20041060 Ver 1_Complete File_20040629

Re: Widening of NC 54 in Durham County (R-2904)

Subject: Re: Wtdentng of NC 54 to Durham County (R-2904)
From: Chris Murray <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:01:11 -0400
To: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
CC: Donald Pearson <[e-mail]>
Rob,
There is plenty of parking on the road shoulder adjacent the railroad trestle on
NC 54 located near Miami Boulevard.
I suggest that you take the following directions:
-Take I-40 west to Miami Boulevard
-Travel south on Miami Boulevard to its intersection w/ NC 54
-Turn right and travel approximately 1/10 of a mile to railroad trestle.
I will see you there at 3:00 on 7/2/07.
Chris Murray
Rob Ridings wrote:
Chris,
3pm Tues is fine...it'll be a quick visit to make sure everything looks
good and stable. Especially since we're supposed to be getting some
more rain this weekend, it'll be good to make sure it's all holding.
Is there a public building (office?) with a parking lot on that stretch
that I could meet you at? Just let me know.
Have a good weekend,
rob
Chris Murray wrote:
~ Rob,
I am available to meet w/ you on 7/2 late in the day, possibly around 3:00
pm. If you need to make it earlier in the day, Donald Pearson can meet w/
you at your convenience. Please advise.
Chris Murray
Please let me know.
Rob Ridings wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for looking into it and fixing the devices right away. I won't
be able to get over that way right away, but perhaps a quick stop by to
look at it Tuesday...do you have an open hour or two that day?
-rob
Chris Murray wrote:
Reference: Widening of NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR
1959 (Miami Boulevard) in Durham County.
Rob,
This project was subject to heavy rains last night. Our
inspectors reported greater than one inch of rain in very short
1 of 2 7/3/2007 9:16 AM

Re: Widening of NC 54 in Durham County (R-2904)

time period around midnight last night, resulting in some impact
to our erosion control devices at the project, particularly near
46+00 to 48+00 Lt and Rt. Some minor sediment control stone was
lost in the stream and some of the silt fence was pushed over in
a few places at this site. These E/C devices are being
reconstructed and strengthened as necessary this afternoon. All
material deposited in the stream is currently being removed by
the contractor.
The contractor and our inspectors review the project after every
rain event and were aware of the erosion control issues at 8:00
am this morning. Please contact me (at 318-2823) or Donald
Pearson (201-0386) if you wish to review the erosion control
measures on the project.
Thanks for contacting me in regards to your concerns at the
project.
Chris Murray
-~-~ ~
r
~~ ~C
~~ ~
l ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
.-~
.~ o ~
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ °i- ~~`
~~'-
.~ ~ ~
~~
~ ` .~- ~~
~~
~; ~2 s~~
lir ~
~ ~ ~' ~ ~g ~
~~~' ~ ~/ ~~ ~ r~ ~
~~~ ~~ ~~ yp/ as
2 of 2 ~ f 7/3/2007 9:16 AM
~1 DI ~5l ~~' ~ ~~acb i

II~~ #
1
~~ 4 ~

n „a SUV[
r~e~
•aa.:.~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o~
~~~//y
V
`~ of /,9N 0 ~S , ,
osT~r~Rac po ~,~
Miyq q~iTj.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~R~~~
h
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVEKNOK
December 30, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite l 20
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECKE"fAKY

Subject: Application for Modification to Section 404 permit for NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis
Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) in Durham County, Division 5. State Project No.
8.1352701, Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2), TIP No. R-2904; WBS Element No.
34512.1.1.
Reference: USACE 404 NW 23 & 33 General Permits, Action ID Nos. 200220393 and
200421561 issued 9/10/04.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen 1.1 miles
of NC 54 from a two lane to a four lane divided shoulder facility with a 17.5 foot raised median
from Davis Drive (SR 1999) to approximately 200 feet (ft) west of the railroad structure and then
from that point a five lane curb and gutter section to Miami Boulevard, south of Durham in
Durham County.
NCDOT submitted a Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) Nationwide 23 and 33 General
Permit Application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the subject project on
June 25, 2004. On September 10, 2004, the Section 404 Permit was issued by the USACE
(Action ID Nos. 200220393 and 20042 1 56 1). A Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification Nos. 3403 and 3366 were issued from the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) with the Section 404 Permit. The project has been let and construction has begun.
The purpose of this submittal is to request a modification to the Section 404 permit,
specifically Site 1 at Station No. 47+58 L (site map and permit drawing sheets 3 and 4 of 8). The
permit modification is for adding 23 ft on the upstream (Lt.) end of the proposed 30 in.
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Existing channel impacted will change from 160 ft. to 183 ft
(Permit Sheet 8 of 8). The Fill in Surface Waters (SW) will change from 0.011 to 0.012 acre
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone]$ CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
159$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEB$ITE' WWW.NCDOT.ORG

(Wetland Permit Impact Summary sheet 7 of 8). The change was necessary because curb and
gutter has been added which shifted the fill slope. No wetland impacts will occur because of this
change. According to the permit application, the stream at site I was determined to be
intermittent by Mr. Eric Alsmeyer (USAGE) and lacking aquatic habitat. No mitigation is
required. Adherence to the standard conditions of the General Water Quality Certifications Nos.
3403 and 3366 will be followed as stated in the permit.
The revised design does not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing
permit conditions. The revision has been evaluated for compliance with the
avoidance/minimization criteria and are in compliance with all previous issues, including the
following:
• Protected Species
• Aquatic Life passage
• FEMA compliance
• Cultural Resources.
Regulatory Approvals
Application is hereby made for the modification of the Section 404 Permit from the
USAGE. We anticipate this project will retain the 401 General Water Quality Certification and
are providing two copies of this application to NCDWQ, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Susan Thebert
at [phone].
Sincerel ,
~,/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Desigm
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Desigm
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Eric Midkiff, PDEA Planning Engineer

.r ~ 2028 1121
"""
I /
) 147 ~
2 78 2017 ~
f ~ J
`
40
199 1121 I ou+~
~ ~'
urt
~ ~
1889 \ I

~nuw 210 ~ 1969
w~rr 2145 ~ 2058 -~ ~
~
2028 ~ ~ Durham ~
EGIN tss9 5a ts5s s
PROJECT - 1972
1973 ~ /
~
19ie ~
~ END
179z
~ ~ _
~ ~
40
)
tae -~
210
ouRww courrtY
w~oDrirY __r_-r_~ c~ _ J _ 010
_ ----+
teal
1837
~
1813 095 840
1~I ~~®~
~~~1.~~~~~~
~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1352701 (R-290~1)
NC 54 FROM 5R 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 1959
MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 (PAGE RD) FROM
NC 5~( TO I-~10 IN DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA

~~~~ ~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1352701 (R-290~)
NC 5, FROM SR 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 1959
MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 (PAGE RD) FROM
NC 5~ TO I-~10 IN DURHAM
SHEET d OF U 06 / 28 / O~d

O
Z ~
ro ~ ~ C~ ~
~~ a~ ~
~ r"
o w! o Oa
g ~ ~~ z~ Q
M
~ ~~ ~S a8 N
cn
J
~~
w
J ~
J Q
'-' 3
~w
W C,
I- Q
O ~
z~
w~
o~
}y~~
J ~~~~~
II 1 IIII
a~ ~~~
00 + 61' 'd1S Ol H~l`~W
v I II ~ff
_ ~ I I II~ I i
5ry
W N O `•~ ~W I'
+_
-1•
L ~
d
~~\~ o~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~Q
~7 \~ :I
11 \~ +~, ~
11 ~ i,
~'
I- - ,~ ,
~ 1, ~ ~ ,- y
11 ~° I' ~ : ~I.~ ~
~ , ~~~~x ~ x~ ~~ ; I
k
~_~ ,x w I.~ II
~. I II
S ,.. I I
.--f fl I ` I
p~ I
'IN~.96 ~ w\~ I 1 I
I:
~ I "~.
O ill II
~ O x
+ m ~~ II ~ I I
n~ II I~ I I
z ~I ~ v I
~ ~~- ~I I; I I~ I
o ~~~m ~' ~ xl ~~ ~ ' I
I
Z °~a~=~ ~I I I ~ . ~ . I
v l l l u l l n u ~ I I I I '
I
~QO~I~~ I1 I'1 .'~ ~ I F
~a.u '
•. .. .. l 11 ~
M ill ~i
+~' i~;~ ,
II
s__ ~ I I _,.,_
C
.I
_~
I
~<
~~
~~
~~
I~
I® ~
~ I +~~
. ~'>!~
~ ~. ~
II
,, ~ ~
,,
I~
~~ I
~I «
" j W+
~ i:® I m
~~ ., \
I
I
I
I
~~
~ ~ I
I
0~
~.
~~
°~o
Ng
R
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~
3 ~ I
I .m p s
I ©~ ~ ~ I m
2y " , m
© ~ !I ' a d O
Q / .. 7 ~' r 1 z i!1 F-
I I .. W p..p ~ Ly / ~ 4 ~ ~ u
u W
III I ~ I + °°~ ~ '_i j// / ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In
84T6[-- Y ll + I 3i III I w /~~
Asa air u~'i in p I 1 ~ ~ I~ I tsasss i / / (~ o
~ \ ~ ~~ ~
I11 I ~a I 1 I ~ ~ ~~
yl ~ I I I I $ ^
~~ •~~~
~~ - ~~
e ±~ ~ ~ !
~I ~
a ~~ ~1 if~ ~4
~ ~9 alt ~
~'LI ~©
iii / N N I, ~ ~ I ~ I ~ • I
I~~ I I( I I, I
III I I I\ ~ ~~ 11 I I ~II I W
N '' I' l l PII I
I ( ~ I ~~ ,1 I I I
~~ ~ I I I. I~il I I
K.
VIII I +o W~il.l ~~I, IY ~~ iw
III I 1 1 ~ I II rf ~rNl N
l I I I 2. - -' •~~E a O
~~ I ' r~ I I I n I ~.
I I I I I II ~O
111 m
I ~\ I I I III II ("' Nx
t 1+~
~III~ ~ '. ~ II, e
I ICI I + o ,,•I V I I I II
i ~
I I I I~ I I~III I II ~ I o~
I I III +~ i ~ li i ~ I~ I I W ~~
I I~ yl ~: I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
00 + 9E 'd1S O1 H~1~NV
k
~~`
,~{{~
W9~
~g~
~~~~
v v
0
~u
Z
O ' ~
`'i of
m
O
• m o
l{Jyy
J K ~'
a ~
} m ~~
u
~ i
~.
M1'
n:
oD
~~
~p~
Z U
J
0
M
~'
O
O
M
-F
~O

"6P'508101-ne.r-~tw`.Yed'g054067~-'\soc nv.ipfiyy\i.i
I'41 S~OZ-I~C~-[31
4° t09L90 ' NOIV~O~11 l3NNVF0 LHL d0 1l6WNJfT/ 3111SIYOV a1JV NOLLY.70~ ENMVH7 3N1 d0 .WNIJIA 3HL NI 3W C!1 3Ot ~I .
'W -O'LLSO 'l 3lIS 1V .091 Cll .9fL NVCNH ®I~WWI ~rMiVFD 'JNISOd ®SN311 .
SAIOKIA~II

d
z

~
~

~

b

z~
a~
~
z

a

o

~

g _
~r ~~ O
~ R z A
sa T .o
A
,
~ ~ ~S ~8
~ L
.t

H LL.
W
J ~-
J Q
~3
~ W
W U
I---
O ~
Z ~
w~
M~
v ~^'1~M~
II ~A 11 Y
a li `31J ~`n
~ ~~~~
i~
J ~>< ~~
0
~ ~ r
LL , 1
a
~ ~~ ~ '~
~~
\\
\ \ II
I II
1, ,
1
I_,;
_ \~i
sD~ \', ,
• 1
1 1
11
1 1
00 + 6i' 'd1S Ol N~1dYV 1 I I \ \ \ ,
I ~ .,"/ y 1, nrl llli nl\ \ \I
,,, \ ~ ~ LS 1 \ ~ 11j111 ~ ~ \ y 1~llll fl!! /ll \ \ ll
11,\ / B r\ ~` \ ~ \ I I IJ1~ I111j ~~ ~~ \ ~11 111 1\I1w1 11 I wl l
I /~(` \ i \ ~ - ~ ~ I yI II _ -\ \ \ II 1111 ll\1-111 I "I
li.A'2.i n11 .~ .~- .1ti ;~ I I I , f ~ \ l\ III 11\1 \\\\ \1\ \ _.~
+_ `
\\ ~\\" Ir - ~,
;~\\\ \\\
~\ \
\, ,~
~I11j\ b \ ` \Y ` \ \ III y
.,1111111 ~~ ~~ \ 0l 111
\111111\11-,~\~ =~- ~ll
\\ 1\1 \ \ ~ _ :111
1 1 1\ \ \ ~' lf` ~ ~\ ~ 1
\\\\. \
~\
\.. \~- i
\
\
}~,~ 4

I 1 1~\ \1 \ ~ I `~~l JJ
,
\ 11
I
I
\ ~\ \ \ 1~
`
` 1\
1 ,cx \ ~ \ \ I / is
~
I I
I I
B
\
it I
1~ \ ~ Y
~ ~ X I r
~
/ 11 X
1 1~ I I
1 1' \\ \\\ \ : III
1 I
i S0~ ~ /
~,~ Q\

\
_--~ -
1N7 .96
J
/
\
1

_~
°
w O

'! I 1 1 ~,\F1111 1 I I I
/' I I I \\\\ ~ III I
~ / I r' 1 111 I I I
I I~
I / ,' I/ ' 111 1 1 I
4p1 / ~I rm III
/ I
111 /~~ / i /1/ ll' II U
I I /'( 1 / ~ II I
I / I ~ ~, II I
' i
I1j 1 !I, I
. I 1 i ~ ~ ; ~
' '~~ I
I ..
II ~ ~ I
u I I \ , ;I I
III I I, II I
I 1 ~ f' III II I
II ly 1 ~' ~
1 (
I
I I I III ~/ I I el
/
11~ I' ~ , ~I~ I i
II Ihl/ 1,. 1
III! ~~,lll ' \II • I
GIB I,~li ~/~/ 1
z
ey /
s §~ '
~ ~~~ ~ ~ 'I
S~f Z ti~a~a~ ~
vluullnu ~
1 ~ \~ Q~,IhZY ~ -
11 /
1 1 I Yo' ` / /
11 III ~ N \ ~ ` r ~ ~~m ~I 11 I, `,i
\ 1\ , ~ _ _ \ / / ',~ / i f~ ,i•-1 ~ I III\ ~- I 1 I I
\\\ ,\ \\ I I I N t (~ I\ I I l
\\\\`1 \ \ \_I 1 I + ~ I 1 ll 1_
- - - /- / - / .'I 1 ~i~1 I. .
/ J
1 / , /'lseo/r I~ in o I~ \ 1 I
\~\\\~ III, ~I , ~/~ ~_- r • ~
\~ \\ \\\r\\\\1 ~~~.d/4~ %S ~\\ /
~\\ \\\ \\~.\\1 ,I ~'// //iii! _- -~~~\\
1111 ' •.. ~ - \ f h~ •` P
, II I , ~ \ 1 \11 1111 \\\\ \\ . \
I / ~' w 11 \ \1\\ \\\\ \\\\ \ \ \
11 // , \
II 1 / \~ 1\1 ~` \11\ \\\~\\\\ \\ \
•.\\\ \
' ~ , 1 \ \ \\\ ~ \ \\\ ,\\\
/ - _ \\ -,~\ III `111 ! 1 1111 \\\ \ "\ ~
1 ~ ~ \\ I ,1 \` \\ll \\\\ ` \\.
Y%// \ \\ ~
n 1 .. \\ , ~~ (I..11~~
I II ~ 11 - ~ ~ \\ \ \\\ \ \\ `~ \ ' J
I IIII 111~1~9,@\ ~~ 11 ~~\1\\\\\`\~S\~``\ ~•
i 1 I , \ \\ ~
I II Ill ~ \ \ \\~ \\\\\``\~
I 1 11 /A1 _ \ @ 1\1\\\\\\\
111 I I III l ((1'111 II 1 \ 1 1\ \
1 I \II\\ 1111 I1~\\ 1\ MI~\~~~
1 AAA I
111 ~ 1111 IVAVA , ~~ 1 ~1 ~ ~ J
UI 1 III \\\ ~ i ''/~ / \\ \ .~Se.r-
I~~I I 111 I 1v ~` v 1/ I / ' ~'v ` = -
1 \ \\ \ ~ ~
I I\ 1 /
/ 1 1\I I I / ( --
l I 111111 \\\ 1 I~1 \ 1111 III Iwl\ __ / / a
I 111 III V1y1 Al l ,AA\I AI 111\1 s~ / '7
~ 111 1111 1! I I I ' ~ \ \11 \\\\'\ ~ _ . ' -
I I 1 111 II11 II I I \ ~ .` ~~~ _ _ _- ~ (` - /'~
I I I 1 1 I I I / ~ _- -' ~ ~~ t
II 1 111 III II I IIN\ \\ 0 ~= - ill
I 1 ~- ' J i I
I 11 \ \\ \ 1 ~ h\~ \\ ,/ , / 1
lY II \III III \ \ \\ 1111 I1ll 1111 ~/~~ 1
I I I + .I I~I11 IN \ 1111 IIII 111 tl, ~, , ,
1 ~ :II IIII III 1 Illli/////~\ //~~I ~ \I
I k II IIII 1\\ I ~~ %///f ~11~~r(~~ /___~__ _
I ~I I IIII 'l 11 f 1 ~/!\ \\\\\\\\ ~ 11 111 \ X335-~ ~-_~ \ ~ ~
, I I \ \ \\\ 111 l`.
III r, \ 33~- -_ ~ ~\ ~ \ ~
I ,/ \ ~\\~ ~- \ \\\ \\ ~ ~
1 I \ ` - £ \\\ \III II I \
I I ,, I , L~Z ~G;l \ \\,1 \\n I \ \ ,
Ill ' / / I I ~ 1 I'I I ti~~, 1 1 \I l`\ Nll' ~\I I
111 III ! I lm I I III 1\ I I \ 11 ~ I IIII \ I
Illl I ,; /I/l~ 111 II \\ \11\ N11I I I Ill ICI \ \
IIII I~ / / /~ / /ll \\ I III 1 tK ~ 11111 ~l\\ ` \\
I ~ / / \`~~ 111 III tXf I lyll VAAA ` \
~II I\,i,/\1!1 ~\1 11j111~1j1\\\
111111 IIV(i~/w'~ 11\ /,/ /1111111 X11\\\\\
I II I / l 11 A / / I / ! I I I IIII \\\ \\
1 _ ~ / h \\
II II ~ ~ / / \~ %~-_ ~ I / I I I I 111 11 1 11 1 1 1 ,
I\ I 1 1 1 \
.\
' I ~ I 1 1' 1 1 1 V I I''\ 1 1 V A A~ v
IIII I / 1 I~ 1$ I ~ l \\ IIII I I I I \` ~
I I I 1 / / , // / ui ~+ Xwglf O\ \ I IIII I l . ~ ` \ ~
I 1 I ~I ~ - ~I\\ \\~ '-
I ~11 III -~-_ ~//~'/Illw
/ ~, / ~' ~
I I ~ \ ~ 1 \~ •1 \ \ \ 1 11' '\
". 1
\1 \ 1 \ 1 11 1 _ ~J. \ 1
III 1 1 \ \ \ // / _ ~' ~,;
I 111` \ \ 1 1 1 L" _%'~ '1
111 I ~^ I Ic R\ \\ ~ - - - , ~ ~.
I " AA _
23 ~ ~e %~
I -~ ~ _E~. ~ \ 1 I ~
11111 I I I I IW ~ 1 1 11 II 1 11 1 ~N\,/, 0
I I I I I ss~ I \ 1 \ y ,/ ~/
/1 ~I I I I I I 1 11 /~' ~i : ~ ~ Fil
~°'
I ~ ~'~~~~ ~~ ~ ter'' ~
~ / ~ i /.
j / ~. /
GI / _ / ~ ~ /~/ // /
1 / \\ZJ / ~ / /'' / \' \
1 !/I 111\ ~'/ 11 11\'I f ~/ ~
\l \\\ , / /%/// i ~ 1 / / / /1\\ 1 1 ~ I / / / ' / I I 1 / 1 I 1 \ 1 1N1 IIII
I\_~ v, 111 1 ~~~~~. u/! l/ lil'il~ ., / k / ,QI IIl I ~ I ./,,,'/ ~' / 1 , ! 1 1 1 / 1 8. IIII ~I ~ /
'~\\ .. \ I / 1 I ll II / r I II I /+~ / M / I / I I / 111 / , I I ;_ `_ \\
I` \I`" 1 / II I II/'~ ~-~ / Z /~ III II ~ I ':. ,• / , / I II l 1 ll /l ll 1 1 Q
Ili. ,I I//1111~1~ Y/~!/////h1 I/a1 '11,1
\.111 III1i // IIII ~ll//~_--• / /~~ 1111 1 / olI /~// I !lI 1 \
Ill \ . , 11 1111 ,1 , .- , ~ „~ T- I, 11 N II ' , ' / , 1 1 / , / , 1 1 I , I
\\ ,I, II ~, ,III ; ___ _.r, IIII 1 I I ,r~',, // ,, /, ,,I,~ I,
\,\,,,. I •~I I I I ,I~,^ _, ~ /, ./1; 1/I 1~j ,, ,.1 „ 1 fl l , I
1 I ~ w i h I I ~I 111 / I // / A
\ \ 1 / I, 111 '-~' 1 I 1 / / / /// / ,,/ /
\\:\`.II~hl III III"~ '''~ i~~~~ //~1 I ,\/~~/,///, ll// //',/(
1 _~~~~IlrlllllvI _.-I,.I•:~ 1^I~I• '~ :,°/^r,~ //,, IIII 1/,, v
\: `\ \ I ~,' /1111 11 ,~°'~~ ~~ II f 1/II h I , 1 '/ I ///, / //~ i , ,' ;
/ III + Q. WA / 1 I y I 1 / 1 / / / 1
1\ ~ , ~I I\I~ %~, 111 _- - ,.. _ ~ y'l l:,l/1 IIII I Ij~ ,P) :~~ l ,/ I I I I I ~ I/ // / ~
\ \ I ~ , -.
I I I , n 1 I 1~ 1 I /
~~ ~~ VVA ~ ~ ~ 11111'----' I I/ ~ I I- (/ 1 I I I ~ l I I / ~~/' .
.. A \ ~ I _ _. /I Ij ~ I , .~ ~ 1 / I I 1 I I .
1- \~ ~ 111\1 ~ I"/r I N N / , I /
ill\ \\ \\ /I ~\~ Il' !If ~ , W, m/, I I I1 I I
1 _ 1 l\ ~ / ,l I II I\ I I 1 I ~ ii I I 1 1 1 1
I\\\' \1\1' \ \I _ ~ ~\,\ \ \~ - I" / / I I ~ SLI~ 1 ' ~ I 1 +I IY~ 1 , I I I I
\` \II `i ~I I 11 ~\ / I 1 :161 I~ ~ ~l 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1
~. \\\\\11~ \ V -- 1111111 \ -- ' , I~/ 1 I \ I ~~ I ~ ~ 1 1 11 I 'I 1 I I I I I I ,~
111111 1 \ I I~I• 111111 \ ~ I' III 1 ~.. ' / I I I I ' I / "' /~'
11111111AI 1 A ~ ~ 1, 1\\V'v '~ ~ Q / I i1 i NI ~I 1- l l 1 I I I I l~l / / /'//~''
11111 \ u1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 1 I\/ I 1 I „ I!// '
~. 111 111 \ \ ! \ \ ~~ + D I I III ~ / , I I \ 13j I M / /
1 111 IIII\ `\. \ \ \ .1' .\1'I 1 / 1 I ai II\, COI n / I // IIIIN,,
111111 \ I,'~il \ \ \ ~~ ~\ 1 '~/1' ,.IIII ~ ~ 1 III\laop: ~ r//r r///~l
11111 \ 1 _~ -_ _I I \\ ~ \ \ O+ ~ C ~ /~ ~ ~" II II 1 i I / ~ 1;~ ~ 1 y:~~ll~ + 1 1 1 1 III / ,
1 1 ~ 1111 \ ~ 1 , :\ I ` , fV~ I i I / , I ~/ IIII 1111 ,
\ l~ I
00 + 9E 'd1S O1 H~1V~1N
of
0
of
N
-h
0
vl
O
of
.o
O
°m
°o
D
N
~ ~ ~ s
e ~ 1
9 I 1 m
1 m
a
a ~ z
k ~
~~r ' 1s '~ ~
r ~I U
g w
~~ N
~~ ~~
k
~~
a
~i
Y~~
~d~
~~~~
o~
~~
~ o
$ ~' I 21
~~ ~

m F ~
O
V m 0
J J
~ '~

H
LL
J
4 -{
I'~ m Ysl~
Q i ~
M1
~:
o~
G
~
00
~~
+o~
Y U

O
0
O
M
~O

~i6P'S0a10[-narl nu`Ya71'9056(~l>L~a\s~c no-~pF~l~., i..
LO'71 S(~Od-1JU 81
4° 1097A0 ' NOK~O~11 I~NNV10 ~Hl ~b 1D9WN911V 3LL lSIYOV aNN NOLLVJOEiI ENNVH~ 3HL dD ALNIJN 3H1 NI 3W QL 3a1 ~I .
4s fdLL50 'l X115 1V .091 QL .9f1 MIOII~ ~I~VdWI 'HNNVFD 'JNISOf~ OHSIA~tl .
SNOICIA311
g o 0
~ ~ ~

0
'~
omN~~/ ;~
W ~ N
~
~
V' Q: Ca ~ ~
pQ~ Q n
N
~z >'°
~
W
Q~ a
p:
z
Q
o~~,Qo
O
a
U
~
~rn
^
H ~(n•-~W~ Qo
~oon~z
~.
~U~¢~ o
~1
0
~0 OU
~
~
~~~~
~
av~i°'~ z
~
zv
~

U
0
('7
'
N
O
a
0
n
d
0
v
c
N
y
~/

7
d
+L.' U
C ~
O N
~ ~
~ ~
~"' O
I I
M ~
N ~
00
co
.~..~ ~
~' o
N ~
~ w
M ~
N N
~
U
~ C
~ ~
~ L
Q U
r
ce
.i
'' C
LL
~~+ N
Z

m E ~
rn
~
'
w
~ ~
o
Zin
°' °'~ S ~ 8
p
X L 2 ~ (
~
00 O N
W U E ~ f
~
a~ ~
E 10
c
~

=o~
=a

N In
~ O ~ O
C ~
Z O O O
LL `-'
}

Q =
~
-
~ m
C ,C O U
~ L N r~- ~
~ ~ U ~
1- ~ `-'
U

a
y
o ~
~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ m
~ W c
~ -
W
a y
=~

Z
g ~ ~ ~
~
~
w

N
C ~
~
N
LL d

w ~ a a
~ ~
U U
~ U
~
~
2 m
_
~ ~ ~ ~
M
d'
~ ~

O
C
J (
~
N
t
O +
%~ O 117

~ I~ Q
v ~ N

(n J
J

+
~+ O J
_
(~ Z N ~
O
~--

R-2904 in Durham County----[Fwd: R-2904 permit area picsl
~ ~. - ~D Ut1(.~ ~ ®y- 10 C~
Subject: R-2904 in Durham County----[Fwd: R-2904 permit area pics]
From: Chris Murray <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:38:50 -0400
To: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>, Christina Breen
<[e-mail]>
CC: Katie Simmons <[e-mail]>, Donald Pearson <[e-mail]>,
Bobby Downes <[e-mail]>, David B Moore <[e-mail]>
R-2904---NC 54 widening from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) in Durham County
USACE Action ID No. 200220393 and 200421561 (Sept. 10, 2004)
Christina and Eric,
The NCDOT let this project earlier this year. However, actual roadway construction of the project has
been delayed due significant utility issues. Katie Simmons (NCDOT roadside environmental field
operations technician) recently visited the site. As you can see from the attached email, some railroad
project adjacent to the R-2904 project has lost a significant amount of sediment that has entered a
channel on our project.
The channel does appear to be non jurisdictional and non-buffered (according to the permit application);
however, it does eventually flow into site 2 on our project. We just wanted to keep you informed of any
pre-construction issues.
Chris Murray
Subject: R-2904 permit area pics
From: "Katie Simmons" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:38:56 -0400
To: Bobby Downes <[e-mail]> , David B Moore <[e-mail]> ,Chris
Murray <[e-mail]>
I was on R-2904 yesterday looking around near the railroad work.
I know that our project is on hold for now, but I noticed the
railroad work having an impact on what our plans show as a permit
area (approximately Rt:51+50 to 5?_.+50) We ar.e permitted for
some surface water impact to a section of the small stream that
comes from under the road right by the RR and flows back toward
the beginning of the project. This stream is currently filled
with sediment (by the RR at our permitted impact site, I didn't
go walking in the woods to look downstream) and has areas that
are washing. There were no devices in place to protect this area
from erosion and sediment loss. I went back today and took some
pictures to help us document that these impacts were present
before we began working. I am attaching the photos for you to
see and keep in your files as well.
Thanks,
Katie
1 of 6 9/8/2005 2:36 PM

Wd 9£~Z SOOZ/8/6 93o Z
~ f : ~ ,, .~
[said eaae ~iuuad b06Z-2I ~PMdI----~uno,~ u~ny.~n4 ut b06Z-~I

R-2904 in Durham County----[Fwd: R-2904 permit area pics]
3 of 6 9/8/2005 2:36 PM

R-2904 in Durham County----[Fwd: R-2904 permit area pics]
4 of 6 9/8/2005 2:~6 PM

R-2904 in Durham County----[Fwd: R-2904 permit area pics]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
nsmail7G.TMP
Content-Encoding: 7bit
ti,
5 of 6 ~ 9/8/2005 2:36 PM
,,1
I
.:
.. ,..__. t_ _ _ ~_. _ .. _ ..
i i ~ ,. _

- ~1r
.~~
~~_
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F, Easley, Governor
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
~~ ~l (oE d
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Q~c~~oe~D
~~ l ~ z zoo4
~TLAN S AtJ ~S ORR QUALITY
MWATER BRANCH
October 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Durham County, R-2904, NC 54 Widening
Cape Fear River Basin, CU 3030002
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensatory mitigation for the 49 feet of unavoidable stream impacts
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003; therefore, the EEP intends to provide compensatory stream mitigation up to
a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 3030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2904
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o,enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~aturallr~

~~ ::
~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 1, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: NC 54 Widening, Durham County
TIP Number R-2904
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated
August 27, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin in the Central
Piedmont Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 49 feet
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003.
However, the EEP has agreed to provide compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project in
accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~r
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
ec: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2904
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NolthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~aturallr~

M ~NI u~
ya r"y.
~~
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 27, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP,~~,.t r d 1 ~~ t
AUG 3 ~ 2004
WATER QUALITY gECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Durham County. NC 54 widening from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959
(Miami Boulevard). Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2). State Project No
8.1352701. TIP No. R-2904. NCDOT Division 5.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 1.1 mi length of NC 54 in
Durham County. A four-lane median divided roadway with a 17.5 ft raised median is proposed
from Davis Drive to approximately 200 ft west of the railroad structure. A five-lane curb and
gutter section is proposed from 200 ft west of the railroad structure to Miami Boulevard. The
proposed right-of--way (ROW) width for the project is 150 ft.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http://www.ncdot.org/planning//pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program.
We estimate that 2091inear feet of jurisdictional streams will be impacted. However, mitigation
is required for only 49 linear feet of stream impacts.
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Durham County in the
Cape Fear River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030002.

r
• The stream impacts will be to an unnamed tributary to Burdens Creek [DWQ Index No. 16-
41-1-17-1-(0.3)], afirst order perennial stream. We propose to provide compensatory
mitigation for the stream impacts by using the EEP for 49 linear feet of impacts.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Eric Alsmeyer (USAGE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite
120 Raleigh, NC 27615). Mr. Alsmeyer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date
for the project is November 16, 2004 for which the let review date is September 28, 2004.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be
addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Matt Haney at (919)
715-1428
Siyncerely
c
~/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USAGE
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP, Raleigh

M~
A ~! u~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV~NT OF 'I~ZANSPORTATION
MIC~TAEI. F. EASI.EY
G()VERN(>x
LYNDO TIPPETT
SI'.CRCTARY
June 25, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
Suite 120 JUN 2 9 2004
Raleigh, NC 27615
~~; ~ I,: ~ ~ WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 application. Durham County. NC 54 Widening from SR 1999 (Davis
Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard). Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2). State Project
No. 8.1352701. TIP Project No. R-2904. Division 5.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen 1.1 miles of NC
54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard) in Durham County. From Davis Drive
to approximately 200 feet west of the railroad structure, the recommended typical section is a 4-lane
divided shoulder section with a 17.5 foot raised median, and from 200 feet west of the railroad structure
to Miami Boulevard, the recommended typical section is a 5-lane curb and gutter section.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Permanent stream impacts associated with the project will consist of piping 209 feet (0.014
acres) of two unnamed tributaries (UT's) to Burdens Creek (Table 1). Based on a conversation with Mr.
Eric Alsmeyer (Corps of Engineers), it was determined that Site 1 is an intermittent stream that does not
require mitigation, and Site 2 is a perennial stream that requires mitigation. There are no wetland
impacts associated with the project (see page 7 of 8 of attached permit drawings for the project impact
summaries). No mitigation is proposed for this project since the impact to the perennial stream is less
than 150 feet.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Table 1. Jurisdictional Stream Information for R-2904
Site Station No. Structure Stream DWQ Index Impact Mitigation
No./Classification (linear Required
feet linear feet
1 47+58 L 30" RCP Ut 16-41-1-17-1- 160 0
Burdens (0.3)/C NSW
Creek
2 52+62 L 36" RCP Ut 16-41-1-17-1- 49 0
Burdens (0.3)/C NSW
Creek
Total 209 0
DESCRIPTION OF JURISDICTIONAL SITES:
Site 1: located at station L 47+58 (permit drawings 3 and 4 of 8). This is an intermittent stream. A 30"
reinforced concrete pipe will be extended at this site. This stream will be relocated.
Site 2: located at station L 52+62 (permit drawings 5 and 6 of 8). This is a perennial stream. A 36"
reinforced concrete pipe will be extended at this site.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of January 29, 2003, there are three species listed as federally protected for Durham County,
North Carolina (See Table 2). In a letter dated June 18, 2004 we requested concurrence from the
USFWS for "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" calls for smooth coneflower and Michaux's
sumac. A copy of this request is attached for your convenience.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Durham County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Biological Conclusion
Status
Echinacea laevigata Smooth Endangered May Affect-Not Likely to
coneflower Adversel Affect
Haliaeetus leucoce halos Bald ea le Threatened* No effect
Rhos michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered May Affect-Not Likely to
Adversel Affect
* Proposed for delisting.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not effect any historical or archaeological resources within the project
area. In a letter dated April 16, 2001, the State Historic Preservation Office concurs that there are no
properties of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance in the project area (Appendix A,
page A-5 of the attached Categorical Exclusion).
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize wetland and stream impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining
wetland and stream impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and CE phase;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.

Avoidance: All streams not directly affected by the project will be protected from unnecessary
encroachment. No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed near surface waters.
Minimization: Stream impacts were minimized to the maximum extent practical. In addition to
directly avoiding streams, NCDOT is incorporating the following measures to minimize impact
to surface waters:
1. Use of 2:1 fill slopes in jurisdictional areas at all sites.
2. Pipe culvert inverts are to be buried one foot below the stream bed where feasible, depending
on the relative elevations of the stream bed. All pipe culverts will maintain the normal
stream flow and channel characteristics. This design will allow unimpeded passage by fish
and other aquatic organisms.
- Stations 22+50 L, 26+80 L, 35+00 L, 37+00 L, 41+60 L, 41+80 L, 46+00 L
Preformed Scour Holes (plan sheets 4, 5, and 6)
To minimize impacts to the water quality and aquatic life, the design has incorporated preformed scour
holes.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a Section
404 Nationwide 23 (67 FR 2043-2044, January 15, 2002).
Other required approvals include a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 401
Water Quality Certification. We anticipate this project requires a 401 General Certification and are
providing two courtesy copies of the permit application to the NCDWQ for their review.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Matt Haney at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~----~ ~~
„~ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
r1 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer
Mr. Ron Hancock, P.E., Bridge Construction
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Jackie Obediente, Project Development Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP

et5U7(o~
~O~ a~.... ~-'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 18, 2004
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Biological Concurrence Request for the proposed widening of NC 54 from
SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) and replacement of the
Southern Railroad Bridge, Durham County, TIP No. R-2904; State Project
No. 8.1352701; Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2).
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize federally protected species surveys to date and
to request concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(ESA).
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project was completed in February 2003. To
support the CE document, field surveys were conducted in June 2002 for Michaux's
sumac and smooth coneflower. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was determined
based on no species found. Field surveys conducted in September and December 2001
for bald eagle determined that no habitat is present for this species. Therefore, a
biological conclusion of "No Effect" was given for bald eagle. According to the USFWS
January 29, 2003 list of endangered and threatened species, no new species have been
added or deleted from the list. The USFWS listing of protected species and current
Biological Conclusions are listed in the following table.
Federally Protected Species for Durham County
Common Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological
Name Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened (proposed NO No Effect
leucoce halos for delistin
Smooth Echinacea Endangered YES May Affect-Not
coneflower laevigata Likely to Adversely
Affect
Michaux's Rhus michauxii Endangered YES May Affect-Not
sumac Likely to Adversely
Affect
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
154E MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Suitable habitat exists for smooth coneflower along roadsides in the project study area.
Habitat also exists for Michaux's sumac along roadsides and edges of fields and
woodlands in the project study area. No species were found during the June 2002 site
visit. Therefore, a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
was deterrnined for both smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac.
SURVEY METFIODOLOGY
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for smooth coneflower on June 11, 2002. Prior to
the survey, the investigators visited a known population of smooth coneflower to have a
fresh visual of the plant that will be surveyed. The survey for smooth coneflower
consisted of a search for plants with light pink to purplish flowers. Smooth coneflower
was not observed during the site investigation in the preferred habitat within the project
study area. A total of 2 person-hours were spent conducting the survey.
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac on June 1 1, 2002. The
survey for Michaux's sumac consisted of a search for densely pubescent plants with a
greenish to white flower. Michaux's sumac was not observed during the site
investigation in the preferred habitat within the project study area. A total of 2 person-
hours were spent conducting the survey.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Investigator: Rachelle Beauregard, Environmental Specialist
Education: BS Fisheries and Wildlife Science, North Carolina State University
Experience: Biologist, Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc., March 1997-January
2001. NC Department of Transportation, March 2001-present.
Investigator: Karen Lynch, Environmental Supervisor
Education: BS Wildlife Biology and Fisheries, North Carolina State University
Experience: NC Department of Transportation, November 1998-present.
Environmental Biologist, DENR-Division of Water Quality, November
1984-November 1998.
Based on the above surveys conducted in 2002, the project area does not contain any
federally-listed species known to occur in Durham County. The NCDOT concludes that
the proposed project will have a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" for smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac. We believe the
requiremertts of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied and hereby request your
concurrence.

Thank you for your time. Please contact Matt Haney at [phone] if you have any
questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
hillip .Harris, III, P.E.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jackie Obediente, Project Engineer, PDEA

„?, ~
2029 ~
~4i ~ /
2 ~e 1 ago, (j
~ 2 ~
1 ~ -,
lees ~ ~ ~
2to ~ 1989
~~
weir 2145 ou~w~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
12028 , ~ r Durham ~
IN 1999 O 19e9 S
PROJECT 1e~z
~ 1973 ~ /
197a 1. ( END 1792
~ , \ ` -
-~) 210 ~o
Dur~uwcouHn __r _.- 1~ ~ _J ___-,, `010
>oDi~Y = s- -
18~1
1613 095 1_ O 840
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1352701 (R-290~)
NC b~ FROM SR 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 19b9
MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 (PAGE RD> FROM
NC 5~( TO I-~0 IN DURHAM
SHEET I OF 8 07 / 30 / OJ
NORTH CAROLINA

i i
ii6iiiiiiiiiE6i3
• ttewseo oostrres at~t~ra urNCt® n1oM ~x~ ro ted ~t• true t. oamat «n
D
A
O~
W
O
0
A.
V
w
0

O
.ti _
~ ~
g
b~ m o 0
~ ~~~
v m ~ V
',o „ o
~~ , gg~ ~ Z
3s
~~~~
~~~
~~~
:~
~~
j c
~~
p8
b~
a ^ '
1
N ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~
m 1
°z > '
W > ~ ~
m ~
~ i
~~-~ ~ ' b
J~`f=/ ~~
r O
~~
~~
n
w ~ ~
S $ $
111
8

~~
I •~
~ «
o ~ I
I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ ,a
rn ~ ~ ~
I

I ~ ~
~ ,„ ~ J 1
~ I ~ 0 0~
l ~ '' /
MATCH TO
.-
,,_
I
i
~\
~ °~8
,~
~*
I ~g
~~
7 STA. 49 + 00
~ ~ ~
~; ~
~~ ~ ~
.~
~ ~
.e. ~
~~~
11ry~N
I
~ MMi1 p~
~$~ ~'
r
~
~
~

~~
cm
~z
..,~ o
D ~
nm
m `~
~~
Dr
--~ r
m
~~
z
~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~
,~ : ~
" ~
y ~ W
MATCH TO SHEET 5 STA. 36 + 00

" IIEVI3ED E70SiINf3 G1ANN8 IAMAiCi® IIOOM 7~6' TO 1d0' AT 311! 1. 0647,N1 rh
DGNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
~~
Q
.ti
{~ +
~ ~
Ff ~„ m ~ yao(~
S7O~
o m ..~
~~ Q ~
15 ~ g~ z Z
3~
9.
D
W
O
0
A
V
W
O
5
~~gg~~
~gE
da11
e~~
~E
it
N
m~
~ t
O
W 1
l
MA TCH
l
r ~
1
ll 1 1 IIII / II
l 111 I IIII ~
~II~! W '
/
''
~ I
/
{
l/// lllr
O\I1 /
I
1/
_
/ //// /// 1 I 1111
'' IIII // / /
/ \I I /I~
r
y
I
I I
r
I
"`
///
f
/
////
d1l I ,
/~// //// I I I I I I I l
r r // // I r I I l
~ r / I I I 1 l/ II j 1 1 1
I I I I I I I/ 1 1 1 1 ~ _
ll~

~ r l
I I
I
I I I I I I I I / + I
I I I I I I I I // /~
I I I I I I I // / ~ II
~ ! II
~ I
~
/
l l1~ I
I I I I I ~
~ 1
I
I I
~ I
//
1 1 1 1 /
/ r
Ir t1
~
/
I
/ , I I , I /
IA
/ // I I I I I I ~+ I I I
I
/ I
I 1,
I
/ / / I I I
/ / ~ /
/~
'// ////
/ /' ~r / /
/
I /',, /// / /
l ,
~,.
I
/ / / „
/ /// / / /1/
/ 1 ` I I / / / / I I / / , , /
I
I I I
' /~
I
~
,
l
~ ~
l
1 1 \ ,
I
I
/
/ /
,
l /
1
\ I 111, 1///w // IIN/ / / ~
/ /',/r
11 Il/l III ~ I l I/ I I/
/
1
/ / /II
I
11
r I / I ! 1
\l` i 1
YII IIII 1111 ~ l l l !r 1 /
\l l /I 1111 \ 111 I I I I I I I /
r~ 111) I I 1 // \I II
~ / r /// j, i r li ri - ~' ~~~
~`y I ~//
l /l ,
/~// //
/ / /I
~ l I I

y ~ iii i % ~'IY %~ i ~/~ ~ ~/ ~ Ir I
/ /rrr/r 1 1 1 1 I I I111
O r // //\\ 1 \ 1 I 1 1 I II
~~ / \ \I I I 1 \ I 1\ ~ I I I I I
~, 1 / 1 1 \ \ I ~~,S ~r ~ \I i
I I y~ \ ~
' ~ 1\/ '336 I \ I \
~ I ~ \' ~~ - i- _11` l I 1 \ 111 I
~'i'~---- - X111 111\11 1 \ 1 1\ I
~ ~`\ \1 ~ ~ r /i . 1 1 1 .. 1 1
\ ~ / ri / 1 \ / / l
\ 1 /i ~ ~ /
N
O
S
O
O
0
O
e
0
N
O
O
8
u
11~
8
TO SHEET 5 STA. 36 + 00
ll 1 Illl c>~ / - ^`_,1\ 111IV ~--~illlllllj 111
/ ~ 1 IIII rr, /~ \\ \ \ \ \\I~' --, \111111111II~
I Im ' y~ I ' 1 1 ~ _ \ ' 11j 1 ' ' \ 1 111 1 1 11
1\I 111Ir /Y~/ I ~ ~\\~~\\11r1~-- X1\1111 1111 II
r , , IIII \I jr I \ ~ 1 \\, \ 11 11111; 1
~ \ \ 1
~ (I 1 I `~ \ \1 _ ~ \1j11111111
1 111 ~, I - \ l11 ~ \ 111 1111111
y / + ` II - \ \ 11111 \~'1
1/ I`1 'IYII ;~iA' -00` '\\\ 11`,x` _ \\`\'`;q\,\,
ICI Illllr 1 ~ l- ~\~~ j ~ \, \41111 \\1I
1111 , Ir , . , \ ;/ -, \ \1 1\\ ,, 11
I III 1111' / / X111 ,J ~\11\\\\\~~
IJ 1111 ~~~/ ---- 111 \\\\ -I
I 111 ~ r - - - 1 111 \ \ \ \ \ ~1
Irr I 111 III/~ / r r -- -,I 111 / - \ \ 1~\ \1
~I~ 1/111 1 / r /,y,ll 111 / /- \ ~ ~1
r' I J Ilgl .I"1 ' - 1111,11,/ , `\ ~ \, 1
I~ I ,III , DIIY / I ~ ' 1 `I ilh III, 1 ~ - ~ \ ,
11 // ~d10 ~ III III / I 1 \\,
I ~I r I r - ~ ,I IIII I ~I / \I ' \ \ \ \
1 1 / k ~J --` 111 I 11 ~\\
'/ r~l 111111/// 91/I'- --J-~°I11111j11 ~ I^l !_'~\\
I I 11111/ ;~} ~- ~ __ IIII11j11 / 1 11Ir \ \\
1 r1 ~II'I( //rll~ /~~i/1\~~Illlllll~ / / I111~\ `I,
1 I r Q II VIII / I I 1~ \1 \I
1
Ir l
/
.I
~I~ /
I I
I I
.I
111 / / / _ - J~~>•_
~
\
\ ~ \
\ _
`~ \ I 111 1 \ \ XQ
1 \ .~: L`
II
1 /// I
Ilf
I
I
~,
\\\ I
vl
I 1
1
1 1 1 1 / I I\ \`~ 1/ I
,
II,
1' III I I l I
~
\\\\
\ X111 k!1///
11,1 //,I I~,~-\-~\t\
111/ IIII i-
\\\~ 1\1I I 1 II
/~//~~11 I,
111
1 \ 1 1 1
\
\ \ \\\1
\ X11 ^
I I I IWI I I I /III ! I i .: a
~ 1111 I I I/l /l/l II 11/ , "
1 1111 11 /I \~ I 1
'~ I I II I
_ I / II III II I
r ~I I III II l
1\\1 \111 1111111\1 \11\I jlll 1111 // ~ 111 I'~
\ \ \\\\I IIII IIII I III IIII l \ 1 r/ r/ ~ I
1 \\1 I I I I I \ 1 , II
11 \ III IIII 1 IIII 11111 \ \\I 1 I I ~ 17 / ' / 1 II I
/ 1 \ / 1 / I I
I \ \ 111 11\ 1 I I \ 1111 1111 111 ~1 1 / /11 I 1
I \II \; 1 I 1 I ll`I III/ 11 , IIII
1 1 \111\ 11 \11 ~~111111111j1 '~///~ /11
\ \I \ 111 1111\\ \~ ~..~ ~~\IIII I I I I ~'I I/ I I I I I I
\ y ~\ ~1 \`` , ~ 1
~\ ~\~ ~~,, ~j1 1 \\ \\:` 111'`'111 1
_ ___ 111111~\~"\\\\Ij\% III 1111 II ~ I
_ _ i ~i 11, //i~ ~l I \\1 IIII 1
I I \ r- I/ '- ~ Ill I/1 / I 111 1 1111 III I I I r I I
~~ I//IIII I\II \ 111 IIII III +I I /
~jl 4111/// \ \\ 1 III \; 11 it 1
I r i/ ~ ~\II l1 1 \ \\\\ \ I
1 ~ / r r ~. \ ~ \ ~\\ \ \\\ \ \ 11 1 I
' /;/`~- - //; \\\~ 1 011; ~• \ 111 111 1 I I I
I / \ \ + I 1 I
%~ / \ \ ~ I I II I 111 1 I II I
1 /~-~= II I ll
I 111
I
/ _ ~ '-^ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~\ ~ I I III 11111 1111 I I I I
- ~ ~ .\1\ 11\1 \/~ \11111 1 I
~ -/ ~ - - - ~ 1\\t'l l\\\1\Q~ 111 \`\ 1 111 111 I +I
~w / /~~ 1111111/\\ 111 \11111 1~ I
r I 1
Q ~ ~ - ' / /I 111 11 1 \ 1 ; 1 1j I
~---.\
- ' / ~ 1\\ \ 1 1111 I II I
""'~6 ~~\~~\ ~ / r //~\\~ \\ IIII`` 1 II II
r - \ 9p \ \ 1 /'' ~ r ` ~ ~\ \ \\ 111\I\\ 1 'I' III
I ~ ~ lyWp \I/ii ~~ 1\\ 11\I 1111 \1111\ 1 I
T~+ 1 ~ `\ \ I\ I Illp 11 Uli II I 41
~.l ~\ \ ~ \ I l , \ 1/ a 111 I y ~ fI I
~ \ \ \ ` \ 1 \ a \ l III
~ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ ! , I I
`~ ~ \ \~\s~ ~~ \ ~\~\~ ~ ~ ~ C \ ~ 111 11 l
\ ~\` \~ \ ~ ~ \ 4 1 I
~~\ \ ~\~~\\ \\\ \\ ~ \ ~ t \ \ 1 1111 II
~ ~~\ \ \ P ~1 I III
\~~\ ~\\\\111 ~ I~\\~~r_
~~ \ \ \\ 1 \ \ 11~ I ~ _ I /
~~\
~ ~\\ ~\\\ \\\\ \11\\\~ \Id . ~ ' Ill III /
\\ \\\ \\\\ 1\1\ \\ 1 ~' \1 / I l} I
~~\I ~\\\\\\\\\111\\11 \II i' '/ Il'Olff/I
(Q ~ ~` ll\ \\\1 1111 1111 \ I I 1 - ~I I 1
_ ~ ,~ ill I I \11\ 1111 1111 \ \ \\ I \ a~ / II 1111
' ~I 1 1
I 111111\ III 1111 ~ \w \" Illl,l I I` ~
I1/~ 1 II/ /III III 1111 \~~ IIII I II \
_ ~~ \ \ 1 ~ J.11 ~ r --~ r I I
\\ \ ' j 1 MATCH TO SHEET 7
~{r ~ ~~
r~
P
...
~~
~~~

I~ 1 III r/ 1 / ~//,/~~~+',,11 I I 11 1 I ~h
II IIII/ / / / / ~ ///I l l 1 I \ 111(' \\~
T I I ~IdI`\ur Y/ r /l~riil4//'1 I/ ~ 1~0 `i`I
I \ r ~ \ _-I- \ ~-- i ~ r rl I 1 \ x\11
~1 II I ~F-i,~ / / / I ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ / 1 I \
I I ~ 11 1 / r/ /
\ I
i_~ L --~_- __ t ~~ 1
J
III /rl~ \ l-I /- '_=__E ;--~;;~~
I III IIII 1 1 \\ 1 1 I I I I^\ \ \ 1 \; \~
I I 1\ 1 1 1 i I I ~\ \~ \ \
I I I II 1 ~~I I I I 11 ~' I /~ / I \ ~' ~~ 1 \\
1 I 1\\ I ~~ 1\ 1 \ 1 I\ I \ 111 1 1
1 11 \ 1 I,/_- - J~/,v\ ^ \ III 1
I 11 ~~1 111 1 1~~ -- 1(\\~ I l l
a II 1 I~ h11 1 1, 111 11 / ~ / 1 1 1
/'~/ /'J I II I ~ I J / I I
1 IIII,1 IIr1 1111 _' 1 1
1 111// ~I1('^lll 1111 I / /~~ --
1 1 1 1 / I` I I I IIII I .a'
I IIII l/I I IIII I I 1 ~S
r
it / III I II I ~ ~l
II 1 I \111 III N
1~ III 1I1~ IjIII /
I ill 111 / I 1 111 III / eG.
111\/ 111111111 r
I 111111 \ \ II III
I I\\n \ ,III' I i n~ Ill +
1 \\\V 11 p ~ n 1 1111 p Oo
1\\\ ~ 1~1 1 11111111111 O ~ \\ 1
/ //III I / I I 1
\ / /~ l 11 /
Irl I IIII IIII y f,_\,
I II// ,/' ( I11~11111 1
8 II r 111,,1 ~ 1 1 II I I
I III r ,;IY ll /111111 1\ ,
I 1 ,, ~ ~ 11 Ill
I III/. ' / ~,'/ III -~ - - -' _/
II IIII/ r ~ Y Ill !_ _ _ -'
II VIII/ /'1 / 111 \ - 85 ~
\I1 III //II l ~_
II ~ I 111 IJ / I I ~ \ ~ -
III1111111j 111 7~ \
,I 1111 11 ,,, ," ~ 45
1 1 1 \\ \,\ \,\ ~~~I~ I' I 1 - ,
I I•' I I \\\41` I I I i
I I 1 1 1M 1 ~ ` \ \ \ /
II I I III I~\ \1 I I I f
18 I I III \ \ \~1 \ 1 \
II 1 1111 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~
~ ~ \111 1
li I l \~\I~~l \ / 11\ \\\\\ \~ \
1 1 I ~ 1\ \\\\~ 1
II ! f \~ IJ ~ -\\\ \\\ 1 \
1 Il ~ ? 1 ~ ~ I I \\ I \
1 ~ // III ~~\ \\\\\ \\\ \ 1
I ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \
I \ ~ \ \p ~\\111\
{~ `~ ~ ~j ~` 1 \ ~\\\I 11111
~yl ~~~ ` ~ _ _~ 11\111
X1.1 , - \ - _\I\ 1111111\\
1 ~ ~ 1 \I 1111 1\1 \
IIII _lr~~\ ~ \1\I\11\ \
Ihlll r ~ y s•\ ,` I\11111111 \
Iq4 -\~ . ~ 111111 11 1
I .•~ ~\~~~~\ \111\\\ \\ I
\1
~ ~ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ 111
\ \ \ \\\ \ 1
/~ I l \ \\ \ ~\\1\II Illll \ ~
f _ JI \~\\\ 11\11\j111 JS
1 11 ~ ~ i \ / \\ \ I Ill\III\ \ / /
I l l\ "~- ~ \_ 1 11 l, l l I\ I!` i~ \111111 I I I
1 ~' _ ~ \.
STA. 49 + 00
~~Nq
1 1 1 1
~~~~
~~
0
cm
Z
O
D ~
~m
m cn
r-~
Dr
--i r
m
Z71-a
Z
~~ ~O
N~ ~~
~~
~~
r
y

POOce\~22904e07per mlt.peh
rr~s a
,~
`~ ~
___.
-~ ''
.,
~ I
C
~ ~
.. C ~
mm
o -° '~
D
~ 2 ~
,,~ ~ Z
W ,, '; ~
\ ~1 fTl ~
O
~ m~
~ z ~ ~ ~~%
~ , '~, .may
`~ ~~%
1~
MATCH ro SHEEr
~ 6 STA, 0
M ~~- 49 + p
~~
~ a a, 3s~
1 „
^~ ~ ~ 1" f'LI -
~', I
~ 1~'
II
~ III
r 1111
11,1,

~~ ~ II
~ ,
q ~ °o
X14
I
~II
4. I 1
em
1)
-- I
I
I ~f l I O
~ m X U1
1I ~ °°
~ II ~ ~
I .

N D / ~

m
. fm11 ~ V) o / 3 ~

~I ~ "~'
~

1+25
~ ~ Z /
~
i I®

~ ~ ^~
f~ D ~i'~ IN

v N ~ --1 ~ ~ D
~N 'Tl ~ i /
O + ~ ~~~.. N
I

I
N D N
1
-1 ~7
~ N O
W (
I
D
Z \
\ ~~
I
1
1 (1
O \ ~ ~ •
• \ I
3
. -_~.~
-
- . r ~~ \
_ _ _
_
_
~ ~ rase -' ~ 1 ~. \\ ,~I
, ~~ ~ ~~ ~' I
~~
'-
- m , f

''
~ 1
w \ f
~
~ jl l Y/
~
' I i
~~N
M
w
~
8• ,' ; ~o 1 I

~~~ i ~~ ,~ ~s
W~ -~ i ~~' ~~,~pp~ ~
/\/
/
~ ~
~ +
d9 ~
~
I
~ / I
i

¢¢~ jt I /
%
~ i
/
~~
/ I
//p
/ ~ 4// v ' / ~ I'''
~ ~~

~ /
/ ~~

/ \
~
~ I IG1fV I
1
/1 ~
• ~
\
-
1
- , i ~ , f d/ .~

50
~~iGy~
11 N N M U
~ ~g$
~~
gN N N N N NY~
~f~~j$$
R

x~x ~ ~
b~ ~pWl
a
v
~~ e ~
~ ~ ~ ~
1n.~
~~NqH
NN1My~r~
~w~~d
~~ ~
A
\ jf
f jt //r''
~ ~ //'~'
O °~ ~/i
f j~'6r ~ , i
55 ~~
i
i
ii
~1 ~
\ \
\ \\
,, ,
\ \• /~1yti iii,/~i ~/ \ ~ \'\ \
, i \ ~\
/~~ /~ \ \~I I \1(\\ / \\ \
~S` i ~ \a,

/ o / / % // ~ j \ ,~`
~ i
/ ~,t r ' 9 ~ / ~~ 1
_'~/ ~/~~/, ~ \ ~ ice' ~ i~/7~/ ~1 ~ \
\ ' i '~i i r^~' i Q1
~~" \ r -
i ~ ~~ ~ \ \ O
i ' /~ \\ l \ ~~ ' I /
i4~`//~ / .~1~ / / / ~ ~/ ink' \~~, 1 1 Ija I I /
11 _ Ira- r I-r-
~1''-' ~~/~ 101 .' \\11~y 1-- -1-r_1 I / t _
.~::~ 4.' All~f I I I I I/ 1
r ~/ i ,, ill rlro- V I I I
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo m ~° ' 01 p 1 1 1 1 I~
to ~ ~ / ~~ / N j O~ I'll ~~1 l I ~ 1 t11 I
11 ~ ' ~ Nrn a Mll llll I ~ 1 dl %
'// N+ ~n ~ plalll I I ~ I II ~I
° ~1s + d 0 III i 1111 I I I I 11 ~I
^~~ °~ °1 l illl , I I I li 1
~ \\~ °~ 1~1 ~l 1 ill i i i i i i` I
~~ ~ 1 ~II lyl`.I - L 1\I I1
~ ~ X111 ~1 T_ ~~I-tc\1
~~ ~~II 1 ~j ___ - r
tD ~+\\ \ I III 1 I I I ~ Ij ---o _---r-----
I I
~~~! i l lI ' ' ~' I s
IJT-1~ -~"~I ======x133~rt~'
I Illl ICI 1 1 .f
"III I~ l I 1
60
\t
S~
7W,. I` ~ ~~' gg
Il 0 ~ i 1 f a~aF
(i CZ , pe ~~s
rn :CJ ~ f Iy
~z ~m
~ (") ~
m
D Dr
~i -~ r
~ rn
`O
'`I ~r ~$
~ ~~ ~~
~ C
~a '
r
-ta
y
~~

2 04 Ih27
ou cs\Q7fi904a07permi Apah
~-~ h M N M
" / ~_ - ~ `, I III, • • V'~rCH r SHED. ~ ~ w ~
I II )\\111111 I ,, ~ 1 /~y*/
1j1 1111 II IIII 11~' all ~ IIIpI 1 I ~ ~ - ~\\\
\ 11~1M1 I I 111111 p/ `{' \ / / // I/1/l 'I!'/A- _ ~I; ~ \\\ `\lll 11/ , ~~ ~~tiroD~
~ ~~\t~l 1 ~IIIIIII'V// \1 111/ // / I~ \\ \\) \\\\ I(1 ~ /'////111\1)~
C 11 Irll II IIIII _~ II ' _ ~r~\\ \\\\ V.\ II N4NMNY~
.,1, ,-. C ~ 111 ~\)1 III /111 /_ ~~/1/ ' / ''/ ~ _ \\` ~\\~ ~~~\~~\..~ 1\~\\\I` ~ ~ `9IQVI~
`, W ~ ~sl I I I X111 III IIII / '~ //I II -tom ~ \\\ ~\~\\\, \\ \)/j Il ~~$`Y '1
1 ~i fj~~~`11
'. ~ m )III SIN I I I I II I ~~- \ I / Id( ~ /~ I I ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~\\\\~_ 1 \~ II / / CN f~
O ~ / I \ 1 ~ 1 I // \ II ' / ' 1111 / - f ~ ~ \\ \ \ \ 11 \ \ ,11 1 ! / I ~`7f
r II ~ , a /4i ~ 1 \\ ~ \\`~\\\\\~~ I I ~0
-^~, ~ / /I I III ~I / /// / ~/ / 111 ~ 1 J ~ \\ ~~ I
~• ~ N ~ /l (ll •, II ~ \\ / /lI ///~~ / IVI~I `~ 11 / ' ~ ^' ~ _ ~ ~ 1' \i 1\\ rh \ ~ I I ~
~m , "o 11 /Kll d/ ~ ` v/ '// lll~ /// \ II\ 1' / 1 \ ~ ~ ~ \~ 1)` `J /
~~ /!, < ~. , \1 I/ ' ~ , ~, 1 \ ,/`~ -I , \ I 1 111\tll ~
D,', / // \~~ I ,^ , I / 1 /, ! 111 \4111 /~ ~~ . \m\ `\ \\\ ,\\~ /~//
ZJ~ ', :1-\-~` ~^~ ~~ I III' 1IIt 1 11/11 / qtr \\\\ \\",/ , ;%
II /// (AI /\~~ -~ ~, - - -S ~ _' ~ ~ , I 1~ I \\// ~ \ 1 \\\ I __ -/ Y~I11~111~
rr
.~~1~y
1 W N M
w w~
~~~g+~
~~
-~ -\ 'v I III ~~ \ \
J
I E > - '1' / -- -
p / ' ~~
\ J \ /
_ _ \ \ \ \
=- ~'' =mod =~Ni -'bra ~ \\ m ,~ 1 ,g ~ ~~ ~ I I \ , o- l ~~ , // /
I \ t ,~,//// I \ / ~ t /x \
~~/ / / ,\ 1 \~\ v/ ! \\ \
', / ~ ~ ~ i l'/ ~ -'~ l ' ../ /may\-\4 \\\ q
\~ l iA/ \\~~o~\ ~i ~ 1 ~,~1 I / / X10 can I 1\\ ~ \\~~\ 1~ ~ 8c 8
- /~ ~! \ ~`~, _~~ T`om' `III / ~ ~ /I \ ~ ~ \ ~ / ~ I~~ A.'1Q ~
//. ~/ ti ~ ~~I\.C~_,~,1,.T ...nn~ III / / v:l ~ \ // b Q ~d7
/'/i ;' ~ ,~•/ \ 'i ~, / ! ~\ \ \ I~ j\ \\ ~ 11 ~ ~ I I ~ O 1 \ \ vl /// r Q I; Y 0 t qCC~ F
''jfi~ /1 '/ /Ji~o~•~~ / ~\\II \ Ida I III 1/ 1 r~ l ~m } ~ ~f
\ ~t ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ / \~11 •11 I I II II ' 1/ / - / I I ~ Z !I F ° a
0 ~ - ~ / i y ~ ~~ y%t /<~ \ ~~aa~ - ) \\I ~ I~~I\I~ _ / /II- U ~ I~ / \I ~ ~ ~ ~ O ! G s
r ~_ t
/ it+'' ~ ./ . d° , , • '\II I/0°f~"V ~- - F- ~ ~1 I 1 ~ 3, 1 - 0 n m I!
I ~~ ~~ ~" ~ /th*i' \ \IIII pf I I I JI I j 1 I' / / (n
I~ .. . - >.j :'~y, 1 1~ ~1-rlro- - y _I_ I I l , I -, 60 m
I ~ ~ u~~ ) , ~ oc m C ' ) 11 11p~~~ j 1 'q r I ; r~ / ~ ,l
11 ~'Il~ ' ~ ` ~/~ ~ ~ ~ r j j -i ~ m , ' I~ ~ 1 I / ~ II ~ 11 I I ~ ~L ~
~~. g / ~I u, ~ _ ~' I / ?~ ~ 11 i lih I I ~ 1 Il i ,~~ / ~ --i r ~
~ ~~,, I~11 ; ~ ~\tl ~ pp+ d o / , ' ~1 I~ I i ~I I I i I' II I ~' I ~ I~TI
.'' K \ 11 ' OL m 1 / ^ 1 1111 I III ~ I, .~
u~ 7e 1~1 III I 111
~\ X~q ~/1/ / \v\ 1 I I I I /I 1 II li \ \ .
rn \1~\'P\~01 m O"'o '' _- , 11111 ~I~~/iI ly \ O
~ ~ ) 11 III I - / ~ - ~ 1 /
\ \~ : ~ ' / ~~ / ' _ _ I 1 yIN 19~~1 _ /~~I / 1~I 111 d \ 4
\ ~ \ 1 ' I / ~ \~~\ \ 1 IIII\ III / ~ (1 1 ~ L \ ~ r.- 06 ~ cam- - - - ~ ~ ~ f"
/ 1 N9~d~ , v / ' , ~ (c/~1/(~\~\\'a \ ~ I II 111111 ~ ~'~ pie • - _ _ ~ ~ I •
CD / I 'K~~ / ~0`~~ ~l \ ICI 1 1111 I l - - -ip : - ~ -* =. - ~- l 1 i
I / / / / \ ) I- ~ `~ ~ 1 II 111 / I / 1 I t _ - _ ~ _ 00 N "4
\ \' l t r , l ) \ -~,'~ I l li 11 1 ~ 1 1 1 I ~ I II / I I ~ _ .,11,\ ~ 'L1 lam"
\ / ~ I I I1 ~~1V 1111/ / 11 I -'-'/' / / , /- I ~ O~~
I I I ~I~ ~ 1 W i

C
~ N .~ ~.
7
N ~ ~
Z ~ 0
~ C ~ O O
.y ~ ~ ~
,-. O
O O ~
t d v
'S U E O O
v O
N
u
a
~
t
E ~ ~.
m-
~~
o
~ o
c
o
__ d ~-
'u. "
~ '
°
t
~
c ~ ~ ~
p c
O v
o
_ m~.
? o 0 0
iL
}
~
~ .
^! c~
'

~ ~
~ o ~
`°
~ r°
f0
a
i
-
y
tA U ~
~ ~
a o~
a

~ ~
'~ ~o
>

~ ~
~~"
~ W c

W to
a
o
U
Z E °"°
~
g ~~

W
N
C
~ N
lL d `''
3
d a
'~ a a

U ~ ~ ~
2 w
~ ~ ° `~°

ao

C J N
O
~
N
~
lC
O

~ v 1~
Q
~ ~
fn J
J

a% O J

(~ Z N F-
O
H

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
3 NORTHERN TELECOM, INC. P.O. BOX 54470
LEXINGTON, KY 40555
4 RESEARCH TRIANGE FOUNDATION P.O. BOX 12255
OF NORTH CAROLINA RTP, NC 27709
NCll~®'lC
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1352701 (R-290~
NC 5~ FROM SR 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 1959
MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 (PAGE RD) FROM
NC 5~( TO I-~0 IN DURHAM
SHEET 8 OF 8 07/30/03

r-I ~ a. Z
~' R
~~~
CN ~
E OTC
~~
~ U ~
~~
® ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~®
~®
~d
vF~-I
® ~
~.
~ ~
~ ~
I'~~
~~
~~
R m
~~
N
a
0
V
q
w
h ~
h
-~. ~
~^
A
~~
A ~^
y ~"'
~ ~ 3„~,~,.,~
~w
~"~ ^I
~i w
~~
V
U
~ ~- 0.;
.. ~
O
~ w
s ~

~ s
J
~~
~~
~r

r

1
O
~ ~ ~~ ~
~
_
1 `
H ~ ~
~ ~,
6b~ ~
V
N
~~ ® ~~~r
i~06Z-?I ~.Z~~IOXd dLZ
,,}
A.
Y,.
~:
~'
~~
d
~~
M
(~ ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ W
d d
~~ ~
N
~~
0~
g ~ O ~ ,,. qq
h
~~
K m
S 0 4
y~ ~~ ~~
~p ~~~~~
A•
~~~
~ ~
~~ z
..~
m
C C
II II
N ~
~ ~ O
a
~~
0
~~
a F~
F
O~
z~
~o
~e
• ~„~
8 ~ ~ ~
ri oo ~
M ~ ~ ~ X1'1 0
x~~ n u u u+
w Aso
A gq ~
S $ O
O ~ Q O
v1 ~ a
~ ~^ ~
o o ~ o Q
~0 0
Z6IIOZ~ ~s~r~arsxo~~~

UI'JUiV-C '1 VO:J7
_,,,., R:\p,Y ql\r 2904. tsh
° ° ~ _ ~,
n ~ ~ ~ ~ m
c $ ~ C ~. ~
~ $ h o ~ .o ~
° ~, 3
C
o ~ ~ I ~ ~
on ~ i 4Yi I 1 ® II
a ~ I I ( I
~ ~ `h h ~ II
Iii ~ y ~ ~ ~, m ~ \DC71 p
• 6 ~ ~ I r I' I T I^ I I
~' 11~1~ ~ ~~~~
u
a
3- s a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ z ~ ~ -e -v o S o
X
S
o ~ O
~~~~ ~
~°
~,
x ®oo~oo®mo®o~®I
I Y 1f
I ~ II "
~ o Boo ®~ b o ~ ~ ~ o + o- I ~ II ~
m n ~. Z~~~ a~~ C~ C
A
~~ g g
~,~g`
c 3
° ~
~ o' c g`
0 0
~~
b
~~~
I I I I
i I i l l l ~
I ~~ I I I I
~ ~ ~lO`~ 2~ Qor~ I I I ~ y
W m m mX I I I ~ ~
I I I 'I ( j '
I ~ I I ~ I
I ~ ~ II
I ^ JI
N N
3- ~ ~ ~. ~
O- ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(~ o ~ 3
~O ~ , ~~ ~ ,
y N~ ~. A C C~ Z ~ C
C > >
7 C p ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ o ~ C
° S ~ s o' H H
5~ ~ o ~ ~ S c m ~" c
O s n n S' in ;s a' ~' in
^+ rn ~ m
I I I I I I I~ ~~ I
~~eoll~l~~lll~ ~ N~ t
o a~ ~~ 7~~ t ~~~ t
I I I I j I I I
v, ~ rn ~ O ~ v_; to C -~ „ (7 „ ao ~ ~ Z° f1 n = H
~ D ~ a~ s s C ~ C A a. ~~ s N y ~•
a. a_ C S ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~. C O
~ s
" ~ q ~'
' ~ o
,o ~ ~
~ g
b .c. ~~ ~~
Y
1 I I I ~ 1 I
I I I I
s ~ ~ I I I I I I
~~p a ~an i 5 cn, I I I I ~ xl I
g ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ O cy ~G ( I I I ~ v \
• I I I , ~ I
8 ~ ,, I 1- l ~
~'
N
~ a.
~ ~ ~ ~•
n
O
z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
N
OD
Q
r
t/~
y
s °
n
~ ~~ ~o I~ I I ~ ~ o ~ ,~~ ~ I
~I ~~
5/28/99
c
m
Ny
C
Z
~~
~~
~~
®~
~~
~1 ~~I
F~1
~ ~

~7-JUN-20 q 7• q
I~\pro J\r 9043~4.peh
- - _~..~o~~~r,
__rro ___-----'~--- ------ ---'~ ~~ 1
_----T ~O_ ~$ic---- --------~c 'c' -_-~~L~11--r-~~a-T"iV~ I I
r.... - - ~-1 ib _ _ _- _ _ ._. ~- _ 1 NOIpE I
--_ I I
____ I~ I
//~ ~ SR N9Y KYWIS pTNfl I
+~ I ttsl I
/I A `_''~' NOIE ~
NL- crsl ~Q ~ Na[Q Q ~I
..~~
rv
wl mow.
~ ~ r ~.
Mi ~ \ I I' ~" 1 -I i EI
---'1'~'_'_' \
W ~11 ~1 I
~~ ~I .1I1
a ~ ~ ~I I -
\ 7~ 1 III Q
~~
0
0
0
~~

~ y
.,
~
SR 1999 ~
AVLS DR a
6

~I N

Z
A
} t
n ~
N N +
S$ c

z
v,J n
b~ s ~
r~i ~~ ~
a
~ ~~ ~
~r
t
0
1 ~ m
^
[~~Kaq
~~~e
.~ ,-NZ
?fir
~rn ~
~~
60
~~~
rno~
~~~
~~~
~~~
°°
m
C
~ I
~ ti
~ 'a+
^~
a~
'~
mmggt
rvN -~- ~
`WD~
~~g' •_____ -
-_= v =-= = =_~r~=d~?Pc~~ _",~~$r~~=-ice`--"-
gl ~~.^
---~.~~~ Y ..r
_. ~
:~ - f,
l~N h
N N N N
~~~~~ n
6 A} I
~~
~o'd`''
$~
~~
~~
~"
~~
~ ~
MATCH TO SHEEP 5 STA. 23+00 ~ ~~ I~I~

8/17/99
/' / /
00 #~,,~'
k
S~ P. 23
Qp+ Xg /~
a /
\\ _N a>i~~0 ///
~' \ pie. ~s. /,
. ' \ W 1 S663Y
o N o ~ C \ \ m+ ~ ,,
~'.
~~s
O 8N
uNi to
g~
~ \ ~ 1 11 Xw
~~ I 1 \ \ 1 \\ ]Dtr
\ ~ \ \\ 1 y 11\ 1 1 11
11
,~ 1 11
\~\\.. pl\1 1 ~5d 1 ~iOo
______~ 1
1 1 1 ~ ~~~
~ °o III ~ ~ i\\ , ~ z°'s° f~~~ ~/
@1 1' ~ - ~!
tv I ~ x m ~~ ~ ~ 1 1~ °4' I I I I J-~-~ ~~~ ~
~r W oA~ ~ 111 I~ ., 1 11 ~ ~ ~ .~
a o gg~ 0 1 11 z,
~ ~9 ~ ~,I;11 tl 11 ~~~ ~
~~~ ~' o I~€ ?il i t ~ i I I I
r p~~ I 4,1I i it I 11 ~~ ~
O 0 1 ~ j I ~ ~ I I ~ o`er
1 e I~lI 43 , ~ ~,
I + 1 I q III ~ ~ ~ ~I~~~
m+ I
~ Vii, ~~ ~ ~~
s ~
o
s;
. ~ m
~..
~~~ ~
~~ A '~ 171 I III ~ I( ~ '`
.~
~~ ~ Ifil I ~ I~j ~ ~
~ y I I I 10 0! I I ~\ / ~1 \ .n
III ~ III I 111
3 m +
x N ~~ II i I I I I / x o ~~
>, I I ~ aa~~
~s ~ ~ I a I~ I I\ i; ~ .. ~aa
~8 ~ /~ I ~ I ; I ' \II I ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~
~ I
~ Vfp
~ I

~ Y ~~
~ I~
~ ~
5
Nolrra e~rtttA~ ~ + / ~ i i I al I it ~ (~
~~ ~ p I C I I I I I I II I ~~ \
ZS ~2S ~~ m F17 I I ~~ ~ ~p ~ ~~/~ ?
I ~ ~\I~ 30 ~
~ ~ ;~ - ~ ~ ~.
~ f7m ~ aI I 1 1 x l ~~,U1G \~ ~y~iph
~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~I Ii l 1 al ~ . ~ ~ Il u ~ ~o
ti~ I I I j I I I +O ~
~ I ~ $~
~v'~~ m ~r ~ ~~ l i I I i t p ~ GGii ~~
7~Ib 1 ~ I o I I i o+
818 w + I I ~ ~
o ~~
•• .Z ~
_~~ k
rn
60~'
~rn~
wok ~
;gym
~~m
_ ~'
s
~~~
m °°
0
C
~ 71 I II I ~/``/ IIIg1110
o~ s I I I~I 1 ~Uf~~v
l„i ~ N ~ I I I I /i }y.~~tp
.lr 11 I I I ~ I ~/~!~E ~'!N~
~ \\ 'a / 1 I 1 I I ~~ ~ Ate/ •
~~>= Q ~\F~\bs .. + j I j # 50'1 I ~/~ ~ %/ ~ ~~I~i q
36 I ./{~ // r ~ ~
I ~ I I I
' ~YBr Qii I ~ I 1 i ~~, /.

~
© ~~~
'Tl~ W ~M I
I
I /
1
~~ d
~ /
I
/
\
\ `
,~
I
~ ~
~ ~
1~ 3
.~ I I I I
I /
•
/~
~
~
I~~
I
~ ~
x `~ +
°o I I
I
I /
o
~ (a
.
I
~ T I

I
~

~ I
~ III
II
`n
~'
I I
II i
~
~ "~
~
~o'
~A
~ I I I
'
I I
~ I
~
~ I
.
--
~

m
I I
~ I ~ -
I ~ ~ ~ I
~
~
~
`~ I •I
q I ~~~ ~ ~ I

~ I
~.
~ I

~ :
~
_ . I ~

~

ill

l~l l

; 35
j r
I ~
~ I ; I / ,~ ii ~ i I3
~~
m
~ ~ ' I' ~
4
l
'
X
I
~
~ +
~jll
I ~ ~ ~ I ~
I ~f
in i
:i
4 ~ ~ ~,g ~III I i I ~~ ~
MATCH TO SHEET 6 STA. 36 + 00

8~ ~~
~r ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
~~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o,l\r2904a05.u~h
D
W
O
Q
V
W
0

~~~~ q ~ ~
~~~ ~
--- ---.
~~~ ~ ~
:~ ~• ~,~
~R • ~ Ana.
~ C
--- '~
v ~
R
~~
~ Q
m ~ ~ ~ ~~ t
j
o .
Z
W ~ ~~
m ~
'~
~~-~
c> o
F~
~s
_ ~ -i
m m 1
v 0 o G
r v~ 7p r
v m $yi F~fl ~
o
iZ ~~" Z
~ i
C ~
ao
8/17/99
MATCH TO S HEET 5 STA. 36 + 00
+ 1~4 3 ~ I I
s~ + '
~ " Q ~I
l I
~ D I, III I
43
I
~ I I
I
a$?t o~
8~6 ~ ~ o,
~ a
1 1 i
~
I I I 1
I
I I
/ I~ I
I I
~a II ! l
~ ~
~ I
• I
~ m
III
I
~~
r ~
_ !
1 I ,~ IT
0 N ~ II
\

~~ ~
O~
II
I I I ~
I -~
I
I
N ~~
O a$~ ~
~

_: ~,
.y I'
Il I a
Q : ~ ~7R~~ I
43 ~ 43 ~ .4 ..43 4 ~ f3
~ ~ ~ i~
~ ~_~_
a ~~~ ~:
// 4 Q ~ ~I`
~ Q
~° 4
~,, 1 C
~o ;
~ W N. a
s ~~
N
~ I~
a
!I

~~ 111111
aaa~ I
!' 3~~~
i ~~
' ~
" 0 ~ ~ 'I
I ~
'r ~ ~
~a' ~ ~INNI~
I ~7T~
I I~ ~ ~ I NI
~~~~~ ; I
~~ ~ I I
I I~~ I
III ~ ~~ ~
~~`11
I li 1
L~
u
III
~ 1 I~~- ~ .
~~~ .
//• I~ I \~~~\~
~i~~~
nnesr
^ -39 jfl.4 ~ ~\
_:
i II .
I1
~ II
iI ~ ~ I~i ~
I R , ~1 Mr uK
I ~~~
.n 1 I ~, i x
1 t I
I : ~: ~ I K
I ~ I I ~
w. I I I Ig ~
. ~,,
~ Q.
I I ~, "~ I N S H
II F ' ~I Ix ~
f
I I I I~~I
I ~ ' ; I ~~ ~ aa~.
I
I'- i~I O ~
+2. ~ ~ `J ~
I a ~~- ~
X ~
~ 1\ N ~XIM
I y ~: ~ ~~ --_ -_~_.
I I '~Q` I I ' `~ 44i3
x 11
m X/11
~- ~ ~ ~ ` x
~ K p1 ~ ' 1
xx
I~ y ~ 1
I ' ''' ~x ~
~ ~~, I .~ 4~ 11
I . ~ ~ 4~ 1
I ~ I •1
' ' ~ I: I `. ~ Q ~ 11
Iri ~~~ ~ 1x `L~
I" 1 +I
1 ~~
~ : I'
I
II
I
I ; 1,
:, ~
I
I
~~
~ I
I
~\ 1 , i
i ~ ~ 1~
~` 33 + ~
i~ ppRy
li
. e . 3~
~t
~~~
~y~i h
~II~11~
~~~~ '~
~~
N ~ ~
.~,iz
9 ~ r
c ~ ~
~~~
C~O~
~ y N
~ ~ ~
~rn
=i
`°
C
wvaw8s ~I~
~~ ~~~~~ I
~~ ~.~~~ X +T II
~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ®~
O ~ b
oI~ x ~ I ~ I~"~
^1 ~~ Z
N~~ ~
I ar ~
1 ~ A•rr
k
ld (T~
O
I Da
L ~-~---- ~-l~ ~
O C\ tit ~ 1, I~ I2 1 I ~~' ' . O +
m # 7
+4 ao I I ~ g 4~
w 4' ~, Q ~
" / ® of 3 2 ~ 1 8 C'
,, ~ , ~ ~ ~
I`
MATCH TO SHEET 7 STA. 49 + 00
`°
~~

7-JUN-20 4 6 40
\pro~\rZ90 3107.pah
'~~ _
~ \ ~^ ~_
~ .1...~._. ~ -~
,1-_.l
-~ as
1 :~
~~
o~
~ D
m~
-- ~ Z
\ ~ 'Q
W ~ ,~~ ,. /
~ ~ o ~ o ,,~
~j~7 ~ _~
~1~, D 1~. ,/ ~
\ Z~ ~ ~'' ~
/ ~ ~
i
\ ~ ~= "' /'
i D
MATCH r,o SHEEr
~ .. 6 STA• 49+
o a 1 ~~ ~ n l 00
~ ~ ~ 1 Idyll 7J~ SQ \ I ~ ' ~ !\ r^
~I.
~I~
~~ vii ,~ .~~ ~~'~~ ~ ~
N
rn ~~
~ m
~ D ~`}r
m ~ -~
D S.j
.+- ~
° -~

D
Z
W
A
a ~ ii
~~
D
~ 3
~ D i ~ /
~ D
~ i'~
o
3i
1
1 ~~Ny yl
~.
-' r` -' //' '-~~
N
~,
o'er , -t -~' % l ~ a ~, .
I~' i ~ I , Ww
(~ 4
f
~~ ~
III
I
14
`U
u
q. III
~ . ,,~
~~ ~ 50
y
~ - I~~ ~
.~°~
~' u, ~3 dr
m
~ w ~p,~
~/ 7~jiii I ~3 _~
~ ~~
~ IIII ~~Q I Q 1
\ r ~ /
I~ 1+25
/. I I ' I
_.,w ~
~~~ o! \~
~~-
___ 1
/~\\
1r"" wONIT f N[L~ ~i~ V q ~
II\I ~ pO1`\ il~y
ifs ~ I11 f~I
~, ~ ~~ 1 ~
I
O
~'„ \_
o ~3 ~ p~
~ ~' ~
g~
~~w1
blb ~ ~o
8
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~
~i ~ ~„~
u 11 4 II
~ ~~
~~
~i~ti~Opv
rrrnrrS~^
~~~~$~
~~
~M~iy~
r u r u
~~~~~
9~

/~
/~ ~ ~ ~ ~j/
~~ ~ , 55
U ~ ~ ~~\ \
-~ \\
I iii ~' ^~~ ~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~~
~'
a
~~ /~ ~ ~ I~N~IA
~~~
III ~ l Y ~~N \ I I ~4° ~0 8 ,~ ~'\ ~~
I / $\ 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~ Xi
/ ~+ a i
e ~ as,a ., . i o~~
/~~ $~9 ~// ~~a r I~ I r ~~,~ \ ~`~~~` \\ ~ >~ $~~ to ~
' r /
Qr ~ ~
.~ ~ '
~ /yam a ~ ~ ~/.~,/~
~~ ~ ~ ~/ "~~C~ ,gyp ,~'' '' ~y j ` ~ ,'' ~ .,~ /~" 8 ~, 1 ~ I II \ Q ~ aQ Vl
/ Q~ ~
a ~ ~~. ~ ~// \ >~~ °~ \ r IIII ~ o ~ ~ \ \~~, '
~Y 4 . , D \ \ ~ ; -li
~ i o^ ~ I
~y~'~/ j~~~~ i ~i f III I'- -F-~~~'''7~ ~f y
/' UIl~flll Ii'III I ~ p
I"~ ~ ~ ~~' ~~'"~ ~ III ,I'°` --i Illl I b ~ 60
~ ~ i~ I I r ~j
~~y ~ ',~~~ ' `1 ~ ~ ~ N't -1~N, I I ICI ~' I 3I I II li I ~l ' •
V ~ m^a~'~// ~~~ ++~+n ~~ 11IAll I I III I~~~PI ~ ~~ Q I
~/ ~ N O g I I I Ill I I III I I
~~ ~~ a ~~ ~ S a ~ III I I I
,; ~ t- O m V I I I I I NN I I
P. O.
/ ~°A~ ~~ ~ Q ~ O ~ ONI IJ I III I I I''I II I ~~ ~ ~ '+
rn ° ~a, ~,~, Q p!zi m I ~H I III I I III ~Iv~ ~ ~~ N
rn $~~~~+ I III I ~yll I I ~ r' I ~ "~,' '~ G~
(n t{ $ 0 ~ e'szz__,^_____ III I I l ~ g J~ y
a$ "66 ~ I _ _. -.eascs _ I IIa g l I I IA '1 i ~R
!~ F M•9Y~ya~LS-_ -- _- -_ - - ~\ IIII I I I l ~
rn ~ ~ 4 `~~pJ.Yd III I I I II r "'\ ~®\9P I r
\\ ,~ I I I I I q 11IIII~I ~ ,,.. ~ r
~~~ N~~ ~ro~ ~ III III I `N ~~ r= SFr ~-~IS~I ~ -iJ
~ ~ II I _ _
I u I I II iw4i ~ Q
~ ~~- - --
I III 11~~ ~ I I .~ ~~.6~tsea ~Nao ~eas>,a~In "-"'~y„~3 `'Q~..
,, ~ as -~
~~~~ ~ a~~
~II
\~~
~ ~ ~`~'~\
.,~ `
.`~ ~~~ ~
~\\
~\ \
~~ ~,,
C~~\~.\\~\ ~
4 ~ ` \'a
\ \
,~ \a
~\ \
. ~r
~ ~ .¢
• ~ ! ~ a8
Ids 6 a5~
~~o ~~D
f IG I_
8~ W
~~
~~
y
B/17
r
I
s

NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Project # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R•2904
ADMIlJISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
a a~ o~
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
~~ Envimnmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~ ~ 7 a3
to Donald J. Voelker
~" Acting Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Project # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R-2904
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 2003
Document Prepared in Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Z 2
J clcie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
a ~ o
Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
-~~ CARp~ ''~.
,~~K...~SSI~''•~N
~, ~~~FE ONglq
~ SEAL
_ ^ 19791 i
'e
'k~~Gl NEE~:'~`~
,y,FRIC M\0_~~.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY »»....»»»»»»»» ..» .»».l
1. Description of Action »».»»»»»»»»».. » ,.,..,...,,.»,.....»,»,»»».,.1
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts »...»..».»»»».»»»»»»»»». »»»....... »»»»».»».»...»..... 1
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments ..».....».. .. .........». 2
4. Coordination.... ........».»»» ».». ................ .....3
5. Additionallnformation» »»......»...»».....» ..........................»»»».»»».... ....»...3
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ......»..»..».»...»....» ....................».»........»..».»..»..»»................... 5
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT .....» » ......»»». »»......... ............... 6
A. Need for the Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 6
1. Accident Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 6
B. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Length of Project .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Route Classification ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Existing Cross Section ................................................................................................................................. 7
4. Existing Right of Way .................................................................................................................................. ~
S. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
6. Access Control .............................................................................................................................................. 7
7. Speed Limits ................................................................................................................................................. 7
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures ................................................................................................................... 7
9. Intersecting Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 8
10. Project Terminals ...................................................................................................................................... 8
11. Schools /School Bus Data ........................................................................................................................ 8
12. Railroads ...................................................................................................................................................8
13. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Facilities ......................................................................................:.... 9
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9
1. Mainline Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2. Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 9
D. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area ......................................................................... 10
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................».............................»............».»............................11
A. Length of Project ............................................................................................................................................ 11
B. Bridges and Drainage Stnuctures .................................................................................................................... 1 l
1. Bridge ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 l
2. Culverts .......................................................................................................................................................11
C. Typical Section ............................................................................................................................................... 11
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
E. Right of Way .................................................................................................................................................. 11

F. Access Control ................................................................................................................................................ 12
G. Intersection Treatment and Typc of Control ................................................................................................... 12
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ....................................................................................................... 12
I. Estimated Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 12
liV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION »»»»».»......»»»..».».........»».»».»..»...»...».»»......».»..»».. 13
A. No Build ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS » .........................».............»»» »»».. I3
A. Community Pmfile .........................................................................................................................................13
1. Geographic and Political Location .............................................................................................................. 13
2. Pmject Study Area and Definition ............................................................................................................. 13
3. Race, Ethnicity, and Age ............................................................................................................................ 14
4. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment ............................................................................................... 15
S. Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 15
6. Business Activity/Employment Centers ..................................................................................................... 16
7. Public Facilities, Schools, and Institutions ................................................................................................. 17
a. Schools .........................................................................................................................:.......................... 17
b. Institutions .............................................................................................................................................. 17
8. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services ....................................................................................................... 17
9. Existing and Future Land Uses and Present and Future Zoning ................................................................. 18
a. Residential .............................................................................................................................................. 18
b. Commercial ............................................................................................................................................. 18
c. Industrial ................................................................................................................................................. 18
d. Future Development ............................................................................................................................... 18
e. Zoning .................................................................................................................................................... 19
10. Local/Regional Land Use and/or Development Plans ............................................................................ 19
11. Community/Neighborhood Description .................................................................................................. 22
12. Community Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 22
B. Project Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 23
1. Consistency With L.ocaURegional Plans ..................................................................................................... 23
2. Economic Development Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 23
3. Traffic Congestion and Safety ................................................................................................................... 24
4. Accessibility and Parking ........................................................................................................................... 25
5. Transit Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 25
6. Business, Institutional, and Residential Relocations And Impacts ............................................................. 25
7. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion ................................................................................... 26
8. Tax Base Changes and Changes In Employment ....................................................................................... 26
9. Visual Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 26
10. Farmland Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 26
11. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds ......................................................................................... 26
12. Title VI and Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 27
13. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 27
C. H istoric and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28
1.
..................................................
Historic Architecture .................................................................................
2. Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................ 28
D. Natural Systems ..:.:........................................................................................................................................ 28
1. Physical Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 29
a. Regional Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... ly
b. Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3l
ii

1. Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................................................................................. 31
2. Best Usage Classification .................................................................................................................... 31
3. Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 32
a. Nonpoint Source Discharge ............................................................................................................ 32
b. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ................................................................................ 32
c. Point Source Discharges ................................................................................................................. 33
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ....................................................................... 33
2. Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 34
a Terrestrial Communities ......................................................................................................................... 34
1. Maintained/Disdubed Community ..................................................................................................... 34
a Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Community ............................................................................................. 35
b. Aquatic Communities ............................................................................................................................. 35
3. Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
a. Terrestrial Fauna ................................................................................................................................. 35
b. Aquatic fauna ...................................................................................................................................... 36
c. Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts .....................................................................................: 36
d. Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 37
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................................................................................. 38
a. Waters of the United States ............................................................................................................
.........
38
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................................................................ 38
2. Summary of Anticipated hnpacts ....................................................................................................... 38
3. Permits ................................................................................................................................................ 39
4. Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................ 39
a. Avoidance ....................................................................................................................................... 39
b. Minimization ................................................................................................................................... 40
c. Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 40
b. Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 40
1. Federally-Protected Species ................................................................................................................ 41
2. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ......................................................................... 42
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ................................................................................................ 44
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Av Quality Analysis ............................................................................ 44
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .......................................................................................... 45
H. Section 4(f) Resources .................................................................................................................................... 46
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................... 46
iii

TABLES
Table 1 . Accident Rates (Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles) .......................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Summary of Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................................... 10
Table 3. 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins .......................................................................................... 14
Table 4. 2000 Population by Age .............................................................................................................................. 15
Table S. 1990 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level .............................................................. l6
Table 6. 1990 Housing Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 16
Table 7. Soils Within the Project Study Area ............................................................................................................ 30
Table 8. Arnicipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities [ac (ha)1 ........................................................................... 37
Table 9. Impacts to Surface Waters ............................................................................................................................ 39
Table 10. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County ....................................................................................... 41
Table 11. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County ........................................................................................ 43
;t J'
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proliminary Plans and Aerial Photography
Figure 3A 2005 Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Figure 3B 2025 Estimated ADT's
Figure 4 R-2904 Typical Sections
Figure 5 Impact Assessment Area
Figure 6 Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix B Relocation Report
Appendix C Citizens Infonaational Workshop Notice and Handout
Appendix D Predicted CO Concentrations
iv

NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Project # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R-2904
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways proposes to widen
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard) in Durham County.
The 1.10 mile (1.77km) project is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for FFY 2006 and construction
scheduled for FFY 2008.
The estimated cost is $3,625,000 including $525,000 for right of way acquisition and
$3,100,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $5,800,000, including $200,000 for right of way, $5,200,000 for
construction, and $400,000 spent in prior years.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Improving NC 54 will have a positive impact on the project area by reducing congestion and
travel time, and increasing safety for Research Triangle Park commuters. Based on preliminary
designs, no relocatees are anticipated as a result of this project. No historically significant or
archaeological sites will be impacted. No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife
or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project. The
proposed project will not impact any wetlands. Approximately ~135R(41.2m) of stream will be
impacted by this project. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.

3. y of Environmental Commitrnents
PROJECT COIVIlVIITMENTS
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Project # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R-2904

NCDOT Construction /Division Construction Engineer
The North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) will design and build all railroad-relatal improvements
associated with this project. However, engineering coordination will occur between-the NCRR
and NCDOT to ensure that the new railroad bridge provides the necessary clearances for the
desired widening. The proposed Triangle Metro Center will be considered in the final design
stages of the project.
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with the Research Triangle Park Foundation and the City of Durham
regarding their request for landscaping at the medians along this project.
NCDOT Construction /Division Construction Engineer /Traffic End
Daring the final design stages of the project, NCDOT will provide pedestrian crosswalks and
signalized crossings depending on the locations of the sidewalks/paved trails.
oadway Design
Driveway locations and turning movement issues are ctrrtently being discussed by NCDOT and
the Research Triangle Park Foundation associates with the proposed Triangle Metro Center.
NCDOT will coordinate with the Research Triangle Park foundation during the final stages of
design.
TIP Project R-2904
Categorical Exclusion
February 2003

4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this project:
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management
Federal Railroad Administration
* United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
* USDA -National Resources Conservation Service
Geological Survey
Soil Conservation
* North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
* North Carolina Division of Water Quality
* North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
* North Carolina Department of Administration
* North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
* State Historic Preservation Office
Triangle J. Council of Govennments
Durham County Commissioner
Mayor of Durham
Research Triangle Park Foundation
Little & Little Landscape Architecture /Planning
Triangle Transit Authority
North Carolina Railroad Company
A citizen's informational workshop was held on August 23, 2001, to obtain public comment
on the project (See Appendix C for workshop notice and handout). Comments on the project
that were received from the agencies are noted by an asterisk (*). Those comments are included
in Appendix A.
5. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]

Donald J. Voelker, Acting Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
[phone]
4

NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Project # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R-2904
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways proposes to widen
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard) in Durham County.
NCDOT and FHWA classify this action as a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no
adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of the project's construction.
The proposed improvements consist of widening NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR
1959 (Miami Boulevard). From Davis Drive to approximately 200 feet (60.96 meters) west of
the railroad structure, the recommended typical section is a 4-lane divided shoulder section with
a 17.5 foot (5.3 meter) raised median, and from 200 feet (60.96 meters) west of the railroad
structure to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard), the recommended typical section is a 5-lane curb and
gutter section.
The estimated cost is $3,625,000 including $525,000 for right of way acquisition and
$3,100,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $5,800,000, including $200,000 for right of way, $5,200,000 for
construction, and $400,000 spent in prior years.
The proposed project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program. The project location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".

II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Improvements
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and operational capacity of NC 54, so that
the facility can support the constantly developing Research Triangle Park corridor. The existing
substandard typical section along with high traffic volumes (17,800 vpd) have contributed to a
higher than average accident rate along NC 54.
1. Accident Analysis
An accident study for NC 54 was conducted for the time period from January 1, 1998 to
December 31, 2000. A summary of the accident rates (in accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles) along with the statewide rates for urban two-lane US routes is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Accident Rates (Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles)

Accident Type Rates along NC 54 from SR 1999
(Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
18onlevsrd) Average Statewide Rates for
Urbsn 2-Lane North Carolina
Routes
All Accidents 726.62 370.51
Fatal 0 1..15
Non-Fatal 181.66 138.15
Nighttime 115.60 72.32
Wet Conditions 107.34 61.34
Eighty eight total accidents occurred along NC 54 during the study period. All the
accident rates, except for fatal accident rates, were above the state average for this type of
facility during the study period. The overall accident rate during this period was 726.62
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM) compared to the statewide average of
390.51 acc/100MVM for rural two-lane US routes during this period. This results in NC 54
having a 51 % higher overall accident rate than the statewide average for atwo-lane urban
North Carolina route.
Out of the eighty eight total accidents occurring in the studied years, there were no fatal
accidents and 22 non-fatal injury accidents along NC 54 within the project limits. Of the 88
accidents along the studied facility, the most frequent (36.36%) were rear end collisions.
This is indicative of a two-lane facility operating above its operational design limits. The
majority of the accidents (92%) occurred between Monday and Friday, and 33% of all
accidents occurred between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. This can be associated with work-related
traffic from the many business that lie within the project area. Widening the roadway will
improve the safety and reduce the accident experience along NC 54.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Project
The length of the studied section is approximately 0.9 mile (1.45 km).
6

2. Route Classification
NC 54 is designated as a Major Collector on the North Carolina Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is a principal arterial on the Federal Functional Classification
System, and a major thoroughfare on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan.
3. Existing Cross Section
From Davis Drive to the entrance to Northern Telecom (0.4 miles [0.6 km]), NC 54 is a
three-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane) with a pavement
width of 42ft (12.8m) and soil shoulders with varying widths of 4ft(1.2m) to 8ft(2.4m).
From Northern Telecom to Miami Boulevard (0.5 miles [0.8km]), it is generally a 2-lane
roadway with a pavement width of 20 to 24 feet and soil shoulders with widths varying from
4ft(1.2m) to 8ft(2.4m).
Immediately west of this project, near Davis Drive, NC 54 is a 5-lane shoulder section
with loft (3.1 m) useable shoulders (64ft [ 19.Sm] edge of pavement to edge of pavement
including 2ft [0.6m] paved shoulders), on 150ft (45.7m) of right of way, providing two travel
lanes in each direction and a two way center tum lane.
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right-of--way (ROW) is approximately 150ft (45.7 m).
5. Utilities
Underground telephone cables are located on both sides of NC 54. Cable fiber optics and
a natural gas line are located on the south side.
The City of Durham has a sanitary sewer force main and water along the south side of
NC 54. Telephone fiber optics, gas, water, and underground power are located along the east
side of the Southern railway tracks, approaching from the south. A high voltage transmission
line crosses NC 54 just west of the Railroad.
6. Access Control
There is no control of access along NC 54.
7. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit varies from 45mph (72.4km/hr) to SSmph (88.Skm/hr).
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Bridge #R-126 crosses over NC 54 approximately 500 ft west of Miami Boulevard. This
bridge was constructed in 1928, provides only 23.8 feet of horizontal clearance for NC 54,

and is badly deteriorating. This bridge carries a portion of Norfolk Southern Railways H-line
over NC 54, which runs from Goldsboro through Raleigh to Greensboro.
There is one drainage structure within the project limits. It carries a tributary of Burdens
Creek, and flows from the northeast to the southwest. The existing structure is a single 78
inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). The existing pipe has concrete headwall on the
upstream end. The distance from the bed to the crown of the stream is approximately 15ft
(4.6m) and the normal water depth of the unnamed tributary of Burdens Creek is less than 1 ft
(0.3m).
9. Intersectin¢ Roads
The intersections of NC 54 with Davis Drive, the entrance to Northern Telecom, and
Miami Boulevard have widened approaches to facilitate fuming movements, and each
intersection is signalized. There is one stop-sign controlled intersection at the second
entrance to Northern Telecom. The Southern Railroad Bridge # R-126, spans NC 54
approximately 500 ft (152.4m) west of Miami Boulevard.
10. Project Terminals
The western project terminal is located at the intersection of NC 54 and SR 1999 (Davis
Drive). At this project terminal, NC 54 is a three-lane roadway with a pavement width of 42
ft(12.8m) and soil shoulders with varying widths of Oft to 8 ft (1.2m to 2.4m). The eastern
project terminal is located at the intersection of NC 54 and SR 1959 (Miami Boulevazd). At
this project terminal, NC 54 is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of 20ft to 24ft
(6.1m to 7.3m) and soil shoulders with widths varying from Oft to 8 ft (1.2m to 2.4m).
11. Schools /School Bus Data
There are no schools within the project study area. Lowe's Grove Middle School is the
closest public school to the project area and it is located approximately 3 miles northwest of
the project area on Alston Avenue. The Durham Public School system has one bus which
utilizes the corridor. The County's Transportation information Management System
Supervisor indicated that the improvement would have no impact on service delivery.
12. Railroads
The limits of the proposed wideting will involve the existing North Cazolina Railroad's
(NCRR) bridge (bridge # R-126) over NC 54 at RTP, which is located approximately 500
feet west of Miami Boulevazd. This bridge was constructed in 1928, provides only 23.8 feet
of horizontal cleazance for NC 54, and is badly deteriorating.
This portion of railroad is owned by NCRR and leased to the Norfolk Southern Railways
(NS) and is a part of NS's H-line that runs from Goldsboro through Raleigh to Greensboro,
NC. This portion of the H-line is considered a part of the Southeast High Speed Rail
Corridor (SEHSR). This is one of the federally designated high-speed rail comdors in the

US that runs from Washington, DC through Raleigh to Charlotte. The SEHSR is presently
being studied for High Speed Rail.
NS's track charts show a single mainline track across the bridge in non-signalized
territory. Based on NCDOT's Public Crossing Investigative Index, upwards of 12 trains per
day pass across this bridge inclusive of the State's two Amtrak passenger trains, the
Carolinian and the Piedmont. The maximum allowable train speeds are 49 mph for freight
trains and 55 mph for passenger trains.
13. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Facilities
There is a paved walking path on the northern side of NC 54, from the western project
terminal to Northern Telecom (0.2 miles). The paths in the vicinity of this project are owned
and maintained by the Durham=Wake County Research and Production Service District.
This walking path will likely require relocation. There are currently no bicycle
accommodations along NC 54 within the project area.
Crosswalks and signalized pedestrian crossings are currently located at the NC 54 and
Nortel signalized intersection, and at the NC 54 and Miami Boulevard intersection.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
1. Mainline Analysis
Traffic volumes along NC 54 for 2005 range from 17,000 to 17,800 vehicles per day
(vpd). The traffic volumes along NC 54 are expected to increase to 37,300 and 37,300 vpd
by the 2025 design year (see Figures 3A and 3B). The proposed multilane typical section
will adequately accommodate the existing and future traffic along the mainline. However,
the level of service (LOS) along the project is dictated by the terminal intersections, which
will negatively affect the mainline operation of NC 54. Therefore, the following intersection
analysis is a more accurate assessment of the project's operational capacity.
2. Intersection Analysis
Capacity analyses were also performed for the major intersections along the project. The
results of these analyses aze summarized in Table 2. Each of these intersections aze currently
signalized.

Table 2. Summary of Intersection Analysis
Intersection 2005 LOS 2025 LOS 2025 LOS
No Bnild No Build Build
DELAY DELAY DELAY
LOS (seconds per vehicle) LOS (seconds per vehicle) LOS (seconds per vehicle)
AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM
AM PM AM PM AM PM
NC 54 and SR ~ 65.6 91.8 F/F 246.6 268
1 F/F 245.0 301.1
1999 (Davis Drive) .
NC 54 and
Northern Nortel A/A 7.5 8.8 F/F 156.3 102.0 BB 12.7 11.0
Entrance
NC 54 and SR
1959 (Miami F/E 90.8 79.8 F/F 195.6 158.4 F/F 162.3 146.1
Boulevard)
For the Davis Drive intersection, even though the 20251eve1 of service for NC 54 remains
LOSF for the Build alternative, the seconds of delay for the AM values are less than that of the
No Build alternative. In 2025, for the AM, the Davis Drive intersection experiences delay of
246.6 seconds for the No Build alternative, and it experiences a delay of 245.0 seconds for the
Build alternative. This decrease in seconds of delay per vehicle demonstrates an improvement in
the intersection for the AM peak hour traffic. However, the seconds of delay for the PM traffic
increase for the Build alternative.
The Nortel and Miami Boulevard intersections both experienced improvements when
comparing seconds of delay. In 2025, the Nortel intersection exhibits an improved level of
service, from F in No Build to a B in Build, along with significantly lower seconds of delay. At
the Miami Boulevard intersection, even though the 20251eve1 of service remains LOS F for the
Build alternatives, the seconds of delay is considerably less than the LOS F for the No Build
alternative. The Miami Boulevard intersection experiences 162.3 seconds of delay per vehicle in
AM and 146.1 seconds of delay per vehicle in PM for the Build alternative, versus 195.6 seconds
of delay per vehicle in the AM for the No Build alternative and 158.4 seconds of delay per
vehicle for the PM No Build alternative; therefore the intersection operation does improve.
In order to further improve the level of service of this facility, extensive improvements to
Miami Boulevard and Davis Drive would be necessary, which is beyond the scope of this
project.
D. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area
Two projects lie within the project study area:
I-2204 BA - I-40 from NC 147 (Exit 279) in Research Triangle Park to I-540. Widen
roadway to eight lanes. Currently under construction.
to

U-4026 - Proposes to widen SR 1999 (Davis Drive) from Morrisville-Carpenter Road to NC
54 to multi-lanes. Scheduled for Right of Way in FFY 2002 and scheduled to be let in FFY
2003.
III. PROPOSED IIViPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 1.1 miles (1.77 km) (See Figure 2 for
preliminary design plans). '
B. Bridges and Drainage Structures
1. Bridge
The NCDOT is only responsible for the widening of NC 54. The North Carolina
Railroad (NCRR) will design and build all railroad-related improvements associated with
this project. However, engineering coordination will occur between the NCRR and NCDOT
to ensure that the new railroad bridge provides the necessary clearances for the desired
widening.
NCRR is proposing to replace the existing railroad bridge with two railroad bridges east
of the existing bridge to support the Triangle Transit Authority's regional rail plans.
2. Culverts
There is .one drainage structure within the project limits. It carries a tributary of Burdens
Creek, and flows from the northeast to the southwest. This drainage structure will be
retained and extended to accommodate the proposed widening of NC 54.
C. Typical Section
From Davis Drive to approximately 200ft(60.96m) west of the railroad structure, it is
proposed to widen NC 54 to a 4-lane divided shoulder section with a 17.Sft(5.3m) raised
median. From 200ft(60.96m) west of the railroad structwe to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevazd), it is
proposed to widen NC 54 to a 5-lane curb and gutter section with a double left and single right
turn lane at the NC 54/Miami Boulevazd intersection. Traffic will remain open on NC 54 during
construction (refer to Figure 4 for typical sections).
D. Speed Limit
The speed limit will be 45mph (72.4 km/hr) throughout the project section.
E. Right of Way
The proposed right of way is approximately 150ft (45.7m) symmetrically along the roadway.

F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
The intersection at SR 1999 (Davis Drive) will remain as existing as shown in Figure 2,
Sheet 1. A single right turn lane will remain, and two thru-lanes will accommodate the
widening. This intersection will remain signalized.
The intersection at the signalized Nortel entrance will be modified as shown in Figure 2,
Sheet 2. A single right turn lane will be added to the westbound and eastbound approaches along
with single left turn lanes at each leg. of the intersection. Two thru-lanes will accommodate the
widening. This intersection will remain signalized.
The intersection at Miami Boulevard will be modified as shown in Figure 2, Sheet 4. Double
lefts will be added to the eastbound approach of NC 54, and two thru-lanes will accommodate
the widening.
To accommodate the proposed Regional Rail Station and Mixed-Use Development, NCDOT
will provide a driveway entrance west of the railroad (See Figure 2, sheet 4). Additional
coordination between NCDOT and the Research Triangle Park Foundation is needed to finalize
the driveway and turning movement accommodations (see Project Commitments on page 2 of
this report).
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
Oft (1.2m) shoulders along the proposed shoulder section and 14ft(4.3m) wide outside lanes
along the proposed curb and gutter section are proposed along the entire project corridor to
accommodate bicycles.
Use of the existing walking paths will be temporarily lost during construction. The Research
Triangle Foundation (RTF), through the special tax district for the Reseazch Triangle Pazk
(RTP), will provide a paved walking path along the north side of NC 54 from the present
terminus of the RTP trail system to the RTP boundary at the North Cazolina Railroad. The
remaining section of the project that lies east of the railroad tracks lies in the City of Durham city
limits. The City of Durham has agreed to the cost-sharing to fund the sidewalks along the
remainder of the project (see Page A-16 in Appendix A).
Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian crossing signals will be provided as needed.
I. Estimated Costs
The estimated cost is $3,625,000 including $525,000 for right of way acquisition and
$3,100,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
12

Improvement Program is x5,800,000, including 5200,000 for right of way, 55,200,000 for
construction, and $400,000 spent in prior years.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. No Build
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a result of the
project; however, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project, which is to
impmve the safety and operational capacity of NC 54, so that the facility can support the
constantly developing Research Triangle Park corridor. If the facility were not to be widened,
there would be no positive effect on the capacity or safety of the highway. This alternative is not
recommended, however, it does serve as a basis for comparison of other alternatives.
V. SOCIAL, ECONONIIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Community Profile
1. Geographic and Political Location
Durham County is located in central North Carolina and is home to Research Triangle
Park (RTP). Durham County is bounded by Orange County to the west, Chatham County to
the southwest, Wake County to the southeast and east, Granville County to the northeast, and
Person County to the north. The City of Durham, the sole municipality in the County, is the
county seat and is located in the center of the county, Interstate 85 (I-85) crosses the
northern portion of the city and Interstate 40 (I-40) skirts the southern and southwest
corporate limits.
The project is located in southern Research Triangle Park (Durham County). RTP,
established in 1959, is comprised of 7,000 total acres and is approximately 8 miles (12.9km)
long and 2 miles (3.2km) wide. Currently, there are 136 organizations located in RTP, 106
of which are research and development-related. There is no residential development in RTP,
other than what was already there in 1959.
2. Project Study Area and Definition
The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and accident
experience of NC 54. The project was requested by the City of Durham, Durham County,
and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee and is
projected to improve traffic flow and congestion on NC 54 and Page Road while reducing
accident potential.
The project corridor serves as a major connector for the southern portion of RTP and
directly serves Nortel Networks and Becton Dickinson Technologies. It also links many more
businesses in RTP with Davis Drive, Miami Boulevard and I-40. Traffic congestion during
13

the morning and afternoon peak hours is a serious problem in RTP in general, and in
particulaz, along this section of NC 54.
The project study area is a % mile (0.8 m) radius around the project (See Figure 5). For
the purposes of deternuning demographics for the study azea, census block groups were used.
There are two census block groups in the'/z mile (0.8 m) study area (defined for the purposes
of this report as the demographic study area). The census information compiled for the
demographic study area is representative of the communities beyond the '/z mile (0.8 m)
study area of the project. Field investigation has shown that the '/z mile (0.8 m) project study
area contains three residential structures and is made up lazgely of several business
communities.
3. Race, Ethnicity, and Age
The 2000 Census reports the population of Durham County to be 223,314 persons. The
racial breakdown is approximately 51 percent Caucasian, 40 percent African-American, and
7.6 percent Hispanic. The total minority population for Durham County is approximately
51.9 percent. The demographic profile of the study azea is similaz to that of the state of
North Carolina (See Table 3). It is assumed that these represent a true picture of the regions
in question especially as they represent the growing Hispanic population in the state.
As Shown in Table 4, the age breakdown shows that there is much less of a population
of children (0-18) in the demographic study azea than in the county or the state. There is
also a smaller percentage of elderly in the demographic study azea than there is in the
county, which in turn has less than the state. The lazgest portion of the population in the
demographic study azea is made up of working aged people (19-64). There aze
approximately 78 percent working aged people in the demographic study azea while the
county and the state have 66 percent and 62 percent respectively.
Table 3. 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins
Demographic S tudy Area Durham County North Carolina
Number % Number • % Number
Total Population -::2000 1,848 100.0'/0 223,314 100,0°10 ' 8,049,31 100.0'/0'
Total Hispanic 69 3.2% 17,039 7.6% 378,963 4.7%
White 1.,204 71.:7% ' 113,698 '50.9%• -`5;804,656 '72a%
Hispanic (White) 27 1.1% 6,327 2.8% 157,501 2.0%
Black 394 19.0% 88,109 39.5% 1,737,545 21.6%
Hispanic (Black) 2 0.2% 593 0.3% 14,244 0.2%
American Indian 12 0.9% 660 0.3% 99,551 1.2%
Hispanic (American
Indian)
0
0.0%
129
0.1 %
4,218
0.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 158 4.3% 7,429 3.3% 117,672 1.5%
Hispanic
(Asian/Pacific Islander)
0
0.0%
53
0.0%
2,091
0.0%
Other 80 4.1% 13,418 6.0% 289,8 9 3.6%
Hispanic (Other) 40 2.0% 9,937 4.4% 200,909 2.5%
Total'Minority 671 29.3% 115,943 S1.9% 2,402,158 29.8%
Total minority is the sum of all persons other than white-non-Hispanic.
14

Table 4. 2000 Population by Age
Demographic Stndy Dnrham County North Carolina
Area
Number % Number % Number

0 W 18 283 15.3% 54,537 24.4% 2,073,849 25.8%
19 to 64 1,438 77.8% 147,203 65.9% 5,006,416 62.2%
65 or above 127 6.9% 21,574 9.7% 969,048 12.0%
4. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment
As listed in Table 5, the median household income (1990 Census) of those that live in the
demographic study area is $34,299, higher than both the county ($30,526) and the state
($26,647). The per capita income was also higher than both the county and the state. Only
six percent of the demographic study area lives below the poverty level, whereas almost 12
percent of the county and 13 percent of the state live below the poverty level. Less than three
percent of those that live in the demographic study area live below 50 percent of the poverty
level. This segment of people makes up more than five percent of the county and more than
five percent of the state.
5. Housing Characteristics
The median home value (Table 6) of the demographic study area was over $90,000 in
1990. That figure was slightly higher than the county (almost $85,000) and much higher
than the state (over $65,000). However, the homeownership rate in the demographic study
area was less than 50 percent, less than both the county and state. The median rent in the
demographic study area was greater than both the county and state.
15

Table 5. 1990 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level
Demographic Study Area Durham County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Median H.H. Income

w
,~
1
.~
~~'~ t° 128.7% "
~ ~
114 6% ~~'
100
0%
Per Capita Income 7 ,,
„
~~~~~t n _,
.
,
:~
~~ ray
a

<;' ~~~"1'3~,'~Xi1~2?

145.2%
n
°"x `~ 116.6% ~

,,~,~ 100.0%
Persons below poverty A~''^' m
Y
leveh , ~ , x
~~'""'wN~
'~" ~ ~. ~ . ~ ,.~~0! : 6.0'/0 '" ~~~~~ 11
9% 13
0%
Persons below 50% of ,.~>d~~~,~,~ .
-~ti~.cwr~~ .
~ ~~
~~
~
poverty level2 . ~ : ~~ ~`'.
-~ ;
k,,- ~.
,, ~~ i
d',y'~~AI,
~~ alt v ~ M„
~ M ~
~
N
~~~"~~ ~ .~9 -
k ~~
G.H
~ ^~

DY..~. L.._ __ ~. _~___ _~ a
a ~ A
'3~] `
_____ _ _~___ _
2.7%
~ "
~ ~
~ ~~ 9,3:8" 5.4% ~ ± r,
~ '~ 5.2%
• a,w+n vmcu vn uuac~cnuc ociwccn u~c OGltlogglplllC S[uOy are8 Of COUmy an0 UIC SamC IlgUfe iOf Ule S1ffiC
'Percent based on persons for whom poverty atetus is deurmined
Table 6. 1990 Housing Characteristics
Demographic Study Area Durham County North Carolina
M Home Value" . , ~ -:~ ,76 - ,. ;,~ 84;,900 _ ~ , ,...~,: ~.,,, 5,300
Homeownership Rate 43.1% 53.0% 68.0%
iamRient 80 ,~ , , 382:
vn uu:up~cu nousmg um~s
6. Business Activity/Employment Centers
The Triangle, as a region, is noted for the absence of a central core or hub for business
activity. The Research Triangle Park reflects that regional development pattern, as most
businesses in the RTP are located on large tracts. The result of the dispersed development
pattern creates a number of employment centers throughout the RTP. The project is located
in the southern portion of Research Triangle Park (RTP). An estimated 50,000 employees
work in RTP (including contract employees). The project study area is made up almost
exclusively of businesses and employment centers. Nortel Networks is a communications
and technology firm that employs approximately 4,300 people between the two sites on NC
54. Nortel Networks is the second largest employer in RTP. There could be an additional
300-400 additional employees at the Gateway North site by August 2002. Becton Dickinson
Technologies is a medical technologies company and has approximately 150 employees.
Ericsson/Sony Ericsson (has satellite offices in flex buildings located southwest of the project
corridor at the intersection of Hopson Road and Davis Drive) is another large company in
RTP with over 1000 employees, and BASF Corporation (located southwest of the project
corridor on Davis Drive) is among the top 20 employers in RTP with 435 employees.
16

7. Public Facilities, Schools, and Institutions
a. Schools
There are no schools within the project study area. Lowe's Grove Middle School is
the closest public school to the project area and it is located approximately 3 miles north
west of the project area on Alston Avenue. The Durham Public School system has one
bus which utilizes the corridor. The County's Transportation Information Management
System Supervisor indicated that the improvement would have no impact on service
delivery.
b. Institutions
There is one church, Cedar Fork Baptist Church, in the project area located on Miami
Boulevard, just north of its intersection with NC 54. It will not be directly impacted by
the project.
c. Public Transportation
The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) provides regional bus service that utilizes NC
54 and Davis Drive. There are TTA bus stops and shelters along the NC 54, as well.
Route 101 of the TTA's Regional Bus Service takes riders from the Research Triangle
Park Bus Center, which is located on NC 54, just west of its intersection with Davis
Drive, to Moore Square in downtown Raleigh. Twenty-six buses each weekday and 12
buses each Saturday follow route 101.
d. Parks
There is a private athletic field on Nortel Network's campus on the north side of NC
54. These athletic fields will not be impacted by this project. Also in the project area,
there are a series of paved trails throughout the RTP. A portion of the paved trails runs
along the north side of NC 54 within the project limits. The trail will be impacted by this
project, however, the Research Triangle Foundation will provide new paved walking
paths in this area (see page 12 under "Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations").
8. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
The fire station that services the project area is Station 12 of the City of Durham Fire
Department. It is located on Carpenter Fletcher Road, approximately two to three miles
[3.2km - 4.8km] to the northwest of the project. Emergency vehicles that need to access
Becton Dickinson Technologies, Nortel Networks, or other businesses to the east would have
to travel along the project corridor. Travel along NC 54 during peak traffic periods is
hampered by congestion.

9. Existing and Future Land Uses and Present and Future Zoning
a. Residential
There is one residential area that consists of approximately 10 homes along Hopson
Road between NC 54 and Davis Drive, south of the project corridor. Three of the homes
are within the %s mile project study area; the others are beyond that limit. All of the
homes on this section of Hopson Road are 1950s style, rural, farm houses.
b. Commercial
East of the Project - Along Miami Boulevard, north of the pmject terminus, there are
three high-rise hotels serving the immediate area of RTP. A few multi-story office
complexes are located along Miami Boulevazd and along Page Road and Hopson Road to
the east of Miami Boulevard. This includes some new high-rise office complexes and
several parcels of land that are available, some of which are developed. This portion of
the project area is experiencing rapid growth.
Along Miami Boulevard to the south of the project terminus, there is a shopping center
(Creekstone Shopping Center) with restaurants, medical offices, and other businesses.
Across Miami Boulevard from the shopping center is a new strip center that is currently
advertising for tenants.
Along the Project Corridor - Along NC 54 between Miami Boulevazd and Davis Drive,
there are currently two large technology corporations -Nortel Networks and Becton
Dickinson Technologies. The Nortel Networks campus is located north and south of NC
54. Becton Dickinson Technologies offices are located on the north side of NC 54 and
east of Davis Drive
West of the Project -Along NC 54 to the west of Davis Drive, there are other lazge
research companies including BASF Corporation. There are also smaller businesses
including several banks and the Radisson Governor's Inn.
c. Industrial
Nortel Networks and Becton Dickinson Technologies represent light industrial uses
as they produce routing equipment and medical supplies respectively.
d. Future Development
There are several new plans for development in the azea. There are plans for a new
Regional Rail System by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). The system will use the
railroad corridor that crosses NC 54 and will involve construction of a new railroad
bridge to accommodate the new tracks. One of the proposed Regional Rail Stations is on
a vacant parcel of land that is next to Nortel Networks on NC 54. Also on that vacant
parcel, there are plans for a mixed use transit oriented development which will include
18

hotels, residential, office space, parking, and more. These plans and others are discussed
in further detail on page 20.
Nortel Networks has expansion capabilities, but no future development is currently
planned. Becton Dickinson Technologies has plans to add new buildings in close
proximity to the existing building. These two businesses are noted below.
e. Zoning
The majority of the project and the area to the west of the project are zoned Research
or Research Applications. The parcels on the northwest corner of NC 54 and Davis Drive
and the parcel on the southeast portion of the project are all zoned SC (Shopping Center).
The parcel along the south side of the project corridor to the west of the railroad tracks is
zoned OI-2 (General Office and Institutional). The parcels to the east of the project are
zoned OI-2 (General Office and Institutional), I-1 (Industrial Park) and I-2 (Light
Industrial), and GC (General Commercial).
10. LocaVRegional Land Use and/or Development Plans
Business Development Plans. Nortel Networks has the capacity to double existing office
space; however no future expansion is currently planned. Becton Dickinson
Technologies has plans to add new buildings in close proximity to the existing facility.
There is no schedule for the improvements.
City of Durham Comprehensive Plan and Small Area Plan. The Durham City Council
adopted The Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan in December 1995. The plan embodies
the city's desire to create its own future, to manage the changes that come from outside,
and to actively direct change within the community. In general, the city wants to
continue to grow, but retain the community's comfortable living conditions. Durham's
plan encourages more compact development in carefully chosen neighborhoods and
corridors in order to absorb a portion of its future growth, maintain livability, and support
a multimodal approach to transportation. This form of development, it is hoped, would
support transportation alternatives to the automobile and make it easier for people to
walk, bike, or take transit than the current dispersed, auto-dependent land uses allow.
The entire Durham 2020 Vision statement, which reflects the 2020 Plan's guiding
principles, is as follows:
o "Durham will promote a variety of distinct neighborhoods, emphasizing choice in
the types of places our residents can live and work."
o "Durham will identify and support compact corridors in certain places in the
community. Compact corridors will be the location for much of our future growth
and development activity."
o "Compact neighborhoods in these corridors will include housing areas and
employment centers. They will bemixed-use, higher intensity and well designed.
Compact neighborhoods v~nll be pedestrian-oriented and will allow less
19

dependence on the automobile. They will be served by attractive and efficient
transit and public facilities."
o "The compact neighborhoods will be sensitive to existing urban neighborhoods."
o "Urban growth will be directed into compact neighborhoods to preserve
Durham s rural character and to protect sensitive water supplies."
The primary objective of the compact neighborhoods is to create a series of 15 to 20
high- and moderate-intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods, including transit stations, public
parks and plazas, while respecting the integrity of surrounding established
neighborhoods. There are several incentives to help create compact neighborhoods listed
in the Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan. They include transit service improvements
among others. Several additional incentives are suggested for implementation, such as
density bonuses, impact fee reductions or offsets, express approval of proposed
development, public facilities programming or other incentives.
Durham also has several Small Area Plans, many of which have not been updated
since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The current Small Area Plan covering the
NC 54 project area is the Triangle Township Plan. That plan was adopted by Durham
City Council in November, 1993. Each of the Small Area Plans has a common theme: to
minimize disruptive influences that transportation improvements have on adjacent
residential and non-residential azeas. The approach taken by the Triangle Township Plan
promotes and supports a managed growth approach to the continued development of the
azea. This approach encourages economic development and community reinvestment,
while at the same time preserving Triangle Township's important environmental
resources.
Bicycle Plans. There are three sepazate plans that show bicycle and or pedestrian
facilities in the project area. The RTP Trail System includes a trail along NC 54 from
west of Davis Drive to Miami Boulevazd. A trail is also included in the plan along Davis
Drive from NC 54 north to Cornwallis Road. Hopson Road to the west of Davis Drive is
also shown on the RTP Trail System.
The Durham Greenways Master Plan indicates that street trails are planned for
Cornwallis Road from Davis Drive to Miami Boulevazd, for Miami Boulevazd from
Cornwallis Road to Chin Page Road, and for Chin Page Road from Miami Boulevazd
towazd the east. A street trail also is indicated along NC 54 from Miami Boulevard to the
south.
DCHC has in its Long Range Transportation Plan "bicycle intensive routes." These
routes cover an extensive area, particularly through the project area. Bicycle Intensive
Routes stretch along NC 54, Miami Boulevard, Davis Drive, Cornwallis Road, and
Hopson Road through the NC 54 project azea.
Regional Rail System. The Triangle Transit Authority (T'TA) is in the planning process
for a Regional Rail System that will link Durham, RTP, Morrisville, Cary, Raleigh, and
North Raleigh. The Phase I Regional Rail Transit System Draft Environmental Impact
20

Statement (DEIS) was completed in July 2001. The Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) was signed by the Federal Transit Administration on December 6, 2002
and the Record of Decision was received on January 9, 2003. Authorization to proceed
into Final Design is anticipated by the end of February 2003. The fast segment of
construction will be 27 miles long with 12 stations and is planned to be in service by
late 2007, providing Regional Rail Service between the 9th Street Station in Durham and
the Government Station in Raleigh every 15 minutes weekday peak hours and every 30
minutes off-peak and weekends. The remaining 4 station will be in service by 2011 at
the same service frequency. This Regional Rail System will use the railroad corridor that
crosses the southeastern portion of the NC 54 project just west of the intersection with
Miami Boulevard. The new crossing will be on two new tracks and will cross NC 54 on
anew bridge (either two single track bridges or one double track bridge).
Regional Rail Station and Mixed-Use Development.
In addition to the Regional Rail System traveling through the project area, there is a
planned regional rail station at the intersection of the rail corridor and NC 54. The station
is anticipated to be surrounded by a mixed-use development that will bring more activity
(pedestrians, bicycles, autos, buses, and others) to the area via NC 54.
Future Transit Corridor. The NC 54 corridor is currently being studied by the TTA as a
possible route to link Chapel Hill to the Regional Rail System. The NC 54/I-40 Transit
Corridor Feasibility Study is being conducted to probe possible transit connections
between Chapel Hill, Durham, and Raleigh. The study will examine possible routes and
technologies to be used to make the connection between the Triangle Metro Center
(described above) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Railroad Bridge and Track Alignment Improvements.
There are plans to improve the NC 54 railroad bridge as a separate project from
NCDOT's NC 54 unprovements. The current clearance under the railroad bridge will be
improved by raising the railroad and lowering the road. The new bridge will have double
tracks and the curve to the east will be straightened in anticipation of higher speed trains
traveling through this corridor in the near future. This new bridge will be in addition to
the new bridge(s) that TTA will be constructing with its Regional Rail System (described
above). With this project, the Nortel Networks entrance on the Miami Boulevard side is
proposed to be closed (as well as the grade crossing of the railroad tracks) because of
safety concerns: The traffic would be diverted to the NC 54 entrance. The construction
of the railroad bridge will not necessitate temporary closure of NC 54. North Carolina
Railroad Company has stated that the new bridge will be aesthetically pleasing.
Track and Train Control Signal Improvements
The NCDOT Rail Division, in conjunction with the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) and
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), are currently constructing track and train control signal
improvements between Cary and Greensboro that will add capacity to the rail
corridor as well as allow existing passenger train speeds to increase from a maximum of
59 mph to 79 mph over the Cary/Greensboro segment of the railroad under which the NC
21

54 widening is located. The railroad improvements in the NC 54 area should be
completed by the end of 2003.
Southeast High Speed Rail. In addition to regional rail and higher speed passenger trains,
the rail line that crosses the project is under study for development as a high-speed rail
corridor linking Charlotte and Washington, DC. A Draft Environmental Impact
Statement has been completed for the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR).
The SEHSR could be completed by 2010. Future expansion. is planned to Columbia, SC,
Birmingham, AL, and Jacksonville, FL.
I-40 HOV/CMS. The NCDOT is currently studying High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lanes along I-40 between Raleigh and Chapel Hill. The I-40 corridor is located less than
%2 mile north of the NC 54 project. The purpose of the study is to determine the
feasibility and phasing of HOV lanes on I-40 as well as other congestion management
strategies. The ongoing study has identified HOV lanes as a means of reducing I-40
congestion and is studying constructing an additional HOV lane in each direction.
Several options for design of the HOV system are being analyzed, including concurrent
flow lanes with access to existing interchanges and also a barrier-separated system with
partial access.
11. Community/Neighborhood Description
The project study area, located in Reseazch Triangle Park, is representative of RTP
development patterns, large tracts of land with dense mature hardwood and evergreen trees
which provide a visually opaque screen for businesses when viewed from the roadway. Most
of the businesses in the park are developed in a campus like atmosphere with structures
integrated into the existing landscape with recreation amenities such as walking trails,
athletic fields, and on-site exercise facilities. Along the project corridor, the Nortel Networks
and Becton Dickinson Technologies sites are typical of the aforementioned RTP
development.
The entire study azea is in transition from semi-urban rural agrarian to urban. This
transition is evidenced by the recent and current development projects, particulazly along
Miami Boulevard, and the presence of commercial realty signs found on vacant tracts.
12. Community Involvement
A small group meeting was held for the purpose of obtaining community input on
February 8, 2002 at the offices of Parsons Brinckerhoff in Morrisville. The lazgest
employers in the project azea as well as government entities were invited to participate and
submit comments. Those in attendance included representatives of Nortel Networks, Becton
Dickinson Technologies, CB Richazd Ellis, Craig Davis Properties, the Reseazch Triangle
Foundation, Durham City/County Planning, Triangle Transit Authority, North Cazolina
Railroad Company (and HNTB, their consultant), NCDOT Rail Division, NCDOT Public
Involvement Section, and NCDOT Project Development Branch.
22

To gather input from the smaller businesses in the project area, adoor-to-door survey was
conducted. Several businesses submitted their opinion of the project during this survey. For
many who were not able to be contacted directly, a survey was provided so that businesses
had the opportunity to submit comments on the project. The results of this public input have
bcen incorporated into this report.
Survey Results. The input gathered from the community was positive. Everyone contacted
was in favor of the project, and most wanted it completed as soon as possible. One business
noted that the new shopping center on the east side of NC 54, south of Miami Boulevard, will
create new traffic on NC 54. It is currently difficult to exit onto NC 54 from the Creekstone
Shopping Center and it was felt that the new development will worsen the problem. A
second business suggested creating an exit point from the Creekstone Shopping Center to NC
54 west of Miami Boulevard. All businesses that responded felt that the project would have
a positive impact on the community, but were concerned about the disruption to daily
business activity and the duration of the construction phase. In addition to this group
meeting and survey, a Citizens Information Workshop was held on August 23, 2001 at the
Sheraton Imperial Hotel and Convention Center in Durham County (see Section VI).
B. Project Impact Assessment
1. Consistency With LocaURegional Plans
The NC 54 widening project is consistent with all identified land use and development
plans. The project complements several of the local plans. The project will allow more
traffic to access the area and encourage the development of the Triangle Metro Center (one
of the "compact neighborhoods" that centered around a Regional Rail Station that is an
objective of The Durhom 2020 Comprehensive Plari). The project also is consistent with the
Triangle Township Plan in that it helps support managed growth in the project area.
The NC 54 project is compatible with the plans for Regional Rail and the mixed-use
development surrounding the Regional Rail Station on NC 54. The Triangle Transit
Authority supports this project and anticipates its completion so that the Regional Rail
Station and associated development will be further encouraged. Future transit along the NC
54 corridor and future rail plans, including the Southeast High Speed Rail plans, also will be
enhanced by the NC 54 widening project.
2. Economic Development Opportunities
Numerous economic development opportunities exist in the project area. The widening
of NC 54 between Davis Drive and Miami Boulevard should facilitate continued growth and
help to ease the traffic burden created by increased development. The development of the
proposed Triangle Metro Center, coupled with the Regional Rail Station, will create
tremendous opportutities for new businesses and existing businesses.
23

3. Traffic Congestion and Safe
The completion of the NC 54 project, in addition to other local improvements; the
widening of Davis Drive, HOV lanes along I-40, and the grade separation of Hopson Road,
should reduce congestion and travel time and increase safety for RTP commuters.
The roadway improvement will allow traffic to flow more freely and reduce the amount
of backups that build along the road at Davis Drive and NC 54. The improvement should
make it easier for traffic entering and exiting Nortel Networks and Becton Dickinson
Technologies, as well as the Creekstone Shopping Center. Becton Dickinson Technologies
receives truck deliveries via both sides of NC 54, thus an improved NC 54 would allow for
improved service.
Nortel Cut-Through Traffic and iailroad Grade Crossing. Because traffic flow would be
improved with this project, cut through traffic (from NC 54 to Miami) onto Nortel Networks
property should be reduced, which would improve internal safety conditions at Nortel
Networks. Easing the congestion at the NC 54 entrance to Nortel Networks also would allow
Nortel Networks to close the Miami Boulevazd entrance. The entrance has been discussed
for closure for some time because of the railroad grade crossing on the campus of Nortel
Networks in close proximity to Miami Boulevard. The North Carolina Railroad and NCDOT
-Rail Division, as well as Nortel Networks, have raised safety concerns because of the grade
crossing. With the addition of two tracks with the Regional Rail System and the potential
new tracks with High Speed Rail, the safety concern of the Miami Boulevazd entrance would
only be heightened. Widening NC 54 may help alleviate that problem and allow for safer
entrance and egress to Nortel Networks.
Nortel Networks has raised concerns about the duration of roadway construction, both
with this project and with others, including the railroad bridge project and the Davis Drive
project (TIP No. U-4026). A lengthy construction process would mean the greater likelihood
that drivers may choose to cut through Nortel Networks' property. This would be
detrimental both in terms of traffic and safety, and Nortel Networks has urged a timely
project completion.
Nortel Entrance. Improving traffic flow along NC 54 will allow for better signal timing at
the light at the entrance of Nortel Networks. According to Nortel Networks, currently, the
light remains red for traffic exiting Nortel Networks for an extended amount of time. This
causes many drivers to run the red light or take other action. Signal timing will be
investigated during the final design.
Triangle Metro Center. Because of the mixed-use development that is planned at the
Triangle Metro Center, Craig Davis Properties would like to see the speed limit along NC 54
reduced to 35 mph in front of the high density development, as they believe it would help
safety. This decreased speed limit may create safety concerns at other points along NC 54
which are posted at 45 mph. Changes to the posted speed limit will not be addressed by this
project. Speed limits aze set by local government agencies in consultation with NCDOT.
24

Creekstone Shopping Center. Presently, access to the Creekstone Shopping Center from NC
54 is a problem. There is one access point to the shopping center from NC 54 west of Miami
Boulevard. It is an entrance point only. There are problems because many drivers try to exit
onto NC 54 from this point. Numerous accidents occur at this access point, according to
local business owners. A second access point to the shopping center is located along NC 54,
south of Miami Boulevard, in the center of the shopping center. This access point is a right-
th, right-out design. The third access point is at the southern end of the shopping center onto
NC 54. This access point is the only place where drivers can make a leR turn onto NC 54 to
travel towards RTP, I~0, and points beyond.
One business owner described the problem, stating that it sometimes takes 10 -12 minutes to
exit at this access point, and traffic backs up through the shopping center because every
driver wanting to make this turning movement has to travel to the southern part of the
shopping center. The business owner indicated that he has been in business in this shopping
center for 11 years and has discussed this problem with the building owner, who has stated
that he is not able to solve the problem. The proposed improvements should improve egress
from the shopping center by reducing congestion along NC 54.
NC 54 South of Miami Boulevard. NC 54, at the intersection with Miami Boulevard, backs
up with auto traffic at rush hours down toward Morrisville and Cary. It is a two lane
roadway that serves as a major traffic artery between Morrisville, Cary, and RTP. With
completion of the NC 54 project between Davis Drive and Miami Boulevard, traffic headed
toward Cary and Morrisville could be able to get through this section of RTP faster, however
this may cause further backups on the section of NC 54 south of Miami Boulevard.
4. Accessibility and Parking
Businesses along NC 54 will be more accessible with the completion of this project. The
roadway improvement will not affect parking.
5. Transit Considerations
The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) provides regional bus service that utilizes NC 54
and Davis Drive. There are TTA bus stops and shelters along NC 54, as well. Route 101 of
the TTA's Regional Bus Service takes riders from the Research Triangle Park Bus Center,
which is located on NC 54, just west of its intersection with Davis Drive, to Moore Square in
downtown Raleigh. Twenty-six buses each weekday and 12 buses each Saturday follow
route 101.
6. Business, Institutional, and Residential Relocations And Impacts
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and equitable
treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or
farms by Federal and federally-assisted programs, and establishes uniform and equitable land
acquisition policies.
25

No homes or businesses will be relocated as a result of this project. See Appendix B for
a copy of the relocation report.
7. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
Impacts to communities and neighborhoods can include splitting neighborhoods, isolating
portions of a community, generating new development or changing development patterns,
changing property values or creating a barrier separating residents from community facilities.
There are no residential communities in the project azea, other than a small number of
rural homes along Hopson Road. This project should not have a negative impact on that
community. The project also should not have a negative impact on the business community.
The strength and vitality of the business community should be increased as a result of this
project.
8. Tax Base Changes and Changes In Employment
Because there would not be any relocations, there would not be any loss of employment
because of the project. The project would, however, improve traffic flow in a heavily
traveled area. This could allow for easier access to and from the area, making it more
attractive for continued development. This continued development could increase the tax
base and increase the employment in the area.
9. VisualImpacts
There are large trees that buffer Nortel Networks and Becton Dickinson Technologies
from views ol'the road. Some of these trees would be removed with roadway construction,
however the majority of trees would remain and the primary visual buffer would remain.
10. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important
farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils aze determined by the SCS
based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
No prime or important farmlands would be lost with construction of this project.
11. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, declared it the policy of the United
States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which, with their immediate environments, possess
26

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic cultural, or
other similar values." The Act established the Wild and Scenic River System. The Natural
and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 declared it the policy of North Carolina to retain "the natural
and scenic conditions in some of the State's valuable rivers by maintaining them in a free-
flowing state and to protect their water quality and adjacent lands by retaining these natural
and scenic conditions." At present, designated state Natural and Scenic Rivers are identical
with designated federal Wild and Scenic Rivers.
There are no rivers designated as scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 in
the project area.
12. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides that "each federal
agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects' of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to
American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the equitable
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.
This assessment finds no evidence or indication of benefit, harm, or disproportionate
impact of any social group.
13. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Secondary effects are indirect impacts which are caused by or result from the project,
although these may be later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of the project
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities, regardless of
which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor but collectively significant activities taking place over a period of time.
1 Adverse effects means significant cumulative human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects,
which may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and
soil contamination; vibration; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural
resources, of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality, or of the availability of public and private facilities and
services; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic
congestion; isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the
broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of DOT programs, policies,
or activities.
Disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: (1) is
predominately borne by a minority population and/or slow-income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority
population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that
will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population [edepted fmm the tFnal DOT Ottafer on
envlronmenta! ius7icel.
27

One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be -depending upon local
land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and other
factors -encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl2. Improvements to levels of
service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in travel times
can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
The improvements are congruent with plans to intensify development in this area and
should create a supportive climate for this increased development. The increased level of
service that NC 54 will have with the completion of this project along with the Triangle
Metro Center development, Regional Rail, the future transit corridor to Chapel Hill, and
future High Speed Rail could transform the project area into a hub of activity and
development creating a central place in the Triangle region for business activity. Ultimately,
this action may continue the trend of the urbanization of the state and the loss of green space.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
1. Historic Architecture
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a file search and found no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the project area. SHPO
recommended no survey for historic architectural resources. Based on this recommendation,
no surveys were conducted. See page A-5 in Appendix A for a copy of correspondence from
SHPO.
2. Archaeoloey
According to SHPO, there are no known azchaeological sites within the project area, and
it is unlikely any azchaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. SHPO recommended no survey for
archaeological resources. Based on this recommendation, no surveys were conducted. See
page A-5 in Appendix A for a copy of correspondence from SHPO.
D. Natural Systems
Reseazch was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-
field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps
(Southeast Durham 1973), Natural Resource Conservation Service soils information for Durham
2 Some common traits of sprawl are: l.) unlimited outward expansion and leapfrog development; 2J low-density residential
and commercial settlements; 3.) widespread strip commercial development; 4.) large areas of homogeneous land uses and 5.)
poor acces~ty of related land uses such as housing, jobs, and services like schools and health care.
28

County (USDA 1976) and NCDOT aerial photomosaics (scale 1:200) of the project area. Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the North Cazolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ 2000) and
from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map of Durham County 1995) and Geographic Information Systems database (July 2001).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
federal species of concern and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Ha111999).
General field surveys and wetland investigations were conducted along the proposed project
area by NCDOT biologists on 11 September 2001, and on 3 December 2001. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using
one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars) and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, nests,
tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland detemrinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed
in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and
rated using "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Cazolina" (Division of
Environmental Management, 1995). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed
using guidance provided by N.C. Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)], "Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and
Ponding" (NCDENR-DWQ 1997) and the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (Environmental
Sciences Laboratory, 1999a).
1. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study azea, aze discussed below. Soils and
the availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in
any biotic community.
a. Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies in Durham County, located in the north-central part of
North Cazolina within the Piedmont Physiographic province. The topography within the
project vicinity is characterized as relatively flat with rolling hills. Elevations in the
project azea range from approximately 300 to 400 ft (91 m to 122 m) above mean sea
level (msl). The project area is located to the southeast corner of Durham County in the
Reseazch Triangle Pazk. The city of Durham is the closest municipality within the
project region and is located approximately 4.8. mi (7.7 km) north of the project azea.
b. Soils
Three different soil series, which include 5 sepazate soil phases, aze present within the
project study area. The 5 sepazate soil phases are discussed below in order of their
relative abundance. All mapped soils within the project azea are included in Table 7.
29

Information contained in this subsection was obtained from the Soil Survey of Durham
County (USDA 1976).
White Store sandy loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes consist of nearly level to moderately
steep, moderately well drained soil on side slopes adjacent to major drainageways in
uplands. Permeability is very slow, infiltration is moderate and runoff is rapid. Most of
the soil is well suited for pine and hardwood forests and pasture. The slope and erosion
resulting from runoff, high shrink-swell potential and very slow permeability are the
major concerns in management.
White Store sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes consists of nearly level to moderately
steep, moderately well drained soil on narrow side slopes on uplands. Permeability is
very slow, infiltration is moderate and runoff is rapid. Most of the soil is well suited for
pine and hardwood forests to the use of pasture and row crops. The slope, erosion
resulting from runoff, high shrink-swell potential and very slow permeability are the
major concerns in management.
White Store sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes consists of nearly level to moderately
steep, moderately well drained soil on broad ridges on uplands. Permeability is very slow
and depth to the seasonal high water table is about 1.5 ft. Infiltration is moderate and
runoff is medium. Most of this soil is used for pasture or row crops. Erosion resulting
from runoff, high shrink-swell potential and very slow permeability are the major
concerns in management.
The Cartecay and Chewacla Series consists of about 60 percent Cartecay and 30
percent Chewacla soil. These are somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains. Both
soils are flooded frequently, but for brief periods. Infiltration is moderate and runoff is
slow. These soils are well suited to hardwood and pine stands, row crops and pasture.
Flooding and wetness are the major concerns in management.
Gullied Land, Clayey Materials is so severely eroded and gullied that it cannot be
identified by soil series. In most areas the surface layer is clay, but in some spots it is a
sandy loam. This soil has slow infiltration and rapid runoff. It is best suited to trees.
Table 7. Soils Within the Project Study Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Drainage Hydric
Symbol Map Unit Slope Class Class
WsE White Store sandy 10-25 Moderately Well Non-hydric
loam Drained
WsC White Store sandy 6-10 Moderately Well Non-hydric
loam Drained
WsB White Store sandy 2-6 Moderately Well Non-hydric
loam Drained
Cc Cartecay and 0-2 Poorly drained Hydric Inclusions
Chewacla
Gu Gullied Land, Clayey Non-hydric
Materials
30

c. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the pmject. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize those impacts.
1. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project will impact surface waters of the Cape Fear River Basin,
Hydrolic Unit #03030002, Subbasin 03-06-05. The impacted streams include
Burdens Creek (UT) [index # 16-41-1-17-10-[0/3] and 3 unnamed tributaries (U'1~ to
Burdens Creek (NCDENR-DWQ 2001a).
Burdens Creek is a perennial stream approximately 10.0 ft (3.0 m) wide within
the project area. The substrate within the stream consisted of bedrock, cobble, gravel
and sand. The stream had a slight flow. The channel height is approximately S.D to 6
.Oft (1.5 to 1.8 m).
Stream (LTT) 1 is an intermittent stream approximately 2.0 to 3.0 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m)
wide within the project area. The stream contains primarily shallow riffles
approximately 6 in to 1.0 ft (0.2 to 0.3 m) deep. Substrate within the stream consisted
of gravel, sand and silt.
Stream (UT) 2 is a perennial stream approximately 5.0 to 7.0 ft (1.5 to 2.1 m)
wide within the project azea. The stream's substrate within the project azea consisted
of bedrock, cobble, gravel and sand. The stream had a slight flow. The channel
height is approximately 6.0 ft (1.8 m).
Stream (UT) 3 is an intermittent stream approximately 3.0 ft (0.9 m) wide within
the project azea. The substrate within the project azea consisted of cobble, gravel and
sand. The channel height is approximately 4.0 to 5.0 ft (1.2 to 1.5 m).
2. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Unnamed tributaries have the best usage classification of the named
receiving stream. The classification of Burden's Creek and its tributaries aze "C
NSW '. The "C" classification denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The "NSW"
classification denotes nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supplies (WS-
I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly undeveloped watersheds) occur
within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of project study area.
31

3. Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project
area. Potential impacts to water quality from point and nonpoint sources are
evaluated. Water quality assessments are based upon published resource information
and field study observations.
a. Nonpoint Source Discharge
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater, smowmelt. Many types of land use activities can serve as sources of
nonpoint source pollution including land development, construction, crop
production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, mining, roads
and parking lots (NCDENR-DWQ 1995). Runoff from urban areas is likely to be
the primary sources of water quality degradation to the water resources located
within the pmject vicitity.
In urban areas, high concentrations of impervious surfaces greatly increases
runoff rates and volumes. Stormwater collection systems then transport runoff
waters to receiving stream with little or no filtering by vegetative surfaces.
Pollutants from urban development include: lawn care products, such as,
pesticides and fertilizers; automobile-related pollutants, such as fuel, lubricants
and abraded fire and brake litings;~lawn and household wastes; and fecal coliform
bacteria (from animals and failing septic tanks) (NCDENR-DWQ 1995). The
high velocity and volumes of runoff can also cause increased erosion of stream
channels through physical scouring of stream banks and flood plains.
Riparian buffers adjacent to streams remove nitrogen, phosphorus and other
pollutants from rainwater that flows into the basins' waterways (NCDENR-DWQ
2001b). The Cape Fear River Basin does not require buffers along its streams at this
time.
b. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management
for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment
and planting. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the
implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed
water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites throughout the state.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last
from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be
32

overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have
different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality
conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to
pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the
population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality
conditions.
The closest biological monitoring station is located approximately 1.25 mi
west of the project area, downstream. This biological monitoring station is
located at the crossing of Burdens Creek and SR 1945. This station was last
sampled in April 1986 and received a "fair" bioclassification rating (NCDENR-
DWQ 1999b).
c. Point Source Discharges
Point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters surface waters
through a pipe, ditch or other well defined point. The term commonly refers to
discharges associated with wastewater treatment plant facilities. In addition,
discharges from stormwater collections systems at industrial sites and in large
urban areas are now considered point source discharges" (NCDENR-DWQ 1995).
Pont source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no known permitted
point source dischargers to surface waters within 1.0 mi of the project area.
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of the proposed bridge project will impact water resources. The
estimated linear stream impacts to Burden's Creek and its tributaries are 135 ft
(41.2m). Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed construction limits.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
33

6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction, toxic spills, and increased vehicular use.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the protection of surface
water, water supplies and trout waters must be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the pmject. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those
communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships between fauna and
flora within these communities. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and
present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows National Geographic (1987), Martof et al. (1980), Menhinick
(1991) and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include
the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Spoor evidence equates to observation of the species. Published range distributions and
habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two biotic communities are identified in the project study area: Maintained/Disturbed
Community and Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Community. Community boundaries within
the study area are generally well defined without a significant transition zone between
them. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study area may exploit all
communities for shelter and foraging opportunities, or as movement corridors.
1. Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community consists of road shoulders and commercial
landscapes. These landscapes receive frequent mowing, general maintenance, and
disturbance.
Vegetation associated with the residential landscape include fescue (Festuca sp.),
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion
(Taraxacum o~cinale), Lespedeza sp., foxtail grass (Sertaria italics) and bead grass
(Paspalum sp.)
34

a. Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Community
The Dry Oak-Hickory community has been greatly disturbed overtime within
the project area. Canopy species include white oak (Quercus albs), southern red
oak (Quercus falcate), loblolly pine (Pines feeds), sweetgum (Liquidambaz
styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory species include hickory
(Carya sp.), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), white oak, red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), sweetgum, southern red oak, red maple, sourwood (Oxydendnim
azboreum), American beech (Pages grandifolia). Woody vines include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grapevine (Vitus rotundifolia) and greenbrier
(Smilax sp.). Herbaceous species aze very spazse and include Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides).
b. Aquatic Communities
Several aquatic communities of Burden's Creek will be potentially impacted by the
proposed project. Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water
resource influence faunal composition of aquatic communities.
3. Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities discussed. Generally, commutity boundaries are abrupt, with little
transitional area between them. Forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for species
requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement corridors for other
species of wildlife within the project vicinity.
a. Terrestrial Fauna
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project azea include:
raccoon* (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus) and eastern
cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus).
The project azea provides excellent foraging and shelter for a variety of avian species,
such as.the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Cazolina chickadee* (Poecile
carolinensis), Cazolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), European stazling (Sturnus
vulgaris), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor)
and American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (National Geographic 1987).
Reptiles and amphibians that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities
within the project area include rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), American toad (Bufo
americanus) and eastern box turtle* (Terrapene Carolina) (Martof et al. 1980).
35

b. Aquatic fauna
Aquatic fauna present within the project area depend on physical characteristics of the
water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent
to a water resource greatly influence aquatic communities. Fauna associated with the
aquatic communities include various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Representative species of fish that may be found in the project area streams include
bluegill (Lepomis macroshirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), highfin shiner
(Notropis altipinnis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) (Menhinick 1991).
The streams in the project are provide habitat for a variety reptiles and amphibians.
Species which may be present in this creek within the project area include the marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus),
two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), northern
water snake* (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), green frog (Rana clamitans) and bullfrog*
(Rana catesbeiana) (Martof et al. 1980).
Invertebrates that would likely be present include: crayfish (Cambaridae); nymphal
and larval stages of dragonflies (Odonata), caddisflies (Trichoptera), horseflies
(Tabanidae) and snails (Gastropoda). '
c. Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflects the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities resulting from project construction.. The estimated
impact to the Maintained/Disturbed Community are 10.4 acres (ac) (4.2 hectacres (ha)).
Estimated impacts to the Dry Oak-Hickory Forest are 9.8 ac (4.0 ha). Usually, project
construction does not require the use of the entire ROW or study area width, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
36

Table 8. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities [ac (ha)]
Community Impacts
Ac (ha)
Maintained/Disturbed 10.4 (4.2)
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest 9.8 (4.0)
Total 20.2 (8Z)
Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Project construction will reduce habitat for faunal
species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this
project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some
wildlife fitrther from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more
early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will
repopulate areas suitable for the species.
d. Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related
work would effect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts
may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result
in long term or irreversible effects.
Alterations in the aquatic community will result from the installation of bridges, box
culverts and pipes as well as the extension of culverts and/or pipe. Impacts often
associated with in-stream constntction include increased channelization of water and
scouring of stream channels. Water movement through these structures becomes
concentrated and direct thereby, increasing the flow velocity. Scouring zones at pipe
outflows will likely result from channelization.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and
produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms
(sessile filter-feeders and deposit- feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic
organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are
slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the stream bank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
37

more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) promulgated the definition of "Waters
of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most
interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33
CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similaz areas.
Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into waters of the United
States falls under the jurisdiction of the USAGE, and must follow the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used
where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics
must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. Two wetlands are located
within the project azea. One wetland is located at the western end of the project along
UT 1. This small wetland has hydrophytic vegetation of silky dogwood (Corpus
amomum) and sedges (Carex sp.). The soil is a clay loam, saturated to the surface
and has a Munsell color notation of l OYR 4/2 with few and faint mottles of l OYR
4/4. Another small wetland is located at the eastern end of the project near UT 2.
This soil is a sandy loam and is saturated within the upper 12 inches. Vegetation
associated with this wetland are sweetgum, red maple and Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides).
Jurisdictional surface waters present within the project azea include Burdens
Creek and three UT's to Burdens Creek.
2. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to surface waters were derived from aerial photographs of the
project azea, onto which surface water locations were mapped in the field. The
proposed construction width and length were used in the calculations. Estimated
lineaz surface water impacts from the project aze listed in Table 9. Total stream
impacts are 135ft (41.2m).
38

Table 9. Impacts to Surface Waters
Stream Impacts
linear feet (meters)
Burden's Creek ~ 15(4.6)
uT 1 r o(o)
L)'I' 2 ~ 90(27.4)
UT 3 30(9.1))
Total 13Stt(41.2m)
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using the Global Positioning
System (GPS). Estimated nnpacts to wetlands were calculated using GPS and the
proposed construction width and length. No impacts to wetlands on this project are
anticipated.
3. Permits
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project
construction is inevitable. Factors which determine a Section 404 Nationwide Permit
(NWP) applicability include: hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource;
whether the impacts occur as part of the widening of an existing facility, or as the
result of new location construction. Although a discreet site may qualify under NWP
authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may
require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP). A North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required
prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) is required prior to the issuance of the section 404 permit.
Section 401 Certifications allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulations. It is anticipated that a NWP
14, and a Section 401 Certification will be required for the proposed project. A NWP
No. 33 may be required if temporary construction such as cofferdams, access and
dewatering, are required for this project.
4. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands"
and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts,
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
a. Avoidance
39

Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Encroachment into
jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction is
inevitable in order to achieve the purpose and need of the project.
b. Minimuzation
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of
the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed azeas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
c. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts
to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recogtized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken
in azeas adjacent to or contiguous to the dischazge site.
b. Raze and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified asfederally-protected, be subject
to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under sepazate
state laws.
40

1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (I'),
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. As of 31 May 2002, the USFWS lists the following federally-protected
species for Durham County (Table 10). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 10. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Echinacea lc~viSata Smooth coneflower E
tlali~etr~s leucocePlurlus Bald le T
Rhos nrichmaii Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"r" denotes Ttueaoened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the finseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its tange).
'T(S/A)" denotes Threatetred due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due
to similadty of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection). The species aro not biologically endangered
or tlueaterred and aro not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dazk-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their
flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a cleaz flight path to the
water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season
for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles.
Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No large trees or large bodies of water aze present within the project area to provide suitable
habitat for the bald eagle. The surrounding azea is highly developed. Therefore, this project will
have "no effect" on this species. Also, a search of the NCNHP database 29 August 2001 found no
occurrence of this species within the project vicinity.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991 PE
Flowers Present: June -early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched rhizomes. This herb
has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and these leaves are smooth to
slightly rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short
or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and
41

solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-
angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar
barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of--way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually
grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are found in
soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with
abundant sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Some habitat exists on the project site for smooth coneflower along roadsides. Prior to conducting
surveys on the project site, a known population of this species was visited in Durham County. A
plant by plant survey revealed no species found. A search of the NCNHP database on June 21,
2002 found no occurrence of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, this project will
have "no effect" on the smooth coneflower.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded
and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, aze a red
densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils
and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get
full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Some habitat exists on the project site for Michaux's sumac along roadsides and edges of fields
and woodlands. A plant by plant survey revealed no species found. A seazch of the NCNHP
database on June 21, 2002 found no occurrence of this species within the project vicinity.
Therefore, this project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac.
2. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There aze 11 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Durham County as of 26
February 2001. Federal Species of Concern aze not afforded federal protection under
the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of
Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for
listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened.
42

Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, Significantly Rare, or Special
Concern by the NCNHP list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 11 lists Federal Species of Concern, species state status, and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. As of a 29 January 2003 review of the NCNHP database of
the rare species and unique habitats revealyd no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 11. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County.
Scientiiic Name Common name NC Status Habitat
Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur E No
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina darter SC No
Fusconaur masons Atlantic pigtoe T(PE) No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR No
Juglons cinerea butternut WS No
Lampsilis carioca yellow lampmussel T(PE) No
Lasmigona subvirtdus Green floater E No
Lythrurus matutimrs pinewoods shiner SR No
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap C Yes
Plagiochila Columbiana a liverwort W2 No
Noturus furiosus "Neese" tnadtom SC Yes
Somotogynrs virginicus panhandle pebblesnail SR No
"E"-M Endangered species is one whose continued existence as s viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T'-A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant•portion of its range.
"SC"-A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under rogulations adopted
under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statures (anhnals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act
(plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Conam pbtnts that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"-A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially
reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or diseaK. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in
North Cwlina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
'"SR"-A Significantly Rerc species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhero
in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina
43

°W2"-A Watch Category 2 species is a species rare to uncommon, but probably not in trouble.
"W3"-A Watch Category 3 species is a species that is poorly known; perhaps needs listing in upcoming years.
"W 5"-A W etch Category 5 species is a species with incna~ing amounts of threats to its habitat; populations msy or mey not be known to
be declining.
"•"-Historic record (last observed in the county more than SO yews ago).
"'•"-Olucw~e record (the date and/or location of observation is unxrtain).
(Amoroso, 1997;1Je(irand, 1997)
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project to detemune the
potential for underground storage tank (UST) and hazardous materials involvement. In addition
to a field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify
any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. The Geotechnical Unit found
one UST site within the project area. The site, Triangle BP, owned by M.M. Fowler, Inc., is
located in the northwest quadrant at the intersection of S. Miami Boulevard and NC 54. This
facility is an active gas station with three 4,000 gallon UST's in operation. Six former UST's
were removed before the current UST system was put into service in 1993. Soil and
groundwater contamination was discovered during the UST removal. A combination system of
pump and treat, air sparging and soil vapor extraction has been put in place to clean up the
contamination for years.
Based on the preliminary project plan, the current UST system is located outside the
proposed right of way. Eleven monitoring and recovering wells are located within the existing or
proposend right of way. These wells will be abandoned before the project construction begins.
The abandoned wells may be replaced, if necessary, after the project construction is complete.
Based on the field reconnaissance and a review of the Geographical Information Service
(GIS) map, no Superfund sites were identified in the project study area. Also, no regulated or
unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should be no environmental
liability concerns for this project. However, unregistered UST's and unknown landfills may be
encountered by Right of Way during their initial contacts with the impacted properties. The
NCDOT Geotechnical Unit should be notified of their presence prior to acquisition so that the
actual condition of the properties can be examined. If a site with unregulated UST or landfill is
identified by right of way, a `Preliminary Site Assessment' (PSA) should be performed prior to
right of way acquisition to determine the extent of any contamination.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis
This project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and cazbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment azea
for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these azeas 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 conform
44

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
2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP~nd the 2000-2008 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Pmgram (MTIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The
USDOT air quality conformity of the LRTP was February 29, 2000 and the USDOT air quality
conformity on the MTIP was October 1, 2001. The current conformity determination is
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There has been no
significant changes in the project's design concept or scope as used in the conformity analyses.
For the year of 2025, the maximum distances to the 72-dBA and 67-d.BA noise level contours
are located within the right-of--way. Hence, only one noise impact was identified, which is a
recreational area. No receptors are expected to experience a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels per NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy.
An air quality intersection analysis was conducted for this project utilizing the MOBILESA
mobile source emissions computer model and "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology for
Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections". 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 neaz vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor
location. The background concentration is defined as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point
that is the result of emissions outside the locatl 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 of 1.8 ppm was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Air Quality. Once the two concentration
components were ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for the area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standazds (NAAQS). The predicted 1-hour CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of
2005, 2010, and 2025 are 6.8, 7.1, 7.6 ppm respectively. 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 for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that
the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standazd. See tables AI through A3 in Appendix D for
input and output data. Hence, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
significant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports aze necessary.
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
45

The drainage area of the unnamed tributary to Burdens Creek at the proposed crossing is 0.25
square miles. Durham County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The crossing of the tributary is located in a designated flood hazard zone. Figure 6 is
a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Durham County on which the limits of the 500-year
flood boundary is delineated in the vicinity of the project. No buildings were observed on the
100-year floodplain within the project vicinity during the field visit. The existing flood plain is
primarily comprised of wooded areas along the stream. Erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control methods. A portion of the project, located south of the Southern Railroad,
is in the Neusc River Basin. Riparian Area Rules may be applicable to drainage located in this
Basin. North of the Southern Railroad, the remainder of the project is located in the Cape Fear
River Basin. This basin has not adopted Riparian Area Rules at this time, and therefore will not
apply to this part of the project. This project will not have an adverse impact on the existing
floodplain. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the existing floodplain.
H. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge or land from historic
resources of national, state, or local significance may be used for Federal-Aid projects only if
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land.
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to.
4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The project will not use property from any resource protected by Section 4(f).
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On August 23, 2001, a citizen's informational workshop was held in Durham County at
the Sheraton Imperial Hotel and Convention Center (see Appendix C for a copy of the Notice of
a Citizens Informational Workshop). This workshop was held in order to obtain comments and
suggestions about the project from the public.
During the workshop, the North Carolina Department of Transportation displayed an
aerial photograph of the project area and vicinity maps showing the proposed project. In
addition, the NCDOT supplied each participant with an information packet contaiting general
project information, a vicinity map, and a comment sheet. A copy of this packet is included in
Appendix C. Each participant had the opportunity to review the aerial photograph and maps, and
ask questions or give comments.
Comments received from those in attendance at the Citizen's Informational Workshop
mostly pertained to questions related to the proposed bicycle improvements. Overall, the project
was seen as a needed improvement, and comments from the public and local businesses were
supportive of this project.
46

FIGURES

svgs
0 o.zs o.s o.~s i
0 o.s ~ i.s
~utoMtteRs
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
.."; OP TRANSPORTATION
j DMSION Of HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
~, ,,, •' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.)
Durham County, State Project 8.1352701
TIP Project No. R-2904
FIGURE 1

.,

~ ~. ~ ._ y. i ..i :~ ~ul ..r4 _ . ...-.)M~ k-L l :w;:::lk.,..c,,.,li 4!~.c,LL n. f.+.t kF .P: iSd., ~L. ,.vs~ ,i A.e6F.ut:'i1 .~,Y e<4 w.x,:-.. ,.9 .... ~.',^~I
` '~ ' ~~`!;~~ ~~~pn
~ ~, "!~ ,~ '~'-'~4i
~ k
v.~ ~, °'..'.
y~)
N.
'~
;;
~ ! #t
~' ~~
'~ ~~ ~ `;f
5 ,
k ..~ ~~ 1
~' :. ~ ~ i ~ ~ .~~~; r
"~ _ ~~
~ ~ ~ R~
t
~{ r LG'„

t:
~ ~~`~ ~ a1
F

~:
e~
~;~

1
~~
d~
~
'~

~ n 7{
I i
~~
m
.~. ,
t
T. ~ f~

~' _ .. ,LtA ~vt

~.~~~~'I .nom m, x"li,~lt 4 rrrr m ~ F F
v ~ ~ Ei ~.'.,~F, ~ d.ra~;;'l/v. 6 ~ Id~~t )y $Y"`~ ~ ~„ w ~ £~ fi, S~ ~i

Y ~ V 1 a
~ ~r• Yt .x ~,~: , aa, a'~ F«. ~~ ~ ~ r ~} ~'~
k' ~~ t~e. ~ a
y+r.,y~ i ~t .~ ~..'p
Y E g e.
~R ~ i ~1.+ ~ 1 . ~ k i ~ ~R I y( F,
ft I I~~ ~ ~ ~~~ d
~. ~ t ~
~ ~1 ~ ~ ~~7401rv~' ~3-: ~
( '
f '~, ,~ ~~gL'4 '~~ , F
y7~ [yy ~. J 5, >F
l ~Y°t ~ $~~ ; 3I
2~ ~ ~ ~ i
J
~s cg ~¢ [.
~ Y
'~~ ~ ~ s 8
(F ~
~~; ~, ~ I~. ~ °,~,i~r
~ ~
4 ~~ ~t ~ ~.
YKO ... 3 A~~ ,} tf ~ 1 t
+J le ~~~ Y f tYr .. YY Y~_. =a f I,. o~
l
II j
~ ~ `~
~a, pA ~ ~'A ~ ,.~. r ! ~,~~ " r
r y
'"'ee f~ ~~ # $ d„ ~, , ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I ~I
~'.i. P $~ t ~ i~~~ t ,..i ~/. i.'r t ,F ifl.
~a b r ~ ~' ~ s7k.,~~ q P ~,~ ~t'k >.
~ ! .~ IT a p~~ ,q 7 F w ~ I ,.~ '~J 3
z $ ~~ y
t ~ a ay#,,
~ 417 ~ ~ a ( 4~n tt ~y~ u~i
~Ik~t~s ~~, `_ t ~4tr` I
'~ ~ "40'5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ a~ I S(
~: r ," , ~ fit;' I
t~ , - ~
xr' I~ ° ? Ffy.
~r.~'%~ ' f F ~ I y I~~+ ~ 3 ~ F.j r~
. ~s
. }, .
< a ~,
9 .I ;
t
-pi
<` i ,,
.~~. ~~
~ ~~ ~j ~~ ~~ 0~~,
t.. I 3 aF`:.
b ~
sz ~ i
% ~ !:t'. r~ t ~, ~y'.. to d, i #`
# a ~1~=~
~i
~ F r~ . ~ w ,'i~ 1 !.i ~' ~F~~l
=t _ ..,~ s :fir F~ r < _ ~ ~,
~~~~
~_~~'~ ,~ ~ I I
~~ I ~ 3;=
w ~~~ ,~:
n '~. 1 ~ I
F t ~I
'+i~ ~L,~
~ c ~
kP~? d gy~ 4
,. ~t~ ~, ~
~T~ ~ # 1 ~~

~.,. ~
f ~
! k j Y

I 3
~ 1.
f '~ )
'

~
~ y
~ } ~~
~~ ~ ~
~
~
f
~fi. f
a
~ ; ~
~
'
~
,~
~
y ~; ~~ ~,
,
t
yy. x ~.
~
i`'V
t~ ~ J
f a
~• .h
r
,~ '"~~ ~
',
~ h }~~~ ~ ~'t'~ ~
~~
i
t: yXx
, ~ ~'~
~
~t
.
~
44y .'~ ~ .,
4 ~ r F ~
>r~>
~l~ ~'
~
i
~. r ~}
a
;i ~~~~
~
o-
3.
;~ d _`
°
&
,
"G ~ <~

~ 3
,F '% `~F
~
'
~ ~, r
~& ~ ~'
,
Y'
E~~~L g,
f4
~•
t
41
g
~a i.
9 x
~.
~4
~,;
,
~t° A z t~
C) ~~ rte' ~,
~ : , .
a
" `
rt
}~
*
i
~ ~
w., _~f._. ^,~ _._.
<v

~
w j:<
4 ~
tl7 'y}L
~ ~
~ • °~'

~M ~ ~
~~
f 7 tt!
~-~
... ~
~ ~ ~
~j ~~ ~ ~
0.
;..
~'
Fq q ~ ~ ~
.
~~~
iii

~
F ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I
rt ~"
~, Fn

~' ruzl ~xz s~~~%'_ "~
.. ~.
F ~• `,' r
,...~ -' i~.-' F` ij
~ ¢ g
°
PP
~. - ~ ~ ~ ~a"r4 ~
;.. .~ ~ ~~
~- i- r * ~°a ~ ~ ,~ ~~
e
~~ ~a4 sP ~ ° ~ [ 'i j
a :- ~ ~ .. ~ •..~
° ~, to uqqt u t
r, tlp ~ ~ + °~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~}
pp ~ ~ ~ r, ~ r
:, i i z i ~ ~ L v, II
"Qi !`~~ /: F -~k` ~ < ,Y u~' ~1V~ ,. F Y ~ k.;`i17Pb41A h~~q~ E ~[ r )
&. ~' cS 9~/ ~ '~ ~ ri "/~ ~ 6E ~~~~ ~ ~ + ~. s ,gyp ~P ~-~~
/// j'8M ~
Sr~ l~y ~\, •+ ~ i ~ n,~,i~ i. ~,9 gp ~ iktj;,' F I{{, `~. _ ~, } '~ ,~ i i ~
~ ~ ~ .~ _ ° ~~~~ f
Z '~ ~
r`
a~^
_ ~~~"""
x { s~ 9~ ~ ~ _ it . ~ L .~
°r' F ~ ~ i$< ~ ~;° ' ~ ~~
p:
~» ~ ~~
~' 3 ~ ~ r
+ ~.~ ~''~
~ ~ Q,) ~ _ ~~,~s`3 ~ _ ~,}~4; ~ ~ ~~~,~ v ~ i o
~~ ~`~ i ail l#l , ~~ ,' ;~', ~" ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~' ~ ~ ,
~~~ {4' f #a5~ F '+'' ~'' ''~ t
,J, ~ .~i t , ~'~
f~,. ~ ~ 'hX E,i~~`y,,,~~~ •s . ^~r9~~ ~~ tt,z; xF~' ,. ~+1 < 9'ixNy ° ~ ~, i ~ ~,
~'~ r ~ r ~,~. i
S.' 1" ~ ~.
•. ~
} fit" ~ 4°A e ~ P ~ ~ ,~ r3 i ,- ,~.~'~~ t ~ T~ 1 ~ ~ , •~~ ~ ,i
~ qq ( j -may
°.
y
r .„ a, z
;4~ &- c i
~;
r
r
°i ~ ~ ~. -
' ~ a~
~_
n ~ rI
f,.d 3Fv ~ ~tif.[f' °ki"""a 9 3' fit. ~ ~ '(
,~ a ~ $ ~.()., .- ~'~`
k` .t - ~ ~~ ~, ~~' ~ ~p ~. ~~' W
C7 C~ ~ ir, ~ ;
~.
I y
C~ .. ' u~ ~ i 0 ~ . ~d ` ~ is ~ ~ • t`~11 1~~ -~ ~: ,,3
.,
v ~
Y ~,.
+
r~' n e i ~^ ~ "7z
c~ ~ ~ f! ds y ~'~~i ~ ti~if /~``y. ~ ~~ jF6 f~ 'i~r~,..
~ e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ i?~ t
., .. _ ~. ~
i ~~+, d, ~ - Nor ~ ~ ~3of7 ~ zr i'~~1 ~~" a ~ ~~ n~~, ~ i.n
t,. ! a
~ ~~hr sa ,aA ~ ~ ii ~, ~y ~
~~
is
.. + i:E~ ..,~
t ~~A ~'. ' ~ ~'~" ~ +
r
:,.
9 A~~'
A9t ~,+ p 9. C {~ A
a ~ ~yy ~,j;yy~y,w ~, ~ r ~,, z r z ~ ~ iyqq~
F ~ ~ TM~Y' T,= e< d ~~, ~(~ 1 7~,4R I' T
'~ W. ~'Y ~ ~~ '.ra .~ a `~,~4'° _ ~• _ t I°~ mC',R °
.4 _ .{t. L u v z ~ ~~ ~ _ k '~~.y~1 ~d~ K °~ ,~P~,~1r~, ha ~ E it
+
-. a ~ ~ ~ l 1
4'"r~ + pQ"ri
' ~ ~ ., ry+
.a"°" +
YY'' , J,~ ~ U}qR~~ 3'
~ `,
~ f ~ ~w,, _
~ ~`~ ~ '~ ~ ~ iii ~' ' `'~M C .}" )
~,. ri; r i v r;~, r ~~~ i 7 ~ 4
t~
~ ~'~'.: a r- a ~'~, ~ .. ~.r ~~ ye~ ~', ~` } ~; E ~-) V(`7 f/`-W7~,
n
~ t ~_ I ~ r ,i~ ~ # ~ Z
r 44
o, f~ ~ ~~. ~ i_Y ~ ~' ~ i ~~ S ~ '~,t ~ib ~ ~.~ a
~~ i ~~ a ra ° ~ pl i M ;i I h ' ~ ~l.l ~.~ ~~
'o., i
~i8 ~` Pis ~ ~.~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~" ~ ° ~ ) N
w r a. ' ~ y ; ~ ~ ~' t 5~ t C7~ X
ti ° ~ ~ L~_
r,,,
,~u' y y
r fi ? }. ~ E "
,...- ,, . i ai 9~
S ~
q
,. ,.
2
,,
~ ~
of
~ ~ ~ M
tir " ~ ~
' k ~ ~~ t i "~' r ,ti
-; . , ~
y ,.. ~ g , -,c .. ~~. e.4Fp ~. - _ - r, try _A' r ;d ~,.
~l k,- ~ ~, ~' i w;,v R ~i 4 ~ ~~ s~~9
~
' gig.,
r +~i :L
~~~~A~
i 4 ~ ~
{
~
~r
~ t fl-{~'~f
,°~ 'Y;
~ `°
3
.;i +r~
.'~ ''~ -b
~. 'ty"'~ '~,,
_, ~ 'fiF
~ ' ,

4
k
r
1
i
~+

® °'
o ~

~ Lt.,

~, ~ C+~ ~
~' ~`y ~ ~
[~ ~
! ~
•U h
~q, a ~ ae N
•-- ~ ~° ~
~ .~^
i r•
r~~ ~ ~ ik

.,p~..a ~ ~ ~ ~ to
~ k.7
\''~ ~
~
y ~'Y
~~. ~ ~A ~~~ {~ iY Q
~- ~
(,.? ~., 6~
P~1 ti
l
~

rs,
ca
m
,_ v- ch
N1 +~C7 (V
i
~,. ' -)
~ ~
~-- ~ y
~~~£~
C*~ c~ ~tti
O
t`
tYd , 09 cn ~-
~'~ nth
'" \''~1
'F
r- r' ~ / `-
(`~-
pp O
n
~. ~
~~.-
0 0
~ o ~
cp '~
4'' ~ ~ N
"~ ~~
.,
~~
~ r f6 f ~/
~n ~ ~1 c'1
:~
~~ f~l
c
c~.i

0
0

\..~

~
~
6
g
~~~~
~
~ ~~
~
~
4 ~
~~
~
~ ~
~~n~~ ~

E3

1w/'
r4
~.
// ~
!"'
^~
~ yr ~`~ z ( £--------ice {)~
~tlcl
N
C`7
h-
t'7
G+'] ~Y
Lf)
~--
O
r^.
("., ~~.,
P+ ~•
M
~'
KL, ~~
C3? ~
C7
h.,,
~`~ ~
'ef' ~
~'
tS5 1
~ ~
1~ Q.9
ua ~~, Ot
~.n

.~,

4,.ar
~,
(!i 1

E g'"w.ti '~
r: s~~

~ 3 ' ~
£ mow,
€

333 j
If
'~ ~ !~
+~'.
4,
i
?

~
r`~.
.trey
M
~

~

$..0..m ((jj~
~
1 Ph
a°'d Q~
~ ~
~ ~f

'fi't
rx
~ O
~4~~ ~~
~q~~ ~

Kc~aa~~ ~
W
,~`

~'

~.~
~~i
I~~
,~~
I'
'~ °~
~a
^1
_.
r
~?;
.. by
l~
1NR)o' 39X7, H ~~, I '
lb '~
i
i

w itf
o
p ~ ~~ ~
~" I~
:~=.
v I ~
~ ~

_ --
~ I ~, 'Z3
.~
~
~ ~
~Q ~ ~
~
~ o'
s

V u
~ ~
• ~ ( ° -c

S
h' ( Ci
a~
© ~I ~w ~N
w
© (

( ; ~

/~~
\
`
f $
4 ~
'//
~/
Ibis L to

R
d
~`
N ~
~~
m-cs
>~
•~ O
~~~
a~
~~
~o
O

~.
;::
4
~_.
i~
n.
C
O
a
u
O
J
C]
/p
ro

v
a
-cs
~ ~
v
m
C

6..
a 'D
O ~
. y
•`~
~a
~~
o~
,...o
~~
0
.r-
N
Q
r
..
U I
irk
~.)
S.tnJ HOd
1NlOd 3`JNIH
w

9~i ~ra~pac~ .Assesscnes~t ~ra.~
,~
,.--~
4'.- ~"
C3
~~~ _ ~~ ~
~.
,~, ~
~ 3.
~ ' i o ~ Milton Dr
,,, "..e ~ Cx-
w
• °~
O '~,,
® ~ .p,
~~`~_ . Q
s 3 ~. , ~
~ i a
~ `y
~ ~
g~rden reek
o '-
' ~'` . 1 a- ptd pa9~ R e
~. s
U+ ~ 4 5. t
P ~ ~, ~ 9 ~
a ~ ~ , ~ S/al~r
o ` ~ E Rey
Hopson Rd `-° ~
. ~ ~
• . cn ® •
Pa~~ ~~
o,~,
~~~
~'
N
2000 0 2000 Feet
T.t.P. Project No. R-2804 ~
~ Corridor
1 - Nortei Networks 5 _
6 - _
proposedTTA Regional Rail Station
Cedar Fork Baptist Church r R _ ~~ Impact Assessment Area
2 -Becton pickinsonTechnologies 7 - TTa tmices -------- Roads
3 - 8A5F g _ Nortei Athletic Field Rivers(5treams
4 -Proposed Triangle Matro Center 9 - Creekstone Shopping Center C~ Durham Corporate Limits
Figure 5

/ / ~ f
e
~ ~ f iii; ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ..
(~i ~; ~ v-
~ s ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ `~:
~,r~c.
~ ~
~ ' ,~ ~,`
T
>C `fit,
t
' N
O
X
1~r''.:y
~~,
~\
"~
SpUIyFgN ~ ' O
~wqr BUR
~yqM
cif of c~U~~
~~R
y'~M
- -
a ~
~o ~ ~

,. -,~d
°. ~.
~C
w
O ~'

O
~ ~
ry

A~

0
I
m \

x
N
(!q ~
~~ K
b
O
n
'+
SOUTyEgN
gNLWAY
"~-
N ~
///1
h
`~O
^^D Z' x n
n~
n
~r
f
s
~`' n-~
~_
N
O
Z
m
x
~~~ ..
..- _
JOINS PANEL 0189
~~ ~
3• -~ :. a x

APPENDIX A

• ~~).
United States Department of the Interior ~~G 61~~
,,,
A
A
~ ~ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
• Raleigh Field Ofrice
• Post OfFce Boz 33726 A~ ~ ~
~ N -~ ' Raleigh. Noah Carolina 27636.3726 ,r ~
-1
August 15, 2001 r~~~ ~,^ ~';~~ ~~~,~
• 1
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager '' Tti; ,.~:.; n~~s~
NCDOT _
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch i;'~ ~ ' 6
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazolira 27699-1548
IJCar iV11. U1lIIlOCC:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard), and SR 1973 (Page Road), from NC 54 to 1-40 in Durham County, North Cazolina
(TIP No. R-2904). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for
use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 54 from
SR 1999 to SR 1959 and to replace the Southern Railroad Bridge. The proposed improvements
to SR 1973 from NC 54 to I-40 will be made under a separate TIP number, U-3853. The North
Cazolina Railroad will design and build all railroad related improvements associated with this
project. NCDOT will only be responsible for the widening of the highway. Therefore, the
actual widening limits of R-2904 aze from SR 1999 to SR 1959, a distance of 0.8 mile. The
following recommendations aze provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service, recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and mitimization of impacts, we recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility
corridors, or previously developed azeas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems
should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is
not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without
scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and
median widths should be reduced through wetland azeas. Roadway embankments and fill azeas
A-1

should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever
appropriate.; construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory
bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Southeast Durham 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
indicates there aze wetland and stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the
NWI maps aze useful for providing an overview of a given azea, they should not be relied upon
in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur eazly in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for
this project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the
action:
1. A cleazly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabulaz data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being
considered, including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be
' impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact
should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by
using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
A-2

Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts aze proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that aze known to occur in Durham County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's aze.those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological reseazch and field study aze needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. The North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
,;
~=~% ? ~.
Dr. Gazland B. Pazdue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/10/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-2904.tip
A-3

COMMON NAIriE SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DAME COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Holler's trefoil Lotus lielleri FSC*
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
DUPLIN COUNTY
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)*
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
DURHAM COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Green floater,,, Lasrnigona subviridus FSC
Panhandle pebblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Plagioehila Columbiana FSC
January 1 S, 1999 Page 17 of 49
A-4

.~" ; ,
r
_ d~, ,
a,,,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources '' `'~~°~ ~ ~: ~'`~•'L~~
1;:, ..~ ~, .,. 5~
4fw _._~.....
State Historic Preservation Office ~'
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. ~-ans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
- April 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: David Brook ~.~.~i C~ 1~~~"
~)
Re: Scoping for NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Dr) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd),
Durham County, R-2904, ERO1-9127
Thank you for your memorandum of March 20, 2001, concerning the above project. No
one from our staff will be able at attend the May 7, 2001, meeting. Thus, we wish to provide
our comments in writing and advance. We have checked our maps and files and determined
that there are no properties of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance in the
project' area of potential effect and we do not recommend any surveys of the area.
The above comments are offered in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Aa and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations at 36 CFR
800. Please contaa Renee Gledhill-Earley, if you have any questions. Thank you.
l.~eatiow MdIM~g A~Itaa
ADMINISTRATION S07 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Caner. Raleigh NC 27699.4617
RE.41'ORATION S 1 S N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Caner. Raleigh NC 27699613
StrRVEY Ii PLANNING SIS N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699618
A-5
Tek~Monu/Fax
(919)733rt763 •733-8653
(919) 733347 •713-4801
[phone] •715.4801

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
.~+ly~ ~ STATE NUI~IDER: 01-E-4220-0778 F02
,1 JUN 7 20u1 DATE RECEIVED: 06/06/2001
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/17/2001
N~STCR.ICM~S@i1/ATIOIVGFFlCE REVIEW CLOSED: 07/22/2001
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD ~~` Qtr ~p~-qla~ ~ ~•(g~
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 9617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
TRIANGLE J COG
FtiOJECT INFORMATION
APPLICAD]T: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD; Scoping
DESC: Proposed Improvements to NC 59 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)•to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.)
and SR 1973 (Page Rd.) from NC 54 to I-90 in Durham County; TIP $R-2904
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: -
DATE: ~ Olaf
A-6
~~ ~
r~D

JUL 5 2001
Q.I.C. STArE CLEARfNGNO;J:}
JUN 1 1 2001

r `~ 1`/ ''`
•
.~ w'.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. S e1
July 24, 2001 ~E C ~ VSO
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation ~
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch 3 ~ ~,,~'~' m.~ ~ 3p 2001
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC ~U'•_ ~~~
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 ~o F„_ -+~ ,~ ~'
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-0778; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis
Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) and SR 1973 (Page Rd.) from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham
County; TIP #R-2904 -
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~?~,~ ~-~
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
M Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Amon Employer
A-7

North Carolina .
Department of Environment and Natural Resources • ~ "
r
11Zichael F. Easley, Governor '~ ~
William G. Ross Jr., Saretary NCDENR
>!9E~lORANDIIM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROK: Melba llcfiee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SOSJECT: 01-E-0778 Scopinq, i~lidening of NC 54, Durham County
DATE: July 18, 2001
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Y
Attachments
_. v

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 1 Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFIItMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 5096 RECYCLED / 1096 POST CONSUMERPAPER
A-8

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources +~ • ' '
Division of Water Quality
.eta .~~
Michael F. Easley, Governor ~~~~~~
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Henness ~'
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959
(Miami Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Page Road) from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham County, Federal
Alit Project No. STP-54(2), State Project No. 8.1352701, TIP R-2904, DENR No. O1E-0778.
Reference your correspondence dated June 5, 2001 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Northeast
Creek (Class C NSW waters, DWQ index No. 16-41-1-17 (0.3)) located in the Cape Fear River Basin is
possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
pruposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. .There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigntion plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters. or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) pr Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper
A-9

S1r. William D. Gilmore memo
07/09/01
Page 2
D• When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for Genera1401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, theDWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the strcam.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible. alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 1501inear feet.
H. Borrowhvaste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert,
it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)},mitigetion will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)},the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
' discharge directly into the creek. Instead. stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
File Copy
C:\ncdot\TlP R-2904\commentsUt-2904 scoping comments.doc
A-10

NCWRC.HCp.FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jul 16'01 14:21 No .002 P.03
.s ~ North C;aroli W~dlif:Resources Comrnissi~n r~
Clurles R Full~t-ood, F.~:acativc Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: Melba McGcc
Office of Legislative and InterEovernmental Affiirc, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C or
Habitat Conarrvation Program -
DATE: July i 6, 2001
SUl3J ECT: Request for information ~otn the N. C. laepartment of Transportation
(NCDOT) tt~ fish sad wildtifo cotf~orna for the NC 54 widening,
from SR 1999 (Davie Drive} to SR 1959 (Miuni Boulevard), Durhnrn
County, North Carolina. 'tTP No. R-2904, SCH Project No. Ol -E-0778.
This numorandum naponds to n request trvm Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT For our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject pproject. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Comtntsa~on
(NCWRC) have reviewed the ~ropoaod improvancnts. Our aommants are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Lnvirot3mCtltal Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2xc)) and the Fish and WildlifC Coordination Act (46 Stat. 401. as amended; l 6
U.g:C. 661-667d).
We have no specific cone regarding this project. However. to help facilitate
document preparntion and the review process, our Several informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlith trocources within the project arcs,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern tpeciee. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be inch~ded in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be d~vsloped through oonntltation with:
The Natural Heritage Ptvgram
N. C. Divlaon of Parka and Recreation
161 S Mail S~vitx Center
Raloi~h, N. C. 27699-161 S
(919) 733-T79S
• MailiaK Address: Uivi~iun of i~tLind FisherieR ~ 1721 Mul Servitc Ceittcr • Ralci~lt. NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] c. a_~, • Fa:: [phone]

_ _ _ ...,.. . ~ n~_.. ~.nnL i GL. • 71 y-~LtS-`J13J7 Jul 16 ' O1 14 :21 No .002 P .04 _'
Memo 2 ]uly 16, 2001
and,
NCDA Plant Conaavasion Ptop~am
P. Q. Holt 27647
1'tal ' N. C. 27611
(919 733=3610
2. Description of nay atroatna or wetland: affected by the project, Tho nod for
channaliziag or relocating portion of:t:+pants Ctnased and tho extent of
such activities.
3. Covor typo maps ahowing watLad ac~esge~ impacted by the pmject.
Wetland acneagas should include tll pro~oct-rolatod arena that may widergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage. or Slling far
pro~cct conatruehon. Wetland idantlfieation t>aay be accomplished through
coordination arlth the U. S. At~my Corpe of F.ngineera (COE). If the C0
is not consulted, the parson delineating aetlgnd8 should be -dentificd and
criteria liatod.
4. Cover typo maps ahovring acreages of upload wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed projxt. Potential boit+ow ales should be included.
S. The extent to which the project will result in lose, degradation, or
fragcncntation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uploads}.
6. Mitigation for avoidingi minimizing or cotupenaating for direct and indirect
de~adalion in habitat quality as well as gttantitativo losses.
7. A cumulative impact aaaasamant section which analyzes the environmental
effccla of highway conatruation and utmti8ei the contribution of this
individual project to eDVitotitn~al ~adatiion.
8. A diacusaion of the probable impacts on natural tcwunes which will result
from secondary evelopttunt Lailitatod by the improved read acxess.
9. If construction of thu fadliry k to be coordinated with othu state, m~niappal,
or private developmeett pro~eata. a daaoription of thcae projects should be
included in the anvunmriantal document. and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. if we cap further assist your office, please contact me at (919) SZ8-9886.
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
A-12

•~;.,gt•~~ dlOlC Vr rwrur `orvnrra -
NCGENR Department of Environlrent and Natural Resources Project Number. - `bue Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project k has been determined that the DENR pemlit(s)and/or approvals indicted may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permiu shtwld be addressed to the Regional Office indicted on the reverse of this form.
AU appliations, information and guidelines relative ro these pons and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Nomtal Process Time
(Statutory Thee LMtdt)
Permit to construct i operate wastewater treatment Application 9o days before begin construction o. award a constnrction
hcilities, sewer system extensions Z sewer systems contratts. On-ske inspection. Post-eppliotion technial conhrence uswl ~ d~
not disdtiarging into sate surface waters. . (90 days)
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Appikation ta0 before ina
days beg ctivih, pn.slte inspection preapp({~~
ptmth to operm and construct wastewater faciNties conference uswl.Addhbr-aly, obtain pennk to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. hdHty-granted after NPOES. Reply time, 30 days aher receipt of plans w issue (N/A)
of NPOES pem~it-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplintion technical conference uswlly necessary 30 days
(wu
0 Well Construction Permit Complete appRwdort must be received and permk issued prior to the 7 days
krstallation of a well (1 S days)
Dredge and Fill Permit ~
Appl'ptlon copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner

On~ske inspection. PreappUntbn mrtference uswl. Rllirq may require Easement 55 d
~
to FiR from N.C Department of Adminheration and Federal Dredge and Ff0 Pernik. ~ days)
PemMt to construct 6 operate Air Polution Abatement
hcflides and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC WA fi0 days
QA100, 20A300, 2h1.0600)
Arty open burning assodated with subject proposal
must be in compliance whh 15 A NCAC 20.1900
DeatoNtion or renowtions of structures comaining
asbestos ntaterlal must be in compliance with
1 S A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification WA ~ days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919.733-0920.
Complex Source Pennik required under 15 A NCAC
20.Oa00
The Sedimentation Pollution Control AR of 1973 must be ny ng activity. An erosion `sedimentation
properly addressed for a land disturt+i
control plan will be required if one a more acres to be disturbed Plan Rkd with proper Regional Office (land Owlky Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activky. A fee of S10 for the first cue or arty part clan sue. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respaR to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Pernik On-ske inspection ususL Surety bond Rled wkh OENR. fond amount caries with
type mine and number of aces of affected land Arty are mined greater than 30 days
one cue must be permkted. The appropriate bond must be received befare (60 days)
the permk on be issued.
North Carolina burning permit On-site inspection by N.G Division of Forest Resources If permit exceeds 4 days t day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Dhrision of Forest Resources required 'N more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C_with organic soils. acres of ground dearirtg activities are involved. Inspectbns should be requested (WA)
ac least ten days before actwl bum b planned'
Oil Refining facilities 90 -120 days
N/A
(N/A)
f>am Safety Pernik N permk required,sppliation fi0 days before begin construction. AppYcant
must hire N.C. qusliRed engineer to: prepare plan; inspect construction, certify
construction is according to OENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquko control progwm,snd a X04 permk from Corps of Engineer. 30 days
An inspection of site b necesssryto verNy Flatsrd Classifkatan. A minimum (60 days)
fee of 5200.00 must accontpartythe application. An addkional proceuing fee
based on a percemage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-13

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REpUIREMENTS Normal Procus
(Statutory Time
Permit to drill ncplontory oil or gas well Pik surety bond of 55,000 with OENR running to State of N.G conditional that any 10 days
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonmenLbe plugged according IWA)
to DENR rules and regubtions.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Applkation Rkd with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application 10 days
by letter. No standard appGation form. (N/A)
State takes Construcdon Permh Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 1 S - 20 day
6 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership of ripsrian property. IWA)
101 water OuaUty CertMiudon WA 55 dsys
(t 30 t)sysl
CAMA Permit for MAJOR devMtspntent
parry appliudon
5250.00 fee must accom ~ d>~
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development SS0.00 fee must accomparty appliotion 22 days
(2S days)
Several geodetic monuments are klnted into near the project area. H any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
Abandonment of any wells. H required must be in accordanu with Tide 1 SA. Subchapter 20.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office b requested N'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operatbn.
Ctxnplianu with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stamwater Rules) is required. 1(N/A~
* Other comments (attach sdditional pages as rtet.essary, being certain to dte comment authority)
4c~5 - ~jf~tn~--~ ~-~'lt~rJ GvrJl"-~ ,(,mot, s7" ~ys'~ A-.orr!~s~~ /i/
>~"~A4~r~IC~ w/ /f C DoTJ /~i~c /.~ ~' G/~ . ~GClt.~1tL ~n ~,J
n""'J7~ B~ ~ ll~/ilf 7~ i~Jl~~ G/r ~'ir/'~!H•+f.?a:/L Sri-Orn~+E~t.: ~ZA~''iwrG
~b~c11~S ~ w/~L.r..- ~ ~~'1j~ ~~'/(cvr^t[.v~- Gen///'~-''f/>F7VCw~j
J "~'I i
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
^ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
^ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
^ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
^ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
[phone]
O Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
^ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
A-14

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES ~ E - ~~~~
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response

Project Name .~ c Type of Project 6~c~''~`l
it v~ /1'~fi~--ri v~
^ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
^ This project will be classified as anon-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
^ ~If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the sheltfisf-i
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
^ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
^ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Ma ement Section at
[phone].
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department r arding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
~ ~ ~ -.~ _ o
Section/ ranch Date
A-15

DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
1 8 6 9 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
°ryOFA'~O'a TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.560.4366 • fax [phone]
www.ci.durham.nc.us
July 16, 2002
Ms. Jackie Obedience
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 _
Re: Sidewalks for the Widening of NC 54 from Davis Drive to Miami Boulevazd
(Project R-2904)
Deaz Ms. Obediente:
Pursuant to your letter of July 3, 2002 this is to advise that the City of Durham intends to
financially participate in the provision of sidewalks along both sides of NC 54 for that
portion of the project located within the City limits (i.e., from approximately 200 feet
west of the railroad structure to Miami Boulevard). This participation may either be in
accordance with the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines (50% NCDOT, 50% City) or through
the use of STP DA funds (80% federal, 20% non-federal). If STP DA funds were used,
we would request that NCDOT provide the 20% non-federal shaze. Municipal
participation in the provision of sidewalks would be reflected in the Municipal
Agreement for this project.
Please note correction in letter to reflect Mr. Ahrendsen (not Mr. Wylie) and City of
Durham (not City of High Point). We look forward to initiating this project as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,

Mark D. Ahrendsen
Transportation Manager
Good Things Are Happening In Durham
A-16

Ms. Jackie Obediente
cc: Kathryn R. Kalb, Public Works Director
Lee Murphy, City Engineer
Wesley Parham, Transportation Engineer
Ed Venable, Civil Engineer
Felix Nwoko, Acting Transportation Planning Manager
Page 2
A-17

July 20, 2001
From: James Cape
Soil Conservation Technician
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
721 Foster Street
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
To: Jackie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] X228
RE: Letter of June 5, 2001 (Enclosed)
Dear Jackie Obediente,
I am the USDA, NRCS (formerly Soil Conservation Service) employee, who is stationed
in Durham County. I am responding to the enclosed letter, per the instructions of my
supervisor.
There is a request for comments to be used in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment. The area of question does not involve any farmland. In this area, Nortel,
Inc. has development on both the North and South sides of NC Highway 54.
From Soil Survey determinations, there is an intermittent stream drainage area of
Burdens Creek on both sides of Highway 54. There are hydric soils (Cartecay and
Chewacla) in the bottom of this drainage area, extending beneath the highway and to the
North of the highway.
If there is any way that I might be of assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
James Cape
P.S. The USDA, NRCS, State Conservationist for North Cazolina is Mazy K. Combs.
A-18

~~
~~
Public Schools of North Carolina
'~~'~IVFD
Stacc Board of Education ' ' ~ 'r' ((' ~'~ ~ Deparcmcnt of Public Instruction
Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman Michael E. Ward, Statc Supcrintendent
www.ncpublicschools.org 2001 ~~~~ 2l A 4 28
June 25, 2001
. ,.
, J 1 ~ ~-
TO: Jackie Obediente, NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning J,~~,...~~"'~
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvementsto NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Pagge Road), from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2), State Project No. 8.1352701, TIP R-2904
Enclosed is the response from Durham County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
301 N. Wilmington Strcet, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Telephone [phone]
An EgralOpportuniry/Affi-marivrActrsn ErnPlorn
A-19

DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS

June 18, 2001
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief
School Planning
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
`~' ~ 4
.~
,~1N 2 02001 ,
^~,
Your letter to Dr. Denlinger has been forwarded to me to assess the impact of the Davis
Drive project, on the Durham Public School buses. I have reviewed your proposal and it
is my opinion that there will be some slight problems with traffic during the construction
phase, but we will be able to manage. '
If you need further information let me know.
sincerely,
Ilenry Kirby
Executive Director of Transportation Services '
c: Mr. Calvin Dobbins
Dr. Ann Denlinger
Mr. Hugh Osteen

A-20

APPENDIX B

RELOCA__T1.,pN REPORT
Q E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
'~• -
PROJECT: 8.1352701 couNTY Dufiam Altemate 1 of 1 Altemate
I.D. NO.: R-2904 F.A. PROJECT STP-54 2
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: Widening of NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Dlive) to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM s o-~so o-2oM S o-~so
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20~OM 150.250. 20~OM 1S0-2S0
Yes No Exp/a/n all "YES" answers. 40-70M 230-400 40-70M 25000
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1001M 400.800 70-100M 400.600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 ur 800 uv 100 uP 600 uP
displacement? TOTAL
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res nd b Number
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NONE
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
- NA 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
NA 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? NA

Leonard G. Scarborough/tsg Date Approved by Date
Division Ri ht of Wa A ent
.....,
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
ungmai a ~ t,.opy: awe rceioc:auv~~ .,yo,.~
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

APPENDIX C

z ~~ ~~
'~o
~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
NCDOT to Hold Citizens Informational Workshop for Proposed
Improvements on N.C. 54 in Durham County
Raleigh -The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a citizens
informational workshop for the proposed improvements to N.C. 54 from Davis Drive (S.R. 1999) to
Miami Boulevazd (S.R. 1959) in Durham County.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 23, 2001, from 4 p.m. - 7 p.m. at the Sheraton Imperial
Hotel and Convention Center, 4700 Emperor Boulevard, Durham.
Representatives from NCDOT will be available to answer questions and receive comments from the
public about the proposed project. This project proposes making improvements to N.C. 54 which
include the widening of this 0.8-mile section of N.C. 54 to multi-lanes.
For more information, contact Jackie Obediente at [phone], Ext. 228, a-mail
jyobediente(a~dot.state.nc.us, or write to:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1548
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1548
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in this
workshop to comply with the American Disability Act. Anyone requiring special services should contact
hackie Obediente one week prior to the date of the hearing.
***NCDOT***
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
1503 MAIL SERVICES CENTER
RALEIGH NC ?7699-1503
TELEPHONE: [phone]??
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
I South Wilmington Street
Raleigh. NC
State Courier: SI-31-00
C-~

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~ r10 RTH ;,
~\
~~i
2
Z
O
~,
~-
WIDENING NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAMS DRIVB,)
TO SR 1959 (MIAMI BOULEVARD) '
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2904
AUGUST 23, 2001
Citizens Informational Workshop
G2

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAVIS DRIVE) TO
SR 1959 (MIAMI BOULEVARD), DURHAM COUNTY,
TIP PROJECT R-2904
Purvose of the Citizens Informational Worksho
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have comments or suggestions about the
proposed improvements described in this handout, please let a representative of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation know. A comment sheet is
provided for you to write down your questions or concerns so that we can keep a
record of and fully consider your ideas, comments, and suggestions.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation realizes individuals living close
to a proposed project want to be informed of the possible effects of the project on
their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not available at this
stage of the planningg process. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right of way 1'umts can be established. More detailed information will be
available at a later date.
A comment sheet is included in this handout. Written comments on this project
may be left with North Carolina Department of Transportation representatives at
the Citizens Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional
information is needed or you would like to submit comments after the Citizens
Informational Workshop, please address your requests and comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Program Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) roposes to widen NC 55 hom SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miartu Boulevard The purpose of the roject is to improve the traffic
carrying capacity and accident experience along N~ 54.
Project Schedules
The proposed TIP schedule includes a FFY 2006 Right of Way acquisition date,
and a FFY 2008 Construction date. The current cost estimate from the TIP is
$5,400,000, which includes $5,200,000 for construction and $200,000 for right of
way acquisition.
C-3

Current Status
Currently, planning and environmental studies are in progress. A Categorical
Exclusion is scheduled to be complete in November 2002. A public hearing will be
scheduled following the complerion of the Categorical Exclusion. At this public
hearing, the public will have an opportunity to review a map showing the
proposed desi~ri. Factors which may affect the design of ttus project include
engineering criteria and environmental factors such as relocation of homes or
businesses, wetlands, historic sites, etc. A form is available from NCDOT
representatives if you feel you have or know of a structure which has historical
significance. The improvements currently under investigation are described in the
next paragraphs.
Proposed Improvements
The proposed improvements consist of widening NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis
Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard). From Davis Drive to approximately 200 feet
west of the railroad structure, the recommended typical section is a 41ane divided
shoulder section with a 17.5 foot median, and from 200 feet west of the railroad
structure to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard), the recommended typical section is a S-
lane curb and gutter section. Intersections along the project will be evaluated for
any needed improvements.
Sidewalks - NCDOT will coordinate with the Research Triangle Park (RTP)
Foundation and local governments concerning the reconstruction of
sidewalks along the project.
Bicycles -Extra ppavement will be provided in order to accommodate
bicycles. The 4-lane divided median section will include 4' aved
shoulders, and the 5-lane curb and ~tter section will include 14' wide
outside lanes to accommodate bicyc es.
The North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) will design and build all railroad related
improvements associated with this project. It is anticipated that the new bridge
carrying the railroad over NC 54 will be constructed by January 2004, near its
existing location.
Anticipated Iti¢ht of Way Impacts
It is anticipated that between 150' and 200' of right of way will be needed to
accommodate the proposed improvements.
NCDOT will use the results of the environmental and engineering studies within
the study corridor to develop an alignment which is safe and cost effective and
which minimizes impacts to existing development and historic and natural
resources.
No final decisions have been made regarding this project. Therefore, the above
information and schedule are preliminary and subject to change. As planning for
the project continues, we will include all comments and suggestions to the extent
possible.
C-4

Project Engineer: Jackie Obediente
COMMENT SHEET
NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAVIS DRIVE) TO
SR 1959 (MIAMI BOULEVARD),
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2904
(You do not. have to answer all the questions on these sheets, but please take the
time to give us your comments and concerns regarding this project. Please
continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
(Please print)
ADDRESS:
(Please print)
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT
R-2904:
(If you need additional space, please continue on the back.)
G5

Projtct Engineer: Jackie Obediente
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS.
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE
NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR
EXPLANATIONS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager of the
Project Develo ment and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department ofpTransportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
G-6

APPENDIX D

r

Table Al
CAL3OHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992

t
JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAVIS DRIVE DURHAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 Y05NC 54/DAVIS DRIVE Durhem Count
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
1. Link 1 EB Appr * -1000.0 -18.0 .0
2. Link 2 EB LT 0 * -36.0 .0 -117.4
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT " -36.0 -18.0 -1165.2
4. Link 4 EB DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0
5. Link 5 WB App * 1000.0 24.0 .0
6. Link 6 WB LT * 36.0 .0 195.3
7. Link 7 WB THRU * 36.0 24.0 105.1
8. Link 8 WB RT * 36.0 12.0 58.3
9. Link 9 WB DEPT .0 18.0 -1000.0
10. Link 10 NB APPR * 18.0 -1000.0 18.0
11. Link 11 NB LT * .0 -36.0 .0
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R 18.0 -36.0 18.0
13. Link 13 NB DEPT * 18.0 .0 18.0
14. link 14 Se APPR -18.0 1000.0 -18.0
15. Link 15 SB LT * .0 36.0 .0
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT * -18.0 36.0 -18.0
17. Link 17 SB DEPT * -18.0 .0 -18.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE
" LENGTH TIME LOST TIME
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
2. Link 2 EB LT 0 120 10Z 2.0
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * 120 76 2.0
b. Link 6 WB LT * 120 115 2.0
7. Link 7 WB THRU 120 89 2.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 1Z0 89 2.0
11. Link 11 NB LT * 120 107 2.0
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R * 120 57 2.0
15. Link 15 SB LT * 120 112 2.0
16. Link 16 SB iHRU/RT * 120 62 2.0
D-1
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-18.0 * 1000. 90. 1050. 10.9 .0 32.0
.0 * 81. 270. 713. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.05 13.6
-18.0 ' 1129. 270. 531. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.60 188.2
-18.0 * 1000. 90. 890. 10.9 .0 32.0
18.0 * 1000. 270. 890. 10.9 .0 44.0
.0 * 159. 90. 804. 100.0 .0 12.0 0.23 26.6
24.0 * 69. 90. 1244. 100.0 .0 24.0 .95 11.5
12.0 * 22. 90. 622. 100.0 .0 12.0 .42 3.7
24.0 -1000. 270. 1050. 10.9 .0 32.0
.0 * 1000. 360. 940. 11.2 .0 32.0
-54.8 * 19. 180. 748. 100.0 .0 12.0 .76 3.1
-353.7 318. 180. 398. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.08 53.0
1000.0 * 1000. 360. 1400. 11.2 .0 32.0
.0 * 1000. 180. 1400. 11.2 .0 32.0
385.7 * 350. 360. 783. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.83 58.3
1827.3 * 1791. 360. 433. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.74 298.5
-1000.0 1000. 180. 940. 11.2 .0 32.0
APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
VOL FLOW kATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
-------------------- ---------------------------
195 1600 312.70 1 3
855 1600 312.70 1 3
55 1600 312.70 1 3
685 1600 312.70 1 3
150 1600 312.70 1 3
90 1600 312.70 1 3
850 1600 312.70 1 3
150 1600 312.70 1 3
1250 1600 312.70 1 3

Table Al (continued)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M) *
RECEPTOR * X Y 2 *
1. Receptor 1 * 120.0 375.0 1.8
2. Receptor 2 * 115.0 225.0 1.8
3. Receptor 3 * 170.0 130.0 1.8
4. Receptor 4 * 300.0 130.0 1.8
5. Receptor 5 285.0 -90.0 1.8
6. Receptor b * 150.0 -100.0 1.8 *
7. Receptor 7 * t00.U -200.0 1.8
8. Receptor 8 * 100.0 -350.0 1.8 *
9. Receptor 9 * -110.0 -370.0 1.8
10. Receptor 10 * -105.0 -200.0 1.8 *
11. Receptor 11 * -185.0 -105.0 1.8 *
12. Receptor 12 * -335.0 -115.0 1.8
13. Receptor 13 * -340.0 140.0 1.8
14. Receptor 14 * -200.0 160.0 1.8 *
15. Receptor 15 * -140.0 250.0 1.8 *
16. Receptor 16 -150.0 380.0 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.
W[ND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 RECB REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16
MAX * 5.6 5.9 6.1 5.t 6.0 6.II 6.5 5.8 5.4 6.3 6.1 5.6 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.4
DEGR. * 235 225 218 244 293 327 348 ,350 13 10 37 62 100 118 132 142
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION lS 6.80 PPM AT 327 DEGREES FROM REC6 .

D-2

Table A2
CAl30HC: l1NE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
J
JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAMS DRIVE DURHAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 V10NC 54/DAMS DRIVE Durham Count
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
(
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) AT1M = 60. MINUTES MIxH = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* x1 r1 x2 r2
1. Link 1 EB Appr * -1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0
2. Link 2 EB LT 0 * -36.0 .0 -294.5 .0
3. Link 3 EB THRU/R7 * -36.0 -18.0 •1918.2 -18.0
4. Link 4 EB DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 *
5. Link 5 WB App * 1000.0 24.0 .0 18.0
6. Link 6 WB LT * 36.0 .0 249.4 .0
7. Link 7 WB THRU * 36.0 24.0 365.8 24.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 36.0 12.0 62.8 12.0
9. Link 9 WB DEPT * .0 18.0 -1000.0 24.0 *
10. Link 10 NB APPR *" 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 .0
11. Link 11 NB LT * .0 -36.0 .0 -66.2
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R * 18.0 -36.0 18.0 -91.8 *
13. Link 13 NB DEPT 18.0 .0 18.0 1000.0 *
14. link 14 SB APPR * -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 .0
15. link 15 SB LT * .0 36.0 .0 487.5
16. link 16 SB THRU/RT * -18.0 36.0 -18.0 2841.2 *
17. Link 17 SB DEPT * -18.0 .0 -18.0 -1000.0 *
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL
* (SEC) (SEC) (SECT (VPH)
2. Link 2 E6 LT 0 * 120 102 2.0 249
3. Link 3 E6 THRU/RT 120 76 2.0 1091
6. Link 6 WB LT * 120 115 2.0 70
- 7. Link 7 WB THRU * 120 89 2.0 872
8. Link 8 WB RT * 120 89 2.0 181
11. Link 11 NB LT * 120 107 2.0 111
~ 12. Link 12 NB THRU/R 120 57 2.0 587
15. Link 15 SB LT * 120 112 2.0 180
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT 120 62 2.0 1571
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------------------------------------
1000. 90. 1340. 10.6 .0 32.0
258. 270. 685. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.34 43.1
1882. 270. 511. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.05 313.7
1000. 90. 1123. 10.6 .0 32.0
1000. 270. 1123. 10.6 .0 44.0
213. 90. 773. 100.0 .0 12.0 5.38 35.6
330. 90. 1196. 100.0 .0 24.0 1.21 55.0
27. 90. 598. 100.0 .0 12.0 .50 4.5
1A00. 270. 1340. 10.6 .0 32.0
1000. 360. 1209. 10.9 .0 32.0
30. 180. 719. 100.0 .0 12.0 .93 5.0
56. 180. 383. 100.0 .0 12.0 .75 9.3
1000. 360. 1751. 10.9 .0 32.0
1000. 180. 1751. 10.9 .0 32.0
451. 360. 753. 100.0 .0 12.0 3.40 75.2
2805. 360. 417. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.18 467.5
1000. 180. 1209. 10.9 .0 32.0
SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(NVH) (gm/hr)
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
1600 300.60 1 3
D-3

Table a2 (continued)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z *
1. Receptor 1 * 120.0 375.0 1.8
2. Receptor 2 * 115.0 225.0 1.8
3. Receptor 3 * 170.0 130.0 1.8
4, Receptor 4 * 300.0 130.0 1.8
5. Receptor 5 * 285.0 -90.0 1.8 *
6. Receptor 6 * 150.0 -100.0 1.8
7. Receptor 7 100.0 -200.0 1.8 *
8. Receptor 8 100.0 -350.0 1.8
9. Receptor- 9 * -110.0 -370.0 1.8 *
10. Receptor 10 -105.0 -200.0 1.8 *
11. Receptor 11 * -185.0 -105.0 1.8
12. Receptor 12 * 335.0 -115.0 1.8
i3. Receptor 13 * -340.0 140.0 T:8 *
14- keceptor 14 * -200.0 160.0 1.8
15. Receptor 15 -140.0 250.0 1.8
16. Receptor 16 * -150.0 380.0 1.8
MODEL RESU LTS
REMARKS In search of the angle cor responding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximun
concentrations, is indicat ed as maxinxxn.
W IND ANGLE RANGE: U.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS RECb REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16
-------------------
MAx * 5.9 6.1 ti.2 6.w 6.8 7.1 6.7 5.9 5.7 6.4 6.3 6.2 5.8 6.2 6.3 5.9
DEGR. * 210 227 214 Z39 306 329 350 352 7 11 37 64 106 109 125 134
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIUN IS '.10 PPM AT 329 DEGREES FROM RECb .
D-4

Table A3
L
. ~'
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
f JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAV1S DRIVE DURNAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 Y25NC 54/DAVIS DRIVE Durham Count
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXN = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
1. Link 1 EB Appr * -1000.0 -18.0 .0
2. Link 2 E8 lT 0 -36.0 .0 -822.4
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * -36.0 -18.0 -4164.6
4. Link 4 EB DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0
5. Link S WB App * 1000.0 24.0 .0
6. link 6 WB LT * 36.0 .0 411.7
7. Link 7 WB THRU * 36.0 24.0 1266.0
8. link 8 WB RT * 36.0 12.0 78.9
9. Link 9 W8 DEPT * .0 18.0 -1000.0
10. Link 10 NB APPR * 18.0 -1000.0 18.0
11. Link 11 NB LT * .0 -36.0 .0
12. link 12 NB THRU/RT * 18.0 -36.0 18.0
13. link 13 NB DEPT * 18.0 .0 18.0
14. Link 14 SB APPR * -18.0 1000.0 -18.0
15. Link 15 SB LT * .0 36.0 .0
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT -18.0 36.0 -18.0
17. Link 17 SB DEPT * -18.0 .0 -18.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
" 2. :ink 2 E6 LT 0 * 120 102 2.0
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * 120 7b 2.0
6. Link b WB LT * 12U 115 2.0
1 7. link 7 WB THRU * 120 89 2.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 120 89 2.0
11. Link 11 NB LT * 120 108 2.0
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R * 120 57 2.0
15. Link 15 S6 LT * 120 11? 2.0
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT * 120 61 2.0
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-18.0 * 1000. 90. 2205. 11.0 .0 32.0
.0 * 786. 270. 674. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.20 131.1
-18.0 4129. 270. 502. 100.0 .0 12.0 3.37 688.1
-18.0 ' 1000. 90. 1820. 11.0 .0 32.0
18.0 1000. 270. 1820. 11.0 .0 44.0
.0 * 376. 90. 760. 100.0 .0 12.0 8.85 62.6
24.0 * 1230. 90. 1176. 100.0 .0 24.0 1.99 205.0
12.0 * 43. 90. 588. 100.0 .0 12.0 .77 7.2
24.0 * 1000. 270. 2205. 11.0 .0 32.0
.0 * 1000. 360. 2015. 11.8 .0 32.0
-299.8 * 264. 180. 714. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.65 44.0
-3470.2 * 3434. 180. 377. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.34 572.4
1000.0 * 1000. 360. 2800. 11.8 .0 32.0
.0 * 1000. 180. 2800. 11.8 .0 32.0
792.7 * 757. 360. 740. 100.0 .0 12.0 5.09 126.1
5822.8 5787. 360. 403. 100.0 .0 12.0 3.45 964.5
-1000.0 * 1000. 180. 2015. 11.8 .0 32.0
APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
VOL FLCNJ RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr).
------------------------------------------------
410 1600 295.60 1 3
1795 1600 295.60 1 3
115 1600 295.60 1 3
1430 1600 295.60 1 3
275 1600 295.60 ~ 3
175 1600 295.60 1 3
1840 1600 295.60 1 3
270 1600 295.60 1 3
2530 1600 295.60 i 3
D-5

Table A3 (continued)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-- --------- -------
*
COORD
INATES (M)
*
RECEPTOR * K Y Z *
1. Receptor 1 * 120.0 375.0 1.8 *
2. Receptor 2 * 115.0 225.0 1.8
"
3. Receptor 3 * 170.0 130.0 1.8 * ~
+
4. Receptor 4 * 300.0 130.0 1.8
5. Receptor 5 * 285.0 -90.0 1.8
6. Receptor 6 * 150.0 -100.0 1.8
7. Receptor 7 * 100.0 -200.0 1.8 *
8. Receptor 8 100.0 -350.0 1.8
9. Receptor 9 * -110.0 -370.0 1.8 *
10. Receptor 10 * -105.0 -200.0 1.8 *
11. Receptor 11 * -185.0 -105.0 1.8
12. Receptor 12 * -335.0 -115.0 1.8
13. Receptor 13 ~ * -340.0 140.0 1.8
14. Receptor 14 * -200.0 160.0 1.8 *
15. Receptor 15 * -140.0 250.0 1.8
16. Receptor 16 * -150.0 380.0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS !n 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 REC3 REC4 RECS RECb REC7 RECS RECS REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16
---------------------
MAX 6.2 6.6 7.0 6.8 7.2 7.6 7.3 6.8 6.5 6.9 7.1 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.6 6.3
DEGR. * 211 194 208 225 305 344 347 348 13 11 79 73 104 106 132 132
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.60 PPM AT 344 DEGREES FROM REC6 .
D~

~t=~te of North Carolina
Department of Environment ti~'~` ~~,~~, ~ ~'~~~,
anc~ Natural Resources , ~, ti,5~~ ~~~~+~~•~;.,
~~.
Division of Water Quality ~f,=~ t~~~~}t,,:~ ''` `
,
KE~rr T. Stevens, Director
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Williai~r~ G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
1n~v ~~.:~~u~i
n~i~;n~c>>znrvn~ini
~r~,: nlen~a Me(~~~~~
7'hruu~~h: Jahn llornc
l ~
G
lh~um: JuhnJ~:.llcnnc,s ~~~~~
5ul~jccl: 5copin~~ conuncnls on ~iro~x~sed ~~~idrnin~~ of NC S-I from tiR I~)>') (Davis Ihivc) In,~I~ I~)S9
(Mi;nni l~uulcv,u~d) and SR U"l .; (I'a;~e I:uad) Irum NC 5~1 lu I-4O in lhuhan~ ('aunty, I~edcral
~\id I'rujeel No. S'I'I'-S~!(~~), ti~,it~~ I'rojcct Nu. ti.l.;i'~7U1,'1'll' K-29(kl. 1)I~;NK No. OIIiO775.
I~cl~ercncc your curres~xnnicncc. dated Junr ~;. ?OOI in which vuu rcc~ues(ed cumnx~nis fur the rrJ~crenced
~~rujrrl. I'rcliminary ^n,ilysis ~~f Uie ~uujrct revrals the. ~x~icniial fir nudliplc. im~ricis t~_, ~urcnnitil sircanis
,uul juriulic~iunal wcilands in the ~~ri~icct arr,i. Marc s~~ecil~ia~lly, ini~rirls to trilniUu~ics ul~ the Nurtlicnsl
C'rcclc (('lar,s (' NSW walrrs. 1)~1~O indcz Nu. I(, ~fl-I-17 (U.j) I~~ctitcd in the ('a~~c I~cu~ IZivcr l;tisin is
~uissihlr. I~nrther in~~csli~~~iti~~ns ail ~i hi~~hrr r~~sulu~i~~n sh~nil~l he un~lcrl,iken t~~ veri~~y the ~iresence~~i~rihcr
su~can~,ti and/or jurisdiclinnal wetlands in the arra. hi the. event that ~ui~~ juri.ulic~iuntil are,rs tire. idenlil~icd,
the I>ivisiun ul ~~~ah•r Owilily ra~ursls Ihat N('I X)'I' consider the fulluwin,.! envir~mnu~nlal issues fur the
~~ru~u~sisi ~n~oject:
~~. I~hc ducun~cnl should ~n~uvide ,~ dct,iilwl and itemir.cil ~,rescnla~iun of the ~~ru~uisrd im~r,u•~s Iu
~ac~lnnds and streams with con~es~uuulin~~ ma~~~,in,t.
li. I~herc should he a discussion un niili~~nliun ~~lans for unavoidable in~~ricls. If mili;~ation is ra~uircd,
it i~; ~~rrferabl~• lu ~ncsent ,i ccnu~r~~tunl (il~ nut I~inalii,c~l1 n~ili~~,titiun elan wish the. cnvironmcnlal
ducun~cntation. ~~'bilc (bc NC'U\VO rrnliz~~s Ih,il this mny nail alwa~~s he ~n~aclical, it should be nu~cd
Iba~ fur ~~rojec~s re~~uirin~t miti!.ri~iun, ;i~~~nii~~ritil~: miti,~aliun ~~I;uis will be ra~uirrd ~~riur (u issuance.
~~fa ~IUI \~Valci (~unlily ('crtil~icnliun.
I:~•virw ol~ Ibr ~xujcc( rcvrals that nu Oulsl,indint~ ILcsource A~~aters, Walcr Su~,~,ly W,Uer, I li~~h
Outility AVaicrs, ur'I'ruul \Vatrrs ~~~ill Iu• ini~~aclyd durin~~. the ~~rujcc~ im~,lcmcnt,i~iun. I li~~acvcr,
sbuul~_I further nn;ilvsis reveal lb~~ ~nrs~~ncr uf,mv of the af~n~enu~nliuned waders, the I)~VO rcyucsts
Ili;il 1)O'I~ s~ri~~ll~~ adhcrr to North ~'arulina rc;~ula(ions entitled "Uesi~~_n Si;uultirds in Sensitive
\V;ilrrsbcds" (I ~,A N(';A(' O~ll~ .UO~.II Ihruu;~huut dcsi}~n ^nd cunsirucliun of the ~~rojcci. "1'I~is would
a~?~~Iv fur tiny arr,i U~ci~ drains ~u slrran~~~ bu~~in!~ \VS (\~'aler Su~,~,l~'). O1Z\V' ((hilslandin,~ hc~tiuurce
11';iirr), ll(~)\~' (Ili~~h Outility \V',ilirl. ~;~\ (Shellfish \1'ater) ur'I'r ('lluul \~';ilrr) rln~sifir,i(iuns.
1650 M~;il S~~rvicr~ C~:~itE~r, I~r~leigh, Norll~ Crir<~lin,i ~'7E~9f)~16(~0 ~I ~~Ic~~l~~~ni~ fi1~~i33-f;Ofta f=nX 919~71~; 60~1f~
nn L~~unl U~~~~orlunilyn(firnintivc nclion I in~~luynf 50`~~ rccyclc~l! 1(r;., ~~~rst~consurnei ~r,~~,cr

Ali. \\ illiain I ~ (~ilunn~ n,, in~~
(r'?li,n,i)I
I'apr ~
T7. AVhcn practiall. the UWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the cxistin;t location with road
closure. Jf a detour proves necessar}', remediation nu~asures in accordance. with Ihe. NC'1)bV~)
nxluiremcnts far General ~lUl ('ertificalioli 7.72(,/Nationwide Permit No. 33 ('temporary
Construction. ;lcccss and l~ewatering.) mull be follrnvcd.
}~,. i:cvic~~~ oi~ the pn~jcrl reveals that no I li~~h Qu;llily \\`aters or AA~atcr Sup~lly Waters will he inlpacled
by the project. I le~~~-ever. should further analysis rc~~ral the. presence ~>f any of the. uforcmcntioned
water resources. the I)\~~O requests Ihut h.v.;u~dous shill catch basins he installed at any hrid~~c
crossin,~~ a stream classified ^s I I(-)\~' or WS (\Vatcr Supply). '1•he numhrr of catch basins installed
should he determined by the desisn ol~ the brid~~c, s~~ th;U runufl~ vv~>uld enter said basin(s) rilher th;ln
flovviu~t dircctl•~ into the sU~c,un.
I'. If applicable. I>O~l should not install the bridge. bents in the creek, to the nlaxinnmi extent
practicable.
(i. AVetland and ~ueam impacts should he avoided (including sediment ;uul erosion control
structures/nx•~ISwes) to Lhe melxinnnn eslenl practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
nlinimizc wctl,uid impacts should he chosen. Miti~~;lli~~n file iui;ivoid;ihlr inlpacls vv~ill Inc rcyuircd I>>~
ll\1'(~ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to strcunls in excess of l ~0 linau~ feet.
11. I;ormvv/waste areas should not he located in wetlands. It is likely that au»peusatory mili~~ation will
be rcyuircd il~ ~~~ellands arc impacted by waste or borrow.
I. 17\VO prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. l lrnv~evc•r, il~ the new structure is to he a culvert,
it should he countersunk to allow unimpeded lisp and other aquatic or~~anisms passa~~c through the
crossi n~~.
J. In acrordnncc with the N('U\y~O AVcUands Kulcs (I ~i\ N('i\(' 21 I.(l~O(~(h)(6)}, nliti~~alirni will be
required for impacts of ~~rea~cr Ihan ISU linear feet to any sinnlc pcr~•nnial stream. in the event that
mitigation hecnnx+s rcyuircd, the. miti~~ation plan should be dcsi~~nec( to rcpluce appropriate Iosl
func(ious,uul ~~alucs. In accordance with the NCI)V'V(,) \~VcUands Knlcs { IS/1 NCiAC?ILUS06
(h)(3) ), the AV'etland l:estoration Fragrant may he available for use as stream mitigation.
I{. Salinirnl and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
l.. 'I'bc ~lUl \\tat~~r (duality Certil•icalion application will aced to specifically address the proposed
methods for st~~rmvvatcr numas~cment. More specifically, stornlvvatcr should not he permitted to
discJiar~~r direr tly into the crock. Instead, stormwutcr should he desi~~ned to drain to a properly
designed stornlwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. AVhile (hc use ol~ National \y'etlarui lnvcntory (M~l) maps and soil sun~cys is n useful ollice tool,
(heir inherent inaccuracies require; that qualified per.unulel perform onsitr wetland delineations prior
fo permit appr,~~al.
"thanl: ~~ou for rrqui~~tin}~ our input at This time 'I'hc U(1'I' is reminded Ihal issuance of a -l(ll \\/atcr (~uality~
('crtil~ication requires that uppmpriatc mcasnres he instituted to cnsulc Ihal water quality standards are nicl
;Ind dcsign~Ucd uses arc not degraded or lost. If you have. any questions or retluire additional iniin~n~lation,
please contact Jolla I le•nncssy at (~JI~)) 733-5(;9~f.
rc: I~:ric ,AIsmcycr. (_'orps ol~ ]~n~~inccrs
"foal 1\lc('arUu•v. USI~\V•ti
I>avid ('ox, 1yC~\V~I~('
Personal I ~ilr.
I~ilc ('np\
(':Ancd~+lA'IlI' k."41-I\~_~i~mn!rn~:AI: „)n l ~c~,l,in,.~ rumuu~nl; ~lor

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
~ ,-
Project Number: Ccwnty: Date Received: Date Response Due (firm deadline):

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Roview
^ Asheville ,pair oil & Water ^ Marine Fisheries
^ Fayetteville ater ^ Coastal Management
^ Mooresville /
~ Groundwater ildlife eater Resowces
~.~G(ti.,14~ l.~L~j ~'
Leigh ^^ Land Quality Engineer „~YEfivironmental Health
^ Washington ^ Recreational Consultant ,~r~orest Resowces ^ Solid Waste Mgmt
^ Wilmington ^ Land Resowces ^ Radiation Protection
^ Winston-Salem "P"arks & Recreation ^ Other
~~ ~ ,-~
,e'~ater Quality `~ ('1'
~
^ Groundwater
^ Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
^ No objection to project as proposed.
^ No Comment
Inst~cient information to complete review
^ Other (specify or attach comments)
RETUKN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental AtTairs

~ IL
~ ~~ lv
~ ~~ ~~~~ .~h~
~,~~~, V t ,~ f I~ ( D
~~ ~ ~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~~ ' ,1rj U
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 ~ ~" W
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR June 5, 2001 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration ~
fj~ 1
f'' •'
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manage~~/~,r ~ ~-~"'~"~-
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR
1959 (Miami Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Page R_oad), from NC `4 to I-40
in Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2), State Project
No. 8.13.52701, TIP R-2904
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to NC 54. The project is included in the Draft 2002-2008 North Carolina Transpor~ation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2006 and construction in fiscal year
2008.
The subject project proposes to widen NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard) and to replace the Southern Railroad Bridge. The proposed improvements to SR 1)73 (Page
Road) from NC 54 to I-40, will be made under a separate TIP project number, U-383. The North
Carolina Railroad will design and build all railroad related improvements associated with this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will only be responsible for the widening of the
highway. Therefore, the actual widening limits of R-2904 are from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959
(Miami Boulevard) (0.8 miles).
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by July 23, 2001 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Jackie Obediente, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 228.
WDG/plr ,>,~~:,~~~~~~~
Attachment J~~ '° ~ ~oQ~'
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] ,.~, S j ~ r~ (;! N;":p;' ~t„-~~ti 3~ LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

MILES
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.)
Durham County, State Project 8.1352701
TIP Project No. R-2904
FIGURE

~ ~~i;;' ~`~' ;~i
. i f ~ ~,
;~' ~ !ilil''ill. iii ~ _i~l`~~i;,;~l;, ',I
,.
~I" 1' Il~ii'I ~i'~ -+~_i~ll~~_...,
;i~ _ ~, ,; ~ ~ , . , ~ ~l l; i';i~~
.~ '. ~- ~ ~ ~I;ll' ~: .. '.~I i.
it l-,:. iili`. ~, ,. ~'i.. .. '. 1~~: ~~-~,.
~~ ~ ~~'. ~Il: 'III'. ~_',
~.
~ ~~~~ ~ , ~~~~, ~ ~ 1
I~
~, ~i ~ ,
~~ ~ ~
I ,~.
~. ~~i,; .. iii. ~~ii ~i~~, ~ ~, ., a".~ ~~i ~, ~n .'~~1. ~.i ~~.~i, ~ ~~~~'I ,.,i' ~'):.
i .n ~ ~i ' ~ ., ~~ ~ ,, I !;;~ ~ iii: ~ .I, ..I

~ ~ ~„,i I~~ i~~i,~~~il. II'.~ i i~'~~O i~.~~i;,. Ili,il I~, ~J~ ~ I,_ rri,i:t~ ~~rl i,r ,!~~~ iin ~ ~ Ali, ~ .~ iii
i ;~ ~ ~ ~i~~ ;i~ .~~ ,..~,i ~ r~•in~ ~!i.Ui~u~ ~~i~~i .ui; iii ,i, ~ . ~~ ~~ I ,.
i, ~ u~, I'~~_,'~r~ ~~i~r; I I~ ~I~~. ~I
,_
~~ ,i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Ali. ~u~r:iiiini,i ~ °i~ .,~. i~~~ . i~ ~, , Il~il~i_ i~ i~~ ~ i ~ ~I~,
i ~ ii ~11, ~ ~~ ~I'. 'i~n~ 'I I., . ~~ - ~.ii~. :~li~~ii i,~i iiii ~~ ~ I i ~ ~ ill .~ i; i,
)'. ~ I~ ~.i~u; ii, .I ~ ~n~. ,~, ,u V~~~ ~n~ ., ~ ~1~ i~n.;n ~, 'I.
'.. ~ ~ ~ .. i ~. ~~ I, ,ii~,l I, I r. ~ ..!I. ~ ~.. i ,iii ii ,!~., ~,~, ~~~, I ~ ~ i~ lil'lll ;iii. ,~y ~'.!I
i i. i ilk l l_ I I
i
~.i; ~ ~i r .~~i.. 111. iu, ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~I~
J_ iii ;~~i'. ~, ~I~i:i ~,, ., ii,~. I'I ~ i'~'. ' iV'i'i' ~,;_I~~I. !~'~' ! I i'~('.'.( '; i ~, ;L ~~~, ~'~ i. ~ ~~lir ~~~ ~~~
~~; ii, i , ~ ~ i r~~~;t , ~ ~i. it , ini~i~ !i~~ 1''~~ .~ .~~ ul~.. 't,r il. ~, i~1 _, ~ ~ i,,.~
~! ~~ ~ !' ~, ..l i. ~ ~'i~ ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1., 1~~~~ I. ~ i~i~~
-i. ~ ~ ,~, ii. li. i . 1 ~., ~I11. ~ i ,. ~.i~ ~. ~ ..I ~. li!.i1~

~_ ~,
United States Department of the Interior ~ '~ ti ~\(\~~ \
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 93726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276303726
June 24, 2004
Phil Harris, III
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 18, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to
SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) and replacement of the Southern Railroad bridge in Durham County
(TIP No. R-2904) may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered
smooth coneflower (Helianthus laevigata) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted on June 11, 2002 for
smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac. No specimens of either species were observed.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with
your determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect smooth
coneflower or Michaux's sumac. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered i£ (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary .iordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~~s~~~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

10-08-'04 12;42 FBOC]-DENF3 EEP 9197152001
~F~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Eric Aismeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
SUBJECT; Durham County, R-2904, NC 54 Widening
Cape Fear River Basin, CU 3030002
T-138 NIOb U-;~11
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensatory mitigation far the 49 feet of unavoidable stream impacts
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003; therefore, the EEP intends tq provide compensatory stream mitigation up to
a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 3030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
Iw~~
/~%~
William D. Crilmore, F.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of'VV'ater Quality, Vl~etlands(401 Unit
File: R-2904
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] F'AX: 919-715-27191 Internet: h2o.enr.sta~te.nc.uslwrpl
No°rt~Carolina
~atura!!t~
OCT-8-200} FRI 12:16 TEL: [phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 6

QP i
PAM "T FTyF United States Department of the Interior
e~ ym
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
' Raleigh Field Office
- e Post Office Box 33726
~qR~ 5 '9p Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 15, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard), and SR 1973 (Page Road), from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham County, North Carolina
(TIP No. R-2904). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for
use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 54 from
SR 1999 to SR 1959 and to replace the Southern Railroad Bridge. The proposed improvements
to SR 1973 from NC 54 to I-40 will be made under a separate TIP number, U-3853. The North
Carolina Railroad will design and build all railroad related improvements associated with this
project. NCDOT will only be responsible for the widening of the highway. Therefore, the
actual widening limits of R-2904 are from SR 1999 to SR 1959, a distance of 0.8 mile. The
following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility
corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems
should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is
not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without
scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and
median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas

should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever
appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory
bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Southeast Durham 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
indicates there are wetland and stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon
in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for
this project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the
action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being
considered, including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be
impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact
should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by
using the 1987 Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;

7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Durham County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) ~%
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/10/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-2904.tip