20041060 Ver 1_Application_20040629

~~
.~. ST~TL y
~W M
M.n
•~ Qwx ~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'I"1VIENT OF'I~~Al~SPORTATION
IvllcxaEL F. EASI.EY
GOVERNOR
June 25, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS / 401 GRQUP
Suite 120 JUN 2 9 2004
Raleigh, NC 27615
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 WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Tahl e 1. Turf sdi cti anal 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.
Tahle 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,
~~, 1,=~
„~ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
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

.,{y ._~,
N d yy~
,+..
~'~ mw ~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTT/~NT OF T`RANSPORTAT'ION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 18, 2004
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
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.
FP.rlerally Protected Species for Durham Countv
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
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
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON 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 determined for both smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
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 11, 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, Inca, 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
1984November 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
requirements 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,
'llip .Harris, III, P.E.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jackie Obediente, Project Engineer, PDEA

.r ~ 2028 1121
- /
-
~ 147 I

2 78 20,7 ~
r ~ 1
40
' 199
~ \
1121 ~~
~ tanr
urr
1989 \ ' /

M1RMN 210 ~ 1969
u~rr 2145 ~ 2058 -~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~~'"
2028 ;~;;r Dufhem ~;
~N r S ~
1999 O 1959
PROJECT ~s~z
1973 ~/
~
19ie ~ ~
~ END
1792
~r 1 _
\ ~
~ / ~40
nuw~ut courmr __r 1~
'
" ~
~
c~oa ~J -----+ '~O~o
wiu~ co
ur1rY = =i --
1641
1637
~
1613 095 B40
1 ~I ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DURHAM COUNTY
~/ PROJECT: 8.1352701 (R-290~)
~ ,{~ ~ ~ ~ NC 5~ FROM SR 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 1959
~~y~ MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 (PAGE RD> FROM
NC 5~ TO I-~0 IN DURHAM
SHEET ~ OF 8 07 / 30 / 03
NORTH CAROLINA

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
SI°Il°lE I~.~~
PROJECT: 8.1357101 at-290~)
NC 5~/ FROM SR 1999(DAVIS DR)TO SR 1959
MIAMI BLVD. AND SR 1973 SAGE RD> FROM
NC 5~1 TO I-10 IN DURHAM
SHEET 2 OF 8 07 / 30 / 03

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY

Site
No.
Station
(Fromlfo)
Structure
Size /Type
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In SW
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ft) Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 -L- STA 47+58 Lt. & Rt. 30" RCP 0.011 160.00

2 -L- STA 52+62 Rt. 36" RCP 0.003 49.000

TOTALS: 0.014 209.00

~~®~~~~ 11 ®1'V` N~~~
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
NCB®~C
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 $ 07 / 30 / 03

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
ADMIlVISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
a 2~ o~ '
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
~~ Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~ ~ 7 G3 ;
to Donald J. Voelker
'75" 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 D
J ckie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
a ~ o
Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
~ CARp~ ''~•
~ /,y •.
.- t~ ....... •
9'
l•• '
~x ~~~
t SEAL 's
•~ 19791 _
•.
:_
'~r.,~~R'uC ,M`O~~~o`
N

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SiJNI1VIARY »»» 1
1. Description of Action ..».» 1
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments .. 2
4. Coordination »».»»»»»»»»»....... .,... 3
S. Additiotiallnformation» »».»...»...».........».»»..».».».......»»»»».....». 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 .................................................................................................................................. 7
5. 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 Structures ................................................................................................................... 1 l
1. Bridge ....................................................................................................................................................... ll
2. Culverts ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
C. Typical Section ............................................................................................................................................... 11
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................................................................................................... l l
E. Right of Way .................................................................................................................................................. 11

F. Access Control ................................................................................................................................................ 12
G. Intersection Tteatincnt and Type of Control ................................................................................................... 12
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations .......................................................................................................12
I. Estimated Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 12
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION ...~.~... .»...13
A. No Build ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
V. SOCIAL, ECONONIIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS... ........13
A. Community Profile ......................................................................................................................................... 13
1. Geographic and Political Location .............................................................................................................. 13
2. Project Study Area and Definition .............................................................................................................. 13
3. Race, Ethnicity, and Age ............................................................................................................................ l4
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 LocaURegional 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. Historic and Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................:..................... 28
1. Historic Architecture ................................................................................................................................... 28
2. Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................ 28
D. Natural Systems .......................................................••...-............................................................................... 28
1. Physical Resources .................................................................................................................................... 29
a. Regional Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 29
b. Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 31
ii

1. waters Impacted and character;scics .................................................................................................. 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. Suonmary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ....................................................................... 33
2. Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 34
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................................................................................................................... 34
1. Mau-tained/Disdirbed 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 Impacts ....................................................................................................... 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. Geoloev and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ................................................................................................ 44
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis ....................................................................
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 .............................................................................................................................. 1 S
Table S. 1990 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level .............................................................. 16
Table 6. 1990 Housing Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 16
Table 7. Soils Within the Pmject Study Ar+ea ............................................................................................................ 30
Table 8. Anticipated 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. Federnl Species of Concern for Durham County ........................................................................................ 43
FIGURES
Figure l Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Preliminary Plans and Aerial Photography
Fig~me 3A 2005 Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Figure 3B 2025 Estimated ADT's
Figure 4 R-2904 Typical Sections
Figure S 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 Informational 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 Pmject # 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) pmject is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Impmvement
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 azea by reducing congestion and
travel time, and increasing safety for Reseazch Triangle Park commuters. Based on preliminary
designs, no relocatees are anticipated as a result of this project. No historically significant or
azchaeological sites will be impacted. No publicly owned pazks, 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 ~135ft(41.2m) of stream will be
impacted by this project. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.

3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
. PROJECT COMII~IITMENTS
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard)
Durham County, State Project # 8.1352701,
F.A. Pmject # STP-54(2)
TIP No. R-2904
Commitments Developed Through Pro,~ect Development and Design
NCDOT Construction /Division Construction Engineer
The North Cazolina 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. 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 Reseazch Triangle Pazk Foundation and the City of Durham
regazding their request for landscaping at the medians along this project.
NCDOT Construction /Division Construction Engineer /Traffic Engineering
During the final design stages of the project, NCDOT will provide pedestrian crosswalks and
signalized crossings depending on the locations of the sidewalks/paved trails.
Roadway Desi~?n
Driveway locations and turning movement issues aze currently being discussed by NCDOT and
the Reseazch Triangle Park Foundation associated with the proposed Triangle Metro Center.
NCDOT will coordinate with the Reseazch Triangle Pazk foundation during the final stages of
design.
TIP Project R-2904
Categorical Exclusion
February 2003
2

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 Governments
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 MiWon Vehicle Miles)

Accident Type Rates along NC 54 from SR 1999
(Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard) Average Statewide Rates for
Urban 2-Lsne North Carolina
Routes
All Accidents 726.62 370.51
Fatal 0 1..15
Non-Fatal 181.66 138.15
Nighttime 115.60 7232
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 a two-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).

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 madway (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 l Oft (3.1m) 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 turn 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 aze 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 aze 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 vazies 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 Boulevazd. This
bridge was constructed in 1928, provides only 23.8 feet of horizontal clearance for NC 54,
7

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. Intersecting Roads
The intersections of NC 54 with Davis Drive, the entrance to Northern Telecom, and
Miami Boulevazd have widened approaches to facilitate turning 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 azea 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 widening 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 clearance 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 aze 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 yeaz (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 are summarized in Table 2. Each of these intersections are currently
signalized.

Table 2. Summary of Intersection Analysis
Intersection 2005 LOS 2025 LOS 2025 LOS
No Build No Bnild Build
DELAY DELAY DELAY
LOS (sernods per vehicle) LOS (seconds per vehicle) LOS (seconds per vehicle)
AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM
AM PM AM PM AM PM
NC 54 aad SR

1999 (Davis Drive) ~ 65.6 91.8 F/F 246.6 268.1 F/F 245.0 301.1
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 sod SR
1959 (Miami F/E 90.8 79.8 F/F 195.6 158.4 F/f 1623 146.1
Boulevard)
For the Davis Drive intersection, even though the 20251evel of service for NC 54 remains
LOSF for the Build alternative, the seconds of delay for the AM values aze 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 Boulevazd 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 20251evel 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 Boulevazd 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 Boulevazd 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 azea:
I-2204 BA - I-40 from NC 147 (Exit 279) in Reseazch Triangle Pazk to I-540. Widen
roadway to eight lanes. Currently under construction.
to

U-d026 -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. Brid e
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 structure to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard), 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 Boulevard 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.
I1

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 Boulevazd 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 Pazk 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 wallcing path along the north side of NC 54 from the present
terminus of the RTP trail system to the RTP boundary at the North Carolina Railroad. The
remaining section of the project that lies east of the raikoad 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

t
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.
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
improve the safety and operational capacity of NC 54, so that the facility can support the
constantly developing Research Triangle Pazk 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, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Community Profile
1. Geographic and Political Location
Durham County is located in central North Carolina and is home to Reseazch Triangle
Pazk (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 Reseazch 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 (3.21an) wide. Currently, there aze 136 organizations located in RTP, 106
of which aze reseazch and development-related. There is no residential development in RTP,
other than what was akeady 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 %Z mile (0.8 m) radius azound the project (See Figure 5). For
the purposes of determining demographics for the study area, 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 azea is representative of the communities beyond the %z mile (0.8 m)
study area of the project. Field investigation has shown that the % 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 area 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 area while the
county and the state have 66 percent and 62 percent respectively.
Table 3. 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins
Demographic S tndy Area Durham County North Carolina
Number % Number • % Number
Total Population--:2000 -1,848 .100.0!10 223,314 U0:0'/0 8,049,3.13 100.0'/0'
Total Hispanic 69 32% 17,039 7.6% 378,963 4.7%
white 1,204 71:7% - a I3,698 ' "50.9•fo''' '5;804,656 ` '72:1%
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%' 11T,672 15%'
Hispanic
(Asian/Pacific Islander)
0
0.0%
53
0.0%
2,091
0.0%
Other 80 4.1 % 13,418 6.0% 289,889 3.6%
Hispanic (Other) 40 2.0% 9,937 4.4% 200,909 2.5%
Total Minority -67.1 29.3% 115,943 51.9% _.....2,402,158. . 29.8%
1 otal minority ~s the sum of all persons other than white-non-Hispanic.
14

Table 4. 2000 Population by Age
Demographic Study Durham County North Carolina
Area
Number % Number % Number
. :.~ --.
.
~,_
0 to 18 283 153% 54,537 24.4% 2,073,849 25.8%
19 to 64 1,438 77.8% 147,203 65.9% 5,006,416 622%
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 Stndy Area Durham County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Median H.H. Income "-: ,~ - ~ ,
~,
-V~
s y ~"
~"~ ~~~~C°

128
7%
'~" µ
"~ 0;56 ~

114
6%
~ k ~,
~~'
. . 100.0%
Per Capita Income ~ ~ w ~" - ~ z.,~

~c -~ - ~=~
~
i~c°~~~l+tl'` 145.2%
. .,
~'' z,
=.1~T5~3 °

116.6 /o ..~,
~
~~ .
~ „~,
100.0%
Persons below poverty ,..~_ ° ~ ~ ^~- g ~. ~- . , ,,
leveh ~: ~ - ~ ~
~
•
~ ~; .x ~~
,
P
_
~~.
.~
~
"~' .~,,.Lx,~
~ ~
.,t i
t~~a
_~
.~„ , 6.0'/0 '~
--~7~5.1~
11.9%
~ 13
0`/0
Persons below SO% of ~~-~ .:~
- - _ . >.~ .
:
-

poverty levelZ

~ ~
°, :~.~~,~
~ ~ r ~
t
~~~

y ~*'
r;#:~x.~ ~ ~°
~ .. -Y ~, 2:..

~w
t
r
"~ of
~
- 3
`
qq
:
x. ^.r s
_
- 31''
2.7%
> "9,43$"
5.4% I
9~66Y 5.2%
• 6a..~A ..~ J:C ~~~ L~ _.~~ .L_ ~
..• ..~...,,~ ..~„~.~,~~ uc,wwn u,c o~rogapmc ~Y area or county ana the same figure for the state
1Percent based on persons for whom poverty status is determined
Table 6. 1990 Housing Characteristics
Demographic Study Area Dnrham County North Carolina
3Vledian.Home~ualuc _ ..<$90766 - ;,, ~~84;9f10 - : .w ~ ~;~~, 56500
Homeownership Rate 43.1% 53.0% 68.0%
Median Rient - 80
- : _
- ._ _. .
- ffi~~
Racrd nn nnnnn:~d 6n..c:...... .b.
..ww ..b
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 Pazk 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 Reseazch Triangle Park (RTP). An estimated 50,000 employees
work in RTP (including contract employees). The project study azea 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 lazgest 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
comdor at the intersection of Hopson Road and Davis Drive) is another lazge 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 wallcing
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.
17

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 withinthe %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 project terminus, there are
three high-rise hotels serving the immediate area of RTP. A few multi-story office
complexes are located along Miami Boulevard 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 Boulevard 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 area. 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 pazcel 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. LocaURegional 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 will bepedestrian-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 areas. 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 separate 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 Boulevard. 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 aze 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 Boulevazd to the
south.
DCHC has in its Long Range Transportation Plan "bicycle intensive routes." These
routes cover an extensive azea, particularly through the project azea. Bicycle Intensive
Routes stretch along NC 54, Miami Boulevazd, Davis Drive, Cornwallis Road, and
Hopson Road through the NC 54 project area.
Regional Rail System. The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) 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 first 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 raikoad bridge as a separate project from
NCDOT's NC 54 improvements. 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 neaz 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 raikoad 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 Cazolina Raikoad (NCRR) and
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), aze 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 ahigh-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
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 abarrier-separated system with
partial access.
11. Community/Neighborhood Description
The project study area, located in Research Triangle Pazk, is representative of RTP
development patterns, lazge tracts of land with dense mature hazdwood and evergreen trees
which provide a visually opaque screen for businesses when viewed from the roadway. Most
of the businesses in the pazk aze 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, pazticulazly along
Miami Boulevazd, 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 Pazsons Brinckerhoff in Morrisville. The lazgest
employers in the project area as well as goven~unent 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 Carolina
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
been 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. Proiect 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 Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan). 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 places, 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 opportunities for new businesses and existing businesses.
23

3. Traffic Congestion and Safety
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 lZailroad 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 intenQal 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 Boulevard 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 Boulevard 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 are 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
Boulevazd. 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 pointto 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-
in, 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 left turn onto NC 54 to
travel towards RTP, I-40, and points beyond.
One business owner described the problem, stating that it sometimes takes 10 - l2 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 towazd 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 Boulevazd, 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 Boulevazd.
4. Accessibility and Pazking
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 Reseazch 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 area, 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 Emnlovment
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 azea, making it more
attractive for continued development. This continued development could increase the tax
base and increase the employment in the azea.
9. Visual Impacts
There aze lazge trees that buffer Nortel Networks and Becton Dickinson Technologies
from views of 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 Cazolina 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 (MRCS). 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 fi~ee-
flowing state and to pmtect 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 pmvisions 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.
' 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.
Disproporiicmately high adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: (1) is
predominately borne by a minority population and/or aloes-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 [adaptuf hnm the Fine/ DOT Orrier on
environmental 'ul 'rel.
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 sprawlZ. 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 fimne 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 azchitectural 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. Archaeolot=_y
According to SHPO, there aze 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
azchaeological 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
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. information sources used in this pre-
field investigation of the study azea include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps
(Southeast Durham 1973), Natural Resource Conservation Service soils information for Durham
z 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 accesibility 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 azea. Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina 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 Hall 1999).
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 detemunations 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, are 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 azea 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 separate soil phases, aze present within the
project study area. The 5 sepazate soil phases aze discussed below in order of their
relative abundance. All mapped soils within the project azea aze 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, l 0 to 25 percent slopes consist of neazly 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 neazly 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 neazly 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 fl. 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 aze 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 Standazds 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 Feaz 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 (UT) 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 5.0 to 6
.Oft (1.5 to 1.8 m).
Stream (UT) 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 are "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 azea.
31

3. Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the pmject
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 Dischazge
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, mods
and pazking 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 vicinity.
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 linings; 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 planning. 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 azea, 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 Dischazges
Point source dischazge is defined "as any dischazge that enters surface waters
through a pipe, ditch or other well defined point. The term commonly refers to
dischazges associated with wastewater treatment plant facilities. In addition,
discharges from stormwater collections systems at industrial sites and in lazge
urban areas aze now considered point source discharges" (NCDENR-DWQ 1995).
Pont source dischazges located throughout North Cazolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Dischazge 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 lineaz stream impacts to Burden's Creek and its tributaries aze 135 ft
(41.2m). Estimated impacts aze 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
conshuction stage of the project. 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 azea.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two biotic communities aze identified in the project study area: Maintained/Disturbed
Community and Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Community. Community boundaries within
the study azea are generally well defined without a significant transition zone between
them. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study azea 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~ci»ale), 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 (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory species include hickory
(Carya sp.), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), white oak, red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), sweetgum, southern red oak, red maple, sourwood (Oxydendrum
azboreum), American beech (Pages grandifolia). Woody vines include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grapevine (Vitus rotundifolia) and greenbrier
(Smilax sp.). Herbaceous species are very sparse 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, community boundaries are abrupt, with little
transitional azea 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 area 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), northenn mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), European stazling (Sturnus
vulgaris), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor)
and American crow* (Corpus brachyrhynchos) (National Geographic 1987).
Reptiles and amphibians that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities
within the project azea include rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), American toad (Bufo
americanus) and eastern box turtle* (Terrapene caroling) (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 offish that may be found in the project area streams include
bluegill (Lepomis mocroshirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), highfin shiner
(Notropis altipinnis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), mazgined madtom (Noturus
insignis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) (Menhinick 1991).
The streams in the protect are provide habitat for a variety reptiles and amphibians.
Species which may be present in this creek within the project area include the mazbled
salamander (Ambystomo opacum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus),
two-lined salamander (Etaycea 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 (Gastropods).
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 neaz 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 aze 9.8 ac (4.0 ha). Usually, project
construction does not require the use of the entire ROW or study azea width, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
36

Table 8. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities [ac (6a)]
Community Impacts
Ac (ha)
Maintained/Disturbed 10.4 (4.2)
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest 9.8 (4.0)
Total 20.2 (8.2)
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 further 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 construction 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 similar 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 azea to be considered a wetland. Two wetlands are located
within the project area. One wetland is located at the western end of the project along
UT 1. This small wetland has hydrophytic vegetation of silky dogwood (Corms
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)
vT 1 s o(o>
UT 2 ~ 90(27.4)
[TI' 3 - 30(9.1))
Total 135ft(41.2m)
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using the Global Positioning
System (GPS). Estimated impacts 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. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. 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 areas, 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 recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken
in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
40

1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened ('1~,
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PTA 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 /aevigata Smooth coneflower E
Haliaeetrrs leucocephalus Bald e T
Rhos nricharaii Michatix's sttmac E
"E" denote Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
'T' denotes Threatened (s species that is likely to become an endangered species within the fotseeable firtute throughout all or a
signific~art portion of its range).
'T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due tD similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due
to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection). The species are not biologically rndangered
or dueaterred and are 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 lazge 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 soaz.
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 lazge 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 seazch of the NCNHP database 29 August 2001 found no
occurrence of this species within the project vicinity.
Echi/nacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991 PE
Flowers Present: June - eazly 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 lazgest, and these leaves aze smooth to
slightly rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short
or no petioles and aze 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, cedaz
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 looms. 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 aze not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
aze 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 revealed 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.
Scientific Nsme Common name NC Status Habitat
Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur E No
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina darter SC No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T(PE) No
Gomphus septima Stptima's clubtail dragonfly SR No
Juglans cinerea butternut WS No
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T(PE) No
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E No
Lythrurus matutim~s pinewoods shiner SR No
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap C Yes
Plagiochila Columbiana a liverwort W2 No
Noturus furiosus "Meuse" tnadtom SC Yes
Somotogyrus virginicus panhandle pebblesnail SR No
"E"-An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"-A Threatened species is one which is likely w become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significanLportion of its range.
"SC"-A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may betaken or colleexed and sold under regulations adopted
under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Stadrtes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act
(plains). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plena that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"-A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially
reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in
North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
'"SR"-A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially n;duced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere
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 laawn; needs listin m
PCPs S ~ uP~g years.
"WS' A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing mounts of threats to its habitat; populations may or may not be Imown to
be declining.
"'"-Ntstoric ra~rd (last observedm the cotmty more than SO years ago).
"'•"-Obscure record (the date and/or location of observation is uncertain).
(Amoroso, 1997; Le(irarrd,1997)
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project to determine the
potential for underground storage tank (UST) and hazazdous 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 Boulevazd 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 spazging 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 aze 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 seazch, 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 azea for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these azeas as "moderate" nonattainment area
for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995.
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects 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-Canhoro
2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (I,RTP~nd the 2000-2008 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (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-dBA 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 near 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
Standards (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 standard. See tables Al 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 are 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 Regulaz
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.yeaz
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 Neuse 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 minunize harm to.
4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The project will not use property from any resource protected by Section 4(f).
VI. COMII~IENTS, 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 Cazolina Department of Transportation displayed an
aerial photograph of the project azea and vicinity maps showing the proposed project. In
addition, the NCDOT supplied each pazticipant with an information packet containing 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

~ut.Es
0 o.zs o.s o.7s t
0 o.s t t.s
tuto~tERs
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
': OF TRANSPORTATION
~ DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
,..., '' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Miomi Blvd.)
Ovrhom County, Stote Project 8.1352701
TIP Project No. R-2904
FIGURE i

- - _ I

~ 1 Y M I

~'~..
'~
'; ` ~ ~ ,
=.

i ~r
I ~___ ~.~
_--

e
3 fq

F ~
m
a
a
"a
PREFdtYED SCOUR HOLE
6eL'~
~.. ~ ~".N~.K
wnn
1-~ w~q~l
... ~...
~~. °
.~
.~
~~
~~~
N0.

°i o
0
+ ~~
I, ~>~ TELECOM
~ ~ \~ II +ao
a +50 1~ I ~ 95 90'
~ +00 100' ~~ i I
N ~' ~ ~I

i~
v
ll~~~~ ~
W ~ o: ~ C"~wp~^ 1~ it ®" xl ~i 0.r ~
. i I ~ nrA ~ off"`
N ------~--------- -R°=----=z~-
-----
---- ~ ~ I - ------«--------------~b--- ~ ~.
O
~-~ -- - y --"r"----___ -
-- -
'~ ____'-- - ------ -_ Ti- tH-5 --•--- --
U `~~"'~`~ 'i
p
~~! °~E E ! E F E E__
Ipf'
r ~ +50
+80 ~ +20 4! 80' uow° w i
0 ~I
pl
oETaL a
PROP. STREAM RELOCATION
c Nor ro scales
Natural Natural
Ground ?,r _ Ground
D
9
CHANNEL 8 = ___ ~____
BED
p. _LD_Nln.
STA 46+30 TO 47+30 -lr
~~
CROSS VANE ROCK WEIR
~' ~. ~ (cvxw}
«.nu oar.
~~
.,a ~.~
~.
,~ -•--
l s
'SECTION A-A
nrirs tar imtt
S1AFA11 Caera A°R
nay _~
ms swua r wn[ nra rWS[
.m+=~wrm so °; w , ~~ SECTION B-8
-L-
Prs S1o ~8+J3.92
Ifs =TyyyO~~O//'y~560
~J = L{/lrA/1/
LT = r3J 35
~_ s~6s DENOTES FILL IN
SURFaCE waTER

y ~~~~~~~~ ~f~ ~~~i~~~~~
------- ---- /r __„~_
_ ~-- ~ I ®°~~~
_.. F ~-E ~ ~
105'
O
nlor.nlmr.N naouiaN-~
~ ortu ~r
+pp
80'
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOL Pffi !OLL /R lQGOml710N
PREL[MIN
p NOf VII RT PLANS
Wtpl'~17CI1CN
0
0
+oo a'
o' ~
+00 N
85' _
F -0 ~
~'
- r. ~ ,,.r - - W
~ o
® l~
psp°~opw~q° yr k
F H
® E~ g
cwiw cMw +8B I <
~ cv°w ExuR/w
i +16
+39 159'
170'
~_
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 9 ~
. ~ 345.00
fU G
340.00
d=
335.00
L .16
1+20 1+00 O+BO 0+60 0+40 0+20 0+00
SC~t,E I `` =1Gt~ `

• REVISED E10S11NG CHANNEL IAtNNCIED FIIOM 4~6' TO 160' AT SRE 1. 0547,04 uh
SS$$SSSSSS6S$$S
nc
g~
~~
O

y
_
m2 m
~ o ~ rn
y y
~ ~
s^ ~~~
o m ~O
~~ ~~ [1 oa
AA
'o i
Ic ~
I ~ ~ ~' o Q
Z
o ~
c ~
~o
D
o'A'•
W
0
0
A
V
t
W
O

~~~~
~~~
~R~S
_~~
~~
I
~ ~
N tl~~ Q ~
A t{ I
1 +
Z
W
W 1
It'~ ~g G
G
MATICH
I IIII III 1 /LII ' * w 'I 1'1YY
/ I I I I I I I I yea/ \III ~ I+ //I Y
! //// ///I - X~\\III I ;,~
//// /// I I I\ I /I•
/ , I I 1 / / , , •/~ / ~ , y
// ///I I I I I I I/\I I /I/
/ll ////`°ll I I 1 1 r~
//// //// I I ' / I III N
II 1
~ / /! / / I / 1 I I , 1 /
, /III I I/ / X 1 1 1 ~,1 I
III I I I ) I I 11
r / I ~ 1n
11 1 I I I I I / + ~~~ , ll
IIII IIII // ,1
I I I I I I I ! /Q // Y
I I I I I I I~' T/ /~ I/ / 1 F
// /~ 1 1 1 IN`•/ // I I I I/ t1
/ / I I 1 ~
// l l I I I I w l l 1 1 ~w {~
/// I 1 1 1 1 '/ / ~~/ r
\ \\ I I I / / // / ~ / / I Jj
1 1''/ / / / / ~/ /, / I!
1 /// i/1/} /II III! /////// ~ /rl / 11
/ / / y/\ I
/ /// / / /11 I/ / / III II II
/ 1\ 1 1 //// I I // ,, I I I I I
hAy / I \ 1 1 /// I 1 1 1 I
/~ I \ ~ III 1 / / / / IIII / ////~~1 I ~ I
\ I 11/1 I///y4, /l lh/ / / / // ll
O 11 II// IIII I I/ I I I I/ , /11
\\~~I1111 /ll(/ ! I l/ II 1 / II/i//
/ I I I I I 11 11 I I I ! r I! l/
\1 \ I1 1111 1 11\ I I / ; 1 1 I 1 ,~// / ,
C /~ 1111 / 111 / I/II_r\Ij.~ yI I l 11
\ / / //r /. r / ~ ~ 1/ l I~I (IrJ
/// / 11 1 I I I I 1~
~~~~ // // / / / 1 /I
O~/ / //\ 1 I\ 1 1 I I I II
~1 r ^sg ~ ,, _,.____ ~,\\\ I
>` 1`/;3351 I \1 1 1 1\\ 11 1
~J~/.~~ ~~~ = 1111 II I\ 1 I 1 ~ \ 1 1\
~ III\ / - i ~ II 1 \ \ \ \,~ l \ \ 1
i ~ \ \\ / /r// \ \ 1 . CD' 1 I I
~~ ~ //i/ 1 \- // /
\ 1 /r ~ /
N
O
V
O
t
m
O
O
0
O
O
t
N
~D
h
CC-
>t
C~
N O N
S O S
I
,,-

\1 \ I
\ \ ~ ~ ;~ ~ 1 1111 II\~ \ R>X ppti ~~~ ~l l I ~
\\\\ 1111 111'\\ ~~`\ L.' bl ' I ' , ~ II
/11
\ 1 1 1 X11 1 1 I I I I IIII /^- ~t 1 I
1 1\111 1111w11 I I /111 /Irr "~~``.~\ //~~ ~ ~I II I
\; \\\\M 11111 II 111 /l/IIII 11\ i ~ _ 1(/ ;/ IIII I
\ \ X111 III I 1 1 \~\\ \! wl;` I I 1 ~ // 11 I III 1
\ \ I I I 1 II I I I I I l\ 1 1 1 l l\ / X 1 1 1
`\ \ \\\11 11111 III 1 1 1 II IIII 1 \ 1 // // VI
\\
\ \ III ,~/~ ' 1 II II `IIII \I\\11 II/ ~' ' / '' II
\ \ III I//1 II I 1 \ 111\ \ 111 111 ~I I / /III I
I 1 \IIU 1\\ 1 '' 1 /I~11 III/ II; I„', 1 j1
I 1 \ 1 111 \1 \ \ 1 ~ ~ \ I 111wl I I I 11 / ~ /
~ \ \ 1\\\\ Ill\ \\ l`\ IIII I I I Iel I I I I I
~` 1\ II II11\\\ \_ ~\\ I II I \\/ I /~ / I
~\ \ \\\ `\` \ 1
-_ _;. \111 II ~ ~\\\~\\li \% l I 1 I I I I I I 1
_ ~ ~I~iJ Ilsi~/// ~/ 1 \\1 Il ll
I r \r I/ ~ III IIII 1111 \ 111111 III 111 ~ I
~ I/~~/111~ \\1\ \ 11jII\1 III pl
,/ / ~~_ ~ ~ \\\\ \ n
1 , / / //' \\\ ~ \~\\ \\ \ \\ \ 1
1 ~i/q~-' /i~ \\\\1 \\lll;~ ~• \ 111 1\\ 1 1
II /' ',l J_- ~ \\ \\ \\ I I I I I 1 I i I I\ 1 I
I
/ I _ ~'~'_ ~ .~ `U ~ ` I 1 I I II /IIII II11 1 t
I
`~`,-= ~ ~ ' ~ \ ~ \\~ l I I JI \111 111
/ - - _ _ - , \ \1t'\\\\\~\ \ 1(11 II 11j 1~
~~G, / it 1111\I~ 1\~ 11 \\ 1 1
/ / ~ I II II I\\ 1~1 1 \ 1 III I II
~ ~ I 1
Q, _ \\ - ~ / /1,1111 \\I I I 111
~'_'_^ - \ / / I\\ ~ 1 1111 I I
' ~...es ~ \ \ \ J / / / /, \ ~'~ \ \ 11 IIII I II
~ e ~ \\ r, ; ~ \\\ 111\1 1
I - ~ ~ ~I~ \I ri~_ )\\~1\11111 \111 I
~~ \ \ 1\ I III II ~ 11/111/ IIII I
\ \ \ \ \ ~~ \ I 11
\\\ \\1 1,\ I q \\ I 1
\\\ \\ \ \\ ~ 1 \\ \ \ ) 1 I
\ \\\sf ~~ \ \ ~ l~ I a `\ \ d~'F'1;11 p I
\ \\` \\\\ \\,~ ~ ~ 1 p 1
. ~ ~ ~\\ \ \ _ ~ \ _ t
`\~\ ~\\\ 1111\\ ^ Ir\\ r\
~ ~~
~ \ \\ \ \ \\\ 1\1111_\ ~+ 1\ I \n ~ _ -
~\ \ \\ \\~\ \\\'~d, I ~'/r p
.1 \ ~\\\ \\\ \ \ ,\
~~\\\\\\\\\\ \11\\\~\\t\ i~///II 11
\~ \ \\\\ \\\\ 1\11 \\ liw I // II I
\ ~ ~\\ \\\\ \1\1 11\\ \\ \11 ~~ / / IIII I I!
(0 ~ ` 1\\ \1\1 \111 1111 \ 1 I \ ^ ~1 1 I
\ \ I I IM11\ \111 1111 \ \ \\ \" ~
_~~~ 111 1111111 I\11 \/\\- I IIII I
/I~ ' II/ /In 111 \\\I \\~i Ilnl 1
\\ \ `' 1 MATCH TO
TO SHEET 5 STA. 36 + 00
/ I I 1 I Ill ti~ / , ' ,` ,\I \ \IIV / ~ \ \ Illlllj 111
/ I I IIII ~r~ /"'\ \ \ \ \ \\I~/ _- \11111111111'
/ I I Illli I//Il~r_~ \\'\Illrl,' \\1111 11111
I\ IIII /Y~ I \ \~\\111.- Elul 1,111
/ I, IIII \Ijr I \\\\\1\\/ \;1 III 111 1
/ ~ I -'~\ \ \\11 \~ Illllj 1
r ~1 1 I / ` \ S~ \ \ _ -. \1111111 1
\ III ., ~ \ \ \ 1111 \ 111111\\1~
\ 1 1 / I I ++ ~ \ \ 11t - \ \\ ~\ \1\\\\ti
~ , _ \ \ 1 \
1 \I I IIII I ,~~ /1 / ~ \ \\ \ `\' \~ \ 11\~,,;\\\I
III 14 / ~ ~ \\\ 11/r -~ \ \111\\ 1111
I I III I`nI1 / \ll; I r~ ~ \11\~\\ \~~
IJ Illl ~~I/ ---- 1111 \\\\\~-1
i I I III 9 / CI ` ~ ~/ - - - - 111 III ~ \ _ \ \ \ \ `1
I r -"'t I ' / _ / _ _ IIII /~ \ \\~`\
Y ~I ~ 111111/~ / r / - ~1 III / \ \ 1\ \ \I
l i ~ \ ~ I/ III I I I / / -/' 9 111111 1111 // / ~ ~ \ \\ \ ~ I
/ _ ~ 1
h l I~11 /~~Y / r ~ ~ I \ 111j1111/ I ~ - \ ~
I 1 ~ l/III ~~ / I r~ l y l IIII III 1 1 1 \\ \
1 1 ~I /rl~i ~ _ ~~\ 111111 ~I / \I~\\\ \
rr 1` Illl///k 01/1 / - -~111111j1j I °\la \r~\\
I I \~ 1j11I1I// / _ ~ L 111111111 I III I- \\
r I III II / ~1j /^ +%_\llllllllll 1 1111 \ 111
I I 1 I II( / % II ~ / ~ ~ ~ /III II1111I111 / I I I I I ~ ~ 1 \I
I 1
~ ~~' ~~ €~4
~l;i i
ii
°~e~ ~f
~~~
I\ I III // / r ////~jn~'1 111 1 I I 11111 \h
r I II IIII/ / / / // ~ lllllj,ll I 1 I 11111('\~
/ T'I I\\111`11f/ Y/ t %'/!l/%%lI4///I 1/ 1~\\~\\ `\I
~~ \~~ ~-~ ~ iii/ r I^ \\ \ \~~\ ~
,~ / I I \
/ I\~\ I I~~` / \ \
/ I I ~ I I 1 / , /
~ / .I ' \ III 1 // // / ~
1 // I \~ \ I Ilm 1 i ~ I~ I
_ _ J
I
I III III{-1 I \ \ I / I I I-\ \ \ 1 ~ \\
I / I III \ \ \ I 1 \ I ~ I 1 \ \ \ \ ~ \ \
I I I I I II \ ~~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~' I /~ // \~ \ 1 \\
I I t 1 1\\ 1 r~ 1\-1 \II I \I \ \II 111
11 \1 I Irr-- -r// ~\ \ III
I I 11 11~~1 11111^~ ~_' 1 n\III
a II I11~ hill 1 ~Ij1 / / ~ 111
I //r/ ,/rll 1 ,II I r l~ / 11
~ I II 11,1 ll~~ 111 I -/ ~ \ 1
I 111/~~I1 II 1111 I / / ~ ~ - -
I 1111, /,' 11111 I1 1 I 3
1 1 ' I 11111 /II I IIII III I ~
I I 'I III IIII I 11 1 ~ ~l
I I ' III 1 1 1 1111 III N
I I It 111 11 1~ 11 III /
I I I III 1 1 ( I 111 11 I / g6
I 1111j \\/ ~ I I IIII III /
1~1 I 111111 \ \y~ II III
1 I 1\111 \ 1111. 1 1 ni u l +
l i I \\\y 11 ~ y u 1 lu I e o0
1) It\. 1~1 4 nlllur 0 \- _
I ' \~' I\II 1111111 ~ \ 1
II / //1111/, I 1
I I \ r% J ~1 I I \ 1
I I///~ I IIII IIII
I I II r'I( 11111111
1 I/ /1111~11111111
I 8 111Irr/IY IY/Illllll 1\~ ,
/ I
1 / Y
I A III11l / r / / ~// II t ~~- - _ _ - --/
1 I \ 111 I IIII / //~ / 111 \ , - i ' 85
II I
11;1 \;,,/,I~r ~,,-.-
I 1i I 1 \11\11 I ~/ 7. \
I I III \\ UtC\\\11'I' 1' I 1
1 1 III I I\\\\~I I I I /
111 II I I 1\\I \ \ \\\ /
11 II I I 14 I~~ `~ I I I 1
1 1 IB 1 I III Ij \ \ \ 1 \ 1 \
I II 1 1111 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~
~I I I A \ 1 111 \ \\\1\\~\ \ ~ \ I
I 111 1~\-'~ / ~\\\\ ~ \
~ _
\~
` II I/ \,~~\ \~ \\\ \\\\\ \
t' , I
UI \ ~ / ~ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\~\ 1 `\
IIII I `_ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \1\1 1 \
I I I - \ ~ v \\~~~ ~\\\111\1
11 141 -~\~~ \. \~~ \\\1111
I II) _ / \ \ ~\I\ III\ \I\\\
\ i 1\1\1\1\\\ \
II u11. _l/.~\ ~ \\\I\\\\ \
I;I I^111 r ~ y ``•\ ,` 1\~\\\I 11\ \
Iqh ~\ll ~. 1\nl 11 \
II 11 f `.\`\ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \\ 1
\ \ ~ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\ 11\ 1
\ \\ \\\\
II ~\ I, \ \\\\ \~~\ \\\\\ I
t _ !j~ 1 \\ \ \\\` \\\\\II\\111 \ ~e
'(9\\ 1\\\ \ II s
1 ~ \ \ / \\ I ~ 111 III\ \ I
I~ II 11 \-\-_ /\ \ _ 1 11\I ,III\Ir`/~\\1111111/ I
I \\\ II 1 \
II\ \-. `-~ - \ i I I \
III \\ ~~ -- ~ y, ,9E \ / / ~\,1111 ~\~ ~ ~ \ ,
111 I \ ' . 111.\ /III I~\\~\~
SHEET 7 STA. 49 + 00
~y~q
1 M 1 N
~~~~~
~~
O
c "~
Z
O
D ~
~m
m cn
~~
Dr
-~ r
m
.~ ~
Z
8
.~
~~ ~~
~~ ~

` ~ -L-
' Prs S-o 41$+3392 PI Sk I9+~B599 Prs Sr0 5r+J798
~ Fs. 3'Orr56~0' a ^ 5'OB'5~3'rLT/ Fs~ 3'OVi6.O
la : apppp 0 - 700' 56A' ~s . app,00
CT • r3335 L ' !7073 LT = r3335
~ s ~b8 R = ~ ST ~ 66b8
~
SE ~ O,W

NC 54, A4AhU BIYD. AND PAGE RD.

E~

~
~,
,~~.,

z zoos ADT
20.7 ADT

Q
~1'
~c_ -
F~ 5-a
W
_ -R ~' `° ,
N1 )
o f r ~'x ~ =-~- _~=-
R}:r ~
_ F _ C_
E B ZR
~ ~ +55 ~ 15' R ~
+45 5'
~~ a~
+3q %
~ ,.
~~ ... ;1 ~
I(/ .-r ,d
1 ry
' FUTURE PARKING DECK 1
lBY OTHERS)
a ~ ~~~
E ~ ;1
0
n
o / ^ .-ELEVATOR / S~AIRS~
~P ! ~ ~, PEDESTj~N
J BRIE
~ ~',i % f
Al
is
0
+58.35
+ Ex. Riw
95'
E E
+QO57 ' ~-is-~+~r3o _ 5a ra~ER
v r I ~m ~"~
i/
'' ~
~ ~''* ~,,
a~ ~~ % i
n ~ '
\~ i~ ~ ~
\ / // /
i i
`~ ~ ~ ~
\
~ / ~ 4%
~, ,
;,
a ~ ~~~ 0
~~ ~' ~`\ `~\ e
ix ~ \
h + \z ~~`% \\ 1
\~ `~ ~ , \
\\ ,r \ \
~\ `~ ~ ~\ i
a ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i
a ~ ~ ! \ \ ,~
\ ~` ~ ~ i
/s• ~ \~ \ \
~/ ~

i
pv.
~ ` ~~ ,~~~~ ~ it i ~~
~\ \ ,'~~~,~~ ~ -BL- 306 PINC 56131,80 p j ~~

- - ~
6~ 4. ~

1
~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~
RAMP /STAIRS
~ ~
~ \
~ `
.i
'AT ON LATFORM~ '
1/ M
PIN 52+90.03
PNC 9+19.52 6
- Sr 53+ 70
' Rr
S EWA K
E EVA OR / STAIRS
P ESTRIAN BRI
~',
~. -_
\ \
r \5ppp \ `\ 1 1 ~lo~ ~ ' 1 ---u--
- _ _ '' ° 5 `205' 210f 1 -L)- i i ~ r i ~
.r.. .~ \ ~ \ 1 1 11 ~--_------~_ ~-- -~ __ __
` \ -_- __ -rrp-_- -_-_~-~--
Rrl a' IC`I' ~'~- ~- ,.,,s sa~_~ z~ __------- -r
_ 1 _ -+1
~E "t- _ ~ ~---_ ,.dry.----_ ~-'~ ~ ` ~~ 1;,~ .;~ ~ ~ s~~
00 e . / \ \~ \~ pa
nlll /~~ 1. ~ 90' ~ \` ` / \ \\\~ 'i
l~1`I // ,,,iy~~\~p \~;1 ~ \ \\\e~ >~ -NCG$ CREEKSTONE- ~~
1 1+11 li ~\\ ~\ O \`\\ /: \\\\~ ~ POT 59+09.50 ~s
~ \
-BY-116+24J7 PINC '
~l it 111,-~ +~`:~ ~ ~~ ~ -~~ \\ \,`~~~ ; -BY2- 5+00.00 POT I~~
1 Ill l -BL- STe 53M2.80 ~\~ b \
II l11N l 120.98'RIGHT ~ ~ c \\ \\ \\`\( \`
Il l`I 1 ELEY.405.13'
O \$ 1 i~\~ \\ I~
I111Q11~1~~~8 1 \\ p ~ \ \ 1\ \ / o
is ill 1 11 \ •,\~' \\ \\ \\ \` ~~ /
111 11111 l \ ~\ V 11A ~ A , j
Illllllll 111-\ Q 1 ~\ \\\ :\\ \\I\\ .i~.~b`~ 4
1\II\I;i~~ l ~ ll \ ~\~, \ `II\I ~
\ \
11, 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~~ \\ \\\\ ~\
1111 \11~ , ` r`~ A it \1 ~+ ' \\\.1 \
1 , ~b,~ ;
111111~1~\'~~~ . '~ 1 1 H= (Op~~
11 t ~I I T 1--~~ 1 1
11®'~{-Ftr -- l 1 1
ll = ~l ' l 1 ~ FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 9
II • Ill 1 ~ -~ /° ~
OETU A
r.c our oY.e
i rr ro sew
or...a
w' a ..~
o~
l~plh. .RP D. V
r». u rwaam. loam
pAtlW+Q,
noaa saga rw. s.r r4o
R-2904 5
rw aar n
w4nw~r osaH
e4o~+~ a
xnewra
eq~er
INCOMPL
DO NPI UY PLANS
Ut AQlUCRI'I!I
PRBLIMIN
~~~ Y PLANS
~~
DENOTES FILL
SURFACE waTER
51+38.87 -~- END STATE Pf?OJECT R-2904

I i
°
P
-L- R-29p4 5
\\\ \ , ,.---, I I Gll
Pls S(o 48,~!392 PI Sro 49+$599 P/s SM 51+37918 \ \\\ \ \ ` ~., r \ ~' aeT ~
Fs= T00'5G0' ~ = S08'54.T(UI Fs= 3'00'S6A' I \u" \ \°~ \I I - 1 osru A Ap1owATOpg11 Mrouula
~ _LOO.Gn ~ ' TA7'S6a LS • ZOODO \\\\` \ ~ \ 1 . °K~ h,~ ea~al apps
U = IJJ.J5 ~ ' ~'~ CT = /JJJ5 ~ \\\\ ` \ ~\ rR \ I ~ - -
~ ,65.68 r ' ~''~ ST ^ 6568 ~ \ \\\\ ~ 1 a \ \~, ~ / .``,' °°"° ,4
\ -~ \\\ ~\ \ \ 1 r ~/ /~ 4r. u Twerps lAMm
\\ \\ 1\ \1111\ \\~ (\ ' ri' ,/ ~ K pOW ~.=.
\ ` \ y \ \ \ ~ ' ~ r ,,~
Ill \\\\ \~~ \-- r~1 / /G--r----.,
I ~ ~ y. praxc r
\\I \` ~` '~~~~ ~ ~` -~ "~' -~'~" DENOTES FILL
\,\ 1. 1 \~;\a a ~< /' , ' \ SURFACE WATER
I `, ,^ I, ~;\,¢~ ~, \,,, = STA. 57+38.87 -L- END STATE PROJECT R-2904
I I I , v v v y~ vk, v Ir~
r\ \ ~
1 \ I + a/
11 I II / I \ I'~ \\ ~ ~ f ~\ /~~1 t B,a
lpnlr\ 1\ \ I \ I Ir\ \\~ 1 .,, \\ ~ 1 / B \ \ \ .'r rr -rc,
\\ 1 1, ~_ 1\ l 11\ 1 I I r I ( \ \\\ ' j: rim `~~~ ,
`- _--1 -\\ `~\\ \ __s_ 1\ 11 r~\1 1 1 r ,~r \~! //\ \ \\\~ 1 I~ --; ice' ~~rr
~`- , 1 ~~_ ~B is 1 1 1 1 1 1 -'~ 1 1 1 \ ~, r/'r/-/////// ill % ice' I
.~ __ --r\~ 1 i% i/ r~%w11`1 ~1 1 111 VA_ I I I II 1 ~ a 1 A A ~ \ ~ V A r ,~ 1 I~ Illllrv - 1 III II I
:-,-~rrl~r/r1 1 ~~' '!~ ~ Ilil jl V 11 \ - / I IA ~3 /`` m v A `/i~`VA \V vAV'v.v-~ vwl~_Illt\v.111 r ~' ~ I IIII 111 V\
O _, rr ,r = r/ ., - rII I I ~ ~ / \ \ /.YJ'\\ \ \ , \~ \\ / / _ II 11 lags ,
` i :~ . '/rr ~ ri i J , ~ - I I I I \ 111 \\ I , 1 I \ '\ L \ ` ~~ --
'rr/ r ,, _'f II 1 \ r/•r W _\ \o I'\ ~ \ lo_ '/r I ti~ ' 11 1 I\ \I ~
0 ~ -- ~/~ / ~'Oi~ '', -' ~'_ i 111 I ` 1 111 \ I 1 ` 1 1 6 \tllk / ( \ \ ` \ `'' \` ~ _ / r' I 1 , I I \ \ 1~ \
-~. =,i% ii''ii/ llI' / - ', ;,, ~ \ I i 111' ~ -' \ 1 1 ! / ly 1 1 \ \ \? ~ ` \ \'~e-~ _ -' / \ ~ ~ \^ I~ If \ \~
it rirr r,/ ~ , ~'r r} ~' 11 111 \ \ ~ ~ V \ ~ \ \1 \I \ ~~ .J, \
Q ~'i~rrrr~'.r/ -/, ~' ,-~ _> III 1 1\ 1 \ ., ~ 1 \ \ \~ \ { \ \ - ~ 1 \ I 0 Ih~ \ \
~ Grr //! // q / II 1 111 \ \~ 1 ! 1\\ \ \ /\\ \\ ~ `~_ ~ - ~--~ \~ I I II ~1 \
rri r,r/ // / ! / r / ,1'S$.JS~' ~~.r b \ t 1 \ I \ \ / \ 1 / ~ 1 I» 11
,~' r~ r r !/i.' EV(, /W ._ -,r a IP / ! 1 ~ \ x ~ r r m+~ t~'I
r + ~ I \ ~ \ 1 \ \ \ ~ -BL- 306 PI C fi6t37.80 / !
/ rrr / ' , , ST' S/ 52 ! - r 1 \, \ -~, '
I / I v/ rrr r r l 1® 1 / /~ 1 S \ Y /\ \~\\~~'L~7 A96 / /j ~/ ~ I 1 ~I
I r /rm I' r r/ / r r r~ A I ! \ ` \ 1 m I / `- \\ 1 1 \ \ \\ \ I _ I t ` \
7y=7 r _ E / r ' ~ ~ 1 I `\ \r ~ \ \ \ ~~`~i~ 1 1 m \ \ -7-_ / rr `~ flll\I_'t'-
1l11 / ~ -~ r - ~=-1^~'i,C l-~'` 1 ~ Il r r~ I ` ~~ ` ~ /H v V / A ~~ I I 1 ° ` `~ 1~ I _ I`, - v r , 11 I ~~,1
I 1 1 I / \ 1 I r 1 -' 1 \\ +~ 8~1' ~\ \1 \ i \ `\`,\I ,~\I ~~ / 77, rl 1~\ I1
~O / ! 1 1\ 1 ~'CS tl -50'TAP.ER 11 II 111 \ ~,- I - - `f 4l \ \ \ I'\\f~\ ` ~ _ -er> -~':_ -e`PUSSK ~~_ °~ ''~~ I I ~~
W ~1 \ ~ lY` I ~~i-.- I ° 'F-1.__016 _ c~~E-q -~
- - - _ 2M~ / \ \ L I I I ~ \- \
'w aE -- Z / / \ \ \ \ 1 L \\,rZ--1--~-rn-- t_J~\ -rq -~c
-I =f`- ` it ',' I I _ ~ ~ a ~ 1 ~ 1\ \\ I I lyel I \\ LI ~ ~II~II''''
^N" ~ ~
.~\ _ - _
O - ~ ~~ -- - _ _ 1 ~ I - --- - r - - __`'
`~~ \\\ ~_ \~ c. \.. I 11 1\\" ---- r. - \ 1 \ ~\r4n/~s ..~-1,c ~'~ ys:4-- -- z_*~°=}==~i~.==
\ ~ ` \ \cC~ ,~ ~-~ ~ ~ ,;1 ~\` / 11 I 1 \1 ~ 'til \ r \. \ 1 ~.' IIYT~'~~~-~I ~~'s'•Yc 4~ _ -=TrS-r`= --- ~ -- --r
- \ \ \ \ \\g l / 1 1 ~ f f<- `-,~akr, I I~~\'~ / I T ~~i/ ~ GyT _ / ^- / '' /~ r ~ =~
/ -' \*~rT 1\~~\~ \`~ / II II11 \1 rr Y \ \ r 1 \ 11\1~~ Yi ~Ip"f S s r // ~ r\
11 r _ ..,\~ = ___ '~ Ir Rr !1 !r 111 ,rr• r~ 1 ~ ~ ~ now „5S'a~.V ,~' 14 \~'. b \ / ,'
/ I ~\ \ \\ ~ - 'Q 111 1' Al 1 r ,1/ Y`-~ % ''~I~ ub~~<_ .\~~, V \ ~ IA, \\; ~ I r//c
\\ -..;'~1 ''' I \1\\ )I Iy1rG lrr;1 ,,~~.~= ~ I . _,~ \.-~ _~ \ 1 yl \ \\ > ` \ 1 /~.' \
~~ \\\ ~I~'r~~: r/ 1 r \ ~II ~ / Iy9T 7kS / a ~ ~\ '~ ~ \I ri\\\ \~,~\ V r. \ 1 !, r, ,
rr r+~ / I 1 I ~ 11 I ~ ~~`~~ ~ \ 1
Ir r/ ~A56./6/ I r r! rll! I \\\ `\` 111 I ~ 1 / [~` , -~ r . \ '\ s
-_ --'- ' rr ! ~ / \ 1 I ul I11 I h hti / / --' " ~` 90' ! "~ ..\\ \ i \\ \\q~ i 1 arb \rl 1
-__-- - / .r 1/r l,Dl 11 r r 1 I 411 I I UV-~-. ` V / \VAV ` ` \\ \
_-__=°__-__- \ r r r / r,Hl Ir ~rr' hn 111 r vu / ,r~\\ , 0 \ *re"~ ` \ \ 1\ \\\ ~ -NCCS EKSTONE=, \ \
- - .--_- ___- ~ r I /rl Ir ~ 1 I \ I Ihl hl Ihllr/ r \~~~ 15 \ \ r POT 5 0 50~\ ^
-- - - r r r I I I^ 111 1~ vT r `~`~ ~ A ~~ v v
-_---_-- -, ! I/I 1 I~ I r lull r ~., .`.~ \ .fry \\ I !- ,.
= _ - ~: r I I I I I , I 1 I 1 , ` Inl 1 1 h ~ ~^ I1 s 1 1.1\ \ ` ~ . ~\ \ \ \\ \ \\ 24d PINC I r
- - £ - . ~ \ ., f _ ~ ~ I I I I 1 1 1 Ig , \ 1 I 1 \ 1 1 9 I a ~!\~ ~ \ \ \ `!r ,' 1 ` M ~\\'l ~BY21165 1 \ _ _i \ - ^ /
- - _ ~ _ :"•~- , ; , _ _ ~ - ~ ~ I I III I 1 1 \ 1 v uy \ h 1 1 I,a- ~ a t ~ .,,,/ / \ . ~ \ ~ \\~ ` / 00. ~ P0~' ~ ~~M1
\\ 1~ .\-IS 111 I 111 11 \\~ \ \ _ \ \ ~\ ~_ '
, ~~'-; , - r ~.>,.~ ,-., 1 I \ \ \ 111 I 1~1' I BM °7m `.. ~ _ ~\u \ \ \\\G \ \ \\\\\I\ \G \ \, \
r ~; ~ m I I TA1' DF L bRM 111 1 11 h1 \ \\ ~ I \ \\ ` \ \ \ er ~ .
%~ / / I I 1 I / II I I ~ 11 I -BL• STA 5 M2.80 ~ ~ A VA \ V AA'~~ V A b , ~ v
~~' - _ ~ _\~ / II I I r\\ \ \\ \\ \ /!i Ill 1 I I+111 1 120.9 PoGHT ~~ ~ `1 \1 \ ~\ \ \
1A ) A A \ 1 1 1 1 11 I EL 405!3' - ~ ~ AV A A~~~ ,, ' ~
-~0°'- \ '' / I I \\\\ \\ 11 t r I I l all! ;\ 1 I III/y1J111 ~~ re~~~~~\ ef~e \ 1 1 ~,~ 1 ` \ .\\gj \ III \
1 \ 1 1\\ 1 \ 1 1 11111l1'', TB ~ p ~ 1 ` 1 \\ \ ` /\' ' \ \I \ g \ rl 1 ~1 !
FUTURE PARKING DECK .1 r p IA+ \ \ \i 111 I r • 1 'II r r- ' 1 s `' I ~ \ ~ ~(° ~. a ~ \ \~ ~ ~/r ~ z'r~`G r " ,
f BY OTHERS) ~ r (t- ST 5J F \\ 1 1 i 111 li 1 I\-1-° r r r i ~ ~ ~ 1 \ o I \ 1 ~\ 1 \\ \~ ;~\ ~~r \ ~ r~ ~ \, I
,1 l8 ~f 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 11 \ ' 1 11 \a / \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ _~;~\ ~ - -
n ~/ -1 I I Ilw 11 \ ~ 1111 III 11 1 ~ ~ ~ r I ~~~ ., 11 A 1_ AA \ 1 A V~\ ~C'y~ ~ i' ~ ~ ~v
;` - 1 1 m l 1 ! III Il 1 1 I 1 1 r / ~ ~ 1 `1\l \1 \ \~ \ / ~ ~ ~ 4~ l r ' 1 / ~
E `~ ~$ K I r rw \ h/\ IIII III 1,1 1111111 1 i\ A / \ Il `\ 11\ \~\\\~ f:\\ \`11, M~S / .~`
~ ~; II ~\ 11 11\I11~ 1 '( 1 1 11 1 4l0 111 \vG 1 v \ OVA 1 q ! rv
m ~~ .-''' "~ ~ €VA QR~/ ~T Lf~~', jllll 1 1 1111 11~ ' ` AL I ' 111 p~V sllt h~ . (\ Al A\ ~ __ I _ _
/ ,-'ELEVATOR / S~'AIRS - _ r _r,rr m 1 111 1 111\\ Q-~- ~ °\ A \ 11 1 e111 ly \ \`~, \ r ~ r
~ ~ '.,r''~• 1 l- r r \ I I 1 1 d~l'hl~, t 1 -' ~ 111 V A 1 \1. \ r -
~ ~ r 1 11 II I I \l 111 17~I~~~ \ 11 1 //Y \ .ka,\ \ r
^" PEDESTIj~N 1 1 \
~ BR[D t r r 11 Itt IIII 111 h1~'~ J, ~~~\ \' r' I 11 1 r r.~G/J-i : ( :100
a; ~ / ~ PE E~TRI N 8R[Df~ 1 t I III 1 d A ~ 11 tw--1--~~ ' r r ~ 1. 1 '
~~ ~ '~,, / ~ ~ r , , I , I , o~+r*} 1 '8 _ r , , 1I °' ' fOR -L- PROF11f SEE SHEET 9
Ex I 1 ~ , / • ~ ~ .. I '. . ~1 I, , I. I , 11! :''d ! Q2 =~ ro- ~/ /• ~ ~ r' /' M..rb r I

INC'OMPL TB PLANS
w xor us in .•aomrmN
PRELIMIN
m~~ Y PLANS

' ~
0
a
N
a
U
O
h
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet t-B For Symbology
~~ ~s
14
r
~~ ! ~-'
' 11 / u07rir
J4ll ~ ~
~,
~~ ~ ~ a~.a--~
;~ ~ ~ ~~
PROJECT ~ ~ ~ ~ S
om
ua ~ 1 ~ w
~, ~ a
0 ~,
,~ ' ~
VICINITY MAP
ll I71~JLw ®~, d a' ®~ ll ~ ~~~®~Il1~!
~I~~~~®N ®~ lE~~~1E~~A~~Y~
DURHAM
COUNTY
LOCATION: NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAMS DRIVE) TO SR 1959
(MIAMI BLVD.)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, GUARDRAI,~
SIGNALS, AND SIGNING
U

a

N
P11EL,JIIS,R.Y ]'JA,NS
V ~~~~
h
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH PreparW In ile Ofrla ar: IiYDR4l1LlCS ENGII11S8R DIVISION OF XfGA1VAYS
D1VISlON
OF
HIGHWAYS sTAZS °P " r"'ROLII'4'
50 15 0 50 100 ADT 2005 U,800
,o
~
R~
ADT 1015 - 37
700
PLANS , ma sr.~c ar'®'a'm"a
DHV 10 %

50 15 0 50 100
D =
60 % LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT R-1904 = 0.786 MILES
ra

R]I
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJEC JtIGBT OP WAY IJATE: P
E
BRENDA MOORE ar~uvw ra
T R-1904 = 0.766 MILES .
.
.

1~
-
~
5 %
NOVEMBER 16
1003 (PR
D ROMWAY DESIGN aa+a aeanmv mwcrm
,~

•~
PROFILE ,HORQONTAL)

V =

50 MPH ,
.
O
APWI 11, 1006 mn
S1YGlABBR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

10 5 0 10 10
+ (17ST q % +
DUAL 3 %)
LBTIJNG DA78~
THADF.UN P.E. FEDERAL I1lGHWAY AJ>hlINISTRATIO
NOVEMBER 16,1004 IPROD
PROFILE (VERTICAL) APRIL t5, 1008 (nPJ ra nrr~ova~
s~murvxr, c~amx .~aun~~aurot at~a

awn nn wwor shoo ns ~* i~
.c R--2904 1
an wwv w r..~nooit us woes
34511,1.1 STP-04(1~ P.E.
94511.11 R /W Dill.
34511,3.1 STR~51 CONST.

~ ~ P
P
. m
. N
m
N
0
'S,U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILRY ENGINEER
V~I 1.1 L 1~/Uy ~'T ®$' ll N6 , ® ~~"'11~I~1''~~JIEI ~'E'1~q~~~~E''yB~[~7{(y~(n~\®~llTyJ~`dld i l Jl
~~ V L~1L®l, ®ll llJl lL lY ll^ @tl 1JS L V
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
ROADS f~ RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement-------------------------- ------ ---
Curb ------------------------------------------ ------ ---
Prop. Slope Stake: Cut -------------------- ------- _-- c _--
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill -------------------- ------- ____v _--
Prop.Woven Win Fence _ _____-- ~_~
Prop. Chain link Fence ________-------- ------- ~~
Prop. Barbed Wiro Fence _________________ _______ $-6-
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ------------------ ------- ~
Curb Cut for Fuhrro Wheelchair Ramp __ _____ ~
6dst. Guardrail ---------------------------- ------- ~ ~i _
Prop. Guardrail -------------------------- -
Exlst.Cable Guidsroil______________________ _______ ~~~_
Prop. Cable Guideroil______________________ _______
Equality Symbol --------------------------- ------- ~
Pavement Removal -____-- ------ -------
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Pant------------------------------
Existing Right of Way Madcer______________________ p
Exist. Right ofWay Une w'Marker ______________ _~-
Prop. Right of way Une with Proposed
RW Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) __________________ -~--
Prop. Right of Way Une with Proposed
(Canasta or Granite) R!W Marker______________ ~-
Exiat. Control ofAccess line -____-- -,,A,,-
Prop. Control of Access Line ---------------------- _~
Exist. Easement Une ____-- ---------------- _ _ __E_ _ _ -
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Une ______. E
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement Une __________ _T~-
Prop. Penn. Drainage Easement Line ________-__ -~-
MINOR
Head 8 End Wall ------------------------------- car c Nw~
Pipe Culvert _____ ~ _ _ _ ,
Footbridge ------------------------------------------ ~ - - - - - -~
Drainage Boxes-------------------------------------- ~ ~
Paved Ditch Gutter ----------------------____-- _ _ _ _ _
UTILTl7ES
E~a:t. Pole ------------------ -----------
Exist. Power Pols _____________________ _-- +
Prop. Power Pole ---------------------- - _ b
E>o~.Tslephone Pole _____ ____________- ~
Prop. Telephone Pole ___ ___ _____________ o
Exist. Joint Use Pols _________________ _____________ .~
Prop. Joint Use Pole ________________ _____________ ~
Telephone Pedestal ------------------- -------------
Cable N Pedestal _________________ ___----_ __-.
roM --------------------------------- -------------
0
Satellite Dish -------------- --_ _ -- ~
Exist. water valve ------____--
Sewer Clean Out -----_------------- -----_____-- +0
Power Manhols ------------------------ --------- --
Telephone Booth----------------------- ------------- m
Water Manhole - ------------ ------------- ~
Ught Pole ------------------------------- ------------- a
H-Frame Pole ----------------------- - ---------- .--e
Power Line Tower -------------------- -------------
Pole with Base --------------- o
HYDROLOGY Gas Valve -------------------------------------____- - 0
Stream or Body of Water ---------- -... ... Goa Meter------------------- --____--
Flow Arrow --------------------- -- -.._...~ Telephone Manhole --------------------------____-- ~
Disappearing Stream------------------------- ---- >--..._ Power Transformer
----- -- -- -- --
- 8
Spring ------------------ ------------------------- --- (y-..~ SanRary Sewer Manhole .------
Swamp Manh - ~ Storm Sewer Manhole---------------------------- - ps
Shoreline ------_----------------------------_ ___-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tank; Water, Gas, Oil O
Falls, Rapids -------------------------------------- ---- -~-__-- Water Tank With Legs
- -- - ------ ------ ~^(

Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches _--_______
__ ~
TrofficSignalJuncfion Box
- ---- - -------- M
p
STRUCTURES E- `~ Fiber Optic Splice Box --------------------- --- ~
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert -__- ca+c
C
~ Television or Radio Tower _-_______-.____-__
'

Bridge Wing Woll, Head Wall --- Util
Powx Une Connech to Traffic
tf'
and End Wall _-_________________________ ___. )conc ww( Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement-______- ~,-;~
Recorded Water line --------------------------- - -
Designated Water Line (S.U.E.`) _-- _-- _ -~
Sanitary Sewsr ------------------------------------- -ss-u
Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main _-- -:- ~:S-FU-
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.`) _ T:S~s -
Recorded Gas Line
------------------------------
---c--~-
Designated Gas Une (S.U.E.`) ------------------ -~- ~-
Storm Sewer
------------
-s-s-
Recorded Power line -----------------------__-- -, ,
Designated Power Une (S.U.E.`) _______________ _ ~- ~ _
Recorded Telephone Cable _____________________ -,-,-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.~
________ __T_ _T_ _
Recorded l6G Telephone Conduit ________ _,D-,~-
Designatsd l1G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E!) _ _,~_TO_ _
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.`) ____ -„m~-
Recorded Television Cable -------------------- -T~-n-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E,`)
_______- __~,__r__
Recorded fiber Optia Cable ------------------ -vo-vo-
Designated fiber Optia Cable (S.U.E,`) _____ __FO--vo-
Exist.WaterMeter -------------------------------- 0
UIC Test Hole (S.U.E.`) --------------------------- ~
Abandoned According to WG Record---____-- .TTUI
End of Information -------------------- ~,,
BOUNDARIES £~ PROPERTIES
State Une ------------------------------------------ ------
County Une - --- ------------------------ -----
Township Une -- ------------------------ - ------
City Line -------- ------------------ ---- ----
Reservation Line ----------------------------------- -_-_--
Property Une ----- -------------------
Property Une Symbol
East.lron Pin

Property Comer ------------------------ -
Property Monument _____________
Properly Number ----------- - -----------------
Parcel Numl»r __
Fence Line ------------------------------------------
Existing Wetland Boundaries _____________________
Proposed Wetland Boundaries __________________. _ -
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries__-____
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ______-__
123
- x-x-x-
ww S ISBw
- -wEB- -
--E4B--
- -EPB- -
R
QW~q I'p. ~ YET N0.
BUILDINGS ~ OTHER CULTURE
Buildings ---------------------------------------------
Foundations ------------------------------------------ ~ ~ ~
Aroa outrne ------------------ -------- ~,~ i
Gate ------------------------------------------- -- ,~"
Gas Pump Vent or lVG Tonle Cop ____. o
Church ----------------------------------------------
Sdtool -----------------------------
Park ----------------------------------------------
_ - -
L-r
Cemete
ry------------------------------------- -- -- - J
1=r
Dam------------------------ ------ --------
~9n---------------------- ---- ---- ~
s
Well ------------------------------------------ - -- o
Small Mine -__ x
Swimming Pool ------------------------- -----------
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface _ _--_-__-. _---
Hard Surface --------------------------- ----- ----- '
Change in Road Surface ________ ____________
Curb -------- ------------------ --------- -- -
RightofWay Symbol ----------__-- R/w
Guard Post ------------------------------------------ oc~
Paved walk __ -____--
Bridge ----------------------------------------------- ~~
Box Cuhrort or Tunnel ~- - - - - - - - -~
Ferry ------------------------------------------------ ---------
Culvert ------------------------------------- -------- >---------------<
Footbridge ---------- -•--------•--....
- Trail, Footpath ---------------- ----- -------- -~ - ~ - -

w~B
Ught House -------------------------------------- d~
VEGETATION 4P
Single Troe ----------------------- ---------------- Q
Single Shrub Q
Hedge ---- -- --- ----------------------- ----
Woods Une--- - -------------------- ------- -- s,~,,,-n.~,-w,_
Orchard -- ------------___-__ {~Qp4f3(~
Vlneya~ -----------------"------_'-_-------- ~INEY4RD
RAILROADS
Standard Gauge
cu rn,xvrynaa
RR Signal Milepost -----__ _-_ __--- o
Switch ------ -- ----- -- - --- -------- --- - Oss
err
~ev{ud 11/09/00

~ P
,
\ \
m
1 \
~\
\ f
\f \
\\
\ ~\
J e L ./\
R\
D' O ' N
J \.
~o \ \
Ot 366 K CI
PoiOKtt
11 '
1j J
it
i~
~8
W.' ~ , .,
/r ~
~ ~ r/ L /r
.,. ~., ~„
0 Ex. EAS
o ~
k +4
~ 65'
A
N
/ ~
6 ===g"" '~`~
F o /i
~ p41
~~ • ~.
O
za
o ,~6
Y ,~
s
SC S<a 23+E
.t::n
\~~
~ _ rtv""P ~ _ = ~-_ - - =~-n- _ _
F~,~M
0
~.~
Mf.70661
i0 NQ[ U9 P06 Cg1J1Il1AR10N
O
-L-
Pla Sta 23+0236 P15to 25+1989 Pls Sta 28+5534
Fa = 3'00'560' ~ = 12'38' 33.8'(RTl Fs - 3'00'560'
La ^ aOpOp D =3'00'560' !s =20000
LT = 133.35 L = 41925 LT ~ !3335
ST ^ 66b8 T ' ~~ ST ^ 6668
R = 1,90000
SLTE STREET 81IK L TRlbi C01PY1T,TRUSTEE SE- DIH
K~~~
Kl9KMT
p~~tcxar° p ~x
e ~`
C~
_® o ,,- -------------
~ 5©Q~ Btl-tlfm Fg p apnu~ M
.. •.. ,•+
~ I y~ +65 +45 '~ C'~ ~ 1 I I , +20 ~
°~ ~ I ~'I ~ 95' EX. R/w ~ ~ ~ ExOR/W i +50 ~? I I '105' roods +00 H
I ` 85' +00 .~ ~~ II i
I I I ~ 3,~ .100' ~ I I ~ao~ _„ _.._ 8~
-.- ~~~ `
:k~ ~~
b ~w ~
~,~,,, i ~ ''E
56 -_ ~ 1.0'
- ~~ v+I rR '
~ ¢ 1
- ~ '' 1 ~ PROP ~ ~ ~
:~V"" - mot/
i
,.1,
111
111
I
'00
_ A~~
15' j '.. ~,
//
,,
/~ ~'
,/
~.: ,
~/
i~
i~
0 ~, /
g~
-,_r-__~_ - ~~~---
~- 'i<
ro -p - -
Y{' i~
GA61~16 , ~ ,_
+oo
I _ ----
-' Tx- ----_~
--1l0--~ --_-. _~ I _-110---~~
FN 330'FULL _ F
APEM~~F \ \ -- mu nn ~'-
1'. C
!50' RT TUR +•
E TAPER El
Mp0°s +50 +05
w +25 85' Ex. Riw
'6L' JVL
361r ~ a
is-nuo Ru1cELS ut
CB 7165 K 9T2
rocoosK55o
O
-BL- 301
23J4' RT
3,1~b NORTEL ENTRANCE
AND NC 54
0
z ~
17 0 _ ~ NC 54 17
37,7 ~ 7
1~~ ~~
t,1oo
1900
PREFORMED SOOUfl HOLE
[tint
M~~ a ~in~i~n.i~
~.:"_'
..,,
'w'"ini 0 ~
_Ya6t
441~a
m'1b1 h~
Ym'.' ~'i~7.~-'
fALSETSUTAP
w r'a°'_a+ar
_ r~ r-r
61M kN (h~MW M1Yn
11gt to SaaN r
2005 ADT
1025 ADT
S 40'S5'34BE
~~ . ~lr
_~ ~ ~~ / Y
xoOOS E * • F ~
' ~F I E
+85 E I ' !
I Ilj ~~ Ex.95 w,85
~ &
~tE .
EXIST. SIGNAL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 8
PSH: PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE ISEE DETAIU
SBG: SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
90' +50 1 i f
~5~ m Il{i! <,~
I 1 +p
'60.35 /~/~/ II ~ ~ ^°~~+
~~ ~ ~ I II
'/ ~ ~ II
c~ ~~ III ~~ © ~
BM '2
-BL- STA 3h65.20
179.52' RIGHT
ELEV. 710.31'

- E~~m - _ _, n is
,'zr~R 57'fULLs W
-_ --- ~ ~
«. ~-_ -~
k ~ O
~T
ne - w--
i- - ~ fi~u~ CrA61t6
E
E 1DE
15
+7 Ex.95 w,85

P
. i ~
i ' \
~ ~
O ~ ~`
M ......
H
N ....
H __-
W•
' O
N ~-
. .
O ~ ~sz
= roa ~+E!
H + E~
+80
PBEFORMEO SCOIIN HOLE
6~1i4
4M1
~~
~`,°
~Y '" o -L
• J'~
441'ar.
}~ 4~
ro.
. '~ -~".~
Y"r .en ~ 17.n,

.. .
.. . . _.
.: // I
~L ~
T /~///
/ I I I
_~_ ~
-L~!
~ ~i~ ~ I
--
--
~An
_ - --~
.L~'_J I
I I
I
--ff __~__: _ ~~ ~ CAG\

,,..,,~'~++ .. .. `~+~ ~ R III
SiAiE SiREE r ~ ~ ~ ~ ANI', rPoISTEE \\ II I
ro~~~; ~

4ooDs ~
+50
+00 100'
90' 1 1 II I

is - .
..
e< d ~ .. .. ..

!

I
mA
--
- -- ------1--------- _ ~`+
- = ------ -- -"~ I
._..........__.. _...._......... * 2' J
-- ~s.~~
I -» r R
NOYCF ~ NQ
R-29O4
RW Y!!f N0.
_~_
Pls Sta ~+33.92 FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 9
i~= a~ooaroo~° PSH: PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (SEE DETAIU
sr-13ss ss SBG: SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
STATE STREET BANG ! iR{IST CpPANT,rRUSiEE
/ OB Mt PO T!0
roTSroer
ro M PC Nr
i~
k P~ ~I I
o.~L lATfP FgNt~ SDDLER FOLD ~i~
r ~~~ ~ /x.
X
[p~ . ~ ~ xFF!!L~L'
~ BASEBALL FEED I'a I~ i~ x ~. ~~tiY
/ B 0
~ ~x,Bi / ~' TS SJO.47a0i
~ +55 +80 I I (~ ix D, cw~~
h 95' 90' % x--V U ~ i x'!x +00 eDOOs
__~.~ 6"~
~~+
. 4oDO~
---- - ~ 4P4AP ~~~
~.~
--_-.-~ iFD.----~----__--"

PD!
+20
ZSfnAro PARCELS uC ~ [ )
ro~rom `J
rot0CSK7l0
DETAIL B
PROP. STREAM RELOCATION
I Not to Scalel
Natural NDiurW
Grour~ ?,! Ground
D
8
CHANNEL B _ ___ 3____
BED
p . I.0' Min.
STA 46+30 TO 47+30 -l-
258' FULL ~~
T_
-E . p E I +50 I QR' F•flti-
Nx
~ s I ~ IIy~80' I'DE ®E _- E
` E40 +00 _
~ ~ `ii~l~ &X•105/w•8 X.105 w
1a ~
• ° 1 `
C~ u~
L 303
.DODS ~ ~ G} 11 \\Lt Q Q - A
~ \ \ ~ 3 R; os
~ 5\ ~
CROSS VANE ROCK WEIR
M1 ,4 ~.LB c~M
/-U! RwRl
I ~.~,L~l
,M r1P 4.1..1
,~ ~.. -
~ -1-
. • ..
SECTION A-A~
w.n1c to roc1
$iilw ipD1ER 40C1
ROI--- L
NQHl ti-~-~L
100tS 4i011D 4C MDR FIiFA f~Bl1C ` L
~m riw Fm wM°n`.1ai um °1G "" SECTION B-8
+10
~~~•
- --- - ~~
Y M DlAN ~ I - ~ - -
TAPER ~oDDS I ~ i loDDB ~
..
....
------ ~_„~.----1--L---_
----- _L-_..L_
~ a® PROP. G ~ ~ ®r~
- -- - GAR~n i~r-++
~ ~ ! RT T RN ~'~' !-
~~+45 '~B
X. /W Nx ~ ~ ~''
80 /+ crew
x rNAnGLE PoIROArIOx a
pRTx GwoLw
+oo
:~~
F-.~' b
F
~ V
~~- ~

WB Pol ~~~,~,
O
T
F
N
85' _
~ .... W
N
;_"
e ~ O
RF ~
,~
~.
e Teo ro ~ ^ ~ ~ Cv~v ~ &x•115~w
e ~ Ps ssr/--t
641Ky/ O -
Ir +15 BL- 304 I
+35 155' -l- STA 41+63.99
~~ RxouTloN ITO' 14A' RT I
I
ZO 1+00 0+80 0+60 0+40 0+20
~ i II
III l 1
L~ \_
~ \1 ~~_-
I
I
I
--

P
~ . P
n
' ~
m
-L-
Pla S1o 48+3392 PI Slo X9+8599 Pls SM 51+37518
sorr s6.a rcr~
° : ~
~
~°
~ Fs =soma
n
a
a s
so
.
LT = !~ L = A073 LT = ~

~' 66be r ~ 85.2
R = r5!o000 ST •6668
SE ~ QM
\ ~\ ~• ' • CEDAR FOAM v RM' iSE NO.
s~' ROADWAY DFEION xYDRAUIICR
p 6RPTbT CMAO,TI~ / / FNDM® B~OR~lR
\ dF ~T / / _.b BWT6T GRCx 5P,
CEDAR FORA ~g\\\ s~ ~\~, \~ /~/(~' / /'
NC 54, ML1MI BLVD. AND PAGE RD.
1!,100 i;
~i
~
a

~ ,.5,.
4,DDU
1~ NC S4
X50 1
RAGE ID.1 10,900
e '
17 epp 4005 ADT
3755 40~' S ADT
BAPMT CHIHCN ~ ~ ~/S ~~ zsec / / oETxl A
~4 ,' ~r' PRgLIMIN RY PLANS
W IIN7DDDx \~t ~~i/ /'` MMSi c~ 0 ' rn amn awDa
c / /, /~ \ / / / 5 Dn +e S,W Do Dar UD1 awtwurnox
~ PTO \\~ ~'~ ~ `'~°%%.
f \ N / i 4 ,rpm • _ta' p . tf .._
' f~~ ~ \ ~ MRE ' / / ~.utr~/~'dr . ~ m . u Yw n wa 1 DM.o
1 \ / I ~' ~ Du n.r a. Q.
{ ~\~\ t°o ~ ~ / j ~ ~ TEA \ aecR&is
v ~ 1; ~~ ~, ~ \ \ a; ' ~~~ ~` l ST 57+ .87 - B~ PROJECT R-2904
1 \ ~ ~ \/ \ D
1 DD/~ \ \ `... \\\ ` \ NEL COY EP c~~ / O E Po~L~er
n `
// w ~~ ~~\ o ~~\\~ fi as' f~F/ ~ ~ ~` 4
~11 /~ ~ ~ 1 Ipa ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ \\\ I PMTIE ~ a~n
rATE . T• ~ TRy1~T COIPAxY, TA~SEE /~ ~ 'cI ~ /~ ~ ~' ` \~~\\`\ De R0/ m /~,~ ~ / C3
CPC NT {~ ~ S d ~ ~,Cb $ ~ \ \(• \\ ~\ \ PB DO M ~ „~, ~ ~ II I .
+ ~ . 3 ~ o ~ s ATE ell o ~ .,__,- ~ _ _ ti m
01 .. ~ ~ \/~'~ ~' TE 1 ~Qa~ \\ ~\\ \~ ~\~` =_ zsaEeiu ~ I1 II III
~' AoWS + +58R/W cE~tEAY ~ ~ 4D/r~E~TE ` \ ~~t~ F1 C9 'ti'-6L- 306 o T'STOnE '~c6~ m
. .. .. ... ~ ., ~, Sta +71.30 cEO.R Font awi ; ~,' \ / I ~
L&1$ ! 1 II a I . I
- EP BAPTST \
5' , cu nAps~ / 4 \ . ~ -C- STA 56 ~m 4 ~~ ~ • ~ ~
L ...... DWG ~ _ cRUacx ~E C~ADPT ~ , , ` 50Ja Rr
1~ _ E E ~ "P f ! ~ '{' 0~~ !ORSYTN LYTED PA~TxERSEi . • ~T \yI 1 { I~ .
y ` .. .. 'c ~- $r.A u. 1 ~ ~\ ~ roeos s SPA' 805 ~~ ~~ . ~+9 I ~ ° ~,\; `~ \ \\ ~~` ``'~ ~ ~M ~N ~ n ` ~ _ _ 3. ~ e~ roDNraA Yf~ j I ' ~ 1
_ "~ ~ ~M~~ ~~~
~ SYa. ~ .... C5 +71.30 TAPER L ,~: E.D. E 8 ~~ \\ \ ~~\\~`\ `°e"^•~,=-p ~~ ~3..,.,~~ ~~~~i SEA ~
b, ROWS I N el ~„A t5 4D \ 9 \^~~ f T _ - - - __ --E~ n -7-~ - - ~
~\ /
g _ __ _
p ~ _ 1~"' / ,( \\ \\ ~~„0O~\ \' }__~~`~-F--~~-_~.~-mot ~Fi s ~s
h %, --~ -r N1 ely J- - --= * `~\ \ \\ 11 ~ II~~ i --, ro- __ -W--
' ~~= ` ~ - ... ..... ..V \ SR IPAC~A01D1 III
_ ..._ -
- *~. ~ ~ `_ - _ _ _ ~-1' _' _ _ _ _ Ec s. ''°'c B5T ~ ~ ` S `2'06' 2laf \ -L~ ~ ~ ~ a sa eTS Aa Aa
/ ~ r ar av ~a r'}~ ~,
E t~TDD En ~' EmYAD nn l~ ~ ~ ~,_ ~~ v°~ '\ IU I V ~' mess' ~~'~~ //
48' ,~5 ~ 5, R \\ R ~ AoWS . E) .. - - -- ~" ` - ~ ~,~SS: \ ~ y''n1'~°{?'1' ;'' / ;/ -_ E -~f--
pA~ [f ~~-'ti ~ 1 \ ~ \ ~
~, ~~ \C DEGIt•A '~! 00 1~/ a 11 ^f~ \\ y ~ y~ n~~ ~ ~ GoNSTRUCC 1aN a/G//1c
u'EaWmW_ ~ AM AIRS ~~ _
tVFTAU® cTMml +34 '~ ~\\ ` { 1 ~r .- '' 1 0 ~ \ ,a' ; t. \\ ~ \~ I ~~
WANGLE FOUOAi10x CF \`\ \ II 1 "-~' / lT '(pX. R/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ : 4 \ \ \\ ~
CARORw EX. EASE. © ~ ~ I1~~' / i ~ '\ ~ \ / ~, a
~ Rte. , \\ ~ it I 1 ~,a _~Si &e90' ~ \ ~ \ ~\ \~ i u~~
ro ~ n ~ '~•+sra~ o ~;\~ ~ ~~ ~ {{ ~1~1= /~ ~e`-~ ~\//awe ~~\~ ~ ~ \\ \ ~ ~ \ \`\ \\; ~ -NCGS CREEKSTONE- ~ m~{
ro s+ -D ^ DDR ~ \\ ~ 1111 ' \ ~{r~ (_5) ~ a\ \ \ ,, Y ~ \ POT 59+09.50
~~ 4 ~ t~ '~ ~"~ 111 ~ ~ 111 1 ~~ ~ \ ~\ \ \\~a .'s ° \\\ \ -BY-116+24.17 PING ym~I>
,~.. ~'~ 111 -~ Ili{ 1a1 ,.- ~~:~ \ O ~~~ ~ ~ \"`\~ \\ \~i \ \\\ -BY2= 5+00.00 POT ~~~
•• r \
1 \-•~ ~ 1 1~1 BM •3 /~ \\\,~c\ ~` ~ ~ `\' \ ~ \ \\\ \ ~' CENTR4 CAROLRU ~ ~~
• ~ TAT 0 ItA ORM 11 1
.1 ~ 1 1 1 1 111 -BL- S1A 53+42.80 ( ~ ~ ~ °'~ ~ ~ • \ \ \ \ ` \\ \\ -\
;1 1~,1 ~ 11 1 1 1 120.98' RIGHT `~+ ~ ~T \` \ SC~b \ \\ ` \\ \ \\( ` \0! t91D PG QIT,
/ ~~ 111 ~ 1~1 1111111 IEV. 405,13' ~ /\\ lR/MF,M000SMtTT ~ \ ~ b \\~~ \ ~\V ~ `\ +PE MT F4 O3 d
' 1 1 ., F 1 ~/' ~ \~~ PB Ito K tiTa ~ ~~ 1 \\ \ ~ 1 ~\\ \ \ UNDER ~
- C 1 ~\ ~ ~' \ \ \\ \ CONSTRUDTION 6 i
FUTURE PARKING DECK ~' -L- ~ 1 ~ ,,11j11111,D, \\ 1 ET ~\ p 11 ~ \~-`~'\ \ ~\\ \ ~~rco~•
(BY OTHERS 1 '~~` 1 ~ ~ ~ \ \~ ~ i
11 \ fi ~. A v E3 c o
1 18 RT 1 1 ITd 1 11 1 ~ ~ /~ \ v1 ~ DD \C `\ ~ ' \\ \.~" -' ` i °~,~'~'
11` II 1111 1 11 \\ c1~ ~ \\ \\\ 8 \\1~+~ 5 C\p~p o/
~~ ~ S EWA K 1111111-~ ~1 1 ~ \VA~~ \\ ~A~ D/rEt s~Bp
'' ' 1 \1\1 +1111 ~ 1 1 ~ ``'! 1 \ \\ FAFICPAL M1TWL LFE
..=1 E EVA OR T RS 11~ 1 \ ~ 1~ \~ 1 `~' \ \\\ ~ RISIRAxCE COMPANY
z •''• 11 \ L~ 1 ~ \ \\\ \ De:s96 eo 265
/ ~ •..•EtiEVATOR / S~AIRS ~ 1 \ `9 ~ r.~ , ~11~ \ 1. ~ ~~ \ ~\\ \ \ \ ve MT F~ as
° a j / \ 111 ~ ~ {~h ,,, \ t \ isDEDDUS ~ 1 \ 1 ? \ \ ,t o ~
..m PEDESTRIAN \ \11 1 ~1\`~flZ7\~.\ \, 11 \
`m '"
o I ; BR/feE \ 1 PE S ~ ]AN BR] GE ~1 t~1111~ „__i_ ~ w \ ~ EXIST. SIGNAL
~~ l ~ ; / ,' 1 .DWS ''11~~1; 1 ~~ //~/~ .~lr~~-~ FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 9

APPENDIX A

v~J~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 38726
Raleigh, North Carolim 276!69726
August 15, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT _
.,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~:' ~ ~ ~'
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazoliria 27699-1548
LCar 1VlI. G11n10CC:

At1s ~ ~ ~-
*n .,,
~~jF,~ ~ ~yi 1+~K .~
.,y.~h_ L ^~~~
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 Cazolina 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 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 minimization 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 areas. 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 are wetland and stream resources in the specific work azea. 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 conrlicts 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
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;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact azea 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 Cotes of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Cotes 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;
A-2

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,
8. 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
A-3

COMMOr NA1r1E SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DAME COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri 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
DUrRHAM 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 floaters Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Panhandle pebblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Butternut Jugla~rs cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Plagiochila Columbiana FSC
January 1 S, 1999 Page 17 of 49
A-4

o
~..~.
~ ~ ~~, - ,
~~1 ,- ,
:, : _
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ~'~~. f ..~ -.., ~~.,.
g<~ ~. ~.: .:....
State Historic Preservation Office ~
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
- April 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore
Project Development & Environmental(Analysis
From: David Brook 1~-~.~ C~ t~~~"
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 Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations at 36 CFR
800. Please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, if you have any questions. Thank you.
~~ MaiWx A~~rso Tek~MoaKJFas
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. BIouM St. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Savior Cana. Raleigh NC 27699x1617 [phone] •733-RG53
R4STORATION S 1 S N. BIowR SL. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699.4613 (919) 733547 •715.4801
Si1RVEY lc PLANNING S I S N. BIouM St. Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Carta, Raleigh NC 27699618 [phone] •715-4801
~. -,
~~ ~ -~~
A-5

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMEI~TTAL REVIEW
r ~` I
~rii~
JUN 7 2(71
N;ST~C I'R~SERVA3101V CFFICE
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFZP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
TRIANGLE J COG
F:iOJECT INFORMATION
APPI.ICA.*?T: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD; Scoping
F02
':FMK. Ct.a. ~ Ol- q lc~~ ~ cig~
DESC: 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 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 (919)H07-2925.
AS A RESULT GF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE : ~- oI /~~
STATE NUMBER: 01-E-4220-0778
DATE RECEIVED: 06/06/2001
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/17/2001
REVIEW CLOSED: 07/22/2001
~~~~ ~ ~
r`~C-~`~"~'
CP~cZ-~ d i

JUl S 2001
~~'.C. STA fE CLE~Ff'JvNt~:1~;~
a-s JUN 1 1 2001

y / '~
~.IT 1
` ~ ~ J \ 1Lt`,~ ~
`-.. ~.
. V
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. S et
July 24, 2001 ~~ C I ~/
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation ~
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch 3 ~ ~,;;;': m ~ ~ 30 2001
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC JU'~_ ~~~
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 ~o F„_ H~ ,~ ~~
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 -
Tlie 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 / Affitmativc Action Employs
A-7

North Carolina - -
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Wi1Gam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
l~MORANDIIl1
~-~~ .
NCDENR
T4: Chrys Baqgett
State Clearinghouse
FROK: ?lelba idcGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SIIBJECT: 01-E-0778 Scopinq, Widening 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.
S
Attachments
.,,.
~~
.. - +r
JUL ~~;~ ~~~t
Ci~_ ~i..,r.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www. enr. state. nc. us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIItMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 5096 RECYCLED / 1096 POST CONSUMERPAPER
A-8

. State of North Carolina
Department of Environment ~
and Natural Resources +~
Division of Water Quality
r~~r-~`
~~
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. Hennes
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
Alii Project No. STP-54(2), State Project No. 8.132701, 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. Itr41-1-17 (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
proposed 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) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required 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

41r. William D. Gilmore memo
o~~o9rol
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, the' DWQ 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 stream.
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. Borrow/waste 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.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)},mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation 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 trot be permitted to
' discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stotmwater 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 Coz, NCWRC
Personal Files
File Copy
C:Mcdot\TIP R-2904~commentsU2-2904 scoping commena.dac
A-10

NCWRC.HC~.FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jul 16'01 14:21 No .002 P.03
.z ~ North C~aroli W dlif_ a _e _Resource Commission r
Charles R Full~-ood, F~esatirc Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: Metba McGee
Office of Legislptivo and InterEovctnmental Affairs, DF.NR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C or
Habitat Conservptial3 Program -
DATE: July l6, 2001
S111'sJ ECT: Request Far information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) ag flab and wildlife co~orna for the NC 54 widening,
from SR 199 (Davie Drive) to SR I959 (Miami Boulevard), Durhazn
County, North Carolina. ?IP No. R-2904, SCH Project No. 0l -E-0778.
This memorandum responds to n request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding itapaeu on fish pad wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on ti:e staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resourcxs Comm.tss~on
(NCWRC) have reviewed the ~ropoacd impr+ovanants. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environn~ctttal Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2xc)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (4B Stet. 401, as amended; l6
U.g:C. 661-667d).
We have no specific concecna regarding this project. However. to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are
outlined bdow:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife n~ources wit$in the project area,
including a listing of federally or statz designated thrcatcncd, endansered,
or special concesa species. Potential bormw areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories, A listing of dcs~gnatcd
plant species can be dweloped through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Ptvgtam
N. C. Division of Parks attd Rareation
1b1S Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27649-161 S
(9l9) '133-'f79S
• MailiaK Address: Uivi~iun of inland Fishecie~ • 1721 Mail Servi~c Cenu:r • Ralci~li, NC 27699- ] 721
Telephone: [phone] c. A-~ ~ • Fa:: [phone]

__ _...,,. .~ n.._.. ~.nr~L iGL.•yly-~Lt5-y25J7 JU1 16'01 14:21 NO .002 P.04 _
Memo
2
]uly 16, 2001
sad,
NCDA Plant Conaavatioa Program
P. p. Box 27647
Ral ~' N. C. 27611
(919 733=3610
2. Description of say stroama or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
chaanelizing or raloeatiag portiot>s of:ereams Crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type rasps ahawittg wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should mClutk all p~ro~ect-relatod areas that may emdergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or 511ing far
pro~cct construction. Wetland idantt5eation t~uty be accomplished throw
coordination with the V. S. Army Corps of Enginccra (COE). If the COE
is not Gonsuhod, the poraon delineating wetlands rhould be tdcntif~od and
criteria listed.
A. Cover typo maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow attea should be included.
S. The extent to which the ptojest will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands}.
6. Mitigation for avoiding~mtrtimiring or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes 1'he cnvironmcrttal
cfl'ccts of highway consnvudioa and q the contribution of this
i~tdividual project to Cn1-1Z'pt~i~4l do .
S. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will r+csult
from Secondary el~Cnt facihtatod by the improved mad acct.
9. If construction of this facility is to be eoor+dinated with other slate, municipal,
or private developmegt projects, a doeaiption of these projects should be
included is the anvtrn~tal docuaunt, and all project sponsors should
be idcatifiod.
Thank you for the opporttmity to provide input m the early planning stages for this
project. if we Galt further assist your office, please contACt me at [phone].
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
A-12

•~/y~•=~ JtOIC VI I~VI 111 `OIVIIIIG - ~~[
N~GENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Numbe . ~ ~ ~~bue Date: ~ - ~
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the OENR pemtit(s)and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these pemtits should be addressed to the Regional Office indinted on the reverse of this form.
All applicarions, information and guidelines rcladve to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office,
PERMITS SPEUAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMEN'T'S Normal Process Time
(sbtutory Time Lirtiy
Permit to constrult 6 operate wastewater treatment Applintian 90 days before begin construction or award of conmucoion

hdiHes, sewer system extensions b sewer system:
contracts. on-site inspection. Post-application techninl conference usual ~ days

not disdtargirg into sate surface waters .
(9o dsys)
NPDE$-permit to discharge iMO surfxe water and/or Appliotion 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplintion
permh to operate and construct wastewater fadfrties mnferertce tuwl. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
dacharging into state surface waters. facility-granted aher NPDES. Reply timf~ 30 days aher receipt of plans a issue (WA)
of NPDES pemrit-whichever is later.
water Use Pemlit Preapplication techninl conkrence Ilsway necessary 30 days
Iwu
O Well Construction Permit Complete applicsdon must be received and permh issued
prior to the
7 days
irtsallation ~ a well (15 days)
Dredge and fill Permit Applintion copy must be served on exh adjacent riparian property owner

On-site inspection. Preapptintion coherence usual Riling msy require Easement 55 d
~
to RB From N.C Department of Administration snd Federal Oredge and RU Permit (~ daYs)
Permit to construct a operate Air Polution Abatement
hdlities and/or Emission Sources as per 1 S A NCAC WA 60 ~
OA 100, 2Q.0300, 2 hl.Ofi00)
Any open burning assodated with subjeR proposal
must be ir. comp4ance with 15 A NCAC 20.1900
DeanoRtion or renowtions of stnlctu-es containing
asbestos material 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)
Contrd Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
20.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly sddressed for any land disturbing sctiviry. An erosion 6 sedimenation
uxttrol plan will be required H one or more acres to be daturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of 540 for the first aue or arty par of an sue (30 days)
D The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act oI 1973 must be addressed with respell to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit Ort•site inspection usual Surety bond filed with D£Nll Bond amamt caries with
type mine and number of sues of affected land Any arc mined greater than 30 days
one sere must be permitted. The approprim bond must be received txfore (60 days)
the permit nn be issued
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources f perrtut exceeds 4 days 1 day
(WA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required 'd more titan five 1 day
in coastal N.C_with organic soils. xres dground dearirtg activities sre involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual bum a planned.'
Oil Refining Fxilities 90 -120 days
N/A
(N/A)
Oam Safety PermR H permit required, application fi0 dsys before begin construction. Appfinnt
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construt:tion,certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, snd a 404 permit from Corps o< Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify fiatard Cbssification. A minimum (fi0 days)
fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-13

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTI w.
Normal Procus +^d
(SgtutoryTime .m+iU

Permit to drNl exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with Ot.NR running ro Sgte of N.C cond'Rional that any
10 days
wdl opened by drill operator shall upon abandonment be plugged xcording lWA)
• to OENR Hales and regulatbns.
^ Geophysical Expbration Permit APPllntion filed with DENR at least 10 d s
ay Prior to issue of permit. Application 10
days
by letter. No standard appGotion form. (N/A)
^ Sgte lakes Construction Permit Appliption fees based on structure sire is charged Must include descriptions 1 S - 20
d~
1Z drawings d structure & proof of ownership of riparian property, (WA)
401 YWter OuaGty C.ertifiotiort WA 55 days
(130 days)
^ CAMA Pemlic for MAIOR devNopment 5250.00 lee must x
~P~y apprKatron ~ daYs
(130 days) I
^ CAMA Pemat for MINOR development SS0.00 fee must xcornpany sppliotion 22 days
RS days)
^ Several geodetic monuments are boated in or near the project ma. M any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please rwtihr:
N.G Geodetic Survey,8aac 27687 Rakigh,N.C 27611
^ Abandonment of any wens, if repaired must be in accordance with Title 1 SA. Subchapter 2CA100.
^ Notification of the proper regional offxe is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are dacovered during any aovstion operation.
^ Compruurce with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(?V/A)
* Other cornrnents (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
l n~.l,~-.~ o~ ~![~N Ga: ~f l "-~ ,~,,v S T ~ A-n!r/..~Es1f~ /I /
~- (~ S -
~j
~
/j
~ ~
,
f('~-~~ w/ /f C OvTj ~~ /~ ~' G/1-Of~"t . ~crJr_ML ~n ~
~
"'
J
7~ 8k ~ /(~/Gf 7v
~11~~ GIt- ~it/~t~^+E7~/L S/~Orn.-.E~.': ]fZ~~'i~/G
~
"
~
J~
Lev l~ S ~'j w/~Ltr ! ~~ n( ~->~ S7Z'/L'i'~t[.t~/t?~.I~- Ca/~ /~'-f/3'7~1G~ f
~J~f ~
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]
O Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C 28301
[phone]
^ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.G 27611
[phone]
O 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 - v77~
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response

Project Name ,~ ~ 1 Type of Project l~G~'~'9
it v~ ~ /y~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 conceming 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.
~_^ 4
Re ie er Section/ ranch Date
A-15

DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
~ S 6 9 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
°~ of ~r'a TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.560.4366 • fax [phone]
www.ci.dufiam.nc.us
i July 16, 2002
Ms. Jackie Obediente
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 Boulevard
(Project R-2904)
Dear 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 share. 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
I possible.
Sincerely,
~~~~ ~.J
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 Managcr
Page 2
A-17

July 20, 2001
From: James Cape
Soil Conservation Technician
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
72.1 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 Carolina is Mary K. Combs.
A-18

Public Schools of North Carolina
~ -.,~,~~
0
State Board of Education ' ' ~''r' ~ ('r'; ~ Department of Public Instruction .
Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman ~ ~ ~ Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent
_ www.ncpublicschools.org 1~0~ '~~`~ 21 ~ ~' 28
. „
..:, lj,_
June 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jackie Obediente, NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning ~~~~-
J
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to 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 Strccc, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Telcphone [phone]
An EgtwlOpportr~nitrlAffrnrratirtArtien Emp/oyr~
Y '
A-19

~ .J
DURHAM PUBIC SCHOOLS
((1. ~ ~ ~ ~~
' .i
!~ -
. June 18, 2001 .~ Z 0 ~'
_ __ .~.
c= .~ ;~~_
_ -
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:
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,
I~enry Kirby
Executive Director of Transportation Services
c: Mr. Calvin Dobbins
Dr. Ann Denlinger
Mr. Hugh Osteen
- ^ - _ - --
A-20

APPENDIX B

' RELOCAT~N REPORT

E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Trac~sportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
'" - -
PROJECT: 8.1352701 couNTY Durham 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 Drive) 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-20M S o-150 o-20M S o-150
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20~80M 150-250. 20r10M 150-250
Yes No
X Explain all "YES" answers.
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 40-70M
70-100rrt 250400
400.600 40-70M
70-100M 25000
400.600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP 600 ua 100 uP 600 ua
displacement? TOTAL
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARK S Res nd b N umber
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. Wilt 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

10-3-02 ~ '~ ~i i i h < 1•' 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ - rZ
~-
Leonard G. Scarborough/tsg Date
Division Ri ht of Wa A ent Approved by Date

n.:-:-.., o ~ r......• b.~~e Dnlnr~finn Anent
Form 15.4 KeVlseO UZ/`!D O -••~°~-~ -' --~~- - -- --
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

APPENDIX C

~. ---
~+~'~
~r
y ~.i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTZVIEENT' 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 Boulevazd, 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
Jackie 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 27699-1503
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
1 South Wilmington Strttt
Raleigh, NC
StateCouricr: i1-31-00
C-~

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project.Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
z
y
z
WIDENING NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAVIS DI~IVH)K:
_ TO SR 1959 (MIAMI BOULEVARD)
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2904
AUGUST 23, 2001
Citizens Informational Workshop

G2
/~ NO RTI~ ,\

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 54 FROM SR 1999 (DAVIS DRIVE) TO
SR 1959 (MIAMI BOULEVARD), DURHAM COUNTY,
TIP PROJECT R-2904
Purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop
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
then homes and businesses. However, exact information is not available at this
stage of the planning process. Additional desiggnn work is necessary before the
actual right of way lunits can be established. 1vlore 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 Developwent 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 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive)
to SR 1959 (Mianu. Boulevard TFie purpose of the project is to improve the traffic
carrying capacity and accident experience along NC 54.
Project Schedules
The propposed TIP schedule includes a FFY 2006 Right of Way acquisition date,
and a FFY 2008 Construction date. The current cost estimate hom 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 heanng will be
scheduled following the completion 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 this project include
engmeering 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 unprovements 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 concerting the reconstruction of
sidewalks along the project.
Bicycles -Extra ppavement will be provided in order to accommodate
bicycles. The 4Iane divided median section will include 4' aved
shoulders, and the 5-lane curb and gutter section will include 14' wide
outside lanes to accommodate bicycles.
The North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) will design and build all railroad related
improvements associated with this pproject. It is anticipated that the new bridge
carrying the railroad over NC 54 w71 be constructed by January 2004, near its
existing location.
Anticipated Right 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

Project Engineer: Jackie Obediedte
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.
C-6

APPENDIX D

r
Table Al
CAL3QNC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
a
JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAMS DRIVE DURHAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 Y05NC 54/DAMS DRIVE Durham Count
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) AT[M = 60. MINUTES M(XH = 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 ~ * -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 N6 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
ADDIiIONAI QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRfPT10N * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
2. Link 2 EB LT 0 120 102 2.0
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * 120 76 2.0
6. Link 6 WB LT * 120 115 2.0
7. Link 7 WB THRU * 120 89 2.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 120 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 THRU/RT * 120 62 2.0
t
* 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 4.23 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
D-1

Table Al (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 f2 * -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 *
to. 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 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16
------------------------------------
MAX * 5.6 5.9 6.1 5.t 5.0 6.E 6.5 5.8 5.4 6.3 6.1 5.6 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.4
DEGR. 235 225 218 249 293 327 348 .350 13 10 37 62 100 118 132 142
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS ti.80 PPM AT 327 DEGREES FROM REC6 .
a
J
D-2

Table A2
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992

JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAVIS DRIVE DURHAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 Y10NC 54/DAV1S DRIVE Durham Count
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES M[XH = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPM EF H W V/C DUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Link 1 EB Appr * -1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. 1340. 10.6 .0 32.0
2. Link 2 EB LT o * -36.0 .0 -294.5 .0 * 258. 270. 685. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.34 43.1
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * -36.0 -18.0 -1918.2 -18.0 * 1882. 270. 511. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.05 313.7
4. Link 4 EB DEPT ~ * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. 1123. 10.6 .0 32.0
5. Link 5 WB App * 1000.0 24.0 .0 18.0 * 1000. 270. 1123. 10.6 .0 44.0
6. Link 6 WB LT * 36.0 .0 249.4 .0 * 213. 90. 773. 100.0 .0 12.0 5.38 35.6
7. Link 7 WB THRU * 36.0 24.0 365.8 24.0 * 330. 90. 1196. 100.0 .0 24.0 1.21 55.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 36.0 12.0 62.8 12.0 27. 90. 598. 100.0 .0 12.0 .50 4.5
9. link 9 WB DEPT * .0 18.0 -1000.0 24.0 * 1A00. 270. 1340. 10.6 .0 32.0
10. Link 10 N8 APPR * 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 .0 * 1000. 360. 1209. 10.9 .0 32.0
11. Link 11 NB LT .0 -36.0 .0 -66.2 * 30. 180. 719. 100.0 .0 12.0 .93 5.0
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R 18.0 -36.0 18.0 -91.8 * 56. 180. 383. 100.0 .0 12.0 .75 9.3
13. Link 13 NB DEPT 18.0 .0 18.0 1000.0 * 1000. 360. 1751. 10.9 .0 32.0
14. Link 14 SB APPR -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 .0 * 1000. 180. 1751. 10.9 .0 32.0
15. link 15 SB LT * .0 36.0 .0 487.5 * 451. 360. 753. 100.0 .0 12.0 3.40 75.2
16. link 16 SB THRU/RT -18.0 36.0 -18.0 2841.2 * 2805. 360. 417. 100.0 .0 12.0 2.18 467.5
17. Link 17 SB DEPT * -18.0 .0 -18.0 -1000.0 * 1000. 180. 1209. 10.9 .0 32.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE REO CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SECj (VPH) (VPH) (gm/nr)
2. Link 2 E6 LT O * 120 102 2.0 249 1600 300.60 1 3
3. Link 3 E6 THRU/RT 120 76 2.0 1091 1600 300.60 1 3
b. Link b WB LT * 120 115 2.0 70 1600 300.60 1 3
7. Link 7 WB THRU 120 89 2.0 872 1600 300.60 1 3
8. Link 8 WB RT 120 89 2.0 181 1600 300.60 1 3
11. Link 11 NB LT 120 107 2.0 111 1600 300.60 1 3
t 12. Link 12 NB THRU/R * 120 57 2.0 587 1600 300.60 1 3
15. Link 15 SB LT 120 112 2.0 180 1600 300.60 1 3
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT * 120 62 l.0 1571 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
i0. 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.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRA710N
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16
MAX * 5.9 6.1 ti.2 6.4 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. * 210 227 214 239 306 329 350 352 7 11 37 64 106 109 125 134
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION iS '.1G PPM AT 329 DEGREES FRC~1 REC6 .

'e
S
D-4

~ r

Table A3
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
L
.~
f JOB: R-2904 NC 54/DAMS DRIVE DURHAM COUNTY RUN: R 2904 Y25NC 54/DAMS DRIVE Durham Count
S1TE & 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 * LI
* X1
1. Link 1 EB Appr -1000.0
2. Link 2 EB LT 0 -36.0
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * -36.0
4. Link 4 EB DEPT * .0
5. Link S WB App * 1000.0
b. Link b WB LT 36.0
7. Link 7 WB TNRU * 36.0
8. Link 8 WB RT * 36.0
9. Link 9 WB DEPT * .0
10. Link 10 NB APPR 18.0
11. Link 11 NB LT * .0
12. Link 12 NB THRU/RT * 18.0
13. Link 13 NB DEPT * 18.0
14. Link 14 SB APPR * -18.0
15. Link 15 SB LT * .0
16. Link 16 SB TNRU/RT -18.0
17. Link 17 SB DEPT -18.0
ADDiT10NAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE
* LENGTH
* (SEC)
'~ 2. ;ink 2 E6 LT 0 * 120
3. Link 3 EB THRU/RT * 120
b. Link 6 WB LT * 12U
l 7. link 7 WB THRU 120
8. Link 8 WB RT * 120
11. Link 11 NB LT * 120
12. Link 12 NB THRU/R * 120
15. Link 15 S6 LT * 120
16. Link 16 SB THRU/RT * 120
NK COORDINATES (M)
Y1 X2
-18.0 .0
.0 -822.4
-18.0 -4164.6
-18.0 1000.0
24.0 .0
.0 411.7
24.0 1266.0
12.0 78.9
18.0 -1000.0
-1000.0 18.0
-36.0 .0
-36.0 18.0
.0 18.0
1000.0 -18.0
36.0 .0
36.0 -18.0
.0 -18.0
RED CLEARANCE
TIME LOST TIME
(SEC) (SEC)
102 2.0
76 2.0
115 2.0
89 2.0
89 2.0
108 2.0
57 2.0
112 2.0
61 2.0
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C GUEUE
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 FLOW 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 1 3
D-5

_ ~,,

Table A3 (continued)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

* COORDINATES (M) * Y•
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 * a
~
4. Receptor G * 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 In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS RECb RECT. REC8 REC9 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 RECb

J
D-6

..~
~ ~' ~©~ ~
.~ •
~~_
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
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:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
~~~`
D
J C r ~ ~ 20Qq
~+'E?t,~~:~,~y;;' fiTpR~ TER 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 NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~atur+~`l~/

~5C
~~ ::
~~~
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,
~/ __ //.-
j~'L.~G~~ewr~
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: 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 NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~a'tur~'"~,/

PARK
283 ... >;_;,~ DR
,.~
Hey
S
Oy ~ti.
yAe
( y~~(
qty
ZONE X
Be in Pro'ect
~,
u
S.
NAROMAL F100D INSURANCE PR06RAM
FIRM
F1000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
DURHAM COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
AND 1NCDRPDRATED AREAS
PANEl1N Of T80
ISEE I.W IIYOEJI iql IAI+ElS NOi nWiEDI
EOInM6'
s ~ ~w
E~MU.OM1 V >~ E
iwittwwrtE wu imi e~ c
ZONE X
~.,e.~...~ ::.~
...~...,.:,.~..e
UUIP NUMBEA
3106300108 6
'' '"~• EFFECiIYE DAiE: ~
j ~ FEBRUARY 2,1996
Fedcnl Emcgcory MEnE6cmcm A6cnry
~1
w~'^ '1
«.
1' .

/ \
\~
\O
i
J= ~
/O ~Q
v
OJ
~~Q O~
.._Q ~.
V
e
3
~v
Q~
?~
/ y°J i
I
~ ~~ ZONE X
F
~ ~
y ~; O
J
~, W
3 a
a
Q N
R ~ ~k (1
ZONE;~A
o I
0
City of Durham
370086
I End Proiect I