19990694 Ver 1_Complete File_19990628

. JUL.01'1999 07:39
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION QCN
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC rAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC IRAX [phone]
#0873 P.001/014
1. ACTION ID: 1999201010/199921011
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/NC157/Guess Road/U-2102
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 716/99
4. RESPONSE DEADLiNE(5 d.a.ys from transmittal): 7/12/99
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline): 7/20/99
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Todd Tugwoll
FAX: [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached. PCN to the Fish and Wildl fe
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review nd
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
agencies' jurisdiction.
JUL.01'1999 07:39 #0873 P.002/014
RECEIV0 JUN 2 819
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: .1994cq101?- /g99a a//
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATI
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) OOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPRO P
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET .
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N,C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMEN P
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PAINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office sox 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABCVE): _
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4, TF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. GilMOre , P . E . , Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE; A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOP06RAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
1

JUL.01'1999 07:39
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridao No. 50 on NC 157 (Guena_Road) over Eno Rivor.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Eno River
RIVER BASIN: Neuse
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTW TER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW)
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COX TAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNA ION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR US ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ 1 IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUM ER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY F 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN HE
FUTURE,? YES [ ) NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK: _
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER 05 ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N
9h. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJEC'
SITE,:
0 acres
2
#0873 P.003/014

JUL.01'1999 07:39
#0873 P.004/014
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
BY:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (I
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A F
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: F
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Placemont of Rip- Ra in channel
11. IE' CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWIN,S
ONLY): Tom ora lacamont of 5 @ 42" i o and rip-rap into the
crook to facilitate e i ment cronsin . Equipment will consist t
duty trucks, dozer
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
construction of a new bridge..
3
ssina to facilita
Ci . ....
JUL.01'1999 07:40
#0873 P.005/014
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Projact io wa
Attached
?ondcnt. Minimization offorts are 4
lcttnr.
ED
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIC'
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENC
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PR JECT.
DATE CONTACTED: sea EA/FONST (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES,)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 FICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HIST RIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSE
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: seo EA/F02JSI
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR T USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [XI NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X) NO [ )
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE. NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE,?
YES [X) NO [)
IF ANSWER TO 17b TS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FR (M THE
STATE. CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGAR ING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORT
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RAL IGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
JUL.01'1999 07:40 #0873 P.006/014
D om. it! 1a s 11. SIYv Iz3x o I?H, C
7]u I+c7 0 ^ . 11y
tact 1 r, 3».? v v n, ?.0 3ue tssl _ 1t?
IL3 v pl w Fyn f` 13JA
?Q o. 131t d' liil o i$1"
13C1 ne.ti ,?, ?r4•: `.
Al ^ t?1 3!N flit ?. 0, L 9 11+ A....
7q 1/tl L3 t? .10 17IZ ter Ly 4
ay
It ip
In ti
Ills AI ^, L•1 Lil 1dL
lilt LLU 9 a;`
>L ,
t? L.42
13U L'• ip? '37i t"L
Llu 111 ,':
0 0 ?:
c.
M Lill t
Y' .
,i
isu S
0, r
gin •
0 5:13
1t 1
%fix
IM
TOP
HLI
1 ^
r r ? 7
. ° uf3 14rwr ,??
• \ / r: -
151 7? V 11LI '' U/ ,
`.. 4
+ ,. eo _3YIWIIGto.?
Lto3 ii INl ?T
w
_+ r v ,
r
J,ft
E.
J1 1.
SITES
N. C. DEPT. Or, TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OR HIGH AY5
DURHAM COU Y
PROJECT:8.1351301 (J-2102)
NC 157 (GUE55 RD) W DENING
SHEET OF
i
JUL. 01'1999 07:40

V) 1= C
E
? f
•
W
N ul

a ?
?

Q.'
01uSC
N
N qq
N c?pp
O
W
~ ?
c
f (? •^3 G
y
? 5
?
W U LL
N
4 ? ro
C t
?
? =a

°
° ti
m
???
ro ?. o
c o,
0 o
o
c
.z

m

N ? N
V ? a
'
? 4 0
g
? a ro
?
?"L
Y
O xx
W C

r3

N
'4 r
$ f0
O tD f? ?`'?
? ti
O
?? i
LL U11 v p O O
C O
C G O

X co X c° m
? cr .
?U) N ig
?
r
cli c'S cl N
?
O
O J 11 J
? ..i! ?

O .?1
d p + W
?
0)
(o
In
v

u?

0

Nz > > o
_
0
#0873 P.007/014
? N
_ N O
z cl, O
LL0
Oz ?o
u41 S2
0 O r
Vim" LUtIW 1-
JTJL.01'1999 07:41 #0873 P.008/014
rr _:h "" 11. -r- ..
Iloul-ant
+ O,teol, IS K.,rl,kii??' Unldn Gn I J I 5) ern. 1 F • l f
f . I Y I E Il p Cenle••
Onhtllla a .T R4[. r ``'' Cald.nn f ` 14+w4.?. y' .,.,••-1 / Ingle •dt
'y
oR! AtJlmtn[? [ e J (Y J + ' B[M 1 MirAfi . aMuler I ton "'
R D ?Burlln?t0 , Scller? Y 501 ''"?? N= .fin F RAN L? N
I, 1 Sun. ?.t'
-MS~ Can een 6ratn Lerl1 q l ? j ,. IA c«•r.. 1 IS Gtedl+Ina law:0
c
NMALnIpn
n?InQ _1 We
.wJ.dly tin».? S - 1 T a
GI faun i0 ? II,n1l+r J + y n - th,lde• l0 1 . Y t r
, • i0 edN•• 00 ' ? , ,? aI• ill DOrOt?FI? - ` ? ? [Ollr,llt !v
e rt f 4-
I;y w?rn,tfar ©I. ensbor-0 i wnQa.Illn
?L7 J L? t
e AIe?I 1 ?, S.repto IeORAN?j
NoOe?
? - 7
Tow J ? ? ' C apet flil) ?S,' 1?iKGrnr! + •o?eL 7 ? t r ? .r.Y• Dun\
'.nl eat4te e ALAMAN IJ a l? .r'.!` . deoe tr a .Iw`^. Rr.+ :' ` and, t - E
J 1 bOro, 't'. Sv ler
121 R rH)rlh u /J ,.aD.n. lD P. ,Ua
1 \ ?eY7/ ' Rvlesrdtt 1 J PIIOt I
O,an r ,,ne4 r,i u rnt O ei '° ?r La+ !.J % \ e re?1 to J
1 \ I tr Fcmp a
?' -Raleigh 6 L Drnsrrh
Grar, CMDeI ?? ,1;, ICrYtcM.r14I rd, `-''rEarrinltc d? , s ?,J e ' ` nbul c
St??eL ",?, ?,,,?Shcr NOw A .fr, rluJQn. fan.?Uon rX r., C:j?i• I p+h da!
n ?, 3 1, ...pJJ 1 fRtl a . Sttl• lr .I,
lru L, a
tue t3U a a JZ3Q s
?,le yi24/ _ M1 +3J7 JJU r. ..,"^.n\•v +371`
L -1
UH 13
IJ,c !? .fl '" I31I ^ •7,JL 37•3.' taJL IJ?! $ 37a ra a IALi 77 .rung M?
L110 o? n JN ?•
tlJt '? tsu laJl Iri JAZZ. n .3, ?° a ! ° ,p„• ,? , ?,.e?.:d. .
IfYf L J1L r, 1311 tul lLA ?• rit,?• .7.
'' ' 1 ra L XMI Qs
„ to .Ie , 1 Wit
? Lea. LI ^ it_4 WE • Iw L= 1111 d ? :M.•.
(4&$
33}1 1214. ?" ,f 1311 4 tYl tea
o<•
p or ro
.tl
LA,u llJl R ?a JS'to USE ?.
131 S 1TE--/ lu '4
I t A ,,e, :r.1
1.; s
317 ?, tun
un ,`•
2M
St1 Vii';
VICINITY MAP
un
?? 1 Iwrr
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSI RTATION
DIVISION OF HIG WAYS
DURHAM COU TY
PROJECT. 8.1351301 0-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) a IVENING
SHEET / OF 7
JUL.01'1999 07:41

#0873 P.009/014
_tjc 1s7 GuEss ?9 - L" - ?+?~

7d
n
A
i
.p
(3?
--r-- E
.T
I
r
PLAN
SITE III A
?G?IC
D,.. IoM 7eM
Q E° low CZ-F

? .ID
Y

N. C. DI:I)T.Of TRANS RTA,TION
DIVISION Or Hl(;H 1A) "S
DURHAM COUN y
PROJECT: 8.1351301 ( -2102)
N(,- 157 ((j'kjFIiS RD) WIDENING
SHEET G 01" .7
JUL.01'1999 07:41
#0873 P.010/014
gore-, m a.7or o Ca--.6,aAy
.vM aaov 'PyC

ON ti
i
i
\c ?p
IooyC wsa1, 9?. zk
[ ws6l 9?•g3 /
? ? Causaway ,c ?. ? 43 •o?
(Sed t-i re)
4 710so e CsP
I
45koo-L[Ev- AZO t4O
DOWNSTREAM
PROF ICE.
IIEaT?cA? SC??
t
0- 1
P.$IZOi JTA4 t- o-NL .
oM IOM ?M
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANS RTATION
DIVISION OF HIG WAYS
DURHAM COU TY
PROJECT:8.1351301 U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) IDENING
SHEET 3 OF I
1M?
JUL.01'1999 07:41 #0873 P.011/014

N ?
Tr 1
' 1
r!
yi..
fS
?
?
- r

?? t t t

4 ? • rte. i I -?
If
7
-
L

£
3

C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTA TION
,
1
DIVISION OF HIG[-IWA7.
PF :;. .._
DURHAM COUNTY
} «
1 I ' ?_ PROJECT: 8.1351.301 (U-21 C Z)

NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDE NG

i •, SHEET 4 OF 7
JUL.01'1999 07:42 #0873 P.012/014
3 I
Lft
° I ? o
I V,° o °? I i
t o
\ N
c+ N d
C> I
x

Q I ? ? I
A
I ?
rn
I °
O ? I
i 45
I I
t-a .
I Gi ? ? I I p
1
i I 1
6
db4gt

i ?}

t

I
I i it

I
? I EM7 FR
• x I ( I
I 4 I II i ?

I N I II
i
I ?, I • I i
.r•.?.•?
?? I" -_,
I II I
I I I
i
z I - i l
dC m ''
? ? ? o c II o

o
M x z
>
`?
I
Q
?,
G!1
fw ,'?r o
?
I p O
N
4 l
? f
?
n h r
1
Z o ?? "? 1 o II II Pi I?
I
.
n v ? ? Y T? ?
? III Ii
1'rJ1
?
I II

c
JUL.01'1999 07:42
#0873 P.013/014
jUL.01'1999 07:43 #0873 P.014/014

! f i f
-

7
7 J.

4
1
1 1
1 ill I

i ?
i t 11
4
-T
T
_ 4-

AL
fill -11,1 Ill-

+ L4

-. Illlt[ fill-Ill,
It!

-L-La, I

44-4.4.1 1
UPSTREAM
Vol-ver< nrjo AcaEAc:E o;f CLALS. " ?fr 'PAP

I'ceFAVE- D( kA
G Ern(,q' n1nl't'? ln0 M3
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPO ATION
CRTIcgL sc? DIVISION OF HIGHw Yi
m
ZM c?,,,
DURHAM COUNT

?
? PROJECT. 8.1351301 (U- 102)
-
O¢IZ?+rA? SCALE
NC 157 (GUESS RD) wID KING
SHEET `7 OF

State of North Carolina
7
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources f 4 ° o
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 13, 1997
FAXED
MFMORANDUM FEB 13 1991.
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell &
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 157 (Guess Road) Widening in Durham, from
SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road)
Durham County
State Project DOT No. 8.1351301, T.I.P. No. U-2102
EHNR # 97-0477, DWQ # 11506
The referenced document has been reviewed by Qris office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve fill in up to 0.6 acre of wetlands at two
locations. Impacts to surface waters at stream crossings were not quantified. DWQ offers the following
comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT proposes asymmetrical widening of 3.1 miles of an existing roadway. NCDOT's
selected alignment was the only Build Alternative studied. While we appreciate NCDOT's
efforts to avoid the Kinchen Holloway House (a property eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places), we cannot determine if wetland and stream impacts were given
adequate consideration in the planning process. Since a scoping meeting was not held, DWQ
and other resource agencies had little opportunity to cornment or suggest alternatives for
widening this roadway. NCDOT is reminded that evidence of avoidance and minimization of
wetlands to die extent practical will be necessary prior to our full endorsement of NCDOT's
preferred alternative. NCDOT should be prepared to provide this information with the 404/401
Permit application.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the
construction contract awarded for this project.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded for
this project.
D) The FONSI includes a commitment by NCDOT to implement HQW sediment and erosion
control standards from March 1 through July 1. We ask that HQW erosion control standards be
maintained at the Eno River bridge constuction area throughout construction.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
February 13, 1997
Page 2
E) The widening of NC 157 will involve two stream crossings in addition to construction of a new
bridge over the Eno River. The existing bridge over the Eno River will be replaced on new
location with a single 4-lane median-divided structure. Two existing crossings of two unnamed
tributaries to Warren Creek are situated in culverts beneath NC 157. Neither the EA nor the
FONSI discuss the culvert extensions and/or potential stream relocations at these two locations.
This information must be included with the 404/401 Permit application. If culvert extensions
and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet linear distance of stream channel at any single
crossing, stream mitigation may be required in accordance with current DWQ Wetland Rules
(15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)) which were not in effect at the time die EA and FONSI were
prepared. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal should be included with
the application for 401 Water Quality Certification.
F) Reference NCDOT's Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins (May 2,
1996), which state that these basins will be provided at stream crossings located within one half
mile of the Critical Area of a water supply source. At the NC 157 bridge crossing, the Eno River
is classified as WS III-B NSW. The FONSI states that a water supply intake is located greater
than 0.5 mile downstream of the existing bridge. The exact distance to this intake location is not
specified. If the new bridge will be within one half mile of the Critical Area of this intake
location, placement of hazardous spill basins will be recommended in accordance with NCDOT's
guidelines. The number of catch basins installed at the Eno River, if necessary, should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff water would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the river.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA and FONSI, General Certifications 3108 and 3103
will likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by
NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon
evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impact.,; to the extent practical, and
provision of wetland and strewn mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is reminded that issuance of
a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water
quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, DOA, Raleigh
Robert James Booker, III, NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2102FON.DOC
1
NC 157 (Guess Road)
Durham
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road),
Durham County
State Project No. 8.1351301
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(l)
TIP Project No. U-2102
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) EVALUATION
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)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
145?
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
1-7,L?3?J3?6' /-Vy,
M 9-4- ' 14
Date Nich L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
(1 Qa6
1
NC 157 (Guess Road)
Durham
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road),
Durham County
State Project No. 8.1351301
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1)
TIP Project No. U-2102
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
December, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
6?t??FtFtln;.
H Ctikp
• /2 ,S0 (? SEAL Sri
Richard Davis, P. E., Ass tant anager 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch
f'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. TYPE OF ACTION ............................................
II. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS .....................
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
IV. PERMITS ........................................................................ .............2
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS .................................. .............2
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment .............. ..............2
B. Comments Received on the Environmental
Assessment ...................................................... .............. 3
C. Public Hearing ............................................................ ............13
VI. SECTION 6(F) AND 4(F) RESOURCES .............................. ............14
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............ 16
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..... ............16
APPENDIX
Comments Received from Review Agencies on
the Environmental Assessment
1
NC 157 (Guess Road)
Durham
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road),
Durham County
State Project No. 8.1351301
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1)
TIP Project No. U-2102
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will
be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Two portions of a City of Durham Park will be affected by the proposed
improvement (2.8 acres) and (1.0 acres), as well as, two portions of a state park
(0.14 acres) and (1.0 acres). Since a land and water conservation fund grant was used to
develop these parks, the land taken by the proposed project will be replaced and addressed
under 4(f) and 6(f) statements.
Deck drains will be placed at the ends of the replacement bridge so no drainage
will occur over the Eno River Channel.
Construction warning signs will be placed upsteam of the bridge site to alert
canoeists.
NCDOT will take precautions to avoid damage to the root zones of the trees
screening the Kichen Holloway House during construction of the project.
The mill site located in the southwest quadrant of Guess Road and the Eno River
Bridge, will be avoided during construction of the project.
Use of HQW erosion control standards and minimization of in-stream activities
from March 1-July 1, will be observed.
Potential impacts are increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion;
increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills; due
to interruptions or additions to surficial and/or groundwater flow; changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover. Sedimentation and erosion control
measures will be strictly enforced due to the sensitive nature of the Eno River system.
1
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA and NCDOT have determined this project will not have a significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) which has been evaluated and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required and that the project will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
II. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS
The proposed improvements to Guess Road (NC 157) are included in the
1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Construction is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998. The current TIP includes a total funding of
$13,790,000 for the project, consisting of $10,400,000 for construction with $3, 390,000
in prior year cost. This 3.1 mile project has a current total estimated cost of $13,740,000
including $2,740,000 for right-of-way and $11,000,000 for construction. .
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to widen NC 157 (Guess Road) in Durham from Carver Street to Umstead Road (See
Appendix, Figure 1). The proposed improvement is to widen the existing two lane facility
to a multi-lane roadway with sidewalks along both sides of the project. From Carver
Street to Lake Road a five lane 68-foot, face to face, curb and gutter section is
recommended and from Lake Road to Umstead Road a 72-foot, face to face, curb and
gutter section, with a 16-foot raised grass median is proposed. Both sections will contain
14-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The project also proposes to construct a
i
new bridge over the Eno River on the east side. A 72-foot clear structure roadway width
with 5-foot sidewalks is recommended for the new bridge. The recommended total bridge
length is 250 feet. The total project length is 3.1 miles.
IV. PERMITS
In accordance with provision of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location and estimated acreage
involved, it is anticipated that three stream crossings will be authorized by Nationwide
Permit (33 CFR 30.5) (a)(14). Nationwide #14 allows for minor road crossing fills of
non-tidal "Waters of the United States". The plane of ordinary high water and the fill does
not extend beyond 100 feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of adjacent
waterbodies. Nationwide permits are valid only if the conditions applicable to them are
met as outlined in 33 CFR 330.5(b) and 33 CFR 33.6(a).
A General Permit (CESAW-C82-N-000-0031) is likely to apply to the bridge over
the Eno River. This permit authorizes the placement of fill material associated with the
construction, repair or replacement of bridge spanning navigable waters and waters the
United States. However, final judgement concerning specific permit jurisdiction is
reserved by the COE.
A 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) will be required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permits.
NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Durham in determining the need for a no
rise certification for the Eno River crossing.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, on June 23, 1995, and by the Federal Highway
Administration on June 29, 1995. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk (*) indicates a response was received from that agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U. S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. S. National Park Service
N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Environmental Health
Division of Land Resources
Natural Heritage Program
*Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Durham County Commissioners
*City of Durham
*N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from several
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate:
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington Corps of Engineers
a. Comment:
The study area for the proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of the
City of Durham, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program.
From a review of Panels 5 and 15 of the January 1982 City of Durham Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the roadway crosses Warren Creek Tributaries A and B and
the Eno River, all detail study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined
and floodways defined. We recommend that you coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency regarding the need for a no-rise certification and
with the city for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any modifications
to their flood insurance maps and report.
Response:
When final plans are complete the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will review the
plans and coordinate with FEMA and the City of Durham to determine the need
for a no rise certification.
1
b. Comment:
"Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the Environmental Assessment and
has provided the following comments. A review of the information provided and
various maps indicate that the proposed project will involve the crossing of four
jurisdictional waters of the United States (Eno River and three of its unnamed
tributaries). Two of the four sites have associated jurisdictional wetlands, 0.5 acre
at Site 1 and 0.1 acre at Site 2. With the exception of the Eno River crossing, the
project impacts are located above the headwaters of each project stream. Impacts
associated with construction across the unnamed tributaries may be eligible for
authorization by various nationwide permits (33 CFR 330.5(a)(14). (18), or (26),
depending upon the amount of jurisdictional impacts, project design and
construction techniques employed. The crossing of the Eno River is eligible for
authorization by General Permit CESAW-C082-N-000- 0031, as suggested in the
referenced document.
Once final plans become available, they should be forwarded to our office
for review to determine specific Department of the Army permit applicability and
requirements. Should you have any questions concerning this project, please
contact Mrs. Manuels"
Response:
Of the four stream crossings, only two have associated wetlands. These
waters and their associated wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material
into these wetlands as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetland communities associated with these stream crossings were
identified in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma values,
hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology or hydrological indicates,
such as stained, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
bases and surface roots. Acreage values for these associated wetlands were
calculated based on 100 feet of right-of-way and are presented in Table 3 of the
EA. Upon availability of final design plans NCDOT will forward copies to the
COE for review.
2. North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and
Natural Resources (N.C. DEHNR), Division of Environmental Management
a. Comment:
"DEM is not aware of any coordination for this project. We did not
receive a request for a meeting or written comments."
Response:
Coordination for this project was sent to Mr. Howard Lee, Head of
DEHNR, in 1992,
b. Comment:
"The Eno River has a WSIII-B NSW classification. DEM requests that
there be no weep holes in the bridge in order to protect the existing classification."
Response:
Deck drains will be placed at the ends of the bridge so no drainage will
occur over the Eno River channel. This will allow runoff to filter through the soil,
not directly over the water.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
a. Comment:
"We recommend that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control
measures for High Quality Waters (HQW) for work in and areas draining directly
into the Eno River. If bottom disturbing activities will occur in the river, no
in-water activities should occur from March 1, to July 1. If it is necessary to work
during this period, silt curtains and coffer dams should be used to isolate
construction activities. The replacement bridge should have no deck drains over
the Eno River channel. Vegetation removal and land disturbing activities should
be limited to the minimum amount required to construct the roadway. If possible,
the existing bridge approaches should be retained and used to provide a safe
parking area for river and park access."
Response:
The Eno River is environmentally sensitive with respect to water quality.
Erosion and sedimentation control is very important at this location. Construction
operations will be carefully planned to minimize disturbance of existing stream
banks. Cofferdam sheeting will be needed for the construction of bridge footings
in water. Any material excavated for footings in or near water will be removed
from the immediate vicinity to prevent it from eroding back into the water. If
excavated footings need to be pumped out, effluent will be directed to a temporary
stilling basin prior to discharging into the river. All runoff crossing the
construction area will be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral ditches with
rock check dams to slow and filter the runoff prior to discharging into the river.
Approach roadway fill slopes will be stabilized with seeding, and temporary silt
ditches, silt fence, etc. will be provided at the toe of fill. Berms along the top of
1
the fill slope will be used to convey runoff laterally to temporary slope drains,
which empty into temporary sediment basins. Early placement of rip-rap slope
protection will also protect against surface erosion. Special attention will be given
to proper installation and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control
devices. Also to eliminate drainage into the Eno River no deck drains will be
placed over the channel. NCDOT will make every effort to avoid/minimize
in-stream activity during these months however. Normal NCDOT Protocols for
in-stream construction activities is the time period March 15 through
December 15. If a March 1 through July 1 moratorium is imposed, there may not
be adequate time available (July-December 15) to complete necessary in-stream
activity.
b. Comment:
"We have no record of coordination of this project in the form of a scoping
meeting or request for written comments. These issues could have been addressed
in the early planning stages of this project and any future delays avoided."
Response:
Coordination of this project was sent to Mr. Howard Lee, Head of
DEHNR, in 1992.
Comment:
"The EA provides an adequate description of the fish and wildlife resources
in the project vicinity. Environmental impacts are also briefly discussed.
However, we do not feel that environmental commitments included in the EA are
adequate to protect the diverse assemblage of aquatic fauna in the Eno River. The
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should include the recommended
measures to protect these quality resources."
Response:
Use of HQW erosion control standards and minimization of in-stream
activities from March 1 - July 1, will be observed. (See response Section V. B.,
3a).
4. N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
a. Comment:
"The document notes in Section VI A-2 that only City of Durham park
property will be affected by this alignment shift, implying that all improvements
north of the river will occur on the east side of the existing roadway. Does this

mean that State owned property, which extends on the west side of Guess Road
from the river north to SR 1447, will be avoided entirely both for construction and
right-of-way? This point needs to be clarified in the document. If either
right-of-way or construction occur on the west side of the existing alignment,
thereby taking state park property, then that would be considered a conversion
under the rules of the federal Land and Water Conservation Act and would require
compensation.
Also, the Division has a ranger residence just north of the river on the west
side of Guess Road that will potentially be affected by this project. The effects and
mitigation, if any, of the widening and the right-of-way requirements on access to
this residence need to be clarified. Access to this residence will have to be
maintained during and after construction."
Response:
Based on current design plans the proposed centerline will be shifted east
at the existing Eno River Bridge to minimize damages to the Old Mill site and
allow phase construction of the replacement bridge. Access to the ranger
residence will be maintained throughout construction.
The state owned park (LWCF) on the west side of Guess Road from the
Eno River to SR 1447 will be impacted to the extent of 1.14 acres (see Appendix).
This parkland is generally longitudinal and cannot be avoided by reasonable shifts
in the alignment of Guess Road. A more thorough description of the impacts on
the park and measures that will be utilized to minimize impacts are included in
Section VI. of this document.
b. Comment:
"Recreation: Although the document notes in Section V-D (Future Land
Use) that the bridge will be constructed to allow for the placement of trails beneath
it along the river, there is no other discussion of recreation issues. This stretch of
the river is used occasionally by canoeists, and this project could pose serious
dangers to boating navigation and safety. The Division requests that warning signs
be placed upstream of the bridge site."
Response:
Construction warning signs will be placed upstream of the bridge site.
C. Comment:
"Environmental Commitments: Given the Eno River's designations as a
water supply stream and nutrient sensitive waters, the Division requests that the
1
following additional steps be taken to protect the river following this project's
completion:
A. Construct a hazardous spill catch basin at the Eno River crossing.
B. Provide a self-contained bridge drainage system at the Eno River
crossing that will drain into the hazardous spill catch basin.
C. Ensure that earthern crossings beneath the bridge are large enough
to allow for wildlife passage and for the future construction of
hiking or equestrian trails on either side of the river."
Response:
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will review the project after final plans are
complete and make final recommendations at that time. The intake is located
greater than .5 mile downstream of the bridge, therefore, hazardous catch basins
are not currently recommended, according to the Water Supply Watershed
Protection Act (WSWPA).
The new bridge will be longer and higher than the existing bridge and will
have about 10 meters of dry land (between the toe of the end bent to the normal
water elevation) to assure adequate wildlife passage.
City of Durham
a. Comment:
"There is no mention of water and sewer lines in the report. Water and
Sewer lines extend the length of the project with connections at all street
intersections and numerous service connections to adjacent properties. Additional
information can be obtained from the City of Durham Engineering Department.
Response:
NCDOT is aware of the water and sewer lines along Guess Road.
NCDOT will coordinate any needed adjustments with the City of Durham and
comply with all requirements of appropriate agencies.
b. Comment:
"The report states that the level of service at Carver Street, Hormone
Road, and Latta Road intersections will operate at service level "F" with the
proposed project in the year 2015. Why is the project being designed at an
unacceptable level of service? Why does the report incorrectly assume that during
1
peak congestion periods that traffic will divert to a parallel route such as Duke
Street? Duke Street is over its designed capacity today with no planned capacity
improvements" ,
Response:
Seven or eight lanes, along with widening Carver, Horton and Latta
Streets, would be required to reach a satisfactory level of service for Guess Road
in the year 2015. The recommended cross section was partly based on the amount
of funds available to improve service on Guess Road. To widen Guess Road any
more would have substantial negative impact to the communities along this
corridor. Also, intersecting signalized facilities would have to be widened to
accept the high level of turns off Guess Road. This would be beyond the scope of
this project.
C. Comment:
"The City of Durham proposes to use Surface Transportation Program-
Direct Apportionment (STP-DA) funds (80%) with a 20% local match to finance
the full cost of the proposed sidewalks for the project. The sidewalks are to be
five feet wide, and where possible, set five feet behind the back-of-curb (page 6,
section 8). Also, sidewalks should be reflected in the typical section figures
provided in the Appendix of the report."
Response:
Due to the limited amount of right of way for this improvement five foot
sidewalks will be set 2.5 feet from the back of the curb.
d. Comment:
"A city emergency water supply intake is located downstream from the
proposed bridge at the Eno River. The environmental document does not mention
this intake. The report should identify and commit to the appropriate bridge
design features which will effectively mitigate and/or control possible hazardous
spills."
Response:
The intake is several miles downstream, if it were within .5 miles of the
bridge, catch basins for hazardous spills would be constructed. However, due to
the Eno Rivers designation as a water supply stream and nutrient sensitive waters,
the NCDOT Hydraulics Branch has reviewed the project and made a
recommendation that catch basins for hazardous spills are not justified for the
bridge.
10
Comment:
"In the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) the State
proposed to revise the alignment of Umstead Road at Guess Road in order to
signalize the intersection (project # W-2706). The scope of the Guess Road
widening project was subsequently extended northward to include improvements
north of Umstead Road, including the intersection realignment. The proposed
safety project was folded into the larger Guess Road improvement project and
project W-2706 was dropped from the TIP. Why is the traffic signal not included
in project design? This signal should be a part of the proposed project.
Response:
A signal will be installed as part of this project.
Comment:
"Public transportation services are provided along a portion of Guess Road
between Carver Street and Horton Road. This should be reflected in the report
(page 7, section C; page 9, section E). Also, the public transportation analysis
section of the report is very weak."
Response:
NCDOT is aware of the public transportation service between Carver
Street and Horton Road.
g. Comment:
"The proposed Congestion Management System (CMS) is scheduled to be
implemented in October 1, 1996 as the result of implementation extension by the
Federal Highway Administration.
Also, Durham County has been redesignated as an air quality maintenance
area and is no longer "non-attainment".
Response:
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the
Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as
defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 03
on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
r
1
II
conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The
current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Durham
County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1995 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO
approval date for the TIP is August 9, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the
TIP is November 1, 1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with
the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been no significant
changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity
analyses.
h. Comment:
"Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) rates are projected to increase
significantly in the future. The emissions reductions associated with newer
vehicles will be exceeded by projected VMT growth. Refer to the urban area's air
quality conformity analysis as prepared by the N. C. Department of
Transportation's Statewide Planning Branch."
Response:
The widening of Guess Road was included in the conformity analysis
provided on NCDOTs Statewide Planning Branch.
Comment:
"The City of Durham provides street lighting for the portion of the project
within the city limits. Therefore, the State should consider preparing a street light
design to be used by the City of Durham for new street light installations."
Response:
Duke Power should be contacted for a design of the lighting system.
Comment:
"The project should receive the maximum allocation of landscaping funds
allowed under State policy."
Response:
In accordance with the NCDOT landscaping policy, the Department will
provide the maximum available landscaping funds for this project.
12
k. Comment:
"Bridge railings that meet standards for bicycles and pedestrians railings
should be provided on the Eno River Bridge."
Response:
Bicycle safe railing is not required on the new Eno River Bridge since
sidewalks will be adjacent to the bridge rail. The rail will be a standard 3.5' height,
3 bar metal rail, with 2 elliptical rails and a rub rail at the bottom.
Comment:
"The Eno River bridge should be designed with sufficient height and span
to allow for a pedestrian underpass, since the Eno River is designated as a trail
corridor on the Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Master Plan Map.
Response:
The new structure will be higher than the existing Bridge and will allow for
a pedestrian underpass.
M. Comment:
"The Eno River bridge should be designed with as long a span as possible
to encourage wildlife movement under the bridge rather than on the bridge.
Stabilization of the banks should be through revegetation and bioengineering
methods rather than rip-rap to the greatest extent possible, to provide a habitat
suitable for wildlife movement."
Response:
The new bridge will be 256 feet long. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit
recommends Class II riprap on the end slopes, which is standard policy.
n. Comment:
"The City of Durham has no park and ride lot facilities in the Guess Road
corridor. The referenced park and ride agreements with owners of private lots do
not exist. Attempts to acquire such agreements have been unsuccessful. Park and
ride lot facilities should therefore be evaluated in the study and the aforementioned
errors corrected."
1
1
13
Response:
The City of Durham currently has no public "park-n-ride" facilities.
Opportunities for "park-n-ride" community are available in Durham at private
parking lots. However, there are no private "park-n-ride" lots in the Guess Road
Corridor. Due to limited requests for a "park-n-ride" facility in the Guess Road
Corridor, a "park-n-ride" lot will not be provided as part of project U-2102.
C. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the State Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was
held on September 28, 1995 at the Riverview High School on Rose of Sharon Road.
Approximately 100 citizens and 5 NCDOT personnel and one FHWA representative
attended the public hearing. The questions and concerns dealt with individual property
concerns, as well as questions about the typical cross section, alignment, median
cross-overs, right of way, relocation assistance and the project schedule. All of these
concerns were adequately addressed at the hearing. A transcript of the hearing is on file
with the N. C. Division of Highways. Written letters and comments from the public were
also received and either personally answered or noted during the official comment period
following the hearing. A summary of the written comments requiring responses is stated
below.
Comment:
"Why not widen Guess Road to the west just south of Eno River?"
Response:
"The alignment was shifted to the east to avoid the Old Mill site located on
the west side of Guess Road".
Comment:
"Is a signal going to be erected at Umstead Road and Guess Road?"
Response:
"A signal will be installed at Umstead Road as part of the Guess Road
project."
14
VI. SECTION 6(, AND 4f) RESOURCES
Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, allows
the use of publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance, only if
there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land and the proposed project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource. Two Section 4(f)
resources, administered by the City of Durham and the NC Division of Parks and
Recreation, are located along the subject project. These resources, two parks, are located
near the Eno River (see 6(f) Resources below for description of park properties).
Section 6(,f) Resources
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program was established in 1965
to provide matching funds to the states for the acquisition of land and development of
outdoor recreation areas. Those parks and recreation areas that were acquired and/or
developed in whole or in part with LWCF assistance are protected by Section 6(f) of the
LWCF Act of 1965, as amended. Furthermore, the LWCF Act requires that project
sponsors maintain to acceptable standards the properties or facilities acquired or
developed for public outdoor recreation use.
Section 6(f)(3) of the Act states that "No property acquired or developed with
assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary (Department of
the Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary
shall approve such conversion only he finds it to be in accord with the then existing
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and only upon such
conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties
of at least equal fair market value and of reasonable equivalent usefulness and location".
In order to comply with the LCWF conversion representatives of Division of State
Parks and Recreation and the Director of parks for the city of Durham have been
contacted and informed of the impact. The impact will consist of 3.8 acres of city
parkland and 1.14 acres of state parkland. Since the State and City Parks are longitudinal
parks along the Eno River, Guess Road cannot be improved without impacting parkland
(see Figure 1). Widening to the west would impact the historic Guess Road Mill Site.
Also, a better horizontal alignment can be obtained on the south approach if widening is to
the east.
A meeting was held on May 14, 1996 between NCDOT, city of Durham Parks,
and NC State Parks Representatives to discuss the conversion of these parklands for
highway use. It was determined at this meeting several properties which were acceptable
to the city of Durham and State parks, for the conversion property will be considered as
replacement properties.
1
15
To complete this 6(f) process NCDOT will provide the city of Durham and State
Parks with the following items:
1) Copies of the EA and FONSI
2) Detailed description of land to acquired from the park (Survey information)
3) An appraisal of the land to be acquired from the park
4) Detailed description of the park (City of Durham may need a full survey of
the park, the State may not need this information)
5) A detailed description of the replacement property (Survey information)
6) An appraisal of the replacement property
7) A discussion of why the park can not be avoided [this can be the
information contained in the Section 4(f)]
8) An environmental assessment for the replacement property (This would
likely be a CE or programmatic CE).
There are two section 6(f) Resources located along the subject project. One
administered by the City of Durham and the other administered by the NC Division of
Parks and Recreation. These resources, two public parks, are located along Guess Road
in the vicinity of the Eno River.
The state park is located on the west side of Guess Road, north of the Eno River.
The City of Durham Park is located on the east side of Guess Road, north and south of the
river and on the west side of Guess Road south of the river.
The city of Durham LWCF Park affected by the project consists of a total of
approximately 373 acres located in the east of Guess Road and would be impacted by the
additional right of way needed to replace the existing bridge on the east side (See map in
Appendix). The total city parkland acres impacted is 3.8.
The State Park is located on the west side of Guess Road between the Eno River
and Open Air Camp Road. The proposed improvement will impact 1.14 acres of LWCF
Parkland from the state park. (See map in Appendix).
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from both the
State Park and City of Durham Park, and meets the criteria set forth n the Federal Register
(December 23, 1986), a Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of
Section 4(0 (See Appendix, Programmatic Section 4(0 Evaluation).
16
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Since the EA was completed, the State Parks Manager has advised NCDOT that
the project will impact State Park land which was acquired with LWCF. This new park
was not identified in the EA and requires additional 6(f) coordination and an additional
programmatic Section 4(f) (See Appendix). The total estimated cost of the project is
$13,740,000.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation that the project will not have a significant impact upon the quality of the
human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental
standpoint. No significant impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are
expected. No significant impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels is
expected. The project is consistent with local plans and will not divide or disrupt a
community. The project will have no adverse effect on any historic properties listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. The proposed improvements will have no effect on
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it is determined that a
Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. An Environmental Impact
Statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
RJB/plr
1
I I O IE\ AIR CAJIP RD. ?/
R-20

1 ?
I
.r 1
4z r
'-ly `?; J,.. y J3 J Jaw J :?z.+ {JJ f,
.: U J s iti!- JJ.. is ? % : J ?J:? ? ?J..?'r/ ?. 1 1 JJJ' i - ?
J,?,M J-. J. I- 4? ??'r •i=N'-:/...i - '.?-,lJ.*r'J ?i
"-t ? JJ :rJ •? 1. J..? ? rsJr,J r .f,.k w IL. r'7'..y"'• ...
R-20?
LEGEND
`!T.". = STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
':+'`1 "? LWCF PARK
CITY OF DG7tFi.LM LNCF PARK
-_? PARK LA.\•D DIPACTED
?
NORTH C4ROLLNA DEPARTSIE\T OF
J?y MISI
TRANSPORTATION
NZ,
DI?7Sl0\ O OF F FIHIGHaAYS
PLAN".VMG A\D V,%'MOX1ff.NTAL BRANCH
DL?JWL XC 137
(GUESS ROAD), SR 1407 (CARVER STREET)
TO SR 1449 (L•SISTEAD ROAD)
DC MAM COU.N-LT
V-2103
FIGURE 1

4 City of Durham, Parks and Recreation Dept.
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC, 27701
(919) 5M-4355
Fax: [phone]
May 15, 1996
Teresa Hart, Project Planning Unit Head
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dcar Ms. Hart:
I am writing this letter to clarify the Parks & Recreation Department position regarding the TIP # U-2102,
Widening Guess Road, Durham, NC, letter dated April 8, 1993.
In regards to the replacement properties for the 6 (f) conversion of Eno River City Parr lands under the
LWCF regulations: Our first choice would be the property at 4404 Guess Road, but only if the road
alignment required the removal of the house. If the house is retained, we would not be interested in the site.
Our next choice would he the property on the west side of Roxboro Road along the northern perimeter of our
property, as noted in the April 8, 1993-letter.
If you need any further information, please advise.
Sincerely,

William A.. Harrat
Co-Manager
r? .
North Carolina State University
%t Recreation Resources Service
Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
College of Forest Resources
Box 8004
Raleigh, NC 27695-8001
[phone]
Telex: 575157
FAX: [phone]
To: Bill Harrat, Durham Parks and Recreation Dept.
Don Sellers, DOT Right-of-way
Fr: Kathy White, Recreation Resources Service
Re: LWCF Conversion - Guess Road Widening
Kathy White, Consultant
West-Central Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
The enclosures listed below will outline the procedures, guidelines and checklists we
have discussed for preparing the LWCF conversion request. Please review the
materials and give me a call if you have any questions.
Please remember that deeds can not be transferred until the conversion request has
received final approval from the National Park Service.
LWCF Post-Completion Responsibilities Handbook (includes conversion process
and instructions for Updated As-Built Site Plans
LWCF Manual Section on Conversions Chapter 675.9
LWCF Manual Section on Acquisitions and Appraisals Chapter 675.2
Letter clarifying the types of appraisals required (call if your
appraiser needs a copy of the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisition")
Checklists to be used by State Property Office to review your Appraisals
(note - different list for values under and over $25,000.)
Please keep me advised of your progress and let me know if there is any way I can help.
cc ob Booker, DOT Project Engineer
John Poole,LWCF Program Mamager
I`
North Carolina State University is a land-grant university and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO 1995
ATTENMNOF August 30,
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50'
O
' SEP C 5 1995
z
This is in response to your letter of July 19, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation for Durham, NC 157 (Guess Road), From SR 1407 (Carver
Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County, State Project No. 8.1351301,
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1), TIP Project No. U-2102" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199504952).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross
coany mmentsponcthetotherdissues.
control or navigation project. Enclosed
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
7ief, am R. Daws , P.E.
C Enginee ng and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Pnr%W on ® RKytbd P&W
August 30, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation for Durham, NC 157 (Guess Road), From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to
SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County, State Project No. 8.1351301, Federal
Aid Project No. M-5329(1), TIP Project No. U7.2102" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199504952)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of
the City of Durham, which participates in the National Flood Insurance
Program. From a review of Panels 5 and 15 of the January 1982 City of Durham
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway reams rosses B
and the Eno River, all detail study st
determined and floodways defined. We recommend that you coordinate with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the need for a no-r'
certi ion and with the city for compliance with their flood plain
ordinance and any modifications to their oo Insurance maps and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulator, Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the Environmental Assessment and has
provided the following comments. A review of the information provided and
various maps indicate that the proposed project will involve the crossing of
four jurisdictional waters of the United States (Eno River and three of its
unnamed tributaries). Two of the four sites have associated jurisdictional
wetlands, 0.5 acre at Site 1 and 0.1 acre at Site 2. With the exception of
the Eno River crossing, the project impacts are located above the headwaters
of each project stream. Impacts associated with construction across the
unnamed tributaries may be eligible for authorization by variousanation i de
permits (33 CFR 330:5(a)(14), (18), or (26), depending upon the nt of
jurisdictional impacts, project design and construction techniques employed.
The crossing of the Eno River is eligible for authorization by General Permit
CESAW-C082-N-000-0031, as suggested document.
in the referenced Once final design plans become available, they should be forwarded to
office for our review to determine specific Department of thesArmy permit concerning
applicability andrngotlhesetate tohcontactuMrsVeManuele.
project, please do
our
?Z'ct", wU?
Ll
47?
this
State of North Carolina
Deparment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
David B. Foeler, Director
Highway Environmental Evaluation Program
r
® ?? 1 V i=l
August 24, 1995
MEMOR NDUM
TO:
State ClearinLyhousc
FRONM: David B. Foster

SUBJECT: North Carolina department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment & Draft Programmatic Sec.4f Evaluation
for NC 147 (Guess Rd.), Durham, from SR 1407 (Carver St.) to
SR 1449 (Umstead Rd.), in Durham county, TIP` U-2102, SCH
96-0068
Tne De-.a=c-. t of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) has reviewed this
document and the comments of our agencies are attached. Tnex are a number of well thought out
suggestions proposed by our agencies which should facilitate the pe.:nit acquisition process.
We appreciate the efforts of N'CDOT to minimize impacts from this project, and we ask your
continued coooeradon in addressing the concerns of our agencies through the design and permit
acquisition processes, as well as in the final environmental document.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project
CC. Melba lIvIcGee
P.O. Eox 27687. Raleigh. No th Ccroflne 27611-7687 Te!echone 919-715-4151 FAX = 715.2060
An Equal oecorunr,? ANirrnatNe Ac--on cmpioyer °00,: recyc!ec! 100,e pest-consumer paper
ICuR: Ham= r rnLL3 L=K

?? North Carolina Wiidlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Mc-cc
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conscrvation Progr. , l
DATE: August 10, 1993
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmcnral
Assessment (EA) for NC 157 (Guess Road improvements, from SR 1407 (Carver
Street to SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-
2102, SCH Project No. 96-0068.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with crtai.n provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-6674).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing two-lane NC 157 to a five-lane, curb and gutter section
iron SR 1407 to SR 1449. This includes the replacement of the bridge over the Eno Rive:. The
proiect length is approximately 2.9 stiles. EsdTnzmd wetland impacts total approximately 0.60
acres.
We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather that to construct
new roadways. Improving existing roadways avoids new stream and wetland crossings, does not
further fragment wildlife habitat, and does not promote secondary development. However, we
remain eonecrned over the potential impacts of the Eno River bridge replacement.
The Eno River has excellent fish populations and good diversity of benthos and fish species.
The Eno River Sate Park and City of Durham Park form an almost contiguous linear system of
\1C`?I?C Lr= ALL J LG1-
lvfemomndum 2 :august 10, 1995
pz6:lands which are used heavily by the public. The Eno Rive: experiences considerable fishing
pressure for numerous sunfish species especially at access arras and road crossings. Many state
listed species occur in the Eno Rive: including the Roanoke bass and-several species of listed
freshwater mussels which are very sensitive to siltation and other changes in water quality.
We recommend that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control measures for High
Quality Waters (HQW) :or work in and areas draining directly into the Eno River. If bottom
disturbin; activities will occur in the river, no in-water should occur from Nfarch 1 to July 1. If it
is necessary to work during this period, silt curtains and coffer dams should be used to isolate
construction activities. The replacement bridge should have no deck drains over the Eno River
channel. Vegetation removal and land disrobing activities should be limited to the minimum
amount required to construct the roadway. If possible, the existing bridge approaches should be
stained and used to provide a safe parking area for river and park access.
We have no record of coordination of this project in the form of a scopin-a meeting or
rcoucst for written cumments. These issues could have been addressed in the early planning
stsgcs o: taus project and any future delays avoided.
The EA provides run adequate description of the fish and wildlife resources in the project
vicinity. 'environmental impacts are Jso briefly discussed. However, we do not lecl that
environmental corzmitricnts included in the EA are adequate to protect the diverse :ssembla_ee
of aot:_tic fauna in the Eno River. The Finding of No Significant L-•ipact (FONSI) should
include the recommended treasures to protect these quality resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this BA 1i we can be of any further
assistance please call ne at [phone].
cc: Howa-d Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mcica
. NC L='1 WQ E]'Nsci Fag
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Managen
JCrnes B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathon S. Howes. SeCreTC
A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.E.. I
Fug 18 'S5 ':? '- -,u r. U4//'4
i ° • x ,
18, 1p°5
MEMORANDUM .
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Do .
Monica Swii&rt
From: Eric Galamo
Subiec:: EA for NC 15-1 Improvem
Durham County
State Project DOT No. 8.1
EHNR >t ,.6-0068, GEM 7
The subject document has been revie i
Environmental Manscement is responsil
Quality Certifiodon for activities which i
The subject, project will impact 0.6 acre:
ccrnments are based on the EA review:
A) reDEM is not aware of any coordin
quest for a meeting or written (
6) The
weEno River has a ep holes in the bud g
no e in c
DOT is reminded that endorsement of
a 401 CarUtication upon application 'tf v
rected to
avoided and 401 Garlfcatio?n??tou d t be dde r
Branch at 733-17e6.
cc: Raleigh COE
nc157.ea
rents
51301, -nP = U-2102
1013
d by this ounce. The Division of
le fcr the issuance of the Section 401 Water
npac; waters of the state including wetlands.
of water and wetlands. The following
ion for this project. We did not receive a.
mments.
J ciassiticaJon. DEM requests that there be
er to protect the existing c,assfication.
EA by OEM would not preclude the denial of
tland. and water impacts have not been
extent practicable. Questions regarding the
rig Galamb In DEM's Environmental Sciences
Sax e+9h. North C=O t?na27626-0635 Telephone 919-7-:-3-7015 • FAX[phone]
p.o. „ox Rd EmFiaYer ` -roeyc4oe/ 1Ci P -cona?mor pcper
/,n EG.jci Ccputur%V A.*m,-*, Aettcn
v?"Iv I I I ? vt_'. CIV ICIV 1
RECEIVED
DURHAM City of Durham
.-. North Carolina
f ?. T K
Department of Transportation
i?. 101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
1 8 6 9
C" OF MEDICINE
November 7, 1995
Mr. Bill Garrett
Citizen's Participation Unit
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Nov 9 1995
Phone [phone]
.... --..FAX-(91.9}-60,4561
Subject: Federal Environmental Assessment for Durham, NC 157 (Guess Road)
Dcar Mr. Garrett:
On behalf of the City of Durham, I would like to thank you for the presentation you gave to the City
Council on November 2, 1995 concerning the proposed widening of Guess Road. It was very much
appreciated.
On November 6, 1995 the City Council approved a resolution concerning the project and the Federal
Environmental Assessment. A certified copy of the resolution is enclosed. We request that the
resolution and attached comments be entered into the project record and appropriately addressed in the
final environmental report. Please note that the resolution commends the N. C. Department of
Transportation for including 14-feet wide outside travel lanes for bicycles in the design of the project.
Tile resolution also addresses the City's participation in sidewalk construction costs.
Your assistance is appreciated.
Sincerely,
H. Wesley Parham, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Mark Ahrendsen, TCC Chairman
A. Paul Norby, City-County Planning Director
Dan Thomas, Statewide Planning Branch
AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Guess Road (NC 157) Environmental Asgessincnt Comments
1. Thc:: is no mention of water and sewer lines in the report.. Water and sewer lines extend the length
of the prvjce: with connections at all street intersections and numerous service connections to
adjacent properties. Additional information can be obtained from the City of Durham Engineering
Department (page 3, section 11).
2. The report states that the level of service at Carver Street, Horton Road, and Latta Road intersections
will operate at service level "F" with the proposed project in the year 2015. Why is the project being
designed at an unacceptable level of service? Why does the report incorrectly assume that during
peak congestion periods that traffic will divert to a parallel route sucli as Duke Street? Duke Sheet is
over its designed capacity today with no planned capacity improvements (page 4, section r).
3.. The City of Durham proposes to use Surfacc Transportation Program-Direct Apportionment (STP-
DA) funds (80%) with a 20% local match to finance the full cost of the proposed sidewalks for the
project. The sidewalks are to be five fe:twide, and where possible, set five feet behind the back-of-
curb (pare 6, section 8). Also, sidewalks should be reflected in the typical section figures provided
in the Appendix of the report
4. A city emergency water supply intake is located downstream from the proposed brid. the Eno
River. The environmental document does not mention this intake. The report should identify and
commit to the appropriate bridge design features which will effectively mitigate and/or control
possible hazardous Spills (page 6, section 11).
In die 1991-1997 Transportaxion Improvement Pro?ram (TIP) the State proposed to revise the
alipment of Utnstead Road at Guess Road in order to signalize the intersection (project 9W-2706).
The scope of the Guess Road widening project was subsequently extended northward to include
improvements north to Untstead Road, including the biturscuduri malignment. The proposed safety
proiect was folded into the larger Guess Road unprovement project and project W-2706 was dropped
from the Tip. Why is the tra$c signal not included in project design? This signal should be a part
of the proposed project (page 5, section 7)
6. Public transportation services arc provided along a portion of Guess Road between Carver Street and
Horton Road. This should be reflected in the report (page 7, section C; page 9, section E). Also, the
pubiic transportation analysis section of the report is very weal:.
7. The proposed Congestion Management System (CMS) is scheduled to be implemented in October 1,
1996 a+ t3+0 r.aul! aF implementatinn extension by the federal Highway Administration. Also,
Durham County has been redesignated as an air quality maintenance area and is no longer "non-
artainment" (page S, section r).
S. Thc'Travel Demand Reduction Strategies analysis section is weal: (page 3, section E)
9. The City of Durham has no park and ride lot facilities in the Guess Road corridor. 'fhe referenced
park and ride agreements with owners of private lots do not exist Attempts to acquim such
agreements have bccn unsuccessful. Park and ride lot facilities should therefore be evaluated in the
j ?l study and die aforementioned errors corrected. ?J`? / ?0 r
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
• August 24, 1995
N1:EyIORANDUi?1 TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Marshall EMS,0\ OS4W-?y "
SUBJECT: FA for the Widening of Guess Road, Durham County. TIP ?`U2102. Reference
--96-0068.
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the NCDOT's EA for the proposed widening
of Guess Road and requests that the document address the following comments:
1. Right-Of-Wav: Section III A-5 (Right-of-Way) notes that the right-of-way width will be 100
feet and "will be svmmetrical about the proposed centerline except where the horizontal
alignment is shifted to the east at the Eno River."
The document notes in Section VI A-2 that only City of Durham park proper-.V will be affected
by this alignment shift, implying that all improvements north of the river will occur on the east
side of the existing roadwav. Does this meant that State owned property, which extends on the
west side of Guess Road from the river north to SR 14147, will be avoided entirely both for
construction and right-of-way? This point needs to be clarified in the document. If either right-
oi-way or construction occur on.the west side of the existing alignment, thereby taldt g state park
property, then that would be considered a conversion under the rules of the federal Land and
Water Conservation Act and would require compensation.
Also, the Division has a anger residence just north of the river on the west side of Guess Road
that will potentially be affected by this project. Tne effects and mitigation, if any, of the
widening and the right-of-way requirements on access to this residence need to be clarified.
Access to this residence will have to be maintained during and after const-ucdon.
2. Recreation: Although the document notes in Section V-D (Future Land Use) that the bridge
will be constructed to allow for the placement of trails beneath it along the river, there is no
other discussion of recreation issues. This stretch of the river is used occasionally by canoeists,
and this project could pose serious dangers to boating navigation and safety. The Division
requests that warning signs be placed upstream of the bridge site.
3. Environmental Commitments: Given the Eno River's designations as a water supply stream
and nutrient sensitive waters,' the Division requests that the following additional steps be taken
to protect the river following this project's completion:
A. Construct a hazardous spill catch basin at the Eno River crossing.
IvIelba McGee
August '?4, 1995
Pa°e 2
B. Provide a self-contained bridge drainage system at the Eno River crossing that will
drain into the hazardous spill catch basin.
C. Ensure that earthen crossings beneath the bride are large enough to allow for wildlife
passage and for the future construction of hildn, or equestrian trails on either side of the
river.
The Division of Parks and Recreation appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR
FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC
PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project M-5329-1
State Project . 8.1351301
T. I. P. No . U-2102
Description: NC 157 (Guess Road), Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham, Durham County
(3.1 miles) City of Durham park east side of Guess Road
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on ?
essentially the same location? _X
2. Is the project on new location? ?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
adjacent to the existing highway? X ?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below) ? X_
Total size of Section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres .................... 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................... 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............... 1 percent of site
Yes No
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose ? ? -?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the
Section 4(f) lands? ?. ?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in
Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson
Act), the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus
property) ?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land
conversion or transfer? ? _X
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ? X
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm ?_ ?
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
a0. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
c. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows :
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits )
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The City of Durham LCWF parklands located both on the south and north
side of the Eno River abutting NC 157, consists mostly of hiking and nature
trails near Roxboro Road. No development or resources exist in the area
impacted by the project.
The 373 acre park which is impacted by the project is located in the east
side of Guess Road at the Eno River bridge crossing. 2.8 acres of parkland
south of the river would be taken due to the additional right of way needed to
replace the existing bridge on the east side. The LCWF park just north of the
Eno River would have 1.0 acre taken by the project (see map appendix) and
would need a separate conversion to satisfy the LCWF regulations, LCWF funds
were used in acquisition of that land impacted by the project.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from a
public park, and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register
(December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the
requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the public park, have been
fully evaluated: (a) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without using the
adjacent public park, and (3) build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park. These alternatives were not found to be feasible and
prudent. Public parkland is located on both sides of Guess Road both north
and south of the Eno River. This parkland is generally longitudinal along,the
Eno River and cannot be avoided by reasonable shifts in the alignment of Guess
Road.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the public park, has been
incorporated into this project. The officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts
resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided.
The mitigation process has been initiated with the City of Durham to
replace the parkland taken with a piece of land of equal or greater value.
The "do-nothing" alternative has been considered during the development
of this project. Because there are both advantages and disadvantages
associated with almost any major highway project, it is important to given
consideration to the option of not constructing the project. Some of the
advantages of the project include enhanced traffic carrying capability, enhanced
access to future development, improved mobility for emergency vehicles, and a
decreased expenditure of time and money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the park,
displacement of families, the taking of forest resources, and an increase in
noise.
There is a critical need to relieve congestion on Guess Road, improve
capacity and safety. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for this
corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided by the
widening of Guess Road.
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource would
create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve other historic
sites and parkland located in the west quadrants of the Eno River crossing.
This scenario would be extremely costly and environmentally disrupting. This
option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of
this Section 4(f) resource.
Land and Water Conservation Program
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program was established in
1965 to provide matching funds to the states for the acquisition of land and
development of outdoor recreation areas. Those parks and recreation areas
that were acquired and/or developed in whole or in part with LWCF assistance
are protected by Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act of 1965, as amended.
Furthermore, the LWCF Act requires
acceptable standards the properties or
public outdoor recreation use.
that project sponsors maintain to
facilities acquired or developed for
Section 6(f)(3) of the Act states that "No property acquired or developed
with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary
(Department of the Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor
recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only he finds it
to be in accord with the then existing Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP) and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary
to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair
market value and of reasonable equivalent usefulness and location".
In order to comply with the LCWF conversion the city of Durham and the
Director of parks for the city of Durham have been •contacted and informed of
the impact. The impact will consist of 2.8 acres of parkland in the southeast
quadrant where Guess road crosses the Eno River and 1.0 acre of parkland
adjacent to the east side of Guess Road and just north of the medical facility
property on the north side of the Eno River. Every alternative has been
considered. Widening to the west would impact the Guess Road Mill site and a
park on the west side. Also a better horizontal alignment can be obtained on
the south approach if widening is the east.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
D c0 -
ate Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
/ 2- 30
1fZz,7,v /? ZLen::??
Date WLDiv1s1Administrator, FHWA
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR
FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC
PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project M-5329-1
State Project 8.1351301
T. I. P. No U-2102
Description: NC 157 (Guess Road), Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham, Durham County
(3.1 miles) (North Carolina State Park System)
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on ?
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
adjacent to the existing highway? _X ?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below) ? x_
Total size of Section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres .................... 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................... 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............... 1 percent of site
Yes No
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose ? ? X
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the
Section 4(f) lands? .? ?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in
Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson
Act), the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus
property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land
conversion or transfer? ? ?_
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative :
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? x_
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or ?
impacts of extraordinary measure? X
Yes No
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public park, recreational
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge X ?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc. , or traffic
management measures been evaluated? X ?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems
which are of extraordinary
magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around.") X ?
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) . a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
or (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm _x ?
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
aO Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
Oc Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the f
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits )
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The State of North Carolina LCWF parklands are located on the west side
of Guess Road from the Eno River to Open Air Camp Road (See Figure 1,
Appendix). The proposed project impacts approximately 1.14 AC of State
parkland. The state parkland will need a separate conversion to satisfy the
LCWF regulations, LCWF funds were used in acquisition of that land impacted
by the project.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from a
public park, and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register
(December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the
requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the public park, have been
fully evaluated: (a) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without using the
adjacent public park, and (3) build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park. These alternatives were not found to be feasible and
prudent. Public parkland, is located on both sides of Guess Road both north
and south of the Eno River. This parkland is generally longitudinal along the
Eno River and cannot be avoided by reasonable shifts in the alignment of Guess
Road.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the public park, has been
incorporated into this project. The officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts
resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided.
The mitigation process has been initiated with the State Parks system to
replace the parkland taken with a piece of land of equal or greater value.
The "do-nothing" alternative has been considered during the development
of this project. Because there are both advantages and disadvantages
associated with almost any major highway project, it is important to given
consideration to the option of not constructing the project. Some of the
advantages of the project include enhanced traffic carrying capability, enhanced
access to future development, improved mobility for emergency vehicles, and a
decreased expenditure of time and money by motorists.
Some disadvantages
displacement of families,
noise.
There is a critical
capacity and safety. F
recommended.
of building the project include impacts to the park,
the taking of forest resources, and an increase in
need to relieve congestion on Guess Road, improve
or these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for this
corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided by the
widening of Guess Road.
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource would
create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve other historic
sites and parkland located in the east quadrants of the Eno River crossing.
This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of
this Section 4(f) resource.
Land and Water Conservation Program
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program was established in
1965 to provide matching funds to the states for the acquisition of land and
development of outdoor recreation areas. Those parks and recreation areas
that were acquired and/or developed in whole or in part with LWCF assistance
are protected by Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act of 1965, as amended.
Furthermore, the LWCF Act requires that project sponsors maintain to
acceptable standards the properties or facilities acquired or developed for
public outdoor recreation use.
Section 6(f)(3) of the Act states that "No property acquired or developed
with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary
(Department of the Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor
recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only he finds it
to be in accord with the then existing Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP) and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary
to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair
market value and of reasonable equivalent usefulness and location".
In order to comply with the LCWF conversion the State of North Carolina
Parks and Recreation Division has been contacted and informed of the impact.
The impact will consist of .14 acres of parkland in the northwest quadrant
where Guess road crosses the Eno River and 1.0 acre of parkland adjacent to
the west side of Guess Road, on the north side of the Eno River
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
IZL, _ A We;2
ate /manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
/Z o
Date )r--etf-Divisi Administrator, FHWA
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ??.
Division of Environmental Management -?f?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F=1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
August 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dor
Monica Swih rt
From: Eric Galamb2?
Subject: EA for NC 157 Improvements
Durham County
State Project DOT No. 8.1351301, TIP # U-2102
EHNR # 96-0068, DEM # 11013
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project will impact 0.6 acres of waters and wetlands. The following
comments are based on the EA review:
A) DEM is not aware of any coordination for this project. We did not receive a
request for a meeting or written comments.
B) The Eno River has a WSIII-B NSW classification. DEM requests that there be
no weep holes in the bridge in order to protect the existing classification.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the
401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Raleigh COE
nc157.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
January 9, 1992
' EScevCD
JUL 161995
F=Nl??R?NM?Nr?( SCI?N?FU
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Davis P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Widening of NC 157 (Guess Road)
from SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449
(Umstead Road), Durham County; T.I.P. NO.
U-2102; State Project NO. 8.1351301;
Federal Project NO. 92-0149.
ATTENTION: Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer
The following Natural Resources Technical Report has
been prepared following a field survey conducted by
Environmental Unit Staff on December 2, 1991. The federally
Proposed Endangered smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeviaata)
may be present in the project area. Due to seasonality and
the need for reproductive structures for positive
identification, this species must surveyed for in late
Spring. Flowers and fruits are borne in May, June and July.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me for
assistance.
CC: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
-'4
1000N AdOJ
Proposed Widening of NC 157 (Guess Road) from SR 1407
(Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road)
Durham County
TIP # U-2102
State Project NO. 8.1351301
Federal Project NO. 92-0149
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U-2102
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
January 1992
1000N - Ad03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
1.2 Purpose .........................................1
1.3 Study Area ......................................1
1.4 Methodology .....................................1
2.0 Natural Resources .....................................1
2.1 Plant Communities ................................1
2.1.1 Uplands ......................................2
2.1.2 Wetlands ......................................
2.1.3 Plant Community Impacts ........................3
2.2 Wildlife .........................................4
2.2.1 Wildlife Impacts ...............................5
2.3 Soils ............................................6
2.4. Water Resources ..................................7
2.4.1 Water Resources Impacts ........................8
3.0 Special Topics ........................................8
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .........................8
3.1.1 Permit Requirements ............................9
3.1.2 Mitigation .....................................9
3.2 Protected species ...............................9
3.2.1 Federally-protected Species ....................9
3.2.2 State-protected Species ........................9
4.0 References ...........................................13
Appendix Exhibit - Scoping comments from Natural Resource
Agencies.
LOOON - AdOO
1 . 0 I TTNQQUC, TIQN
This federally funded project is classified as an
Environmental Assessment/FONSI.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed improvement is to symetrically widen the
existing two lanes of NC 157 (Guess Road) to a five lane, 68-
foot curb and gutter section, which includes 14-foot outside
lanes to accommodate bike travel. Project length is
approximately 3.1 miles, beginning at SR 1407 (Carver Street)
and terminating at SR 1449 (Umstead Street). Proposed right-
of-way width is 100 feet, plus easements, where needed, to
contain construction limits.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the
natural systems found within the project area and to document
probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Studv Area
The study area is defined by right-of-way limits of 100
feet and lies in the City of Durham, in a district comprised
of commercial, residential and state park development (Figure
1). Located in the slate belt region of the Piedmont
physiographic province, the study area is gently rolling with
moderately steep slopes along drainageways.
1.4 Methodolog
An ecological survey was conducted December 2, 1991 to
identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
contained therein. Vegetative communities and wildlife were
inventoried and mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands were
identified, using methods in the 111987 Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands".
In-house preparatory work was done prior to a field
visit. Durham county soil maps and the hydric soils list for
Durham County were studied to identify potential wetland
sites as was the United States Geological Quadrangle map
(Northwest Durham). "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin
(N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) was
consulted to determine standardc fc: area creeks. N__'.
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) ''.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) files were consult-2 to determine if any
protected flora or fauna occur in the project area.
1000N - AdOD
2.0 HU-MU RESO?CE SS
2.1 Plant Communities
Six plant communities were identified in the project
area: Man-Dominated, Upland Hardwood Forest, Acidic Bluff
Community, Pine Forest, Piedmont Alluvial Forest and wet
shrub/scrub. The latter two are classified as wetland
communities.
2.1.1 Uplands
Man-Dominated
Residential neighborhoods and commercial development are
Man-dominated lands where man's structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession. Maintained shoulder
slopes, grounds and lawns support turf of fescue (Festuca
sp.) as the dominant vegetative component, complemented with
landscape ornamentals. Dogwood (Cornus to da), red cedar
(Juniverus virainiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pecan
(Carva illinoensis) and various oak trees (ouercus spp.) are
common. Mowing is frequently associated with this community.
Upland Hardwood Forest
Ridgetops, upper slopes and other relatively dry upland
areas are composed of mixed hardwoods such as white oak
(ouercus alba), southern red oak (? falcata), black oak
(ouercus velutina), and mockernut (Carva a a). American
dogwood, muscle wood (Carpinus caroliniana) and viburnum
(Viburnum spp.) are common understory components. Red cedar
is scattered throughout., The herbaceous layer is sparse and
only Christmas fern (Polvstichum acrostichoides) and wild
ginger (Hexastvlis sp.) were noted.
Acidic Bluff Community
Located southeast of the bridge over the Eno River are
steep forested bluffs that sit above the narrow floodplain of
the river. Located within the Eno River State Park, this
site is a designated priority natural area by the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program. General characteristics of th;s
acidic bluff community, include thin, rocky soils which
support an open canopy of chestnut oak (ouercus montana), red
maple ( cer rubrum) and northern shagbark hickory (Caryc,
ovata). The understory is a dense covering of ericaceous
species; purple laurel (Rhododendron catawbiense), mountain
laurel ( is latifolia) and blueberries (tlaccinium
witch-hazel (Hamamelis virciiniana) is scattered througtic)ut,
Below the bluffs and scattered downstream are clumps of
fetter-bush (Leucothoe racemosa), the only location for the
species in Durham County.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
BRANCH
DURHAM, NC 157
(GUESS ROAD), SR 1407 (CARVER STREET) TO
SR 1449 (UMSTEAD ROAD),
DURHAM COUNTY
U-2102
rpi, vC00I /
LOOON AdOO
This site is unique due to the presence of purple
laurel. This is a regionally rare species found only on
north-facing bluffs in three locations in Durham County.
Except for a few sites in Surry and Stokes Counties, this
species is disjunct from the slopes of Grandfather Mountain
in Avery County. In general, the microclimate of bluffs are
strongly modified by aspect, and often contain disjunct
species, apparently relic populations of species from a
different region.
Pine Fore
Small remnants of Pine Forests occur in the project
area. Mature loblolly pine typically dominate the canopy,
interspersed with tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
southern red oak. Common subcanopy and shrub species are
sweet-gum, red maple, blueberries and scrub oaks (Ouercus
spp.). Common vines are muscadine (V' s rotundifolia) and
green-brier (Smilax sp.)
2.1.2 Wetlands
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
A narrow floodplain is associated with the Eno River,
supporting a Piedmont Alluvial forest. The floodplain is
seasonally or intermittently flooded. Flood tolerant species
such as river birch (Eetula nigra) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) are common canopy components. A diverse herb
layer supports Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
chickweed (Stellaria media), wild geranium (Geranium
maculatum), violet (Viola spp.) and henbit (Lamium
vurpureum).
Wet Shrub/Scrub
Prior disturbance by a powerline clearing has given rise
to a Wet Shrub/Scrub Community. Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), blackberry (Rubus spp.), black willow (Salix nigra)
and sweetgum (Licruidambar styraciflua) saplings comprise the
shrub layer. Solidago (Solidago sp.) and daisey fleabane
(Erigeron sp.) are notable herbaceous species.
2.1.3 Plant Community Impacts
Future widening will eliminate strips of plant
communities. This will result in direct loss of plant
species from clearing operations, soil compaction, and soil
erosion. Filling and sedimentation of wetlands may alter
drainage or hydrologic continuities Adjacent wetlands are
contiguous to piedmont alluvial forest and wet shrub/scrub
communities. Indirect impacts to these adjacent communities
may occur during construction activities.
1000N AdOD
The replacement approachway over the Eno River, is
viewed as a significant, primary impact. A portion of a
Piedmont alluvial forest will be destroyed by land clearing,
excavation, filling, draining and paving. This may
significantly alter the hydrology of surrounding wetland
systems.
Anticipated acreage impacts to each community are
estimated in Table 1. Calculations are based on right-of-way
limits of 100 feet.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Uplands
Man-dominated Areas
Upland Hardwood Forest
Acidic Bluff Community
Pine Forest
Wetlands
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Wet Shrub/Scrub
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
17.1
5.4
0.1
3.9
0.5
0.1
Total Acres 27.1
2.2 Wildlife
Urbanized areas and adjacent forested areas support a
myriad of bird life. Carolina wren (Thrvothorus
ludovicianus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and red-tailed
hawk (Buteo iamaicensis) are birds sighted in the study area.
Other common inhabitants are the mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), cardinal
(Cardinal cardinalis) and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
These urbanized areas also provide shelter for opportunistic
animal species, such as the Norway rat (Rat us norveclicus),
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and house mouse (Mus
musculus). White-tail deer (Odoicoileus virginiana) is a
common inhabitant of forested areas.
Wetland communities provide a variety of opportunities
for wildlife. of special interest is the alluvial forest
associated with the Eno River. This forest acts as a natural
corridor for the passage of mammals because it extends for
many miles in uninterrupted strips. It also serve as a
refuge for mammals forced from more disturbed upland sites.
Such mammals as beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela
vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoons (Procyon
to ) inhabit these wetlands sites.
Wetland communities are valuable habitat for reptiles
and amphibians. Spring peeper (Hula crucifer), bullfrog
lOOON ndOD
5
(Rana patesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. Palustris) dwarf
salamander (Eurvicea auadridigitata), southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), yellowbelly slider
(Chrvsemvs scripta), northern water snake (Nerodiea sipedon),
and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are but a few of the reptiles
and amphibians likely to be found in the alluvial forests and
stream edges of the area.
The major aquatic system located in the study area is
the Eno River and it's associated tributaries. The Eno flows
in a southeasterly direction and is crossed by Guess Road.
Information concerning animals found in this aquatic system
was obtained from Scott Hartley (Eno River State Park
Ranger).
The most common non-game fish species found in the
Eno River, are the rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens), white
shiner (N.. albeolus), golden shiner (Notemiaonus
crvsoleucas), swallowtail shiner (N. Procne), yellow bullhead
(Ictalurus natalis), chain pickerel ( sox nicer). The state-
listed Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) is endemic to
this system and is considered significantly rare. Redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed (L gibbosus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) are common game fish.
The Eno River harbors a large, diverse mussel
population. Mollusks that have been documented at the Guess
Road site include the state protected species squawfoot
mussel (Strophitus undulatus), yellowlamp mussel (Lampsillis
carosia) and Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni).
other documented mussels include the notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta) and Elliptios (F,_. complanata, L. mediocris) and
(E. icterina). The introduced asiatic clam (Corbicula
fluminea) is also found at this site.
2.2.1 Wildlife Impacts
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected
in the creation of new habitat and in the alteration and
elimination of previously existing habitat. subterranean,
burrowing and slow moving organisms will be eliminated.
Larger, faster animals will simply be displaced. Also,
animal migrations may be interrupted due to vehicular noise.
Road-kill, will decrease numbers of individuals of certain
species.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope
s:abilization and land clearing are construction activities,
which result in an increase in silt loads in aquatic and
wetland environments. This causes a direct loss of benthic
organisms. Mobile organisms are better able to avoid
impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
1000N- Ad00
6
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively
immobile. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and other aquatic
organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant
and algal growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-
feeding benthos and the gills of fish; buries benthic
organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from a food source;
adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate and fish
habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
2.3 Soils
The study area falls between the Triassic Basin and
Carolina Slate Belt, with soils more typical of the Slate
Belt. The major rocks are volcanic slates, basic and acid
tuffs, breccias and flows. Soil mapping units found in the
project area are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Hydric and Nonhydric Mapping Units
SOIL SERIES CLASSIFICATION
Appling sandy loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Appling sandy loam
6 to loo slopes Non-hydric
Chewacla and Wehadkee Non-hydric
Georgeville silt loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Herndon silt loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Herndon silt loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Iredell loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Iredell loam
6 to loo slopes Non-hydric
Iredell-urban complex 0 to 6% slopes
Mayodan sandy loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Tatum gravelly silt loam
15 to 25% slopes Non-hydric
Wedowee sandy loam
10 to 159, slopeE Non-hydr.Lc
Wehadkee silt loam Hydric
White store sandy loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
HYDRIC INCLUSION
Wehadkee
Non-hydric

The soils of the C lina Slates have high silt
1OOON -- AdOO
7
contents, overlie relatively thin saprolite and have low
permeability in the B horizon. Most of the soils have silt
loam surfaces and sand in the B horizon. The association of
Georgeville and Herndon soils is typical of the thick soils
developed in residuum from phyllites and slates. The red
Georgeville soils occupy the high parts of the gently sloping
interfluves and the Herndon soils are on slightly lower
landscapes. The saprolite under these soils grades into
rippable shattered rock at depths of 3 meters or more. The
thinner Tatum soils occur on the steeper valley slopes where
depth to bedrock may be less than 3 meters.
Iredell-urban complex forms the largest aerial extent of
soils in the project area. Iredell-urban land complex is
principally comprised of fill material. This complex will
crack when dry and swell when wet due to the presence of
montmorillonitic clays.
Stream courses in the area and associated wetlands are
generally underlain by Chewacla and Wehadkee soils.
Approximately 60% Chewacla soils and 35% Wehadkee soils
make up the Chewacla and Wehadkee soils mapping unit. These
are somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils and
occur as long, level areas parallel to creeks. The Chewacla
soil is better drained than the Wehadkee soil and is at
slightly higher elevations.
2.4 Water Resources
Subject project spans the Eno River and three associated
tributaries located within the Neuse River Basin. The
drainage pattern is dendritic, highly dissecting the
landscape. Most of the streams encountered have very narrow
channel widths varying from two to ten feet with little or no
associated wetlands. The exception to this is Eno River,
which is a direct tributary to the Neuse River. The Eno
River is characterized by a large braided channel
approximately 150 feet in width. Within the channel and
narrow floodplain, islands of vegetation are found which are
of the Piedmont alluvial forest community type described in
section 2.1.1. Substrata consists of large boulders and
cobble of volcanic origin.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Classifications of WS-III, B and NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Waters) has been assigned to waters of the Eno
River and associated tributaries. WS-III indicates a war.er
supply segment with no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or discharges and is suitable for all C1asS
uses. Class B designates waters suitable for primary
recreation and any other usage specified by the "C"
classification. The supplemental classification of NSW
indicates waters needing additional nutrient management
1000N AdOJ
8
(particularly fertilizer run-off) due to their being subject
to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is
associated with both high taxa richness values (the number of
different types of organisms) and the presence of many
intolerant forms. Water quality degradation gradually
eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a
community structure quite different from that in an
unstressed stream-.. Sampling efforts in the Eno River
conducted in 1986 at the NC 501 bridge crossing (Durham
County) received a bioclassification rating of Good. Waters
in this slate belt region generally have Good water quality.
No waters classified as Trout waters, High Quality
waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, nor any segments of
rivers classified under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act or the state Natural and Scenic Rivers Act, will be
impacted by the proposed project.
2.4.1 Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts are increased sedimentation from
construction and/or erosion; increased concentration of toxic
compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills; scouring
of stream beds due to the channelization of streams;
alterations of water level due to interruptions or additions
to surficial and/or groundwater flow; changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures should be strictly
enforced due to the sensitive nature of the Eno River system.
3.0 Special Topics
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
of the four stream crossings, only two have associated
wetlands. These waters and their associated wetlands fall
under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or
fill material into these wetlands as authorized by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetland communities associated with these stream
crossings were identified in the project corridor (Figure 2)
on the basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic
vegetation and the presence of hydrology or hydrological
indicators, such as stained, matted vegetation, high water
marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
:lip
LO,
p??aa r T
-71
•?, -
N l
DSchl
•©•. ?. I /J? ter Tan
•? 1? a?.a• 1 L •? 13POS
/ • ?- - rr ?.? _ •? r I n 1119 •? C-; {
175
• • v ? ?. 11 `-Li I?I s 7 eir ? : ? ... r
' ..??
.r
` Ratlio i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
•?? o... xl , s=:? / . TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
3 ?" o ? RRANCH_ _
1 , • \ ? li ? e r ? ? •
Durham County
U-2102
2 Wetland Sites
100014 Ad00
Acreage values for these associated wetlands were calculated
based on 100 feet of right-of-way and are presented in Table
3.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED WETLAND IMPACTS
SITE NO. PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
1 Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.5
2 Wet Shrub/Scrub 0.1
Total Acres 0.6
3.1.1 Permit Recruiremen
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location
and estimated acreage involved, it is anticipated that three
stream crossings will be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33
CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide 014 allows for minor road
crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United States",
provided that the fill does not exceed 200 cubic yards below
the plane of ordinary high water and the fill does not extend
beyond 100 feet on either side of the ordinary high water
mark of adjacent waterbodies. Nationwide permits are valid
only if the conditions applicable to them are met as outlined
in [33 CFR 330.5 (b)] and [33 CFR 330.6 (a)].
A General Permit (CESAW-C082-N-000-0031) is likely to
apply to the bridge widening over the Eno River. This permit
authorizes the placement of fill material associated with the
construction , repair or replacement of bridges spanning
navigable waters and waters the United States. However,
final judgement concerning specific permit jurisdiction is
reserved by the COE.
3.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits or General permits are authorized, according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the C'OE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the C'OE.
3.2 Protected Species
1OOON- AAOJ
1 0
3.2.1 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 of
1973, as amended.
Scoping comments received from the USFWS report the
federally Endangered bald eagle (Raliaeetus leucocephalus),
Michaux's sumac (R s michauxii) and the Proposed Endangered
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeviaata) as occurring in
Durham County. A brief description and habitat requirements
for the above listed species are summarized below.
Bald Eagle (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and
lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed.
The largest, living trees in an area are preferred. No open
expanses of water in combination with perching trees or snags
exist in the project area. The proposed action will have no
impact upon this species.
Michaux's Sumac (E)
R us michauxii
This species is endemic to the inner coastal plain and
lower piedmont of North Carolina. It occurs in sandy or
rocky open woods. It is an erect, rhizomatous shrub, growing
to a height of 0.2 to 0.4 meters. The entire plant is
densely pubescent. Leaflets are oblong-lanceolate and their
edges are simply to doubly serrate. White to greenish-yellow
flowers appear in June and are followed by red fruits.
Limited, suitable habitat exists in the study area. A
plant by plant search was conducted north and south of the
Eno river bridge on NC 157 and areas east and west of NC 157
at the intersection of SR 1449. No specimens were seen
within the impact zone. The proposed action will not impact
this species.
Smooth Coneflower (PE)
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb in the
sunflower family. Thi: species grows to 1.5 meters tall,
usually unbranched and has leaves that are concentrated in a
rosette and alone the lower stem. Ray flowers consist of
pale purple rays (6 to 7 cm) long encircling purple disc
flowers on a solitary head. Flowering occurs may through
July. Six populations are currently known from North
Carolin_= and usually occur on soils derived from Diabase, a
WOON -AdOD
11
circumneutral igneous rock. Habitat is open woodlands,
glades, roadsides, cedar barrens and power line rights-of-
way. Suitable habitat was identified within roadside areas
along much of the project length. In order to confirm or
refute the presence of this species, a scientific survey must
be conducted during the flowering season (May, June or July).
In addition, the following Candidate species may occur
in the area:
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula
a liverwort Plagiochila columbiana
According to the NCNHP database, Septima's clubtail
dragonfly has been documented at the Eno River Bridge
crossing on Guess Road.
Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. These
species are mentioned here for the purpose of information, as
they may be listed under a protected status at a later date.
Many of these species have state protected statuses and will
be discussed below.
3.2.2 State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
The USFWS provided information on several candidate (C)
species that occur in Durham County that may occur in the
project corridor. In addition, the NCNHP database and survey
results by John Alderman (NC Wildlife Resources Commission)
contain records for several rare aquatic species from the Eno
in the reach adjacent to Guess Road. The following state
designations for these species are provided below:
1003N- AdOO
12
Table 2. STATE-PROTECTED SPECIES
Durham County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS/RANK-
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC/S1
Fusconaia masoni** Atlantic pigtoe mussel T/S1
Lampsillis carosia** Yellowlamp mussel T/S1
Strophitus undulatus** Squawfoot mussel T/S2
Necturus lewisi** Neuse River waterdog SC/S3
*NC Rank Designations: S1 = Critically imperiled in NC
because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or
because of some factor making it especially vulnerable to
extirpation from NC; S2 = Imperiled in NC because of rarity
(6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals; S3 = Rare
or uncommon in North Carolina (21 to 100 occurrences).
*-Species documented in the immediate project area.
Tall larkspur
Habitat: glades, grassy balds, woodlands, mostly
over mafic rocks.
Atlantic pigtoe mussel
Habitat: most Atlantic drainages, in lower Piedmont
and upper Coastal Plain.
Yellowlamp mussel
Habitat: a number of river systems; mainly near the
fall line.
Squawfoot mussel
Habitat: Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear and Pee Dee systems.
Neuse River waterdog
Habitat: Neuse and Tar River systems.
In addition to the state-protected species described
above, the notched rainbow mussel (Villosa constricta) and
Roanoke bass (Amploplites cavifrons) considered significantly
rare in North Carolina have been documented a short distance
upstream of the Eno River bridge crossing on Guess Road.

4.0 REFERENCES
lOOON AdOD
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence,
Kansas. 877p.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural HIstorv gf North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 p.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Federal Interagency committee for wetland Delineation. 1987.
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Cooperative Technical Publication. 76 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotyledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933p.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C. 70 p.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1991. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the waters of the Neuse River basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C. 34p.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.464pp
LOOON ndOO
14
Smith, R.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
USDA-SCS 1976. Soil survey of Durham County, North Carolina.
U.S. Government Printing office, Washington, D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 255 p.
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Aug 10'95 14:39 No.005 P.02
® North Carolina WilMe Resources Commission R
512 N. Salisbury Street, lodeish, North Carolina 27604-1188,919,733,3391
Charles R. Fullwnod. Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Mcgee
Offioe of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator /
I labitat Conservation Progrw? 4/
DATE: August 10, 1995
SUBJJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (FA) for NC 157 (Guess Road improvements, from SR 1407 (Carver
Street to SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-
2102, SCH Project No. 96.0068.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlifee Resources Commission have roviewed the subject
EA and are fltmillar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wlldlifc resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(e)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat, 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDO'f proposes to widen existing two-lane NC 157 to a five-lane, curb and gutter section
from 9R 1407 to SR 1449. This includes the replacement of the bridge over the Eno River_ The
project length is approximately 2.9 miles. Estimated wetland impacts total approximately 0.60
accts.
We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather that to construct
new roadways. Improving existing roadways avoids new stream and wetland crossings, does not
further fragment wildlife habitat, and does not promote secondary development. However, we
remain concerned over the potential impacts of the Eno River bridge replacement.
The Eno River has excellent fish populations and good diversity of benthos and fish species.
The Eno River Sate Park and City of Durham Park form an almost contiguous linear system of
NCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : [phone] Aug 10'95 14:40 No. 005 P.03
Memorandum 2 August 10, 1995
parklands which arc used heavily by the public. The Eno River experiences considerable fishing
presauro for numerous sunfish species especially at access cress and road crossings. Many state
listed species occur in the Eno River including the Roanoke bass and several species of listed
freshwater mussels which are very sensitive to siltation and other changes in water quality.
We recommend that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control measures fnr High
Quality Waters (IIQW) for work in and areas draining directly into the Eno River. If bottom
disturbing activities will occur in the river, no in-water should occur from March 1 to July 1. If it
is necessary to work during this period, silt curtains and coffer dams should be used to isolate
construction activities. The replacement bridge should have no dock drains over the Eno River
channel. Vegetation removal and land disturbing activities should be limited to the minimum
amount required to construct the roadway. If possible, the existing bridge approaches should be
retained and used to provide a safe parking area for river and park access.
We have no record of coordination of this project in the form of a scoping meeting or
request for written comments. These issues could have been addressed in the early planning
stages of this project and any future delays avoided.
The EA provides an adequate description of the fish and wildlife resources in the project
vicinity. Environmental impacts are also briefly discussed. However, we do not feel that
environmental commitments included in the EA are adequate to protect the diverse assemblage
of aquatic fauna in the Eno River. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should
include the recommended measures to protect these quality resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance plow call me at [phone].
cc: 14oward Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Environmental Review,,Vacking Sheet
DWO - Water Oualitv Section
2/s
B
TO: Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? John Do y t- ?-"
? Greg Price (airports, coE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
11
Planning Branch
?
Technical Support Branch c z"
? Coleen Sullins, P&E ?S
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
? 11 t
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE:
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:`ci: cmemo.doc
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
-- ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Nu(m?ber: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline): V? ( ?_ %\,-,C- I- ) /3 1 Iq r? '-2 Y,
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
?Groundwater
Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management
/
? Winston-Salem PWS \ Monica swihart
I
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
?Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
?Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authorily(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
DConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
vs to,
I
1.; ,,. SEAT( ?'?
R*y
STATE C)E NORTI I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUN?V IR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
(;0V1RNO?R P.O. (30X25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201
July 19, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
1101 -?
R. SAWJ1:1. I IUNT I I I
SWRIIARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic Section
4(f) Evaluation for Durham, NC 157 (Guess Road), From SR 1407
(Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County, State
Project No. 8.1351301, Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1), TIP
Project No. U-2102
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment, Draft Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the
subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be
processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate
a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be
contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by September 1, 1995. If no comments
are received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy
of the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vi .'E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr

NC 157 (Guess Road)
Durham
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road),
Durham County
State Project No. 8.1351301
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1)
TIP Project No. U-2102
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
APPROVED:
at F an in Vic P. E., anager
s
k anning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Ag lji? &e"'- Jzj!?'W-f
41
Date Nic s ra , P. .
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 157 (Guess Road)
Durham
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road),
Durham County
• State Project No. 8.1351301
Federal Aid Project No. M-5329(1)
TIP Project No. U-2102
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
June, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
?Jt
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head ?••?`""?/11j' •,,
••'p0" CAR01
?••''EISS
0 0%4,
q''••
B. az_
SEAL
Richard Davis, P. E., Assists t M nr er
Planning and Environmental Branch = 6944
D •
`rs,,??111111 Bf11?•??`?•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility . . . . . . 1
1. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Existing Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Route Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
10. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
11. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
12. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
13. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
14. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. System Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. DESC RIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. General Location . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Project Length . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Cross Section andAlignment . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control . . . 5
8. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Bicycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 6
11. Bridge Work Required. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. Special Permits Required . .. . . . . . . . . . 7
13. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 7
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Reduced Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
V.
VI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
D. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
E. Transportation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Status of Local Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D. Future Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
E. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Air Quality Analysis . • . . 15
C. Highway Traffic Noise/ConstructionNoise Analysis . . 18
D. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
E. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. Biotic Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Permits . . . . . 31
8. Mitigation . 32
9. Federal Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. State Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
F. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
G. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
AP PENDIX
Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management
Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Two portions of a City of Durham Park will be affected (2.8 acres)
and (1.7 acres). Since a land and water conservation fund grant was used
to develop this park, the land taken by the proposed project will be
replaced and addressed under 4f and 6f statements (See Appendix).
NCDOT will apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(1)(26) for this project.
NCDOT will coordinate with the USF&W concerning any stream channel
relocation and/or modification.
A 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to issuance of the
Nationwide Permit.
NCDOT will avoid any damage to the root zones of the trees screening
the Kichen Holloway House during construction of the project.
The mill site located in the southwest quadrant of Guess Road and the
Eno River Bridge, will be avoided during construction of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 157 (Guess
Road) from SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road) in
Durham County (See Appendix, Figures 1 & 2). The cross section
recommended for the proposed improvement between Carver Street and
Lake Road, is a five lane, 68 foot face to face of curbs, curb and
gutter roadway. Proposed improvements between Lake Road and Umstead
Road is recommended to be a 72 foot face to face of curbs, curb and
gutter facility with a 16 foot raised median (inside edge of pavement
to inside edge of pavement). Both sections include 14 foot outside
lanes to accommodate bicycles. The total length of the project is
3.1 miles.
Additionally, the Eno river bridge is recommended to be replaced
with a single structure. The proposed cross section for the new
bridge is an 72-foot, face to face, curb and gutter facility, with a
16 foot raised median. The total length of the new bridge will be
approximately 250 feet. The replacement bridge will be constructed
on the east side of the existing structure. The total estimated cost
of the project is $9,738,000. The estimated cost in the 1995-2001
TIP is $10,990,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area involved by providing improved
access to the existing and future developments along the project
corridor and by improving the safety and traffic handling capacity of
this major thoroughfare. There may be some erosion and siltation
during construction; however, the effects will be short term in
nature. No significant impacts to plant or animal life are expected.
A small part of a City of Durham Park will be affected (2.8 acres)
and (1.7 acres) by the proposed improvement. Since a land and water
conservation fund grant was used to develop this park the land will
have to be replaced and is addressed under 4F and 6F statements (see
appendix). Four dwellings and two businesses will be displaced by
the project.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, widening
o an existing roadway, no alternative corridor alignments were
considered. However, in addition to the recommended five lane cross
section, a reduced facility, public transportation alternative, and
transportation management alternatives were considered. The
recommended five lane cross section has through lanes with separate
lanes for left turning vehicles. With a narrower cross section, the
facility would not provide adequate traffic handling. Wider
alternatives would increase right-of-way costs. The "do-nothing"
alternative was also considered, but rejected because of the benefits
the Guess Road improvements will provide to the area. For further
information concerning these alternatives, see section IV.
4. Coordination - Several federal, state and local agencies were
consulted uring the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received during the preparation of
this report:
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources,
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
City of Durham
5. Permits Required - Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers will be required for the two stream and one river crossing
on this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through
the N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen NC 157 (Guess Road) in Durham from Carver Street to
Umstead Road (See Appendix, Figure 1). The proposed improvement is to
widen the existing two lane facility to a multi-lane roadway with
sidewalks along both sides of the project. From Carver Street to Lake
Road a five lane 68 foot, face to face, curb and gutter section is
recommended and from Lake Road to Umstead Road a 72 foot, face to face,
curb and gutter section, with a 16-foot raised grass median is proposed.
Both sections will contain 14-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles.
The project also proposes to construct a new bridge over the Eno River on
the east side. A 72-foot clear structure roadway width with 5-foot
sidewalks is recommended for the new bridge the recommended total bridge
length is 250 feet. The total project length is 3.1 miles.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
U-2102 was first programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program
in October 1985. This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program with right-of-way acquisition to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996 and construction to begin in FFY 1997.
A citizens informational workshop was held in Durham by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and to
obtain comments. The workshop was held on October 16, 1991 at the
Riverview High School Cafeteria in Durham. Approximately 30 people
attended this meeting to express their interest in the project.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on Guess Road consists of a 24-foot
roadway with 4-foot unpaved shoulders. One short section provides
curb and gutter at the intersection of Horton Road. Horton Road,
Carver Street, Latta Road, and Rose of Sharon Road are signalized,
and have protected left turn lanes on Guess Road.
2. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 60 feet.
The right-of-way is symmetrical about the highway centerline.
3. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 35 mph to Horton
Road where it then changes to 45 mph to Umstead Road.
2
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
5. Bridges
The existing roadway crosses three major waters: Eno River,
Warren Creek Tributary A, and Warren Creek Tributary B.
There is one bridge crossing located at the Eno River (Bridge
No. 50). This structure consists of five spans with a reinforced
concrete deck on prestressed concrete girder superstructure. The
existing clear roadway width is 28 feet with a total structure length
of 251 feet. The sufficiency rating for this structure is 33.5.
Near SR 1413 (Lake Road) Warren Creek tributary A crosses Guess
Road with a double barrel 7' x 10' reinforced concrete box culvert.
A third major crossing is Warren Creek Tributary B near SR 1412
with a 8' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert.
6. Existing Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment is good. The
topography is rolling with a horizontal curve of 6 degrees just south
of the Eno River, and 4 degree curves at Latta and Lake Roads
7. Intersections
Many residential streets and driveways intersect Guess Road
along the subject section. All roads intersecting the project are at
grade. Currently, all intersections along Guess Road within the
project limits are stop sign controlled with the exception of Carver
Street, Horton Road, Latta Road, and Rose of Sharon Road which are
signalized.
8. Project Terminals
The northern project terminus, NC 157, intersects Umstead Road.
At this location NC 157 is a two lane facility. Umstead Road is a
2-lane shoulder section at this point.
At the southern project terminus NC 157 intersects Carver
Street. At this intersection NC 157 is a 59-foot curb and gutter
facility. Carver Street is a 2-lane facility.
9. Route Classification
Along the project, NC 157 is classified as a Urban Minor
Arterial on the North Carolina functional classification system.

3
10. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along the project.
11. Utilities
Utility conflicts along the project are considered to be high in
severity.
AT&T has a fiber optics cable in concrete conduit five feet off
the edge-of-pavement on the west side of Guess Road from Carver
Street for approximately one mile along the project. AT&T also has a
coaxial cable in PVC conduit five feet off the edge-of-pavement along
the east side of Guess Road throughout the project. Involving this
cable will have a major impact on AT&T. AT&T would prefer to
relocate the fiber optics.
Public Service Corporation has a four inch steel gas line
located in the ditch line of Guess Road beginning at Carver Street
and running east of Guess Road to Kirland Street and is located in
the west ditch line of Guess Road from Kirland Street to Umstead
Road.
12. Sidewalks
A small section of sidewalk (200 feet) exists on the west side
of Guess Road south of Horton Street.
13. Bicycles
No provisions for bicycles exist on Guess Road.
14. School Bus Data
Ten school buses travel Guess Road in the morning and ten in the
afternoon.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
Guess Road is listed as an urban major thoroughfare in the 1992
mutually adopted Durham Thoroughfare Plan. Guess Road is also listed as
urban minor arterial on the functional classification system.
The recommended improvement for proposed project is in concurrence
with the thoroughfare plan. The construction of this project will be a
step toward the implementation of the mutually adopted thoroughfare plan.
4
C. System Linkage
The proposed widening of Guess Road will serve as a vital link in the
major transportation for the City of Durham. Guess Road will function as
a crosstown facility in the northern portion of Durham. It will reduce
travel time, increase capacity and safety.
D. Economic Development
Much of the future development is anticipated to occur north of the
Eno River. Increased development in an area creates an increased
transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility to north of Durham.
This will reduce transportation costs by decreasing travel time.
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacit
Estimated 1995 and projected 2015 traffic volumes are shown in
Appendix. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1995 range from 9100
vehicles per day (vpd) to 25,700 vpd. These estimates include 2% dual
tired vehicles, and 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer. Projected average
daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2015 range from 18,100 vpd to
51,300 vpd.
The capacity of an arterial is generally controlled by the capacity
of its signalized intersections described by levels of service (LOS) which
range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service,
is characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at
all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In
level of service B, traffic operation is stable but more vehicles are
stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service C is
characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait
through more than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat
restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the influence
of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may
be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service F
is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and represents the
theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents over
saturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to most
drivers.
Presently, the existing roadway is operating at a level of service E.
The proposed project should operate at a level of service of D when
constructed, and based on traffic projections should continue to operate
at level of service of C to F at the signalized intersections through the
design year (2015). Capacity analysis indicates that after improvements to
Guess Road are made the level of service will be as follows: Carver (F),
Horton Road (F), Rose of Sharon (D), and Latta Road (F). During peak
congestion hours motorists would use parallel facilities such as Duke
Street to avoid congestion on Guess Road. For proposed improvements to
above intersections, see Appendix, Figure 5.
5
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A.
General Description:
1. General Location
The proposed project will widen Guess from a two lane roadway to
a five lane curb and gutter section from Carver Street to Lake Road,
a four lane divided section with a 16-foot raised median is proposed
from Lake Road to Umstead Road along the existing alignment.
2. Project Length
The proposed project is 3.1 miles long.
3. Cross Section and Alignment
A five lane 68-foot, face to face of curbs, (14-foot outside
lanes for bicycles) from Carver Street to Lake Road is recommended
for the proposed improvement (1.7 miles). From Lake Road to Umstead
Road, a four lane divided section with a 16-foot raised median
(14-foot outside lanes for bicycles) is recommended. The structure
over the Eno River is recommended to be replaced with a single
structure just east and adjacent to the existing structure. A
72-foot face to face of curbs, cross-section (16-foot median) is
proposed for the replacement structure. Stage construction is
recommended to allow the existing structure to serve as a detour
during construction of the new structure. Widening to the east will
not impact the historic Guess Road Mill site.
4. Design Speed
The design speed is a minimum of 50 mph.
5. Right-of-Way
A 100-foot right-of-way width is recommended for the proposed
project. This is to be symmetrical about the proposed centerline
except where the horizontal alignment is shifted to the east at the
Eno River. Temporary easements may be required to contain
construction limits at various locations along the project.
6. Access Control
No access control is proposed on the project.
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All streets intersecting Guess Road will be stop sign controlled
with the exception of Carver Street, Horton Road, Latta Road and Rose
of Sharon Road, which are signalized, and will be upgraded during
construction.
6
8. Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the project
including the proposed Eno River Bridge. NCDOT will participate in
the funding of the sidewalks to the extent of 2% of the total
construction cost of the project. The City of Durham will be
responsible for the remaining cost of the sidewalk. The total
estimated cost for the sidewalks is $643,000 and is not included in
the construction cost of the project.
9. Parking
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
10. Bicycles
Fourteen foot outside lanes will be provided for the joint use
of bicycles along the entire project. Guess Road is part of the City
of Durham Master Bicycles plan, however it is not a designated state
bike route.
11. Bridae Work Reauired
The existing bridge is recommended to be replaced on the east
side of the existing location. Replacement of the bridge was based
on a low sufficienty rating (33.5) and the high cost of refurbishing
and widening the existing bridge. A 72-foot cross section with an
16-foot median, 14-foot outside lanes and five foot sidewalks on each
side is recommended. In order to provide a detour during
construction staged construction is recommended.
Although it is recommended that both of the existing box culvert
structures on Warren Creek, tributaries A and B be retained and
extended during construction, they will be assessed for hydraulic
adequacy and structural integrity during the final hydraulic design
stage of the project. Bridge lengths specified for the Eno River
crossing may be increased or decreased as required to accommodate
peak discharges determined by detailed hydrologic evaluation during
the final hydraulic design.
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Although the land along the project corridor is
moderately 'developed, the floodplain at each of the major stream
crossings is wooded or fallow and undeveloped. At each crossing,
there are residential dwellings adjacent to the floodplain, as noted
above; however, the proposed roadway improvements will not have any
significant adverse effect on these dwellings nor on the adjacent
floodplains.
12. Special Permits Required
Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will
be required for the stream crossings on this project under the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401
General Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will also be
required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may
result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
A 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to issuance of
the Nationwide Permit.
13. Cost Estimate
2Construction $ 8,000,000
Right-of-Way 2,738,000
Total $ 9,738,000
2 Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
Includes acquisition, relocation, and utility costs.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternative 1
A five-lane, 68-foot curb and gutter section from Carver Street to
Lake Road then a 72-foot curb and gutter section with a 16-foot raised
median from Lake Road north to Umstead Drive is the recommended alternate.
B. Reduced Facility
A four lane facility was considered but rejected due to the reduction
of safety that occurs when the center turn lane is eliminated. The slight
increase in cost and significant increase in safety led to recommending
the five lane facility.
C. Public Transportation
Although Durham does have a public transit system, the system does
not serve that portion of Guess Road being studied. It is anticipated
that this service will be extended to the portion of Guess Road between
Carver Street and Horton Road in the near future. However, the extension
of bus service along the project is not a viable alternative to the
widening of Guess Road because of the safety advantages of the
improvement.
8
D. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative
effects arising from the project.
negative impact on transportation
constructing the proposed project
growth in the area.
were chosen, it would avoid the adverse
However, it would have a definite
in the proposed corridor. Not
will hamper commercial and residential
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians will
decrease. Without the proposed facility, it will require a longer travel
time and increased road-user costs for cross town travel. Since the
advantages of building the proposed extension outweigh the disadvantages
of not constructing it, the No-Build alternative was rejected.
E. Transportation Management
In Transportation Management Areas (TMA) designated as non-attainment
for air quality, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act, (ISTEA) places restrictions on federally funded projects that
increase capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Section 1024(a) of
ISTEA states that projects which increase SOV capacity in TMA's classified
as non-attainment areas must be part of an approved Congestion Management
System.
North Carolina is currently developing its Congestion Management
System (CMS). A working plan for North Carolina's CMS will be in place by
October 1, 1995. Prior to implementation of the CMS, projects that
improve SOV capacity in non-attainment areas will be analyzed to determine
if travel demand reduction and operational management strategies can be
used to reduce SOV demand.
Durham is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide and ozone. The widening of Guess Road (U-2102) will increase the
capacity for SOV use. The following is an analysis of travel demand
reduction strategies, operational management strategies, and alternative
transportation modes that have been considered as part of the proposed
project.
Travel Demand Reduction Strategies:
The following travel demand reduction strategies were considered for
this project:
1. Staggering work hours at local businesses.
2. Growth Management
3. Road Use Pricing
Growth management involves public policies to regulate development so
that trip generation follows a desired pattern. Road pricing involves
charging motorists a "price" associated with their use of a particular
facility. Growth management and road use pricing are not considered
feasible options because they involve area-wide policies rather than
policies applicable to discrete corridors.
9
Staggered work hours, flex-time, or modified work weeks can be
implemented on a corridor level if large employers along the corridor
cause congestion at their entrances or exits. These applications would
reduce spot congestion at entrances and exits to large employers (those
employers attracting enough trips to cause congestion); however, there are
no such employers along this project.
Consideration of Alternative Transportation Modes:
The City of Durham and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have adopted a thoroughfare plan designed to provide Durham
with an efficient transportation network. The thoroughfare plan includes
both highway improvements and transit service. The widening of Guess Road
with Project U-2102 is a part of Durham's thoroughfare plan.
The City of Durham, in cooperation with the Triangle Transit
Authority, has alternative modes of transportation available to commuters
which are designed to reduce vehicular trips in the city. These programs
are outlined below.
Bus Service
Durham is seeking to improve transit service by increasing the number
of routes along various arterials and increasing the promptness of
arrivals and departures. Durham's ultimate goal is to increase transit
ridership by 20%. To meet this goal, Durham will attempt to expand its
bus service to operate within 1/4 mile of 90% of Durham's population
within the next ten years. A planned connector service providing doorstep
service to participating commuters will help achieve this goal.
Bus service does not currently extend to the limits of Project
U-2102; however, a future bus route is planned for this corridor.
Carpool/Vanpool Programs
The Triangle Transit Authority operates a computer-aided carpool and
vanpool service for Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill. Currently, there
are 29 vanpools serving the triangle area.
The City of Durham currently has no public "park-n-ride" facilities.
Opportunities for "park-n'ride" community are available in Durham at
private parking lots. The City of Durham has agreements with owners of
several private parking lots to allow commuter parking on these parking
lots.
These private lots provide adequate service for commuters wishing to
make use of "park-n-ride" opportunities; therefore, a "park-n-ride" lot
will not be provided as part of Project U-2102.
Bicycle Use
Bicycle lanes (14-foot outside lanes, 2-foot for bicycles) will be
provided on this project.
10
Congestion Management Strategies
To reduce potential congestion along project U-2102 progressive
signal timing has been evaluated as a congestion management strategy and
found not to be feasible due to the distance between signalized
intersections (greater than 112 mile) and due to the uneven distances
between signalized intersections.
Ramp metering and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes are not appropriate as
congestion management strategies because this project is not a controlled
access facility.
Consistency with ISTEA
ISTEA requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Durham TMA have
been reviewed as previously described. Project U-2102 is a part of
Durham's approved thoroughfare plan. Travel demand reduction strategies,
operational management strategies, and alternative transportation modes
have been analyzed along the Guess Road corridor to determine if these
strategies could eliminate the need for additional SOV capacity.
V. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement lies within the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of the City of Durham and Durham County. The joint
City-County Planning Commission has adopted and enforces a zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations within the project area. The City
adopted the Durham 2005: Comprehensive Plan in 1985. In addition to the
comprehensive p Fan a number o small area or community plans have been
adopted which provide more detailed guidelines for development within each
community planning area.
B. Existing Land Use
From SR 1407 (Carver Street) north to SR 1412 the land uses in the
project area are dominated by single family residential, although some
multi-family development is accessed from NC 157. Small commercial uses
front NC 157 in the Carver Street area.
From SR 1412 to SR 1413 the land use is varied, but the amount of
residential uses decreases. Several large parcels of undeveloped, wooded
land are located on each side of NC 157. Multi-family and commercial
development occur at the intersection of NC 157 and SR 1443. A shopping
center and related retail and restaurant uses are located within each
quadrant of the intersection.
From SR 1413 to the project terminus at SR 1449 (Umstead Road), the
land use again becomes less intensive. A large parcel of wooded land is
located between SR 1413 and SR 1404 on the west side of NC 157. A NCDOT
11
maintenance yard is located on the east side of NC 157, just north of
SR 1413. Some residential development is located on the east side of the
project area, in the vicinity of SR 1404.
The existing roadway crosses the Eno River. Most of the land along
the Eno River within the project area is parkland, excluding property on
the north bank, east of Guess Road, which is used as a medical facility.
The Eno River State Park is located on the west side of NC 157. The park
ranger's residence is located on the northwest side of NC 157 and the Eno
River, and is accessed from NC 157. A Durham city park, West Point on the
Eno, is located on the east side, with NC 157 serving as the boundary
between the two parks. Low density residential development dominates the
project area north of the Eno River.
Park land on both the north and south sides of the Eno River to the 1 W GA ,
east of NC 157. was acquired using Land and Water Conservation Act funds.
The Act does not permit the transfer of land acquired by its funds unless
replacement land of comparable recreational value in provided. Therefore,
NCDOT will be required to provide compensatory land for the additional
right-of-way acquired for the proposed roadway improvements.
C. Existing Zoning
Most of the zoning districts within the project area permit
residential uses. Commercial districts, including Shopping Center
Commercial, are located at some major intersections along Guess Road,
including the intersection with Carver Street, Horton Road, Prison Camp
Road, and Umstead Road. The single family residential zoning district R-8
is the most common zoning district within the project area. This district
permits residential development on lots at least 8,000 square feet in
size. Another residential zoning district found at several locations
within the project area is the Planned Density Residential (PDR) District.
This district permits both single family and multi-family development on
lots at least four acres in size. R-20 zoning districts, permitting
single family development on half-acre lots, is located from Rose of
Sharon Drive north to the project terminus. Several small Office-
Institutional-Limited Districts which permit only office type uses are
scattered throughout the project area.
D. Future Land Use
According to the Future Land Use Map included in the Durham 2005:
Comprehensive Plan, low density residential development is expected to
continue within the project area. The Plan indicates that recently the
northwest and southwest portions of the Durham area have experienced the
highest rate of growth. This trend is expected to continue, though
developments such as Treyburn, in the northeastern Durham area will
balance the level of growth within the area.
Durham has also developed a Master Greenways Plan. The Eno River is
identified as a future greenway, but no plans for developing a footpath
under the bridge for this project is proposed. However, the bridge will
be constructed at a sufficient height that will allow the development of a
footpath when needed.
12
As previously noted, the Guess Road area is one of the high growth
areas in Durham County. Therefore, improved roadway capacity on the
thoroughfare is important to the area. Guess Road is included in the
Durham area Thoroughfare Plan as a major thoroughfare.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies and
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. Lands that
may contain such soils but have been converted to non-agricultural uses,
either physically or through local planning documents and zoning
ordinances, are exempt from consideration under the Act. Land along NC 157
meets both criteria, as most has been developed, and the remaining
undeveloped land is committed to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,
further consideration of farmland soils under the Act is not required.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT F THE PROJECT
A. Social and Economic
The proposed project is located in Durham County and Durham City. It
extends along a major urban arterial alignment. The population of Durham
County according to the 1990 census report is 181,835. The same source
indicates that the city of Durham for the same reporting period had a
population of 136,621.
1. Economic Factors
During the month of September 1991 Durham County had a labor
force of 106,830. Out of this number, 102,800 persons were employed.
This left an unemployment total of 4,030 or 3.8 percent.
The proposed improvement will not have an adverse impact on the
economy. Instead, the economy will be enhanced because accessibility
and visibility to the existing commercial establishments along the
proposed project site will be improved.
The proposed project will be within a school district; but, it
will not adversely impact the school facility.
2. Public Facilities
There are two public facilities impacted by the project. Both
involve the City of Durham LWCF Parklands. The first section of
parkland is located in the southeastern quadrant of Guess Road and
the Eno River, 2.8 acres of parkland will be taken at this location
due to widening of Guess Road. The second parcel of LCWF parkland is
located adjacent to Guess Road and just north of the Medical Facility
land located on the Eno River will be impacted to the extent of 1.7
acres of parkland taken due to the widening of Guess Road. Since
both parcels involve LCWF funding, a 6(f) conversion will be
necessary (see Appendix).
13
3. The Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action on the Environment
One business and four residents will be relocated as a result of
this proposed action. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to
construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation assistance
* Relocation moving payments, and
* Relocation replacement housing payments and rent supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its'work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
14
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental-purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down
payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a
replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided
for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for
the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any
other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on
the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
Development lines both sides of the proposed project site on the
southern half of the proposed project. The dwellings seem to be back
far enough to avoid relocation. Proximity damages may adversely
impact front parking lots of some of the businesses along the
proposed route. Some residential lawns may also be adversely
impacted because of close proximity to the proposed action. The
northern end of the proposed project has fewer dwellings lining the
existing facility; therefore, the proximity impacts will be less.
15
4. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood or community
cohesion. It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities
and services; and, neither does it appear to displace community
residents and businesses.
B. Air Oualitv Analvsis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying
existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The
traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from
cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is
defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is
the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background component was obtained from the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
because of the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels
in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements to automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
16
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two
percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there
is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
-- 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration for
each of the sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst- case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the completion year (1995), five years after
completion (2000) and the Design Year of 2015 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions
computer model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated -
to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an
ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban and
rural areas.
17
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located at
the intersection of NC 157 (Guess Road) and SR 1407 (Carver St.). The
intersection will be slightly adjusted as a result of the widening of
NC 157 (Guess Rd.) Therefore, no analysis for the no-build situation will
be considered. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation build years of 1995, 2000 and 2015 for the worst-case air
quality scenario are as follows:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(PPM)
Receptor 1995 2000 2015
REC 1 (NW CORNER) 6.4
REC 4 (SW CORNER) 10.5
6.1 6.7
9.3 10.1
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the
worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that
the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al, A2 and
A3 in Appendix for input data and output.
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 a "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and C).
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994. Section 176(c) of the CAAA
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the
intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current
SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Durham
County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1995 Transportation Improvement
Program Program (TIP) have been determined to conform to the intent of the
SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is November 9, 1994. The USDOT
approval date of the TIP is April 4, 1995. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Part 51. There has been no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will
be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
18
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
C. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project alternatives on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (23 CFR). If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 (see Appendix for Tables N145).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship
between the background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type
of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a
19
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during
sleeping hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable
than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
-- compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the project
alternatives at representative locations using a GenRad 1988
Precision Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The noise
levels were recorded for a 20-minute period during anticipated peak
traffic noise periods. Traffic counts were taken at each measurement
site during the sampling periods and differences in the measured
noise levels are attributed to variations in site conditions and
traffic volumes. The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior
Leq noise levels are shown in Figure N2 and listed in Table N3. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The field data was also used to establish
ambient noise levels for residences and businesses in the vicinity of
the project.
20
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.2 to
0.6 dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for
which noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels
can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and
actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicle speed.
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77- 108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
typical roadway section will be a five-lane, 68-foot curb & gutter
section which includes 14-foot outside travel lanes to accommodate
bike travel. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were
included. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at grade. Thus, this analysis represents
"worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise predictions made in
this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the
peak hour in the design year 2015 would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those
land uses predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100,
2009 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the change in projected traffic volumes
and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The
21
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the
project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each
identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior levels. Under Title 23
CFR Part 772, there are 133 Activity Category B and 14 Activity
Category C impacted receptors within the project limits. Other
information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +5 to +10 dBA.
When real- life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling
or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria, (with approach meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls. However, these mitigating measures may not be
feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for receptors with
frontage along primary or secondary roads in the study area which the
proposed project crosses. Reduction of traffic noise from the
proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the noise levels at these
receptors to within the recommended noise abatement criteria and/or
below a substantial noise level increase.
22
The project will maintain no control of access with access
allowed for each abutting property and, all intersections, except
I-85, will contact the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access
opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise
abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and, thus, would
not be acceptable abatement measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
- require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this
reason, none were analyzed in detail for this report.
Based on these factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
2. Highway Alignment
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed
alignment is normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas of
relocation. Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements is such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. The proposed alternatives were developed to minimize costs
and environmental impacts. Hence, further alteration of the proposed
horizontal alignments is not reasonable or feasible from a planning
and design standpoint.
Changes in the vertical alignment can be effective in limiting
noise impacts of certain highway facilities. This mitigation measure
is not feasible or reasonable due to design constraints associated
with the planned intersecting network of roadways.
23
3. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
4. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do-nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, 88 residences and 1 business would experience traffic noise
impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the
receptors will experience an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +2 to +6 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise
levels is more readily noticed. A 10 dBA change is judged by most
people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
5. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. Overall, construction
noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since all alternative
alignments generally traverse through low density areas. However,
considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby structures and wooded areas are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
6. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
D. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the NCDOT have
determined that, for the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, one resource within the
project's Area of Potential Effect (APE)--the Kinchen Holloway
House--is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. It is eligible under National Register Criterion C. The
24
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
to Nicholas L. Graf of FHWA of February 25, 1994, has concurred with
this determination (see Appendix, SHPO Concurrence Letter).
An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the
undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may
qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the
purpose of determining effect, alternation to features of a
property's location, setting, or use may be relevant depending on a
property's significant characteristics and should be considered (36
CFR 800.9(a)). FHWA, in consultation with NCDOT and SHPO, applied
these criteria of effect to the undertaking and determined that the
widening of Guess Road will have no effect, as defined by the
regulations, on the Kinchen Holloway House.
The project proposes to improve Guess Road in front of the house
and its property boundary to a five-lane, curb-and-gutter facility.
The road will be widened to the west of the historic property's
proposed National REgister boundaries and construction activity will
not take place within those boundaries. The construction activity
will largely be screened from the house by a row of trees which
separate the historic property from Guess Road. The improvement of
Guess Road will not affect the house's significance under Criterion C
as a good representative of a Reconstruction period dwelling. It
will also not effect its integrity of location, design, setting
materials workmanship, feeling, and association.
2. Archaeological Resources
The archaeological survey was designed to evaluate the
archaeological resources along the entire length of the project using
a combination of survey techniques consistent with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Interior (48 FR 44716).
Field investigations for this project resulted in the
documentation of one historic archaeological site, Guess Road Mill
(31Dh612**) on Eno River State Park property. The aboveground
features at the site were identified by field observation; subsurface
testing was not performed. The site is situated on the southwest
side of the NC 157-Eno River crossing. At present, there is an
off-road gravel parking area and stair leading down to the river on
the west side of the road. The site is located approximately 50 feet
southwest from the bottom of the stairs and 25 feet from the Eno
River.
It was determined from field observations that the tail race of
the mill was the site component located nearest to the existing
roadway (NC 157). The minimum distance from the tail race to the
existing bridge was measured at 88 feet. The proposed widening on
the east side of NC 157 will not disturb the mill site or any other
archaeologically significant site. The site will be avoided during
road and bridge construction (See SHPO letter appendix).
25
E. Ecological Analysis
1. Plant Communities
Six plant communities were identified in the project area:
Man-Dominated, Upland Hardwood Forest, Acidic Bluff Community, Pine
Forest, Piedmont Alluvial Forest and wet shrub/scrub. The latter two
are classified as wetland communities.
2. Biotic Community Impacts
Residential neighborhoods and commercial development are
Man-dominated lands where man's structures or activities preclude
natural plant succession. Maintained shoulder slopes, grounds and
lawns support turf of fescue (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative
component, complemented with lan-d-sc-ape ornamentals. Dogwood (Cornus
florida), red cedar Juni erus vir iniana), loblolly pine (Pinus
tae a , pecan (Carya i inoensis an various oak trees ( uercus
spp.) are common. Mowing is frequently associated with this
community.
a. Upland Hardwood Forest
Ridgetops, upper slopes and other relatively dry upland
areas are composed of mixed hardwoods such as white oak ( uercus
alba), southern red oak (L.. falcata), black oak ( uercus
vetutina), and mockernut (Car a a a . American dogwood, muscle
woo arpinus caroliniana and v burnum (Viburnum spp.) are
common understory components. Red cedar is scattered
throughout. The herbaceous layer is sparse and only Christmas
fern (Pol stichum acrostichoides) and wild ginger (Hexastylis
sp.) were noted.
b. Acidic Bluff Community
Located southeast of the bridge over the Eno River are
steep forested bluffs that sit above the narrow floodplain of
the river. Located within the Eno River State Park, this site
is a designated priority natural area by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program. General characteristics of this acidic bluff
community, include thin, rocky soils which support an open
canopy of chestnut oak ( uercus montana), red maple (Acer
rubrum) and northern shag bark is ory Carya ovata). Tie
uncle story is a dense covering of ericaceous species; purple
laurel (Rhododendron catawbiense), mountain laurel (kalmia
latifolia an blueberries Vaccinium spp.). Witch- aeT-
Hamame i s vvii r ini annaa) is scatterree tt roughout. Below the bluffs
annd scatterewnstream are clumps of fetter-bush (Leucothoe
racemosa), the only location for the species in Durham County.
This site is unique due to the presence of purple laurel.
This is a regionally rare species found only on north-facing
bluffs in three locations in Durham County. Except for a few
sites in S.urry and Stokes Counties, this species is disjunct
26
from the slopes of Grandfather Mountain in Avery County. In
general, the microclimate of bluffs are strongly modified by
aspect, and often contain disjunct species, apparently relic
populations of species from a different region.
Pine Forest
Small remnants of Pine Forests occur in the project area.
Mature loblolly pine typically dominate the canopy, interspersed
with tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and southern red
oak. Common subcanopy ands?irub species are sweet-gum, red
maple, blueberries and scrub oaks ( uercus spp.). Common vines
are muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) an green-brier (Smilax sp.)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
A narrow floodplain is associated with the Eno River,
supporting a Piedmont Alluvial forest. The floodplain is
seasonally or intermittently flooded. Flood tolerant species
such as river birch (Betula nigra) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) are common canopy components. A diverse herb
layer supports Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
chickweed (Stellaria media), wild geranium Geranium macu atum),
violet (Viola spp. and enbit (Lamium purpureum .
Wet Shrub/Scrub
Prior disturbance by a powerline clearing has given rise to
a Wet Shrub/Scrub Community. Chinese privet (Li ug_strum
sinense), blackberry (Rubus spp.), black willow (Salix nigrra_)
and sweetgum (Li uidambar st raciflua) saplings comprise e
shrub layer. So i ago SSo i da o_ sp.) and daisey fleabane
(Eri eron sp.) are notable eli rbaceous species.
Future widening will eliminate strips of plant communities.
This will result in direct loss of plant species from clearing
operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Filling and
sedimentation of wetlands may alter drainage or hydrologic
continuities Adjacent wetlands are contiguous to piedmont
alluvial forest and wet shrub/scrub communities. Indirect
impacts to these adjacent communities may occur during
construction activities.
The replacement approachway over the Eno River, is viewed
as a significant, primary impact. A portion of a Piedmont
alluvial forest will be destroyed by land clearing, excavation,
filling, draining and paving. This may significantly alter the
hydrology of surrounding wetland systems.
Anticipated acreage impacts to each community are estimated
in Table 1. Calculations are based on right-of-way limits of
100 feet.
27
Table 1. ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Uplands
Man-dominated Areas
Upland Hardwood Forest
Acidic Bluff Community
Pine Forest
Wetlands
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Wet Shrub/Scrub
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
17.1
5.4
0.1
3.9
0.5
0.1
Total Acres 27.1
3. Wildlife
Urbanized areas and adjacent forested areas support a myriad of
bird life. Carolina wren (Thar o_thorus ludovicianus), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo amaicensis) are birds
sig'?in the study area. Other common nfia itants are the mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), common flicker (Coles aptes auratus), cardinal
(Cardindina is and blue jay (C anocittanocitta cristata . These
ur anize are- ado provide shelter for opportunistic stic animal
species, such as the Norway rat (Rattus norve icus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) and house mouse (Mus musculus). White-tail
deer Odoicoi eus virginiana) is a common in`tant of forested
areas.
Wetland communities provide a variety of opportunities for
wildlife. Of special interest is the alluvial forest associated with
the Eno River. This forest acts as a natural corridor for the
passage of mammals because it extends for many miles in uninterrupted
strips. It also serve as a refuge for mammals forced from more
disturbed upland sites. Such mammals as beaver (Castor canadensis),
mink (Mustela vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus an raccoons
(Procyon lotor) nhabit these wetlands sites.
Wetland communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and
amphibians. Spring peeper (H la crucifer), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. alustris warf salamander Eurycea
ua ri i itata), southern a-us y sa amander (Desmo nathus
auricu atus , yellowbelly slider (Chr sem s sc?ri to , northern water
snake Nerodiea si edon), and rat snake E ap a obsoleta) are but a
few of _reptiTe_s__an_cT an amphibians likely to be oufi nd n the alluvial
forests and stream edges of the area.
The major aquatic system located in the study area is the Eno
River and it's associated tributaries. The Eno flows in a
southeasterly direction and is crossed by Guess Road. Information
concerning animals found in this aquatic system was obtained from
Scott Hartley (Eno River State Park Ranger).
28
The most common non-game fish species found in the Eno River,
are the rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens), white shiner (N. albeolus),
golden shiner (Notemi onus cr so?leucas), swallowtail shiner N.
rocne), yellow bullhead Icta urus natalis), chain pickerel (Esox
nni r The state- listed Roanoke bass Amblo lites cavifrons is
endemic to this system and is considere signi icant y rare.
Redbreast sunfish (Le omis auritus), pumpkinseed (L. ibg bosus),
bluegill (Lepomis mac o irus and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) are common game fish.
The Eno River harbors a large, diverse mussel population.
Mollusks that have been documented at the Guess Road site include the
state protected species squawfoot mussel (Stro hitus undulatus),
yellowlamp mussel (Lam sillis carosia) and At antic pigtoe mussel
(Fusconaia masoni). Other documented mussels include the notched
rainbow Vi osa constricta) and Elliptios (E. com Janata, E.
mediocris) an E. ictT eT). The introduced asiatic clam CorFicula
uminea is also-found at this site.
Wildlife Impacts
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected in the
creation of new habitat and in the alteration and elimination of
previously existing habitat., Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving
organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced. Also, animal migrations may be interrupted due to
vehicular noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
certain species.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and land
clearing are construction activities, which result in an increase in
silt loads in aquatic and wetland environments. This causes a direct
loss of benthic organisms. Mobile organisms are better able to avoid
impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation, than
those species that are filter feeders and relatively immobile. The
removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply for
vertebrate and other aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant and algal
growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting
them off from a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate and fish habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for
fish.
4. Soils
The study area falls between the Triassic Basin and Carolina
Slate Belt, with soils more typical of the Slate Belt. The major
rocks are volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and flows.
Soil mapping units found in the project area are summarized in
Table 1.
29
The soils of the Carolina Slates have high silt contents,
overlie relatively thin saprolite and have low permeability in the B
horizon. Most of the soils have silt loam surfaces and sand in the B
horizon. The association of Georgeville and Herndon soils is typical
of the thick soils developed in residuum from phyllites and slates.
The red Georgeville soils occupy the high parts of the gently sloping
interfluves and the Herndon soils are on slightly lower landscapes.
The saprolite under these soils grades into rippable shattered rock
at depths of 3 meters or more. The thinner Tatum soils occur on the
steeper valley slopes where depth to bedrock may be less than 3
meters.
Iredell-urban complex forms the largest aerial extent of soils
in the project area. Iredell-urban land complex is principally
comprised of fill material. This complex will crack when dry and
swell when wet due to the presence of montmorillonitic clays.
Table 1. Summary of Hydric and Nonhydric Mapping Units
SOIL SERIES CLASSIFICATION
Appling sandy loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Appling sandy loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Chewacla and Wehadkee Non-hydric
Georgeville silt loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Herndon silt loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Herndon silt loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Iredell loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Iredell loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Iredell-urban complex
0 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Mayodan sandy loam
6 to 10% slopes Non-hydric
Tatum gravelly silt loam
15 to 25% slopes Non-hydric
Wedowee sandy loam
10 to 15% slopes Non-hydric
Wehadkee silt loam Hydric
White store sandy loam
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
HYDRIC INCLUSION
Wehadkee
30
Stream courses in the area and associated wetlands are generally
underlain by Chewacla and Wehadkee soils. Approximately 60% Chewacla
soils and 35% Wehadkee soils make up the Chewacla and Wehadkee soils
mapping unit. These are somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained
soils and occur as long, level areas parallel to creeks. The
Chewacla soil is better drained than the Wehadkee soil and is at
slightly higher elevations.
5. Water Resources
Subject project spans the Eno River and three associated
tributaries located within the Neuse River Basin. The drainage
pattern is dendritic, highly dissecting the landscape. Most of the
streams encountered have very narrow channel widths varying from two
to ten feet with little or no associated wetlands. The exception to
this is Eno River, which is a direct tributary to the Neuse River.
The Eno River is characterized by a large braided channel
approximately 150 feet in width. Within the channel and narrow
floodplain, islands of vegetation are found which are of the Piedmont
alluvial forest community type described in section 2.1.1. Substrata
consists of large boulders and cobble of volcanic origin.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
??? Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
N Classifications of WS-III, B and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) has
been assigned to waters of the Eno River and associated tributaries.
WS-III indicates a water supply segment with no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or discharges and is suitable
for all Class C uses. Class B designates waters suitable for primary
3 recreation and any other usage specified by the "C" classification.
The supplemental classification of NSW indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-off) due
to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the
sampling for selected benthic macro invertebrates. These organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water
quality is associated with both high taxa richness values (the number
of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant
forms. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more
sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite different
from that in an unstressed stream. Sampling efforts in the Eno River
conducted in 1986 at the NC 501 bridge crossing (Durham County)
received a bioclassification rating of Good. Waters in this slate
belt region generally have Good water quality.
No waters classified as Trout waters, High Quality waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters, nor any segments of rivers classified
under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the state Natural and
Scenic Rivers Act, will be impacted by the proposed project.
31
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts are increased sedimentation from construction
and/or erosion; increased concentration of toxic compounds from
highway runoff and/or toxic spills; scouring of stream beds due to
the channelization of streams; alterations of water level due to
interruptions or additions to surficial and/or groundwater flow;
changes in light incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures WILL be strictly enforced
due to the sensitive nature of the Eno River system.
6. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Of the four stream crossings, only two have associated wetlands.
These waters and their associated wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill material into these wetlands as
authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetland communities associated with these stream crossings were
identified in the project corridor (Figure 2) on the basis of low
soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of
hydrology or hydrological indicators, such as stained, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and
surface roots. Acreage values for these associated wetlands were
calculated based on 100 feet of right-of-way and are presented in
Table 3.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED WETLAND IMPACTS
SITE NO. PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
1 Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.5
2 Wet Shrub/Scrub 0.1
Total Acres 0.6
7. Permit Requirements
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States". Based upon site location and estimated acreage involved, it
is anticipated that three stream crossings will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide #14 allows
for minor road crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United
States", provided that the fill does not exceed 200 cubic yards below
32
the plane of ordinary high water and the fill does not extend beyond
100 feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of adjacent
waterbodies. Nationwide permits are valid only if the conditions
applicable to them are met as outlined in [33 CFR 330.5 (b)] and [33
CFR 330.6 (a)].
A General Permit (CESAW-C082-N-000-0031) is likely to apply to
the bridge widening over the Eno River. This permit authorizes the
placement of fill material associated with the construction , repair
or replacement of bridges spanning navigable waters and waters the
United States. However, final judgement concerning specific permit
jurisdiction is reserved by the COE.
8. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits
or General permits are authorized, according to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the COE. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with
the COE.
9. 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 of 1973, as amended.
Scoping comments received from the USFWS report the federally
Endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoce halus), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii) and the Proposed En angere smooth coneflower
(Eccinacea laevi ata) as occurring in Durham County. A brief
description an a itat requirements for the above listed species are
summarized below.
Bald Eagle (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed. The largest,
living trees in an area are preferred. No open expanses of water in
combination with perching trees or snags exist in the project area.
The proposed action will have no impact upon this species.
Michaux's Sumac (E)
Rhus michauxii
This species is endemic to the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina. It occurs in sandy or rocky open woods.
It is an erect, rhizomatous shrub, growing to a height of 0.2 to 0.4
meters. The entire plant is densely pubescent. Leaflets are
oblong-lanceolate and their edges are simply to doubly serrate.
White to greenish-yellow flowers appear in June and are followed by
red fruits.
33
Limited, suitable habitat exists in the
plant search was conducted north and south of
NC 157 and areas east and west of NC 157 at
SR 1449. No specimens were seen within the
proposed action will not impact this species.
Smooth Coneflower (PE)
Echinacea laevigata
study area. A plant by
the Eno river bridge on
the intersection of
impact zone. The
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb in the
sunflower family. This species grows to 1.5 meters tall, usually
unbranched and has leaves that are concentrated in a rosette and
along the lower stem. Ray flowers consist of pale purple rays (6 to
7 cm) long encircling purple disc flowers on a solitary head.
Flowering occurs May through July. Six populations are currently
known from North Carolina and usually occur on soils derived from
Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Habitat is open woodlands,
glades, roadsides, cedar barrens and power line rights-of- way.
Suitable habitat was identified within roadside areas along much of
the project length. A scientific survey was conducted during May,
1994. No Echinaceous species were found including Echinacea
laevigate. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact the
species.
In addition, the following Candidate species may occur in the
area:
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum
Nestronia Nestronia umbel _Ja
a liverwort P agiochi a co umbiana
According to the NCNHP database, Septima's clubtail dragonfly
has been documented at the Eno River Bridge crossing on Guess Road.
Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. These species are mentioned here for the purpose of
information, as they may be listed under a protected status at a
later date. Many of these species have state protected statuses and
will be discussed below.
10. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the
State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of
Agriculture.
34
The USFWS provided information on several Candidate (C) species
that occur in Durham County that may occur in the project corridor.
In addition, the NCNHP database and survey results by John Alderman
(NC Wildlife Resources Commission) contain records for several rare
aquatic species from the Eno in the reach adjacent to Guess Road.
The following state designations for these species are provided
below:
Table 2. STATE-PROTECTED SPECIES
Durham County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Delphinium exaltatum
Fusconaia mason- rT**
Lamm s i?i s caros i a**
Strophitus un u atus**
Necturus lewisi**
COMMON NAME STATUS/RANK*
Tall larkspur E-SC/S1
Atlantic pigtoe mussel T/S1
Yellowlamp mussel T/S1
Squawfoot mussel T/S2
Neuse River waterdog SC/S3
*NC Rank Designations: S1 = Critically imperiled in NC because of extreme
rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor making it
especially vulnerable to extirpation from NC; S2 = Imperiled in NC because
of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals; S3 = Rare or
uncommon in North Carolina (21 to 100 occurrences).
**Species documented in the immediate project area.
Tall larkspur
Habitat: glades, grassy balds, woodlands, mostly over mafic
rocks.
Atlantic pigtoe mussel
Habitat: most Atlantic drainages, in lower Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain.
Yellowlamp mussel
Habitat: a number of river systems; mainly near the fall line.
Squawfoot mussel
Habitat: Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear and Pee Dee systems.
Neuse River waterdog
Habitat: Neuse and Tar River systems.
In addition to the state-protected species described above, the
notched rainbow mussel (Villosa constricta) and Roanoke bass
(Am to lites cavifrons) cons Jere significantly rare in North
Carolina have been documented a short distance upstream of the Eno
River bridge crossing on Guess Road.
35
F. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures" The
contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decreases regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of
way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction
with the erosion control schedule the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures".
36
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State 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 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.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no
potential hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land
uses observed reveal it is primarily agricultural and a low risk for
hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any underground storage tanks
regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
RJB/plr
APPENDIX
?*,ROiye -I-,
eu
t`•: "ki
S
$ AM
`Durham
I OiVGmve
S ?B11boo r-/
,e q ?? .?.? ^ i'M 1715
R 81717 ?A• I v} _
111: C gP 77n a 2 ,7. ?.rr?4rTq of 1
in.10 .3 $
p0 P la -10 - ?, E 1 Oq s 3 qr „ 1E .
y4f ffi t11I .II 1111 187 ` LS}e ?/y 9
J?• fi «_ ?" _ Illl + KITHCHEN e' 4 11u
HOLLOWAY io -3x. v'
IA U 1 HOUSE
1114 1}}t x - tat $uu°?r?>::, .
s„ x a
147 ' Le9e ws 3 .H 1111 -rz '<` ` .
174! ' X .77 1er1
y 7
1 .s
?VEP MILL/ , Plli!
/. ENO P SITE x
CITY OF DURHAM
LWCF PARK /y'.. rM OP-
2.8 AC IMPACTED
P `AAA «? ?pa0 11? CITY OF DURHAM
LWCF PARK
?22? ?p0• g ?.g r• 1.0 AC IMPACTED
gHPP %lip
E
S
riJ1 b? n:::.
?? 1i41 114! y P? , o t£:i
1}11 S P ` ,,..*.•'..`
?4. MORTON RO SR 1443
P :: C 1::Ny
Iv'' I 0
er.
i.a CARVER ST. SR 140T
u7
i
j
n
:+YJM' ai:/ i' ++r?,iAS1" +• y -r ?, .z i?y?4 .: , . i'h', .. .Jb17u•'
C

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DURHAM, NC 157
(GUESS ROAD), SR 1407 (CARVER STREET) TO
SR 1449 (UMSTEAD ROAD),
DURHAM COUNTY
U - 2102
I 0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
NS G-10 A
00
+ M• ? r0. I7
vi,
044 s t
(f 4
AF N., 4
-low
19,
BEGIN PROJFCT
r
o Y r
?k(" fit. ?? M?...,, t? • 1.
??L?``j• ?. 1. V :?1 ` {Q°?r h.LL{ ?? ,? ?. _ "' ? I y` ?' ?t ' ... y ? I ? y r `?L
???: ?YrY ?.?•? r _;^?-'1 _. ,.f?Y •._Jt:4?lI •."I Ii?LLt'"F? .? ,„?„ ?t t,7 ,.
Tf-
talk
?. ?.T Lam. ?. ??±?? •?.. t `.T T•
. _ •n 1. 'rs ? 1.
vv, j,
W, y
-14
7 L 1 l:y,yf
y ? ¦ >,?r+ ? I ,2. ?? '? of ?, air
r-
w y '« s
iii??77
40 o N'
Tr 6A4 't ibv
r 1?,
.16
W O
W H p Z x T PF .j .
h W V r °o.
CL 0 L) 4(
l .
r i xr7 `? 4
70
L
Z
O
F-
V
U)
J
Q
V_
Q_

ti

to 0

? N
N
O .
N
tD
Ki

N
O
10
ro
N
is
0
N
of
Z
o?
N
0
10
? N
N O O
C
Q
w
Y
O f-
1- w
w
w
-- w N
oc ?
(n W
cr w
w g
a
U
cr
w
Q
w
Lr-
D
0
LL
m o
N
N
M
N
O N
z V
CD
O
N
z
M
0

W
U)

Q N
U
N
a M M
m
O
1

N
ti
of
Nil
q:)
t0
_o
N
0
!0
O 1
1
N 1
- O 1 --
1
N 1
O ?
3
o
N
O
0 0
N ? O
C4
Q
0
m
Q
W
??
2 F-
Dw
0 LWL.
v
0 W
F-
cW
W G
Y
J
0
U
m
M
W
CD
L.L
lZ
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM( COUNTY
FEBRUARY. 1992
NC-157 (GUESS ROAD) FROM
SR1407 (CARVER STREET) TO SR1449 (UM(STEAD ROAD)
EST. 1995 ADT (in hundreds)
WITHOUT ENO DRIVE
GUESS ROAD
91 A
UMtSTEAD ROAD
SR-1449
86
GRADY DRIVE
SR-1574
4
OPEN AIR RD
SR-1447
19
169
2 45
1 ?
2
41 -, 41 4?2
-1 86

-1 --, 2 83
2
173
61 27 t--- 2 9
2d

56 27
168
2 81 2 ?- 2

.?J 11 ?-- 1
1 4 ? ?
I
7? 9 80 -1
178
89 -1
k----1
I
? ?- 1
1
y
89 1
A A'
NC157
LATTA DRIVE
SR-1448
107
LEBANON CIRCLE
SR-1446
5
LEBANON CIRCLE
SR-1446
2
FIGURE 4A
?3
199 5 ADT
NC157
A --
--g--
180
OLD ROAD
SR-1484 12 78
23 T

ROSE OF SHARON ROAD
SR-1404 157 1 77
28
1 fI,
?
2 -
13 ---? 12 77
179
• 88 2 '*-2

87 6
187
92 2
,= 1
L x--16

92 16
HILLDALE RD 216
SR-1413 7
1
3 1
0

1 --t
-1-? 1 107
215 10 80 17 ?-- 18
HORTON ROAD I L
1 -`-- 20
- 20
107 ?
12
21
240 23 -? 21 78 18
B B.
NC157
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM COUNTY
FEBRUARY. 1992
LANDIS DRIVE
SR-1540
16
PRISON CAMP RD
35
114
FIGURE 43
1 `
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM[ COUNTY
FEBRUARY. 1992
1995 ADT
NC157 '
B B'
240
PEPPERTREE ST 1 122 -1 1 PRIVATE DRIVE
-1
11 I ?- 1 4

-1 -A
5 --? 4 115 1
CANNON DRIVE
248 127 1 ?- 1
?- 1 4

119 1
248
CRYSTAL LASE RD
SR-1412 4
24
1
9 I
I
4 --?
1 -? -1 116
241
BOGARDE STREET
1 124
18
1 -?
9 --? 7 115
255 KIRKWOOD DRIVE
129 4 4
5 18

118 5
257
FIGURE 4C
NC 157 -
1995 ADT
NC157
257
CAMMIE STREET 5 129 -1 -1

9 .. ?-- -1
2
-1 -`?-
1 -? 1 121 -1
ELLEN STREET 252
-1 1
30
2 1
V

1 -? 1 12 2
?
CARVER STREET 254 13 112 6 -- 6
SR-1407 I 32
138 ?J r---17
27 ('

--T
48 I
260 11 -? 7 90 23
NC 157
is
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1992
2
132
FIGURE 4D

}
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1992
NC-157 (GUESS ROAD) FROM
SR1407 (CARVER STREET) TO SR1449 (UMSTEAD ROAD)
EST. 2015 ADT (in hundreds)
WITHOUT ENO DRIVE
GUESS kOAD
181 1
UMSTEAD ROAD
SR-1449
4 90
172 I
4 -,
82 -? 82 83
GRADY DRIVE
SR-1574 337
1 171
10 Y A
1
4 ? 4 164
343
121 54 k-58
p-48
A
110 54
OPEN AIR RD 333 ?
4
SR-1447 4 161 4 -
1
- 2
ao P f
! ? (T
?
1 I I
14 -? 18 158 1
354
176 1 1
L f--2 '
I I
176 2
,
A I -A
NC157
LATTA DRIVE
SR-1448
214
LEBANON CIRCLE
SR-1446
13
LEBANON CIRCLE
SR-1446
6
FIGURE 4E
I'1
2015 ADT
NC157
356
OLD ROAD
SR-1484 24 154
48 1
t
2 2 -!
1 --) i, 156
ROSE OF SHARON ROAD
SR-1404 312 2 153
56 J
4 -? I
26-? 24 153
356
?
• 175 4 - 4
r-- 12

173 12
372
k
183 4 -- 2
I 32

183 32
HILLDALE RD 430
SR-1413 2 213
7 . ,?
1
1 -? 2 213
429 20 160 34 k-_ 36
HORTON ROAD -R 40
214 40
24
42 --- J'
? 1
479 46 -- 42 155 36
1
B B.
NC157
PROTECT U-2102
DURHAM COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1992
LANDIS DRIVE
SR-1540
32
PRISON CAMP RD
68
228
FIGURE 4F
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1992
2015 ADT
NC 15 7
479
?
PEPPERTREE ST 2 243 1 2 PRIVATE DRIVE
4 9
2 1
2 (?

10 -? 8 229 2
1 CANNON DRIVE
494 253 2 `2
f- 2 8
A
• 237 2
494
CRYSTAL LAKE RD
SR-1412 8 247
19
i
8 A
2 1 231
481
BOGARDE STREET
2 247
36 I l
2 -j I
' 18 -? 14 230
509 KIRKWOOD DRIVE
257 8 8
fir-- 10 36
? I
236 10
513
C
NC 157 FIGURE 4G
`)

CAM[MIE STREET
18
ELLEN STREET
6
CARVER STREET
SR-1407
276
2015 ADT
NC157•
513
?
10 256 1 - 1

4
1 -?
2 --?, 2 241 1
503
2
8
1
Y

1
2---) 2 243
505 26 222 12 12
-c ----- 64
?--- 34
~
9 6 ----- I I
517 2 2 --) 14 179 46
NC157
PROJECT U-2102
DURHAM( COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1992
6
263
FIGURE 4H
2°
FEBRUARY, 1992 DURHAM COUNTY
U-2102
ESTIMATED 1995/2015 ADT BY ROUTE
WITHOUT ENO DRIVE
1995 2015 $
ROUTE EST ADT TTST DUAL DHV DYR
IN HUNDREDS
UMSTEAD RD
SR1449 86 172 1 2 10 60
GRADY DR
SR1574
4
10
1
2
10
60
LATTA DR
SR1448
107
214
11,
'2
10
60
OPEN AIR RD
SR1447 19 40 1 2 10 60
LEBANON CR
SR1446 5 13 1 2 10 60
LEBANON CR 2 6 1 2 10 60
OLD RD
SR1484 23 48 1 2 10 60
ROSE OF SHARON
SR1404 28 56 1 2 10 60
LANDIS DR
SR1540 16 32 1 2 10 60
PRISON CAMP RD 35 68 1 2 10 60
HILLDALE RD
SR1413 3 7 1 2 10 60
HORTON RD 114 228- 1 2 10 60
PEPPERTREE ST 11 24 1 2 10 60
PRIVATE DR 4 9 1 2 10 60
fig 4i
v •
FEBRUARY, 1992
DURHAM COUNTY
U-2102
ESTIMATED 1995/2015 ADT BY ROUTE
WITHOUT ENO DRIVE

ROUTE 1995 2015
EST ADT
IN HUNDREDS
TTST
DUAL
DHV
DIR
CANNON DR 4 8 .1 2 10 60
CRYSTAL LAKE RD
SR1412
9
19
1
2
10
60
BOGARDE ST 18 36 1 2 10 60
KIRKWOOD DR 18 36 1 2 10 60
CAMMIE ST 9 18 1 2 10 60
ELLEN ST 2 6 1 2 10 60
CARVER ST
SR1407
138
276
1
2
10
60
GUESS RD
NC-157
260
517
2
3
10
60
fig 47
GUESS ROAD (U-2102)
YEAR 2015 LOS
PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATION
CARVER ST.
A ?
LOS F
LATTA RD.
-t LOS F

NC 157
NC 157
HORTON RD.
NC 157 LOS F
NC 157
ROSE OF SHARON RD.
k..-
LOS D
N C 157
UMSTEAD RD.
i J l?
LOS D
T

FIGURE 5
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
DRAFT NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR
FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL
REFUGES
F. A. Project M-5329-1
State Project 8.1351301
T. I. P. No. U-2102
Description: NC 157 (Guess Road), Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham, Durham Co.
13.1 miles)
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
F-1 X
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ................ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its X
intended purpose? 7 -
Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
EE
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate

Federal Agency object to the land ?
X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of X F-1
an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
X ?
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative: ?
X
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
X
(b) correct existing safety hazards?
F-1 X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
Yes No

2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public park, recreational a
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of ?
retaining walls, etc., or traffic 1
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems
which are of extraordinary
magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. This would be a
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
Yes No
X F-I
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
Note: Any response in a -box requires additional
information prior to approval. Con ult Nationwide
4(f) evaluation.
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities imp-acted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d?. Incorporation of design features and
?habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
eO. Payment of t
the land and
improvements
Section 4(f)
market value
improvements
he fair market value of
improvements taken or
to the remaining
site equal to the fair
of the land and
taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
Yes No
x 0.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided
yc
as follows: GEE- PHGES 41A QnC1 ?P ctne(

4A
The City of Durham LCWF parklands located both on the south and north
side of the Eno River abutting NC 157, consists mostly of hiking and
nature trails near Roxboro Road. No development or resources exist in the
area impacted by the project.
The 373 acre park which is impacted by the project is located in the
southeast quadrant of the Eno River bridge crossing, where 2.8 acres of
parkland would be taken due to the additional right of way needed to
replace the existing bridge on the east side. The LCWF park just north of
the Eno River would have 1.7 acres taken by the project (see map appendix)
and would need a separate conversion to satisfy the LCWF regulations, LCWF
funds were used in acquisition of that land impacted by the project.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land
from a public park, and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal
Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the public park, have
been fully evaluated: (a) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without
using the adjacent public park, and (3) build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park. These alternatives were not found
to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the public park, has been
incorporated into this project. The officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of
impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the
mitigation measures to be provided.
The mitigation process has been initiated with the City of Durham to
replace the parkland taken with a piece of land of equal or greater value.
The "do-nothing" alternative has been considered during the
development of this project. Because there are both advantages and
disadvantages associated with almost any major highway project, it is
important to given consideration to the option of not constructing the
project. Some of the advantages of the project include enhanced traffic
carrying capability, enhanced access to future development, improved
mobility for emergency vehicles, and -a decreased expenditure of time and
money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the
park, displacement of families, the taking of forest resources, and an
increase in noise.
There is a critical need to relieve congestion on Guess Road, improve
capacity and safety. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
by the widening of Guess Road.
4B
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource
would create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve
other historic sites and parkland located in the west quadrants of the Eno
River crossing. This scenario would be extremely costly and
environmentally disrupting. This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the
use of this Section 4(f) resource.
4C
k
H. Land and Water Conservation Program
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program was established
in 1965 to provide matching funds to the states for the acquisition of
land and development of outdoor recreation areas. Those parks and
recreation areas that were acquired and/or developed in whole or in part
with LWCF assistance are protected by Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act of
1965, as amended. Furthermore, the LWCF Act requires that project sponsors
maintain to acceptable standards the properties or facilities acquired or
developed for public outdoor recreation use.
Section 6(f)(3) of the Act states that "No property acquired or
developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval
of the Secretary (Department of the Interior), be converted to other than
public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such
conversion only he finds it to be in accord with the then existing
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and only upon such
conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other
recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of
reasonable equivalent usefulness and location".
In order to comply with the LCWF conversion the city of Durham and
the Director of parks for the city of Durham have been contacted and
informed of the impact. The impact will consist of 2.8 acres of parkland
in the southeast quadrant where Guess road crosses the Eno River and 1.7
acres of parkland adjacent to the east side of Guess Road and just north
of the medical facility property on the north side of the Eno River.
Every alternative has been considered. Widening to the west would
impact the Guess Road Mill site and a park on the west side. Also a better
horizontal alignment can be obtained on the south approach if widening is
the east.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over _X_
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies -X-
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridge requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on December 23. 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project. There
are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of
the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date Division Administrator. FHWA
.-r
" CITY OF DURHAM
s? DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
+? • 10 1 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27701 • PHONE: [phone]
April 8, 1993
Mr. Robert J. Booker,III
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: TIP # U-2102, Widening Guess Road
Dear Mr. Booker:
Enclosed tine Will find plats of possible conversion site= related
to the taking of LWCF land within the Eno River-City Park and Tax
Map-Ownership records of the properties, per your request on
4/7/93.
Replacement properties:
First Choice - GUESS ROAD, NORTH EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE
AIDS Community Residents Assoc.
4404 Guess Road
Durham, NC 27712
Tax Value - $92,292
Zoning = R-20
Tax Map - 807-1-15
Second Choice- ROXBORO ROAD, NORTH WEST SIDE
Earl C. Vaughan, (Heirs)
Contact - Louise V. Garrard
3023 Farthing St.
Durham, NC 27704
Tax Map = 805-1-5A
Zoning - R-20
(continue east and acquire property to match value of taking.)
Louise V. Garrard
Tax Map = 805-1-5 & 805-1-4
Zoning R-20
The Roxboro property is on the south side of Woodland Drive
(unopened).
If you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
William A. Ha rat
Assistant Director
v \
An Affirmative ACion'Equal C? ;!•ortunity Err.• :over
CITY OF DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF MEDICINE
a
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
101 cr" HALL PLAZA
DURHAM.?IORTH CAROLINA 27701
PIIONE. [phone]
April 19, 1995
Hr. Robert J. Booker,III
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: TIP # U-2102, Widening Guess'Road
Dear Mr. Booker.
the
This is to follow up on our phone conversation today regarding
widening of Guess Road and the taking of Eno River City Park land
for this project. I have reviewed my letter dated April 8, 1993
suggesting property adjacent to the Eno River City Park that could
function as replacement property. These properties would still be
our recommendation.
Regarding our first choice of the Aids Community Residents, itais
our expectation that this property would be a complete taking ue
eprop should
to the road layout and loss of the structure. Any
remaining after construction outside the right of way P P The
be a part of the park rather than excess state right of way.
acquisition of this property lab discussed
when it mcame tup eforvsalehe
years but no funds have
benefit Woodland Drive are
The properties along the
due to theirncloseness
and their acquisition w
to our drive and entrance on the north bank. These propeiteasdoere
a part of the original acquisition plan but had to be (,op long
increased land prices at the time. The front property along
Roxboro has commercial development on it. It hind is only a end drfor
time 'before the residential property be is recomm
propertiesland. We have
commercial use. This would
acquire severely theseimpact
not had funds available
Should these properties not equal the value of the guess road
taking than we can recommend other sites.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACT ION EMPLOYER
Page 2.
I would like to bring to your attention that the driveway into the
Aids Community Residents is shared with the park and functions as
our only access into the park from that side. Vie will need to
retain an entrance to the park for service vehicles and emergency
access after the roadwork is completed. This access should be
provided.
If you need any additional information let me know.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Z 7 '
William A. Harrat, Assistant Director
North Carolina State University
Recreation Resources Service
Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
College of Forest Resources
Box 8004
Raleigh, NC 27895-M
[phone]
Telex: 575157
FAX: [phone]
To: Bill Harrat, Durham Parks and Recreation Dept.
Don Sellers, DOT Right-of-way
Fr: Kathy White, Recreation Resources Service
Re: LWCF Conversion - Guess Road Widening
Kathy White, Consultant
West-Central Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winton-Salem, N.C. 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
The enclosures listed below will outline the procedures, guidelines and checklists we
have discussed for preparing the LWCF conversion request. Please review the
materials and give me a call if you have any questions.
Please remember that deeds can not be transferred until the conversion request has
received final approval from the National Park Service.
LWCF Post-Completion Responsibilities Handbook (includes conversion process
and instructions for Updated As-Built Site Plans
LWCF Manual Section on Conversions Chapter 675,.9
LWCF Manual Section on Acquisitions and Appraisals Chapter 675.2
Letter clarifying the types of appraisals required (call if your
appraiser needs a copy of the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisition")
Checklists to be used by State Property Office to review your Appraisals
(note - different list for values under and over $25,000.)
Please keep me advised of your progress and let me know if there is any way I can help.
cc ob Booker, DOT Project Engineer
John Poole,LWCF Program Mamager

North Carolina State University is a land-grant university and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.
r p 0
s
6 1
f d
0 0
p It
(600 RIVErn-
C-rTy
i'ra?k s??i-+ lwl?? .d La J+ Af !-lo
7l.w?P-7 3
NOOltANO DRIVE 130 R/W) Ne7.00'12"E?
-1- - i - '-j - i e2_"4?'?T._ 299 74,
-- IIPN J3, M1it 1201 I_.-._-.---------
1 1 / 1 ;I a° I a WE KING HEIRS
`AF 4.P 1 i `J>. 7 I 1 I / ` elg < -?
,A '? i 1 62.262 ?990r `l/ _ _ _ _ f
,.??1y???III /\ 1 /? /? /? 1 /l\ I `1/ C CN oQ11 Y1 C'%1 >,u1 1 -?&A
iN a?am Im ? 1 / i.? a
I 1 1 I N a N 1 11 /----
\/ 1
1 1 yr' I I 1 21 y?1W £' ?N Did -----------
1 Rei•CN 12"E-- 1 ! ?- Ne7.0.1 12 E'
1CC 1 ? 1 1 `I?
157 OD 7006' 199 70
?C.

Ne W" ^ }dry ?. " c \ E/VU k/V!/? ?/13? / fi10r 7
PHILIP S. LATTA
lOi• 3
VMS, PG Ire A
r??m
x
_ • ?39 ei LdASE wllxilul t"ARe1MOOw)
1? 74 AORfS
,o

0
ul

N O

co
X
O
EC
ILtI
AP
I
W
?N
N

W A
! 1_"
? 1 N
f 1
i
N •O
1
- -?p77? ?S7e,23t16"
PHILIP S. LATTA /
LO, /
v 7, I1?
Etao N pf R
01
11' / ?

State of North Carolina
Department atu al Resources
Natural
Health and
Division of Parks & Recreation ,?„???•?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor i
Jonathon B. Howes, Secretary
Dr, Philip K. McKnelly, Director ,
May 1, ;1995
Mr. Robert Booker
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Building, Room 452 i
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Booker:
After reviewing the N.C. Department of .Transportation's correspondence for the proposed U-
2102 widening Guess Road, Durham, North Carolina, it appears you are on the right track
preparing , • the documentation required by the U.S. Department of the Interior to process an
environmental assessment for, Section 6(f)(3) of tha L&WCF Act of 1965, conversion of
federally-assisted park property in the proposed widening area. From our discussions it appears
DOT's first choice, Guess Road, northeast side of. bridge will constitute a Section 6(f)(3)
conversion and require the City of Durham to submits formal conversion request including a
complete environmental assessment of the proposed replacement property. The state's LWCF
Office is only concerned with and authorized to act on proposed takingys (conversions) of local or
state parklands funded by the federal Land, and Water, Conservation Fund.
Ms. Kathy White, Regional Park and Recitation. Consultant, in DFHNR's Winston-Salem
Regional Office is the state's LWCF contact person :for processing any conversion requests in
Durham County. If you have any questions,, she may be reached at (910) 7714600.
Sincerely,
John C. Poole I ':
Grants Program Manager j?.
JCP/jms it I
cc: Kathy White! P.7. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 T lphonc 9
ry,9to962 pe?8eonarr 919 fs-3085
nPloYer
An a_]ual op o't.niy Ar`rma';ve Action Er I
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2102; NC 157/8R 1470
DATE: 02/04/1994 TIME: 10:17:38.61
RUN: NC 157/SR 1470; BUILD 1995
PAGE 1
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
Va - .0 CM/8 VD . .0 CM/a 20 - 321. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. N AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Yl X2 Y2 "
a (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------- ----- - ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -- ------------------- --------------- ---- ----- ----- --------
1. NC 157NB APPR * 5.5 -304.8 5.5 .0 * 305. 360. AG 1200. 16.8 .0 14.0
2. NC 157NB QUEUE " 5.5 -18.3 5.5 -70.4 • 52. 150. AG 1351. 100.0 .0 7.9 .74 8.7
3. NC 157 NBLT QUEUE " .0 -18.3 .0 -164.7 146. 180. AG 1185. 100.0 .0 3.7 2.33 24.4
4. HC 157NB DEP • 5.5 .0 5.5 304.6 * 305. 360. AG 1230. 16.8 .0 14.0
5. NC 157SB APPR * -5.5 304.8 -5.5 .0 * 305. 180. AG 1310. 16.8 .0 14.0
6. NC 15788 QUEUE " -5.5 18.3 -5.5 81.5 * 63. 360. AG 1372. 100.0 .0 7.9 .83 10.5
7. NC 157 SBLT QUEUE " .0 18.3 .0 181.3 " 163. 360. AG 1195. 100.0 .0 3.7 4.00 27.2
8. NC 15788 DEP " -5.5 .0 -5.5 -304.8 " 305. 180. AG 1400. 20.1 .0 14.0
9. SR 1470 EB APPR * -304.8 -3.7 .0 -3.7 * 305. 90. AG 860. 20.1 .0 9.8
10. SR 1470 ES QUEUE • -14.6 -3.7 -98.0 -3.7 • 83. 270. AG 780. 100.0 .0 3.7 .96 13.9
11. NC 157 EBLT QUEUE " -14.6 .0 -18.1 .0 " 3. 270. AG 998. 100.0 .0 3.7 .08 .6
12. SR 1128 EB DEP • .0 -3.7 304.8 -3.7 " 305. 90. AG 770. 20.1 .0 9.8
13. SR 1128 WB APPR * 304.8 3.7 .0 3.7 " 305. 270. AG 550. 20.1 .0 9.8
14. SR 1128 WB QUEUE " 14.6 3.7 63.6 3.7 * 49. 90. AG 873. 100.0 .0 3.7 .79 8.2
15. NC 157 WBLT QUEUE " 14.6 .0 17.1 .0 " 2. 90. AG 1091. 100.0 .0 3.7 .09 .4
16. SR 1128 WB DEP • .0 3.7 -304.8 3.7 " 305. 270. AG 520. 20.1 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
• COORDINATES (M) •
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
-------------------------R-------------------------------------"
1. REC 1 (NW CORNER) " 39.6 39.6 1.8 "
2. REC 4 (SE CORNER) * 15.2 -53.3 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM)
(DEGR)" REC1 REC2
------ •----------
MAX • 6.4 10.5
DEGR. " 199 326
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2102; NC 157/SR 1470
DATES 02/04/1994 TIMES 09:48318.80
RUN: NC 157/SR 1470; BUILD 2000
PAGE 2
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-----------------
V8 . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S 20 - 321. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AM - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M) "
*
• X1 Y1
---- X2
---------- Y2 '
---------".
-----------------------
1. NC 157NB APPR -
-
" ----------
5.5 ------
-304.8 5.5 .0 *
2. NC 157ME QUEUE " 5.5 -18.3 5.5 -97.7 *
3. NC 157 NBLT QUEUE " .0 -18.3 .0 -232.3 *
4. NC 157NB DEP • 5.5 .0 5.5 304.8 *
3. NC 1578B APPR • -5.5 304.8 -5.5 .0
6. NC 157SB QUEUE ' -5.5 18.3 -5.5 216.6
7. NC 157 SBLT QUEUE " .0 18.3 .0 250.6 "
8. NC 15738 DEP • -5.5 .0 -5.5 -304.8 "
9. SR 1470 EB APPR " -304.8 -3.7 .0 -3.7
10. SR 1470 EB QUEUE " -14.6 -3.7 -505.4 -3.7
11. NC 157 EBLT QUEUE • -14.6 .0 -19.0 .0
12. SR 1128 EB DEP " .0 -3.7 304.8 -3.7
13. SR 1128 WB APPR " 304.8 3.7 .0 3.7 *
14. SR 1128 WB QUEUE • 14.6 3.7 99.0 3.7 *
15. NC 157 WBLT QUEUE * 14.6 .0 17.7 .0 *
16. SR 1128 WB DEP ' .0 3.7 -304.8 3.7 "
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR • X Y Z "
-------------------------•-------------------------------------•
1. REC 1 (NW CORNER) • 39.6 39.6 1.8
2. REC 4 (SE CORNER) • 15.2 -53.3 1.6 •
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEC)
----------------
305. 360. AG
79. 180. AG
214. 180. AG
305. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
198. 360. AG
232. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
305. 90. AG
491. 270. AG
4. 270. AG
305. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
84. 90. AG
3. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------
1500. 13.0 .0 14.0
1043. 100.0 .0 7.9 .92 13.2
914. 100.0 .0 3.7 3.00 35.7
1540. 13.0 .0 14.0
1640. 13.0 .0 14.0
1059. 100.0 .0 7.9 1.04 33.1
922. 100.0 .0 3.7 5.33 38.7
1750. 13.0 .0 14.0
1080. 16.7 .0 13.4.
602. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.20 61.8
770. 100.0 .0 3.7 .10 .7
970. 16.7 .0 13.4
690. 16.7 .0 13.4
674. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.00 14.1
842. 100.0 .0 3.7 .11 .5
650. 16.7 .0 13.4
MODEL. RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEQR)* REC1 REC2
------•------------
MAX • 6.1 9.3
DEGR. " 198 346
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2102; NC 157/SR 1470
DATES 02/04/1994 TIME: 09:56t06.60
RUN: NC 157/SR 1470; BUILD 2015
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S 20 - 321. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BBC TYPE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ' (M) (DEC)
------------------------ *---------------,------ ---------- ---------'-- --------- ---------
1. NC 157NB APPR • 5.5 -304.8 5.5 .0 * 305. 360. AG
2. NC 157MB QUEUE • 5.5 -18.3 5.5 -1268.1 * 1250. 180. AG
3. NC 157 NBLT QUEUE * .0 -18.3 .0 -401.2 * , 383. 180. AG
4. NC 157NB DEP • 5.5 .0 5.5 304.8 * 305. 360. AG
5. NC 15788 APPR • -5.5 304.8 -5.5 .0 • 305. 180. AG
6. NC 15788 QUEUE * -5.5 18.3 -5.5 1660.5 * 1642. 360. AG
7. NC 157 SBLT QUEUE • .0 18.3 .0 389.3 * 371. 360. AG
S. NC 1578E DEP * -5.5 .0 -5.5 -304.8 " 305. 180. AG
9. SR 1470 EB APPR • -304.6 -3.7 .0 -3.7 * 305. 90. AG
10. SR 1470 EB QUEUE • -14.6 -3.7 -1894.3 -3.9 " 1880. 270. AG
11.-NC 157 SBLT QUEUE • -14.6 .0 -21.7 .0 * 7. 270. AO
12. SR 1128 EB DEP * .0 -3.7 304.8 -3.7 " 305. 90. AG
13. SR 1128 WB APPR • 304.8 3.7 .0 3.7 " 305. 270. AG
14. SR 1128 WB QUEUE " 14.6 3.7 986.3 3.8 * 974. 90. AG
15. NC 157 WBLT QUEUE • 14.6 .0 19.6 .0 " 5. 90. AG
16. SR 1126 WB DEP " .0 3.7 -304.8 3.7 * 305. 270. AG
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR • X Y Z "
-------------------------R--------------------------------------
1. REC 1 (NW CORNER) " 39.6 39.6 1.8
2. REC 4 (BE CORNER) • 15.2 -53.3 1.8 "
PACE 3
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(GMI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------------------
2400. 10.1 .0 14.0
867. 100.0 .0 7.9 1.48 208.3
760. 100.0 .0 3.7 4.67 63.8
2460. 10.1 .0 14.0
2600. 10.1 .0 14.0
880. 100.0 .0 7.9 1.65 273.7
767. 100.0 .0 3.7 8.00 61.8
2780. 10.1 .0 14.0
1720. 14.1 .0 9.8
500. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.92 313.3
640. 100.0 .0 3.7 .17 1.2
1540. 14.1 .0 9.8
1100. 14.1 .0 9.8
560. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.58 162.3
700. 100.0 .0 3.7 .18 .8
1040. 14.1 .0 9.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2
-------*------------
MAX * 6.7 10.1
DECR. * 193 191

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
+
TwMila loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E SO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
H 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
a Quiet automo ile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average how
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVBRAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Asper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: world Hook, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Reesarched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
H 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or S above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Waighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50 >15
> 50 > 10

source: North Carolina Departmsnt of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 157 (Guess Road); From SR 1407 (Carver Street)
to SR 1449 (Umstead Road), Durham County,
TIP # U-2102, State Project # 8.1351301
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1 NC 157, 0.5 Mile North of Grassy Area 65
SR 1407 (Carver Street)
2 NC 157, 0.4 Mile North of Grassy Area 65
SR 1412 (Crystal Lake Rd.)
3 NC 157, .15 Mile South of Grassy Area 66
SR 1447 (Open Air Road)
4 NC 157, 200 Feet North of Grassy Area 68
SR 1447 (Open Air Road)
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.

TABLE N4 1/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstad Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP / U-2102, State Project 18.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID / LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
rro---- rrrr......r.srrr r??rr
. rY.......... . It
SR 1407 (Carver Street) to Crystal Lake Road. at
1
2

3
4
5

6
7

e

9
10

11

12

13

14
15

16

17

18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Business
Business

Business
Business
Business

Business
Business

Business

Business
Business

Business

Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Hwina¦
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence C
C

C
C
C

C
C

C

C
C

C

B

B

H
H

B

B

B

H
B
B
H
B
B
a
H
C
B
H
B
B
8
B
B
B
8 NC 157 132 L

•' 99 L
It 94 L
to 177 R

It 177 R
" 170 R

•' 177 R

•' 141 L
" 140 L

102 L

•' 67 R

•' 113 L

" 77 R
" 67 L

73 L

•' 77 R

•' 73 L

•' 75 L

•• 74 L
75 L
74 L
" 60 R
" 61 R
•' 67 L
" 86 L
" 81 R
155 R
•• 70 L
" 73 L
•• 55 A
'• 67 L
•' 54 R
60 R
" 60 R
" 71 L
" 80 L 59 NC 157

51
61 "
56 "

56 "
57 "

56 "

58 '•
58 "

61 "

64 •'

60 "

63 "
64 "

63 "

63 "

63 "

63 "

63 "
63 "
63 "
65 "
64 •'
62 "
62 "
62 "
57 "
63 "
53 "
65 "
64 "
65 "
65 "
65 "
63 "
63 132

99
94
177

177
170

177

141
140

102

67

113

77
67

73

77

73

75

74
75
74
60
61
67
86
81
155
70
73
55
67
54
60
60
71
80 L -

L -
L -
R -

R -
R -

R -

L -
L -

L -

R -

L -

R -
L -

L -

R -

L -

L -

L -
L -
L -
R -
R -
L -
L -
R -
R -
L -
L -
R -
L -
R -
R -
R -
L -
L - - 68

- • 71
- • 71
- 66

- 66
- 66

- 66

- * 68
- 68

- * 71

- • 74

- " 70

- " 73
- • 74

- " 73

- " 73

- * 73

- " 73

- " 73
- " 73
- * 73
- * 74
- * 74
- • 72
- * 72
- • 72
- Y4 67
- * 73
- " 73
- " 75
- * 74
- * 75
- * 74
- " 74
- " 73
- * 73 + 9

" + 10
* + 30
" + 10

* + 10
+ 9

" + 10

* + 10
• + 10

* + 10

" + 10

" + 10

* + 10
" + 10

* + 10

" + 10

" + 10

* + 10

" + 10
* + 10
* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
• + 10
* + 10
" + 10
* + 10
" + 10
" + 10
" + 10
" + 10
* + 10
+ 9
+ 9
* + 10
* + 10
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as extarior/interior (58/48). " ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
TABLE N4 2/6
Log TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstend Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP / U-2102, State Project f 8.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 4 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- _ MAXIMUM INCREASE
.........?............ .....o........... ..... .................. ............ ......... ........
SR 1407 (Carver Street) to Crystal Lake Road (con't
37

38
39
40

41
42
43
44
45

46

47

48
49
50
51
52
53

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence
Business
Residence
Residence
Residence
Business

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence B NC 157

B "
B It

to
B
B "
B •,
B ,•
B "
'•
B
•'
B
8 "
B "
C to
B "
B "
B '•

••
C
B It
B "
B "
B to
B "
B "
B "
B •'
B It
B It
B "
B •'
B
B "
B "
B " 80

83
90

113
133
128
68
142

76

76

68
75
105
67
94
70

65
105
70
72
104
77
176
105
112
107
78
105
107
111
93
105
93 R

L
L

L
R
L
L
L

L

R

L
R
L
R
L
R

R
L
R
R
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
R
L
R 63 NC 157

62 "
62 "

60 '•
59
59 "
64 "
58 "

63 "

63 "

64 "
63 "
61 It
64 "
61
63 "

64 to
61 "
63 "
63 "
61 ,•
63 ••
56 "
61 •'
60 "
61 "
63 to
61 It
61 "
60 •'
62 11
61
62 to 80

83
90

113
133
128
68
142

76

76

68
75
105
67
94
70

65
105
70
72
104
77
176
105
112
107
78
105
107
111
93
105
93
_
R
L -
L -
L -
R -
L -
L -
L -

L -

R -

L -
R -
L -
R -
L -
R -

R -
L -
R -
R -
L -
R -
R -
L -
R -
L -
R -
L -
L -
L -
R -
L -
R -
- to 73
- * 72
- * 72

- * 70
- * 68
- * 69
- * 74
- * 68

- * 73

- * 73

- * 74
- * 73
- 70
- It 74
- * 71
- * 73

- * 74
- * 70
- * 73
- * 73
- * 70
- * 73
- * 66
- * 70
- * 70
- It 70
- * 73
- * 70
- * 70
- to 70
- * 71
- * 70
- * 71
*+10
* + 10
* + 10

* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
to + 10
* + 10

* + 10

* + 30

* + 10
* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
* + 30
* + 10

to + 10
+ 9
to + 10
* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
+ 9
* + 10
+ 9
+ 9
* + 10
+ 9
+ 9
+ 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y
Category E noise levels shorn as exterior/ interior (58/48). to --> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
-> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 3/6
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP I U-2102, State Project / 6.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
.......... ...... ....ti ......... ......... ................ . ........................ ........
SR 1407 (Carver Street) to Crystal Lake Road (con't)
70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77
78

79

80

81

82

83

84 Residence

Residences

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence B

H

B

B

H

B

B

H
H

H

B

H

H

B

B NC 157 304 L

83 L

•• 102 L

^ 90 L

'r 83 R

" 86 L

" 95 R
78 L
"
80 R

77 L
"
" 76 R

•` 76 L

'• 88 R

r' 88 R

`• 80 R 61 NC 157

62 1

61 •'

62

62 "

62 "

61 "
63

63 "

63 "

63 "

63 "

62 "

62 "

63 "
_
104 L
83 L -

102 L -

90 L -

83 R -

84 L -

95 R -
78 L -

80 R -

77 L -

76 R -

76 L -

88 R -

88 R -

80 R -
_ • 70

- * 72

- * 71

- * 72

- * 72

- * 72

- * 71
- * 73

- * 73

- * 73

- * 73

- * 73

- * 72

- * 72

- * 73
? 9

* + 10

* + 30

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10
* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10
Crystal Lake Road to SR 1443 (Horton Road)
85

86

87

88

89

90
91
92

93

94
95
96
97

98

99

100 Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Apt(6) B

H

B

B

B

B
B
B

B

B
H
B
H

B

B

B NC 157 74 L

•' 77 L

•' 78 L

" 117 R

" 97 L
•' 96 L
" 117 R

•• 105 L

•? 72 R
" 160 R
" 97 L
" 69 R

•• 74 R

79 R

•' 82 R
'• 210 R 63 NC 157

63 "

63 "

60 "

62 "
62 "
60 "

61 "

64 "
58 "
62 ^
64 "

63 "

63 "

63 "
55 "
_
74 L
77 L -

78 L -

117 R -

97 L -
96 L -
117 R -

105 L -

72 R -
160 R -
97 L -
69 R -

74 R -

79 R -

82 R -
210 R -
_ * 73

- * 73

- * 73

- * 70

- * 71
- * 71
- * 70

- * 70

- * 73
- * 67
- * 71
- * 74

- * 73

- * 73

- * 72
- 64
* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

+ 9
+ 9
* + 10

+ 9

+ 9
+ 9
+ 9
* + 10

* + 10

* + 10

+ 9
+ 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CYR Part 772).

TABLE N4 4/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP I U-2102, State Project M 8.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY
........? ............. NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. LEVEL.
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y-
.................. ................. MAXIMUM
....... INCREASE
........
Crystal Lake Road to SR 1443 (Norton Road) (can't)
101 Residence B NC 157 83 L 63 NC 157 83 L - - * 72 + 9
102 Apt(8) B " 161 L 57 " 161 L - - " 67 * + 10
103 Residence B 80 R 63 " 80 R - - * 73 * + 10
104 Apt(8) B 174 R 57 " 174 R - - " 66 + 9
105 Residence B •' 87 R 62 " 87 R - - * 72 * + 10
106 Apt(14) B " 123 L 60 " 123 L - - * 69 + 9
107 Residence B 54 R 65 " 54 R - - * 75 * + 10
108 Apt(14) B " 98 L 62 " 98 L - - " 71 + 9
109 Residence B " 75 R 63 " 75 R - - " 73 It + 10
110 Apt(14) B •' 107 L 61 " 107 L - - " 70 + 9
111 Residence B '• 42 R 67 •' 42 R - - " 76 + 9
112 Residence B " 75 R 63 " 75 R - - " 73 • + 10
113 Residence B " 79 R 63 " 79 R - - " 73 * + 10
114 Residence B •' 85 R 63 " 85 R - - " 72 + 9
115 Residence B " 72 R 64 " 72 R - - " 73 + 9
116 Business C 167 L 57 " 167 L - - 66 + 9
117 Residence B " 180 R 57 " 180 R - - 65 + 8
SR 1 443 (Horton Road) to Prison Camp Road
118 Business C NC 157 90 R 63 NC 157 90 R - - * 71 + 8
119 Business C " 77 L 64 •' 77 L - - It 72 + 8
120 Business C " 125 L 60 125 L - - 59 + 9
121 Business C •' 165 R 58 " 165 R - - 66 + 6
122 Business C 125 R 60 It 125 R - - 69 + 9
123 Apt(14) B " 108 L 61 " 108 L - - It 70 + 9
124 Apt(14) B " 156 L 58 " 156 L - - * 66 + 8
125 Residence B " 145 R 59 " 145 R - - * 67 + 8
126 Residence B " 152 R 58 " 152 R - - * 67 + 9
127 Residence B " 160 R 58 " 160 R - - * 66 + 8
128 Residence B " 200 R 56 " 200 R - - 64 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contribut ing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * - Traffic noise impact ( per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP / U-2102, State Project N 8.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID / LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
¦................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
..................
Prison Camp Road to SR 1 404 (Rose of Sharon Road)
129 Business C NC 157 112 R 61 NC 157 112 R
130 Business C " 112 R 61 " 112 R
131 Residence B " 54 R 66 " 54 R
132 Residence S " 160 R 58 " 160 R
133 Residence B " 102 R 62 " 102 R
134 Residence B " 96 R 62 " 96 R
135 Residence B " 97 R 62 " 97 R
136 Residence B " 99 R 62 " 99 R
137 Business C " 50 L 66 " 50 L
OR 1404 (Rose of Sharon Road) to SR 1484 (Old Road)
138 Residence B NC 157 98 R 62 NC 157 96 R
139 Residence B " 97 R 62 " 97 R
140 Residence B " so R 63 " 80 R
141 Residence B " 161 L 58 " 161 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................
5/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
a9 + 8
69 + 8
* 74 + 8
_ - * 66 + 8
_ - * 69 + 7
_ _ * 70 + 8
_ - * 70 + 8
_ - * 70 + 8
_ - * 74 + e
* 69 + 7
* 69 + 7
* 71 + 8
65 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (par 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 6/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP 4 U-2102, State Project f 8.1351301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED N018E LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1484 (Old Road) to SR 1447 (Open Air Road)
142 Residence B NC 157 114 R 61
143 Residence B " 180 L 57
144 Residence B " 147 L 59
145 Residence B " 116 R 61
146 Residence B " 135 R 59
147 Residence B •' 115 R 61
146 Residence B '• 109 L 61
149 Residence B " 148 R 59
150 Residence B " 125 R 60
SR 1447 (Open Air Road) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road)
NC 157 114 R - - " 68 + 7
180 L - - 64 + 7
'• 147 L - - * 66 + 7
•' 116 R - - " 68 + 7
'• 135 R - - " 67 + 8
•' 115 R - - " 68 + 7
'• 109 L - - " 69 + 8
•' 148 R - - * 66 + 7
125 R - - " 68 + 8
151 Church E NC 157 101 L 64/00 NC 157
152 Residence B to 82 R 65
153 Residence B to 117 L 62 to
154 Residence B " 127 L 62 "
155 Residence B " 140 L 61 "
156 Residence B to 114 L 63 to
157 Residence B " 130 L 62 "
158 Residence B " 186 L 58
159 Residence B " 62 R 67 '•
160 Residence B " 90 L 64
161 Residence B to 191 L 58
162 Residence B '• 80 R 65
163 Residence B " 90 L 64
164 Business C '• 97 L 64
165 Business C " 127 R 62 to
166 Business C " 123 R 62 to
167 Residence B " 153 R 60 to
101 L - - 69/44 + 5
82 R - - " 71 + 6
117 L - - * 68 + 6
127 L - - * 68 + 6
140 L - - • 67 + 6
114 L - - * 68 + 5
130 L - - * 67 + 5
186 L - - 64 + 6
62 R - - * 73 + 6
90 L - - * 70 + 6
191 L - - 64 + 6
80 R - - * 71 + 6
90 L - - * 70 . + 6
97 L - - 70 + 6
127 R - - 68 + 6
123 R - - 68 + 6
153 R - - * 66 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
• Category E noise levels sham as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham CountY
TIP A U-2102, State project i 8.1351301
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
_ dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dRA A B C D E

1. SR 1407 to OR 1412 73 69 64 91' 162' 0 70 11 0 0
(Carver Street to Crystral Lake Road)
2. OR 1412 to OR 1443 73 69 64 91' 162' 0 30 0 0 0
(Crystral Lake Road to Norton Road)
3. OR 1443 to Prison Camp Road 73 69 63 86' 154' 0 5 2 0 0
(Horton Road to Prison Camp Road)
4. Prison Camp Road to OR 1404 72 68 63 79' 145' 0 6 1 0 0
(Prison Camp Road to Rose of Sharon Rd.)
5. SR 1404 to 8R 1484 72 67 62 73' 133' 0 3 0 0 0
(Rose of Sharon Rd. to Old Road)
6. OR 1484 to OR 1447 72 68 62 77' 141' 0 8 0 0 0
(Old Road to Open Air Road)
7. SR 1447 to OR 1449 72 68 62 77' 141' 0 11 0 0 0
(Open Air Road to Umetead Road)
TOTAL 0 133 14 0 0
NOTEB - 1. 501, 1001, and 2009 distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 157 (Guess Road); From Carver Street (SR 1407)
to Umstead Road (SR 1449), Durham County
TIP # U-2102, State Project 1 6.1351301
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <•O 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >• 25 Increased Criteria2
1. SR 1407 to SR 1412 0 0 17 67 0 0 0 61 61
2. SR 1412 to SR 1443 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 30 15
3. OR 1443 to Prison Camp Road 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 14 0
4. Prison Camp Road to SR 1404 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 7 0
5. SR 1404 to SR 1484 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0
6. SR 1484 to SR 1447 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 0
7. SR 1447 to SR 1449 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 0
lAs defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
2AS defined by both criteria in Table N2.
rSWr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., GoVesnor
Betty Ray McCain. Secret'e'
February 25, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening of
Guess Road from Carver Street to Umstead Road,
Durham County, U-2102, 8.1351301, M-5329(1),
ER 94-8234
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. DirectOr
Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1994, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Marvin Brown of Greiner, Inc.; concerning the above project.
-The following property was placed on the state study list on July 12, 1990:
Kinchen Holloway House
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Kinchen Holloway House (#11). Criterion C--Retaining its basic form and
fabric, the Kinchen Holloway House is a good representative of a
Reconstruction period dwelling.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places for the reasons cited below:
These properties have undergone numerous character-altering changes:
Mabry House (#1)
House (#10)
Brogden House (#16)
William W. Brogden House (#17)
These properties have little historical or architectural significance:
11
log East Jooas Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
House (#6)
Hunt House (#13)
House (#15)
Gaddis Hunt House (#17)
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please corTtact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: . H. F. Vick
`1B. Church
Marvin Brown, Greiner, Inc.
Steve Cruse, Durham Historic Properties Commission
.O? SIAT[ o • y
1'.
lift,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
c?-r
y2 DWISIGN OF
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor ] HIGHWAYS r ?
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Division o
Will "* m S. for
July 6, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening Guess Road from Carver Street to
Umstead Road, Durham County, U-2102,
8.1351301, M-5329(1), ER 94-9045
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1994, concerning the above project.
On April 20, 1994, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA),
the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the Historic Preservation
Office met to discuss the project's potential effects on the only historic property in
the area of potential effect--the Kichen Holloway House. Based upon our
discussions and the preliminary documentation provided to us, we concur with
FHwA's determination that the project will have no effect upon the Kichen
Holloway House, if during construction the root zones of the trees screening the
house from the road are protected from damage.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1
for Compliance with. Section 06, codified at 36! C FR Part 800 's
Regulations Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?D d Brook
J1? , 0 n
!
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Greiner, Inc.
Durham Historic
Properties Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
`9Y
GE1
(V(?/_ 6&J_An\? APR Z pig -
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou^ olvisio,OF
Junes B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 18, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widen NC 157 from SR 1407 to SR 1449, U-
2102, Durham County, ER 94-8668
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of March 31, 1994, concerning the above project.
Since Alternate B has been selected for implementation, historic archaeological site
31 DH612"" will not be affected by the proposed widening. We concur with your
determination that the widening of NC 157 as currently proposed will have no
effect upon National Register-eligible archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
i?cerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
?H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Stmt - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
R EL O C A T I ON REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X_ E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANC
PROJECT: 5.1351302 COUNTY: Durham Alternate _1? of I Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2102 F.A. PROJECT: Unknown
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals
Families 2 2 4 2 0 2 2 0 0
Businesses 0 1 1- 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M , 0 150-250 0 20-40M SEE 150-250
Y EXPLAIN ALL 'YES' ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M NOTE 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 1 400-600 2 70-100 400-600
.

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
t
ff
l
t
d b
di
100 UP
1
600 UP
0
100
UP
MA
?ObF
X acemen
a
ec
e
sp
y
3. Will business services still
b
il
bl
ft
t TOTAL 2 2 Ri HT 0 WAY B ?ti::r-i

X e ava
er projec
a
e a
4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size
REMARKS (Respond by Number) ,

MAR 07 VS
type, estimated number of 3. Little affect, if any, on he business community
l
i
iti
t
es, e
emp
oyees, m
nor
c.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. The proposed R/W goes abou h9lfMy(M:ti? N*P-_'ff;aN
h
i
h
t t
ti
/
f r5
X or
age
ous
ng s
6. Source for available hous- canopy o
a gas s
on
qu
a
the three pumps. Business could probably re-
i
(li
t) s 4-5
lo
th
P
babl
d
t
ng
s y
arrange an
ay
ere.
ro
y emp
s
X 7. Will additional housing people.
d
b
d
X e nee
e
programs
B. Should Last Resort Housing 6. MLS & newspapers, and se-d'n6te below.
b
id
d
e cons
ere
X 9. Are there large, disabled, 8. Possibly, due to high real estate prices in the
elderly, etc. families Durham area.

X ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
9. One house is apparently a group home for indi-
j
t
d
d f viduals with AIDS
or pro
ec
nee
e .
X 11. Is public housing avail-
bl s have units available to highway displacees
11
Alwa
a
e .
.
y
SEE 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
NOTE equate DSS housing available 14. Commercial realtors list business sites and
eriod
tion
d
i
l s have some available
alwa
oca
p
ur
ng re .
y
X 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial NOTE: There are always hundred of houses for sale in
Though rentals are expen-
these price ranges
means .
X 14. Are suitable business sites sive, there are always some in all but the
ble (list source)
il lowest range of prices
ava
a .
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION s ix
w
AM J I rn eA?? 3 -6-cf?;_ (), :?
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
Copy: Area Relocation File
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widenina of NC 157 (Guess Rd.) from Carver St. to Umstead Rd..
Durham