20000287 Ver 1_Complete File_20000307

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
ITk?WAA
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 29, 2000
Durham County
DWQ Project No. 000287
APPROVAL OF 401Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Neuse River Buffer Rules
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
4aleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, as described in your application dated March 1, 2000, and in accordance with the
attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in 20 linear feet of streams for the purpose
of widening and improving T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)from East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to
Miami Boulevard (SR 1959). After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3197. Certification 3197 corresponds to Nationwide Permit
Number 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse River buffer rules
(15A NCAC 2B .033). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and
Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new
owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with
all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total impacts to
streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). ). This approval shall expire with the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or
as otherwise provided in the General Certification. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Stormwater shall be directed to sheetflow at nonerostve velocities through the protected
stream buffers.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a
hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearin-s, P.O. Box 27447, Ralekyh. N.C. 276 1 1-7447.
This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emplover 501;i, recycle&I0 c post consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
I fflk1?WAA
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
i
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP 1J-330913\wqc\000287wgc.doc
Sincerely,
rr . Stev
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Centcr Rnlcigh, North Carolina 27699-162 1
Telephone [phone] FA X -33-9959
An Equal Opportunity Aftirmatice Action Gutpluvci 30'%,- rccyclcd/101%<', post consumer paper
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 23 (APPROVED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B
.0200 for the discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas
as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23). This Certification
replaces Water Quality Certification Number 2670 issued on January 21,
1992 and Water Quality Certification Number 2734 issued on May 1 1993.
This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize
i
Nationwide Permit 23 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the
DWQ
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified
category of activity will not violate applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of waters or
wetlands for this General Certification requires written
notification to the Division of Water Quality regarding the
extent of impact to waters and wetlands;
2. Two copies shall be submitted to DWQ at the time of
notification in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a);
3. Fill or alteration of more than one acre (0.45 ha) of
wetlands will require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC .0506 (h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may t i_ e the .,fate's
of 3 03/29/2000 I : ?5 I'M
Wetland Restoration Program;
4. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters)
or streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may utilize the state's
Wetland Restoration Program;
5. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which
equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent edition of
the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices) are utilized to prevent
i exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as
trout by DWQ; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes
and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
6. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands
or waters shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project;
7. If an environmental document is required, this Certification
is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
8. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to
projects proposed under this Certification in order to ensure
compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards;
9. If the project is not completed within three years from the
date of the first notification to DWQ, then the applicant
will again need to notify DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set
03/29/2000 12 ;5 P NI
forth by a specific fill project shall result in revocation of
this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal
and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may
require submission of a formal application for individual
certification for any project in this category of activity, if it is
determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse
effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses
of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or
group of applications prior to a Certification decision if deemed
i
in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
gencert.23
WQC # 3107
i 3 03/29/.000 I ':. i PM
ST TE
7 2000
wr°
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGt1, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 1, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office'
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 n A n n ..
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer
SUBJECT: Durham County, Widening of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
from East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR
1959), Federal Project No. STP-2028(1), State Project No.
8.2352701, TIP No. U-3309B.
4011nSI rF'??
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. T.W. Alexander Drive will be widened to a four-lane divided shoulder facility
with a 9.0-m (30-ft) raised grass median. The typical cross section includes 1.2-m (4-ft)
paved shoulders within the 2.4-m (8-ft) usable shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.
The existing 2.4-m (8 ft) wide by 1.2-m (4 ft) high reinforced concrete box culvert
located in Stirrup Iron Creek will be retained and extended 6 meters (20 ft) to
accommodate the proposed improvements. Also, an additional 48-inch concrete pipe will
be installed parallel to the existing culvert. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by
the construction of the proposed project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions of need additional information, please call Mrs. LeiLani Paugh
at 733-1149.
Sincerely,
. G 4L
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Unit
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Bryan Kluchar, PD&EA Project Planning Engineer
Durham County
T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
From NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)
Research Triangle Park/Durham
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2028(1)
State Project No. 8.2352701
T.I.P. No. U-3309 B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
q4
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Bran Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
97a C.
DatE lk?ftlas Graf, P. E.
on Administrator, FHWA
Durham County
T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
From NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)
Research Triangle Park/Durham
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2028(1)
State Project No. 8.2352701
T.I.P. No. U-3309 B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1999
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
By: \\
of?? r\ ARoli
?;•• FESS/p••:1y
?9
n S SEAL
Clarence W. Coleman, P. E. = y; 2 2 9 5 a
Project Development Engineer '??2'•:4'GfNE??'
,'1111 ?. COy`\\\\
l?1111111111111\\
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Egineer, Unit Head
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Durham County
T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
From NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)
Research Triangle Park/Durham
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2028(1)
State Project No. 8.2352701
T.I.P. No. U-3309 B
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
NCDOT, Research Triangle Foundation, City of Durham
The Research Triangle Foundation and the City of Durham formally requested
extending the existing pedestrian/jogging path. NCDOT agrees extending trail is justified
and will participate in 80 percent of the path's total cost within the Special Tax District of
Research Triangle Park, and 50 percent of the total cost of the path within the Durham
City Limits. NCDOT's participation will be limited to a maximum of 2 percent of the
total project construction cost. The Research Triangle Foundation and the City of
Durham will be responsible for the remaining costs of extending the pedestrian/jogging
path, respectively, as outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
August, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

II
III
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description of Project
B. Proposed Improvements
1. Cross Section
2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit
3. Right of way
4. Drainage Structures
5. Bicycle Provisions
6. Pedestrian/Jogging Path
7. Access Control
8. Intersection and Type of Control
9. Special Permits Required
10. Changes in the State Highway System
11. Cost Estimates
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
B. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Existing Cross Section
2. Existing Right of Way
3. Degree of Roadside Interference
4. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
5. Speed Limit
6. Utilities
7. School Bus Data
8. Railroad Crossing
9. Greenways
C. Projected Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
1. Unsignalized Intersections
2. Signalized Intersections
D. Accident Record
E. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Function
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Recommended Alternative
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
C. Transportation System Management Alternative and Other
Alternatives to Improve Traffic Capacity Existing Roads 9
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative 9
IV. COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS 10
A. Project Area Profile 10
1. Population 10
2. Housing Market 10
3. Business Activity/Employment Centers 10
4. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions 10
a. Schools, Libraries, Post Offices,
Churches, Etc. 10
b. Police, Fire, and Emergency Services 10
5. Land Use Planning 11
a. Existing Plans 11
b. Existing Zoning/Land Use 11
C. Future Changes I 1
B. Project Impact Assessment 11
1. Economic Development Issues 11
a. Local/Regional Goals and Objectives 11
b. Current Conditions 12
C. Direct/Secondary Impacts 14
d. Cumulative Impacts 15
2. Social Issues 15
a. Accessibility and Parking - 15
b. Relocations/Tax Base Changes 15
C. Community Stability/
Neighborhood Cohesion 15
d. Environmental Justice 15
3. Farmland 16
4. Scenic Rivers 17
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION 17
A. Cultural Resources 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
B. Natural Environment
I . Physical Resources
a. Soils
b. Water Resources
2. Biotic Resources
a. Biotic Communities
b. Maintained/Disturbed Communities
C. Animal Communities
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
3 Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
b. Permits
C. Mitigation
d. Avoidance
e. Minimization
f. Compensatory Mitigation
g. Rare and Protected Species
h. Federally-Protected Species
i. Federal Species of Concern and
State Listed Species
C. Air Quality Analysis and
Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analyses
D. Construction Impacts
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
C. Local Agencies
D. Public Hearing
VII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PAGE
17
17
18
18
20
21
21
22
22
24
24
24
25
26
26
27
27
27
29
30
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
Figure IA- Vicinity Map
Figure 113- Location Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Proposed 4-Lane Divided Shoulder Section
Figure 4 - Five-Lane Typical Cross Section
Figures 4A IBM/Rhone-Poulenc/T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
Proposed Intersection
Figure 413 Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)/T.W. Alexander Drive (SR
2028) Proposed Intersection
Figure 5 1998/2025 Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Projections
Figure 6 - Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan
TABLES
Table I - Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) with Proposed
Improvements
Table 2 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Table 3 - Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Table 4 - Federal Species of Concern for Durham County
APPF.NDTX
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Agency and Municipal Comments
Durham County
T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)
Research Triangle Park/Durham
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2028(1)
State Project No. 8.2352701
T.I.P. No. U-3309 B
SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Administrative Action, Categorical Exclusion.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) to multi-lanes,
from east of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) in
Research Triangle Park and the City of Durham (See Figures 1 A and 1 B for
project location). The proposed improvements will improve traffic flow and
safety along T.W. Alexander Drive.
This project is included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.). The estimated project cost in the T.I.P. is $3,462,300, which
includes $612,300 for right of way and $2,850,000 for construction. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002, and
construction is scheduled to be let inFFY 2003.
3. Alternatives Considered
A. Recommended Alternative
It is recommended that T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) be
widened to a four-lane divided shoulder facility with a 9.0-meter (30-foot
raised grass median), from east of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami
Boulevard (SR 1959) in the Research Triangle Park and Durham. in
Durham County (See Figures ). The typical cross section includes 1.2-
meter (4-foot) paved shoulders within 2.4-meter (8-foot) usable shoulders.
The proposed 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders will accommodate
bicycle traffic.
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a
practical alternative to this highway project. Mass transit, staggering work
11
hours. car-pooling. and van-pooling are possible ways to reduce highway
congestion; however, these congestion management measures are not
within the control of NCDOT and will not serve the purpose and need for
the project alone.
C. Transportation System Management Alternative and Other
Alternatives to Improve Traffic Capacity of Existing Roads
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative
includes limited construction activities designed to maximize the
efficiency of the present transportation system. TSM measures enhance
the operations of a facility, while minimizing capital outlay. These
measures can include physical improvements to the roadway network as
well as operational improvements.
Although TSM measures will improve traffic safety and
operations, they will not eliminate the need for additional capacity on the
roadway network. Therefore, TSM techniques are eliminated from further
consideration as an alternative to new roadway construction to the existing
roadway.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during project
development. The "do nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to
future traffic operations in the area. Enhanced safety, greater traffic
carrying capacity, and improved mobility are needed from a facility that
connects the existing radials. For these reasons, the '!do nothing"
alternative was rejected.
4. Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will provide an overall positive benefit to Research
Triangle Park and the City of Durham. The project will improve traffic flow and
increase safety by reducing travel times and providing more efficient vehicle
operation. The provision of 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders will allow
bicyclists to travel along the shoulder of the roadway.
No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated
as a result of the project.
No adverse effects on historic structures and properties, archaeological
sites, streams, wetlands, federally protected species, hazardous waste sites, or
community cohesion are expected as a result of project construction. Impacts on
noise levels and air quality in the project area will be insignificant. No High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Water, or waters classified as WS-I and
WS-II are located within the project limits, or within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of

_! 20
the project study area. Due to the proposed culvert extension at Stirrup Iron ,--
Creek. a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 14 Permit and a Section 401
Water Quality General Certification from Division of Water Quality are likely to
be required. The majority of the project area consists of disturbed habitats;
therefore, impacts to fauna nor flora are anticipated to be minimal.
Coordination
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following
federal, state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies
noted with an asterisk (*).
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Triangle Transit Authority
*Research Triangle Foundation
*City of Durham
* Denotes agencies from which input was received
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
6. Basis for Categorical Exclusion
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it
was determined the proposed action will not have significant adverse effects upon the
human or natural environment. The project has been reviewed by appropriate state and
local agencies and no objections have been raised. Therefore, a Federal Categorical
Exclusion is applicable for this project.
Durham County
T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
From NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR. 1959)
Research Triangle Park/Durham
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2028(1)
State Project No. 8.2352701
T.I.P. No. U-3309 B
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) to multi-lanes, from east of NC 147
(Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) in Research Triangle Park and Durham (See
Figures 1 A and I B for project location). The proposed improvements will improve traffic flow
and safety along Alexander Drive.
This project is included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
The estimated project cost in the T.I.P. is $3,462,300, which includes $612,300 for right of way.
$2.850,000 for construction. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 2002, and construction is scheduled to be let in FFY 2003.
T.I.P. Project Number U-3309 A proposes to widen T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
from Cornwallis Road (SR 1121) to west of NC 147 (Durham Freeway). According to the 2000-
2006 T.I.P., the estimated project cost for T.I.P. No. U-3309 A is $2,400,000, which includes
$1.550,000 for right of way acquisition, and $1,850,000 for construction. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2006 and construction in FFY 2007.
B. Proposed Improvements
Cross Section
The project proposes to widen T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) to a four-lane
divided shoulder section with a 9.0-meter (30-foot) raised grass median. The typical
cross section includes 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders within 2.4-meter (8-foot) usable
shoulders. This cross section includes an additional 0.6 meter (2 feet) of pavement to
each shoulder width to accommodate bicycle traffic (See Figure 3).

2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit
The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 80 kilometers per
hour (km/h) [50 miles per hour (mph)]. The posted speed limit is expected to remain 72
km/h (45 mph).
3. Right of way
The proposed right of way width is 45 meters (150 feet). Temporary construction
easements, permanent drainage easements, and additional right of way will be required
in some areas along the project.
4. Drainage Structures
The existing 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide by 1.2-meter (4-foot) high reinforced
concrete box culvert located at Stirrup Iron Creek will be retained and extended
approximately 6 meters (20 feet) to accommodate the proposed improvements. Also, an
additional 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe will be installed parallel to the existing
culvert.
5. Bicycle Provisions
The proposed 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders will accommodate bicycle
traffic.
6. Pedestrian/Jogging Path
The Research Triangle Foundation and the City of Durham have requested the
existing 2.4-meter (8-foot) pedestrian/jogging path be retained and extended from the
Rhone-Poulenc entrance to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) (See letters in Appendix B).
The cost of replacing the existing pedestrian/jogging path will be covered by NCDOT,
while the path extension will be covered by the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy funding
agreement. According to this policy, NCDOT will contribute 80% of the total cost of
extending the path within Research Triangle Special Tax District, which is bounded by
the railroad tracks (See Figure 2). The Research Triangle Foundation will be responsible
for the remainder of the associated costs within its jurisdiction. NCDOT will contribute
50% of the total cost of the path within the Durham City Limits, while the City will be
responsible for the remaining associated costs.
7. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project.
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the proposed project will remain at grade. The
IBM/Rhone-Poulenc/T.W. Alexander Drive intersection and the Miami Boulevard (SR
1959)/T. W. Alexander Drive intersection will both remain signalized.
The recommended treatment of each signalized intersection is discussed as
follows (please refer to Figures 4A and 4B for sketches of each intersection treatment):
IBM/Rhone-Poulenc/T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028
Two exclusive left turn lanes, and a shared through and right turn lane are
proposed for the northbound IBM driveway. One exclusive left turn lane. and a shared
through and right turn lane are proposed for the southbound Rhone-Poulenc driveway.
An exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane are
proposed for eastbound T.W. Alexander Drive. An exclusive left turn lane, two through
lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane are proposed for westbound T.W. Alexander Drive.
Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)/T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane
are proposed for northbound Miami Boulevard. One exclusive left turn lane, two through
lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane are proposed for southbound Miami Boulevard.
Two exclusive left turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane are
proposed for eastbound T.W. Alexander Drive. One exclusive left turn lane, two through
lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane are proposed for westbound T.W. Alexander Drive.
9. Special Permits Required
Due to the proposed culvert extension at Stirrup Iron Creek, a U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide 14 Permit and a Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification from Division of Water Quality are likely to be required.
10. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are currently anticipated.
11. Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of the recommended improvements is as follows:
Construction $ 1,900,000
Right of way, Utilities $ 612,300
Total Project Cost $ T'3=
4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the capacity and safety of T.W. Alexander Drive
(SR 2028) for existing and future traffic volumes. As discussed in Section II.E. Alexander Drive
is an important connection in the roadway network at Research Triangle Park. The proposed
project will eliminate the "bottleneck" which currently exists between NC 147 (Durham
Freeway) and Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) by widening Alexander Drive to a four-lane, median
divided facility. In addition, the proposed project will improve the traffic carrying capacity of
the road and reduce the potential for accidents (See Sections II.C and II.D for discussion).
B. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) between NC 147
(Durham Freeway) and Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) is a two-lane, 7.9-meter (26-foot)
facility with 2.4 -6.0 meters (8 to 20 foot) shoulders.
2. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way width is 45 meters (150 feet).
I Degree of Roadside Interference
No substantial roadside interference exists.
4. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following streets intersect T.W. Alexander Drive at grade and are
controlled as noted:
Road Type of Control
GTE South Service Road Stop Sign
IBM\Rhone-Poulenc Signalized
Weck Drive (SR 1968) Stop Sign
IBM Building 651 Stop Sign
Miami Boulevard Signalized

Speed Limit
The proposed speed limit is 72 km/h (45 mph). which is the existing speed limit
along this section of T.W. Alexander Drive.
6. Utilities
All major utilities (electric, water, sanitary sewer, telecommunications, and
natural gas) are located on the project and will be accommodated during and after
construction of the project. According to NCDOT standards, utility impacts are
anticipated to be high.
7. School Bus Data
Five buses travel this section of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) twice a day.
8. Railroad Crossing
The proposed widening will pass directly under the North Carolina Railroad's
(NCRR) bridge (Bridge Number 258) at railroad milepost H-61.30. This bridge is on the
"H" line,which runs from Goldsboro to Greensboro, is owned by the North Carolina
Railroad Company and leased to Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). A single mainline
track currently crosses Bridge Number 258 in non-signalized territory. Approximately,
twelve trains travel this area daily, including the State of North Carolina's two Amtrak
passenger trains, Carolinian and Piedmont. The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) is
planning a regional rail transit system along this railroad corridor. TTA preliminary
plans show the construction of two bridges east of Bridge Number 258 to support their
regional rail and an additional freight track to be constructed west of the existing track.
This portion of the "H" line going from Raleigh to Greensboro, which is inclusive
of this bridge, is considered part of the Piedmont High Speed Corridor (PHSC). PSHC is''
one of the federally designated high speed rail corridors that runs from Washington. D.C.,
through Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte. The NCDOT Rail Division is studying the
"H" line between Cary and Durham as one of the alternative routes for high-speed rail
service. Environmental work and documentation are in the preliminary stages for the
PSHC.
After review of the proposed improvements to T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028).
both NCDOT's Rail Division and the TTA have concluded the project will not affect
Bridge Number 258. In addition, the proposed highway Improvements will not impact
TTA's proposed regional rail transit system or the proposed Piedmont High Speed
Corridor.
6
9. Greenwavs
There are no existing or planned greenways in the project area.
C. Projected Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The estimated 1998 average daily traffic (ADT) along this section of T.W. Alexander
Drive ranges from 16,500 vehicles per day (vpd) near NC 147 (Durham Freeway). to 17,300 vpd
near Miami Boulevard (SR 1959). In the design year 2025, traffic volumes are expected to range
from 31,100 to 31,900 vpd (See Figure 5).
Levels of service are used to describe the operating conditions on a street or highway.
When traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of a roadway or intersection, operating
levels of service (LOS) are diminished and congestion results. Simply defined. level of service is
a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions of traffic along a roadway or at an
intersection of two roadways. Six (6) levels of service are defined from A to F, with LOS A the
best and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions.
For free flowing sections of roadway, level of service is a measure of traffic density and
speed. For signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of stopped delay.
Generally, in suburban areas with traffic signals spaced less than 1.6 km (1.0 miles) apart, the
traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is determined by the ability of the signalized intersections
to accommodate the traffic volumes. The studied section of T. W. Alexander Drive has traffic
signals at the IBM/Rhone-Poulenc intersection and the Miami Boulevard intersection, and its
traffic carrying capacity is dependent upon the ability of the intersections to accommodate traffic
volumes.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Service A - Level A describes operations with delay times of less than
5 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when vehicle
progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles
arrive during.the green phase of the traffic signal. Most
vehicles do not stop at all.
Level of Service B - Level B describes operations with delay in the range of 5 to
15 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good
progression and short signal cycle lengths. More vehicles
stop than for level A, causing higher levels of average
delay.
Level of Service C - Level C describes operations with delay in the range of 15
to 25 seconds per vehicle. Vehicle progression is generally
fair. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this
level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant,
although many pass through the intersection without
stopping.
7
Level of Service D - Level D describes operations with delay in the range of'25
to 40 seconds per vehicle. At level D. the influence of
congestion is more noticeable. Longer delays may result
from a combination of unfavorable progression and long
cycle lengths. Many vehicles stop. and the proportion of
vehicles that do not stop declines. Individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
Level of Service E - Level E describes operations with delay between 40 and 60
seconds per vehicle. This is the limit of acceptable delay.
The high delay values indicate poor progression and long
cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
Level of Service F - Level F describes operations with delay in excess of 60
seconds per vehicle. This level is considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. This condition occurs when
arriving vehicles exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be
contributing causes to such delay levels.
Unsignalized Intersections
Two intersections along the project with current (1998) average daily traffic
volumes exceeding 300 vehicles per day are Weck Drive (SR 1968) and the IBM
Building 651 entrance. A "T" type intersection exists at both intersections. Signalization
is not recommended for the Week Drive intersection. Based on results of highway
capacity analysis, an exclusive right turn lane is recommended for westbound T.W.
Alexander Drive (SR 2028). In addition, islands are recommended for each approach of
this intersection to channelize traffic. The Area Traffic Engineer will analyze this
intersection periodically to determine if signalization is warranted in the future. A
capacity analysis was performed at these locations to determine the current (1998) and
predicted levels of service in the design year 2025. All turning movements will operate at
Level of Service D or better through the design year.
With the proposed improvements. all movements at the IBM Building 651
intersection will operate at Level-of Service D or better through the year 2025. Therefore.
it is recommended the IBM Building 651 intersection remain unsignalized.
2. Signalized Intersections
Currently, the IBM/Rhone-Poulenc intersection and the Miami Boulevard
intersection are the two intersections along the project that are signalized. Capacity
analysis was performed at each intersection to determine the construction year (2001) and
predicted levels of service in the design year 2025. With the proposed lane configurations
described in Section LE and shown on Figures 4A and 413, both intersections are
predicted to operate at Level of Service D or better through the year 2025.
Table I
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection 2001 2025
(LOS) (LOS)
IBM/Rhone-Poulenc C D
Miami Boulevard C D
D. Accident Record
During the three year period from August 1, 1995 to August 31, 1998, ninety-two (92)
accidents occurred on T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) between NC 147 (Durham Freeway) and
Miami Boulevard (SR 2028). This resulted in an accident rate of 483.97 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm), compared to a statewide average of 247.4 acc/100mvm for
similar routes. The recommended improvements are expected to reduce the accident rate.
Rear-end collisions (22.8%), left turns (19.2%), and sideswipes (16.3 %) have been the
predominant accident types identified along the project corridor. The proposed four-lane divided
typical cross section will reduce the potential for rear-end collisions, left turn, and angle
accidents.
E. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Function
T.W. Alexander Drive is classified as a collector on the Statewide Functional
Classification System and a major thoroughfare on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan (See Figure 6). This route provides access from both NC 147 and US
70 to industries located in Research Triangle Park. Inside Research Triangle Park, Alexander
Drive collects traffic from Cornwallis Road (SR 1121), NC 147, and Miami Boulevard (SR
1959). The proposed improvements will improve the level of service (LOS) along this section of
Alexander Drive and concurs with the thoroughfare plan.
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Recommended Alternative
It is recommended that T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028) be widened to a four-lane
divided shoulder facility with a 9.0-meter (30-foot raised grass median), from east of NC 147
(Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) in the Research Triangle Park and Durham.
The typical cross section includes 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders within 2.4-meter (8-foot)
usable shoulders. An extra 0.6 meter (2 feet) of pavement has been added to each shoulder to
accommodate bicycle traffic.
In addition to bicycle accommodations, the project proposes to replace the existing off-
road. pedestrian/jogging path, which is located on the north side of Alexander Drive from east of
NC 147 to the Rhone-Poulenc entrance (See Figure 2). The pedestrian/jogging path is proposed
to be extended from the Rhone-Poulenc entrance to Miami Boulevard on the south side of
Alexander Drive. The cost of replacing the existing pedestrian/jogging path will be covered by
NCDOT, while the path's extension will be covered by the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy funding
agreement. According to this policy, NCDOT will contribute 80% of the total cost of extending
the path within Research Triangle Special Tax District. The Research Triangle Foundation will
be responsible for the remainder of the associated costs within its jurisdiction. NCDOT will
contribute 50% of the total cost of the path within the Durham City Limits, while the City will be
responsible for the remaining associated costs.
The estimated cost of the project is $3,462,300, which includes $612.300 for right of
way, $2,850,000 for construction. Right of way acquisition and construction are both scheduled
to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2001.
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative to this
highway project. Mass transit, staggering work hours, car-pooling, and van-pooling are possible
ways to reduce highway congestion; however, these congestion management measures are not
within the control of NCDOT and will not serve the purpose and need for the project alone.
C. Transportation System Management Alternative and Other Alternatives to Improve
Traffic Capacity of Existing Roads
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes limited construction
activities designed to maximize the efficiency of the present transportation system. TSM
measures enhance the operations of a facility, while minimizing capital outlay. These measures
can include physical improvements to the roadway network as well as operational improvements.
Potential TSM options within the study area that have not been considered in previously
discussed alternatives include optimizing traffic signal phases and coordinating signal operations.
Projected traffic volumes for this area exceed the capacity of existing roadways. Generally, if
traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the roadways, minor improvements to signal phases or
optimization of signal timings will not improve the level of service. _
Although TSM measures will improve traffic safety and operations, they will not
eliminate the need for additional capacity on the roadway network. Therefore. TSM techniques
are eliminated from further consideration as an alternative to new roadway construction to the
existing roadway.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during project development. The "do
nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to future traffic operations in the area. Enhanced
safety, greater traffic carrying capacity. and improved mobility are needed from a facility that
connects the existing radials. For these reasons. the "do nothing" alternative was rejected.
IV. COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Project Area Profile
Population
No people live within along this section of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
2. Housing Market
The are no homes or residential areas in close proximity to the project area.
Business Activity/Employment Centers
Durham has a well-diversified economy, which is driven by Duke University and
the research and technology firms located in Research Triangle Park. Manufacturing
companies employ over 26% of the county's work force. Retail businesses employ
almost 13% and service businesses employ almost 40%. The county's largest employers
include Duke University and Medical School (19,500), computer company IBM (13,000),
electronics firm Nortel (8,500), and chemical company Glaxo-Welcome (4,500). The
project area is located in the northern section of the Research Triangle Park and contains
the offices of several research and technology firms. The National Humanities Center,
Glaxo-Welcome, and the NC Biotechnology- Center are located west of the project area
just across NC 147. Rhone-Poulenc, an agricultural chemical company employing 448
workers, an IBM facility, an office building leased by IBM (Building 651), and a large
truck terminal are located along Alexander Drive. Another truck terminal and a shopping
plaza are located just east of the project area.
4. Public Facilities/Services
a. Schools. Libraries. Post Offices. Churches. Etc.
There are no such facilities located within the project area.
b. Police. Fire, Emergency Services
...
While police, fire, and emergency services are available, no such facilities
are located along this section of Alexander Drive.
Land Use Planning
a. Existing Plans
Durham County has an approved Durham County Land Use Plan. Also.
the County has adopted the Durham Thoroughfare Plan. Alexander Drive is
designated as a minor arterial on the Durham Thoroughfare Plan and the widening
of the road is consistent with that plan.
b. Existing Zoning/Land Use
From NC 147 east to the Norfolk Southern Railway, Alexander Drive falls
within the boundaries of the Research Triangle Park. Zoning along this segment
of the road is either RA for Research Application, or RP for Research Park.
Corporate office and research facilities are located in this area. From the railroad
tracks east to Miami Boulevard, the land is zoned with I-1, or I-2 classifications.
These allow a variety of industrial activity. * Two large corporate research and
office facilities and a trucking company terminal are located in this area. A small
Neighborhood Commercial zone lies just east of Miami Boulevard. A shopping
center occupies this parcel of land. South of the shopping center, the land is
zoned RD. This is a rural classification that restricts industrial and commercial
development, but allows large lot residential development.
Future Changes
County planners expect no changes in land use or zoning classifications in
the project area.
B. Project Impact Assessment
Economic Development Issues
a. Local/Regional Goals and Objectives
Durham County seeks to encourage residential, commercial, and industrial
development to provide jobs and housing for its population. as well as to increase
the value of its tax base. Most residential and commercial development in the
project area is undertaken by the private sector. The Durham Chamber of
Commerce carries out industrial and business recruitment activities. Durham
County has joined with the 12 adjacent counties to form the Research Triangle
Partnership to better market its advantages to potential industrial clients.
I2
b. Current Conditions
An examination of current statistics and conditions, which relate to
economic development, can often provide some insight into the future economic
development potential of an area. Current population, housing, business, and
industrial conditions in Durham County are excellent. In recognition of the
county's robust economic climate, the North Carolina Department of Commerce
has given Durham County an economic distress ranking of Tier V. Tier
designations, which run from I-V, provide an indication of the business climate in
a county. They also determine the level of economic development incentives that
the department will provide to businesses that relocate or expand in the state's
counties. Lower tier rankings indicate economic distress and entitle a county to
offer more incentives for relocating or expanding companies. A scan of several
conditions that relate to economic development in Durham County is provided
below.
• Population
Population size and growth often affect a county's ability to attract
residential and commercial development. In 1995, Durham was the state's fifth
most populous county. Between 1990 and 1997, while the state's population
grew by about 12%, the population of Durham County grew by 8.7%. During the
decade 2000-2010, Durham County's population is expected to grow by 11.5%,
while the state's is projected to expand by another 12%.
• Incomes
Income levels can indicate a county's ability to support residential and
commercial development. Durham County had a 1990 Median Household
Income of $30,526. By 1995, it's Per Capita Income ranked as the state's 5"
highest and its average wage as the 4" highest. However, some county
households still lived in poverty. Durham also had the states 57"' highest poverty
rate, and the 98" highest rate of food stamp recipiency.
• Business, Labor Force, and Unemployment
Information about a county's business climate and employment conditions
can provide insight into its ability to attract a variety of residential, commercial,
and industrial development. The Raleigh-Durham area was ranked by Fortune
magazine as the 6" best place in the country to do business. In 1995, Durham
County had the state's 10`h largest work force. In 1995, it had the state's lowest
unemployment rate and its current rate of 1.9% is almost half that of the state's
rate. In that same year, Durham County ranked 44" in gross retail sales, had the
state's 14" lowest business failure rate, had and the 19" lowest rate of new
-h
13
business formation. Over the past year, office and retail vacancy rates have held
at 5%.
• Transportation and Accessibility
Relocating industries seek areas with well-developed transportation
networks and convenient access to nearby interstate highways. The county ranks
28" in miles of paved road per square mile and 80% of the population lives within
16.1 kilometers (10 miles) of a four-lane paved road. Interstates 40 and 85 run
through the county and Raleigh-Durham International Airport is located in Wake
County near the Durham County line.
• Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity
Relocating and expanding industries are also concerned about an area's
ability to satisfy its water and sewer demands. Therefore, the state of a county's
infrastructure system, as well as its ability to improve this system, can affect its
industrial development potential. Durham County has 3 municipal wastewater
treatment plants and 79% of the county's homes are connected to a sewage
disposal system and 84% are connected to public water system. The county ranks
4'h in current treatment capacity and 2"d in surplus capacity. In fiscal capacity, the
county ranks as the state's 5'h best.
• Industrial Expansion/Relocation
Statistics that relate to industrial construction and expansion can indicate
something about an area's industrial development potential. The average age of
industrial plants in the county is 21 years, the 6'h oldest average in the state. In
1997, the county ranked V in the amount spent on new plant construction and 4"
in the jobs created from such construction. It also ranked 2"d in funds spent for
plant expansion and 13" in jobs created from expansion. The county ranks 4"' in
space available in industrial buildings and 3`d in acreage available in industrial
parks.
• Travel and Tourism
Travel and tourism is a growing part of the state's economy. Many counties
and small communities across the state are attempting to boost their local
economies by attracting tourist and visitors. Related statistics give some insight
into the potential role of tourism in an area's economy. In 1997, the county
ranked 84 'h in travel spending, 85" in travel wages, and 89" in travel employment.
14
Direct/Secondary Impacts
Completion of the project is not expected to directly encourage any
particular development. The project may, however, indirectly encourage
secondary development. The project's potential impact on various types of
development is discussed below.
• Residential
There are no undeveloped areas within the project area that allow
residential development. It is unlikely, therefore, that the project will encourage
such development.
• Commercial
There is no undeveloped commercially zoned land within the project area,
so it is unlikely that the project will encourage commercial development.
• Industrial
Traffic congestion has become a serious problem in the Research Triangle
Park Area. Traffic congestion problems can sometimes influence company
location decisions and make it difficult for companies to recruit employees. By
relieving traffic congestion along Alexander Drive, the project may attract
additional corporate offices or research facilities. If so, it might encourage some
secondary development in the area of the Research Triangle Park through which it
passes. This development mighi take the form of expansion of existing facilities
or new development. Companies located in this area such as IBM and Rhone
Poulenc own the undeveloped land around their existing facilities and might be
encouraged to expand. The Research Triangle Foundation owns a development
site just to the north of the project area which is available for development. The
attractiveness of the site might be enhanced by the improvements provided by the
project.
• Tourism
Since Alexander Drive is a local traffic artery carrying motorists to
Research Triangle Park, it is unlikely that the project will affect the role of
tourism in the county's economy.
15
d. Cumulative Impacts
Research Triangle Park has grown at a rapid pace over the past ten vears.
During the period 1988-1998 the number of companies in the park increased b}'
almost 50%. During the same period, the amount of developed square footage in
the park increased by 32% and the number of employees working in the park grew
by 25%. Much of this recent development has occurred within or west of the
project area. If the project relieves traffic congestion along this section of
Alexander Drive and enhances the road's attractiveness as a corporate location.
this may aid in future development in this area.
Social Issues
a. Accessibility and Parking
The project will not involve any parking or accessibility impacts.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
b. Relocations/Tax Base Changes
The project will cause no residential or business relocations.
C. Community Stability/Neighborhood Cohesion
By relieving traffic congestion along Alexander Drive, the project may
improve the quality of life for local workers who use the road to reach nearby
places of employment. By possibly indirectly encouraging additional office
development in the northern part of the Research Triangle Park, the project may
contribute to the continued economic stability of Durham County The project
should have no impact on neighborhood or community areas.
d. Environmental Justice
In examining potential environmental justice impacts, three issues are usually
considered. These issues are listed below.
• Do high concentrations of low-income or minority people exist in the
project area?
• If so, are the project's affects on these low-income or minority people high
and adverse?
16
• If so, are these low-income or minority people affected to a
disproportionate degree'?
Since no residences are affected by the proposed project, these issues are not
relative to this project.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires
there be no discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race.
color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental.lustice in Minority Populations and Lox?-
Income Populations, " provides that "each federal agency, make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately, high and adverse human health and
environmental effects] of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations. " The Executive Order makes clear that
its provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes.
Environmental justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races,
cultures, and income with respect to the development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.
3. Farmland
The project area is zoned for urban development, therefore no Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating was requested.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
the prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forrest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland
soils, as designated by the U. S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
soils are determined by the NRCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input
1 Adverse effects means significant cumulative human health or environmental effects. including social and economic effects.
which may include. but are not limited to: bodily impairment. infirmity. illness or death. air, noise. and water pollution and soil
contamination: vibration: destruction or diminution of aesthetic values. destruction or disruption of man-made or natural
resources. of communit cohesion or a community's economic vitality. or of the availability of public and private facilities and
services: adverse employment effects: displacement of persons. businesses. farms. or nonprofit organizations: increased traffic
congestion: isolation. exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the
broader community: and the denial of. reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of. benefits of DOT programs. policies. or
activities.
Disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and lo%v-income populations means an adverse effect that: (1) is
predominately bome by a minority population and/or a low-income population. or (2) will be suffered by the minority
population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will
be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population [adapted from the Final DOT Order on
environmental justice].
17 r 20
of economic resources. Land ii,hich is planned or coned for urhan devi?lojitJae nt is not
subject to the same level of'preservation afforded other rural agricultural areas.
4. Scenic Rivers
No Wild and Scenic River runs through the project area.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, declared it the policy of
the United States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and
wildlife, historic cultural, or other similar values." The Act established the Wild and
Scenic River System. The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 declared it the policy
of North Carolina to retain "the natural and scenic conditions in some of the state's
valuable rivers by maintaining them in a free-flowing state and to protect their water
quality and adjacent lands by retaining these natural and scenic conditions." At
presented, designate state Natural and Scenic Rivers are identical with the designated
federal Wild and Scenic Rivers.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's for Compliance with Section 106, codified as CFR Part 800. It is also subject to
compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4. the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) was consulted prior to the scoping meeting for this project, and recommended neither an
architectural historian survey nor and archaeological survey be conducted.
Since there are no properties either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places in the area of potential effect, no further compliance with either Section 106 of
the National Register Act of 1966 or with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966 is required.
B. Natural Environment
1. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
18
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
topography of Durham Countv is dominantly rolling. as is the topography in the project
area. Project elevation is approximately 106 meters (350 feet) above mean sea level
(msl).
a. Soils
Two soil phases occur within project boundaries: Chewacla and White
Store sandy loam. Chewacla soils run along the eastern bank of Stirrup Iron
Creek. Chewacla series are nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils on flood
plains. Permeability is moderate. Seasonal high water table is at about 0.45 meter
(1.5) feet below the surface. Flooding and wetness are the main limitations on
development for this soil.
White Store soils on a 2 - 6 % slope cover the majority of the project area.
White Store series consists of nearly level to moderately steep, moderately well
drained soils. Permeability is very slow. The seasonal high water table is at about
0.45 meter (11/2 feet) below the surface. Major limitations of this soil are erosion
hazard, steep slopes, very slow permeability, high shrink-swell potential, and a
perched water table. White Store soils on a 6 - 10 % slope cover a smaller
portion of the project area.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a
sandy/silty texture in the upper part and clay/clay loam in the lower part. The
soils did not exhibit hydric conditions. Hydric soil indicators, as defined in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were not observed
within the project study area.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely
to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems. Best Usage
Standards and water quality conditions. Probable impacts to these water bodies
are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Stirrup Iron Creek will be the only surface water resource crossed by the
proposed project (Figure 2). Stirrup Iron Creek is located in sub-basin 030402 of
the Neuse River Basin. Stirrup Iron Creek drains into Lake Crabtree
approximately 11.3 kilometers (7 miles) downstream of the project area.
Stirrup Iron Creek, in the vicinity of the project, is approximately 4.5
meters (15 feet) wide with 2.4-meter (8-foot) banks. Water levels in the creek
19
during the field visit were approximately 0.3 meter (1 foot) with high water
indicators at approximately 0.6 meter (2 feet). The creek has been straightened
and channelized in the project vicinity.
Best Usage Classification
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned
streams a best usage classification. The classification of Stirrup Iron Creek (index
no. 27-33-4-2) is C NSW. The C classification denotes waters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses. NSW classification denotes waters subject to
excessive vegetative growth, thereby needing additional nutrient management.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide
approach allows for more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise. benthic
macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water quality because
they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life
cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall
species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of
streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes
in water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection
of physical and chemical-water quality data. The type of water quality data or
parameters that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or
saltwater classification and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1997).
There are no benthic macroinvertebrate collection sites or AMS site within
the project vicinity. Stirrup Iron Creek was classified as support threatened in the
1993 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. A support
threatened classification refers to waters that currently fully support their
designated uses but may not in the future. The main sources of pollution in
subbasin 030402 are related to urban and construction activities.
20
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.
Any discharger is required to register for a permit. No point source dischargers
are located within a 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) radius of the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The reinforced concrete box culvert at Stirrup Iron Creek was constructed
to accommodate a multi-lane facility. However, the culvert will be extended
approximately 6.0 meters (20 feet) to due to the proposed pedestrian/jogging trail
extension (See Figure 2). The following impacts to surface waters may occur due
to the culvert extension:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed
areas.
4. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of
Surface Waters and Sedimentation/Erosion Control guidelines must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval should also be
strictly enforced.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosyste-ms. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
?1
al. (1980). and Webster. et al. (1980. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Communities
Three communities are identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and disturbed upland pine
forest. Community boundaries within the study area are well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. There are no wetland communities
within the project boundaries. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area
will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors, except those fauna restricted to the aquatic environment.
b. Maintained/Disturbed Communities
The regularly maintained/disturbed community is the most commonly
found community within the project boundaries. The maintained/disturbed
community includes mowed roadside shoulder and commercial yards. Flora
within this periodically maintained community include: fescue (Festuca sp.).
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), blackberry (Rebus sp.), henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), wild onion
(Allium stellatum), dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.), and clover (Trifolium sp.). The
commercial yards within the project area tend to be mostly grass communities,
with various ornamental plants. Hard drainage structures and pedestrian sidewalks
are part of this community as well. -
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community occurs on the southern
side of the project along either side of Stirrup Iron Creek. The woody species in
this community consists of white oak (Quercus albs), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sycamore (Platanu.s
occidentalis), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The shrub laver consists of wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), chinese privet (LiRustrum
sinense), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The herbaceous layer consists of
pokeweed (Phytolacca americans), japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
blackberry (Rebus sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.).
Disturbed Upland Pine Forest
This community type is found on both sides of the project along the edge
of maintained/disturbed community. The vegetation in this community is

dominated by loblolly pine, with dense undergrowth of blackberries. Japanese
honeysuckle, goldenrod, and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens). Shrub
species along the edge of this community consists of wax myrtle. blueberry.
chinese privet, and black cherry.
Animal Communities
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in
an area will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section
addresses the fauna likely to be found in the project study area.
Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes the
golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern mole (Scalopus aguaticus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis).
Avian species utilizing these areas include the Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis, turkey vulture* (Cathartes
aura), American robin (Turdus migratorius), American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various
invertebrate and vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)
and redbreast (Lepomis auritus), and amphibians such as cricket frogs (Acris
crepitans) and chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata), may use the shallow, fairly
disturbed habitat present in the project area. Invertebrates that are likely present
include crayfish (family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and
damselflies (Order Odonata), and caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera).
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as
well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of
each community present within the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes
23
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities. resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of
way width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way.
therefore. actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community type I Impact
Maintained/Disturbed 1.92 (4.74) 7
Mesic Mixed Hardwood 1 .44 (1.08) _
Disturbed Pine Upland .80(l.99) Total 3.16 (7.81) i
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting
and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening T.W. Alexander Drive (SR
2028) will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to
fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some
wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of
more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species. Wildlife mortality may
increase as a result of the proposed road widening and the increased volume of
traff i c.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their
environment. Siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related work
will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may
be temporary, indirect environmental impacts from these construction processes
may result in long term or irreversible effects.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the
likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the
soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils. toxic
compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the
site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation.
Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to
elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
24
The effects of the project on the aquatic community should be minimal
since replacement of the existing structure at Stirrup Iron Creek is not necessary.
Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter
approach is used, where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed
hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland.
Based on these criteria, there are no jurisdictional wetlands present within
the project area.
Stirrup Iron Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and
water quality aspects of Stirrup Iron Creek are presented in previous sections of
this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The culvert at Stirrup Iron Creek will be extended approximately 6 meters
(20 feet) to the south to accommodate the proposed pedestrian/jogging path.
Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are not anticipated for the
proposed widening project.
b. Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from
project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a

permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredge or fill material
into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) is likely to be applicable due
to impacts to Stirrup Iron Creek. This permit authorizes construction provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.1 hectares (1/3 acre),
(3) no more than a total of 60 meters (200 linear feet) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
movement of aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a
Water of the United States.
If further investigations indicate all of these conditions are not met, then
individual permits may be required for stream crossings. The COE has final
decisions concerning applicablepermits.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification
from the DEM prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the
CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any
f6derally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of
the United States. Again, final decisions concerning applicable permits rest with
the COE.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands." The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) 1508.20. Each of
26
these three aspects (avoidance. minimization and compensator,,- mitigation) must
be considered sequentially.
d. Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a
1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measure should be appropriate to the scope and
degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost. existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Due to the nature an existing facility, impacts to Stirrup Iron Creek are
unavoidable.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required. through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths. right of way widths, fill slopes and/or
road shoulder widths. Impacts to streams and wetlands have been minimized by
asymmetrical widening and minimal right of way requirements.
Additional ways to minimize impacts to the waters and wetlands crossed
by the proposed project include:
-strict enforcement of sedimentation control using Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of
the project;
-reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas:
-reduction or elimination of direct discharge into streams;
- reduction of runoff velocity;
-re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with prudent pesticide and
herbicide management;
-minimization of in-stream activity and litter and debris control.
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing wetland and
water quality degradation resulting from project construction.
27
f. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable,
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
However, final decisions rest with the COE. Compensatory mitigation may be
required if COE determines stream impacts along the proposed project require
individual permits. The project will not require channel realignment which
exceeds 45 meters (150 feet). Therefore, stream mitigation for these sites will be
required.
g. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally protected be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
h. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of May 13, 1999, the FWS lists the
following federally protected species for Durham County (Table 3). A brief
description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
?g
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
denotes no specimen from Durham County found in past twenty years.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort. Brunswick. Carteret. Chatham,
Chowan. Craven, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond, Stanley, Vance. Wake,
Washington.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white
tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald
eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a
clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an
open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins
in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for the bald
eagle are not present within the project vicinity. The project area consist mainly of
disturbed communities in association with urban and commercial activities.
Forested areas are heavily wooded with thick understory. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the presence
of the bald eagle within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to the bald eagle
will result from project construction.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991 PE
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Durham, Granville, Orange, Rockingham.
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched
rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the
largest, and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the base and
elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are
?9
smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and
solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown. oblong-prismatic
and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open
woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights of way, clearcuts,
and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous
parent material. North Carolina populations are found in soils derived from
Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant
sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Davie, Durham. Franklin, Hoke, Lincoln, Moore,
Orange, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland. Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of
the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from
August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is
dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It
usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams.
Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
i. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in
the study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.
30
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T No
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E No
Somotogvrus virginicus Panhandle pebblesnail SR No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Plagiochila columbiana A liverwort W2 No
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened
or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina. generally with l -
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily declining or in trouble.
(NHP, 1997)
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
project study area.
C. Air Quality and Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analyses
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas
for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994 and for CO on September 18. 1995. Section 176(c) of
the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the
state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Durham County. The date of the last long range plan conformity
determination of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Improvement Program
(T.I.P.) was February 7, 1997. The date of the last T.I.P. conformity determination was October

1. 1997. The approximate length of this project is approximately 1.29 kilometer (0.8 mile). This
project has been determined not to be a regionally significant project relative to air quality:
therefore, a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is part of NCDOT's initiative to improve traffic conditions in the Research
Triangle Park. Only commercial properties were identified in the vicinity of the project. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to moderate the effects of intrusive traffic noise. Hence, the project's impact on noise
and air quality will not be significant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. Construction Impacts
Construction effects of the project will be temporary in nature. To minimize potential
adverse effects caused by construction, the following measures, along with those already
mentioned, will be used during the construction phase of this project.
I . Solid wastes created as a result of highway construction will be disposed of in
accordance with Section 802 of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures.
2. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
3. An extensive rodent control program will be established where structures are to be
removed or demolished in order to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas
4. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances.
along with the regulations of the North Carolina Plan for Implementing the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning will be done only on the right of way, under
constant surveillance, with good atmospheric conditions , and as remote from dwelling as
possible.
5. The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the
work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching or other erosion control
measures specified, in a manner which will effectively control erosion and siltation.
6. NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water Supply
Watersheds shall be followed during project construction in order to prevent siltation of
nearby streams.
J?
7. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project. the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have no
effect on any known district. site. building. structure. or object that is included or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall
be furnished to the engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was requested from the
appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in preparing this Categorical Exclusion. Listed
below are the agencies which were contacted:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission _
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Triangle Transit Authority
*Research Triangle Foundation
*City of Durham
* Denotes agencies from which input was received
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
Since there are no residences located along this section of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR
2028), a citizens' informational workshop was not held for this project. All businesses located
along the corridor support the proposed improvements.
C. Local Agencies
The Research Triangle Foundation and the City of Durham formally requested extending
the existing pedestrian/jogging path. NCDOT agrees extending trail is justified and will
participate in 80 percent of the path's total cost within the Special Tax District of Research

Triangle Park, and 50 percent of the total cost of the path within the Durham Cite Limits.
NCDOT's participation will be limited to a maximum of 2 percent of the total project
construction cost. The Research Triangle Foundation and the City of Durham will be
responsible for the remaining costs of extending the pedestrian/jogging path, respectively. as
outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines.
D. Public Hearing
r A public hearing will be held for the subject project following circulation of this
document. This public hearing will provide detailed information to the public about the
proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make comments and express concerns
about the proposed project.
VIII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects to the human or natural
environment. Therefore, a Federal Categorical Exclusion is applicable for this project.
VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the following North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Personnel involved in studies for this document are as follows:
Ron Allen, P. E.
Roadway Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
B. S. in Civil Engineering
14 years experience in
transportation.
David Bass, P. E.
Roadway Project Design Engineer
B. S. in Civil Engineering
9 years experience in
transportation.
LeiLani Y. Paugh. B. S. in Fisheries and Wildlife Science
Natural Systems Biologist M.S. Resource Management/Hydrology
Natural Systems Unit 4 years experience in wetland delineation.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis NEPA investigation, and protected species
surveys.
Harrison Marshall M. A. in Planning
Community Planner 13 years experience in planning.
Community Impact Assessment Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
) 4
Steve NA alker A. S. in Civil Engineering
Traffic Engineering Supervisor 25 vears experience in air quality
Air Quality and Noise Section and noise impact analysis.
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
R. B. Davis. P.E. B. S. in Civil Engineering
Assistant Branch Manager 28 years experience in
Project Development & Environmental Analysis transportation.
Linwood Stone, CPM Master in City and Regional Planning
Project Development Engineer, Unit Head B. S, in Civil Engineering
Project Development & Environmental Analysis 26 years experience in transportation.
Clarence W. Coleman. P. E. B. S. in Civil Engineering
Project Development Engineer 7 years experience in transportation.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis

•? j? 2 ..

U-3309 B
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
f

0
© TRAM C. AT" OftARTf?YrT OF
NOR"
420W MAT"
MwMOn OF N1oNtwn
!%QlWr OWVMAPNWr AND
0/"nMIORAL AMALr MAPM
T.N.ALEXANDER DRIVE HR lq?1
FROM NC IB (DURHAM ?REEMAYI
TO MIAMI BOULEVARD OR 1111
DURHAM COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. u4m 0
1 FIGURE IA I
TRIANGLE jr•,
i
`? - Am m,
7 ?
1 ,? I I .tr ? l
e
? ?? ro 4
w
\ Lfa ll?
.20
I"o
.. \ , j an
!na / ./? n 24? .0
/ •rr 1 j e •d
? ? - ! . 7 29!2 lols ? ??n
L; ^ R4 \
l1 1
• 1 h 1 ?2 1 tli. ni L& ; u
a h
C U?? n? a2.4 _ 1 ro 4' ' 11 06
X01 PRIM
jl o?
1!2! 1 UMR
ILI
owl
Ina i; .,. _ - fii 2? •? a -
.4P
1 /
VIM. , ?
/ I f
1 Ia 1 1
N \ / /
' „ !>M I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
t -t ,? +r P 1W! i R " ;1 L
1>a 11 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
T.W.ALEXANDER DRIVE (SR 2028)
s m "sk
FROM NC 117 (DURHAM FREEWAY) i
( TO MIAMI BOULEVARD (SR 1959)
° DURHAM COUNTY
,n ?? T.I.P. NO. U-U" B /
' •; '•"•? laa/.? °j FIGURE 16
.. XIL
a i
,?

N ..07 k 1' "1
14
?u .v4? ?t? iY y'
?IA t ??,?t , d ,: } k
d t 1Vf Y }
? l "`••• iii
f ?f` y?If ??n ` i
it ..
1
H

j
j .

tit " - -- - -- _

o O
I
•
=WF Q,
?.
r,

%F-nary ?!

!. '1 v
I
lol-S
00
N
q N
/
V
M
?
z
A v A ?
O
,?
o P.*
A
z gz
Z
Q
A
?

h?l

C
E-4

v
C
O
t ?

N

.. C
W
N
r n
--
?J N

MIN

N I -?
N I C
N OC
1
r,
f'r)
V
7
r
:J
? y
rl
G n 0O
N
`./
L-
o?
.c
O
C
L
0
C
`d
111
U
cn
0
O
IBM/RHONE-POULENC / T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE (SR 2028)
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
N?
_J
RHONE-POULENC
L, - >
T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE
FIGURE 4A
SR(2028)
MIAMI BOULEVARD (SR 1959) / T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE (SR 2028)
PROPOSED INTERSECTION

MIAMI BLVD.
SR(1959)

T.W. ALEXANDER DR.

FIGURE 4B
(SR 2028)
V) ' a'
W
I
II
co co
I
I
I
h
CL
0
? N m
Fo PM 10
(4.5)
m
• Rle'1 I
n?a
?In
Y
0 o Y JI
U
u s lC'C)
NIN
OL 09
Wd
nl
m
- n
C
C
c p p
U
-

? p C ti? J f = f
? ? Y i
ID 7
m;
E
5 __ o o• o '
n ? p

E
o 0 0 o •••1111
_
VMr??
1r)
L-:
N
r-r
u

9
•-. t I G 10 ..r,wwwl•
I
Q O r.•.wl„1 1M 1MwO rO rlw01
?? wMrq q u0

•
IMI u )r/!Ir Ryfp }I,{ITI t}{?l••wl INN INn MNI {{•L•1 r4L/
wN rW rvr rln, /•M

ti1a.n? w{IOr ? Ah -{ V M Wrr M 71•n/
Y3HY NYOHf1 ,uro ireolwr )rr rrrorlolrolu
OHO©UIJYO.111" 13dYH0 • IMIYHIJna 'a[_g?}iR9L
R" )W,NO/rO"U 03N)/M07311
;. i
16
46 pp
.1 L
r r r I? `? ?
1 ' ? ?` ?• , ,, ??, 1,• ..,may r ? ?- , I , `?. '? }
?1 •• i _ ? .• f pit
•• ? rllll ? ?J.• I ?' x?
,
\ l
} S )
}
U-3309 P
APPENDIX B
AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL,
COMMENTS
) &?k
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 20, 1999
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

QPa
n
z .,
6
This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1999, requesting our comments
on "T.W. Alexander Drive, From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard
(SR 1959), Durham County, Federal Aid No. STP-2028(1), State Project Ni--..
8.2352701, T.I.P. No. U-3309 B" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920522).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
April 20, 1999
Page 1 of 2
" ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"T.W. Alexander Drive, From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard
(SR 1959), Durham County, Federal Aid No. STP-2028(1), State Project No.
8.2352701, T.I.P. No. U-3309 B" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920522)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
The proposed improvements are located within the jurisdictional limits of the city of
Durham, which is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based
on a review of Panel 186 of the February 1996 Durham County, North Caroiina and
Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project would cross an
approximately mapped reach of Stirrup Iron Creek Tributary B. The project should be
designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP, administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and be in compliance with all local ordinances.
Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments
should be referred to the local building official'.
2 WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmeyer. Raleigh Field Off icc
Regulatory Division at (9919) 876-8441. Extension 23
a. Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the Aischarge of
excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including the disposal of construction debris.
b. Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and wetlands. The roadway crosses Stirrup Iron
Creek, above headwaters.
c. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work
within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. If there are only minor impacts to waters,
including wetlands, the work might be authorized under one or more nationwide or
regional general permits provided avoidance and minimization are adequately
addressed.
April 20, 1999
Page 2 of 2
d. 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
aquatic fill activities requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no
practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review emphasis for North Carolina
Department of Transportation (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
altemative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred.
e. 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 compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts
will be satisfied prior to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will
not be issued until a final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved. Mitigation for
stream impacts may also be required.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeye-.

DURHAM
Department of Public Works
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
February 23, 1999
1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE
Manager, NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
^K>r^!=it
r
rr. FF9 -.1D 1,999
wm-
? 1; G?? MG
rll•:?y?: . f
SUBJECT: T.W. Alexander Drive, From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami
Boulevard (SR 1959), Durham County, Federal Aid No. STP-2028(1), State Project No.
8.2352701, T.I.P. No. U-3309 F
We are not aware of any particular environmental concern associated with the widenin-
of the subject project. The City of Durham does have a 12-inch public water main along
the length of the project that may require relocation and/or adjustment as part of the
construction. We would anticipate that the NCDOT would follow the normal procedure
of contacting the City of Durham Engineering Division in advance of the construction
and if necessary prepare a municipal agreement to address the utility work that will be
performed as part of the roadway project. Please send two sets of the proposed roadway
drawings to me as soon as possible so that we may evaluate the roadway widening's
impact on the City of Durham water system.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
RLM/dsw
cc: Ms. Katie Kalb, Director of Public Works
Mr. Don Greeley, CE IV
Mr. Stuart Carson, CE III
R. Lee Murphy, PE, PLS
Man ger of Engineering
Engineering . Storm Water - Transportation - Water/Sewer Maintenance - Street Maintenance - Roadway Appearance
Q1?ENT Or United States Department of the Interior
O F
s FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
gc3 'e•4 Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 /
IvIarch 29, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore. P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Ra!ei,h, NC 2761
Dear Mr. Gilmore.
?SIVED
K "7
A?
c,7N Cr
i CNrs
r? T C FVE,-?Q
\?:V TA L ?i
This responds to your letter of February 1999, redluestinst Information from the U.S i-isn and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpo?t: of evaluatinL the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed imrnrovements to T W. Alexander Drive (SR 202S) from East of NC 147 (Durham
Freeway) to Mi;Imi Boulevard (SR 1959) in Durham Comm,. North Carolina (TIP No U-3309
B). This report provides scopin, information and is provided in accordance with provisions c:
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination act (FWCA) ( 16 U.S (*. 66 1-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 197.,, as amended ( 16 U.S C 1531-154.0 This report also
serves as initial scopin, comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in them
permitting and/or certification processes tilr this project.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen T.W. Alexander
Drive from a predominantly two-lane roadway to a fOLir-lane divided facility with a 9.0 meter (30-
foot) median. The project also proposes 1.2 meter (4.0-toot) shoulders to accommodate "share
the road" bicycle traftic. The length of the proposed project is approximately 0.506 kilometer
(U.5 miie)
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation. Ilrotection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing, benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However. the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate it thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally. the Service recommends that wetland impacts he avoided and minimized to the
maxinttint extent practical its tldltllnedl III Section 404 (h)( I ) ofthe Clean Water Act Antendinents
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and ntinintir.atloll of impacts. \%.c recommend that proposed
highway projed:ts he allulled along, or adjac nt to existing, roadways. utility corridors, or previously
developed) areas in order to mininlize habitat fra-g,lnentation and encroachment Areas exhibiting,
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure whet-ever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
.should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and till areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWl) map of the Southeast Raleigh 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
does not show any wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project- at ti;-.
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with-an-analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading ofexistim, roads and a "no action" alternative,
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps).
2
5 The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States, and,
if unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that even effort be made
to identity compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsettinL unavoidable wetland impacts
Opportunities to protect Mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset
The attached pages identity the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Durham Countv. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed species in
the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable
habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be
performed. Environmental documentatirni should include survey methodologies and results. In
addition to this uuidance, the followin!; intonnation should be included in the document regarding
protected species
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, Including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of -
The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the etlects of past and ongoing
-human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration),
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of filtttre state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation,
A description of the marine x in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including; project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the less of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteri,-
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quahlt ,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
Based on evaluation criteria. a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to Informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the fixture if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritaue Prouram should be contacted for information on
species under state protection. v
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your oti icial determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me
at 919-356-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. HYfe Ec
ological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
COE, Raleigh, NC' (Eric Alsme.ver`
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dornev)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox;
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Gral)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bistertield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartttey:TM:03/26/99 019/Sib-4520 extension32:\u-3309b.t1p
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In DURHAM Countv
Data represented on these maps are not base on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
36415'
36'
...,.. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program
.. D. Newcomb. K. Tripp 1/15/98
0 1 2 3 4 5 MILE:
O 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
expires 1131/99
794 78'45'
Mapping Symbols for
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
17 Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
«7 Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
n Waccamaw Silverside
Plants
American Chaffseed
Harpere 1 la
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Seabeach Amaranth
Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Conef lower
46,
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
', Eastern Cougar
(ED Red Wolf
Seaturtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
March 5, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File R 99-E-4220-0450; Scoping Proposed Improvements to T.W. Alexander Dnve, Frc-
East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Blvd. (SR 1959) TIP #-U-33091;
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmenzal:
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this docume n:.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone]
Sincerely,
az?
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
r
cc: Region J

g

?T J
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-3003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Afrinnutve Action Employer
?C?C'r J Durham
ri• Ala:,an-4&- Dr. _from East of NC _1; to S?: 1959. U-3 98• TILITACTiV-
\L { 11/17/98
?%, ER= 99-7633
--------------------------------- -------- ----- --- -------
-'C-,W. ;L. ??lsaander Dr from Sast' of NC 14; to SP. 1959; '.t7,,,33Q9 ;3 ,.: lhiz'ham Cc. .
Z' 99-5:63
-ay=s are ao recorded sates :adjacent .o the exist?n,g: xoad' and' 3s lzighit
unIJ. k- *:za.' an7 National Register s' g,ble' ,es w+;l be: a fectsl bY t_e
wideni:.;, so Z do not recommend any a_=caec:ogi.cal: su.r.ray. xor.ta s Proiect
as presents' Proposed. r.
NMI, t norantiun
A72: Nove rcer 13'. 0
I:r.. ?°R38
'AiiCen AIQX2rcar ?r;?ig tS? _ s31 mcm =.
of NI^, '=; l r,,; ,=AVG., ?-.,?....B,•c,., 7'783 r1u.l.1)?:i1tV tiili J:?i'i"v'V'd:i ' Jane nw • : ??
i na...eW in . ""1ei:.C no ..C? i iii •JC ?.tC:.i.
i'1 I. ;e of umn t,r !"e : 1,93 NIC:NI '.iut will Mlosv up s?'iii ch,0:'; gnae:.
C51'n'l1!1e;Yr-1 Cl --
C??,? X21 ? _ ? : - ; ; ?. ' , . • ? .
TOTAL P.01
NCDENR
rwr , -
JAMES B. HUNT JR..-.?
--GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVr"
:. T SECRETARY .
.. v NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
To: Chrys Baggett
State Clearing House
From: Melba McGee Itl
Environmental Review Coordinator
Re: # 99-E-0450 N.C. Department of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham County
Date: March 12, 1999
The attached comments were received by this office after the response auL;
date. These comments should be forwarded to the applicant and made a part of our
previous comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: va
Attachment
t? V
,? 1 5 19991
N.C. STATE CLEAFINGHCCC
P.O. 00% 27667. RAL[ION NC 2761 1 -7667 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STRSET. RALEIGH NC 27603
PNoNE 919.733.3963 FAX [phone] WWW,EHNR.STATE.NC.u6/EHNR1
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 90% RECYCLE01107( POST•CONSUMER PAPER
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Screer, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 2760+-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Eaeccurive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project rdis?tor
Habitat Conservation Pro
DATE: March 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for T. W. Alexander Drive,
from cast of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard),
Durham County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-3309B, SCH Project No.
99-E-045G.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments arc provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Start. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, uur general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project arcs,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designaa:d
s plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27697
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Memo 2 March 12, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of stmAms crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, c_
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmenud document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist ygur office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: 11. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman
http: //www. dp i. state. nc. us
March 1, 1999
Department of Public Instruction
Michael E.Ward,Sta[e Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. NC Department of Transportation.
FROM: Gerald H. Knott. Section Chief. School Planning SL?blll-l
SUBJECT: T. W. Alexander Drive. From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard
(SR 1959), Durham County, Federal Aid No. STP-2028(1), State Pro+ect No.
8.2352701, TIP No. U-3309B '
Enclosed is the response from Durham Public Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure

l
301 N. Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2825
An Equal opportututy/AtrumativeAction Etnploycr
DURHAM 7-17UBLIC?C-iOO?..
Michael ,-, Nlulhe- uper,ntende'-[
` -
I
I_ _
Operations Sere c=7,
February 22,1999
N4R - i?q i
I
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief
School Planning
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Subject: National Environmental Policy Act -
T. W. Alexander Drive, From East of NC 1477
(Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevarc'.
(SR 1959), Durham County, Federal Aid
No. STP-2028(1), State Project No. 8.2352701,
T.I.P. No. U-3309B
Dear Mr. Knott:
Dr. Denlinger has asked me to review and respond to your requests, dated February 5 and
15, 1999, for information on the T. W. Alexander Drive project referenced above. You asked
that we indicate any impact on an existing or proposed school site or bur school bus routes.
The closest school to this area is Bethesda Elementary School, which is approximately 1.5
miles north of the project and will not be impacted by this project. There are no new school
sites proposed in the immediate area within the next 10 years. Regarding bus routes, this
project will improve the traffic flow in this part of the school district.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Mulheim, FOOB, REFP
c: Ann Denlinger
Hugh Osteen
Henry Kirby
511 Cleveland Street - P.O. Box 30002. Durham, North Carolina 27702 - [phone] - Fax [phone] - e-mail. PAulheirt.t crfuller.durham.kl2.nc.us

?J
Triangle Transit Authority
March 30, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Department of Transportation, Project Development
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh. N.C. 27611-5201
Subject: T. W. Alexander Drive, East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to the railroad crossin
Dear Mr. Gilmore.
Per your request for information on permits and approvals dated February 10, 1999, the Triangle Transit Authority does not
require any permits or approvals pertaining to the Alexander Drive widening project. The North Carolina Railroad may
require permits and/or encroachment documentation for road construction within the railroad right-of-way. It you have nor
been in contact with the NCRR, I would suggest discussing the project with Mr. Jeff Mann at [phone].
For your information, we have enclosed an excerpt of preliminary plans showing our proposed bridge location(s) at
Alexander Drive. Note that we have two options at this point in the design depending upon whether or not our North Park
Station is at Alexander Drive or huther south near IBM's entrance.
The Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Impact Statement for Phase I of the Regional Rail System is proposed to be
completed by early 2000. Final design is expected to begin in 2000 and be completed by 2002. Construction will follow in
2002 and hopefully completed by the year 2004.
If you have any 11i ther questions, feel free to call me.
Sin
J W. Roberson, PE
Sr. Transportation Engineer
cc: Clarence Coleman, PE, NCDOT
00<-CJ1E i VS6
Zt
Suite 206, 50 Park Drive A P.O. Box 13787 A Research Triangle Park A North Carolina 27709
Regional Bus: [phone]. A Direct: [phone] A Fax: (919) 485-T441
I0=9195604561 PAGE 2/2
JUN-08-99 14:32 FROM:CITY OF DURHAM DOT
DURHAM City of Durham
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
10 1 City Hall Plaza phone [phone]
Durham. North Carolina 27701 FAX [phone]
l 8 6 9
CITYOP MEDICINE
June 7, 1999
Mr. David Bass, P.E.
Roadway Design Unit
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Subject: Durham County: T. W. Alexander Drive Widening Project (U-3309)
Dear Mr. Bass:
This is to advise you that the City of Durham requests that a pedestrian/bike trail be constructed along the
south curb line of Alexander Drive from the eastern boundary of Research Triangle Park (RTP) to the
west curb line of Miami Boulevard as part of T. W. Alexander Drive widening project. The trail wili oe
an extension of the RTP trail system. The City's commitment is contingent upon the
construction/reconstruction of the trail westward by NCDOT and RTP to connect with the RTP trail
system near the entrance to IBM Corporation.
In accordance with the State's Sidewalk Policy, we request that the project Municipal Agreement reflect
a 50% State share of the trail cost. The remaining cost will be 30% STP-Direct Attributable (STP-DA),
to be allocated by the DCHC MPO, and 20% municipal, to be provided by the City of Durham. This
cost-sharing arrangement will only be for the portion of the trail inside the City of Durham. Trail costa
within RTP will be the responsibility of NCDOT and RTP.
Your continued coordination with the City of Durham and the DCHC MPO is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
H. Wesley m, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
cc: Mark D. Ahrendsen, Transportation Manager
Liz Rooks. RTP Foundation
Kim McCarter
Laurie P. Smith, NCDOT Programming and Policy Branch
Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
/v\
2 Hanes Dnve
Post Office Box 12255
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27709
Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Facsimile Correspondence of 2 Pages to 733-9794
April 16,1999
Mr. Clarence Coleman
Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Elizabeth H. Rooks, Ysa Prssslsr%, PWwrq 6 Dsvsbornsrn
Re: TIP Project U-3309B - T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028), From East of NC 147
(Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959)
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Thank you for including the Research Triangle Foundation in the scoping
meeting for this road-widening project. On behalf of the Research Triangle Park,
the Research Triangle Foundation would like to request that this project include
accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Research Triangle Park already has an extensive pedestrian network of 8-
foot wide asphalt paths within its boundaries. This trail system has been
constructed with funds from the Special Tax District, which encompasses RTP.
The pedestrian path along.T.W. Alexander Drive currently extends from south of
NC 54 to the IBM/Rhone Poulenc driveway intersection which is approximately
1300 feet to the east of NC 147. Since the Special Tax District funds may only be
spent within the boundaries of the Special Tax District, we are unable to extend
the pedestrian network eastward along T.W. Alexander Drive to Miami
Boulevard since the tax district boundary ends at the Norfolk and Southern
railroad crossing. However, we believe that provision of pedestrian facilities
from the existing network to Miami Boulevard is important for encouraging this
alternative mode particularly in light of the fact that one of the locations being
considered by Triangle Transit Authority for its North RTP rail station is on this
section of T.W. Alexander Drive. For these reasons, we would respectfully
request that.NCDOT include an 8-foot wide asphalt pedestrian path to connect
the existing pedestrian network to Miami Boulevard. I feel certain that the
Special Tax District for RTP would be willing to participate in the cost of
RLUMC14 TUAN
DEVELOPERS OF THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
Mr. Clarence Coleman
Page 2
April 16, 1999
providing this path within the boundaries of the Special Tax District according to
NCDOT's policies. The committee, which has the authority to budget funds for
the district, will be meeting in late May and I can request that they adopt a
resolution of support and commitment of funds at that meeting if this would be
appropriate. The Special Tax District would also agree to maintain the section of
the network within its boundaries and I feel certain that the City of Durham
would agree to maintain the remaining section within its jurisdiction.
With respect to bicycle accomn. odation, we believe this can best be piGviueu by
including a 4-foot paved shoulder on each side of the 4-lane, median divided
roadway, since curb and gutter is not anticipated for this project. It is m'v
understanding that most of the bicyclists in RTP tend to be experienced
commuter bicyclists who prefer facilities which are part of the roadwav rather
than sharing a separate trail with pedestrians. T.W. Alexander Drive is
designated bike route on the Durham-Chapel Hill MPO Regional Bicycle Plan.
Also, as i am sure you are aware, the transportation study recently completed b-,
NCDOT for the Research Triangle Park calls for encouraging alternative modes
of transportation. To this end, Curtis Yates of the N.C. Division of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Transportation has hired a consultant to make recommendations
about improving bicycle access to RTP. While this study is not yet complete, I
feel confident that provision of 4-foot wide paved shoulders on this roadway
would be considered desirable. For these reasons, we respectfully request that 4-
foot wide paved shoulders be included in this project to enhance bicycle access to
RTP.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide any
additional information.
Sincerely,
Elizaaeth H. Rooks
cc: Wesley Parham
ha?ULA
P?MENT OF Ty
O A_
N O
7 D
?4ACH 9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 29, 1999

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of February 3, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2023) from East of NC 147 (Durham
Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959) in Durham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3309
B). This report provides scoping in formation and is provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 15; 1-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen T.W. Alexander
Drive from a predominantly two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided facility with a 9.0 meter (30-
foot) median. The project also proposes 1.2 meter (4.0-foot) shoulders to accommodate "share
the road" bicycle traffic. The length of the proposed project is approximately 0.806 kilometer
(0.-5 mile).
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)( I ) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. Ili regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and till areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Southeast Raleigh 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
does not show any wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
projects's independent utility,
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corp-, of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps),
2
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects,
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for otfisetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Durham County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed species in
the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable
habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be
performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding
protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts,
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections,
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat,
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area,
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur,
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action Linder consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affiect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely atTected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity, and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely atlect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the fixture if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
4
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the pro gression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me
at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Y
John M. HEcological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dorney)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bistertield)
FWS/R4:TMeCartney:TM:03/26/99:919/856-4520 extension32:\u-3309b.tip
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 3, 1998
,l
D?
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
a
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branclf.
cam' ?.,
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for T. W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028),
From East of NC 147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard
(SR 1959) in Durham, Durham County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-2028(1), State Project No. 8.2352701, T.I.P. Project
No. U-3309 B
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for December 3, 1998 at 10:00 AM in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting
or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Clarence W. Coleman, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 209.
WDG/plr
Attachment
G
I
1 ) _' '_•MI-M1f
t•t ? 1 v _?' ? ,
L ,•' -
. i
i . -. z3 ?aTs
a-
•a?. ? I Cwt /
r ,t 3 7:7
RESEASCH 21
1-5 'TO
-•-
' j T' LIMITS 2 "a
Tv"Mcu
a
41,
? `7 1 'Y9 l
121 -
° ?Sfi f
27e1 ? I
J
u` N

r
f
.t
.r -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
f TRANSPORTATION
Gl ?2F DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
T. W. ALEXANDER DRIVE (SR 2028)
FROM EAST OF NC 147 (DURHAM FREEWAY)
TO INHA11I BOULEVARD (SR 1959)
DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY
U-3309 B
VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 inch = 0.5 mile
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 10/21/98
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-3309 B
State Project # 8.2352701
F.A. Project # STP-2028(T)'
Division 5
County Durham
Route(s) T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
Functional Classification Collector on Statewide Functional Classification System
Minor Arterial on Durham Thoroughfare Plan
Length 0.806 km (0.5 mi.)
Purpose of Project: To upgrade the capacity and safety of T.W. Alexander Drive (SR 2028)
for existing and future traffic volumes.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: Widen T.W.
Alexander Drive (SR 2028) from a 2-lane roadway to a multi-lane facility from East of NC
147 (Durham Freeway) to Miami Boulevard (SR 1959), in Durham.
Type of environmental document to be spar .d: .at .gorical Fxclusion
Environmental Study Schedule: EA Begin: 10-6-98, Complete: 8-1-99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: (Proposed) Full Partial X None
Number of Interchanges Grade Separations 1
Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing 2-lane facility
Proposed 4-lane divided facility with a 9.0-meter (30-foot) median and
shoulders
Traffic (ADT): Current (1997) 16,200 vpd Design Yr (2025) NA % TTST NA % Duals NA
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Existing 60 mph
Proposed 60 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)..... $ 1,900,000
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ....... $ 1,550,000
Force Account Items ........................................................................... $ NA
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $ NA
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $ 3.450.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ........................................................................................ $1,900,000
Right of Way ........................................................................................ $1,550,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE ......................................................... $3,450,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ............................................................................... $ 1 94 9?0
_X Base .................................................................................... $-434,020
X Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $ 10.800
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
-Paved ................................................................................. $
Earthen ............................................................................... $
X Earthwork ..................................................................................... $ 1 A nnn
Subsurface Items ......................................................................... $
Subgrade and Stabilization ........................................................ .$
Y Drainage (list any special items) ............................................... $ 979.0Q0
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................... $
Structures
Bridge Rehab ..................................................................... $
New Bridge ........................................................................ $
Remove Bridge ................................................................. $
New Culvert ....................................................................... $
Culvert Extension ............................................................... $
Retaining Walls .................................................................. $
-Noise Walls ......................................................................... $
Other Misc ......................................................................... $
_X- Concrete Curb & Gutter (1'-6") ................................................ $ A4 nnn
Y Curb & Gutter (2'-6") .................................................................... $1,920
-Connector and Realignment .................................................... $
Fencing
W.W .................................................................................... $
C.L ............................. ..................................................... $
X Erosion Control ............................................................................ $-1,) nnn
X Seeding and Mulching ................................................................. $ 3000
_X Utilities ........................................................................................ $?S11nnn
X Traffic Control ............................................................................. $ 30.000
Signing
New ................................................................................... $
Upgraded $
.........................................................................
Traffic Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised ............................................................................. $
With/without Arms ........................................................... R
3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement .....................................................
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
Pavement Markings
_ Paint ................................................................................................. $
-Thermoplastic ................................................................................. $
Raised Pavement Markers ................................................. ........... $
_X Guardrail ................................................................................................ $ 10.000
X Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) ....................................... $_499 030
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .............................................. $
Engineering & Contingencies ........................................................................... . 95non
PE Costs ...............................................................................................................
Force Account ....................................................................................................
Right-of-Way
Construction Cost Subtotal .....................................$ 900 000
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No X
Existing Width 45 m (150 feet)
New R/W needed 45 m (150 feet) Estimated Cost .......................... $_ 1.550.000
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $ NA
Utilities ........................................................................................................ R NA
Right-of-Way Subtotal ..................................................................... $ 1,550,000
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $ 1.5{0.000
Prepared by?Clorence W. Coleman, P. E. Date 10/91 /98
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrommetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer- Precon
Chief Engineer- Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init.
Date
Init. Date
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/ Municipality
Division Engineer
Biciycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
'If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
O
r,
•
a
o v
O D
o F
4 °
? o
0
a
. C
o
a
c o
0
° a
0
Q
d
?o ?
o v
.
0
O S
4
n ?
0

•
.
0