the proposal to amend the classification of the Eno River as HQW is expected
in late 1994.
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Wetlands

Wetlands are protected resources under Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act. Wetlands provide
valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, often support rare and endangered species, have high
primary productivity, improve water quality, and regulate storm flow.
The definition of wetlands used in this study is contained in the January 1987 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands area defined as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence or
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
i Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.

III-39
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was first used to identify potential
wetlands within the study area. The NWI mapping showed three wetland classifications in
the project area. These include: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Mud, Permanently
Flooded, Impounded (PUB3Hh); Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Semi-
Permanently Flooded (PFOIA); and Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Mud, Permanently Flooded, Excavated (R2UB3Hx).
Field investigations found that those areas classified as PUB3Hh consist of residential
and farm ponds that area located throughout the project area. Locations of these ponds are
shown in Exhibit III-6. Each was formed by damming or berming a minor upland drainage.
Some wetland vegetation is located around these ponds and includes obligate herbaceous
species such as Cattails (7ypha latifolia) and scrub species such as Black Willow (Salix
nigra). Although most of the these ponds were created for aesthetic purposes they function
as stormwater abatement and nutrient retention facilities. These ponds are protected by the
Clean Water Act as surface waters and not wetlands.
The one area classified as R2UB3Hx consists of the channel of Ellerbe Creek
However, the channel of the creek is devoid of any vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Therefore, this area, identified on the NWI mapping as a wetland,
is protected as a surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act but not as a
wetland.
Wetlands classified as PFOIA consist of the alluvial forest vegetational communities
associated with the rivers and creeks. These wetlands are generally linear systems that
III-40

f

I?
U

i1

I

follow the various water courses. Due to the surrounding terrain of much of the project
area, most of the wetlands are limited to areas immediately adjacent to the streams.
However, in the more level portions of the study area, such as the areas along Ellerbe Creek
and Little Lick Creek, the wetlands are more expansive. PFOIA wetlands provide flood
storage, sediment trapping, downstream food chain support and fish and wildlife habitat.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through the provisions
of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal.
The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource
area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Statute 401, as amended:
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). North Carolina laws are also designated to protect certain plants
and animals, where statewide populations are in decline. Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. These acts are administered and enforced by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Table III-7 indicates the federal protected species identified by the USFWS and
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as potentially occurring in the study area,
Table III-8 indicates the state protected species that potentially occur in the project area.
III-41
TABLE III-7
FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES
TAXONOMIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Enchinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower Endangered
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
Haliaeetus luecocephalus Bald Eagle Endangered
Source: State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural Heritage Program
List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
Smooth Coneflower (Enchinacea laevigata) - This species of coneflower is 50 to
100 centimeters (19.7 to 39.4 inches) tall with pale to deep pink flowers. Habitat
for the Smooth coneflower in North Carolina is restricted to diabase glades. The
underlying soil series of these diabase glades in Durham County are Iredell soils.
Known populations of the Smooth Coneflower are located in the project area along
Hebron Road near its intersection with Old Oxford Road.
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michaux) Michaux's Sumac is an upright shrub with
pinnately compound leaves and red drupes that ripen in autumn. This plant is
located on sandy, rocky, or open woods and may be associated with basic soil
conditions. The one element occurrence record of this species for Durham County
was recorded in 1949. It is believed that this species is extirpated or was
potentially introduced to Durham County. The project area does not have suitable
habitat for this species.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus luecocephalus) - The adult bald eagle is a dark brown bird
with a white head and tail, and an unfeathered lower leg. It has a wingspan of
more than six feet, and soars with wings held straight out from the body. Required
habitat for the bald eagle includes large bodies of water for feeding, and tall trees
near the water for roosting and nesting. Falls Lake provides good habitat for
eagles. A known nest is located near the lake, slightly less than three miles north
of the project area. There is no suitable habitat for bald eagles within the
immediate study area.
III-42

?1

1

TABLE III-8
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FTAXONOMIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Enchinacea laevigata Smooth Cornflower E-SC
Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac E-SC
Haliaeetus luecocephalus Bald Eagle E
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E-SC
Lasmigona subviridus Green Floater E
Ruellia humilis Pursh's Wild Petunia T
Alismodanta undulata Triangle Floater T
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe T
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel T
Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot T
Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter SC
Necturus lewisii Neuse River Waterdog SC
Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom SC
Hemidactylium scutatum Four Toed-Salamander SC
North Carolina Status
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
SC = Special Concern
Source: State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural Heritage
Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina.
Tall Larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - The Tall Larkspur is a coarse perennial
up to 2 meters (6 feet) tall. It can be found in rich woods in the mountains and the
piedmont of North Carolina. Element occurrence records for this species in
Durham County indicate that the species is associated with diabase glades and basic
soils. A known location for this species was recorded near Old Oxford Road in the
vicinity of Penny's Bend nature preserve. Similar habitat to this area does exist in
the project area.
Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - The Green Floater is a small freshwater
mussel with the adult members usually less than 55 millimeters (2 inches) in length.
The Green Floater is found in small streams, and in places where other mussels
would not be found. It prefers quiet pools or eddies with gravel and sand bottoms.
This mussel was located in the Eno River in a previous study. Other streams in the
III-43
project area do not provide suitable habitat for this species either because lack of
water flow or less than desirable water quality.
Pursh's Wild Petunia (Ruellia humilis) - The Wild Petunia is pubescent perennial
approximately 16 to 60 cm (6 to 24 inches) tall. It's flowers are in dense glomeules
to open cymes and blooms during the period between May and September.
According to Radford, Ahles, and Bell, the habitat for this species is dry woods.
Element occurrence records for this species in Durham County show that each of
the recorded species has been located in an area with and underlying diabase
material and basic soils. This habitat does exist in the project area but has been
impacted by residential development and agricultural practices.
Triangle Floater (Alismodanta undulata) Triangle Floaters are found in most river
systems in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. This species is generally located in
small tributary streams in slow moving waters in a muddy sand substrate. The
species was located in the Eno River in a previous study. Other streams in the
project area do not provide suitable habitat for this species either because lack of
water flow or less than desirable water quality.
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - The Atlantic Pigtoe has a shape that is
subquadrate to rhomboidal in outline and the ventral margin is smoothly curved.
This species seldom exceeds 50 millimeters (2 inches) in length. The anterior end
is rounded, and the posterior end is angular. The Atlantic Pigtoe inhabits the upper
parts of rivers, usually above the Fall Line. It prefers clean, swift waters and is
often found in gravel or sand and gravel substrata. This species was collected in
the Eno River in a previous study. Other streams in the project area do not provide
suitable habitat for this species either because lack of water flow or less than
desirable water quality.
Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - This species of mussel is smooth, shiny,
yellow-brown and reaches 130 millimeters (5 inches) in length. The yellow
lampmussel is associated with shifting sands in medium to large streams and rivers.
This species was collected in the Eno River in a previous study. Other streams in
the project area do not provide suitable habitat for this species either because lack
of water flow or less than desirable water quality.
Squawfoot (Strophitus undulata) - The Squawfoot can be found in fine sediments,
usually fine mud. The Squawfoot prefers relatively quiet water in beds of
vegetation or in protective cracks between boulders. It may also be found very
close to, but not in, rapids. This species was collected in the Eno River in a
previous study. Other streams in the project area do not provide suitable habitat for
this species either because lack of water flow or less than desirable water quality.
Carolina Darter (Etheostama collis) - The Carolina Darter has an elongated body.
Adults of this species generally reach 25 to 40 millimeters (1 to 1.5 inches). It is
laterally blotched or flecked with a short, pale lateral line high on its body. The
Carolina Darter usually has one anal spine. This species occupies small creeks and
III-44
7

t

it

rivulets in wooded and deforested areas. It lives in open and stick-littered portions
of pools and very slow runs, usually on sand, gravel, and detritus substrates. It
probably also dwells among vegetation. This species was collected in Lick Creek
Tributary in the eastern portion of the project area. Lick Creek and Nancy Rhodes
Creek may provide suitable habitat for this species.
Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisii) - The Neuse River Waterdog is an
aquatic salamander with external gills. It is distinctly spotted above and below,
with brown to black spots on a ground color of lighter brown. Adults reach a total
length of 23 centimeters (approximately 9 inches). The Neuse River Salamander
occurs in flowing streams, usually over 15.5 meters (50 feet) wide, and is
vulnerable to pollution. This species was collected in the Eno River and Flat River
in a previous study. Other streams in the project area do not provide suitable
habitat for this species.
Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) - Madtoms are known to inhabit unpolluted
medium sized and large creeks to small rivers with moderate to gentle gradient.
This species was collected in the Eno River in a previous study. Other streams in
the project area do not provide suitable habitat for this species either because lack
of water flow or less than desirable water quality.
Four Toed-Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) - The four toed salamander has
a white belly with conspicuous scattered dots and four toes on each foot. Its habitat
requirements include the presence of a pool between February and June, or a vernal
pool; the absence of fish (i.e. the pool must be isolated), and clumps of moss under
which to lay eggs. Seepage slopes or springs with clumps of moss also provide
habitat. When not nesting, the adults may move away from the pool area and into
the forest. Floodplain forest associated with Ellerbe Creek and Little Lick Creek
may provide suitable habitat for this species.
A comprehensive survey and database of the native plant communities and rare species
was compiled for Durham County. This information is maintained at the Natural Heritage
Program office and at the Durham City - County Planning Department. Information
collected for the plant survey indicates that some areas within Durham County contain high
concentrations of plants whose state protection status is Significantly Rare. Although this
status provides no legal protection, areas with high concentrations of these plants should be
noted for roadway planning purposes. The majority of these rare plants are located in the
parks along the Eno River, in the Penny's Bend preserve, and within mitigation land owned
I11-45
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers associated with Falls Lake. Penny's Bend is a unique
natural area whose underlying geology and soils provide habitat for many rare species.
Exhibit III-7 provide generalized locations of areas with known populations of rare and
protected species.
c. Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, and Natural Communities
Also shown on Exhibit III-7 are Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, and Natural
Communities. Natural Heritage Areas are state registered protected areas with known
occurrences of rare or protected plant or animal species. Natural Areas are areas with no
current state protection status but with known occurrences of rare or protected plant or
animal species. Natural Communities represent exceptional examples of a particular natural
community.
Most of the natural areas and communities are outside the corridor limits of the
proposed build alternates and are contained in parks along the Eno River, at Penny's Bend
Nature Preserve, and on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mitigation land associated with Falls
Lake. Three unique natural areas are located within the proposed corridors. The first site
is the Hebron Road Remnant Glade which is located south of Hebron Road near its
intersection with Old Oxford Road and contains the Smooth Coneflower and Prairie Dock
(Silphium terebinthenaceum), a North Carolina Candidate species. The second site is the
Catsburg Remnant Glade located near the intersection of Old Oxford Road and Hamlin Road
which contains Prairie Dock and Prairie Blue Wild Indigo (Baptisia minor), also a North
Carolina Candidate species. The third site is located in the eastern portion of the project
area along Lick Creek. This site is known as the Upper Lick Creek Slopes and is located
III-46
r = = r = m = r = = m = = = m

along Lick Creek between an existing power line and Doc Nichols Road. The area has been
1 recommended for local protection for its quality as a example of a young mixed mesic forest.

t

I?
u

III-49

REFERENCES - SECTION III
Durham Area Transit Authority, Short-Range Service Development Plan. Final Report,
August, 1993
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing. Durham City and County, North Carolina, October 1991
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Durham County
Inventory of Native Plants Communities and Rare Species.
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Durham County
Historic Inventory, February 1992.
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Durham Urban
Trails and Greenways Masterplan, October, 1988.
City of Durham Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Durham 2005
Comprehensive Plan, City of Durham, North Carolina, October 1985.
Durham County Planning Department, Durham County, North Carolina, General
Development Plan 2005, Durham County, North Carolina, September 1987.
Radford. A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell, Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, University of North Carolina Press, 1968.
State of North Carolina, Employment Security Commission, Employment and Wages in
North Carolina, 1991.
State of North Carolina, Employment Security Commission, Civilian Labor Force
Estimates for North Carolina, 1990.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, 1990
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B
Section 0300 Assignment of Stream Classifications, .0315 Neuse River Basin,
February 1, 1993
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural
Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina, 1991.
III-50

1

t REFERENCES -SECTION III (cont'd)
I
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
' Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural
Heritage Program List of Rare Animal SW&ies of North Carolina, 1991.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Wildlife of Eno River State Park, 1993.
Triangle Transit Authority, Triangle Fixed Guideway Study, Transportation Analysis and
Planning, Proposed Land Use and Transportation Alternatives. Draft, March 1994.
Triangle Transit Authority, Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. Phase III Alternatives
Evaluation, August 1994.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Durham County. North Carolina, 1972.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National List of
Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, Southeast (Rep-ion 2), 1988.
United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987.

III-51

7-
L

W. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section addresses the probable beneficial and adverse social, economic and
environmental effects that would result from the implementation of the proposed action and
describes the measure proposed to mitigate adverse impacts. The social, economic, natural
and physical impacts associated with each of the build alternates and the No-Build
Alternative are described in the following sections.
The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loops is an integral transportation element in the
A. LAND USE Il"ACTS
City of Durham and Durham County comprehensive planning documents. Addressing
transportation deficiencies and linkages in the area, the 1985 City of Durham "2005
Comprehensive Plan", states that several major streets in northern Durham are overly
congested because of an imbalance between housing and employment centers. To address
this issue the comprehensive plan endorses a linkage policy that is to "utilize circumferential
or loop thoroughfares to facilitate efficient movement between outlying employment centers
and residential areas. "
Transportation goals and objectives stated in the 1987 Durham County "General
Development Plan 2005" are, "to permit the efficient travel of people and services within
Durham County and the Region" and "to consider loop or circumferential thoroughfares to
facilitate efficient automobile travel between residential areas and employment centers."
IV-1

Future land use maps, shown in Exhibit III-2, indicate that the current undeveloped areas
of northeast and eastern Durham are planned for low density residential housing and a
continuation of the existing industrial zones around Hamlin and Old Oxford Roads. The
proposed Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is anticipated to help open opportunities
for development in these areas while improving the current traffic conditions between
existing residential and employment centers. Because the City of Durham and Durham
County have adopted comprehensive plans, zoning polices, and land use controls, and
because the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is a component of these comprehensive
plans, the proposed facility is not anticipated to alter land use patterns that were planned by
the local authorities.
The No-Build Alternative would not alter existing land use patterns. The No-Build
Alternative, however, would not meet the transportation goals of the adopted comprehensive
plans and could impact planned future land uses. The No-Build Alternative would not
enhance the development opportunities in the industrial land use areas or the currently
undeveloped areas zoned for residential development. Expansion of these area, in part, is
predicated on the construction of the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop.
B. SOCIAL IMPACTS
1. Community Cohesion
The proposed facility would impact several existing neighborhoods in the study area.
In the western portion of the project area the Caroline Mobile Home Park would be impacted
by the proposed interchange with I-85. Although access to this community would be
relatively unchanged, the homes not relocated by the proposed facility would have I-85, the
IV-2

11

d

1i

LJ

I
11

Eno River State Park, and the Northwest and Northeast Loop bordering the neighborhood.
Caroline Mobile Home Park would be completely isolated from other neighborhoods in the
area. Impacts to this community would occur regardless of the build alternate constructed.
The homes along Cedar Creek, Neff Street, and Sparger Road would be impacted
by relocations and the introduction of a new physical barrier separating their homes from the
forests of the Eno River State Park. These impacts will result under any of the build
alternates.
Residents along Rivermont Road are located within the corridor limits of Alternates 2
and 3. The proposed Northwest and Northeast Loop would widen the existing two-lane
neighborhood road into a five-lane curb and gutter or four-lane roadway divided by a 30 foot
raised median. Alternates 2 and 3 would separate the residents along Rivermont Road by
the width and traffic of the proposed facility. Alternate 1 would be located to the north of
this area.
Neighborhoods that are adjacent to Roxboro Road, consisting of Horton Hills,
Argonne Hills, and Old Farm, would be impacted by the proposed build alternates and their
respective interchanges with Roxboro Road. Horton Hills and Argonne Hills are connected
by Holt School Road. Alternate 2 would be located between these two neighborhoods and
would sever the Holt School Road connection. Although the two neighborhoods are
separate, the placement of Alternate 2 at this location would change internal access and travel
patterns.
IV-3

Alternate 3 would cause relocations, access impacts, and internal travel pattern I
changes to the northern portion of Argonne Hills. Under Alternate 3, access to Argonne
Hills via Chateau Road would be eliminated. Access to Argonne Hills under Alternate 3
would be through Argonne Drive, Wellington Road, and Holt School Road.
Alternate 1 would not impact the residents of Argonne Hills or Horton Hills.
However, access and internal travel patterns in the Old Farm neighborhood would be
impacted under Alternate 1. Under this alternate, the proximity of the entrance to Old Farm
along Seven Oaks Drive to the proposed interchange at Roxboro Road would diminish
ingress and egress for this neighborhood. The intersection at Seven Oaks Drive is signalized
but would be located close to the signalized ramps from the interchange. Another access '
point for Old Farm is at the intersection of Rippling Stream Road and Roxboro Road near
the Eno River. This intersection is currently unsignalized and would be adversely affected
because of the added neighborhood traffic using the intersection. Alternates 2 and 3 would
have less impact on this neighborhood since they are located further south on Roxboro Road. '
Potential mitigation for this neighborhood would be to extend Seven Oaks Drive to the east
to connect with Denfield Street to form another access point for the community. '

JFK Towers retirement home is located along Old Farm Road, near Roxboro Road.
Access to the seven story retirement home is off Old Farm Road which intersects Roxboro ,
Road in two locations; a southern point approximately across from Chateau Road and a
northern point at the Seven Oaks Drive traffic signal across from the West Point on the Eno
Park. Under Alternate 1 access to the retirement facility would be maintained at the
southern Old Farm Road/Roxboro Road intersection, however, the proposed interchange at '
IV-4
1

I

1

I

?J

Roxboro Road would create a physical barrier that would separate JFK Towers from the
Riverview Shopping Center. This shopping center is located less than a quarter of a mile
from the JFK Towers. Under Alternate 3 access to JFK Towers would be maintained at the
northern Seven Oaks Drive but eliminated at Chateau Road. Both Alternates 1 and 3 would
essentially eliminate city bus service along Old Farm Road in front of JFK Towers.
Alternate 2 would not impact the residents of JFK Towers.
East of Roxboro Road, the intersection of Monk Road and Roxboro Road would be
eliminated under Alternate 2. Monk Road provides access to Ryan Street and from Ryan
Street to Laymans Chapel Road. The elimination of the Monk Road intersection at Roxboro
Road would redirect traffic along Ryan Street to the only remaining entrance to Ryan Street
Denfield Road and Monk Road to access their homes. Alternate 2 would eliminate the
from Roxboro Road; and would require the residents along Laymans Chapel Road to use
access between the two neighboring streets. Although there are few homes along Laymans
Chapel Road, the elimination of access to Ryan Street would effectively separate the
neighborhood. Mitigation for the separation would be to reconnect Ryan Street with
Laymans Chapel Road. Alternate 1 and 3 would not have an impact to the residents along
Ryan Street or Laymans Chapel Road.
A newly constructed subdivision located between Mineral Springs Road and Stallings
Road would be split by Alternate 1. Greenwood Forest is a recently completed subdivision
with access to both Mineral Springs Road and Stallings Road through Hadrian Drive.
Hadrian Drive was a neighborhood road through the Greenwood subdivision prior to its
extension to Stallings Road. The extension of Hadrian Drive was for the development of the
IV-5

Greenwood Forest subdivision. Alternate 1 would split the new subdivision by the width of
the roadway and traffic. Alternates 2 and 3 would not impact this neighborhood.
An unnamed residential neighborhood located south of Holder Road along
Alternates 2 and 3 would be divided by the proposed roadway. Residences in this area are
currently divided by a feeder creek to Little Lick Creek. The corridor for Alternates 2 and 3
follows the creek through this area. The roadway will add to the existing physical separation
that exists in this neighborhood.
The No-Build Alternative would neither positively or negatively impact community
cohesion with regard to disruption of these established residential areas.
2. Community Facilities and Services
a. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
The proposed build alternates would affect Eno River State Park, Valley Springs
City Park, and West Point on the Eno City Park. None of the build alternates would impact
the property purchased for the proposed City park near Kinard Road nor any existing
neighborhood parks in the project area. Table IV-I shows the impact acreages to these park
facilities. The No-Build Alternative does not impact any park, recreational, or open space.
The corridor of Alternate 1 would include a portion of 1?no River State Park
north of Sparger Road, west of Cole Mill Road. This portion of the state park does not
contain facilities for recreation or trails. Under the State North Carolina Park Act (General
CV-6

U

LJ

i
1
1
1
i
TABLE IV-1
SUMMARY OF PARKLAND IMPACTS
(Acres)
PARK ALTERNATE1 ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATES
Eno River State Park 0.2 0 0
Valley Springs City Park 0 0.4 0.4
West Point on the Eno
City Park 5.1 0 0.5
Proposed Kinard City Park 0 0 0
TOTALS 5.3 0.4 0.9
Statute 113-44.14), no agency or governmental body of the State has the power to remove
a park or any part of a park from the State Park System. Should Alternate 1 be selected as
the Preferred Alternative, a majority vote from each house in the North Carolina General
Assembly would be required to authorize the transfer of parkland to the Department of
Transportation for other purposes.
The corridor for Alternates 2 and 3 would encompass portions of Valley Springs
City Park along Rivermont Road. The portion of this park that would be in the corridor for
Alternates 2 and 3 does not have any facilities for recreation or trails. Planned expansion
of this park would not be affected by Alternates 2 and 3.
The proposed corridor for Alternates 1 and 3 would encompass portions of West
Point on the Eno City Park. Like the Valley Springs City Park, the portion of the park in
the corridors is not developed. Access to West Point on the Eno City Park would be
IV-7

effected by the location of the Alternate 1 interchange on Roxboro Road. The park entrance I
is at the signalized intersection of Seven Oaks Drive and Roxboro Road. The close
proximity of the Alternate 1 interchange ramp signal and the Seven Oaks Drive signal will
adversely impact access to and from the park facility. Alternates 2 and 3 would be further
south on Roxboro Road and would have less impact on access to this park. I
Durham County also has a Trails and Greenways Master Plan in which a series
of greenways and nature trails were incorporated into their land use plan. The new roadway
would cross eight proposed greenways and nature trail systems identified in the master plan.
These trails are shown in Exhibit III-4. The proposed project would also cross a proposed
trail east of Cole Mill Road. The trail is proposed by the Nancy Rhodes Creek Association
and would connect to the Eno River State Park's Pump Station Trail. None of these trails
have been implemented. Should a build alternate be selected as the Preferred Alternative,
access to the trails and across the proposed roadway would be considered during the design r
portion of the study. Design details to help maintain trail access may include items such as
culverts under the roadway or extended bridges over the creek valleys such that trail users
would not need to cross the road.
t
b. Land and Water Conservation Funds (Section 6(f))
The National Park Service administers Land and Water Conservation Funds to
aid in the purchase, preservation, or maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. Under I
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA), impacts to properties
purchased or maintained with LWCF money must be replaced in kind and adjacent to the
existing facility. Lands that are contained in Eno River State Park and West Point on the
IV-8 1

I

L

1

J
F-I
U
F-I
Lam'
Eno City Park were purchased or are maintained with LWCF money. The undeveloped city
park located at the end of Kinard Road was also purchased with LWCF money. Under
Section 6(f) of the LWCFA all prudent and feasible alternatives to avoiding Section 6(f)
lands and all attempts to minimize impacts to Section 6(f) lands must be investigated prior
to their use for other purposes, such as highway construction.
Alternate 1 impacts a small corner of the Eno River State Park north of Sparger
Road. This impact was required to avoid impacting an existing church at the corner of
Sparger and Cole Mill Road. This area of the park is not readily accessible to park users
and does not contain any recreational activity. The area is completely wooded. Alternates 2
and 3 would not affect this area.
Alternates 1 and 3 would impact West Point on the Eno City Park. However,
under the original LWCF application and funding agreement, 90 feet of the southern
boundary of the park was set aside for Eno Drive right of way. This 90 foot width resulted
in approximately 8 acres of land being reserved for this roadway project and was included
in the LWCF application. Conceptual right of way plans within the corridors for
Alternates 1 and 3 were prepared to quantify the impacts to the West Point on the Eno City
Park by these alternates. The impact acreages shown in Table IV-1 are not in addition to
the 90 foot area in the LWCF application, but they are in lieu of this area. The proposed
impacts under Alternates 1 and 3 are substantially less than what was planned when the
parkland was originally purchased. The No-Build Alternative and Alternate 2 would avoid
impacts to the Section 6(f) property.
IV-9

Should an alternate be selected that impacts Section 6(f) property, adjacent I
in-kind replacement land does exist that could be used for the mitigation of impacts. The
construction of the proposed facility would create small, isolated, out-parcels between the
park and the roadway. As mitigation for the park impacts, these isolated parcels could be
incorporated into the park system. Some of these parcels would be created from the 1
construction of the interchange at I-85 near the Durham - Orange County line. These areas
could be used for mitigation of impacts to the Eno River State Park. A second area would
be created along the south border of the West Point on the Eno City Park between the
proposed boundary for Alternates 1 and 3 and the park. The replacement lands would be
of equal value to the impacted areas.
r?
iJ
c. Utilities I
All build alternates would impact utilities in the study area. A comparison of the
utilities crossed is located in Table IV-2. The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop will ,
have a high impact on utilities because of the urban nature of the study area. 1
1) Electrical Transmission I
All build alternates cross electrical transmission powerlines. Duke Power I
Company maintains all transmission powerlines crossed by the alternates with the exception
of one powerline maintained by Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). The build alternates
cross transmission lines carrying from 100 to 230 kilovolts. Although there is no date for
construction, right of way was purchased by CP&L for the future Durham Parkwood 500kv
transmission line which would be located near the intersection of US 70 and the Durham -
Wake County line. There are no electrical substations impacted by the build alternates.
IV-10 I

t
i
TABLE IV-2
UTELITY IMPACTS
(Number of Crossings)
Utility Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Electric 6 4 5
Powerlines
GTE 11 12 12
Communications
AT&T 1 3 3
Communications
Natural Gas 4 3 4
TOTALS 22 22 24
2) Communications
GTE and AT&T maintain communication lines that would be impacted by the
build alternates. Only major GTE and AT&T fiber optic, copper, and coaxial
communication lines were evaluated for impacts. As shown in Table IV-2, Alternates 2
and 3 would cross AT&T underground cables three times while Alternate 1 would cross
cables once. Impacts to major GTE communication lines are approximately the same for the
three build alternates. There are no switch buildings impacted by the build alternates.
3) Natural Gas
The Public Service Company of North Carolina maintains all natural gas lines
within the project area. Impacts assigned to the build alternates were limited to major
Natural Gas lines of 8 and 12 inches in diameter. The number of gas line crossings for each
alternate are shown in Table IV-2.
IV-11

4) Other Utilities I
The City of Durham maintains water and sewer lines within the area of the I
build alternates. All build alternates would impact water and sewer service. There are four
City of Durham sewer pump stations located within or adjacent to the build alternate
corridors. The Cedar Creek Pump Station and Sparger Road Pump Station, both located off
Sparger Road are within the corridor of Alternates 1, 2, and 3. The Glenn Pump Station,
west of Glenn Road, is adjacent to the corridor of Alternate 3, while the Frazier Forest
Pump Station, off Freeman Road, is within the corridor of Alternates 2 and 3. Water and r
sewer facilities requiring relocation would be coordinated with the City of Durham.
d. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities I
The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is not proposed to have separate
bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities. However, a 14 foot outside lane on the four-lane and
five-lane urban sections would provide improved safety for bicycle activities. Additionally,
a sidewalk could be incorporated in the berm area behind the curb of the urban typical
sections for pedestrian use in the future.
Although no pedestrian facilities are a part of the Northeast and Northwest Loop,
there would be a need for a pedestrian overpass east of Roxboro Road. Under Alternate 1,
residents of JFK Towers adult retirement center would not have direct access to the
Riverview Shopping Center. Access to the shopping center could be maintained by
providing a pedestrian bridge over the proposed roadway to allow pedestrian movement
between JFK Towers and the shopping center without conflict with traffic traveling on the
IV-12 1

Loop. The cost of the pedestrian overpass was estimated at $1,285,000 and the overpass
will be considered during final design if Alternate 1 is selected as the Preferred Alternate.
I e. Railroads
' The proposed build alternates will cross the Norfolk Southern "L-Line", which
parallels Old Oxford Road and the "D-Line" which parallels I-85 in the northeast portion of
the project. The "L-Line" is currently unused and its future is uncertain. The build
r alternates would cross this rail line with an at-grade intersection. If, in the future, the
"L-Line" becomes active, the grade and approach to the crossing could be adjusted to bridge
the railroad.
I To eliminate interference between the proposed roadway facility operations and
the Norfolk Southern's "D-Line", the two facilities would be grade separated. To continue
rail operations during the grade separation construction, a temporary railroad line detour
would be necessary to construct the railroad crossing bridge. The approximate length of the
detour would be 3100 feet for Alternates 1, 2, and 3. The "D-Line" currently has on the
average four trains a day.
1-1
Ll
f. Schools
The proposed build alternates would not directly impact any school facility
located in the project area. Although no school buildings would be impacted, Alternates 2
and 3 would require some right of way from three Durham City - County school properties.
Alternate 1 would not affect any school property.
i
I IV-13

Alternates 2 and 3 would require approximately 2.0 acres from the newly
reconstructed Glenn Elementary School, located north of Geer Street. The required area is
open land and does not contain any school facilities or support school activities. The site
plan for the school set aside a portion of this area for use as right of way for this project.
Alternate 2 and 3 would also require approximately 1.4 acres of right of way
from Southern High School, located off of Freeman Road. The proposed facility would be
located at the eastern boundary line of the high school next to the athletic stadium and would
cross the northeast corner of the school property at Chunky Pipe Creek. The school does
not have any facilities in the impact area and does not use the area for education related
purposes. The site plan for this school also indicates this area as roadway right of way for ,
this project.
Alternates 2 and 3 would also require a small portion of the newly reconstructed
Oak Grove Elementary School property at the corner of Mineral Springs Road and Wake
Forest Highway. Impacts to the frontage of Oak Grove Elementary School along Mineral
Springs Road would be less than 0.4 acre. The site plan for this school provides for future
widening of Mineral Springs Road and the Wake Forest Highway intersection. The impact
area does not contain any school facilities and is not used for school activities.
g. Libraries I
None of the build alternates would impact library facilities, although Alternate 1
would affect access to the North Durham Library located on Roxboro Road near the Eno
River. The No-Build Alternative would not impact library facilities.
IV-14

I

l

L?
11

I
U

h. Emergency Services
The proposed build alternate would not directly impact any emergency facilities.
However, emergency operations at Durham County Fire Station Number 7 would be affected
by Alternate 2. This Durham County Fire Station is located along Duke Street, north of the
Holt School Road intersection. Under Alternate 2, Holt School Road would be severed north
of Valley Springs Drive. Holt School Road provides the most direct emergency access to
some of the homes in Argonne Hills for this emergency service. Alternate 2 would require
emergency vehicles to exit onto Duke Street/Roxboro Road and enter Wellington Road to
respond to a call in the Argonne Hills subdivision.
Alternate 3 would increase the response time between Station Number 7 and JFK
Old Farm Road, emergency vehicles would be required to access the retirement facility from
Towers. Because Alternate 3 eliminates access to JFK Towers from the south entrance of
Seven Oaks Drive then turn right onto Old Farm Road.
None of the other emergency services facilities in the project area would be
negatively impacted by the proposed action. Overall, emergency services in the project area
would be positively impacted by the new roadway. By providing efficient access between
existing radial arterial routes, emergency response vehicles would no longer be required to
use existing circuitous routes to access neighborhoods and emergency facilities. Also, with
the proposed Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop in place, congestion on existing roads
would be reduced thereby further improving response times during peak travel times.
IV-15

The No-Build Alternative would have no direct impacts on emergency services.
However, as congestion on the existing facilities increases, the response time of emergency ,
vehicles would increase.
i. Commuter Services
The Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) operates Route 4 which follows
Roxboro Road north, turns right onto Old Farm Road, then left onto Seven Oaks Drive to
use the traffic light at the intersection of Seven Oaks Drive and Roxboro Road to return.
Alternate 1 would sever Old Farm Road south of Seven Oaks Drive. The route for the bus
service would either have to be altered such that there would be a stop at JFK Towers
followed by a stop at the Riverview Shopping Center; or residents in this area would have ,
to walk to a single access point. Under Alternate 3, the bus route would also be severed,
however, access to both locations, JFK Towers and Riverview Shopping Center would be
connected by Old Farm Drive. Alternate 2 and the No-Build Alternative would not impact
this route.
The Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop would have a positive impact on I
existing and proposed mass transit operations by providing a more direct link from the I
outlying residential areas to employment centers such as RTP, Hamlin Road Industrial area,
and Treyburn. With reduced congestion on the existing radial routes used by the Durham
Area Transit Authority, existing bus services would operate more efficiently. This positive
impact for mass transit operations was also identified in the Triangle Transit Authority's
Fixed Guideway System Study under Alternative C; whereby, existing or proposed roadway
systems would be used for enhanced bus services. The portion of the Durham Northwest r
IV-16 I
1

U

7

'iJ
and Northeast Loop between Roxboro Road and US 70 was identified as a viable link for
enhanced bus services.
3. Accessibility and Travel Patterns
Besides the local travel pattern changes described under Community Cohesion, the
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop would have a positive social impact on accessibility
and travel patterns to jobs, goods, facilities, and services. The proposed build alternates
would improve accessibility for north Durham residents to the major job centers in Research
Triangle Park, for goods and services from I-85 north to the industrial centers along Hamlin
Road and Old Oxford Road, and to the service areas of downtown Durham by relieving
congestion on existing radial routes. For the No-Build Alternative, these impacts would be
negative. The No-Build Alternative would result in increased congestion on the existing
facilities and would result in reduced accessibility in the project area.
4. Joint Development
There is a potential for joint development with the proposed build alternates. Should

I

one of the build alternates be selected for implementation, several small parcels of land will
remain between the proposed road and the Eno River State Park and the West Point on the
Eno City Park. These parcels could be purchased and incorporated into the park system.
C. RELOCATION IMPACTS
For the most part the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop would be located in the
undeveloped areas of Durham County. However, the proposed facility would be
approximately 18 to 20 miles in length, in proximity to established urban areas, and connect
IV-17

with radial routes from the urban areas; therefore, relocations of families, businesses, and
non-profit organizations are expected to occur. For planning purposes, conceptual right of
way plans were developed such that the number of residences, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farms impacted by the build alternates could be estimated. Anticipated r
relocations associated with the proposed build alternates are summarized in Table IV-3. The
No-Build Alternative would not require the relocation of any residence, business, farm, or
non-profit organization.
TABLE IV-3
SUMMARY OF RELOCATION IMPACTS
ALTERNATE1 ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
Total 86 100 95
Families
Minority
25
41
35
Total 15 26 8
Businesses
Minority
0
7
2
Total 0 0 0
Farms
Minority
0
0
0
Non Profit Total 4 2 2
Organizations F Minority 0 1 1

L;

rl

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Relocation Report, March, 1994. 1
For the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, relocations are generally concentrated I
along the radial routes where development has occurred and where an interchange would be
constructed. Of the total number of displaced families shown for each of the build alternates
in Table IV-3, 40 of those potential relocations would occur at the proposed interchange with

IV-18 I

1
I

u
11
I-85, near the Durham - Orange County line. Additional residential impacts associated with
Alternate 1 would occur at the proposed crossings of Cole Mill Road, I-85 north, between
Mineral Springs Road and Stallings Road, Wake Forest Highway, Sherron Road, and
Leesville Road. Under Alternates 2 and 3 additional residential impacts would occur at the
Roxboro Road interchange area and the Mineral Springs Road - Wake Forest Highway
intersection area.
The majority of business impacts would occur at the Roxboro Road interchange area.
Under Alternate 1, thirteen of the fifteen business relocations would occur along Roxboro
Road. Under Alternate 2, fifteen business would be relocated along Roxboro Road and an
additional five would be relocated near the intersection of Mineral Springs Road and Wake
Forest Highway. Alternate 3 would not relocate any businesses at Roxboro Road although
five businesses would be relocated near the intersection of Mineral Springs Road and Wake
Forest Highway.
Non-profit organizations would also be relocated with the build alternates. Under
Alternate 1, four North Carolina Department of Transportation buildings located along Prison
Camp Road would be relocated. Under Alternates 2 and 3 the Gorman Ruritan Club and
Abundant Life Ministries would likely be relocated.
Also shown in Table IV-3 are the number of minority families and minority owned
businesses that would be relocated by the proposed build alternates. Alternate 2 would have
the greatest number of relocations of both minority families and minority owned businesses.
Most of the relocations to minority families and businesses would occur at the proposed
IV-19

Roxboro Road interchange area. Of the seven minority owned businesses that would be I
relocated under Alternate 2, five are located along Roxboro Road. Alternate 1 would have I
the least number of relocations of minority families and Alternates 1 and 3 would have no
relocations of minority owned businesses. The No-Build Alternative would require no
relocations of minority families or minority owned businesses.
Population figures and information concerning ethnicity by census tract are shown in
Table III-1. Census tracts and the locations of the build alternates are shown in
Exhibit III-1. Census tracts 17.08 and 17.09 include a minority population that is
substantially greater than the percentages shown for other areas in the study window and
Durham County. Much of the minority population in census tract 17.09 is located in ,
neighborhoods outside of the study area along Old Oxford Road.
Minority neighborhoods in census tract 17.08 consist of the Old Farm subdivision, I
located east of Roxboro Road, the Hillview Terrace subdivision, located north of Hebron
Road, immediately east of Cub Creek. Alternates 1 and 3 would not require any relocations
of families or individuals in the Old Farm subdivision. Relocation impacts to the Hillview
Terrace neighborhood would consist of six families located along Hebron Road. Two of the
six families are minorities. Alternate 2 is not located in proximity to either of these
neighborhoods and would, therefore, not require any relocations from either community.
A number of free standing homes along Denfield Road in census tract 17.09 would be
impacted by Alternate 2. Relocations in this area and in neighborhoods west of Roxboro
Road such as Horton Hills and Argonne Hills would result in 19 relocations. Ten of these
IV-20 I

I

I
E

19 families are minority. Argonne Hills and Horton Hills are in census tract 17. 10, which
have a population comprised of approximately 27 percent minority families. Relocation
impacts to Argonne Hills from Alternate 1 would be zero. Alternate 1 would impact one
minority family in census tract 17. 10, outside of Argonne Hills. Alternate 3 would require
eight families in Argonne Hills to be relocated, of which two are minority. Alternates 1
and 3 would not affect Horton Hills.
One retirement center is located in the study window. Tenants of the JFK Towers
retirement center along Roxboro Road would not be directly affected by any of the proposed
build alternates through relocation, although the conceptual right of way under Alternates 1
and 3 would impact the property around JFK Tower. The areas of the parcel required for
the build alternates is not currently used for resident activities. Indirect impact to this
facility such as pedestrian access to a shopping facility and a bus route are addressed in other
sections.
Under all of the build alternates, as many as 40 families from the Caroline Mobile Home
Park would be relocated. Ten of these relocations are minority families. Other than the
relocations in the Caroline Mobile Home Park and the minority families near Roxboro Road
that would be impacted under Alternate 2, impacts to minority families are dispersed
throughout the length of the project. The proposed project does not disproportionately
relocate any minority group or identified minority neighborhood.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state or federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
IV-21

Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to help minimize the
inconvenience of relocation: Relocation Assistance; Relocation Moving Payments; and
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available
to assist displaces with information such as availability and price of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payment Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases 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 will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS 133-5 through 133-17). 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.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of the displaced families, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Department of
IV-22
1

11
1
11
1
A
F

7
LI

1

C'

s

I?

Transportation will so schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
standards. The displaces are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
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 sale prices or
replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of families and individuals
displaced, and 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 tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive a
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
cost of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
the Department of Transportation 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
IV-23

dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacements housing payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500
combined total.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent 1
a replacement dwelling or to 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.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state
assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been
offered or provided for each displacee within the reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the ,
extent of eligibility of any person for 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 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. Last Resort Housing may be required to
relocate families in the Caroline Mobile Home Park.
IV-24

I

I

1

1

D. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
An economic benefit common to all build alternates would be an increase in employment
for highway and bridge construction. This benefit would extend over several construction
seasons and would have the secondary effect of stimulating economic activity in the northern
and eastern portion of the study area.
Based on Federal Highway Administration's procedures for estimating construction
related employment, each one million dollars of construction expense creates an average of
9.75 on-site jobs and 12.7 off-site jobs. Based on the estimated construction costs of the
proposed facility, Alternate 1 would create the greatest number of jobs with approximately
906 on-site jobs and 1,181 off-site jobs. Alternate 2 would create the least number of jobs
at 780 on-site jobs and 1,016 off-site jobs; while, Alternate 3 would create 817 on-site jobs
and 1,064 off-site jobs.
In part, the need for the proposed Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop is based on
the need to reduce congestion on the existing roadways. A benefit of the new roadway
would be a reduction of traffic on the existing radial roadways. The impacts to businesses
that serve through travel, such as service stations, are expected to be minimal since the
existing radial facilities would still carry a substantial amount of traffic.
Local industries and employment centers in the Durham area would benefit economically
by all of the build alternates. The receiving and shipping of goods would be made more
efficient and convenient because of improved access and improved roadway facilities. This
would result in a savings in transportation costs and time for these local industries.
IV-25

As congestion associated with the No-Build Alternative increases, adequate transportation I
support for existing economic activities in the study area would deteriorate. A constrained I
transportation system would increase the cost of obtaining supplies and materials necessary
for production and would create problems for workers in reaching employment locations, '
both in terms of time and cost. ,
Each of the build alternates would affect local businesses in the study area. From 8 to
26 businesses would have to be relocated. Along Roxboro Road, the addition of an '
interchange at the crossing of the build alternates could reduce accessibility to businesses in ,
the vicinity of the interchange. Alternate 3 would have the fewest business relocations and
the least impact on businesses along Roxboro Road. '
[ - I
E. FARMLAND Il"ACTS
In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, the impact of the proposed I
action was assessed. According to DEHNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
several soils units in the project area were rated as Prime Farmlands in the early 1970's.
Soils are rated for their potential to produce crops and do not currently have to be in crop
to be considered Prime Farmlands. Prime Farmland soils are those soils best suited for
producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed. State and Locally Important soils are those
soils with either seasonal wetness, erosion, or droughtiness that limit their suitability for
some crops but can still produce a moderate to high yield of adaptable crops with modern 1
farming methods. Soils listed as Other Lands include those soils that are not suited to crop
production without extensive management.

IV-26 I

7
L

V'
V
LJ

1

Other Lands also include urban and built-up areas. If, as in the case of the project area,
Prime Farmland and State and Locally Important soils are planned or zoned for land uses
other than agricultural, then their status is reduced to Other Lands. The project area is
contained within the Urban Growth Area of Durham County which has no areas planned for
continued agricultural land uses. The Urban Growth Area of Durham County is shown on
Exhibit III-2. Therefore, there are no Prime, State, or Locally Important Farmlands in the
project area.
F. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The project area is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Raleigh Regional
Office of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR). Durham County was designated as a moderate nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) and Ozone (03). The attainment date is December 31, 1995 for CO and
November 15, 1996 for 03. The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain
any transportation control measures for Durham County. The Durham Urbanized Area
Thoroughfare Plan and the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) were
determined to be in conformity with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Highway vehicles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. The
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management of DEHNR recommends that
for analysis purposes current background concentrations of CO in the project area be set at
1.9 parts per million (ppm) and 1.2 ppm for the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations,
respectively.
IV-27

An air quality analysis was performed for the proposed project in accordance with the
Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Because highway vehicles are considered to be the major source
of CO in the project area, CO was used in the analysis as an indicator of the air pollutants
produced by traffic on the proposed roadway.
In order to evaluate the future air quality effects of the proposed project, CO projections
were made at potential "worst case" location sites for the three build alternates. The
potential "worst case" locations were found to be in the vicinity of two intersections of the
proposed alternates with major cross roads. The intersections which were analyzed for all
of the build alternates are at Guess Road and at Old Oxford Road. These intersection
locations are shown on Exhibit IV-1. Site 1 is along Guess Road and has two analysis
locations. Site 2 is along Old Oxford Road and also has two analysis locations.
Projections for future air quality effects were calculated for the year of project
completion (2005), five years after project completion (2010), and design year (2015). The
CO concentrations were determined using a line source model, and adding to it a background
component. The resultant CO projections were then assessed against the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to determine the extent of the impact the proposed project
would have on the air quality in the project study area.
Microscale CO projections were made using the EPA-approved MOBILESA and
CAL3QHC computer models. MOBILESa was used to determine CO emission factors
which, in turn, were used in the CAL3QHC model to generate CO concentrations. The
IV-28
E
17
L

E

+ m m m r r r m m w m m= m m m m w i
o I
0
C
zz
Y
°o OUNT . -'
° DURHA COUNTY
n
a, OC
VALLEY RD
A
BL V_ p J?
p? >,W3Q`1Od
ti
?ll
r DR
AYEEVILLE ST
ALSTON AVE
MINER
Qd Db9
is
s siiyM
i
NOSO??O
is
MANGUM ST
N+ o -N
1
y s
?juNCTION _ 0'8 Np\iONOf
tLEE D t
0
i)d1O L? 0
p? N0)
?O
O
v
SDN
MONS
0<O
QO
1l CI
?, .(i GSf Ut1/e ck crook
1 d OQ y
aps??y m f
Oa bpd a 1 em
DURHAM COUNTY-
WAKE - ? Hp4S
COUNTY DOC ?\G O? 6 OAF BAPTIST o? 3315 L I
m
r )
?0z
G O p 0 O
? D 0 c C-4-- c--f- d 0
m 30
1.0
Cn C: 5"o
ly D.
? C
Cl)
? O ? ti A
S
J
_ ' -' m Po
o? RUSSELL RD
'LID n ;
o rn
00C?es??., g
ti ; , z Ro
o ROSE OF
SHARON D S5
r ?O
D p
1
^? D
pYF RD *, op
Z N a; a
w w
O ?
D s
Ol d1 ?aZ Cub Crf
O
OkFOR o
O RD
T
Z?l
J-
PO
ti
?ly
O ..

11

77
L
a

t

r

1

computed pollution concentration values from CAUQHC represent combinations of both
those levels generated by roadway traffic and assumed background concentrations. Air
pollutant concentrations are dependent upon factors such as meteorological and source
characteristics, as well as the dispersion and distribution of emissions.
The results from the microscale analysis for the three build alternates are summarized
in Table IV-4. This table includes the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations for each receptor,
for the three years investigated.
In comparing the projected CO concentration levels in Table IV-4 with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour
standard (9 ppm) are expected. The highest 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are expected
to occur at Receptor 2 under Alternate 2. The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for the
year 2015 are not expected to exceed 11.2 and 6.8 ppm (including background
contributions), respectively, at this location.
The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be serious.
During construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
Contractor in accordance with the NCDOT "Standard Specification for Roads and
Structures". Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 213.0520. Care will be taken to ensure that burning will be
IV-31
TABLE IV-4
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(Parts Per Million)
1-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
2005 - Year of Project 2010 - 5 Years After 2015 - Design Year
Site Completion Completion
No.
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3
1 9.2 8.8 8.8 9.8 9.4 9.4 10.5 10.2 10.2
2 8.5 10.9 8.5 9.0 11.0 9.0 9.6 11.2 9.6
8-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
2005 - Year of Project 2010 - 5 Years After 2015 - Design Year
Site Completion Completion
No.
Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3
1 5.6 5.4 5.4 6.0 5.7 5.7 6.4 6.2 6.2
2 5.2 6.6 5.2 5.5 6.7 5.5 5.9 6.8 5.9
Site No. 1 = Intersection Locations along Guess Road
Site No. 2 = Intersection Locations along Old Oxford Road
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 35 ppm (1-hour) & 9 ppm (8-hour)
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Air
Quality SWb, April, 1994.
done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions
are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance. Also, measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
IV-32

1

G. NOISE IMPACTS
For the purpose of analyzing noise impacts from implementation of the Build
Alternative, existing and projected traffic generated noise was determined for the proposed
project. This was done in accordance with procedures set forth in 23 CFR, Part 772.
1. Potential Noise Sensitive Areas

Potential noise sensitive areas which may be affected by noise from any of the build
alternates were selected for acoustical analysis. Generally, residential, institutional, and
public areas are more sensitive to noise impacts than commercial and industrial sites.
Identification of such activities was accomplished by examination of land use maps and aerial
I

U

1

photographs, along with field investigations. Based on these evaluations, potential noise
sensitive areas which would experience uniform noise conditions were identified along the
build alternates. Within the sensitive areas, representative noise receptors were located for
acoustical analysis.
Field measurements for ambient conditions were taken at 38 representative field
monitoring sites along the build alternates. The locations of these field monitoring sites are
26, 27, 31, 33, 36, and 37), the predominant noise source is traffic. At the remaining
shown in Exhibit IV-2. At seventeen of the sites (2, 3, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25,
twenty-one sites, the primary noise source is from non-vehicular sources. A description of
the 38 field monitoring sites is presented in Table IV-5.
IV-33
I
2. Existing Conditions
At those field monitoring sites where the existing noise levels were attributed
primarily to vehicular traffic, computer modeling projections were made to simulate peak
hourly volume conditions utilizing the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
These values provided a means by which to compare the measured existing noise level and
predicted existing noise levels. At sites where the predominant noise source was not traffic
related, the ambient measured values were used for comparison with future projections.
Table IV-5 presents a summary of the existing ambient noise measurements along with
corresponding predicted values from the computer model, based on the traffic data collected
during the noise measurements.
3. Design Year Noise Levels
Using the STAMINA 2.0 model, noise levels for the build alternate corridors were
predicted for 342 noise sensitive receptors. A receptor may represent one or more homes
or businesses. The worst case noise conditions, which were modeled, were defined as Year
2015 peak hour volumes. The speeds used reflect anticipated operating conditions. Medium
and heavy truck percentages were included in the study. All roadways that could potentially
contribute to the overall noise level at the receptors were included in the analysis (i.e.,
interchange ramps, crossroads, and adjacent roadways).
It is important to note that the project is in the corridor study phase; therefore, the
geometrics that were used for the noise investigation are preliminary and subject to
refinements and revisions. A final noise analysis will be performed during the design phase
of the project.
IV-34

L

U

u
1
r= m r m m m m= m m m= m m m m m m
o I
O
zz
o _ - I
°o GE COVNTY u
o DVRgA1i COUNTY
_ ?C)
41
VALLEY RD
A

BL V=?
o! w?a?ov
,IN\LLE ST
ALSTON AVE
p?NNV°
MINERAL
g 2 ?
w O
as Dodd i,?
DURHAM COUNTY-
- - - ` GNOUS RD
WAKE
COUNTY DOC
r
m `
o Ln o/
BAPTIST

¦ c'r'°? O C) ( O
?.
®
O -0
co
mM m? ?C
Z S Z =
07 (0.0 ?r1r 0 S? O O
0 5.
cl) u o o cl) o ?.t. -t
,
< c
0 z c: c: 115
L7 ' ?
R.I. c p E •ST'l?T
O z z O
m ?-' 0 _
(A
J
oyo??
ys
SyydM
vs
N°SS??o
ys
MANGUM ST
CA)
RUSSELL RD
nip°o r6°A' `?, g
i ? y Rp
o ROSE OF '' yt
SHARON RD SS
J
(71 %.
rn D
F RD T?1 V --'i
N?`UPNO? SCSI ?nO y a ?8 e*0,6
as °?°
o
y
JON
o
Q Q, z N Z
i
?yoo o '?o
ys
DENFI Ds
w QCD
N -0?
S
d cub CreeK
1
?Rp
Rp
j
M
I s
N
J
CID
MONS
p?p I
QO R p
y " Z
J
?D ..

m
0
0
?o
+l'1
? ,. V ? N O'? ?7y Z
A C-1
S ?
L
SON
1l c1
60

J

F- I
u

?I

TABLE IV-5
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Noise Distance To Measured Predicted
Monitor
Site Description Nearest
Ambient
Value**
Roadway* (dBA) (dBA)
Site No. (feet)
1 2717 Cedar Creek N/A 54 N/A
2 Day Care Center 50 64 61
(Sparger Rd)
3 Northside Christian Church 66 66
(Cole Mill Rd)
4 3712 Rivermont 50 48 N/A
5 Valley Springs Park N/A 46 N/A
6 10 Cabes Mill N/A 48 N/A
7 3870 Guess Rd 50 69 68
8 Sanderson Drive Area N/A 42 N/A
9 134 Chateau Street 107 47 N/A
10 Former YMCA site 50 66 66
(Roxboro Rd)
11 West Point on the Eno Park N/A 48 N/A
12 JFK Towers N/A 45 N/A
13 312 Seven Oaks Rd - 83 53 N/A
14 Mount Level Baptist Church 50 60 62
(Hebro
n Rd)
15 1017 Old Oxford Rd 50 65 64
Thompson St, Dead End
16
1329 N/A 42 N/A
17 3607 Wishart St N/A 40 N/A
18 Field Crest Baptist Church 50 (Gle
nn School 50 49
R
19 Glenn Elementary School 50 63 61
St)
(Geer
20 Trailer Park North of Geer St N/A 50 N/A
* Distance measured from center of nearest lane of traffic.
** Calculated using STAMINA 2.0 BLR, Modified FHWA Version 3, Traffic Noise Prediction Model,
March, 1983, with traffic data collected during ambient measurements.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise Study, April, 1994

1
TABLE IV-5
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Noise Distance To

Monitor
Nearest Measured Predicted
Site Description Ambient Value**
*
Roadway
Site No. (feet) (dBA) (dBA)
50 (Cheek Rd)
21 Cheek Rd at Carpenter Rd 100 (Carpenter 60 61
Rd)
22 Southern High School :470 42 N/A
(Freeman Rd)
23 701 Dickens Lane 50 56 57
(Freeman Rd)
24 5819 Hadrian Drive 50 44 N/A

25 Mineral Springs Rd at Valley x 170
(Mineral Springs
52
52
Dale Drive
Rd)
-400 (Wake
26 Oak Grove Elementary Forest Hwy) 54 55
School -220 (Mineral
Springs Rd)
27 4820 Wake Forest Highway -200 55 56
28 915 Franklin Drive N/A 52 N/A
29 517 Hiddenbrook Drive N/A 48 N/A
30 5123 Durand Drive 13.5 45 N/A
31 351 Leesville Road 50 58 60
32 3053 Rosewood Circle N/A 46 N/A
33 4807 Denfield Road 50 67 67
34 4406 Danube (Duke Lane) 105 43 N/A
35 Avalon Road 20 41 N/A
36 4005 Holder Road 50 59 58
37 921 Stallings Road 50 59 58
38 Stallings Road x500 54 N/A
* Distance measured from center of nearest lane of traffic.
** Calculated using STAMINA 2.0 BLR, Modified FHWA Version 3, Traffic Noise Prediction Model,
March, 1983, with traffic data collected during ambient measurements.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise Study, April, 1994

1

e

r-7I
LJ

1

L

4. Noise Impacts
in order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the Federal regulations (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria (NAC) for various land uses
appears in Table IV-6. The NAC is presented in terms of Leq, equivalent sound level. Leq
is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy
as does time-varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content. The FHWA
procedures require the investigation of noise abatement measures when predicted project
noise levels approach or exceed the NAC (Table IV-6), or when they substantially exceed
the existing noise level. The NCDOT defines approaching the NAC as values that are
1 dBA less than those appearing in Table IV-6. In addition, the NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown on the bottom of Table IV-6.
Except for two receptors under Alternate 1 and five receptors under Alternates 2
and 3, all receptors fall under Land Use Activity Category B (67 dBA). The two non-
Category B receptors associated with Alternate 1 are both commercial properties, whereas
the five non-Category B receptors associated with Alternates 2 and 3 are comprised of three
commercial properties and two industrial properties.
IV-39

TABLE IV-6
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity
Category
Leq(h)
Description of Activity Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an
A 57 important public need and where the
(Exterior) preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended
purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
B 67 active sports areas, parks, residences,
(Exterior) motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not
(Exterior) included in Categories A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.

52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
E
(Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Existing Noise Level in Leq(H) Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
Levels to Future Noise Levels
50 >_ 15
> 50 >_ 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Noise Abatement
Guidelines.
IV-40

Fj

1-7
L

L

s

fl
11

Table IV-7 provides a summary of the impacted properties for each alternate by type
of impact and Land Use Activity Category. Alternate 2 impacts 283 properties (all Land
Use Activity Category B) and Alternates 1 and 3 impact about 190 properties. A discussion
of the noise impacts for each alternate or connector follows:
TABLE IV-7
SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTIES
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED PROPERTIES
APPROACH, BOTH
EQUAL, OR SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASEZ CRITERIA TOTAL
EXCEED NAC' EXCEEDED3
B4 C4 B4 C4 B4 C4 B4 C4
Alternate 1 78 0 84 1 26 0 188 1
Alternate 2 92 0 144 0 47 0 283 0
Alternate 3 100 0 57 0 33 0 190 0
' Refer to top of Table IV-6 for description.
2 Refer to bottom of Table IV-6 for description.
3 Defined by both criteria in Table IV-6.
4 NAC Land Use Activity Category - Table IV-6.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise
Study, April, 1994.
Alternate 1 - Assessment of Alternate 1 considered the anticipated noise impacts
upon 185 residential receptors and two commercial receptors. The existing values
at the receptors range from 40 to 70 dBA and vary from 53 to 74 dBA under the
build alternate. For Alternate 1, the NAC will be exceeded at 35 receptors (78
properties), substantial increases are anticipated at 46 receptors (85 properties), and
at 16 receptors (26 properties) both criteria are expected to be violated. The
impacted receptors represent 188 residential properties and one industrial complex.
Alternate 2 - Assessment of Alternate 2 considered 210 receptors. Of these
receptors, 205 were residential, three were commercial, and two were industrial.
IV-41

The results of the analysis indicate that the existing noise levels vary from 40 to
70 dBA, and that the future build values will range from 53 to 74 dBA. Under this
alternate, at 35 receptors (92 properties) the NAC is expected to be exceeded, at 52
receptors (144 properties) a substantial increase is anticipated, and at 25 receptors
(47 properties) both criteria are expected to be violated. A total of 283 residential
properties would be impacted under this alternate. No commercial or industrial
properties would be impacted by noise from Alternate 2.
Alternate 3 - Of the 201 receptors investigated under Alternate 3, 196 were
residential, three were commercial and two were industrial. As with Alternates 1
and 2, the existing noise levels vary from 40 to 70 dBA and the build values range
from 53 to 74 dBA. For Alternate 3, the NAC will be exceeded at 36 receptors
(100 properties), substantial increases are anticipated at 37 receptors (57 properties),
and both criteria are expected to be violated at 21 receptors (33 properties). A total
of 190 residential properties would be impacted under this alternate. No
commercial or industrial properties would be impacted by noise from Alternate 3.
Connector 3 - One receptor along this connector would experience a substantial
increase. This receptor represents one residence.
Connector 6 - Fifteen receptors along this connector would experience a substantial
increase. Each receptor represents one residence.
Connector 7 - Eight receptors along this connector would experience a substantial
increase. Each receptor represents one residence.
The traffic noise impacts for the No-Build Alternative were also considered. If the
traffic currently using the network of roads in the project area should double within the next
twenty years, future traffic noise levels would increase approximately 2-3 dBA. This small
increase to the present noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and
living in the area. Noise levels in the corridors where no major roadways exist should
remain at approximately the same level.
5. Consideration of Abatement Measures
Commercial establishments, industries, and other Category C type land uses normally
prosper on accessibility and high visibility. Factors associated with noise abatement tend to
IV-42
1

F

t

substantially diminish these qualities; therefore, noise abatement measures for Land Use
Activity Category C receptors were not considered in this study.
Noise abatement measures were considered for all cases where noise impacts are
predicted to occur on Category B properties. The abatement measures considered included:
shifts in highway alignment, traffic system management measures, and sound barriers.
a. Shifts in Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternate alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts, engineering design, and other environmental impacts. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. For planning purposes the alternatives in this study were
developed to minimize costs and environmental impacts. Should a build alternate be selected
as the Preferred Alternative, shifts in alignment to minimize impacts to noise sensitive
receptors will be further investigated during the design phase of the project.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
1

J

Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time
of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, however, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate due to their effect on the access,
capacity, level-of-service on the proposed roadway, and therefore, are not considered an
option for noise abatement.
IV-43

c. Sound Barriers
As with all types of noise abatement measures, barriers must prove to be
reasonable and feasible for them to be considered in the project design phase. This is the
premise by which barriers were evaluated for this project. The following is a summary of
the evaluation process.
Prior to assessing specific sound barriers, several impacted areas were eliminated
from further consideration because initial investigation revealed that barriers would not be
reasonable and feasible due to access requirements or isolated receptors. Barriers were
investigated for the remaining impacted areas. The areas considered for sound barriers are
shown on Exhibit IV-3.
The barrier analyses revealed several areas in which barriers would not be
reasonable and feasible due to the overall noise levels being dominated by noise sources
other than the proposed roadway and to barriers that were ineffective (unable to attain a
six decibel reduction in noise level).
The second barrier evaluation involved determination of the cost effectiveness of
the remaining barriers. Table IV-8 summarizes the findings of this evaluation. Several
barriers were found to be unreasonable because of costs. In North Carolina, the cost of the
sound barrier per receptor must not exceed $25,000. Barriers found to be reasonable and
feasible are identified as follows:
? Alternate 1 - Barriers 1, 7, and 25
? Alternate 2 - Barriers 1, 9, and 10
? Alternate 3 - Barrier 1
IV-44

r

E

L_ ;

cr
O
o c
n D
OD a.
5. w
Cl)
CD"
8 O O =3 -p CD 0
a-
CD 13) =37
d
m6 ?
c?
C/)- o 05-
C/D
sy
rt d • Sr,
r
Cl)
F
? oZZ
O y O
S

7

r

TABLE IV-8
EVALUATION OF SOUND BARRIERS
(Based on Cost Effectiveness)
Number Cost
of Barrier Per
Alternate Barrier Location Length Height Protected Cost Recept
No. (ft.) (ft.) Receptor ($) or
S1 ($)
NW quadrant at I-85,
1,2,3 1 Interchange, western 2400 16 38 471,360 12,404
terminus
SE quadrant at I-85
1,2,3 2 Interchange, western 1900 20 5 519,270 103,854
terminus
NE quadrant at I-85 0 with
1,2,3 3 Interchange, western 1300 6 dBA
terminus Reduction
2,3 4 uth side of Alts. 2
S
o 700 18 5 164,430 32,886
a
n
d
North side of Alts. 2
and 3. There would be
less benefit for Alt. 1

2
3
5 because dimensions
2500 18 14 587,250 41,946
, would have to be 16 13 491,000 37,769
comparable and there
would be less
attenuation.
1 6 South side of Alt. 1 1000 20 3 273,300 91,100
1 7 North side of Alt. 1 2600 16 30 510,640 17,021
3 8 North side of Alt. 3 2300 20 14 628,590 44,899
2 9 North side of Alt. 2 2600 18 25 610,740 24,430
2 10 South side of Alt. 2 3000 16 59 589,200 9,986
2 11 North side of Alt. 2 1500 16 7 294,600 42,086
3600 14 11 585,360 53,215
2 12 South side of Alt. 2
3600 18 20 845,640 42,282
3 13 East side of Alt. 3 2400 16 6 471,360 78,560
1 14 East side of Alt. 1 1700 16 2 333,880 166,940
1 15 West side of Alt. 1 2000 14 6 325,200 54,200
IF Conn 6 16 East side of Conn 6 1800 18 2 422,820 211,410
' Receptors that will experience a z 4dBA reduction with the proposed barrier.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise Study, April, 1994.
TABLE IV-8
EVALUATION OF SOUND BARRIERS
(Based on Cost Effectiveness)

Alternate
Barrier
No.

Location
Length
(ft.)
Height
(ft.) Number
of
Protected
Receptor
s'
Barrier
Cost
($) Cost
Per
Recept
or
($)
Conn 6 17 West side of Conn 6 1600 14 3 260,160 86,720
2,3 18 East side of Alt. 2,3 1500 16 4 294,600 73,650
Conn 7 19 North side of Conn 7 2400 16 4 471,360 117,840
Conn 7 20 North side of Conn 7 1700 16 4 333,880 83,470
2,3 21 East side of Alt. 2,3 1200 16 3 235,680 78,560
Conn 6 22 East side of Conn 6 1200 16 5 235,680 47,136
2,3 23 East side of Alt. 2,3 1000 14 5 162,600 32,520
1 24 East side of Alt. 1 2200 16 11 432,080 39,280
1 25 West side of Alt. 1 2400 14 22 390,240 17,738
1 26 West side of Alt. 1 2000 14 3 325,200 108,400
1 27 East side of Alt. 1 1500 16 3 294,600 98,200
3 28 East side of Alt. 3 1600 16 3 314,240 104,747
' Receptors that will experience a z 4dBA reduction with the proposed barrier.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise Study, April, 1994.
Table IV-8 contains barrier descriptions for these five feasible barriers. Should
a build alternate be selected as the Preferred Alternative, the noise barriers corresponding
to the selected build alternate would be investigated in more detail in the design study phase
of the project.
IV-48

0

I

6. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passersby and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and grading equipment. However, considering
the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to
daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
H. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
1. Biotic Resources
a. Vegetational Communities
Table IV-9 summarizes the approximate impacts to the vegetational communities
located along build alternates' corridors. These impact acreages do not include urban or
active agricultural land. Vegetational Communities impacted by the proposed action include
the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory and Piedmont Alluvial communities. Alternate 1 would impact
of the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory community while Alternate 3 would impact the least amount
the most acres of both Vegetational Communities. Alternate 2 would impact the fewest acres
of the Piedmont Alluvial community.
During the corridor location stage of this highway planning process, the build

alternates range from 500 to 1,000 feet in width. Within the corridor for the build
alternates, conceptual right of way limits were established for planning purposes only. The
IV-49
final roadway location and right of way limits may be shifted within the corridor depending
on the design of the facility or the need for impact minimization. The final roadway location
within the corridor will be established following the Corridor Public Hearing and the
selection of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, two estimates of impacts are provided for
each of the alternates; one for the proposed corridor width, and the second for the conceptual
right of way limits.
TABLE IV-9
SUMMARY OF VEGETATIONAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(Acres)
COMMUNITY ALTERNATE I ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3
Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual
Width Right of Width Right of Width Right of
Way Way Way
Dry-Mesic 1,124.8 326.6 566.9 178.4 822.2 279.9
Oak--Hickory
Piedmont 50.2 15.9 41.5 11.2 30.8 9.7
Alluvial
TOTALS 1,175.0 342.5 608.4 189.6 853.0 289.6
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -
Natural Resources, April, 1994.
b. Wildlife Impacts
The Eno River and the other major drainages in the project area provide access
for wildlife to the expansive natural areas surrounding Falls Lake. Impacts to wildlife would
result from the introduction of an impediment to these wildlife corridors and direct loss of
cover and foraging habitat. The proposed corridor for Alternate 1 is generally located north
and east of the other build alternates and, subsequently, is located in less urbanized, more
IV-50

I

u

forested areas of the project. Although all of the proposed build alternates cross the same
stream and creek valleys, Alternate 1 crosses these wildlife corridors, closer to the
undeveloped lands surrounding Falls Lake, thereby potentially restricting movement of the
terrestrial species upstream. Alternate 2, which is generally located closer to more urbanized
areas, would have the least direct impact to wildlife habitat. Also, because the proposed
corridor for Alternate 2 is generally located further upstream than Alternate 1, wildlife
corridors would extend a greater distance up the creek valleys before encountering an
impediment. The wildlife impacts associated with Alternate 3 varies depending on the
location of the corridor at the particular stream crossing.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Review of available information of the project area indicates that there are no
soils or geological features that would preclude or alter the corridors of the build alternates.
Geotechnical investigations will be undertaken as part of the design phase if a build alternate
is selected as the preferred alternative.
b. Water Resources
There are a total of 13 streams located within the project area which are crossed

i

by all three alternates. Of the 13 streams crossed by the proposed alternates, one stream,
Little Lick Creek, would require modification. The construction of Alternates 2 or 3 would
result in the modification of Little Lick Creek in the area of Mineral Springs and Wake
Forest Highway. Currently, Little Lick Creek parallels existing Mineral Springs Road near
its intersection with Wake Forest Highway. In order to construct Alternates 2 or 3 at this
IV-51
location, approximately 600 feet of the stream channel of Little Lick Creek would need to
be relocated. Other than the Little Lick Creek channel relocation, no other natural water
body within the corridors of the build alternates would require impoundment, relocation,
channel deepening, or filling. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained under any of
the build alternates by construction of bridges and culverts. Every effort will be made to
minimize natural water body impacts during final design.
Throughout the project area there are 36 farm ponds, which are used as a water
source for crops and livestock as well as recreation. The corridor for Alternate 1 has the
largest number of pond involvements with a total of 23 within the corridor for a total 11.5
acres. The conceptual right of way for Alternate 1 would have 7 pond involvement's with
a total of 2.8 acres of impact. Alternate 3 would have a total 14 pond crossings within the
corridor for a total of 6.6 acres, and 4 pond crossings in the conceptual right of way for a
total of 1.8 acres. Alternate 2 would impact 13 ponds for a total 9.3 acres impacted within
the corridor and 6 pond impacts in the conceptual right of way for a total of 4.1 acres.
Table IV-10 summarizes the impacts to ponds.
c. Water Quality
The North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) and Durham County have developed land use policies to protect drinking water
supplies. As discussed in Section III and shown in Exhibit III-6, two Critical Watershed
Areas are in proximity to the build alternates. A Critical Watershed Area is located north
of Hebron Road along the Eno River. Because Durham maintains an emergency water
intake valve at this location, a Critical Watershed Area was established. Proposed corridors
IV-52

I

TABLE IV-10
SUMMARY OF POND IMPACTS
ALTERNATEI ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
POND
POND
SIZE Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual
No. (acres) Width Right of Width Right of Width Right of
Way Way Way
1 0.6 - - 0.6 0 0.6 0
2 0.3 0.3 0 - - - -
3 0.9 0.4 0 - - - -
4 1.1 - - 1.1 1.1 - -
5 1.0 - - 0.9 0.3 - -
6 0.7 0.7 0.5 - - 0.7 0.5
7 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - 0.5 0.2
8 0.4 - - 0.3 0 - -
9 0.7 0.1 0 - - - -
10 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2
11 2.2 - - 2.2 0.9 2.2 0.9
12 2.7 1.0 0 - - - -
13 3.2 1.0 0.5 - - - -
14 0.4 0.4 0 - - - -
15 0.3 0.2 0 - - - -
16 0.9 0.9 0 - - - -
17 0.4 - - 0.4 0 0.4 0
18 1.6 - - 0.1 0 0.1 0
19 0.1 - - 0.1 0 0.1 0
20 0.5 0.2 0 - - - -
21 15.2 1.2 0 - - - -
22 3.7 0.6 0 - - - -
23 0.6 0.4 0 - - - -
24 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - -
25 1.5 - - - - - -
26 0.3 - - 0.1 0 0.1 0
27 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - - -
28 0.2 0.2 0 - - - -
29 0.3 - - 0.3 0 0.3 0
30 1.0 1.0 0.8 - - - -
31 2.1 - - 2.1 1.3 - -
32 0.2 0.2 0 - - 0.2 0
33 0.1 0.1 0 - - 0.1 0
34 0.1 0.1 0 - - 0.1 0
35 0.7 0.7 0 - - 0.7 0
36 0.6 - - 0.6 0.4 - -
TOTALS 11.5 2.8 9.3 4.1 6.6 1.8
IV-53
for the build alternates are not located within the one-half mile Critical Watershed Area
established by DEHNR. Additionally, none of the build alternates are within the local one
mile Critical Watershed Area for the emergency water intake valve.
The second Critical Watershed Area in the vicinity of the proposed project is
around Falls Lake. None of the corridors for the build alternates are located within the one-
half mile critical area. Alternate 1, however, does pass through the one mile Critical
Watershed Area near the crossing of Ellerbe Creek and I-85. Impacts to the Critical
Watershed Area and the water quality of all receiving waters will be minimized by strict
adherence to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's, "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters," June 1991. This policy was developed to
minimize the degradation of the state's waters through the development of roadway projects.
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Wetlands Impacts
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping indicate three wetland
classifications potentially occur in the project area. These include: Palustrine, I
Unconsolidated Bottom, Mud, Permanently Flooded, Impounded (PUB3Hh); floodplain
forests which are classified as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Semi-
Permanently Flooded (PFOIA); and Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Mud, Permanently Flooded, Excavated (R2UB3Hx). As presented in Section III, the 36
residential and farm ponds (PUB311h) located in the corridors and the channel of Ellerbe
Creek (R2UB3Hx) were classified as surface waters of the United States and not wetlands. '
IV-54

I Wetlands classified as PFOIA consist of the associated alluvial forest vegetational
communities associated with rivers and creeks in the project area. Thirteen different
drainages that would be affected by the proposed build alternates were identified as having
r forested wetland characteristics. These wetlands at the proposed build alternate crossing
locations are described below and are also shown on Exhibit IV-4. Also provided are the
approximate impact acreages based on the conceptual right of way.
Site 1 - Unnamed Eno River Tributary #1, - This wetland is confined to its
channel where flowing water and hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation were located.
The wetland serves as important fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts to this wetland
would be less than 0.03 acres. This wetland would be crossed by all three build
alternates at the same location.
Site 2 - Unnamed Eno River Tributary #2, - The wetland is currently crossed by
Sparger Road. South of Sparger Road, maintained lawns border the channel.
North of Sparger Road, in Eno River State Park, hydrophytic vegetation and
evidence of hydrology were located outside the channel. In the Eno River State
Park, this wetland serves as flood storage, sediment trapping, downstream food
chain support, and fish and wildlife habitat. Because the project will not impact
park property, no wetland impacts will occur at this location.
' Site 3 - Nancy Rhodes Creek - This wetland is a high quality wooded bottomland
along Nancy Rhodes Creek with functions of flood storage, sediment trapping,
nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. All of the build alternates would cross this
r wetland near the same location. Alternate 1 would impact approximately 1.9 acres
of wetlands along this creek, and Alternates 2 and 3 would impact approximately
0.7 acres. The wetlands are slightly larger at the crossing associated with
Alternates 1 and 2.
Site 4 - Warren Creek - This wetland is a young wooded area that provides
sediment trapping, flood storage, downstream food chain support, and fish and
wildlife habitat. The proposed alternates cross this wetland at approximately the
same location. Impacts from Alternates 1,2, and 3 would be approximately 0.2
acres, 0.4 acres, and 0.4 acres, respectively.
Sites 5 and 6 - Cub Creek - This area is a young wooded wetlands that has been
previously impacted by the construction of a sewer line and logging. North of
Hebron Road this wetland is channelized. This wetland provides flood storage,
' downstream food chain support, and nutrient trapping. Alternates 1 and 3 would
cross this wetland at Site 5 at approximately the same location as the existing
Hebron Road crossing and would impact approximately 0.1 acres of floodplain
forest wetland. Alternate 2 would cross this wetland at Site 6, approximately 600
IV-55
I
feet upstream of the existing crossing, and would impact approximately 2.1 acres.
The Alternate 2 crossing of this creek occurs at the confluence of three minor
tributaries. This wetland is of higher quality because the trees are more mature.
The mast bearing in this wetland provide good wildlife habitat and cover.
Site 7, 8, and 9 - Ellerbe Creek - This wetland system was impacted by the
channelization of Ellerbe Creek. The alluvial forest is separated from the main
channel of Ellerbe Creek by the berm created from the dredge spoil. Parts of the
berm were transformed into a service road along the main channel of the creek.
The wetlands are a high quality bottomland hardwood forest with functions
including flood storage, nutrient removal. sediment trapping, and wildlife habitat.
A large number of deer stands were located in the trees around this forest. The
functions of the forest have been altered by the berm separating the channel from
the remainder of the forest. Alternates 1 and 3 would cross Ellerbe Creek at
approximately the same location, Site 7. Crossing these palustrine wetlands at this
location would affect less than 0.5 acre. Alternate 3 would have an additional
impact of approximately 0.1 acres to the forested wetland, Site 8, with its
alignment. Alternate 2 would cross the creek at Site 9, several hundred feet
upstream of the Alternates 1 and 3 and would impact approximately 3.2 acres of
palustrine wetlands associated with Ellerbe Creek.
Site 10 - Unnamed Ellerbe Creek Tributary - The associated wetlands along this
tributary have been impacted by agriculture practices and recent logging. The
remaining forest functions as flood storage, nutrient removal, sediment trapping,
and fish and wildlife support. Impacts to this wetland from Alternate 1 would be
approximately 1.7 acres. Alternates 2 and 3 do not cross this wetland.
Site 11 and 12 - Panther Creek - Panther Creek would be crossed by Alternates
2 and 3 at Site 11. Wetlands associated with Panther Creek were disturbed by a
railroad and sewer line. Remaining wetlands associated with Panther Creek at this
location are located at the fringe of the channel. These wetlands provide flood
storage, sediment trapping, and fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts to Panther Creek
from Alternates 2 and 3 would be approximately 0.3 acres. Alternate 1 would cross
Panther Creek further downstream. The Alternate 1 crossing of Panther Creek,
Site 12, would affect approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands.
Site 13 and 15 - Chunky Pipe Creek - This area is a young wooded, bottomland
wetland which provides flood storage, sediment trapping, nutrient removal, and
wildlife habitat. Alternates 2 and 3 would cross Chunky Pipe Creek at Site 13 and
would affect approximately 1.4 acres of wetland. Alternate 1 would cross the creek
further downstream, at Site 15, where the topography has restricted the creek and
wetlands. Approximately 0.3 acres of wetland would be affected by Alternate 1.
Site 16 - Little Lick Creek - This is the remnants of bottomland hardwood forest
that have survived the surrounding residential, commercial, and agricultural
impacts. Functions of this wetland are flood storage, nutrient removal, and sediment
IV-56
°?e°?A • d? r?
_ ? p J to
c
o cz p ;:j O
s' cwr d- "
--+--> 0 b U `?
!? HE O
C cfD m 'L
C a
> czn)
?m g Z,Q -?
O C p C6 O 7-4
(d ,? o
L _ s
U E o^ 9° o v ?
• ?--? Z) o oC w O
Q ` a m m 1
-r- CIO ,t:! Q C ?
0 (D CO
Z0?

d J
,rte
?_ ?
P?G
? w
1Sllcfd8
? ? SPN d0
v- F, 7?? 000 `
S 10N R xJ.Nf10D
N
ff Oa
N xtlel -----
INnOO RYHHna
X
Ale 1
P p,GE RD
?
O NtZ
f w RSON o)
? ? d 7?6eJ? ?D a/Ill7 ?
? '?? K wp

NGS RD
o O
d R
r,
00
( WU ?O r
°a
(WO

o
'kd'°O F? p4F ?°
iW
0n 119 I
o CAS - 83N
l d ? ?p Nt,
O
O ?y s
i (- 1 ! ON R
(,()XD
vR?
GEpYT

r W P

'?
U
021 ? FRWY
? pGRN? ?O
0 1134,

RD
ON

NOIlONOf
5
30NGT\
O?
REO ?-
?
?o
w
« i Oa d
NN319

CO ?t 3 U)
d m
yQ

Oa 0?0 ?? ? y
0?0 ?V 0 ?'v>
? n n 3nd NO1Sl
N
? 1S 3111?3Ly
?
J ce

° W)
'` o?,° is MnONVV+
?
OW ?X0
o
? as a'
??
SN 0
eeJO qn0 ?P o
„
s OORE
SON 5?
G
oa d
?jy

-
o
Q GRE

5 51

N kn

°a Ga A31
WA 3d0H
?o p
Sp7 3
/dN3 p
, 1
w P
yip

z
pd, UKE S
\
D Sj
gR0 PD
Z
?

o i?i ?
.r? ?p ??
' ?o AC
N z

o V
o
r

R0 RD o d
NiH??
OO
R0! Q
g? w
i1 S RO
V - GVES
N
?GNd \ \\
yaa?? ADS

UESS R
021 N0,8dHS pnH

d
30 3SO8 I
co J o 2 1jd

S1D a GO?'? 00 °
v v
y?n03 y(tlH?na - -
li0

N
_ ??
pDEMY RD
??
nO0 S'Jtltl
0
oa »3ssna ??0 w
s Ro __ -- Z
r2 0
a -
s

trapping. Additional impacts to the wetland from Alternates 2 and 3 would be
approximately 1.1 acre.
Site 17 - Little Lick Creek - This area is a high quality bottomland hardwood
forest. Because of the flat topography and confluence of Little Lick Creek with one
it's main tributaries, the wetlands at this location are expansive. Wetland functions
include flood storage, nutrient removal, and sediment trapping. The matures trees
in this wetlands contain several mast bearing species that provide excellent wildlife
habitat. Alternate 1 would impact approximately 3.1 acres of forested wetland
associated with Little Lick Creek.
Site 18 - Little Lick Creek Tributary - This area is an emergent area that has been
impacted and partially created by logging and the downstream impoundment of the
creek for the Grove Park subdivision. These wetlands provide flood storage,
' nutrient removal, and sediment trapping. Impacts to this wetland from Alternates
2 and 3 would be approximately 1.0 acre.

I
I

Site 19 and 20 - Lick Creek - This area was previously a high quality bottomland
hardwood forest. This area has been recently logged. The wetlands function as
flood storage, nutrient removal and transformation, and sediment trapping. The
wetlands still provide good fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts to this wetland from
Alternate 1, Site 19, would be approximately 3.4 acres. Alternates 2 and 3 would
cross Lick Creek further upstream than Alternate 1, Site 20. Impacts to Lick Creek
wetlands from Alternates 2 and 3 would be approximately 0.8 acres.
Site 21 and 22 - Tributary to Lick Creek - Because of a natural topographic
restriction, wetlands at this location are located immediately adjacent to the creek.
These wetlands function as sediment trapping, nutrient removal, and fish and
wildlife habitat. Impacts to this wetland from Alternate 1 would be approximately
0.1 acres. Alternates 2 and 3 cross this creek system further upstream at Site 22.
Wetlands at this location extend beyond the limits of the creek. Wetland impacts
at Site 22 from Alternates 2 and 3 would be approximately 0.2 acres.
Site 23 - Unnamed Tributary along US 70 - This area represents a young wooded
bottomland wetland with functions including flood storage, sediment trapping,
nutrient removal, and downstream food chain support. This wetland would be
impacted by the proposed interchange at US 70 with Alternates 1 and 3. The
wetland impact of the interchange would be approximately 3.7 acres.
Impacts to wetlands crossed by the build alternates are summarized in
Table IV-11. Two impact estimates are provided for each of the build alternates; one for
the corridor limits and a second for the conceptual right of way limits. Alternate 1 would
have the greatest impact to wetlands followed by Alternates 2 and 3, respectively.
IV-59
TABLE IV-11
SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS
(Acres)
ALTERNATEI ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
WETLAND Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual Corridor Conceptual
NUMBER Width Right of Width Right of Width Right of
Way Way Way
1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0
3 2.7 1.9 2.1 0.7 2.1 0.7
4 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.4 1.1 0.4
5 1.7 0.1 - - 1.7 0.1
6 - - 7.1 2.1 - -
7 1.4 0.5 - - 1.2 0.4
8 - - - - 1.3 0.1
9 - - 11.2 3.2 - -
10 4.3 1.7 - - - -
11 - - 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3
12 3.1 1.4 - - - -
13 - - 3.9 1.4 3.9 1.4
15 1.2 0.3 - - - -
16 - - 6.3 1.1 6.3 1.1
17 20.7 3.1 - - - -
18 - - 2.8 1.0 2.8 1.0
19 9.8 3.4 - - - -
20 - - 4.6 0.8 4.6 0.8
21 0.8 0.1 - - - -
22 - - 1.3 0.2 1.3 0.2
23 3.6 3.2 - 3.6 3.2
TOTALS 50.2 15.9 41.5 11.2 30.8 9.7
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -
Natural Resources, April, 1994.
b. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization
Because the wetland systems are linear and generally perpendicular to the
proposed build alternates, avoidance of all wetland areas would be impossible. Minimization
of wetlands involvement was incorporated into the engineering studies for this project.
IV-60

E

Wetland areas were mapped as part of the development of corridors for the build alternate.
where feasible. Wetlands were crossed at perpendicular or near perpendicular angles to
Natural restrictions and previous crossing sites were incorporated into the build alternates
further reduce involvement.
c. Wetland Mitigation

1

1
Conceptual mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses consist of wetland
enhancement and replacement. Wetland enhancement could be accomplished along Ellerbe
Creek by creating more breaks in the earthen berm separating the main channel from the
adjacent alluvial forest. This action would likely reduce stormwater flow rates in the channel
and improve hydraulic interaction with the floodplain wetlands. Enhancement also could be
accomplished along Warren Creek near Site 4, Little Lick Creek tributary near Site 18, and
Lick Creek near Site 19. Enhancement at these sites would include replanting the logged
areas with indigenous canopy species. Replacement of wetland losses could be accomplished
by excavating upland areas near existing wetlands systems and replanting with indigenous
wetland species. Recently logged uplands located along Cub Creek and its tributaries,
Site 6, could be excavated and replanted for wetland replacement. Because it is preferable
to mitigate wetland losses within the drainage basin from which they occur, a combination
of enhancement and replacement strategies may be utilized.
d. Rare and Protected Species Impacts
This section describes the potential impacts of the build alternates on the habitat
of federal and state protected species in the project area. No aquatic surveys were
conducted; therefore, impacts to protected aquatic species were estimated.
IV-61

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Federal Status: Endangered
Habitat requirements for bald eagles include large open bodies of water in which
to feed, and mature pine trees in proximity to the water in which to roost. The
water courses in the project area are too small to provide adequate feeding habitat ,
for the bald eagle. There is a known eagle's nest northeast of the project area
located near Red Mill Road (SR 1632) near its crossing of the Eno River. Neither

Falls Lake nor the eagle's nest would be impacted by the proposed project. ,
Therefore, none of the build alternates will impact bald eagle habitat or bald eagles.

Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - Federal Status: Endangered
Smooth Coneflowers in Durham County are associated with basic soils such as the
Iredell series and on Diabase Glades. Prior to field investigations, Iredell soils
were mapped within the project area. These areas were searched for Smooth
Coneflower and other species that have been associated with dabase sills and basic
soils. Potential habitat within the project area includes areas west of Sparger Road
in the extreme western portion of the project area; lands near the proposed crossing
of Warren Creek east of Guess Road; and areas along Leesville Road. These
potential habitat areas have been impacted by residential and agricultural
development. No species were located at the time of field investigations.
'
s second largest population of Smooth Coneflower is located
Durham County
immediately adjacent to Hebron Road near its intersection with Old Oxford Road.
The proposed corridors for Alternates 1 and 3 incorporate Hebron Road into their
design. The entire population of smooth coneflowers at this location is located
within the corridor limits of these alternates. However, the conceptual right of way
limits of these alternates would not impact this population. Although the known
populations of Smooth Coneflower will be avoided with the conceptual right of way
for Alternate 1 and 3, if the either of these build alternates are selected as the
Preferred Alternative, prior to the Record of Decision, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service will be consulted to develop a plan to further minimize the potential impact
to the plants.
Michaux's Sumac (Rhos michaux) - Federal Status: Endangered '
According to Radford, Ahles, and Bell, Michaux's Sumac is found in sandy or
rocky, open woods, and, may be associated with basic soils. Durham County's
only known element occurrence record for Michaux's Sumac is from 1949.
Element occurrence records maintained at the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) list this species as "XI?" - "X" (believed extirpated) or "I?"
(potentially introduced). No plants were found during field investigations. Habitat
requirements for this species were also not found in the project area. No impacts
are anticipated to this species.

IV-62

7

PJ
Tall Larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - State Status: Endangered - Special Concern
The Tall Larkspur is a large showy plant that is associated with rich woods.
Element occurrence records at the NHP show that one specimen is located near the
project area. The Tall Larkspur has been identified near the Penny's Bend Nature
Preserve, north of project area. Element occurrence records of this species in
Durham County suggest that there may be an association with Diabase glades and
Iredell soils. Areas meeting these habitat requirements were surveyed during field
investigations and no plants were located. It is anticipated that the project will have
no impacts to the Tall Larkspur.
Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - State Status: Endangered
Habitat for the Green Floater consists of quiet pool or eddies with gravel and sand
bottoms. This species was collected in the Eno River in other studies. The project
will not have direct impacts to the Eno River and therefore will not impact known
habitat of this species. Other streams in the project area are either too small to
provide habitat for this species or have poor water chemistry that would not sustain
the pollution intolerant species.
Pursh's Wild Petunia (Ruellia humillis) - State Status: Threatened
Habitat for the Pursh's Wild Petunia is dry woods. However, element occurrence
records for Durham County suggest that this species may be associated with diabase
glades and basic soils. Areas in the alternate corridors that meet these conditions
were surveyed for this species. Pursh's Wild Petunia was not located. It is
anticipated that the project would have no impact to this species.
Triangle Floater (Alismodanta undulata) - State Status: Threatened
The Triangle Floater is generally located in small tributary streams in slow moving
waters in a muddy sand substrate. This species was collected in the Eno River in
other studies. The project will not impact the Eno River and therefore will not
impact known habitat of this species. Other streams in the project area are either
too small to provide habitat for this species or have poor water chemistry that would
not sustain the pollution intolerant species.
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - State Status: Threatened
Preferred habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe consists of clean, swift water and is often
found in gravel, or sand and gravel substrata. This species is also known to inhabit
the Eno River. The project will not impact the Eno River and therefore will not
impact known habitat of this species. Other streams in the project area are either
too small to provide habitat for this species or have poor water chemistry that would
not sustain the pollution intolerant species.
IV-63

Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - State Status: Threatened ,
The Yellow Lampmussel is associated with shifting sands in medium to large
streams and rivers. This species was collected from the Eno River in another study.
The project will not impact the Eno River and therefore will not impact known
habitat of this species. Other streams in the project area are either too small to
provide habitat for this species or have poor water chemistry that would not sustain
the pollution intolerant species.
Squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus) - State Status: Threatened ,
The Squawfoot can be found in fine sediments, usually fine mud. The Squawfoot
prefers relatively quiet water in beds of vegetation or in protective cracks between '
boulders. It may also be found very close to, but not in, rapids. This species was
collected from the Eno River by others. The project will not impact the Eno River
and therefore will not impact known habitat of this species. Other streams in the
project area are either too small to provide habitat for this species or have poor
water chemistry that would not sustain the pollution intolerant species.
Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis) - State Status: Special Concern
The Carolina Darter occupies small creek and rivulets in wooded and deforested
areas. It lives in open and stick-littered portions of pools and very slow runs,
usually on sand, gravel, and detritus substrates. This species was collected in Lick
Creek Tributary in the eastern portion of the project area, downstream of Kinard
Road. All of the alternates cross Lick Creek Tributary upstream of its known
collection point. At the crossing locations, the stream is intermittent and would not
provide suitable habitat. Although aquatic surveys were not conducted, it is
anticipated Lick Creek and Nancy Rhodes Creek may provide habitat for this
species.
Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisii) - State Status: Special Concern
The Neuse River Waterdog has been located in moderate to swift flowing streams
(usually over 15.5 m wide.) in accumulations of submerged leaves in eddies, or
backwaters of stream and rivers. The species is vulnerable to pollution. This
species was collected in the Eno River by others. The project will not impact the
Eno River and therefore will not impact known habitat of this species. Other
streams in the project area are either too small to provide habitat for this species or
have poor water chemistry that would not sustain the pollution intolerant species.
Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) - State Status: Special Concern
Madtoms are known to inhabit unpolluted medium sized and large creeks to small
rivers with moderate to gentle gradient. This species was collected in the Eno
River in another study. The project will not impact the Eno River and therefore
will not impact potential habitat of this species. Other streams in the project area
IV-64

' are either too small or have poor water chemistry that would not support this
species.
Four-Toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) - State Status: Special Concern
' Habitat for the Four-Toed Salamander include backwater pools, bogs, or seepages
with abundance of moss for egg deposition and larval development. Pools were not
observed during field investigations.
Most of the water courses crossed by the proposed alternates are intermittent

I

I

r

streams, and therefore would not provide consistent flowing water to sustain the species.
Water chemistry information on streams with consistent water flow, such as Ellerbe Creek
and Little Lick Creek, indicate that pollution intolerant freshwater mussels, such as the five
State listed protected species, could not survive in these areas. Furthermore, a recent survey
(Howard & Hartly, 1992) of the Eno River for mussels found that there was an absence of
mussels in the Eno's tributaries. Nancy Rhodes Creek was surveyed from its confluence
with the Eno River to the Eno River State Park boundary along Rivermont Road. No
mussels were located in this area.
1. PERMITS
Construction of this project would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Permit from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM); a Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits from DEM.
IV-65

J. FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988
"Floodplain Management" and 23 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart A. This evaluation is based on
the results of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 1982 detailed flood
insurance study for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Durham as well as FEMA's
Federal Insurance Rate Mapping for the unincorporated portions of Orange County in the
study area. The Community Panels used to determine the 100-year floodplain and floodway
boundaries are 370086 0005 D through 0030 D, 370085 0025 A through 0055 A, and
370342 0170 B through 0190 B. Exhibit IV-5 shows the 100-year floodplain limits and the
locations of regulatory floodways in relation to the build alternates.
1. Floodplain Encroachments and Risk
As noted in FEMA's detailed flood study, encroachment on floodplains by structures
and fill can reduce flood-carrying capacity, increase flood height and velocities, and increase
flood hazards beyond encroachment itself. As part of the National Flood Insurance Program,
FEMA has determined floodway boundaries as a tool for floodplain management. Based on
FEMA's definition, the 100-year floodplain is divided into a floodway and floodway fringe.
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that need to be
kept free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial
increases in flood heights. Minimum federal standards limit such increases to one foot,
provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. However, when a detailed flood study
was performed, as in the case of Durham, site specific elevation limits of flood height
increases are established. The area between the floodway and 100-year floodplain
boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of
IV-66

1

Ci

1

m i m ? r m r?lft it m m m M? m r mm
Z ' _ - ? `• 0? O? Dili
o TY _ - 0???0? t yti G o RUSSELL RD
CY)
0
o GE COQN `, • y
o DURHAM COUtiTY ° `•`?? ,?^O Creak `.
00 F r- • ti R `•
t
1? ^a np o RO OF yt `•
'
O O??\ pr SHA "N RD ?+ u 0? SS?n
Mud
Cry ? w L `, •` ^?
D
--1
RD D `•
5an? Croak O?
CG'S0 y? o • 00yo?
FRK?? . as o?
o
n
t
n F? • Z N •
014
is Otjg is ???? DE PO
°
y? Siid M ; O s
is p `
HOPE VALLEY NO N 50??0 0 •
o y``? Ao is NO d ; ??00 ? b Cr?K '
o o
MONS
S DR OXFOR
mANGUM ST D • RD •
a g ?
FAYESTEV\LLE ST 6? Q
. •
)?/?w N
ALSTON AVE ?% • 00<o
0 46 I R? RD
Cnn r Cry RN
'ODI
ut • %Q1
a o Q??` •, GLENN RD $
^0 s? ST
r
RD I I Fo 0? ??\W 0?
ONn?
JUNCTION Oa NO\i
O? (113 RD
•_•_ soon• • 011410 r Oy?(?0 ?ST ~? ` ?`
SpR1NGS ?? ? ?N 'O°j? r
MINERAL 7 RFDwO
IBLVD . •I?bd?? OD
? ? S,yFR O ? • 0????0y ?" RD
SON
f / ? Oa
° ' ° Utlle rk crook
NOS ? 1
da ? Zen o
Ob 3`? t try'•?•
• /1
DURHAM COUNTY'
WAKE . No\-S ?? T NNd
COUNTY i .r.., ?• DOC 3
BAPTIST p? 31 S
CDC O
7
O cn
a -n m 70
6 z CD CD O
00 "
0 -< z -
0 :v
r rf
F ? g t_4 d *S
V_J -u vt T
0
z O
z S
Cl)
I
I the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water surface
r elevations above FEMA's published floodway elevation.
As indicated on Exhibit IV-5 all of the build alternates would cross the 100-year
# floodplain of the major drainages in the study area. Impacts to these floodplain areas from
the build alternates are summarized in Table IV-12.
¦
I Corridor location studies and conceptual design have taken into consideration all
¦
factors to minimize impact to floodplains. Most all of the major drainages are crossed at
perpendicular or near perpendicular angles and crossings are made below the confluences of
¦ streams. One longitudinal floodplain impact would occur with Alternate 2 and 3 near the
¦ existing intersection of Mineral Springs Road and Wake Forest Highway. Approximately
600 feet of Little Lick Creek would be impacted by these alternates and require a stream
¦ modification and channel relocation. A second potential longitudinal impact may occur with
¦ all of the proposed build alternates along Warren Creek near Lake Road. Portions of the
floodplain for Warren Creek lie within the limits of the build alternates corridor but not
¦ within the conceptual right of way limits.
¦
During the corridor location phase of this project minimal bridge lengths to span
¦
regulatory floodways were not determined. At a minimum, bridge lengths would provide
¦ a 10 foot set-back from the top of the channel bank to the toe of the roadway fill slope. The
¦
bridges would be designed to assure that there would be, at most, a minimal increase in the
water surface elevation during the base flood. Under any of the build alternates, the
¦ structures bridging the floodways involved would be designed such that any increase in the
¦
IV-69
I
3. Floodplain Development
The adopted comprehensive plans and future land use map of Durham County
include the floodplains shown in Exhibit III-2 in the "Recreation, Open Space, and
Floodplain" category. Because Durham planning authorities have incorporated floodplain #
protection measures in their adopted comprehensive plan, no incompatible floodplain
development would be anticipated in conjunction with the build alternates.
4. Mitigation
The location and conceptual design of the build alternates at floodplain and floodway
I

involvements were carefully addressed in order to successfully mitigate increases in flooding
risk and substantial environmental impacts. Potential impacts to the floodplain of the water
M
courses throughout the project area as a result of erosion will be mitigated through strict
adherence to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's, "Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters," June 1991. This policy was developed to ,
minimize the degradation of the state's waters through the development of roadway projects.
K. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

¦
There are no components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or rivers
designated for study within the study area. Portions of the Eno River, from Roxboro Road ,
to Churton Street in Hillsborough, however, are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 5
This is a continuing inventory of potential wild, scenic, and recreational river areas within
the nation. According to the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, the Eno River is considered to
A
be a "highly scenic stream providing quality recreational opportunities". The Eno River is ¦
also listed as a Scenic, Natural, and Recreational River in North Carolina. The build
¦
IV-72
¦

E

a

r

alternates will not impact the Eno River by crossing the river. The project area does not
contain trout streams.
L. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historic Architecture
There are no properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places
within the proposed corridors of the build alternates. However, the West Point on the Eno
National Register Historic District is located approximately 100 feet north of the corridor
limits for Alternate 1. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that
Alternates 1 and 3 would have an affect on the West Point on the Eno National Register
Historic District and that Alternate 2 would have no effect on the historic district. As part
of the continuing coordination on this project, NCDOT requested that the subject be placed
on the agenda of the North Carolina Historical Commission for further consideration.
Several North Carolina Study List Historic Architectural Properties are located
within the build alternate corridor limits. The Doc Holloway Place (Rivermont Springs) lies
within the corridor limits of Alternate 1. The Lyon-Belvin House, just south of Hebron
are located in the corridor limits of Alternate 2. The Dr. William Norwood Hicks Farm is
Road, and the Catsburg Store, located at the corner of Old Oxford Road and Hamlin Road,
located in the corridor limits of Alternates 2 and 3. However, the proposed Durham
Northwest and Northeast Loop is not anticipated to have an effect on these historic
structures. The Needham Clay Freeman Farm, which was moved from its original location
and substantially altered is also within the corridor of Alternates 2 and 3. The No-Build
IV-73
alternative would not effect any of these Study List Historic Architectural Properties or the
West Point on the Eno Historic District.
2. Archaeologic Sites
West Point on the Eno National Register Historic District may contain archaeological
remains. The corridor of Alternate 1 is located approximately 100 feet south of the West
Point on the Eno National Register Historic District boundary.
The Guess Road Mill, a North Carolina Study List archaeological site, is located
west of Guess Road along the Eno River. The archaeological site is approximately 3000 feet
north of the build alternates. Therefore, none of the build alternates would effect the Guess
Road Mill archaeological site.
If a build alternate is selected as the Preferred Alternative, an archaeological survey
of the preferred corridor will be conducted. This survey will be coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Office.
M. ENERGY
The short term energy requirements for construction of the build alternates would be
greater than the energy requirements of the No-Build Alternative. However, the post-
construction, operational energy requirements of the facility would be less with the Build
Alternative than with the No-Build Alternative. The savings in operational energy
requirements would offset construction energy requirements and thus, in the long term, result
IV-74

71

n
u

in net savings in energy usage. The proposed facility would result in reduced traffic
congestion, thereby reducing overall vehicular energy consumption.
N. POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
An initial assessment of hazardous materials sites and underground storage tanks was
completed for the proposed project. The initial site assessment process was accomplished
through fieldwork, including on-site visits and interviews with owners or employees, and
review of the available environmental agency data bases and file materials.
Field reviews were performed to determine business names, types, and site
characteristics of parcels that were contained within the corridors of the proposed facility.
Special attention was paid to business properties from which right of way would likely be
required and businesses that might handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste,
or contained hazardous materials in the past.
Computer data base files from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (DEHNR) were reviewed for known hazardous waste generators,
underground storage tanks, and reported contamination incidents. These computer records
provided supporting information for the evaluation process.
surrounding area along with a review of the available information on the site. Next, a
The initial efforts for the site assessments included an evaluation of each site and its
determination was made of the risk of encountering unknown contamination at each site.
These assessments were based on the likelihood that contamination exists at the site and on
IV-75

the degree of concern this presents relative to the build alternate being considered for the '
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop. '
The risk system identifies four degrees of risk: No, Low, Medium, and High. This 1
categorization is for general purposes. Sites where known spills or leakages have occurred '
may not necessarily present a high cause for concern if the environmental agencies are aware
of the situation, enforcement actions are being taken, and remedial activities are either '
completed or underway. The degrees of risk are defined as follows: '
No Risk means that the observed conditions of the site, the state records, and the
current and previous business activity does not support a contamination risk. ,
Low Risk means that the business handles hazardous materials but has a clean
appearance and no violations. An example of such a business might be a gas station
with new underground storage tanks, monitoring wells, leak prevention system, no
automotive maintenance, and a clean record in the environmental agency's files.
Medium Risk indicates there is higher concern or may include sites of known
contamination. Medium risk sites may require some follow-up prior to right of way
acquisition. '
High Risk suggests that additional studies are recommended and that soil and
groundwater sampling and laboratory analysis may be required. '
of the risk assessments for each of the evaluated sites. ,
Table IV-13 contains a summary More detailed information about these sites are contained in the following paragraphs. The
location of these sites in relation to the build alternates are shown in Exhibit IV-6. ,
Site No. I - Garrards Country Sausage Co. Inc.
Tank ID - 0-015096
This facility maintains one 2,000 gallon underground tank in the garage area of
the site along Rose of Sharon Road. This tank is listed as a steel tank installed
in 1971. The tank has no known interior, exterior, or over flow protection '
measures. There were no reported spills at this facility.

IV-76
i
TABLE IV-13
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISK ASSESSMENTS

?n

SITE BUILD ALTERNATE
NO. FACILITY NAME
1
2
3
1 Garrards Country Sausage Low
2 NCDOT, Div. 5, Maintenance Low
3 NCDOT, Div. 5, Traffic High
4 Wilco Gas Station * High
5 Bowling Exxon * Low
6 Triangle Propane Service Low * Low
7 Heck's Auto Care High * High
8 Cottman Transmission Low * Low
9 Swann's Mill High * High
10 Catsburg Country Store * Low
11 Will's Store/Mobile Station * High High
12 Mark's Auto and Fender Repair * High High
13 Unnamed Auto Salvage Yard * High High
14 The Grocery Mart/CITGO * Medium Medium
15 Circus Food Stores/BP * Low Low
16 Wilson's Grocery/Amoco No
17 Watkin's Motor Lines * Medium
18 Wilson Trucking Company * Low
19 West Brothers Transfer/Storage * High
20 Frederickson Motor Expressway Low * Low
* Site not located in or near the corridor for the build alternate.
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -
Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessments, November, 1993.

IV-77

Site No. 2 - NCDOT, Division 5, Maintenance Facility
Tank ID - 0-024683 A,B,C,C-0515-101,C-0515-102,D,E,F,G,H,M,N
The NCDOT maintenance facility is located to the east of Guess Road
approximately two miles north of the intersection of Horton Road and Guess
Road. This facility currently has ten underground storage tanks located at
various places throughout the property. The site is a vehicle maintenance facility
and is also listed as a small quantity generator for hazardous materials such as
transmission fluids, waste oils, and engine degreasers. The installation date of
the existing USTs range from 1964 to 1990. Except for two tanks, the tanks at
this facility are constructed of steel with no known exterior or interior protection
measures. The two remaining tanks at this facility are fiberglass construction
installed in 1990. There were no reported spills at this facility.
Site No. 3 - NCDOT, Division 5, Traffic Services Department
Tank ID - 0-025549, 515-1
The NCDOT traffic services department is also located east of Guess Road just
south of the previous site. The traffic service department has one 4,000 gallon
steel tank installed in 1974 with unknown exterior or interior protection
measures, and an unknown piping material.
Site No. 4 - WILCO Gas Station and Convenience Store
Tank ID - 0-015512
This gas station is located along Roxboro Road approximately one-half mile
north of the intersection of Duke Street and Roxboro Road. This facility has
seven USTs and no vehicle maintenance and service bays. All of the tanks listed
at this facility are steel with painted exteriors for protection. Five of the seven
tanks were installed in 1969 with the remaining tanks installed in 1983. There
are no reported spills at this location, however, the reported age and construction
of the tanks are an indicator of potential risks.
Site No. 5 - Bowling Exxon
Tank ID 0-015642
This is a former service station and the underground storage tanks were removed
in November, 1990. This facility does not operate any longer. The property is
currently vacant; however, the building and service bays are available for use.
Site No. 6 - Triangle Propane Service
Tank ID - 0-001025
The three underground storage tanks at this former gas station and convenience
store were removed in August, 1990. The previous facility had an incident
reported in March, 1992, which contaminated the soil. The incident was
remediated through excavation and removal of the contaminated soil. Currently
the property has above ground storage tanks containing propane.
IV-78
II'I

n

I

J

m m m r m r m m m m in i m== m m m m
I
O
Z
z
01 _---
o NGE COUNTY - u
COUNTY
--' DURKA? ?°
„tom \? o RUSSELL RD
r
/iF
ROSE O p yt ss3 0
SHAR ?b+
v O?
j
tJ
Z'.:. N v
G1 O
PyF RD R, D
N\???1U oa ss3?D ?i z ° ??8 Oa 0?o0?p?
4 `P \r+
0? 1 W3CNDV
is ? p?9 3?n0 ?'O z
Z
rn is DElyp/E V
r o
Yo ?°? iy M S C)
VALLEY RD N OsD?? o
yll a is N Dp ? ?
creex
I?
2 UN/? O Ol Z CUb ?\ MONS
? ERS O O ? ? '? ?
' DR kFORO o O?
MANGUM ST RO
C/l
0 6
\O\LLE ST 6l
FAYE LO °?
1 F? N R
ALSTON AVE o-IFO <O
RD
v? ? ?C1
OD 2
o G,?FP GLENN RD
?.O Z ST
O ? N W
APO of
---- JDNCTION 0? Np\iDN ????
^^? v iP0 FOP
RELL
to ono
O )`K`?? N \O? ?? RD
I BL VD MINERAL-
S
yFR,
O
J
?'r
66
f ?,a
fJl 0????7y ?^
1
T-_ o m ?? ?a SON s
g 00 ?' G o Ut/le ck creek
1 V y a OQ
;JD rn
Z,n O Ln
a
as 3c?V i ?1r
DURHAM COUNTY c?
WAKE "
COUNTY
DOC
m
m
m
BAPTIST pb
S
o ti ?a
t\
0
11 C
o

-p g c't`"? O Q ?u C O
r-p 0 oo Cl) ? =7
CCD j Co
O C_
Cr
e--F
0- Z a ° Sri
rF
O O r
= i
? 0) C 00
m O
J

Site No. 7 - Heck's Auto Care
Tank ID - 0-015220
This facility is a gas and service station that was formerly a Union 76 station.
The facility has recently changed to the current name and is located on Roxboro
Road. Computer records of this facility show that five tanks exist at this
location. An employee at the facility stated that the old USTs were not removed
and that new tanks were placed approximately two or three years ago. He also
stated that the old tanks were monitored every month. The computer records do
not indicate that any new tanks were placed at this facility and that the old tanks
were installed in 1966. These older tanks are steel with steel piping, and have
no interior or exterior protection measures.
Site No. 8 - Cottman Transmission
Small Quantity Generator No. NCD981760002
This facility services automobile transmissions and is located along Roxboro
Road north of Site No. 7. Excess transmission fluids and wastes are transported
from the facility by a registered hazardous materials carrier. The site has no
record of contamination.
Site No. 9 - Swann's Mill
' There is no listing of this property in the available databases from the DEHNR.
The property is located in the northwest corner of Hebron Road and Old Oxford
Highway. Several dilapidated vehicles are parked throughout the property. This
' site was assessed as High Risk because fluids such as radiator and transmission
fluid, battery acid, and gasoline may have contaminated the surrounding soil.
' Site No. 10 - Catsburg Country Store
Tank ID - 0-012947

1
The Catsburg Country Store is located at the intersection of Hamlin and Old
Oxford Roads. A site incident report was filed with the DEHNR when a failure
of a tank test was reported. During removal of the gas pumps and two
underground tanks, soil contamination was discovered. Remediation efforts are
currently underway. The facility owner has no plans to replace the USTs,
pumps, or sell gasoline.
Site No. 11 - Will's Corner Store/ Mobile Gas Station
Tank ID - 0-016064
This facility, located in the southwest corner of the I-85/ Glenn School Road
interchange, has six underground tanks and sells gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and
heating fuel. There are no service bays or vehicle maintenance facilities at this
location and no records of contamination. The computer records and the
business operator of the facility provided different information concerning the
USTs at this location. The business operator stated that the tanks are registered
and operated by the McLeod Oil Company. State records show this is facility
is listed under a different name and the tanks are registered to Home Oil, Inc.
Furthermore, the computer records are incomplete for four of the six USTs listed
at this location.
IV-81

Site No. 12 - Marks Auto and Fender Repair
Tank ID - 024083
The previous business at this location was a Phillips 66 gas and service station.
Employees of the current business, an auto body and paint shop located in the
northeast corner of the I-85/ Glenn School Road interchange, stated that the
USTs were removed several years ago. During the site visit evidence of tank
excavation was apparent. The current computer records do not provide a date
of tank removal. The current business operation utilizes the service bays as an
auto body repair and paint shop. Painting operations are generally listed as
small quantity generators or generators of hazardous wastes. This facility is not
listed with the DEHNR as a generator of hazardous materials or a small quantity
generator.
Site No. 13 - Unnamed Auto Salvage Yard
This site is located immediately behind Site 12. A large number of dilapidated
cars, many stacked on each other, are at this location. At the time of field visit,
a crew of workmen were loading some of the cars onto a flatbed truck. There
are no contamination records concerning this location, however, the cars at this
location may have spilled excess fluids.
Site No. 14 - The Grocery Mart/ CITGO
Tank ID - 0-003899
This facility is a gas station and convenience store located in the southwest
corner of Mineral Springs Road and Wake Forest Highway. There are no
service or maintenance facilities available at this location. Records indicate that
the USTs were installed in 1982, are of unknown material, have no interior or
exterior protection, and have a steel piping system. This facility has no existing
record of contamination, no service bays, and at the time of field inspection,
appears to be preparing for an upgrade of the current USTs.
Site No. 15 - Circus Foods Stores/ BP Station
Tank ID - 0-030282
This facility is a service station and convenience store located in the northeast
corner of Mineral Springs Road and Wake Forest Highway. The facility has no
service or maintenance bays and had new tanks installed in August 1989.
Renovations for this facility in 1988 caused a rupture at one of the kerosene
tanks. Kerosene was found in one of the monitoring wells placed at the site and
remediation was conducted. Replacement USTs are steel interior lined tanks
with painted exteriors for protection and a fiberglass piping system.
Site No. 16 - Wilson's Four Point Grocery/ Amoco
Tank ID - 0-016592
This gas station and convenience store is located at the corner of Stallings Road
and Wake Forest Highway and has no service or maintenance bays. This facility
sells kerosene, diesel, and gasoline products and has no records of contamination
reported. The five tanks at this facility are either steel with cathodic protection
IV-82

or fiberglass. Except for the 2,000 gallon kerosene tank which has a steel piping
system, the piping systems are fiberglass.
Site No. 17 - Watkin's Motor Lines Inc.
Tank ID - 0-015525
This facility is a freight transfer facility located on US 70 near Leesville Road.
The operation maintains a refueling area with one 10,000 gallon diesel tank and
a truck maintenance area. The facility has no known contamination reported.
The UST, installed in 1978, is steel with no known exterior, interior, or piping
protection measures.
Site No. 18 - Wilson Trucking Company
Tank ID - 0-015575
This facility is a freight transfer facility located on US 70 between Page Road
Extension and Leesville Road. The operation maintains a refueling area with one
10,000 gallon diesel tank and a maintenance area. This facility upgraded its
UST in July 1992 to a steel tank with cathodic exterior protection and fiberglass
piping system. This facility had an incident reported to the DEHNR shortly after
the new tanks were installed. The incident was labeled as minor.
Site No. 19 - West Brothers Transfer and Storage
Tank ID - 0-003052
This facility, also located on US 70 near Site Nos. 17 and 18 at Page Road
Extension, is a truck transfer and storage facility with two listed USTs and a
maintenance facility. Computer records of this facility indicate that the two
tanks are steel with painted exteriors and steel piping. There are no records of
incidents reported at this facility. State records do not indicate an installation
date for the tanks at this location.
Site No. 20 - Frederickson Motor Expressway Company
Tank ID - 0-015079
This site is a freight transfer facility located along US 70 near the Durham/Wake
County line. The operation maintains a refueling area with one 20,000 gallon
diesel tank and a maintenance area. The tank was installed in 1980, and has
cathodic protection listed for the interior, a painted exterior, and steel piping
system. This facility has no incidence of contamination recorded.

A total of 20 sites with hazardous materials or underground storage tanks were identified
I in the vicinity of the three build alternates. As shown in Table IV-13, Alternate 1 contains
I the least number of sites and the least number of High Risk sites. Conversely, Alternates

2 and 3 contain the most number of sites and the most number of High Risk sites.
IV-83

After the selection of a Preferred Alternative, each of the sites located within the
corridor of the selected alternate will be monitored including regulatory status, site visits,
interviews with property owners, and possible cursory soil sampling and on site analysis.
When the final proposed centerline is established and right of way determined, a site
assessment will be performed to the degree necessary to determine levels of contamination,
and if necessary, evaluate options to remediate the contamination along with the associated
acquisition costs. Resolution of problems associated with contamination would be
coordinated with appropriate agencies and, prior to right of way acquisition, appropriate
action would be taken, where applicable.
0. VISUAL IMPACTS
The introduction of any new roadway facility in an area alters the local perception of
the visual environment. The effect that the roadway project would have on an area depends
on the activities, exposure, and sensitivity of the viewers. Within the study area, critical and
sensitive visual locations would consist of the public parks along the route and residential
areas located in close proximity to the build alternate.
All urban development is a visual intrusion on the Eno River State Park. The
construction of the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loops would be another element in the
urban visual environment beyond the state park boundaries. The setting for the state park
within the urbanizing area of Durham is somewhat unique for a non-urban activity park.
Most of the park activities that take place in proximity to the proposed roadway are hiking
and hiking related. The visual exposure of the park user to the roadway would be limited
to small areas of clear line of sight along the trail. Since this would not be prolonged
IV-84
J

I
1

C

exposure, the effect of this urban view on the park experience would be minimal. All three
build alternates would be equally visible from the state park.
Alternates 2 and 3 would be visible from Valley Springs Park. This park is used
primarily for recreational activities such as soccer and baseball. The visual effect of the
roadway on the primary users of this facility would be minimal.
Alternate 1 would be the most visible of the build alternates from the West Point on the
Eno City Park. The alternates would be seen by park users at the southern park boundary
and at Warren Creek. The main park areas around the park office, the restored mill, and
the river would not be visually impacted by the build alternates.
The proposed park at the end of Kinard Road, west of Doc Nichols Road, has not been
developed nor have park plans been established for this facility. Alternate 1 would be
located immediately east of this facility and Alternates 2 and 3 would be located to the south
of this park. Because of these factors, the visual effect of these alternates on this park
cannot be assessed at this time.
Much of the study area is undeveloped. However, future land use plans for the area
indicate the urbanization of the entire study area. The Durham Northwest and Northeast
Loop is being planned as an arterial street. As such, the vertical alignment of the roadway
would follow the contour of the land to the extent practicable and would meet existing
intersecting streets at-grade except at interchanges. With this as the setting, the impact of
IV-85

the new roadway on the visual environment from existing residential areas would be '
minimal.
Measures to minimize each of these visual impacts would be taken into consideration '
during design of the roadway. Overall, visual impacts may be mitigated through a variety
of actions such as alignment modifications during design, landscaping, screening,
embankments, and selective clearing of natural materials. '
P. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

All of the build alternates under consideration would have similar construction impacts.
All of the construction impacts listed below would be temporary in nature. Construction '
activities for the proposed facility would have air, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and
visual impacts for those residents and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project.
The air quality impact would be temporary and would primarily be in the form of
emissions from diesel powered construction equipment, dust from embankment and haul road '
areas, and burning of debris. Air pollution associated with the creation of airborne particles '
would be effectively controlled through the use of watering or other techniques in accordance
with all local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State '
Implementation Plans for Air Quality in compliance with the 15 NCAC 2D.0520. In '
addition, all construction activities would follow the NCDOT "Best Management Practices '
for Protection of Surface Waters" as applicable and NCDOT "Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures". t

IV-86

1

F

Noise and vibration impacts would be from the heavy equipment movement and
construction activities such as pile driving. Noise control measures would include those
contained in NCDOT's Standard Specifications.
Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be controlled in
accordance with NCDOT's "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures" and through
the use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface /Waters", as
applicable. /?dGtJ
Maintenance of traffic and sequence of construction would be planned and scheduled so
as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. Signs would be used where appropriate
to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the travelling public.
The local news media would be notified in advance of road closings and other construction
related activities which could excessively inconvenience the community so motorists,
residents, and businesses could plan their day and travel routes in advance.
Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained to the extent practical
through controlled construction scheduling. Traffic delays would be controlled to the extent
possible where many construction operations are in progress at the same time.
For residents living along the proposed facility some of the materials stored for the

project may be displeasing visually; however, this would be a temporary condition and
should pose no substantial problem.
IV-87
Construction of the roadway and bridges may require excavation of unsuitable material,
placement of embankments, and use of materials such as asphaltic concrete and portland
cement concrete. Disposal would be on-site in retention areas or off-site. The removal of
structures and debris would be in accordance with local and state regulatory agencies
permitting this operation. The contractor would be responsible for the methods of
controlling pollution on haul roads, in borrow pits, other material pits, and areas used for
disposal of waste materials from the project. Temporary erosion control features could
consist of temporary grassing, sodding, mulching, sandbagging, slope drains, sediment
basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings, and/or berms.
Q. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
In general, the build alternates would have similar impacts on the local short-term uses
of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
The construction phase of the project would cause limited adverse effects on the human
environmental which are deemed to be of a short-term nature. There would be minor
siltation of local surface waters during construction; however, careful attention would be
given to these problems during design and strict adherence to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's, "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters",
June 1991 would be applied. These control measures, both temporary and permanent, would
minimize adverse short-term effects and avoid any substantial long-term damage.
IV-88

A

11

w

Another short-term effect would be the displacement or relocation of people, businesses,
and non-profit organizations; however, the North Carolina Board of Transportation's
relocation and financial assistance program would minimize this inconvenience.
The proposed project would be classified as a long-term productive facility. This
project, with it's desirable design characteristics, would provide for safe and efficient vehicle
operation for future, as well as, present travel time. The benefits such as reduced operating
costs, reduced travel time, and general economic enhancement of the area offered by the
long-term productivity of this project should more than offset the short-term inconvenience
and adverse effects on the human environment.
R. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Implementation of the proposed Build Alternative involves a commitment of the range
of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of the
proposed facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the
land is used for highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or
if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At
present there is no reason to believe such a conversion will be necessary or desirable.
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as
cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended. Additionally, large amounts
of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of
construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. They are not in short
supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these
IV-89
resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of state
funds which are not retrievable.
The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents in the
immediate area, region, and state would benefit by the improved quality of the transportation
system. These benefits would consist of improved quality, accessibility and safety, savings
in time, and greater availability of quality services which are anticipated to outweigh the
commitment of these resources.
IV-90
1

REFERENCES - SECTION IV
Durham County Planning Department, Durham County, North Carolina, General
Development Plan 2005. Durham County, North Carolina, September 1987.
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing. Durham City and County, North Carolina, October 1991.
Durham City-County planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Bicycle Route
Master Plan Map, October 1988.
Durham City-County Planning Department, Durham, North Carolina, Trails and
Greenways Master Plan Ma R, October 1988.
Durham Area Transit Authority, Short-Range Service Development Plan. Final Rep=,
August 1993.
Howard, Jenifer R., and Scott Hartly, Eno River State Park, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, 1992.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell, Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, University of North Carolina Press, 1968.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation,
1990.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B
Section .0300 Assignment of Stream Classifications, .0315 Neuse River Basin,
February 1, 1993.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural
j Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina, 1992.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Natural
Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina, 1992.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Noise Abatement Guidelines.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Relocation Repo, March 1994.
IV-91

REFERENCES - SECTION IV (cont' d)
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Air
Quality Study, April 1994.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Noise
Study, April 1994.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Natural
Resources, April 1994.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -
Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessments, November 1993.
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum - Traffic
Analysis, November 1992.
Triangle Transit Authority, Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. Transportation Analysis and
Planning. Provosed Land Use and Transportation Alternatives. Draft, March 1994.
United Stated Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Title 23
Code of Federal Regulations CFR) Part 772.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Durham County. North Carolina, 1972.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, "Flood
Insurance Rate Maps: Durham County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas)",
Community Panels , 370085 0025 A through 0055 A, February 15, 1979 and June 5,
1989.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, "Flood
Insurance Rate Maps: City of Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, Community
Panels 370086 0005 D through 0030 D, January 15, 1982 and June 5, 1989.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, "Flood
Insurance Rate Maps: Orange County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas)",
Community Panels 370342 0170 B through 0190 B, March 16, 1981.
Durham City-County Planning Department, North Carolina, Trails and Greenwavs
Master Plan Mme, October 1988.
Durham City-County Planning Department, North Carolina, Bicycle Route Master Plan
Man, October 1988.
IV-92

r

I
a

r

V. LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation with
assistance from H. W. Lochner, Inc. in cooperation with Mattson, Alexander & Associates.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
B.S. in civil engineering with 23 years
experience in transportation engineering.
R. B. Davis, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Planning Group
Planning and Environmental Branch
Gail Grimes, P.E.
Unit Head, Consultant Engineering Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
Cynthia D. Sharer, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
B.S. in civil engineering with 23 years
experience in transportation engineering.
B.S. in civil engineering with 19 years
experience in transportation engineering.
B.S. in civil engineering and M.P.A. in
public administration with 25 years
experience in transportation planning and
engineering.
John E. Alford, P.E.
Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Highway Design Branch
I

24 years experience in roadway design.
H. W. Lochner, Inc.
Roy D. Bruce, P.E.
Project Manager
M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering
with 17 years experience in transportation
engineering, environmental analysis, and
document preparation.
Wilbur Efird, P.E.
Highway Engineer
B.S. degree in civil engineering with 31
years experience in roadway design.
V-1

David F. Zawada, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Tom Morris
Environmental Scientist
Tom Neyer
Transportation Engineer
Karl R. Kratzer
Environmental Scientist
Jeff Schlotter
Environmental Planner
Stephen C. Browde, P.E.
Highway Engineer
James M. Beers
Highway Designer
Bryan D. Kluchar
Transportation Engineer
Brent Siebenthal
Environmental Engineer
Mattson, Alexander and Associates
Dr. Richard L. Mattson
Historic Preservation Consultant
M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering
with 22 years experience in environmental
analysis and document preparation.
M.S. and B.S. degrees in ecology with 18
years experience in environmental
analysis, threatened and endangered
species surveys, and wetland delineations.
B.S. degree in civil engineering with 10
years experience in roadway design.
B.S. degree in biology with 9 years
experience in environmental analysis and
document preparation.
B.S. degree in urban planning and M.S.
degree in urban anthropology with 9 years
experience in environmental analysis and
document preparation.
B.S. degree in civil engineering with 10
years experience in roadway design.
A.A. degree in design with 8 years
experience in roadway design and
planning.
B.S. degree in civil engineering with 4
years experience in transportation
engineering.
B.S. degree in civil engineering with 1
year experience in engineering and
environmental analysis.
Ph. D. degree in geography with 14 years
experience in historic preservation.

L
I

u
t

1
n.

L
v-2

I
VI. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO
WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SEMI'
FEDERAL AGENCIES
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
2. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service (Raleigh and Asheville Offices)
3. Department of Interior - National Park Service (S.E. Region)
4. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV) - Environmental Review Branch
5. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Greensboro Area Office)
6. Department of Interior - U.S. Geological Survey (Raleigh Office)
STATE AGENCIES
1. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
2. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
3. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
4. Department of Public Instruction - Division of School Planning
j LOCAL OFFICES
1. Triangle J Council of Governments
2. City of Durham - Mayor
3. City of Durham - City Council Members
' 4. Durham County Commissioners
5. Orange County Commissioners
6. North Durham Library
7. Bragtown Library
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
1. Cindy Sharer NCDOT Planning & Environmental
2. Gail Grimes NCDOT Planning & Environmental
3. John Alford NCDOT Roadway Design
4. Dan Thomas NCDOT Statewide Planning
5. L.F. Stegall NCDOT Division Engineer
6. J.W. Watkins NCDOT Division Engineer
7. Owen Synan Durham Department of Transportation
' 8. Paul Norby Durham City-County Planning
9. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning

VI-1
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
1. Louis Berini
2. Jackie Brown
3. Rebecca Carpenter
4. James Clark
5. Al Clever
6. Frank DePasquale
7. Wright Dixon
8. Dan Eason
9. Susan Gillispie
10. James Hayslett
11. Larry Holt
12. Mary Jones
13. Robert Jones
14. Mack Little
15. J. N. Oakley
16. Eliana Owens
17. William Pitney
18. Sarah Torville
19. Mary Vickers
VI-2

c.

n

VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
To ensure open communication and agency and public input, NCDOT provided an early
notification package to state and federal agencies and other interested parties defining the
project, as well as anticipated issues and impacts. In addition, in order to expedite the
project development processes, eliminate unnecessary work, and provide a substantial issue
identification/problem solving effort, NCDOT implemented the scoping process as required
by the Council of Environmental Quality Guidelines. Finally, in an effort to resolve all
issues identified, NCDOT conducted an extensive interagency coordination and consultation
effort and public involvement program. The public involvement program was developed and
is being carried out as an integral part of this project. The purpose of this program is to
establish and maintain communication with the project and its potential impacts. This section
of the document details the Department's program to fully identify, address, and resolve all
project related issues.
A. EARLY COORDINATION
NCDOT implemented the scoping process through the distribution of a scoping letter to
the appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as local officials. The scoping letter was
sent on September 10, 1991 and constituted solicitation for comments related to the project.
Those agencies and officials which were contacted are listed in Table VII-1. Pertinent
comments received from these agencies and officials are included in the Appendix.
VII-1

TABLE VII-1
DISTRIBUTION OF SCOPING LETTER
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
U.S. Geological Survey
STATE AGENCIES
State Clearinghouse
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Health Services
Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of Cultural Resources
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Department of Public Instruction
LOCAL OFFICIALS
Chairman, Durham County Commissioners
Chairman, Orange County Commissioners
Durham City-County Planning Department
Durham County Schools
Mayor, City of Durham
Triangle J Council of Governments
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The early and continued involvement of the citizens who may be affected by the study's
outcome is a vital part of the planning process for the Durham Northwest and Northeast
Loop Corridor Study. The public involvement program for this study includes Citizens
Informational Workshops, the Corridor Public Hearing, Small Group Meetings, a mailing
list, newsletters, and project hotline.
VII-2
t
ri

n
L?

a
1

s
I

F1

r

11

1

1
1. First Citizens Informational Workshops
The first Citizens Informational Workshops were held on the following dates at the
following locations:
? September 18, 1991, 4:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Riverside High School
Durham County
? September 19, 1991, 4:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Neal Middle School
Durham County
The first workshops were conducted to provide citizens with information about the
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study, to initiate and encourage public
involvement, to provide information concerning the environmental study process, and to
receive comments from the public and interested agencies.
These meetings were held in an informal "open-house" format with study team
representatives available to discuss the project and answer questions. Graphical display
boards, informational handouts, and a narrated slide presentation provided additional
information about the study goals and process. Informational handouts were distributed to
each citizen attending the meeting. The handouts contained comment sheets which provided
an opportunity for recording citizen opinion resulting from these meetings. Comment sheets
were either returned during the meetings or mailed to the Department. Attendance at the
Riverside High School Workshop was 111 citizens, while at Neal Middle School 75 people
attended the workshop. A total of 53 comment sheets were received from both workshops.
VII-3
r_?
2. Second Citizens Informational Workshop ,
The second Citizens Informational Workshop was held as follows:
? March 31, 1992, 4:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Chewning Middle School
Durham County
The purpose of this workshop was to present an update of the study status, to receive '
comments from the public concerning the preliminary corridors, and to identify the next
steps in the environmental study process. The workshop was informally structured to allow '
one-on-one discussions of the project between citizens and study team representatives.
Graphic displays, handouts with comment sheets, and a narrated slide presentation were
available. Comment sheets were either returned during the meeting or mailed to the
Department. Recorded attendance was 309 people and 160 comment sheets were received. I
3. Pre-Hearing Open House
The Pre-Hearing Open House will be held approximately two weeks prior to the
Corridor Public Hearing. The purpose of the open house is to present the detailed study
alternates to the public and assist them in preparing for the Public Hearing. The open house
will be structured to permit discussions between those attending and study team members.
Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Corridor Hearing Map will be
available for public review at the workshop.
4. Corridor Public Hearing I
The Corridor Public Hearing will be held following the distribution and review of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. NCDOT will not select a Preferred Alternative
VII-4

1

1
L'

J

rl

until the Corridor Public Hearing has been held and all comments received have been taken
into consideration.
5. Small Group Meetings
Small Group Meetings were held upon request with interested citizens organizations,
neighborhood associations, business groups, and civic groups to discuss the project. These
meetings for informal presentations and question and answer sessions were provided for the
following groups:
The Gorman Ruritan Club Small Group Meeting was held on January 14, 1992 in
the Gorman Ruritan Club meeting hall on Geer Street at 7:00 p.m. Graphical displays,
handouts with comment sheets from the first Citizens Informational Workshop, and a slide
presentation were used to inform the citizens of the project. A question and answer session
concluded the meeting activities. The meeting was attended by 34 citizens.
A Small Group Meeting was held for the Coalition of Northern Durham
Neighborhoods on April 15, 1992 at the Eno Trace Clubhouse at 7:30 p.m. Attendance
included 28 neighborhood representatives. Handouts with comment sheets from the second
Citizens Informational Workshop, a slide presentation, graphical displays, and a question and
answer session were used to inform the representatives of the project.
The Fieldcrest Baptist Church Small Group Meeting was held on November 23,
1993 in the Fieldcrest Baptist Church on Glenn School Road at 7:00 p.m. An informational
briefing, graphical displays, and the November 1993 project newsletter were used to inform
VII-5
a
citizens of the project. A question and answer session was also included in the meeting
activities. A total of 18 citizens attended the meeting.
The Horton Hills Neighborhood Small Group Meeting was held on January 13,
1994 at the North Durham Branch of the Durham County Library, in the Riverview
Shopping Center, on Roxboro Road at 7:00 p.m. An informational briefing, graphical
displays, the November 1993 project newsletter, and a question and answer session was
provided to convey project information to the 61 citizens attending the meeting.
A meeting was held for the Mount Level Baptist Church on February 23, 1994 at
10:00 a.m. in the office of H.W. Lochner, Inc. Representing the Mount Level Baptist
Church at the meeting was Robert Jones. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
relationship between future improvements to the Church and the proposed build alternates.
A Small Group Meeting was held for the Old Farm Neighborhood on June 15,
1994. The meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. at the Eno Valley Swim and Racquet Club in the
Old Farm neighborhood and was attended by 52 citizens. Information was conveyed to the
citizens by providing an informational briefing and handout, graphical displays, and a
question and answer session.
The Grove Park Neighborhood Small Group Meeting was held on September 29,
1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Grove Park Clubhouse. The meeting was attended by 14 citizens.
An informal briefing, graphical displays, and the July 1994 project newsletter were used to
VII-6

[l

A

t
A

a

t

t

t

transfer project information. A question and answer session was also included in the
activities.
6. Mailing List
A mailing list was developed in order to distribute project information to interested
persons. Any individuals, public or private groups, or government officials expressing an
interest in the project was placed on the mailing list. At the beginning of the study, the
Durham County registered neighborhood contact persons for the neighborhoods in the study
area were included on the mailing list. The mailing list contains approximately 900 names
and addresses and continues to expand as the study progresses.
7. Newsletters
Project newsletters are published and mailed to all persons on the mailing list
periodically throughout the study. The newsletters are designed to keep interested persons
informed of the study progress. Three newsletters were mailed to those on the mailing list
in December 1992, November 1993, and July 1994. A fourth newsletter will be sent after
the Corridor Public Hearing and the selection of a Preferred Alternative.
8. Hotline
A toll free project hotline was available for public comments, suggestions, or
Friday during regular business hours. Messages on the hotline were recorded if the call was
inquiries concerning the corridor study. The hotline service was available Monday through
not placed during normal office hours or if study team members were unable to answer the
VII-7
a
phone. Phone calls were returned by study team members as quickly as possible.
Approximately 400 calls have been received during the study.
C. PUBLIC OFFICIALS MEETINGS
Informational briefings were provided to the members of the Durham City Council on
August 29, 1991 and to the members of the Durham County Board of Commissioners on
September 3, 1991. The purpose of these meetings was to provide local officials the ,
opportunity to review the study process and project schedule, discuss issues of concern prior
to developing preliminary corridors, and be informed of the first Citizens Informational
Workshops.
A Public Officials Meeting was held at the Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting
for the Durham-Carrboro-Chapel Hill Urban Area on March 18, 1992. Members of the
Durham City Council, Durham County Commissioners, and Orange County Commissioners
were invited to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
Preliminary Corridors being presented at the second Citizens Informational Workshop.
An informational briefing was provided to the members of the Orange County
Commissioners at the Orange County Water and Sewer Association Building on April 21,
1992. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the commissioners of the project status and
receive comments concerning the Preliminary Corridors. The Orange County
Commissioners were unanimously opposed to the westernmost corridor, which crossed the
Eno River in Orange County, (Preliminary Corridor A-1) and asked that the corridor be
eliminated from further consideration.
VII-8
a
i
D. INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
An Interagency review meeting was held in conjunction with the Steering Committee
meeting on May 13, 1992. Agency representatives attending the meeting are listed in
Table VII-2. During this meeting, all representatives of the environmental review agencies
recommended to NCDOT that preliminary corridor segments north of the Eno River be
removed from the study because of environmental impacts to the river and associated natural
areas around the river.
TABLE VII-2
AGENCIES REPRESENTED AT THE INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
May 13, 1992
REPRESENTATIVE AGENCY
Dennis Stewart NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Wildlife Resources Commission
David Yow NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Galamb NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management
Delores Hall State Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office
Mike Crocker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eric Alsmeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Field Office
Mickey Sugg U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Field Office
David Foster NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Highway Environmental Evaluation
E. STEERING COMMITTEE
In order to provide guidance to the study team, NCDOT designated a Steering
Committee for the project. The Steering Committee is composed of technical representatives
VII-9
from various sections of NCDOT, City of Durham, Durham County, and Orange County.
Members of the Steering Committee are noted in Table VII-3. The steering committee
meetings are summarized in the following paragraphs.
TABLE VII-3
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MEMBER ASSOCIATION
Cindy Sharer NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch
Gail Grimes NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch
John Alford NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Dan Thomas NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch
L.F. Stegall NCDOT Division 5 Engineer
J.W. Watkins NCDOT Division 7 Engineer
Owen Synan Durham Department of Transportation
Paul Norby Durham City-County Planning
Marvin Collins Orange County Planning
The first Steering Committee meeting was held on October 21, 1991. The purpose of
the meeting was to introduce the Steering Committee members, discuss the data collection
process for the study and the first Citizens Informational Workshops. Additionally, design
criteria were established and typical sections were selected for the proposed facility.
A second Steering Committee meeting was held on October 31, 1991. The purpose of
the meeting was to continue discussions from the October 21, 1991 meeting and to discuss
the preliminary corridors identified for the project. At this meeting the Steering Committee
VII-10
e

Ire
LJ

F
L
a

recommended that 12 out of 115 preliminary segments be eliminated from the study because
of excessive environmental and social impacts or undesirable roadway design features.
The third Steering Committee meeting was held with the federal and state environmental
review agencies on May 13, 1992. The purpose of the meeting was to review the project
status, to present the preliminary corridor segments to the environmental review agencies,
and to solicit comments.
A fourth Steering Committee meeting was held on November 20, 1992. The purpose of
this meeting was to review the project status, to discuss the preliminary corridor segments,
and to recommend reasonable and feasible corridors for detailed study in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The Steering Committee recommended to NCDOT that
37 additional corridor segments be eliminated from the study.
A fifth Steering Committee Meeting will be held following the Corridor Public Hearing.
The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the DEIS and to recommend a Preferred
Alternative.
F. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Citizens Advisory Committee for the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop
voluntary and composed of individual citizens representing the local community. Some of
Corridor Study was formed as part of the public involvement program. The committee is
the members are residents within the study area, while others are from neighboring cities.
The purpose of the committee is to consider the issues surrounding the project, to evaluate
VII-I 1
and discuss the issues, and advise NCDOT. Table VII-4 gives a list of the Citizens Advisory
Committee Members.
TABLE VII-4
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Louis Berini Larry Holt
Jackie Brown Mary Jones
Rebecca Carpenter Robert Jones
James Clark Mack Little
Al Clever J. N. Oakley
Frank DePasquale Eliana Owens
Wright Dixon William Pitney
an Eason Sarah Torville
Susan Gillispie Mary Vickers
James Hayslett
On February 18, 1993 the Citizens Advisory Committee Organizational Meeting was
held in the City of Durham Fire Training Academy on Club Road. The purpose of the
meeting was to form the committee and to discuss the role of the committee members. Since
the Organizational Meeting, eight Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings were held at the
City of Durham Fire Training Academy. Table VII-5 summarizes the Citizens Advisory
Committee meetings.
VII-12

I TABLE VII-5
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY

F-,
L

1

MEETING DATE DISCUSSION TOPIC
The first official CAC meeting was held. During this meeting
05-06-93 the role of the CAC was discussed along with the preliminary
corridors eliminated from the study.
The second CAC meeting was held. The Durham Thoroughfare
06-10-93 Plan, the Durham 2020 Plan, and the responsibilities of CAC
members were discussed at this meeting.
The third CAC meeting was held. The environmental planning
process, the contents of a Draft Environmental Impact
07-15-93 Statement, ideas for future CAC meeting topics, and the
eliminated preliminary corridors were discussed during this
meeting.
The fourth CAC meeting was held. During this meeting, air
09-16-93 quality and noise impact studies and types of interchanges were
discussed. Also an update of the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Plan was presented.
The fifth CAC meeting was held. The three detailed study
10-21-93 alternates were presented at this meeting along with a discussion
of the right of way and relocation process.
The sixth CAC meeting was held. Discussions of water quality
12-02-94 studies, natural resource evaluations, and socio-economics took
place.
The seventh CAC meeting was held and discussion topics
01-20-94 included cultural resource evaluations, parks and public lands,
hazardous materials, and permits.
03-17-94 The eighth CAC meeting was held. Topics of discussion were
mass transit, engineering issues, and traffic.
A ninth CAC meeting will be held after the distribution of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The recommendation of
a Preferred Alternative will be discussed.
VII-13

VIII. INDEX
Abundant Life Ministries IV-19
Access Control II-10, II-37
Air Quality S-5, S-6, IV-27, IV-28, IV-29, IV-31, IV-32, IV-86, IV-92, VII-15
Amtrak I-25, III-20
Archaeologic Sites III-21, IV-74
Argonne Hills IV-3, IV-4, IV-15, IV-20, IV-21
Atlantic Pigtoe III-43, III-44, IV-63
Average Daily Traffic I-10, I-13, I-16, I-18, I-19
Bald Eagle III-42, III-43, IV-62
Bicycle IV-12, IV-91, IV-92
Biotic Resources III-27, IV-49
Build Alternative S-3, S-4, S-5, S-7, I-18, II-1, II-8, 11-9, 11-37, IV-1, IV-2, IV-6,
IV-9, IV-14, IV-16, IV-17, IV-18, IV-20, IV-26, IV-33, IV-42,
IV-74, IV-89
Capacity S-l, S-3, I-2, I-10, I-15, I-16, I-17, I-26, II-2, II-6, II-7, II-8, II-36,
IV-43, IV-66
Carolina Darter III-43, III-44, IV-64
Carolina Madtom III-43, III-45, IV-64
Caroline Mobile Home Park IV-2, IV-3, IV-21, IV-24
Citizens Advisory Committee VI-2, VII-12, VII-13, VII-15
Citizens Informational Workshop VII-5, VII-6, VII-9
VIII-1
Community Cohesion IV-2, IV-6, IV-17
Community Facilities II-12, II-22, III-9, III-11, III-14, IV-6
Community Impacts IV-50
Construction Costs S-4, S-6, II-18, II-36, IV-25
Construction Impacts IV-86
Construction Noise IV-49
Coordination S-7, S-8, II-18, III-41, IV-73, VII-1, VII-2
Critical Watershed Area III-37, III-38, IV-52, IV-54
Cultural Resources III-21, III-23, IV-73, VI-1, VII-3
Design Criteria S-4, II-9, II-10, VII-11
Design Speed I-19, II-10
Design Year I-17, I-18, I-20, IV-28, IV-32, IV-34
Duke Medical Center I-1, II-3
Duke University I-1, I-23, II-3, II-4
Durham Area Transit Authority I-24, I-26, II-3, II-38, III-50, IV-16, IV-91
Economic S-1, S-3, I-2, I-22, III-1, III-25, IV-1, IV-25, IV-26, IV-89
Ellerbe Creek II-29, II-30, II-31, III-28, III-29, III-31, III-32, III-40, III-41, III-45,
IV-54, IV-56, IV-61, IV-65, IV-70
Emergency Services III-14, IV-15, IV-16
Energy II-2, IV-39, IV-74, IV-75
Eno Industrial Park I-22
Eno River State Park S-8, II-17, II-181 III-15, III-27, III-28, III-51, IV-3, IV-6,
IV-7, IV-8, IV-9, IV-10, IV-171 IV-55, IV-65, IV-84, IV-91
VIII-2

Falls Lake S-7, I-8, II-17, II-22, III-9, III-19, III-31, III-32, III-38, III-42, III-46,
IV-50, IV-51, IV-54, IV-62
Farmlands S-5, III-30, IV-26, IV-27
Floodplain S-5, III-9, III-45, IV-54, IV-55, IV-61, IV-66, IV-67, IV-69, IV-70,
IV-71, IV-72
Four Toed Salamander III-45
Gorman Ruritan Club IV-19, VII-6
Green Floater III-43, IV-63
Greenways III-19, III-50, IV-8, IV-91, IV-92
Greenwood Forest IV-5, IV-6
Grove Park IV-59, VII-7
Hazardous Materials S-7, S-9, S-10, IV-75, IV-76, IV-77, IV-78, IV-79, IV-81,
IV-82, IV-83, IV-92, VII-15
High Quality Water S-2, III-38
Highway Trust Fund I-2, I-26
Hillview Terrace IV-20
Horton Hills IV-3, IV-4, IV-20, IV-21, VII-7
Improve Existing Facilities Alternative S-3, II-1, II-2, II-6, II-8, II-37
Interagency Review Meeting VII-10
JFK Towers II-29, II-31, IV-4, IV-5, IV-12, IV-15, IV-16, IV-21, IV-37
Joint Development IV-17
Jurisdictional Topics III-39, IV-54
Level of Service I-2, I-15, I-18, I-19, I-20, I-21, II-2
Libraries III-14, IV-14, IV-40
VIII-3
Mailing List VII-3, VII-8
Mass Transit S-2, S-3, II-1, II-3, II-4, II-5, II-6, II-37, IV-16, VII-15
Mass Transit Alternative S-3, II-1, II-3, II-6, II-37
Michaux's Sumac 111-42, 111-43, IV-62
National Register of Historic Places S-5, III-21, IV-73
Natural Heritage Areas III-46
Need S-3, S-9, I-1, I-2, I-25, II-3, II-6, II-9, II-21, II-34, II-36, IV-8, IV-12,
IV-25, IV-40, IV-50, IV-52, IV-66, IV-89
Neuse River Waterdog III-43, III-45, IV-64
Newsletters VII-3, VII-7, VII-8
No-Build Alternative S-3, S-5, S-7, II-1, II-8, IV-1, IV-2, IV-6, IV-9, IV-14,
IV-16, IV-17, IV-18, IV-20, IV-26, IV-42, IV-74
Noise S-5, S-6, IV-33, IV-34, IV-35, IV-37, IV-39, IV-40, IV-41, IV-42, IV-43,
IV-44, IV-48, IV-49, IV-86, IV-87, IV-91, IV-92, VII-15
Northern Freeway I-17, I-22
Nutrient Sensitive Water III-37
Old Farm III-15, III-16, IV-3, IV-4, IV-5, IV-15, IV-16, IV-20, VII-7
Parks S-8, II-17, II-229 III-159 III-17, III-19, III-28, III-42, III-43, III-45, III-46,
III-50, III-51, IV-6, IV-8, IV-409 IV-84, IV-91, VII-15
Pedestrian Facilities S-9, IV-12
Penny's Bend III-19, III-43, III-45, III-46, IV-63
Permits S-8, IV-65, VII-15
Population I-26, II-3, II-36, III-1, III-2, III-5, III-25, III-50, IV-20, IV-21, IV-62,
IV-91
VIII-4

Prairie Blue Wild Indigo III-46
Prairie Dock III-46
Preliminary Corridors II-9, II-11, II-12, VII-5, VII-9, VII-12, VII-15
Preparers V-1
Protected Species S-8, II-12, II-17, III-41, III-42, III-43, III-46, IV-61, IV-65
Public Hearing S-3, S-4, S-5, II-1, II-34, III-39, IV-50, VII-3, VII-5, VII-6, VII-8,
VII-12
Public Involvement Program VII-2, VII-3, VII-13
Public Officials Meetings VII-9
Purpose I-1, II-3, II-6, II-9, II-11, IV-22, IV-24, IV-33, IV-40, VII-2, VII-5, VII-7,
VII-9, VII-11, VII-12, VII-13
Pursh's Wild Petunia III-43, III-44, IV-63
Railroad I-23, I-25, II-29, II-30, II-31, III-9, III-20, IV-13, IV-56
Raleigh - Durham Airport I-2
Recreation S-8, II-12, II-17, III-9, III-15, III-16, III-19, III-28, III-37, III-42,
III-43, III-50, III-51, IV-6, IV-7, IV-40, IV-52, IV-72, IV-91
Relocation II-18, II-35, IV-12, IV-17, IV-18, IV-20, IV-21, IV-22, IV-23, IV-24,
IV-52, IV-69, IV-89, IV-91, VII-15
Research Triangle Park I-1, I-22, I-24, II-3, IV-17
Right of Way Cost S-6, II-22, II-35, II-36, II-38
Riverview Shopping Center IV-5, IV-12, IV-16, VII-7
School I-9, I-23, I-25, II-5, II-29, II-30, II-31, II-32, III-9, III-13, III-14, III-15,
III-19, III-22, III-35, IV-3, IV-4, IV-13, IV-14, IV-15, IV-37, IV-38,
IV-40, IV-81, IV-82, V1-1, VII-3, VII-4, VII-5, VII-6
VIII-5
Scoping Letter VII-2
Section 6(f) S-5, S-8, IV-8, IV-9, IV-10
Small Group Meetings VII-3, VII-6
Smooth Coneflower S-10, III-42, III-46, IV-62
Social Impacts IV-2, VII-12
Soils III-27, 111-30, 111-42, 111-43,111-44,111-46, IV-26, IV-27, IV-51, IV-62, IV-63
Sound Barriers S-9, IV-43, IV-44
Squawfoot III-43, III-44, IV-64
Steering Committee II-17, VI-2, VII-10, VII-11, VII-12
Study List III-21, III-22, IV-73, IV-74
Tall Larkspur III-43, IV-63
Terrestrial Ecology S-7
Thoroughfare Plan S-4, I-2, I-10, I-11, I-16, I-17, I-18, I-22, I-26, II-18, II-21,
II-31, IV-27, VII-15
Traffic and Transportation I-17
Trails III-15, III-16, 111-19, 111-20, III-50, IV-6, IV-7, IV-8, IV-91, IV-92
Treyburn I-8, 1-22,1-23, IV-16
Triangle Express II-4
Triangle Fixed Guideway Study S-2, I-24, 1-26,11-4, II-5, II-6, II-38, III-51, IV-92
Triangle Floater III-43, III-44, IV-63
Triangle Transit Authority S-2, I-24, I-26, II-3, II-4, II-5, II-38, III-51, IV-16,
IV-92
Typical Sections S-1, S-4, II-9, II-10, II-11, II-13, IV-12, VII-11
Utilities II-35, III-10, III-26, IV-10, IV-12, IV-23
VIII-6
s
t
s
e
Valley Springs III-15, III-16, IV-6, IV-7, IV-15, IV-37, IV-85
Vegetational Communities III-27, III-40, IV-49, IV-55
Visual S-10, IV-84, IV-85, IV-86
Water Quality S-2, S-7, S-8, II-22, III-29, III-30, III-32, III-37, III-39, III-44,
III-45, IV-52, IV-54, IV-65, IV-86, IV-87, VII-15
Water Resources III-31, III-33, IV-51
Wetland S-5, S-9, III-39, III-40, IV-54, IV-55, IV-56, IV-57, IV-59, IV-60, IV-61,
V-2
Wild and Scenic Rivers III-36, III-37, IV-72
Wildlife S-2, S-7, S-10, II-12, II-17, II-18, II-22, III-19, III-28, III-37, II1-38,
III-39, III-41, III-51, IV-50, IV-51, IV-55, IV-56, IV-59, IV-62,
VI-1, VII-3, VII-10
Yellow Lampmussel 111-43, 111-44, IV-64
VIII-7
i
i
APPENDICES
A. PERTINENT STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
B. PERTINENT FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
C. PERTINENT LOCAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

1

APPENDIX A
PERTINENT STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
EXHIBIT A-1 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, November 1, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, October 21, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-3 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, October 18, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-4 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, October 17, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-5 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Forest Resources, October 8, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-6 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Land Resources, September 20, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-7 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, September 30,
1991.
EXHIBIT A-8 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resources, October 18, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-9 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History, October 23, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-10 North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety,
Division of Emergency Management, September 19, 1991.
EXHIBIT A-11 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History, May 3, 1994.
EXHIBIT A-12 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History, July 25, 1994.

P

w

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Doul;las G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee tWL--
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0171 - Scoping Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast
Loop Corridor Study, Durham and Orange Counties
DATE: November 1, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. As a result of this
review, it is evident that significant environmental impacts
could occur if the Department of Transportation (DOT) does not
consult with our divisions throughout the planning stages of this
project. The attached comments raise major concerns regarding
the potential impacts on wetlands, rare plant and animal species,
and fish and wildlife habitat. Of particular interest is the
effects of this project on Eno River and its associated
tributaries.
At this point, this department ask that DOT make every
effo
t t
r
o
divisions completely evaluate the
throu
hout
ll issues, consult with our

selecting g
a
phases of
the alternative with the the project, and work toward
least environmental impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

MM:bb
I Attachments

EXHIBIT A-1, p.1

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commipsion Q
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-33'91
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: October 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
the Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor
Study, Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward, P. E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the construction of the Durham Northeast and
Northwest Loops in Durham and Orange Counties.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over
direct and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and
wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor. We are especially concerned over potential impacts to
1 the Eno River and its associated tributaries, Ellerbee Creek,
Little Lick Creek, Panther Creek and Chunky Pipe Creek.
Due to limited information in Mr. L. J. Wards' memorandum of
September 10, 1991 we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories.

I EXHIBIT A-2, p.1
Memo Page 2 October 21, 1991
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
projected related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.

6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
for
ti
i
i
i
7. ng
ng or compensa
z
m
Mitigation for avoiding, min
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
9. Any discussions or other action regarding right-of-way
acquisition. This information is very important in
that it will allow resource agencies to prioritize work
loads as environmental documents are released. If
right-of-way acquisition has already been initiated
prior to review of environmental documents, as has been
the case with some highway projects in the past, then '
there is little need for reviewing and commenting on
the document.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources Commission is not
likely to provide a favorable review for any alternative which
does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate destruction or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please call on us.
DLS\lp
cc: Steve Pozzanghera, Piedmont Habitat Conservation Biologist
r
EXHIBIT A-2, p.2

I

1
I

I

I
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
October 18, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Carol Tingley
SUBJECT: 92-0171 Durham Loop Corridor
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the proposal to
construct the Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop in Durham
County. This is a large project with a high potential to cause
severe environmental degradation to a large area. The corridor
includes a number of highly significant ecological resources.
which would be threatened, directly or indirectly, by the
highway.
The Eno River State Park lies within the indicated corridor in
the western part. The park contains high quality natural
communities and a number or rare plant species. There are two
Registered Natural Heritage Areas in this part of the park, and
several other areas that qualify for registry. The park is a
highly popular recreation area. If federal funds are used in the
construction of the proposed project, any encroachment on park
land will require a 4 (f) statement pursuant to the Department of
Transportation Act. In addition, Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund money was used to acquire and develop the state
park. Section 6 (f) of the LWCF Act requires that any conversion
of park land to a non-outdoor recreation use, such as a highway,
be approved by the National Park Service. The land must be
replaced by land of equivalent value and usefulness. Any park
land used for the highway would also have to be removed from the
State Nature and Historic Preserve by the General Assembly.
The project area contains many additional significant ecological
resources which could be impacted by the proposed highway.
The most significant area is on both sides of the Eno River along
SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road) north of Weaver. This nationally
significant area of approximately one square mile contains 27
occurrences of rare plant species, including several federal
candidates, associated with unusual soils developed on the large
diabase sill. Four sites within this area are on the State's
Registry of Natural Heritage Areas, under protection agreement
with their owners or managers.
Just north of this area is the Cabin Branch Creek Registered
Natural Heritage Area, with a population of Douglas's bittercress
(Cardamine douglassi) and Lewis's heartleaf (Hexastvlis lewisii).
EXHIBIT A-3, p.1

Melba McGee
Page 2
October 18, 1991
The Eno River itself, particularly in the western half of the
corridor, harbors a number of significant aquatic animals,
including the mussels Fusconaia masoni and Villosa constricta,
the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), and the dragonfly
Gomphus septima.
A number of smaller sites, identified in the Durham County
Natural Areas Inventory, contain rare plants or natural
communities. They include Upper Lick Creek Bottomlands south of
NC 98, Redwood Road Remnant Glade on lower Ellerbe Creek, Hebron
Road Remnant Glade of SR 1656 north of Weaver, Goodwin-Infinity
Road Remnant Glade at SR 1639 and 1640, and Duke Lane on SR 1648.
More detailed information on all of these sites is contained in
the county inventory report and the Natural Heritage Program
databases. We recommend that the project Consultants contact the
Natural Heritage Program.
CT/mb
cc: Frank Boteler, Natural Heritage Program
3197
-0,

I

L?

EXHIBIT A-3, p.2 I
'r..-Slnl, 3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resoa1-,?(,es
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T, Everett, Ph.D.
7
William W. , 1991 ,Director
Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 1
'
MEMORANDUM
Regional Offices
Asheville TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
704Q5l-Q08 ?/
FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning Branch
Fayeaeville
' 919/486-1541 SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0171; EIS Scope Request for Proposed
Mooresville Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridors
704/663-1699
Raleigh This memo is in response to an NCDOT request for comments on
9IW733-2314 the proposed highway improvement. The responses will be used by
Washington NCDOT to assist in preparation an environmental impact statement.
919946-6481 The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
has reviewed the scoping request and offers the following
' comments and recommendations regarding potential impacts on
9y
/39539M water quality and wetlands.
Winston-Salem
919/896.7007 Water Ou a l >_ tv
A project of this magnitude has the potential to impact
surface waters in several ways. These include sedimentation from
highway construction, stormwater runoff from the completed road,
and nonpoint source runoff associated with development stimulated
by the project.
Implementation and conscientious maintenance of sediment
control BMPs during project construction should help minimize
construction impacts. However, onsite sediment control measures
are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent of the
sediment eroded at a site. The EIS should discuss sediment
trapping capability of control measures and assess what impacts,
if any, will result from sediment that escapes the site.
Highway stormwater runoff can adversely impact the quality of
nearby receiving waters where traffic levels are sufficiently
high. It is anticipated that the traffic flow on this proposed
highway could be high enough to cause such impacts unless
measures are taken to control or minimize them. The EIS should
include a section on water quality impacts that discusses highway
runoff, impacts to receiving streams and measures, if warranted,
to minimize or control these impacts. This section should also
discuss nonpoint source runoff from secondary development
the h.ighwav rnroje(?t .
ItO IL,x 2'Jili kd,wh \,,nht'.u.6n., ?7..?,, `;1?lcph.w, "V,7,;-,q; I' Il w I'.„ i.,
EXHIBIT A-4, p.1
Melba McGee
October 17, 1991
Page 2 -
Wetlands
The other area of concern is wetlands. Wetlands are
considered by NCDEM to be waters of the state. Filling or
alteration of wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers will require a 401 Certification from this office.
NCDOT is urged to avoid wetlands impacts, if possible. However
,
if there will be unavoidable impacts, DEM requests that the
following information be contained within the EIS. This
information will be useful in reviewing the project from the
standpoint of issuance of a 401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area (preferably
certified by the Corps of Engineers); '
2. A description of the type(s) and acreage(s) of wetlands
that could be impacted within the project corridor(s). The
wetlands description should include an assessment of wetlands
values and a vegetation list for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
92-0171.mem/SEPA4
cc: Ron Ferrell
It

EXHIBIT A-4, p.2 I
l^?r f._1...,1?t
f i1 ' 'r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Griffiths Forestry Center Director
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
October 8, 1991
t
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins /???
Staff Forester v
SUBJECT: DOT EIS Scoping for the Proposed Durham Northwest Loop & N.E. Loop
Corridor Highway Project on New Location in Durham and Orange
Counties
PROJECT #92-0171
DUE DATE 10-14-91
We have reviewed the above subject DOT Scoping Notice and have the following
comments:
1. Most of the woodland within the corridor is being held for non-forestry
use (etc. development).
2. It is estimated that less than 10% of the woodland within the corridor is
under Forest Management for timber production.
3. The biggest known pine plantation within the corridor is about 23 acres
and is located by the red dot on the attached map.
4. The most adverse impact of the proposed project on forestry may be the
loss or damage to the education use of Eno River State Park.
5. There should be no impact on Duke Forest.
1
PO. Ik» 77687, Rikil;h, N,ath (amlini )7011 7687 lrlrhhunr 019 711 "1JQ
' An 111w 1 Op1w, )nmw), Allirnmovc A( nun I,rnhl"v, I
EXHIBIT A-5, p.1
Page 2
The combined Environmental Impact Statement /Corridor location report should
contain the following information concerning the proposed alternative routes
for the possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the proposed right-of-way.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project. ?.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice is '
encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to

forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits. Trees ,
outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
Sk
a.
inning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
W
e would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.

DHR:gm
Attachment - Map '
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Jim Ellis - D-11
File

EXHIBIT A-5, p.2 I
r
i
i
i
IIr ?l

EXHIBIT A-5, p.3
I
i
_J.
NW
W
Qr
H
1---i
OIf ? ?-,

0
^F

U

- o
O

j E?

?AZ) .9?. / FAS
raj o CASH -? SMI• '}'Ii( v ? , s
1 _ 1706 1671
1.154. T? 1571, J'crr?. FRICKQ
10591
9: 5 ^' 1<s. , ?I ? MICKEY ' .(j I671
1 ^' ••' 1451 1007 ;000N'IN?
1 ,y? ! ...®... •d / (,.160 .? -
I 1431 a '? 1 .157 I ... _. _ ;. ' , •? . 1640K? ,1$) 1004 + .v
LD J' B ®•KV-1(1ri.N, It V. 10697 - 7 \ /
7GWp0• ASHLI,Y 1639 FAS
FAS /fit? m ® T•9J I 677
.1 \t1?v,?-? 1631
USG UUK.,?}?` `..,? A-/. \, Iv
A, VO \r f (Y un5 (. ®--127? voe _
r ?Eti ' m?RIVERVILN: / N«_7 B3" RV-107. \ b rT
0.N
16?8?I1 s 1- ®I(V 108.0, 11.160 1674
1633
\+?? ??'r.-c= ?Ou
MATCH 4Q,Y FARM 1634
LINE _ 1.; 1 0 16)5 a/ 1676 4 1637 1677
1UNK?`- K.IiI X® 111
J \pe \ /? _?f\ r?. ti I,^ ` 1• '? \ DUR S
W u I 1'
1 .I
I ( 1 - /®U.93
1 66
-WARD 10
e
T/1 1 1 . ( ARVER? \ J .a.; fr'n \ \:;.
I;'!
CQ
11\ A A 4 NNA'.>' aP P? J • y \ ? s
tt? 110.73?r r®Ibl51r tO
T ` RADIO 'ii e1 S ... •. ?Q? ?5?? BYP. `•®NOL•22? ?ORV. t ?• ?
.® Q ); ?'i ,S QC's\? VJ X. •r•I;; 10% { (? •?.v1?LLR i 1B6<
18B I'/
DUR A 66 0222 '.` ?CLUU G li `Burton n 1
K1' ; LO
m 41 LE
r, \ ON u
o-:' ?? P? ??? G?? • NPR J V.93
®' ULr
4r?I?. KERR
Ines
/ ?16s7•
E ? 0 10 ,S? AA1L'b1AM o/
..?, ::.::•:... // `•,( .
7" QQ ` .yob 2? S ?'? :
off.
4;)• KA IR Y y MOTEL'
?D e17
1,' 8 4 I FERSON
LQP RV.ILL.6(2) 7 \r f
DUKE (!h\ !YC a Kt_1174 /
`Z "PETTIQSWITCH 1J
1 ?o QFRANK EXT
of AMOREENE Rv•s+c,r INn®p Kv.111x - 441E K•I60 r a }?4'
'1129 KV.1121FISHbAM S1-k 19e7
? X1
UURHAMswIF?pSE
;Kv.I MI T CIIIHII''u nIIR 2A11,• • , •IIt 1•
•::::ci RV.; U.a y 1 13.1 s.`'.•.•.::•a''w
•••..•• ?
' BYV./: Al 302 •A:i•:•••::::•;{r1).<• ...... ...
A s.. -
FOREST t ®DUKE ••RM 2 L A R K ? / . W.. ®DUKE / `I
\ J r11I ®ItV 117.5 70
t
? MIDWAY VICKERS
98 01
151 731> > T l \ ,
'I 31go?
^ 2 WOODLAWNA1 i LORNWALLI? •115,US';S!d A"
/ IU,NUI I, It
Z FiV.?
? I\ SLT TRUSSEI??PATROLBU. ALSTO`®_'Ii1 , ,A-BORDENPATSY
':. BERM 01 , K'v•iq< }- CUTT
( >
-C . . \I •QFLORIS7 q C EDAR
° QT <
.ORB Ext. bUR ISLAND ?? / AW0RTHA A Grove
::%., ) 1909
i!d OUR •30
GOLFQ? / ?, 1 1 OVER RAILQ' i?y_ \A LYNN ?c? 14
DUR 20, ?'?K%HOMfSTEAD ' ! !?' 910
?CHARI.ES •'BEERA'•-_1 .?17r..
OUR 29 \
/ s;.- i ?•pe• ?.\\
?J DUR 34AIX BURTON
CAPkI?: PLE S90 MURRA
?rAR111.1 J HICKORYA MONROE r ? BILEI Oly '
A 11RANCI ..... ?- / t^,p ••:. ®i 176 , `sL IN6 f \ _ ?d
t.V JUNKYARD o
-7-F o » DUR 32 r .
I'IUMI` • I S 1 Bilbo \ qr v
..''i'r' 1 ::> Y .. ? D R 3 H
TNILR RAILROAD
A LA '.... `'.'..:?`{• ACUT RV:?41 ?CAROCO
Q" !AR Keen DUR 31 \AWOOOS 1',AGUARD ?j I?ALCOHOL Z o
f? ?P 00
1.
_4 ? ?BI) elh sd° pSANDERS OJ or O9°I
PATH)
r,?
l I`.r• 1511® ?. A JULY O I AA6
STABLE
-`t
MATCH V IN6® ° o
.r LINE ff 1 A C ?. -- Am!•
LIMITA T
APR YARDQ Fe1v(.._.,. J I I'? //Brass P/ ?f?gCA
SPILLWAYA (icld tiJ m A ry
2 MK ( 1 ! n
W
.. I R,1.' / r°'h I RESEARCH h 151 ?Q 11 1 EST \N°
EXHIBIT A-6, p.2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW'- PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: Due Dale:
tql -o(-[I 10-14
¦ Alter review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding tnese 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
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
Iimll)

? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
ili
i
f Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
ac
t
es, sewer system extensions, a sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging Into stale 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 slate surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or Issue of NPDES (NIA
permil-whichever Is later.
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
El
Well Construction Permit
NIA 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian properly owner. 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may rcqulre Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
r rmil to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement

facilities and/or Emission Sources
NIA 60 days
(90 days)
y open burning associated with subject proposal
must be In compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be In compliance with

NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
NIA 60 days
prior to demolition.

Complex Spurce Permll re Ired under 15 NCAC 2D.0800 (90 days)
.
1•'vl Mr?N
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control
lan
ill
p
w
be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect
) at least 30 da
s before be
in acti
it
.
y
g
v
y.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:

On-site inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must bo permlled.

Mining Permit AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Less than 5 acres
$ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
? North Carolina Burning permit On•sile Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it
ermit
p
exceeds 4 days 1 da
y
(NIA)
Special Gro
nd Cl
u
earance Burning Permit - 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

Oil Relining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(N/A)

11 permit required, application 60 days before begin construction

Dam Safety Permit .
Applicant must hire N.C. qualilied engineer to: prepare plans,
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR a
rov-
30 days
pp
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.

I -- EXHIBI'T' A-6, p.3
F l Process
ime
(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 oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permll Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application loan. (NIA)
Slate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size Is charged. Must Include 1520 days
descriptions 3 drawings of structure & proof of ownershlp (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 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 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
n
k
vST $ AVQt16S3F-' ()J
? '?tJTk- f
-
?/QS?? S??^.?.?-1'mot- 14? t
c?20fk??4i`
,(
?j
•
'
li-/ t V D? q I p Vt"? i [ (?-{1?7 c `: tit- iq"[_[tz X17 v rf

00 ?..11Sf??NS
GcJo--? 7-0

L-C
P?J t s t S f? ?- s`ma GNrl?l. RED,?,?
?jrfh rJ
0?1 i LETS
T-n*(- c Co mw rS A-r-jo P" I &y-f o N J /V &ev f 7-0 0 &7z--r4'0
NC:
/
.
•
L L
--
?
,
,
, n LLB S r) vµ/
t
tn IL I C,q
ifi(

reviewer signature a
enc
dat
g
y
e
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodlin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Y919)486.1541
Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
EXHIBIT A-6, p,4 Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

1

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]

t

o ,,. ANA o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resource's
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, Nqrth Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
September 30, 1991
David W Sides
Director
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison ?z
SUBJECT: Durham Northwest/Northeast Loop.
The proposal is for const-
County. Major impacts on
farmlands are expected as
surveys are available for
evaluation should be done
I
I DH/tl

Project No. 92-0171
arction of a major throughfare in Durham
unique, prime, or statewide important
well as impacts of wetlands. Soil
Orange and Durham Counties. A field
on potential wetlands.
N.XHIB1T A-7, p.1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N; Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 18, 1991

J

L

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: 92-0171, Prop ?ed EIS for Durham Loop Study,
Durham County
We have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway passes close to
residential areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on impacts; be
flexible on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet
local concerns.
EXHIBIT A-8, p.1
SIATr
J
North Carolina Department ofCulturak;2ewurces
James C. Martin, Governor Jivisuq of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary V(iam S. Price, Jr., Director
' October 23, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
t. ?
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor
Study, Durham and Orange Counties, R-2630 and R-2631,
6.358001T, CH 92-E-9220-0171
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project, as well as your letter of September 10, 1991.
The city of Durham and Durham County have both been comprehensively
surveyed within the past ten years. We have conducted a search of our
maps and files and located about one hundred structures of historical or
architectural importance within the Durham County portion of the study
area. We suggest that a representative of the Department of Transportation
contact Robin Stancil, environmental review specialist in our Survey and
Planning Branch, 733-6595, to set up an appointment to gather this
information concerning historic structures.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the Orange
County portion of this study area. However, since a comprehensive
historical architectural inventory of Orange County has never been
conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
In terms of archaeological resources, there are at least twenty-five
recorded sites located within the study area for this project, and it is
likely that many more are present. We recommend that alternate routes
be forwarded to this office as soon as they are available so we can
evaluate potential effects upon significant archaeological resources.

I EXHIBIT A-9, p.1
L. J. Ward _
October 23, 1991, Page Two
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
PreservationIq 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 : s lw
cc:V/State Clearinghouse
B. Church

I

1

LJ

1
EXHIBIT A-9, p.2 I

I

StAll
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones.St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 867
September 19, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration

t

a

FROM: Janie S. Archer
National Flood Insurance Program
North Carolina Division of Emergency Managment
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Review
State # 92-E-4600-0171
Scoping/Durham NE Loop & NE Loop Corridor
Comments: For information purposes the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Mangement Policy, which must
be followed for development on any site.
EXHIBIT A-10, p.1

t

r
I?SrAR?

aw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Rav McCain, Secretary
May 3, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highway?--
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State storic reservation Officer
Division of Archim and HiStsty
William 3. Alice, Jr., Duectar

SUBJECT: Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, Durham and
Orange Counties, R-2630, R-2631, 6.358001T, GS
94-0062
Thank you for your letter of March 31, 1994, transmitting the architectural
h
e
resources survey report by Mattson, Alexander, and Associates concerning t
above project.
From the information provided in the report, we understand that West Point on the
Eno is the only National Register-listed property in the area of potential effect.
West Point on the Eno was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on
August 9, 1985, under Criterion A for its association with the develiopment of
' West Point, Criterion B for its association with the lives of a number of
distinguished North Carolina citizens, Criterion C for the Greek Revival style
architecture of the ca. 1843 McCown-Mangum House, and Criterion D for the
ill
h
i
d
i
h
i
e m
.
tes assoc
ate
w
t
t
information likely to be yielded from the two s
We have also reviewed the preliminary documentation provided to us to determine
the project's effects on West Point on the Eno. Please provide the following
information so we may offer our findings of effect for Alternates 1 and 3:
1 . What is the cross-section of the four-lane roadway?
2. Will access be controlled?
3. Is there an interchange or grade separation at the intersection with US 501 ?
What is its configuration?
4. Within the corridors shown for Alternates 1 and 3, where is the pavement
' located?

' EXH1BLT n-L1, p.l
1110 Fact inrwc Stmt . Raleivh Norih Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick ,
May 3, 1994, Page 2
5. Will any permanent or temporary easements be necessary within the
boundaries of the historic property?
6. An aerial photograph showing the built and natural environment between
Alternates 1 and 3 and West Point on the Eno would be helpful.
Due to the distance between Alternate 2 and West Point on the Eno, we concur
the project would have no effect on the historic property if Alternate 2 is selected.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. ,
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: B. Church
Durham Historic Properties Commission

t

t

EXHIBIT A-11, p.2 I
e r
a ? Zx ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
\Villiam S. Price, Jr., Director
July 25, 1994
' MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of-T-ransportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, Durham and
Orange Counties, R-2630 and R-2631, 6.358001T,
GS 94-0062
Thank you for providing additional information concerning Alternatives 1 and 3 for
the above report.
As noted in our letter of May 3, 1994, we concur with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) determination that Alternative 2 would
not adversely affect National Register-listed West Point on the Eno. However,
based upon the preliminary documentation provided to us, we do not concur that
Alternatives 1 and 3 will not adversely affect the historic property. Given the
close proximity of the US 501/Northwest-Northeast Loop Interchange, the partial
clearing of intervening woodland, the introduction of visual and audible elements
out of character with the historic property, and the likelihood of ensuing
development due to the interchange, we believe Alternatives 1 and 3 would
adversely affect West Point on the Eno.
We understand that the West Point on the Eno State Park was purchased with
National Park Service Land and Water Conservation funds. The park is currently in
the care of the National Park Service. Thus, we believe the National Park Service
should also be given an opportunity to comment on the project.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
' 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27G01-2307
EXHIBIT A-12, p.1

APPENDIX B
I PERTINENT FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
EXHIBIT B-1 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
October 22, 1991.
I

fl

F7

PtMENT. Or TAKE
¦
PTJDE IN
United States Department of the Interior Ufam .?.
N O
7 A
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
y .. ,y Raleigh Field Office
ggcH 7 'D Post. 014-we Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October a7, 1AU,
' Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Scoping Comments for Durham Northwest T:c7t?3 and Northeast Loop
' Corridor Study, Durham and Orange Counties, State Project No.
6.358001T, TIP No. R-2630 and R-2631.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of September 10, 1991, requesting comments on
the proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended;,16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
the location of the northwestern portion of the corridor study area, as it
seems to follow the Eno River. The Service opposes construction planning
processes which target streams, rivers and riparian corridors as potential
sites for highways and other developments. These areas often appear
particularly attractive to the engineers and others involved in the planning
process due to their undeveloped nature. However, for this same reason,
these areas are important to wildlife in the region as travel corridors and,
in some cases, provide the largest remaining tracts of high quality fish and
wildlife habitat. In this case, the corridor includes part of Eno River
State Park, as well as forested river front habitats adjacent to the park.
Any highway construction in this area could adversely affect the park usage
in addition to fish and wildlife habitat.
The service places considerable value on palustrine forested wetlands and
other riparian habitats, such as occur along the Eno River and other streams
in the area. In general, these habitats are of significant value to
wildlife as sites for feeding, cover, migration, nesting and juvenile
rearing. They also perform essential water quality functions such as
pollution and sediment removal, act as flood water retention sites and
contribute usable nutrients to the aquatic food web.
The Service, therefore, recommends that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and its consultants give equal consideration to fish and
wildlife habitat values in the planning process and make every effort
possible to minimize impacts to these valuable resources. Use of existing
highway corridors to the maximum extent possible would minimize impacts to
fish and wildlife resources and reduce habitat fragmentation. Special care
should also be exercised in the design and implementation of all stream
crossing structures. Preference should be given to alternative alignments,
stream-crossing structures and construction techniques that avoid or
minimize encroachment and impacts to streams and wetlands (i.e., bridges
instead of culverts).
LJ
1 EXHIBIT B-1, p.1
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources. Such impacts
include, but are not limited to, possible induced development along
the alignment, and habitat fragmentation.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Enclosures
EXHIBIT B-1, p.2

77

REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
Durham County
1 Bald eagle (Naliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E*
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
i listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
' are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - C2
' Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2*
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
a liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
J

r

it

EXHIBIT B-1, 1).3
REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
Orange County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - C2
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Savannah lilliput mussel (Toxolasma up lla) - C2
a liverwort (Plaviochila columbiana) - C2* -
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
EXHIBIT B-1, p.4

APPENDIX C
PERTINENT LOCAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
EXHIBIT C-1 Durham City-County Planning Department, October 22, 1991.
EXHIBIT C-2 City of Durham, September 30, 1991.
EXHIBIT C-3 Durham County Schools, October 28, 1991.
EXHIBIT C-4 Orange County Commissioners, October 23, 1991.
EXHIBIT C-5 Durham City-County Planning Department, December 3, 1991.
EXHIBIT C-6 Orange County Commissioners, March 26, 1992.
EXHIBIT C-7 City of Durham, March 29, 1993.
Zi6lhL
=-TO/%
(919)2560-11137 October 22, 1991
it

L?

t

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
RE: Request for Comments
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study
State Project No. 6.35800IT, TIP No. R-2630 and R-2631
Durham and Orange Counties
Dear Mr. Ward:
In response to your request for comments, the City-County Planning Department is in favor of
implementing this project, which has been an element of our transportation and land use planning
for several years. Our staff is participating in your technical corridor study group, and will
continue to give detailed input as it is appropriate.
We would encourage DOT to stay as close as possible to the original alignment as possible, to
minimize wasted effort in coordinating developments over the years to respect this right-of-way.
At the same time, we encourage the use of any and all means to mitigate adverse impacts on
adjacent already developed property, particularly in the Roxboro Road area.
Thank you for your invitation to comment.
? aP ,
Sincerely,
. Paul Norby, CP
Planning Director
EXHIBIT C-1, p.1
1
1
C
d
3
4
d
e

fl
t
7

u

September 30, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
SUBJECT: Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop (Eno Drive) Corridor
Study, State Project No. 6.358001T, TIP No. R-2630 and R-
2631, Durham and Orange Counties
Thank you for the opportunity to share the City of Durham's
position concerning the proposed Eno Drive project. As I am sure
you are aware, the City and the community are concerned about the
environmental (social and ecological) impacts of the project on our
community and neighborhoods. As a-result, the City Council has
endorsed the State's preparation of an environmental impact study
to identify and thoroughly address these many concerns. The City
Council has also designated a preferred corridor for the project
and is described in the enclosed resolution.
The N. C. Department of Transportation gave a presentation on the
environmental impact study process to the City Council on August
29, 1991. The presentation included an overview of the extensive
public participation program which the State has included in the
study process. The City Council fully supports this commitment to
include active participation by citizens and neighborhood groups at
the earliest phase of the study process. As the environmental
study process continues, the City will provide additional comments
concerning the selection of a preferred corridor and the selection
of design criteria (e.g. roadway cross sections, sidewalk and
bicycle amenities, community issues, etc.).
' If the City
contact Mr.
Director of

pp04g4
?F D URy?'©S b
S 69)
b
. D
? CAR?do?
?c?aa
CITY OF DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OP TIFIMCINF
. of Durham can be of additional assistance, please
Orville W. Powell, City Manager, or Mr. Owen W. Synan,
Transportation.
Very truly yours,
c .
Chester Je kins
Mayor, City of Durham
EXHIBIT C-2, p.1
Burbam Tountu I0nuls
1 P O Box 3823
Durham, North Carolina 27702
October 28, 1991
Ms. Gail Grimes and Ms. Cindy Sharer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environment
P.O. Box 2520
Raleigh, NC 27611

Dear Ms. Grimes and Ms. Sharer:
This is to express concern about routing of the proposed Eno Drive as follows:
1. If the road right-of-way were to include any Durham County
Schools' property on the site for Glenn School, it would have a
definite negative impact on Glenn School. In addition, if Eno
Drive should come close to this property, some sort of sound
and visual buffers would be needed.
2. A new Southern High School is currently under construction at
the corner of Freeman and Clayton roads. This school site
extends close to the proposed Eno Drive corridor. This is to alert
you that a major football stadium for Southern High School is
under construction at the eastern edge of Durham County Board
of Education property on the north side of Freeman Road and
will be in use by June 1993. At no time have we been advised
that this would be in the path of Eno Drive. This letter is merely
to alert you of what is occurring on this property so that you can
plan for this development with the routing of Eno Drive, its
intersection with Freeman Road, and any subsequent
interchange at that intersection.
Sincerely,
Alec Dec er
Assistant Superintendent
for Operational Services
cc: Jerry Weast, Superintendent
Mike Mulheirn
John Thompson
EXHIBIT C-3, p.l
7-1
L

ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONEV,B
P.O. Box 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
27278
Moses Carey. Jr.
Alice M. Gordon
Stephen H. Nalkiotis
Verla 1. Insko
Don %Villhoit
October 83,, 149

s

IrJ

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O.--Box-25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
SUBJECT: DURHAM NORTHWEST/NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
732.11181
968-4501
688.7331
227.2031
644-3004 (Fax
Dear Mr. Ward:
The Orarige? County Planning Board met' on October 8, 1991 to
consider a recommendation: on-;the.-'Durham Northwest Loop and
Northeast Loop jcorridor. -Study:?,In :their deliberations, the
Planning Board expressed 'concern ..•about`*potential adverse impacts
on the Eno River State. Park, extensive areas of steep slope, and
existing residential development in the corridor study area. They
recommended to the Board of Commissioners that the terminus of the
proposed Northwest Loop be located in.Durham County where it would
be better aligned with US-15-501,.and the East/West Expressway.
The Oran e County' Board' of ;Commissioners met in regular
session on October?22 tol, kconsider-fthe`study and to receive the
Planning Board recommendation.: The`-Board of Commissioners concurs
with the Planning,--Board recommendation and requests that the
corridor study area;be moved eastward consistent with the Planning
Board recommendation.'
Thank you for the opportunity-to comment on this subject.
Sincerely,
?__M 0__J?
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Board of Commissioners
' EXHIBIT C-4, p.1
ink
UAL)

Mr. Roy Bruce, PE
H. W. Lochner, Inc.
3725 National Drive, Suite 123
Raleigh, NC 27612
December 3, 1991
RE: Steering Committee Meetings on the EIS for the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loops (Eno Drive).
Dear Roy,
I wanted to be sure that you are aware of several issues related to bicycle use,
' sidewalks, and greenways crossings along the proposed Eno Drive. To the extent
that we have already been discussing typical cross-sections of the roadway, I feel that
it is relevant to mention these issues at this time. Some of this information has likely
I already been sent to you, but it has not yet been fully discussed at either of the
steering committee meetings to date.
1) Bicycle Use - in addition to noting the desire for four foot bikeways along the
entire roadway, it should also be noted that special design attention needs to
be given to the safety of bicycle crossings at on-and off-ramps and right-turn
and merge lanes at intersections and interchanges along the roadway. This
recommendation assumes a 50 mph design speed for the entire roadway.
[Note: Many of these same design considerations also apply to expected transit
stops and facilities along the roadway.]
' 2) Sidewalks - current City and County sidewalk policies would call for the
provision of five foot wide sidewalks along both sides of this roadway. It
appears that the proposed roadway cross-sections could accommodate
sidewalks within the buffer zone, to the roadway.
L

2u? ed# - &_I? Pla" 20pa/21/? Z
??l?m, NC' 27701
(919)560-137
I EXHIBIT C-5, p.1
Mr. Roy Bruce
December 3, 1991
Page 2
3) Greenway Crossings - the attached map shows a total of ten creeks or rivers
along which there are greenways called for on the City's adopted Master Plan
for greenways. One trail system along portions of the Eno River (generally west
of Roxboro Road) is in current use and could be directly affected by a new Eno
River roadway crossing. Detailed planning for construction of a Warren Creek
Trail is proceeding (with funds available for acquisition and construction). This
trail could easily be completed and open prior to construction of this roadway.
Plans for construction of a Little Lick Creek Trail could also proceed within the
next few years. All other future greenways shown on the map have less
specific timetables for development.
We feel that to preserve the usefulness of current or future greenway trail
crossings of the roadway that pedestrian underpasses be provided as part of
roadway construction. Designs for the Third Fork Creek crossing of the M. L.
King Parkway, for instance, is trying to provide a box culvert with raised floor
elevation for a trail underpass. At-grade pedestrian crossings of this roadway
would generally not be a satisfactory alternative to underpasses, but if
undertaken would need special design attention to accommodate them at
suitable locations.
As noted above, the City is already actively engaged in planning for such facilities on
other similar roadways in the Durham area. In addition, we feel that the substantially
lower cost and design speed of this roadway versus other NC urban loops funded from
the Highway Trust Fund makes the inclusion of these facilities both appropriate and
reasonable.
I am not sure whether further discussion of these matters is more appropriate at the
"typical roadway cross section" part of the process or after the more final roadway
alternatives are emerging from the EIS process. All the same, I wanted to make sure
that these comments were registered.
Sincerely,

Richard W. Hails
Assistant Planning Director
RWH/bd
cc: Paul Norby
Owen Synan
Cindy Sharer, NCDOT
EXHIBIT C-5, p.2

s

e
1

n

J

n

r

t - -O/ 3 OB01 At
? ItD. D? e I
09

I
O
\E?
y
i- VtHG0.
gyp. SM ? 3ddN
X11 \ 2 od: ?d\ 9 c
?' ?,?N6- ,I
I \
.
Fp6./ 1 v rd v ?P ? I
1604 any
• fj?
\9 133 NVS f48
gw E //d/?--r pl
'itw. Ud -. O?OG f11) S21311Vd W
< `QEECd __ IBIZe .? 0y \a bb /igr
7
j,.o Y ? Ld IDOti -- Ipil S 6
!:f o Ig15 PO 1 ° 20
t et ~' ?00.
M0
K
3y
lg
"?.
~
'
' L
2
?J/
o !/s/ 1164
or b
y
f6j
` >
? E ti _ t m? - r ,

+
O\?\\? sl yf U21

O vZ?1 1S u
NN370 •, dvJ \DI_ANU Q',
i ?
?3 1FIt. ?
N _ ?
?

? O
j \ ?
t
H/) `? ?
0
??AA\ J ?. I
ptt. j nv
n O1 SIV /
a0 o 010
m Oy `. .o .c
i o !S • jf
WIIDN MY llll ?. Yi 1
? O
VI Z e g

m -

O
t
'T ?. 'n h •-? ?
UUKE_ ` p• V/H

y O
?l lk
t
?
fG' . ?
° L,? ,

- f ?
o
6 _ H
y
G1t
/69/
Uvby
??
g(N , Y31
BtX ttD? a:
tl f
F V
? 1J1 Q.ll -?
-IIft6?Nf?
ut
o
1
Gl1CS v r
t
1 ?° ?.
?

Q w
d ?X
100 Oi Q

n / t
J0
\.? 10/ b `
0y SUS D? ) uJ ?O \ap\ I 1 ?
s ?' - ? AIT ?? d
F O O
? Q .

7 b
- `"' 159 a, n
?' ..
Cf)

'
? 1
V CN?y' O

y N

1561
J
l °'
(IN W
V)
O
C) 4
w
7 V9f ? J !' . ? ? 1

a
Q
O w
EXHIBIT C-5, p.3
N
' ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. Box 5181
' I111,LSBOROUGII, N.C.
27278
732-8181
..loses Carey, Jr. 968-9501
' Alice M. Gordon Stephen H.'khMsch 2 6, 1992 688-7331
Verla C. Insko 227-2031
Don Willhoit 644-3004 (Fax)
N.C. Department of Transportation
Durham Northwest and Northeast
Loop Corridor Study
' P.O. Box 30923
Raleigh, N.C. 27622
SUBJECT: CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED
' CORRIDORS FOR ENO DRIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY

To the Corridor Study Steering Committee:
The announcement for the upcoming citizens informational
workshop contains a map which depicts two possible corridors
for Eno Drive in Orange County. We understand that a goal of
the workshop is narrowing down the list of potential
corridors to determine which ones should receive further
study. Toward this goal, the County Commissioners offer the
following comments concerning the two proposed corridors in
Orange County.
First Corridor (farther north and west)
The first corridor crosses the Orange County line at
Cole Mill Road. It then proceeds in a southwesterly
direction to the edge of, if not beyond, the boundaries of
the study area. Then it angles back to the southeast across
the Eno River and intersects with I-85 just west of the
Durham/Orange County Line. This alignment appears to cross
portions of the Eno River State Park and could pose serious
threats to the integrity of the park. Another area of
significant public interest, the Rhodes Creek Wildlife
Corridor, as identified in the recently adopted New Hope
Creek Open Space Master Plan lies immediately west of the
corridor. We have serious concerns about this proposed
corridor for Eno Drive and request that it be removed from
further consideration.
Two other points making this corridor a poor candidate
are the necessity of crossing the Eno River and extensive
areas of steep topography (exceeding 15% slope). The Orange
County Planning Department has detailed thematic mapping of
the area and Mr. Gene Bell, Planner III, is available to
assist with any requests you may have concerning the maps.
Likewise, Ms. Emily Cameron, Planner II, is available to
answer any questions you may have regarding the New Hope
Creek Open Space Master Plan.
EXHIBIT C-6, p.1

Second corridor (farther south and east)
The second corridor enters Orange County approximately
one mile north of I-85. It runs in a southerly direction
roughly parallel to the county line and intersects I-85 in
the same location as the first corridor. It passes through
areas of steep slope, but does not appear to cross any
portion of the Eno River State Park and is away from the
Rhodes Creek Wildlife Corridor. This second corridor is also
consistent with the alignment of Eno Drive as depicted on the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
The thoroughfare plan alignment was also used as the basis
for another recommendation in the adopted New Hope Creek
Plan, a bike and pedestrian way adjacent to Eno Drive.
Recommendation
While we have concerns about any highway proposed for
Orange County, we recognize that the second corridor is most
consistent with adopted regional plans, whereas the first
corridor clearly is not. We, therefore, recommend that the
second corridor be considered for additional detailed study
and that the first corridor be removed from further
consideration.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this most
important project. We shall look forward to receiving a
detailed presentation on the Corridor Study when the
consultant and DOT staff meet with us on April 21, 1992.
Sincere y,
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Orange County Board of ommissioners
EXHIBIT C-6, p.2

0

L'

' ©QQ4gQ
o ?y pE?D URy?n
© c'`:

4 tl8 69'•• ?
` D
e o?• •:Qo

' CAbylP
°p©oov
CITY OF MEDICINE

CITY OF DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
101 CITY HALL PLAZA
DURIIAM, NORTIi CAROLINA 27701
[phone]
March 29, 1993
Mr. Roy Bruce, PE
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
3725 National Drive, Suite 123
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE DURHAM NORTHWEST
AND NORTHEAST LOOPS (ENO DRIVE)
' Dear Mr. Bruce:
I would like to bring to your attention some specific problems associated with
' one of the proposed roadway routes under study as part of the Durham Northwest and
Northeast Loop (Eno Drive) EIS Study. The specific route in question is referred to on
your Corridor Study Map as segments B-15, B-16, B-17, and B-18.

This proposed roadway corridor would pass through the northern section of the
Croasdaile Farms development. Croasdaile Farms is a 1,000 acre residential
development that developed a detailed master plan and underwent a related rezoning
with the City of Durham in 1986. The developers have been actively developing the
property since that time. The detailed development plan that accompanied that
rezoning specifically shows the layout of single-family neighborhoods in the area of the
proposed "Croasdaile Farms" corridor. I would like to mention two specific serious
problems that a roadway through this corridor would create:
Topographical and Environmental Problems -- The proposed corridor
crosses several deep ravines with elevation changes of close to 50 feet.
Construction of a major roadway in these locations would cause severe
environmental impacts on both proposed open space natural areas now
planned in these locations and in the decreased water quality in the
immediate creeks and in the downstream Crystal Lake due to stormwater
runoff and other impacts. The area in this corridor has some of the
steepest topography in this entire vicinity and would appear to present
environmental problems not found in other locations, such as the
alternate route being studied along Rose of Sharon Road, north of the
Croasdaile Farms corridor.
EXHIBIT C-7, p.1
Mr. Roy Bruce
Re: Environmental Impact Statement
March 29, 1993
Page (2) ,
2. Impacts on Existing and Planned Residential Neighborhoods --
Construction of a major roadway along the Croasdaile Farms corridor
would have a devastating impact on actively proposed residential
neighborhoods in this vicinity. Roadway development along this corridor
would directly result in the loss of 40 residential lots planned in the
Croasdaile Farms development and would result in the loss of many
additional lots made unbuildable or inaccessible by the roadway
construction. Purchase of right-of-way through this location would
therefore be much more expensive than vacant land in areas where there
is no active development underway. Likewise, the development of this
roadway along the northern corridor on Rose of Sharon Road would have
much less impact and would be much less expensive. In addition,
existing residential development to the north and south of these
developments would be impacted by the proposed corridor through
Croasdaile Farms. Certain sections of Croasdaile Farms to the south and
Cabe's Mill subdivision to the north of the corridor were specifically
developed and laid out based on an assumption of major traffic in the
area being carried along the Rose of Sharon corridor. In fact, numerous
existing sewer outfalls and other infrastructure cross through the
Croasdaile Farms corridor that would have to be readjusted substantially
in order to permit a major roadway in that location. Lastly, the
Croasdaile Farms development plan reserves and dedicates a 100 ft.
right-of-way following the Rose of Sharon/Hillandale corridor (B-14, B-17,
B-18, and B-25) that would also lower the public cost of roadway
construction versus the Croasdaile Farms corridor.
In summary, it seems clear to me that the proposed environmental and
neighborhood impacts of the proposed Croasdaile Farms corridor are extremely high
and unacceptable, particularly in comparison with the sounder environmental,
residential and lower cost alternative that exists along the Rose of Sharon and
Hillandale Road corridor to the north. In fact, these same type of concerns were
analyzed in designating that corridor as the preferred Eno Drive route on our adopted
Thoroughfare Plan. I would urge that you take the abovementioned information
EXHIBIT C-7, p.2

C

J

Mr. Roy Bruce
Re: Environmental Impact Statement
March 29, 1993
Page (3)
seriously into account in carrying out your detailed studies on the remaining corridors
under consideration in the EIS study. I understand that representatives of the
Croasdaile Farms development have previously met with yourself and NCDOT
' representatives to bring these matters to your attention as well.
' If I can provide any further information on this matter, please feel free to
contact me.

OWP:DH:pab
ly,
Sin
Orville W. Powell
City Manager
' cc: Mayor Harry E. Rodenhizer, Jr. Ken Wright, City Engineer
Paul Norby, Planning Director George Beischer, Croasdaile Farms
' Owen Syrian, Transportation Director Richard N. Watson, Esquire
Dick Hails, Assistant Planning Director Cindy Sharer, NCDOT
Gail Grimes, NCDOT

EXHIBIT C-7, p.3
DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
NCDOT Project No.: 6.358001T (R-2630) & (R-2631)
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING AND
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
May 13, 1992
Review of Public Comments
Comment Sheets Distributed: 1250
Comment Sheets Returned: 132
Comment Sheets Returned by Zip Code:
27703: 6 27707: 6 _Z
27704: 36 - . '? fro 27712: 64 n t
27705: 6 27713: 5 (J
Other: 9
Overview of Comments
Northwest Loop
Reasons to locate south of the Eno River:
- Some of the original corridor has right-of-way reserved
- Shorter length roadway - less cost
- Eliminate two crossings of the Eno River
- Environmental concerns associated with the Eno River
- Future radial routes could connect to roadway without crossing the Eno River
Reasons to locate north of the Eno River:
- Roadway would better serve future growth of north Durham
- Could widen existing Umstead, Latta, and Infinity Roads
- Elderly living at John F. Kennedy towers would be affected
- Traffic traveling south would be dispersed sooner
Northeast Loop
Reasons to locate on the western corridors:
- Miami Boulevard gives direct access to Research Triangle Park
- Shorter length roadway - less cost
- Maximize distance from Falls Lake Watershed
Reasons to locate on the eastern corridors:
-- Wetlands in the vicinity of Mineral Springs Road and Wake Forest Highway
- Existing congestion and development at the intersection of Mineral Springs Road and
WakeForest Highway
- Fewer homes impacted
DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
NCDOT Project No.: 6.358001T (R-2630) & (R-2631)
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING AND
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Environmentally Sensitive Area Legend Map Plant Species BLUE Status

Number Scientific Name Common Name N.C. U.S.
1 - Liatris squarrulosa Earle's Blazing Star SR
2 - Lithospermum canescens Hoary Puccoon SR
3 - Baptisia australis Prarie Blue Wild Indigo C
4 - Enchinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E-SC C2
5 - Silphium terebinthenaceum Prarie Dock C
6 - Ruellia humilis Low Wild-petunia SR
7 - Scutellaria leonardii Shale-barren Skullcap C
8 - Sencerio pauperculus Balsam Ragwort SR
9 - Delphinium Exaltatum Tall Larkspur E-SC C2
10 - Lithospermacn canescens Hoary Puccoon SR
11 - Scutellaria leonardii Shale-barren Skullcap C
12 - Silphium terebinthinaceum Prarie Dock C
13 - Baptisia australis Prarie Blue Wild Indigo C
14 - Ruellia humilis Low Wild-petunia SR
16 - Nestronia umbellula Nestronia C C2
17 - Cardamine douglassii Douglass's Bittercress SR
18 - Isopyrum biternatum Atlantic Isopyrum SR
20 - Panax quinquelolius Ginseng SR-SC
38 - Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E-SC C2
39 - Silphium terebinthinaceum Prarie Dock C
42 - Agalinis decemloba Piedmont Gerardia SR
45 - Aster laevis var. concinnus Smooth Blue Aster C
46 - Berberis canadensis American Barberry SR
48 - Carex meadii Meade's Sedge SR
49 - Berberis canadensis American Barberry SR
50 - Eupatorium incarnatum Pink Thoroughwort SR
52 - Parthenium auriculatum Glade Wild Quinine SR
53 - Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia SR
55 - Scirpus pendulus Rufous Bulrush SR
58 - Solidago rigida ssp. glabrata Southeastern Bold Goldenrod SR
59 - Matelea decipiens Glade Milkvine SR
61 - Scutellaria leonardii Shale-barren Skullcap C
Map Animal Species
Number Scientific Name
1 - Amblophites cavifrons
2 - Fusconaia masoni
3 - Villosa constricts
4 - Etheostoma Collis
6 - Amblophites cavifrons
7 - Necturus lewisii
9 - Gomphus septima

VIOLET ? - -
?
? Status
Common Name N. C. U.S.
Roanoke Bass SR
Atlantic Pigtoe T
Notched Rainbow SR
Carolina Darter SC
Roanoke Bass SR
Neuse River Waterdog Sc 3C
Septima's Clubtail Dragonfly SR C2
RED
Map
Number Natural Heritage Area
1 - Eno River Park Natural Areas Cabelands
2 - Eno River Park Natural Areas Pump Station
5 - Penny's Bend
6 - Catsburg Bluff
ORANGE
Map
Number Natural Area
1 - Upper Lick Creek Slopes
2 - Goodwin-Infinity Remnant Glade
3 - Garrard Slopes
4 - West Rhododendron Bluffs
5 - East Rhododendron Bluffs
6 - Hebron Rd. Remnant Glade
7 - Wanderlust Remnant Glade
8 - Catsburg Remnant Glade
9 - Penny's Bend-Eno River
10 - Catsburg Natural Area
13 - Eno River State Park
GREEN
Map
Number Natural Community
1 - Mesic Mixed Hardwoods
6 - Piedmont Coastal Plain Heath Bluff
9 - Xeric Hardpan Forest
OLIVE
Map
Number Geologic Formation
1 - Diabase Sill
North Carolina Status for Plant Species
E = Endangered Any species of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy. Endangered species may not be
removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for research,
propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species. Sale or
distribution of wild-collected Endangered Species is not permitted.
SC = Special Concern Any species of plant which requires population monitoring, but which may be
collected and sold under specific regulations.
C = Candidate Any species for which their is not enough evidence of declining numbers or
threats to the species in North Carolina, but which, because of small numbers of
populations, rare habitat, or distribution, may become threatened in the future but
for which sufficient information is not currently available to support such a status
classification.
SR = Significantly Rare Any other species which has not been determined as an Endangered
Threatened, or Special Concern, or Candidate species, but which has ben
determined to need monitoring. For most species in this category, actual
biological status has not been determined, either because taxonomic
validity is unresolved, or because the species is frequently overlooked in
the field and could be more common than present data indicate, or
because it is a peripheral species common in adjacent state.
Fedral Status for Plant Species
C2 = Candidate 2 A taxon for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there
are not enough data to support listing as a endangered or threatened at this time.
Listing is "warranted but precluded by other pending proposals of higher
priority." The Fish and Wildlife Service is "directed to make prompt use of the
emergency listing provisions if the well being of any such species is at significant
risk."
North Carolina Status for Animal Species
T = Threatened Any native or once native species of wild animal which is likely to become an
endangered species' within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
SC = Special Concern Any species of wild animal or once native to North Carolina which is determined
by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be
taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article (Article 25
of Chapter 113 of the Genera Statutes).
SR = Significantly Rare Any other species which has not been determined as an Endangered
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined to need monitoring. (This is an
NC Natural Heritage Program designation.)
Federal Status for Animal Species
C2 = Candidate 2 A taxon for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there
are not enough data to support listing as a endangered or threatened at this time.
Listing is "warranted but precluded by other pending proposals of higher
priority." The Fish and Wildlife Service is "directed to make prompt use of the
emergency listing provisions if the well being of any such species is at significant
risk."
3C = Candidate 3C A taxon that has proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously
believed and/or those that are not subject to any identifiable threat.
N

Srnq,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor October 17, 1991 George T Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary [director
MEMORAND
Rcponal o1(iccs
Asheville TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
704/251-6208
FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning Branch
ISyetteville
919/486-1541 SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0171; EIS Scope Request for Proposed
Mooresville Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridors
7(4/6(3 1699
Raleigh This memo is in response to an NCDOT request for comments on
919/733-2314 the proposed highway improvement. The responses will be used by
Washington NCDOT to assist in preparation an environmental impact statement.
919/946-6481 The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
has reviewed the scoping request and offers the following
Wilt»ington comments and recommendations regarding potential impacts on
919/395-39(x) water quality and wetlands.
Winston-Salem
919/89(17007 Water OualltV
A project of this magnitude has the potential to impact
surface waters in several ways. These include sedimentation from
highway construction, stormwater runoff from the completed road,
and nonpoint source runoff associated with development stimulated
by the project.
Implementation and conscientious maintenance of sediment
control BMPs during project construction should help minimize
construction impacts. However, onsite sediment control measures
are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent of the
sediment eroded at a site. The EIS should discuss sediment
trapping capability of control measures and assess what impacts,
if any, will result from sediment that escapes the site.
Highway stormwater runoff can adversely impact the quality of
nearby receiving waters where traffic levels are sufficiently
high. It is anticipated that the traffic flow on this proposed
highway could be high enough to cause such impacts unless
measures are taken to control or minimize them. The EIS should
include a section on water quality impacts that discusses highway
runoff, impacts to receiving streams and measures, if warranted,
to minimize or control these impacts. This section should also
discuss nonpoint source runoff from secondary development
associated with the highway project.
N) liox 29515, R.Jcigh. N,,rih ( iml,tm )7o260Ki5 lc1c0h,me 919 173 Pollution Prevention Pav.
An I ?pial ( )prNmunnv Atfi-,m r A,mm I mpl,n„
Melba McGee
October 17, 1991
Page 2
Wetlands
The other area of concern is wetlands. Wetlands are
considered by NCDEM to be waters of the state. Filling or
alteration of wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers will require a 401 Certification from this office.
NCDOT is urged to avoid wetlands impacts, if possible. However,
if there will be unavoidable impacts, DEM requests that the
following information be contained within the EIS. This
information will be useful in reviewing the project from the
standpoint of issuance of a 401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area (preferably
certified by the Corps of Engineers);
2. A description of the type(s) and acreage(s) of wetlands
that could be impacted within the project corridor(s). The
wetlands description should include an assessment of wetlands
values and a vegetation list for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
92-0171.mem/SEPA4
cc: Ron Ferrell
-"4;&
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
1
N14-N ?1tl?eST + A rL&4 LvoO Corf,?orJ
l? ?? ? ? ? L S S c?(t.?
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 Cj Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Ir Coastal Management !,Water Planning

? Mooresville eter El Water Resources Lnvironmental Health
roundwater ildlife
Solid Waste Management
sleigh
t Land Quality Engineer crest Resources Cl Radiation Protection
Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources avid Foster

? Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant
? Others arks and Recreation ther (specify)

Vi
l
?
TE

?
l ronmenta
Management L1
Ar
?? n
Winston-Salem
:..?
1 ;
a
'
ar-
SEp 20 1991
Manager Sign-Off/Region: , r1, , T _ t t Date: I ouse Reviewer/Agency:
S 'k'7-CT ION
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Revlewer.complete individual response.
4 Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated In attached comments (authority(les) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provlpiops 9f ,
NEPA and SEPA
U<ther (specify and attach comments)

RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 104
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
/4? /?XF Z-
I
,i
/?,/ Ii IIVL-?- Zooy,?>

?4, Lr S 7Q

It

?M APR 2$1992
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
DIY. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGMNT.
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
April 21, 1992
Mr. George Everett, Director
DEHNR - Environmental Management Div.
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Everett:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

APR
d _. I..
SEC-1:10N
SUBJECT: Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop, Durham and Orange Counties,
TIP No. R-2630/2631, Project No. 6.358001T
A meeting of environmental review agencies will be held on May 13, 1992 at
10:00 A.M. to discuss the environmental issues related to preliminary
alternative corridors for this project. The meeting will be held in Room
470 of the Highway Building in Raleigh.
The Durham Northwest/Northeast loop extends from I-85 west of Durham to
US 70 east of Durham. The proposed road will be a four lane divided and
five lane arterial facility on 100 to 150 feet minimum right of way. A
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared for the
project and a series of preliminary alternative corridors have been
developed. Your assistance is requested in identifying reasonable and
feasible alternatives for detailed study in the DEIS.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Cindy
Sharer, P. E., Project Manager, at [phone].
Yours truly,
???' U err--?)
L. J. ard, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
%
.'O Ul U 3
Op m -S
? N =
(D z
-
cc (D
1 O
N 5
a mcn
z (D
O J• <
-1 V) J. m
r+ 0-5 <
S C O (D
'S = -S
('> << B (D
w (D r+
-s cn = r+
O r+ r+
? I a
J. (D J
J.
r+ 3 -S
W (D
= r)
of r+
N to O
v (D -5
rn =4
O (D
-P. -3
I r+
? J.
00 <
0
m
D
m ; y
0 3
= z<mm
o??cn z O
00=0 -1 -n
X ?Z 0 z
Dojo m
-?
DN?2 ;u 'i
0 G) D I
Z2Zf to D
D G) >
v N ? 0
Z
q D
0
z
j\

J

Lk o.?
s?

$Ire

ITf-

?r7C- 11I 1a
L??? .?
ood1

I V

L; C-k

etc Low' -
L
I
is L?
a.3
I .
1 .?
d. g
t?. a-
o. I
o. ?
a- 3
6
I. I
l / v
O. O
o- a