20060939 Ver 1_Application_20060609

v

I~
2~`
G
L
..r~
e.w SGit a~
.+a
~:s
.e~~,,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'T1V~NT OF TRANSPORTATIO
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 8, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
O~
/~/ ~/~
Sq,I~ lygT 9 )~ v
N •C~e~,l,
cy
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
060g3.q
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Application for the widening of NC 98
(Holloway St.) from east of US 70 BYP to east of Junction Road in Durham County, Division 5,
Federal Project No. STP-98 (5), State Project No. 8.1352401, WBS Element No. 35011.1.1,
T.I.P. No. U-4010.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Pre-construction Notification (PCN),
permit drawings, and design plans for the subject project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street) from just east of US 70 to east of
Junction Road in Durham County. The project will widen the existing four-lane undivided roadway to a
five-lane, 72-foot, curb and gutter facility. A 16-foot continuous center turn lane will be provided
throughout the project. This includes afour-foot raised concrete median from North Hoover Road to
Junction Road.
IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (sub-basin 03-04-01) in Durham
County. This area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020201. An unnamed tributary (UT) of Little
Lick Creek is the only water resource in the project area. The project will result in surface water impacts
of 24 linear feet (<0.001 acres) to the UT of Little Lick Creek due to the extension of an existing pipe.
The UT of Little Lick Creek is an intermittent stream, approximately 1 foot wide and 1 foot deep at NC
98. The substrate is composed primarily of sand. The UT to Little Lick Creek is assigned Stream Index
Number 27-9-(0.5) (8/1/98) by the N.C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and has a best usage
classification of WS-IV NSW. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
implemented.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 24 feet of permanent stream impacts due to the extension of the
existing reinforced concrete pipe.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: 919-71Jr-1SO1 RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1598 WEB$ITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Temporary Impacts: There will be 10 feet of temporary impacts to the existing channel to provide
adequate room for activities related to the construction and extension of the existing pipe.
Utility Impacts: There will be no utility impacts due to the widening of NC 98.
Buffer Impacts: Approximately 10 feet outside of the fill slope along the stream will be impacted due to
clearing and construction of the fill slope. The linear buffer impacts will be less than 40 feet. Therefore,
buffer impacts are exempt.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following extension of the pipe, all material used will be removed. The impact area associated with the
pipe extension is expected to recover naturally, since the natural streambed and plant material will no be
removed. NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in this area. Pre-project elevations will be
restored. NCDOT will restore stream to its pre-project contours.
Schedule: The project calls for a letting of November 21, 2006 with a date of availability of January 2,
2006. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction as soon as possible.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal
of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation
equipment for removal of any earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other
pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and culverts will be used on site.
All material placed in the stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The contractor will have
the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of prof ect.
After the erosion control devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the property
of the contractor.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization:
• In-stream activity will be limited.
• Use of 2:1 fill slopes in jurisdictional area.
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be allowed in wetlands
or near surface waters.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Compensation: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) and Nicole
Thompson with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) visited the project site on
December 20, 2005 and determined that no mitigation would be required for the 24 feet of permanent
stream impacts. In a letter to Mr. Alsmeyer dated January 3, 2006, the NCDOT confirmed that no
mitigation would be required for the permanent stream impacts due to minimal function capacity.
2

FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 8, 2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for Durham County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
Field surveys were conducted on October 14, 2005. Although appropriate habitat is present within the
project right-of--way limits in the form of regularly maintained roadside shoulders, field or pasture edges,
and utility easements, no individuals of smooth coneflower or Michaux's sumac were observed during
the survey. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, updated on March 31, 2005,
revealed no occurrences of either species within 1 mile of the proposed project. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the proposed project will have a Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for smooth
coneflower and Michaux's sumac.
The project area was also evaluated on October 14, 2005, for suitable bald eagle habitat. No water
bodies large enough to support this species occur within 1 mile of the project area. No nests or eagles
were seen. Suitable habitat for bald eagle did not exist in the project area. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the proposed project will have a Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for bald eagle.
Table 1. S ecies Under Federal Protection in Durham Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bald Ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus T No No Effect
Smooth
coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Yes No Effect
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 for the issuance
of a Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 authorizing for the above-described activities.
Section 401 Permit: We also hereby request a 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3403 and
WQC 3366. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of these WQCs. Therefore, written
concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a) and 15A
NCAC 2B 0.200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as notification.
3

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Ms. Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincerely,
,~ ~ "°
s
::,., Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Maj ed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
4

Office Use Drily: Form Version March OS
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 ~ 0 6 U 9 3 9
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII, and
check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4),
and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: horp~dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks
such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries
and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan
must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious
surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include the
appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries
outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion, so long as
the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the USAGE requires
information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may
accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings rather than a
sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are reduced to a small scale such
that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the project has been placed on
hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project: Widening of NC 98 (Holloway Street) East of US 70 to East of Junction
Road
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): U-4010
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Joyland
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Highway 70 to Junction
with NC 98 (Holloway Street)
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately
lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35° 59' 29" °N 78° 51' 46" °W
6. Property size (acres): Total project length is 0.37 miles
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Lick Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at
the time of this application: Project area is located in an urbanized and mostly commercial
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: See cover
letter
Page 2 of 8

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of widening NC 98 (Holloway
Street) is to improve traffic capacity and safety for motorist in the project area. Due to
increased development along this route future traffic growth will create longer travel times
dan eg rous passing situations, and an increase in accidents.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project
(including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the
USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. There is no prior history of jurisdictional determinations for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future permit requests anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be listed
separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from riprap
dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an accompanying
site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) should be shown
on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs maybe included
at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation,
list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or
description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: See cover sheet
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized
clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list
impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,

herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
None None None No NA None

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.00
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: None
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must
be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width and then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or

Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres
1 UT t Creek Lick pipe Extension Intermittent 1 foot 24 <0.001

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) <0.001
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
(acres)
NA

Total Open Water Impact (acres) NA
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): <0.001
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.001
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 24
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only applies
to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be
described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of draw-
down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. See cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation maybe required by the NC Division
of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to freshwater
wetlands or greater than or equal to 1501inear feet of total impacts to perennial streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including
size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource
will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as
proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not
limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland
vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource
functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values,
preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for
USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application lacking a
required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An
applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft
Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as
much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a description
of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach a separate
sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed for <0.001 acres of stream impact.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating that
they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For additional
information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please check the
appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ® No ^
Page 6 of 8

2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach
a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or
other (please identify Meuse )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If
buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1
2
Total
{ Gone l extends out 3U feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
Page 7 of 8

XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose
to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work
schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened
Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

o.~~.
JunctioTl~
~ /U ~ /~
i
/. ~~ BioP ,,\PROJE l
~ ~
_~
~ O Joylanct
.~
147 ~ ~~Q .~.' ~ PROJECT
1 ~
s ~
i ~
DURHAM `
i • u$
1 °~ 70
i ~~ ~
NOT TO SCALE
VICINI°Il°Y
MAPS
NCI)®T
DIVISION OF ffiQHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT': u01111 (U-~Ol~
NC98 FROM BAST OF U870
TO BAST OF JUNCTION ROAD
NORTH CAROLINA

70 BYP
<I
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
PROJECT

~.
~r
INOT TO SCALE
~d~INd'Il°~
N CD®T
DIVISION OF ffiQHWAY3
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJBCI's Zli01111 (U-~O10)
~~~~
NC98 FROM BAST OF US70
TO BAST OF JUNCTION ROAD
sHBB~r Z of 5

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Han
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)

1 10+47 TO 10+66RT-L- 24" RCP <,001 <.001 24 10

TOTALS: 0.00 0.00 24 10

Durham
NC 98 (Holloway Street)
East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
Durham County
State Project 8.1352401
Federal Aid Project No. STP-98(5)
T.I.P. No. U-4010
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved:
3~ ~ Z /
ate ~ illiam D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
/ ~ '~- '
ate Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. ~
Division Administrator, FHWA

Durham
NC 98 (Holloway Street)
East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
Durham County
State Project 8.1352401
Federal Aid Project No. STP-98(5)
T.I.P. No. U'-4010
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April, 2002
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
.`~ j /~ ,.
Mich Lh L. James, Proj evelopment Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
C '~,(, ~. ~ lt, .
Teresa Hart, P. E., CPM, Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
,`,~~~~~uunii~,~~f~
`~~~.o~N CIIApI~~L,~'~,
.~~~ .Z-~OFESS~p~y
' SEAL
025460
i%~~. fNQ11~tE~~Q'~ ~.
.,
'! 9F8A N. ,fir ,

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Durham
NC 98 (Holloway Street)
East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
Durham County
State Project 8.1352401
Federal Aid Project No. STP-98(S)
T.I.P. No. U-4010
COMMITMENTS DEVELOPED THROUGH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
NCDOT Rail Division Roadway Design Project Development & Environmental Analysis
A 28-foot (8.5 meter) long concrete monolithic island, railroad crossing gates and related
equipment will be provided at the NC 98 (Holloway Street) and Junction Road intersections.
Coordination will be required with the CSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads.
NCDOT Right o~y (Utilities)
During the utility relocation stage of the project, NCDOT will request utility owners to
relocate all aerial utilities to one side of the project. It will be up to the utility owners to adhere
to this request.
Roadway Design. Program Development
The City of Durham requested sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the roadway
throughout the project to accommodate existing and future pedestrian needs. The total estimated
cost for the sidewalk is $71,725 and is included in the construction cost of the project. NCDOT
and the City of Durham will share in the cost of the sidewalks, based on NCDOT Pedestrian
Policy Guidelines.
Roadway Design
Bicycle lanes were also requested by the City of Durham. Fourteen-foot (4.3 meter) wide
outside lanes will be provided to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Most arms for traffic signals will be provided at Junction Road and Hoover Road.
Apri12002
Categorical Exclusion - U-4010 Page 1 of 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.
II
III
IV
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 1
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................ 1
A. Purpose of Project .......................................................................................... 1
B. Traffic/Truck Volumes .................................................................................. 2
C. Accident Studies ............................................................................................ 2
EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ................................................................... 3
A. Existing Cross Section ................................................................................... 3
B. Right of Way ................................................................................................ 3
C. Bridges ............................................................................................:.............. 3
D. Speed Limits .................................................................................................. 3
E. Access Control ............................................................................................... 3
F. Intersections and Type of Control .................................................................. 3
G. Utilities ........................................................................................................... 3
H. School Buses ................................................................................................ 4
I. Railroad Crossing ........................................................................................... 4
J. Drainage Structures ........................................................................................ 4
K. Project Terminals ........................................................................................... 4
L. Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 4
M. Route Classification ....................................................................................... 4
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................... 5
A. Length of Project ............................................................................................ 5
B. Design Speed Proposed ...:.............................................................................. 5
C. Cross Section ................................................................................................ 5
D. Right of Way ................................................................................................ 5
E. Access Control ............................................................................................... 5
F. Drainage Structures ........................................................................................ 5
G. Parking ........................................................................................................... 5
H. Sidewalks ....................................................................................................... 5
I. Bicycles .......................................................................................................... 6
J. Speed Limit .................................................................................................... 6
K. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .................................................. 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
L. Rail Crossing ................................................................................................ 6
M. Estimate of Costs ........................................................................................... 7
V. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 7
A. Alternative 1 A (Recommended) .................................................................... 8
B. Alternative 1 ................................................................................................ 8
Table l -Comparison Cost of Alternatives ..................................................... 8
Table 2-Comparison of Relocatees ............................................................... 9
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation ............................................................. 9
D. Postponement of Project ................................................................................ 9
E. "No Build" Alternative .................................................................................. 9
VI. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................. 9
A. Study Area Description .................................................................................. 9
B. Community Profile ......................................................................................... 10
1. Demographics .................................................................................... 10
2. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment ...................................... 12
3. Housing Characteristics ..................................................................... 13
4. Business Activity and Employment Centers ...................................... 13
5. Public Services ................................................................................... 14
6. Land Use and Development ...................:........................................... 14
7. Community Description ..................................................................... 14
D. Project Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 15
1. Social and Psychological ................................................................... 15
2. Physical Aspects ................................................................................ 15
3. Visual Environment ........................................................................... 15
4. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility ................................................ 16
5. Economic Conditions ......................................................................... 16
6. Mobility and Access .......................................................................... 16
7. Provisions of Public Services ............................................................. 17
8. Safety ................................................................................................ 17
9. Displacements .................................................................................... 17
10. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ................................................... 18
11. Environmental Justice ........................................................................ 18
12. Farmland Impacts ............................................................................... 19
13. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................ 19

' TABLE OF CONTENT
PAGE
E. Air Quality Analysis ...................................................................................... 19
F. Ecological Analysis ....................................................................................... 20
1. Soils ................................................................................................ 20
2. Water Resources ................................................................................ 21
3. Water Quality ..................................................................................... 21
4. Biotic Resources ................................................................................ 22
5. Terrestrial Communities .................................................................... 22
6. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................... 23
7. Jurisdictional Topics .......................................................................... 24
a. Waters of the United States .................................................... 24
b. Permits ................................................................................... 24
c. Federally Rare and Protected Species .................................... 24
d. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........... 27
G. Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 29
H. Geodetic Survey Markers .............................................................................. 29
I. Greenways ................................................................................................ 29
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................................... 29
A. Citizens' Informational Workshop ................................................................ 29
B. Public Hearing ............................................................................................... 30
VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 31

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figures 3-3A Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Typical Cross Section
TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of Costs of Alternatives
Table 2 Comparison of Relocatees
Table 3 Population by Race, 2000
Table 4 Population by Age, 2000
Table 5 Median Household Income, 1997-2000
Table 6 Percentage of Population below Poverty Level, 1990-1997
Table 7 Unemployment Rate, 1990-2000
Table 8 Homeownership Rate, 1990-2000
Table 9 Soils Within the Project Area
Table 10 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Table 11 Federally Protected Species for Durham County
Table 12 Federal Candidate Species for Durham County
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies
Appendix B - Grade Separation Agreement
Appendix C - Hazardous Materials Evaluation

Durham
NC 98 (Holloway Street)
East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
Durham County
State Project 8.1352401
Federal Aid Project No. STP-98(5)
T.I.P. No. U-4010
SUMMARY
Description of Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street) from just east of US 70 to east of Junction Road in
Durham County. The proposed project will widen the existing 4-lane undivided roadway to a
five-lane, 72-foot (22 meter), face to face, curb and gutter facility. A 16-foot (4.8 meter)
continuous center turn lane will be provided throughout the project. This includes a 4-foot
(1.2 meter) raised concrete median from North Hoover Road to Junction Road. Fourteen-foot
(4.3 meter) wide outside lanes will be provided to accommodate bicycle traffic. The proposed 8-
foot (2.4 meter) berm will allow fora 5-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk on both sides of the roadway
for the entire length of the project (See Figures 1 and 2). The total project length is 0.37 mile
(0.60 kilometer).
The project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with a total estimated cost of $2,510,000. The current estimated cost is $2,765,500. The
project is scheduled for right of way acquisition and construction in FY 2002 and FY 2003,
respectively.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed widening of NC 98 (Holloway Street) will provide an overall positive
benefit for the City of Durham. This improvement will improve traffic flow, help reduce travel
times, and improve safety along NC 98 (Holloway Street).
No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of
the project. The proposed project will not impact any historic structures eligible for or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended alternative will not encroach upon
any archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National Register. It is anticipated one
residential and two business relocations will occur as a result of this proposed improvement.
It is anticipated right of way will be required from four sites having the potential for
involvement with underground storage tanks or hazardous materials (See Appendix D). If further
design studies indicate right of way from these properties are to be acquired, preliminary site

11
' assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior to right of way
purchase. If contaminants are located on the proposed right of way, the current landowner or
NCDOT will take appropriate action to decontaminate the area.
Special Permits Required
No impacts to jurisdictional surface waters or wetlands are anticipated from the proposed
project. Therefore, construction activities will not require permits from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
4. Alternatives Considered
Two alternative cross-sections were studied for the proposed project. They are as
follows: 1) widen symmetrically to afive-lane curb and gutter section, 2) widen asymmetrically
(north side only) to a five-lane curb and gutter section. The asymmetrical 72-foot (22 meter)
face to face, five-lane, curb and gutter cross section is recommended. The "no-build" alternative
was considered, but rejected since the project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this
area. Postponement of the project was also considered, and rejected because it would result in
the continuing deterioration of traffic and safety conditions in the future as traffic demands
increase.
5. Coordination
Several federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
environmental assessment. Written comments were received and considered during the
preparation of this assessment from the following agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Geological Survey
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Durham County Public Schools
Durham County Planning
*City of Durham
Triangle J Council of Governments

iii
6. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]]
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]

Durham
NC 98 (Holloway Street)
East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
Durham County
State Project 8.1352401
Federal Aid Project No. STP-98(5)
T.I.P. No. U-4010
No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated by construction of the project;
therefore, the project is classified as a "categorical exclusion".
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street) from just east of US 70 to east of Junction Road in
Durham County. The proposed project will widen the existing 4-lane undivided roadway to a
five-lane, 72-foot (22 meter) face to face, curb and gutter facility. A 16-foot (4.8 meter)
continuous center turn lane will be provided throughout the project. This includes a 4-foot
(l .2 meter) raised concrete median from North Hoover Road to Junction Road. Fourteen-foot --- ~:~ ~ n`~ ''-' ~ :gin
(4.3 meter) wide outside lanes will be provided to accommodate bicycle traffic. ~roposed 8-
foot (2.4 meter) berm will allow fora 5-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk on both sides of the roadway
for the entire length of the project. (See Figures 1 and 2). The total project length is 0.37 mile
(0.60 kilometer).
The project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with an estimated total cost of $2,510,000. This cost includes $1,290,000 for right of way
acquisition, $1,050,000 for construction and $170,000 for prior years cost. The current total
estimated cost is $2,765,500 which includes $1,315,500 for right of way acquisition, $1,378,275
for construction, and $71,725 for sidewalks. The project is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in FY 2002 and construction in FY 2003.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of widening NC 98 (Holloway Street) is to improve traffic capacity and
safety for motorists in the project area. Due to increased development along this route, future
traffic growth will create longer travel times, dangerous passing situations, and an increase in
accidents. Therefore, improvements are warranted to accommodate traffic growth and insure
safety. NC 98 (Holloway Street) is heavily used to access US 70.

2
B. Traffic/Truck Volumes
The 1995 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along this project vary from a low of
16,200 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 19,400 vpd. In the year 2025, these volumes are
expected to vary from 31,600 vpd to 33,700 vpd over the length of the project (See Figures 3
and 3A).
The Level of Service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability.
Levels of Service range from LOS A to LOS F. At signalized intersections, the ability of the
intersection to handle traffic can also be described by Levels of Service A through F. Level of
Service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of Service B
represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating speeds. Level of Service C represents
restricted maneuvering and operating speeds close to the speed limit. This condition is
considered acceptable. Level of Service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and
unstable, low operating speeds. Level of Service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions which are characterized by stop and go travel occur with
Level of Service F.
With the present traffic volumes, the intersections along NC 98 (Holloway Street) are
operating at LOS A at Junction and Southerland Roads, and LOS B at North Hoover Road.
To achieve acceptable Levels of Service, NCDOT's Congestion Management Section
recommends the following intersection improvements in addition to the widening of NC 98
(Holloway Street):
• North Hoover Road -Widen to four lanes, north and south of NC 98 (Holloway Street).
Southerland Road - No improvements.
• Junction Road - No improvements.
If the proposed improvements were made to NC 98 (Holloway Street), Southerland Road would
be expected to operate at LOS A, while the North Hoover Road and Junction Road intersections
would operate at LOS B in the design year 2025.
The proposed improvements to North Hoover Road will not be included as a part of this
project.
North Hoover Road and Junction Road will remain signalized.
C. Accident Studies
During the period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000, a total of 180 accidents were
reported on the studied portion of NC 98 (Holloway Street). This resulted in an accident rate of
1941.8 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM) compared to the statewide
average for similar routes of 288.0 ACC/100 MVM. There were no fatalities during the period,

3
and 75 accidents resulted in injuries. The primary accident types were left turn and rear-end
collisions with slowing or stopping vehicles. The proposed multi-lane cross section will reduce
the potential for these types of accidents.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing typical cross section of NC 98 (Holloway Street) is a 41.2 foot (12.6 meter)
four-lane, undivided, curb and gutter section.
B. Right of way
The existing right of way width along NC 98 (Holloway Street) varies from 60 to 70 feet
(I 8.3-21.3 meters).
C. Bridges
There are no existing bridges within the proposed project limits; however, the US 70
bridge is near the beginning of the project. The reason the widening does not include NC 98
(Holloway Street) west of the bridge is because the existing width between the outside piers is
not wide enough.
D. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along the studied section of NC 98 (Holloway Street) is 35 mph
(60 km/h).
E. Access Control
The existing roadway has no control of access.
F. Intersections and Type of Control
All roads currently intersecting the project alignment are at-grade. The North Hoover
Road and Junction Road intersections are signalized. The Southerland Road intersection is stop
sign controlled.
G. Utilities
Durham County has water and sewer service. Public Service gas lines exist along NC 98
(Holloway Street). Overhead utility lines are present within the project limits. The project is
expected to have a medium impact to utilities.

4
H. Buses
A Durham Area Transit Authority facility is located in the project vicinity. This facility
houses forty buses and vans which run seven days a week, 7:30 AM until midnight.
Currently, 46 school buses travel the studied section NC 98 (Holloway Street) daily.
These buses travel NC 98 (Holloway Street) both in the morning and afternoon.
Railroad Crossings
There are two railroad crossings along the studied section of NC 98 (Holloway Street),
CSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads. Two trains travel both lines daily.
Drainage Structures
There are no drainage structures along the project corridor.
K. Project Terminals
At the western project terminal, NC 98 (Holloway Street) is a four-lane, undivided, curb
and gutter shoulder section.
The eastern terminal is located just east of Junction Road. At this location, NC 98
(Holloway Street) is also afour-lane, undivided, curb and gutter roadway.
L. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist within the project limits.
M. Route Classification
NC 98 (Holloway Street) is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial.

5
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Len>?th of Project
The total length of the proposed improvement is approximately 0.37 mile
(0.60 kilometers).
B. Desi n~Speed Proposed
The proposed design speed is 40 mph (65 km/h). Design speed is a correlation of
physical features of a highway which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of
safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the
recommended or posted speed.
C. Cross Section
The recommended typical cross section is a five-lane, 72-foot (22 meter), face to face,
curb and gutter facility which includes a 16-foot (4.8 meter) continuous center turn lane. A
4-foot (1.2 meter) raised concrete median will be provided from North Hoover Road to Junction
Road. The inside lanes will be 12 feet (3.6 meter) wide. The outside lanes will be l4 feet
(4.3 meter) wide to accommodate bicycle traffic. The 8-foot berm (2.4 meter) will accommodate
a 5-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk on both sides of the project (see Figure 4).
D. Right of way
The proposed additional right of way width is 18 feet (5.5 meters) on the north side of
NC 98 (Holloway Street).
E. Access Control
No access control is proposed along the project.
F. Drainage Structures
No drainage structures are involved.
G. Parkins
Parking will neither be provided for nor permitted along the project.
H. Sidewalks
The City of Durham requested sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the roadway
throughout the project to accommodate existing and future pedestrian needs. The total estimated
cost for the sidewalk is $71,725 and is included in the construction cost of the project. NCDOT

6
• and the City of Durham will share in the cost of the sidewalks, based on NCDOT Pedestrian
Policy Guidelines.
I. Bicycles
Special bicycle provisions are recommended for the proposed project. Wide 14-foot
(4.3 meters) lanes will be provided on the outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Speed Limit
The recommended posted speed limit for the proposed project is 35 mph (60 km/h).
K. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
The intersections of North Hoover Road and Junction Road with NC 98 (Holloway
Street) will remain signalized and the Southerland Road intersection will remain stop sign
controlled.
Junction Road will be realigned to the east at the NC 98 (Holloway Street) intersection.
Exclusive left and right turn lanes are provided on southbound Junction Road and one lane on
northbound Junction Road.
L. Rail Crossing
Evaluation of the railroad crossing was conducted during the project study. The criteria
used in evaluating whether a railroad crossing warrants a grade separation is based on several
considerations. The first is the exposure index, calculated by multiplying the number of trains
per day by the number of vehicles per day using the associated highway. The guideline
established for consideration of a grade separation is an exposure index of 15,000 for rural and
X0.000 for urban conditions. However, other considerations such as existing topography, right-
of-way cost, or other features of the physical situation which make separation impossible or
impractical must also be evaluated prior to making a recommendation.
The exposure index of the CSX/Norfolk Southern Railroad intersection with NC 98
(Holloway Street) exceeds the threshold as outlined in NCDOT's Working Guidelines for
Railroad Grade Separations. A grade separation was investigated; listed below are the findings
from that study:
(a) NCDOT needs to be at least 30 feet (23 foot clearance + 7 feet for bridge) higher
than the existing tracks to span the railroad. A 9% +/- grade is needed to achieve
this due to avoiding the existing bridge at US 70. In order to tie back in on the
east side of Junction Road within a reasonable distance, a 10% grade is needed.
The grades, vertical curvature, and resulting design speed are not acceptable.

7
(b) The future U-71 project proposes to construct a single point urban interchange at
. ~ ~ the existing US 70/NC 98 (Holloway Street) interchange. Anew bridge will be
constructed on US 70 making the spacing to the existing tracks even less.
Providing for a railroad grade separation on project U-4010 would conflict with
the U-71 design.
(c) Because of the vertical clearance needed to span the railroad, there would be
heavy right of way impacts. Construction along both North Hoover and Junction
Roads would increase tremendously. Junction Road would have to be relocated
to an acceptable distance beyond the bridge, thus incurring more relocations.
Also, the new height of NC 98 (Holloway Street) would push the construction
limits approximately 80 - 90 feet beyond the existing edge of pavement. This
would heavily impact all of the businesses being accessed by this road.
(d) Signalized intersections are in close proximity to the railroad tracks on both sides
of NC 98 (Holloway Street), thereby restricting the free flow of traffic.
It was decided a grade separation will not be included as part of this improvement
project. The Grade Separation Agreement is included in Appendix B. During final design,
coordination with the NCDOT Rail Division will be undertaken to design and implement
appropriate measures to prevent illegal "run-around" movements when gate arms are down.
M. Estimate of Costs
*Construction $1,378,275
**Right of way $1,315,500
Sidewalk $ 71,725
Total Cost $2,765,500
* Includes engineering and contingencies
** Includes relocation and acquisition
V. ALTERNATIVES
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment of roadway, no
alternative corridors were considered. However, two design alternatives (asymmetrical and
symmetrical) were evaluated for the widening of NC 98 (Holloway Street). Both alternatives
include railroad track improvements and sidewalk.
In addition to the widening of NC 98 (Holloway Street), Junction Road will be slightly
realigned to the east and widened at the NC 98 (Holloway Street) intersection. The proposed
realignment will provide a greater separation between the intersection with NC 98 (Holloway
Street) and the railroad tracks, allow sufficient room for providing the turning lanes on Junction
Road, provide the space needed for the railroad crossing gates and related equipment, and will
allow for the provision of a concrete monolithic island on NC 98 (Holloway Street). The

monolithic island is designed to prevent illegal "run-around" movements around the rail crossing
gate arms. A 75-foot (22.9 meter) long island was investigated; however, for an island 75 feet
(22.9 meters) long, Junction Road would have to be realigned even further to the east, resulting
in 4-5 more relocations. This was not considered a viable option; therefore, a 28-foot long
(8.5 meter) island was studied. The shorter island will still be considered a safety measure to
prevent vehicles from trying to maneuver around the crossing gates in the event of a train
crossing at NC 98 (Holloway Street).
A. Alternative 1 A (Recommended)
The recommended alternative proposes to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street)
asymmetrically from east of US 70 to east of Junction Road.
The recommendation for the proposed improvement is to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street)
to a five-lane, 72-foot (22 meter), face to face, curb and gutter facility. This five-lane, curb and
gutter facility, will include two 12-foot (3.7 meter) inside lanes, a 16-foot (52.5 meter]
continuous center turn lane, and one 14-foot (4.3 meter) outside lane in each direction. A 4-foot
(1.2 meter) raised concrete median will be provided from North Hoover Road to Junction Road.
The additional right of way for the proposed project is 18 feet (5.5 meters) (See Figure 4).
Alternative 1 A is recommended because it is less expensive, provides design benefits at
the ramp junction at US 70 and it is preferred by the City of Durham over the other design
alternative. This alternative will not relocate any non-profit organizations; however, one
residence and two businesses will be relocated. The estimated cost of this alternative is
$2,765,000.
B. Alternative 1
This alternative proposes to widen NC 98 (Holloway Street) symmetrically to a 72-foot
(22 meter), five-lane, curb and gutter facility. This five-lane facility would consist of two
12-foot (3.7 meter) inside lanes, a 16-foot (52.5 meter) continuous center turn lane, and one
14-foot (4.3 meter) outside lane in each direction. A 4-foot (1.2 meter) raised concrete median
would be provided from North Hoover Road to Junction Road. Widening would be symmetrical.
The total estimated cost for this improvement is $2,765,000.
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
1 $1,268,500 $1,600,000 $2,868,500
1 A $1,315,500 $1,450,000 $2,765,500
Note: The total cost of each alternative includes $71,725 for sidewalks.

9
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF RELOCATEES
ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED
COST RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES BUSINESS
RELOCATEES TOTAL
RELOCATEES
1 $2,868,500 1 2 3
l A $2,765,500 1 2 3
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative to this
highway project. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project
area, and the project involves widening an existing highway. Currently, public transportation is
provided in Durham. Staggering work hours, car-pooling, and van-pooling could relieve some
congestion on NC 98 (Holloway Street); however, these congestion management measures are
not within the control of NCDOT and will not meet the transportation improvements necessary
for the growing residential and industrial areas surrounding Durham.
D. Postponement of Project
Postponement of the project would result in continuing deterioration of traffic and safety
conditions in the future as traffic demands increase. Therefore, this alternative is not
recommended.
E. "No Build "Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered but rejected since the project will provide a
safer, more efficient route in Durham County.
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The primary study area is identified as the two US Census Tracts 10.02 and 18.02. These
two tracts incorporate the communities and populations most directly affected by the widening
project proposed for Holloway Street. The study area is composed of entire Census Tracts in
order to facilitate data collection and analysis. TIP project U-4010 falls exclusively in Tract
18.02; however, Tract 10.02 is immediately adjacent and maybe affected by westerly traffic on
Holloway Street.
Much of the analysis is based on information obtained from the Northeast Durham Plan.
The part of Durham County detailed in this plan is that section bordered by I-85 in the north,
US 70 to the west, and NC 98 or Holloway Street to the south. The Wake County line forms the
eastern border. While Northeast Durham does not directly correspond with the Census Tracts

10
used to designate the study area, the Northeast Durham Plan does provide essential data needed
to describe the community and how it maybe affected by this transportation improvement.
The NCDOT plans to widen Holloway Street from just east of US 70 to just east of
Junction Road and the Norfolk Southern/CSX Railroad. The right-of--way will be extended on the
north side of Holloway Street. The project will include the addition of a center turn lane, and will
improve traffic flow on this 0.37-mile stretch of highway. The existing width is four lanes
with curb and gutter and a speed limit of 35 mph. Following the improvements, the road will be
68 feet wide with five lanes and curb and gutter, and it will have a design speed limit of 35 mph.
Also, included in the improvements will be wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic.
i
Source: US Census Bureau ,
18.01 _ wwti:.census.eov
Accessed 1 I October 2001
;
-
.
rr,
I
9~ © 1 '
i
~
~
-, ~
~ ~ t •
(
10.07 _,~
y~ `y.i r~~
rlq,,a
~
~ ~ ~
~ ;
'
te, ~.,•,.,1E.Od!

11 ~•~ rh m r ~:
, ~ ~u~h4m
J.....• ~ i ( {

18.02 ~~~ S
`- ;,.
r
.. _~ .+
b v~y ~ .
~
10.01 ~

h,~F{wY
,_ ~ .~
=~ -
~•~_
lc ~~
GL~~ ice,

3 3 DuTptm

Ap p rox. 4 miles across. {i~. l' t
- 18. 5
t' i - t
Pre ared wiihArneriean FactFinder ~"`-' '
B. Community Profile
Demographics
Boundaries
'00 Ca:.;y
f~'46 ~svs Trac'
'OD Fia.c
~`•~ '00 Pla_e
~'00 .a- Ci_y
F"e~atures
/Y Hajcr RaaC
5* reamt4la;e racy
''• ~•reamlWa:er~x~y
Aailrcad
^ c~rac~..l
0 C'?-arm
Historically, the City of Durham and Durham County have been home to a greater
percentage of minorities than the state of North Carolina as a whole. This is supported by
data from the most recent Census (2000), which shows that 57.6% of the City's
population and 51.9% of the County's population is non-white. The corresponding
percentage of minorities in the State is 29.8%. The study area for this particular project
has an even greater percentage of minorities, with over 85% of the population considered
non-white. The largest groups are the African Americans, which make up 64.2% of the
population in the study area, and Hispanics, which make up 19.8% of the population.

11
Table 3. Population by Race, 2000
Stud Area ` = ~ Ci of DnrLam Durham Coun " North Carolina
Race - ~ ~' = Po ulation . °!o :: ~- " Po nlation %~ ` - :' Po ulation % Po ulation '
White 1,792 14.4% 79,277 42.4% 107,371 48.1 % 5,647,155 70.2%
Black or African
American
7,999
64.2%
81,370
43.5%
87,516
39.2%
1,723,301
21.4%
American Indian
or Alaska Native
1 S
0.1 %
455
0.2%
531
0.2%
95,333
1.2%
Asian 35 0.3% 6,782 3.6% 7,311 3.3% 112,4]6 1.4%
Native Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander

0

0.0%

58

0.0%

65

0.0%

3,165

0.0%
Hispanic or
Latino
2,469
19.8%
16,012
8.6%
17,039
7.6%
378,963
4.7%
Other Race 17 0.1 % 360 0.2% 436 0.2% 9,015 0.1
Two or More
Races
133
1.1 %
2,721
1.5%
3,045
1.4%
79,965
1.0%
Total 12 460 100.0% 187035 100.0% 223 14 100.0% 8049 13 1()0.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Note: Study Area includes Census Tracts 10.02 and 18.02
The study area appears to have a greater percentage of residents in the younger
age groups than the City of Durham, Durham County and North Carolina. Almost 34%
of the total population in the study area is "19 years and under", while the City, County
and State have only 26.3-27.2% under the age of 20. Additionally, the percentage of the
population in the 20-44 age group is relatively high in the study area, as in the City of
Durham and Durham County. The percentages of the population included in the "45-64
years" and "65 or more years" cohorts are relatively low in the study area, the City and
the County. In fact, the percentage of the population over the age of 45 living in the
study area is about half of the corresponding percentage in the State.
Table 4. Population by Age, 2000
- Stud urea Cl bf Durham Durham Co un North Carol ina -
e Po elation °!° Po elation % Po elation % Po elation % '
19yrs&
under
4,212
33.8%
49,742
26.6%
58,773
26.3%
2,193,360
27.2%
20-44 s 5,371 43.1% 86,115 46.0% 98,767 44.2% 3,078,043 38.2%
45-64 s 2,050 16.5% 33,763 18.1% 44,200 19.8% 1,808,862 22.5%
65 or
more s
827
6.6%
17,415
9.3%
21,574
9.7%
969,048
12.0%
Total 12.460 ' 1(10.0°/a 187 035 ' 100.0°l0` 223 14 100:0% 049'',.: 13 ' 100.0°!0
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Note: Study Area includes Census Tracts 10.02 and 18.02

12
2.• • Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment
The median household income for Durham County is typically higher than the
average median household income for North Carolina. The most recent Census data
(1997) shows that Durham County has a median household income of just over
$40,000.00, while North Carolina's average is almost $5,000.00 less. It does appear that
income is growing at a similar rate for both the County and the State, as the percentage of
growth is approximately 31-33%.
Table 5. Median Household Income, 1990-]997
-_ ~ Median household
Income
Chan e
Area ~ ° 1990 ~ 1997: Amount
Durham Count $30,526.00 $40,007.00 $9,481.00 31.1
North Carolina $26,647.00 $35,320.00 $8,673.00 32.5%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000
Note: The 1990 Census provides median household income for the year 1989
The percentage of the population that lives below the poverty level is
approximately 12-13% for both Durham County and North Carolina. From 1990-1997,
the percentage of County residents in this category grew slightly (0.5%), while the
percentage actually decreased (0.4%) in the State.
Table 6. Percentage of Population below Poverty Level, 1990-1997
.,

`
Percentage Beiow Poverty,
Level `
-
Chan e
Area... 1990 - 19.97 Amount
Durham Count 11.9% 12.4% 0.5% 4.2%
North Carolina 13.0% 12.6% -0.4% -3.1
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000
The unemployment rates for both Durham County and North Carolina
have decreased somewhat in the past decade. The unemployment rate in Durham
County tends to be lower than that of the rest of the State, and is approximately
2.3% at present. The unemployment rate for the State is currently 3.6%.
Table 7. Unem to ent Rate, 1990-2000
Unem 1o en"t Rate Chan e
Area 1990 2000 Amount
Durham Count 2.7% 2.3% -0.4% -14.8%
North Carolina 4.2% 3.6% -0.6% -14.3%
Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, 2001

13
Tables 5-7 include data for Durham County and the state of North Carolina.
Information for the City of Durham and the study area is not included because the 2000
Census report is not complete at the time of this study.
3. Housing Characteristics
The predominant land use along Holloway Street from US 70 to Junction Road is
commercial, with some light industry and residential interspersed throughout. The
residential uses are located along Holloway Street just west of US 70, and just east of
Junction Road. In addition, there are single-family neighborhoods located on minor
streets that intersect with Holloway Street between US 70 and Junction Road.
Recent data on home values and contract rents is limited. Data is available from
the 1990 Census for both Durham County and North Carolina. The median home value
in Durham County in 1990 was $85,500.00, while North Carolina's median value was
$65,800.00. The 2000 Supplemental Surveys conducted by the US Census Bureau find
that the median home value (estimate) now in North Carolina is $108,356.00. This
indicates a growth rate of almost 65%. The median contract rent for Durham County in
1990 was $355.00, while the median for the State was $284.00. The Supplemental
Surveys show a growth rate of 98.6% in median contract rent for the State, as the rent
was estimated at $564.00 in 2000.
The draft of the Northeast Durham Plan, created by the Durham City/County
Planning Department, suggests that the housing in Northeast Durham is skewed more
heavily toward owner-occupied, detached units that in the remainder of the City and
County. Northeast Durham, as defined in the Plan, is bounded by US 70, I-85, the Wake
County line, and NC 98 or Holloway Street. However, rental units are concentrated in
the western and southern urban fringe of Northeast Durham, where the project area is
located. As seen in Table 7, the City of Durham and Durham County have
homeownership rates well below the state average of 69.4%.
Table 8. Homeownership Rate, 1990-2000
Homeownership ate ~ ~ C~ap~ge
Area , ~ .n 199U ; 2~D~8 .- _ ; Amonnt ~ %
Northeast Durham N/A 78.3% N/A N/A
City of Durham 44.2% 48.9% 4.7% 10.6%
Durham County 53.0% 54.3% 1.3% 2.5%
North Carolina 68.0% 69.4% 1.4% 2.1
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000
Note: The homeownership rate for Northeast Durham (2000) was taken from the draft
of the Northeast Durham Plan (2001).
4. Business Activity and Employment Centers
There are no major employment centers in the immediate vicinity of TIP project
U-4010. As mentioned in the Northeast Durham Plan, and noted in a field visit to the
project area, there are some low-employment generating industries and businesses along

14
the rail corridor and Junction Road. Primarily though, this part of Durham acts more as a
"bedroom community" for surrounding employment centers. Many Durham County
residents travel from or through the study area to work locations in the Research Triangle
Park (south) or in downtown Durham (west).
5. Public Services
The Durham Fire Department Station No. 8 is located on Holloway Street
approximately a mile east of the intersection with Junction Road. There is also a Durham
Police Substation along this same stretch of roadway. These are both served by the
9-1-1 Emergency Communications center for the Durham metropolitan area, which
relays emergency service, fire and police department responses across the area.
6. Land Use and Development
The predominant land use along Holloway Street from US 70 to Junction Road is
commercial. There are some industrial uses along US 70 and the Norfolk Southern/CSX
Railroad. The majority of residential uses are on the west side of US 70 and the east of
Junction Road. These neighborhoods are typically medium density residential with 4.1 to 8
units per acre. The surrounding neighborhoods tend to be lower density, with 1 to 4 units
per acre.
The area immediately around the proposed TIP project is fairly urbanized and
almost fully developed. This development spreads out to the urban growth boundary that is
formed roughly by Fletcher's Chapel Road and Stallings Road. Outside of this boundary,
the land is generally subject to regulations that protect the Falls Lake watershed in the
Neuse River Basin, and therefore it is less developed.
The Northeast Durham Plan, drafted by the Durham City/County Planning
Department, is one of sixteen "small area" plans in the County. The widening project on
Holloway Street is located in Northeast Durham, on the very southwestern border of the
district. The plan will serve as a guide in making future land use decisions. Currently, the
plan has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Committee to the Board of
County Commissioners and Durham City Council. The plan is scheduled to go before
these elected bodies in November 2001.
7. Community Description
The Northeast Durham district of Durham County is approximately 24,000 acres,
which is about 13% of the total land area of the County. The western portion of the
district is urbanized and part of the City of Durham, while the eastern portion is relatively
rural.

15
The residential neighborhoods in Northeast Durham are primarily composed of
owner-occupied, single family homes. Those areas immediately surrounding the project
area have higher concentrations ofrenter-occupied homes, and the housing stock is
typically older and in decline.
There are several noteworthy community groups in the area. The Merrick-Moore
Civic Club meets at Mt. Zion Church in the vicinity of Cheek Road just north of the
project site. The Northeast Durham Homeowners Organization and the Gorman
Neighborhood Association are also active in the community.
D. Project Impact Assessment
Social and Psychological
According to planning staff in Durham, the neighborhoods in the general vicinity
of the proposed improvements are gradually shifting from a Black or African American
majority, as Hispanics make up an increasing percentage of the local population. The
total population in the study area (Census Tracts 10.02 and 18.02) has grown at a similar
rate as the County and State in the last decade. However, the populations in Northeast
Durham and the City of Durham have grown at rates of 32.3% and 36.9% respectively in
comparison to 22.8% in the County. It would be reasonable to assume that the growth in
the more rural sections of Northeast Durham will continue, as more available land is
developed. The neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the proposed project will most
likely not be subject to the same type of growth because the land is already urbanized.
The addition of a center turn lane, therefore, will not create any substantial impact on
total population. Likewise, the proposed improvements will not affect the interaction of
these neighborhoods with the community in general. The quality of life will remain
much the same as it is today.
2. Physical Aspects
The proposed widening of the 0.3-mile segment of Holloway Street between US 70
and Junction Road will not generate any substantial noise or physical intrusions. The
proposed improvement will require another 18 feet ofright-of--way, but the turn lane will
not produce any more noise than that generated by the current four-lanes of traffic. The
reason for this is that the transportation improvement will not necessarily induce more
traffic (more noise). It will serve to alleviate current congestion on the road.
3. Visual Environment
The project area is located in an urbanized and mostly commercial setting. The
current four-lane road has curb and gutter facilities with multiple access points. The
addition of a center turn lane will not significantly alter the aesthetics of the roadway, as
the proposed improvement will also have curb and gutter facilities and multiple access
points. Likewise, there will not be any significant effect on the limited landscaping and
vegetation that is currently present. If anything, the transportation improvement may serve
as an impetus for planting vegetation along the street.

16
The primary impact on the visual environment will be the continuous sidewalk to be
constructed on the north side of the street. This change will be aesthetically positive in that
it is replacing the deteriorated and ineffective sidewalk in place at present.
4. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility
The Durham City/County Planning Department's Northeast Durham Future Land
Use Map proposes the development of neighborhood and community centers. These
centers would serve as employment and service nodes for residents, and would support
commercial, office and industrial uses. The proposed widening project would facilitate
transportation to and from these centers upon future development. The project in itself
would not be responsible for changes in land use.
The Planning Department also suggests inter-connectivity between existing and
future developments by supporting the inclusion of projects that are part of the TIP
program of the NCDOT. The expansion of the capacity of NC 98 not only from US 70 to
Junction Road, but from Junction Road to the Wake County line, is one such priority.
The Northeast Durham Plan encourages a Corridor Study for NC 98 as an
implementation measure to support the goal of promoting better access to transportation
arteries, providing more jobs and decreasing congestion.
5. Economic Conditions
The widening project on Holloway Street will have an impact on several
businesses in the immediate project area. It is possible impacts to two gas stations will
include the relocation of gas pumps, tanks, monitoring wells, and canopies. Nonetheless,
the project length is so short (0.37-mile (0.60 kilometer)) that the effects on the City's tax
base will be minimal.
In the long run, the impact should be positive. The addition of a center turn lane
will improve traffic flow and may even improve access to businesses. It may also
improve visibility of certain businesses that will be located more closely to the road. In
addition, the improvement should help to facilitate development of the neighborhood
centers proposed at the intersection of US 70 and Holloway Street, and at NC 98 and
Lynn Road, where Midland Terrace Road will be extended to NC 98 from the north.
6. Mobility and Access
The expected increase in population and traffic may put a burden on the street
network in years to come. In 1999, the section of Holloway Street between US 70
and Junction Road experienced an average daily traffic count of approximately 21,000
vehicles per day. This average is expected to rise to 31,600-33,700 vehicles per day by
2025. In order to accommodate this growth, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization has identified several problem areas. One such area
is the portion of Holloway Street or NC 98 from east of US 70 to east of Junction Road.
Improvements to this project area and others will allow for better access to major
transportation arteries such as US 70 and I-85.

17
' ' ~ The addition of a center turn lane on Holloway Street will not contribute to
changes in commuting patterns of automobiles, though it will improve the accessibility to
businesses and parking on Holloway Street. It will decrease driving time for individual
commuters, and it will also expedite public transportation along NC 98. The Planning
Department advises bus stops for all neighborhood and community service centers
proposed on the Future Land Use Map. ACCESS vans (public transportation for the
handicapped) will available during normal working hours to assist anyone with physical
disabilities.
There are also plans to include a continuous sidewalk on the north side of
Holloway Street when the road is widened. This will enhance the pedestrian accessibility
to local businesses. Additionally, it will assist in providing pedestrian links to future
neighborhood centers located in the corridor. Currently, the businesses located on
Holloway Street are not particularly pedestrian-oriented, but this can be remedied by
providing linkages to the sidewalk installed with this transportation improvement.
The Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Master Plan and the Regional Bicycle
Plan recommend locating bicycle routes along major thoroughfares such as NC 98. The
outside lanes will be 14 feet wide, which will accommodate bicyclists.
7. Provisions of Public Services
Since the project will not impact population growth in the study area, there will be
no impact on public amenities such as schools or recreation facilities. Additionally, there
will be no displacement of public facilities or places of worship.
Safety
The addition of a center turn lane from US 70 to just east of Junction Road will
improve safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Automobiles will be able to
access residences and businesses without interrupting the normal flow of traffic. This
includes emergency vehicles, which will be able to respond more quickly and safely on
Holloway Street.
Pedestrian safety will be improved by replacing the beaten pathways with a
continuous concrete sidewalk and bicycle safety will be improved by the addition of
bicycle lanes.
9. Displacements
It is the policy of the NCDOT to provide assistance and counseling to those
affected by transportation improvements as required under the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation offers programs that address relocation
assistance, moving payments and replacement housing payments or rent subsidies for
residents and businesses that are impacted by transportation improvements.

18
The widening project will affect one residence and two businesses on Holloway
Street. The NCDOT easement encroaches upon the canopy of the Triangle Gas Station
on the southeast corner of Holloway Street and Junction Road. Additionally, the
extended right-of--way will encroach upon the canopy of the gas station on the northeast
corner of Holloway Street and Southerland Street.
10. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Secondary impacts are those impacts that may indirectly come about because of
an event such as the proposed transportation project on Holloway Street. Secondary
impacts tend to occur over a longer period of time and can take place away from the
immediate project area. An example would be the deterioration of air quality due to new
highway construction. With increased development and traffic caused by a new highway,
the air quality in the entire region may diminish over time. This could be considered a
secondary effect. Closely related is the concept of cumulative impacts, which are the
collective effects of an event such as this widening project.
Only minor secondary and cumulative impacts are created by this project. As
previously mentioned, a direct impact of the additional turn lane will be improved traffic
flow on Holloway Street between US 70 and Junction Road. The project will not
necessarily induce more traffic, but it will mainly serve to relieve congestion that is
already a factor on this stretch of road. The widening will not induce additional
development either. Rather, it will most likely help to accomplish the planning goals
mentioned in the Northeast Durham Plan.
The most prominent land use along this part of Holloway Street is commercial,
with a few residential uses on Holloway Street, and light industrial uses along US 70 and
the rail corridor. The transportation improvement will not directly affect the type of land
use on Holloway Street, but it may indirectly aid in the transformation of this commercial
strip into more pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly development as encouraged in the
Plan.
The Northeast Durham Plan identifies a number of locations as sites for
neighborhood or community service centers. These centers would provide a mix of uses,
including commercial, office and industrial. The sidewalk network and bicycle lanes will
be extended within these service centers, and along other major thoroughfares in the
county to facilitate the objectives of the Plan. This, in conjunction with the proposal to
provide several direct connections to the Research Triangle Park and I-85, will help to
create safer and more efficient multi-modal transportation options on Holloway Street
and other major roads.
11. Environmental Justice
Federal programs, under the statutes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
have requirements to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, disability, and religion. Furthermore, Executive Order 12898
"directs that programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and

19
adverse human health and environmental effect on minority and low-income
populations".
While there is a disproportionate number of minorities in the study area and
project area, there are no substantial environmental justice issues in regards to this
transportation improvement. The TIP project is designed to improve traffic flow and
safety, which will in turn improve access to a number of businesses and residences.
Though several businesses will be relocated, the benefits for the community as a whole
outweigh the negative factors.
12. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to minimize the degree to
which federally sponsored programs contribute to the "unnecessary and irreversible
conversion of fanmland to non-agricultural uses," and ensure that these programs are
consistent with state, local and private programs to protect farmland.
The TIP project is located in an urbanized area, and the addition of a center turn
lane will not disrupt any agricultural uses.
13. Historic and Cultural Resources
There are no significant archaeological or historical sites recorded in the project
area. The likelihood of the project encountering any significant archaeological sites is
low, given the limited scope of the project and the extensive modern development in the
project area. There are no sites or properties listed on the National Register of Historic
Places within the project's area of potential effect. The State Historic Preservation Office
recommended no archaeological investigation for this project. See Appendix A for
concurrence form and letter dated November 14, 2000 from the State Historic
Preservation Office.
E. Air Ouality Analysis
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area
for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994 and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995.
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain
any transportation control measures for Durham County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2000-2006 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 February 29, 2000. 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.

20
' This project is limited in scope with no additional through traffic lanes or change in speed
limit is planned. Furthermore, the project will not increase traffic volumes. Also, the noise
transmission reduction provided to the interior of the structures within the project limits should
be sufficient to moderate any intrusive traffic noise. Therefore, 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.
F. Ecological Analysis
The project study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region in the north-central
part of North Carolina. The topography in this section of Durham County is gently rolling.
Commercial and residential uses are the major land uses in this area.
(msl).
Project elevation is between 370.0 and 400.0 ft (112.8 and 121.9 m) above mean sea level
Soils
Four soil map units occur within project vicinity: three White Store sandy loams
with varied slopes and White Store Urban land complex. Table 3 lists study area soils and
their characteristics.
Table 9. Soils within the Project Study Area
Map
Unit Soil Percent..
S!o a Drainage
Class Hydric
Classification
WsB White Store sand loam 2-6 Moderatel well Non-h dric
WwC White Store-Urban land com lex 0-10 Not available Non-h dric
WsC White Store sand loam 6-10 Moderatel well Non-h dric
WsE White Store sand loam 10-25 Moderatel well Non-h dric
White Store sandy loam (2-6% slopes) occurs on broad ridges on uplands.
Surface runoff is medium and infiltration is moderate. The main limitations are erosion
resulting from runoff, high shrink-swell potential and very slow permeability.
White Store-Urban land complex (0-10% slopes) consists of White Store soil and
Urban land, which is mainly White Store soil material. As much as 30 percent of each
mapped area is covered by streets, houses and other structures. About 30 percent is an
undisturbed White Store soil. About 25 percent is a White Store soil that in places has
been covered with fill material and in other places has had as much as two-thirds of the
original soil material removed. The rest is fill or places where the original soil material
has been cut away. The fill material is commonly a mixture of sandy loam and clay.

21
White Store sandy loam (6-10% slopes) occurs on narrow side slopes on uplands.
Surface~runoff is rapid and infiltration is moderate. The main limitations are the slope, the
erosion resulting from runoff, the high shrink-swell potential and the very slow
permeability.
White Store sandy loam (10-25% slopes) occurs on side slopes adjacent to major
drainageways in uplands. Surface runoff is rapid and infiltration is moderate. The main
limitations are the slope, the erosion resulting from runoff, the high shrink-swell potential
and the very slow permeability.
2. Water Resources
The project area lies within sub-basin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River Basin;
however, surface waters are not present within project boundaries. Therefore, no surface
waters will be directly impacted by the proposed project. The closest surface water to the
project lies approximately 400.0 ft (121.9 m) east of the project limits and is piped under
NC 98. This unnamed tributary (LJt) to Little Lick Creek has a best usage classification
by the DWQ of WS-IV NSW. Class WS-IV are those waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source
dischargers of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A
NCAC 2B .Ol 00; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
supplemental classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
The project lies within the Falls Lake Protected Watershed within the Neuse River
Basin. A protected area is only located within WS-IV watersheds. WS- IV refers to
those waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes for those users where a WS-I, WS-II or WS-III classification is not feasible. A
protected area is defined as land within five miles and draining to the normal pool
elevation of water supplies, or within ten miles upstream and draining to a river intake.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of project study area.
3. Water Quality
Benthic macroinvertebrates are small bottom dwelling organisms, found in
streams and rivers and are often used as indicators of water quality. 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 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,

22
the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term
water quality conditions.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a basinwide 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 assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are
not any biological sampling sites located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of this project.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers located within
1.0 mi (1.6 km) of this roadway project.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms
of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where
they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is
the most widespread cause of non-point source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to
receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances
the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (DEM, 1993).
4. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
5. Terrestrial Communities
One terrestrial community, maintained/disturbed, is present in the project study
area. This community includes maintained road shoulders and maintained commercial
and residential areas. The maintained/disturbed community includes highly maintained

23
road shoulders along NC 98 (Holloway Street) and commercial and residential areas.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application keep this community in an early successional state.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities
by filtering stormwater runoff and reducing runoff velocities. The width of the road
shoulder is approximately 5.0 ft (1.5 m). Vegetation occurring along the road shoulder
includes bead grass, clover, common plantain, goldenrod, gill over ground, wild
strawberry, fescue, black-eyed Susan, ragweed, dandelion, sneeze-weed and poison ivy.
Chinese privet, pokeweed, kudzu, lamb's quarters, grape, trumpet vine and wild yam
occur in the less maintained portions of the road shoulders.
Occurring in the residential and commercial areas are species including:
sweetgum, willow oak, loblolly pine, silver maple, black walnut, ash, hickory, tulip
poplar, eastern red cedar, peach tree, crape myrtle, boxwoods, juniper shrubs and yucca.
Wildlife associated with the communities present within the project vicinity
include: eastern mole, opossum, muskrat, gray squirrel and raccoon.
Avian species utilizing the project vicinity include: blue jay, northern cardinal,
Carolina wren, rufous-sided towhee and pigeon*.
6. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the project will have various impacts on biotic resources. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact
biological functions. Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of the community present within the study area. Project construction will
result in clearing and degradation of portions of this community. The project area
consists of paved parking lots and maintained/disturbed areas including residential and
commercial areas. Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to the
maintained/disturbed community, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed ROW width.
Table 10. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Communit Alternate 1 Alternate l A
Maintained/Disturbed 1.17 (0.47) 1.16 (0.47)
Total: 1.17 (0.47) 1.16 (0.47)
Note: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. However, due to the size and scope of this project,
it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.

24
1
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species.
7. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used
where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic
characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. No
wetlands or surface waters are present within the project area.
b. Permits
Encroachment into jurisdictional surface water because of project
construction is often times inevitable. Factors that determine 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 an individual 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 Individual Certification 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. No
wetlands or surface waters are present within the project area.
Consequently, a section 404 permit and corresponding 401 water quality
certification are not required for the proposed project.
c. Federally 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

25
1973, as amended requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 26, 2001 the USFWS lists the
following federally-protected species for Durham County (Table 5). A brief
description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 12. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened (proposed for
delistin )
Echinacea lae~~i ata Smooth coneflower Endan ered
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endan ered
Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered is defined as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with
a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an
open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins
in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food maybe live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for bald eagles is not present in the project area. There
are not any bodies of water within a half mile of the project and the project area is
highly disturbed and populated by commercial and residential areas. NCDOT
biologists visited the site on October 4, 2000. No bald eagles were observed
during the survey. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats, on January 31, 2001, revealed no bald eagles within the project region.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Flowers Present: June -early July

26
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or
branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open
woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of--way, clearcuts,
and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous
parent material. North Carolina populations are found in soils derived from
Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant
sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for smooth coneflower is present within the road shoulder
portions of the project area. On the day of the survey, a known site of smooth
coneflower was visited. A plant by plant survey for smooth coneflower, within
areas of potential habitat was conducted on October 4, 2000 by NCDOT
biologists. No species within the genus EcJainac•ea was observed during the
survey. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats, on
January 3 1, 2001, revealed no smooth coneflower within the project region.
Therefore, project construction will not affect smooth coneflower.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Best Search Time: During the growing season (June -September)
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub growing to a height of 1.0-2.0 ft
(0.3.6 m). Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of
4-5 parted greenish-yellow to white flowers.
This species prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is
dependent on disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is
often found with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy. There is no
longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont
physiographic provinces of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Most populations occur in North Carolina. This species is threatened by loss of
habitat. Since its discovery, 50 percent of Michaux's sumac habitat has been lost
due to its conversion to silvicultural and agricultural purposes and development.
Fire suppression and herbicide drift have also negatively impacted this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac is present only within the road
shoulder portions of the project area. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's
sumac, within areas of potential habitat was conducted on October 4, 2000 by

27
NCDOT biologists. No Michaux's sumac was observed during the survey. A
review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats, on
January 31, 2001, revealed no Michaux's sumac within the project region.
Therefore, project construction will not affect Michaux's sumac.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are ten Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Durham
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of
Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for
listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare
(SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(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.
Tables 11 and 12 list Federal Candidate and State listed species, the
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.

',v
2s
Table ~ Federal Species of Concern for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina Darter SC No
Lvthrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR No
Fusco~laia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T (PE) No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR* No
Lampsilis car•iosa Yellow lampmussel T (PE) No
Lasmigona suhviridis Green floater E No
Somotogvrus virginicus Panhandle pebblesnail SR No
Delphinium exaltatun: Tall larkspur E-SC No
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS* No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Pla iochila Columbiana A liverwort W2* No
"*"-------Historic record (Last observed in Johnston County more than twenty years ago.)
"E"------An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"----- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"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 has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which
exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the NC Natural Heritage
Program to need monitoring.
"SC"---- "Any species of plant in NC which requires monitoring but which maybe collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act]" (GS 19B 106:202.12).
"(PE)"Species has been proposed by a Scientific Council as a status that is different from the
current status, but the status has not yet been adopted by the WRC and by the General Assembly
as law.
"W2" A Watch Category 2 (rare, but~taxonomically questionable) includes species with
questionable taxonomy.
"WS" A Watch Category 5 (rare because of severe decline) includes species which have
declined sharply in NC, but which do not appear yet to warrant site-specific monitoring.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on
January 31, 2001 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near
the project study area.

28
Table 12. Federal Species of Concern for Durham.County
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina Darter SC No
Lvthrurus matutir:us Pinewoods shiner SR No
F'usconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T (PE) No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR* No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T (PE) No
Lasmigona suhviridis Green floater E No
Somotogvrus virginicus Panhandle pebblesnail SR No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS* No
Monotr•opsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Pla iochila Columbiana A liverwort W2* No
"*"-------Historic record (Last observed in Johnston County more than twenty years ago.)
"E"------An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"----- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"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 has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which
exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the NC Natural Heritage
Program to need monitoring.
"SC"---- "Any species of plant in NC which requires monitoring but which may be collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act]" (GS 19B 106:202.12).
"(PE)"Species has been proposed by a Scientific Council as a status that is different from the
current status, but the status has not yet been adopted by the WRC and by the General Assembly
as law.
"W2" A Watch Category 2 (rare, but taxonomically questionable) includes species with
questionable taxonomy.
"WS" A Watch Category 5 (rare because of severe decline) includes species which have
declined sharply in NC, but which do not appear yet to warrant site-specific monitoring.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on
January 31, 2001 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near
the project study area.

29
G. Hazardous Materials
A geology and hazardous materials evaluation was conducted by investigation of the
project area to determine if any hazards such as underground storage tanks, hazardous waste
sites, dumps, landfills, or other similar sites which may impact construction of the project, cause
delays, or create other liabilities. Afield reconnaissance survey was conducted along existing
NC 98 (Holloway Street) within the project limits by the Geotechnical Unit of NCDOT. Four
potential sites for underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified in the project vicinity (See
Appendix C for listing). As a result of this study, this project was considered to have a low risk
for hazardous materials involvement.
H. Geodetic Survey Markers
This project will not impact geodetic survey markers.
I. Gi•eenways
The project will not impact any existing or proposed greenways.
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was requested from the
appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in preparing this Environmental Assessment.
Listed below are the agencies which were contacted:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Geological Survey
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Durham County Public Schools
Durham County Planning
*City of Durham
Triangle J Council of Governments
* Denotes agencies from which input was received
A. Citizens' Informational Workshop
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on November 14, 2000 at the Durham
Memorial Baptist Church to obtain comments and/or suggestions about the proposed project

30
from the public. Approximately 7 citizens attended to express their interest in the project. ~ Some
of those attending lived on or in the vicinity of NC 98 (Holloway Street) and were concerned
about the impacts the proposed project would have on their property. The consensus of those
attending the workshop was NC 98 (Holloway Street) needs to be widened to improve capacity
and safety. Many expressed the need for sidewalks.
B. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the circulation of this
document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the
detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited
to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.

31
VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration prepared this Envirorunental Assessment. The following personnel were
instrumental in the preparation of this document.
A. North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch '
Engineer responsible for highway planning and environmental impact analyses,
30 years of experience.
2. Mr. Robert P. Hanson, P. E., Assistant Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch.
Engineer responsible for managing highway planning and environmental impact
analyses, 15 years of experience.
3. Mrs. Teresa A. Hart, P. E., CPM, Project Development Engineer Unit Head,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
Engineer responsible for managing highway planning and environmental impact
analyses, 15 years of experience.
4. Ms. Michele L. James, Project Planning Engineer, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch.
Engineer responsible for conducting highway planning and environmental impact
analyses, 14 years of experience.
5. Mr. Ron Allen, P. E., Project Engineer, Roadway Design Unit.
Engineer responsible for preparing the preliminary highway design, 16 years of
experience.
6. Ms. Lynn Smith, Environmental Biologist, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch.
Biologist responsible for assessing the potential impacts to Natural Resources,
3 years of experience.

32
7. Mr. Stephen Walker, Transportation Engineer, Project Development and
' Environmental Analysis Branch.
Engineer responsible for preparing the Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Assessments, 27 years of experience.
8. Mrs. Emily F. Kravitz, Architectural Historian, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch.
Historian responsible for assessing potential impacts to Historic Architectural
Resources, 2 years of experience.
9. Mr. Shane Peterson, Archaeologist, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch.
Archaeologist responsible for assessing potential impacts to archaeological
resources, 3 years of experience.
10. Mr. Jake Riggsbee, Area Engineer, Federal Highway Administration
Area Engineer responsible for NCDOT-TIP federal-aid projects, 20 years
experience.
11. Mr. Michael Summers, Traffic Engineering Branch
Plan Review Project Engineer responsible for traffic analysis and review, 26 years
experience.
12. Mr. Charles Sturdivant, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Illustrator responsible for all graphics for the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, 28 years experience.
13. Mr. Bob Deaton, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Community Planner responsible for community impact assessments, 10 years of
experience.
MJ/plr

ficuREs

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJF.CP DBVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM
?vC 98 (H®LLDR'AY STREET)
EAST ®F US 70 T®
EAST DF JUNCTI~\ R®:~D
DURHAM COUNTY
U-4010
FIGURE 1

TIP: U-4010
3) Joylland BP (The Family Fare)
2406 Holloway Street, Facility ID: 0-002268
Durham, NC 27703 (Southeast Quadrant of S. Hoover Road and Hollowav Street)
UST Owner: M.M. Fowler, Inc.
4220 Neal Road,
Durham, NC 27705-2322
This facility is an active service station with five 10,000 gallon USTs on the property.
The facility was recently upgraded per DENR regulations and is reportedly in good
condition. The UST area is approximately 85 ft from the centerline of the Holloway
Street. Based on the current preliminary engineering plan, the UST system on this
property is likely out of project limits. Every effort should be made to keep that way.
4) Latin American Food/ Buy & Go (former Triangle)
2502 Holloway Street, Facility ID: 0-029947
Durham, NC 27507 Southeast Ouadrant of Junction Road and Hollowav Street)
UST Owner: Cary Oil Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 4649/8015 Chapel Hill Road,
Cary, NC 27519-4649
This facility is an active service station with five USTs on the property. The facility was
recently upgraded per DENR regulations. The UST area is approximately 45 ft from the
centerline of the Holloway Street. Based on the current preliminary engineering plan; the
UST system on this property is likely out of project limits. Every effort should be made
to keep that way.
RCRA/CERCLA Facilities
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.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project study area.
The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within
the project limits.

_ _ _ _
-',~~
TIP: U-4010
Underground Storage Tank fL1STl Facilities
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, we have identified four facilities along the
proposed project corridor with UST involvement. Three of the facilities are currently
active and the other is a former gas station. The UST systems (tanks, dispensers and
pump islands, product lines) were measured, when possible, with reference to the existing
centerline of the existing road at each site. Listed below is a brief description of the sites
including their location, their NC Division of Waste Management (DWM) Facility I.D.
Number (assigned if the USTs aze registered), and any other available information:
1) Lockamy Truck Center
2215 Holloway Street, Facility ID: Unknown
Durham, NC 27703 Northwest Quadrant of Southerland Street and Hollowav Street)
UST Owner: Mrs. Janie Andrew (Durham)
This facility is a former service station. The USTs were reportedly removed from the
facility years ago. DOT personnel contacted the UST owner for the UST closure report,
but has not received the requested document.
2) Pantry 3162 (ETNA 281)
2301 Holloway Street, Facility ID: 0-016343
Durham, NC 27703 Northeast Quadrant of Southerland Street and Hollowav Street)
UST Owner: The Pantry Inc.
P.O. Box 1410/1801 Douglas Drive,
Sanford, NC 27330-1410
This facility is an active service station with five 10,000 gallon USTs on the property.
The facility was recently upgraded per DENR regulations. There are at least 10
monitoring wells located on the property, which is a clear indication of groundwater
contamination. The UST azea is approximately 60 ft from the centerline of the Holloway
Street. Two of the wells aze situated in the close vicinity of the proposed project area.
Based on the current preliminary engineering plan, the UST system on this property is
likely out of project limits. Every effort should be made to keep that way.

APPENDIX C

(b) The future U-71 project proposes to construct a single point urban
interchange at the existing US 70 & NC 98 interchange. Anew bridge will
be constructed on US 70 making the spacing to the existing tracks even
less. Providing for a grade separation under U-4010, would conflict with
the U-71 design.
(c) Because of the vertical clearance needed to span the railroad, there would
be heavy R/W impacts. Construction along both Hoover and Junction
Roads would increase tremendously. Junction Road would have to be
relocated to an acceptable distance beyond the bridge, thus incurring
more relocations. Also, the new height of NC 98 would push the
construction limits approximately 80 - 90 feet beyond the existing edge of
pavement. This will heavily impact all of the businesses being accessed
by this road.
(d) Signalized intersections are in close proximity to the railroad tracks on
both sides of NC 98, thereby restricting the free flow of traffic.
Agreement:
On December 21, 2000, representatives of Roadway Design Unit and Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) reviewed the above
referenced project and all parties present agree a...
Grade separation should be included as part of this improvement project.
X Grade separation should not be included as part of this improvement
project.
In addition the following comment is also noted:
The Roadway Design Unit will coordinate with the Rail Division during final design to
implement measures to prevent illegal "run-around" movements when gate arms are
down.
Signed: /- Z6 - o /
presentativ ,Roadway, esign Date
t Z o~
Representative, PDEA Date
cc: Paul Worley, Rail Division
Ron Allen, P. E., Roadway Design
Teresa Hart, P.E., CPM, PDEA
Page Z2

GRADE SEPARATION AGREEMENT
FOR
TIP NO. U-4010
Project Title: Railroad Grade Separation over NC 98 (Holloway Street)
from East of US 70 to east of Junction Road, Durham,
Durham County, Federal Aid Project STP-98(5), State
Project No. 8.1352401, TIP Project No. U-4010
Project Description: Widen section of NC 98 (Holloway Street) to a multi-lane
facility.
Alternatives: Four lane divided or a five lane symmetrical and a
asymmetrical curb and gutter facility. The total project length
is approximately 0.3 mile.
Existing Conditions: a. Two Railroad tracks -
1.) CSX Transportation -Max. speed 10 mph
2.) Norfolk Southern Railways -Max. speed 35 mph
b. Not on High Speed Rail Corridor
c. Two trains per/day travel both lines.
d. Existing traffic - 21,000 vpd
e. Exposure Index - 84,000
Findings Regarding Grade Separation:
(a) NCDOT needs to be at least 30 feet (23 ft. clearance + 7 ft. for bridge)
higher than the existing tracks to span the railroad. A 9% +/- grade is
needed to achieve this due to avoiding the existing bridge at US 70. In
order to tie back in on the east side of Junction Road within a reasonable
distance, a 10% grade is needed. The grades, vertical curvature, and
resulting design speed are not acceptable in our opinion.
Page 1/2

APPENDIX B

~R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
^X E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1352401 couNTY Durham Alternate 2 of 2 AlternatE
I.D. NO.: 1,1-4010 F.A. PROJECT STP- 98
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 98 (Holloway Street) from east of US 70 Bypass to east of Junction Road

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees .Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 J - 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/~
BUSIneSS@S 0 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM WA $ aiso WA o-2o~e N/q S o-iso I,I/p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M WA 150-250 N/A 20-40M nJ/A 150'250 N/~!
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M N/A 250.400 N/A 40-70r~I N/p 250-400 N/~
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10oM WA 4~~ WA 7a100M WA 4~~ W~
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP WA 60o uP WA 100 uP WA 600 uP W~
displacement? TOTAL WA WA WA W~
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res and b Number
project? 3. No change to business community.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. (a) The Grill -small take out restaurant, 900 sq ft with
employees, minorities, etc. storage building in back -approximately 2
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? employees (minority)
6. Source for available housing (list). (b) Triangle Convenience & Gas - 3 island pumps, 5
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? underground storage tanks - 1000 sq ft with 3
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? employees.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. (c) Etna Convenience & Gas Station - 6 island pumps,
families? 5 underground storage tanks -1000 sq ft with three
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? employees.
X 11 . Is public housing available? 11. Good availability for Public Housing.
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Strong housing market. Much growth & development.
- housing available during relocation period? 14. Strong market in the City of Durham and surrounding
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within areas. Commercial Realtors (MLS)
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? TWELVE 12

Leonard G. Scarborou h October 10, 2000 ~~ o
~ ~~
Relocation A ent Date A roved b Date
Forth 15.4 Revised 02/95 d tmgmal ~ i Copy: scare rseiocanon hgent~
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

S
. r
~~R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
.-
^X E.I.S. ~ EORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportatiol
AREA RELOCATION OFFICI
PROJECT: 8.1352401 couNTY Durham Alternate 1 of 2 Alternai
I.D. NO.: U-4010 F.A. PROJECT STP- 98
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 98 (Holloway Street) from east of US 70 Bypass to east of Junction Roac

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 1 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N~
Businesses 0 Z 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-~M WA $ 0-15o WA a2oM WA S also NI
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M WA 150.250 rJ/p 20-40M WA 150-250 NI
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A `t0-70M WA 250-400 NI
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M WA 400.600 N/q 70-100M WA 40000 IVY
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by ~~ uP WA 600 uP WA 100 ua WA soo uP Ni
displacement? TOTAL WA WA WA Ni
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res and b Number
project? 3. No change to business community.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. (a) The Grill -small take out restaurant, 900 sq ft with
employees, minorities, etc. storage building in back -approximately 2
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? employees (minority)
s. Source for available housing (list). (b) Triangle Convenience & Gas - 3 island pumps, 5
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? underground storage tanks -1000 sq ft with 3
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? employees.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. (c) Exxon Convenience & Gas Station - 4 island pumF
families? 5 underground storage tanks -1300 sq ft with thre
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? employees.
X 11. Is public housing available? 11. Good availability for Public Housing.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Strong housing market. Much growth & development.
housing available during relocation period? 14. Strong market in the City of Durham and surrounding
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within areas. Commercial Realtors (MLS)
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? TWELVE 12
// r
,`/`/,
Leonard G. Scarborou h October 10, 2000 ~'~ ~ f ~
Relocation A ent Date A roved b D t
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
t~nglnai a ~ wpy: oiarc ncnn.auv~ ~ r+y r
2 Copy Area Relocation Offi

DEPARTMENT OF ENVL~,ONIv~NT A_~~ Project Number -
- - T:ATURAL RESOURCES ~' - -t~~>1J
-" - DIVISION OF ENVIRON?v~NT~• T HEALTH County
Into;-=~encv P;oje~t Re~.7ew R~S~~nS~
Project ?tirar,~e Tyke of P; c;ect
^ Tne aopiirtlt should be advised that pl: ru and spyiitcatiocs for all «~tcr s~s;:a~
i.:,rrov:.:,czts r:.s: be app; o•:ed by the Division of Enviro =-ne;,tal Halth prior to the a~c~rd of
a conttzct or the i;,itiation of construction (as required by 1~A NCAC 18C .0300cc. sq.). Fer
infocmadot>, contact the public Watt; Supply Se::ion, (919) 733-2;00.
^ Trus p:o:ct will be elssi::ed as a ne--comn~.:ni;c public ~~_tcr scpply and must comply ~cit:5
sit: ~.d icdcraI drinking ~~~tcr monitoring re~ui:enlents. For more infornLtion the appiicaa;
saauld =ontact tzc Public ~~~'atcr Suppl}• Section, (919) 733-:;? t.
^ I; this -: o;-ct is _,.r~:;::::d ~ rac::e~, we ~•,;Il r_=omr;l::d
= •` -- P - ciosLrc of ;::: of adia=::,~
~•.ate:s to ~,: harvest of shc!l::sh. For information rc2arcin2 the sheIl%sh srnit_tion prog,~.:,,
the applicant should contact tllc Shcll;:sh Syiit_:ion Branch at (919) i26-39 i0.
^ 1~1c soil disposal area(s) pre:osed for t11is prole=; nlay produce a mosquito bre_ding prob(c-1.
For ir.:,3, ~rlation concerning aepropri~te mosouito control nlrsures, tze appli~~nt s;;ould
contest; t:1: Public I:oa!th ?ost Ma^aeenlcat So:;icn at (91~) i?~-S9i0.
^ T-e a:,~iicant s=~e!d be acv:_cd t11at prior to th= r_alova! cr dc:;lolitio:l oEdilaoidated
s:rtc:u:es, ~z cs;crlsive roc_:,c cort:al proe:sl ,,-..v be necess-_ry is order to pr_vent the
migrraa OI i%_ roQeatS i0 '.Ci; C:;1t'.._~c. 1 nC .~ COrnla[IGr: COnCC:;tirg
` redo:,: control, c:,rt_ct
the loe_I health ccpar~nlc::t cr the Puh[ie H°_:!tl~ Fest hlaza~::ll:nt S:otion at (S!9) 733-6~0 i.
^ T~1e applicant should be adr.;cd to contact the Iccal health department regarding their
rcquirc:nents foe septic tank installations (as required under 1~A lr'CAC 18A .1900 et, seg.)
For infornlation concerning septic tank and other on-site t~~ste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Waste~eatcr Section at (919) 733-287.
^ ~1e applicant should be advised to contract the local 1lealtll deplrtment regarding t11e sanitan•
facilities required for this proj:ct.
If existing titer lints will be relocat:d during the construction, pl::ns for the eater line .
rcloca;ion mist b: s~bnlired to tllc Division of cnviconmcntal Health, Public 1~,iater Suppl~•
Section, Plan Review Bra11ci1, 1330 St. Mary's, Raleigh, north Carolina, (919) ?33-2460.
•~ Reviewer ScctionlBrznch Datc

Normal Process Time
i
E
i
me
(statutory t
m
t)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
^ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File strrery bond of 35,000 with ElvR running to State of NC conditional 10 days
that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be N/A
plugged according to ENR roles and regulations.
APPlication filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days
^ Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter. No standard application form. N/A

^ State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
f
i
ri
hi 15-20 days
N/A
an property.
p o
r
pa
& drawings of swcnue & proof of owners
60 days
^ 401 Water uali Certification
Q tY N/A (130 days)

^
CAMA Permit for MA]OR development
S250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
^ CAMA Permit for MIIVOR development 350.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
^ Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. (f any monument need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 2761 l
^ Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter X.0100.
^ Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
^ Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H I000 (Coaztal 5tormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
* Other cotturtents (attach additional pages az necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
- REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
^ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
^ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
~ l(704) 663-1699
1,}'Raleigh Regional Office
/3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
^ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
^ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
^ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
^ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]

State otNorth Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office:,
~NTERGOYERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: DI '~ ' 310-3Due Date:
' Auer review of this project it has been determined that the FT1R permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with Natth Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the forth.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans end permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Norma] Process Time
i
(stattrtory t
me limit)
PERMTI'S SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIItEMENTS
O Petrait to earuuttct & operate wastewater Vestment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of eonstrttction 30 days
facilities, sewer system eztentions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conferrnce usual.
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and cortsvuct wastewater facilities conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to wnsut,ct wastewater
discharging into start surface waters. Wattment facility-granted aRer NPDES. Reply time, 30 days aRer receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Ux Permit Pre-application technical eonferrnee usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Perntit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (1 S days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 3 S days
Orr-site inspection. Pre-application conferrnce usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Departmrnt of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Pemut to construct k operate .4ir Pollution Abatrnunt N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 1 S A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any oprn burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or rrnovatioru of structures containing 60 days
ubestos material must be in rnmplianee with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires nottfieation and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Convol N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (9p days)
D Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Convol Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimrntation Convol plan will be required if one or more saes to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (]and Quality 20 days
Sect) At lent 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of 230 for the fiat aae and 52000 for each additional aae or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan. l~( P ~Q < Ls....~ -
O The Sedimrntalion Pollution Convol Act of 1973 must bt addressed with respect to the rcferrneed Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of aces of affected land. Any are mined greater 30 days
- than ane aae must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit an be issued.
O North Carolina Burning permit On-sits inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-sift inupection by N.C. Division Forest Resourtxs required "if more than 1 day
counties in eoasial N.C. with orgutic soils five aces of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at Itast ten days before actual bum is planned."
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin eonsuvction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified rngineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito eonvol program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Flarard C7assifitation. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 2200.00 must accompany the application. Ace additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the cola! project east will bt eetfuired
upon rnmpletion.

Memn 2 January ~5, ~Ofll
. and; .~
NCDA Plaza Coz3sarvtttion Program
P. 4. Hox 27647
' Raleigh, N. C. 27611
(919) ?33.3610
2. llescription of any streams or wetlands etlf'eeted by the project: The need for
channelizing or relocating portior~ of streams crossed and the extant of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showit>$ wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be Accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of l:nginccrs (COQ), 1f the COL
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identi I ied and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing ecceages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. '1~~; extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct told indirect
degradation in habita# quality as well 89 quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment Section Which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction aad quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental deg~datiou,
K. A discussion of the pprroobable impacts on aatural resources which will result
from sec{mdary development facilitated by the improved road access.
St. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
he identified.
'17~ank you for the oppprcu~ity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. Ifwe can further assist your office, please contact ma at (919) 528-98$6.
cc: USrWS, Raleigh

an 25'01
ICI North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Execuavc Director
MLMC~1tANbt1M
TO: Melba McGee
Otficc of Legislative aad Intergovennmcntal Affairs, l)F.NR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Projxt Coordi
Habitat Conservation Program G~~
DA?E: January 25, 2001 -
SUIjJLC'1': Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDO1~ regarding fish end wildlife concerns for NC 98 (Holloway
Street), from east o US 70 to asst of Junction Road, Durham Cow~ty,
Ngrlh Carolina. TIP No. U-4010, SCH Project No. 01-L'-0363.
'Phis memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding Impacts on fish and wildlife resources retiulting frgm
the suhject project. $iologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRG}have reviewed the prbpd9ed improvements. Our comments are provided irk
accord:~ncc with certain provisions of the National Em-iranmental Policy Act (42 tI.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stet. 441, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 6G 1-6b7d).
We have no specific concerns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparaticm and the review process our general informational needs are
outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project arcs,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, enclangercd,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species cam be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N, C. pivisiom of Patics attd Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. G. 27699-1615
(919) 733-?795
Mziling Addr~-as: 17ivi.cinn of Inlsnd Fisheries • 1721 MailSerricrCenter • 1Lalci~h, )`IC: 2769'1-17ZI
'Iclcphonc: (419) 733-333 cat, ZSI • Fa:: [phone]

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ~ • ~
~~s~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr•, ~'e~'y N C D EN R
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeV
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: O1E-0363 Improvements to NC 98, Durham County
DATE: January 29, 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.
Attachments
~~~~~~~~
JAN 2 " 2061
~. STa:TE CLEARihlGN^l1~"
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/FNR!
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER- 5096 RECYCLED / 2096 POST CONSUME'.RPAPER

•~1>
~: ~
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
January 29, 2001
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-0363; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 98 (Holloway St.) From
East of US 70 to East of Junction Rd. in Durham°„~;
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer

~~
~~
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us
Department of Public Instruction
Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent
January 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. William H. Gilmore, NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning ~r~C~`F' -
SUBJECT: NC 98 (Holloway Street), From East os US 70 to East of Junction Road, Durham,
Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-(98)5, State Project No. 8.1352401,
TIP Project No. U-4010
Enclosed is the response from Durham Public Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
301 N.Wilmington Street, Raleiytt, North Carolina 27601-2825
Telephone [phone]
M Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

D'~!RH,~fA Fi,!BLIC ~~-I ~OLS
~~~~~~SJ Of~ice ~f Adminis'rati~~e Servaces
January 10, 2001
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief, School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
f
., ,.~''.
Your letter to Dr. Denlinger of December 13, 2000 was sent to me for a reply. I have
reviewed the information that you furnished and feel that there will be some impact on
our school bus routes, but that we should be able to work with the necessary people to
operate during the period of construction.
Please feel free to contact me with future developments of this project.
Sincerely,
Henry Kirby
Executive Director of Transportation
c. Calvin Dobbins

`}~ _~ ~ n ~2~~5
.7 d rw-y
F
~-
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
December 13, 2000
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Scoping -Proposed Improvements to NC 98 (Holloway St.) From East of US 70 to East
of Junction Rd. in Durham; TIP #U-4010
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 01-E-4220-0363. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 01/19/2001. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
~~ ~ T
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1302 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1302
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone 9I9-807-2425
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affrrmative Action Employer

Federal Aid # STP-98-5 TIP # U-4010 County: Durham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: W idenin~ of NC 98 from East of US 70 to East of Junction Road
On December 21, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
v Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
X Photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
XX There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G
within the project's area of potential effect.
There are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect, but
based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties identified as
.~ (- Z~ are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of them is necessary.
XX There are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed: j ~ ~ j
~2 Z/(OC~
Representative, NCD T/ ' ~ Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
~ Z~
ve, SHP Date
.;
~.! ~' l
State Historic Preservation Otticer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

~. ~ ~ ~_
• ¢ S
~r /
«. ~,.
.,& au.n ~,,.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 14, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook k~~ ~cut~. 1 ~~~
Deputy State Hist is Preservation Officer
Re: NC 98 (Holloway Street) from East of US 70 to East of Junction Road,
TIP No. U-4010, Durham County, ER O 1-7531
We regret that April Montgomery of our staff was unable to attend the October 5, 2000, meeting
of the minds concerning the above project. Based upon our review of the information provided,
we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the replacement is
to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources
would be affected and no investigations would be recommended. If, however, the replacement is
to be in a new location, please forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new
alignment so we may evaluate potential effects of replacement upon archaeological resources.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: N. Graf
M. P. Fun
Location Mailing Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699619
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699~6I3
SURVEY & PLANNING Sly N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] - 715-2671
(929} 733-6547 - 715-4801
[phone] 7T5-4801

Michele James
October 6, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
H. Wesley P am, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
cc: Ms. Kathryn Kalb, P.E.
Mr. Mark D. Ahrendsen
Mr. Stuart Carson, P.E.
Mr. Ron Allen, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design

DURHAM
1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
October 6, 2000
Ms. Michele James
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
:~Ior;h Carolina Department of Trarsportatior.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Holloway Street (NC 98) TIP Project No. U-4010
Dear Ms. James:
City of Durham
~-ansportation Division
Department of Public Works
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.ci.durham.nc.us
This letter is in reference to the scoping meeting held on October 5, 2000 by NCDOT
staff regarding the widening of Holloway Street (U-4010). Per your request following
this meeting, I have listed below the City of Durham's requests for this project. These
items were mentioned at the meeting on Thursday.
• Include sidewalks on both sides of the project with a utility strip;
• Include 14 foot outside lanes for bicycles;
• Install concrete panel/rubberized crossing at the railroad tracks;
• Study the feasibility of mast arms for traffic signals at Junction Road, Hoover
Road, and US 70;
• Study the feasibility of locating overhead utilities on one side of the project;
• hs City utilities a.rt located in tree area, please coordinate project design with
Mr. Stuart Carson, P.E. [City of Durham Engineering Division at (919) 560-
4326];
• Please notify adjacent property owners by mail of the upcoming workshop
and public hearing;
• Please keep the project on current schedule
The City of Durham appreciates the opportunity to be involved in the planning for
this project and looks forward to continued updates as the project moves toward
implementation. Your continued coordination of this TIP project with the City of
Durham and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO will be greatly appreciated. If
you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (919) 560-
4366.
En~ineenn~ -Storm eater -Transportation - \\"atedSe~~er ~.laintenanre - Street Maintenance - Road~a•ae Appearartce

APPENDIX A

NC 1R INOLLOWAY fT.)
O.D A I2_RI ~ R RI OA R
~""'~ / A ~~ VAR 0 TO 1~.6 ~ r~ R
ODiT. GROUND `
~ ` ~f DAlmi oA~ 1~1 Dfl~i~l M~1 . _
lIORT. GROUND
10'
A/MIOIL 1 R
GRAD! TO TMI! LIN!
TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
AiYMRTRICAI WIDRNMO WIDi 1 R. CONCRETE IW1ND
•1 ACONC. OUWD EEIWQN MOOVlR RO. AND ElNCOON RD.
f EIIARm EICYCU: - VMCU: lAN!
^~
L/
C
m
A

~ n n r n rti-r-
0
162
LEGEND
XXX VPO-VEHICLES PER DAY
OHV DESIGN HOURLY VOL!/A1E /X/
D DIRECTK)IWl AOW plfJ
w E PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(J(X) OVALS TTST /K)
NOTE: OHV-~ O
INDIUTES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAR.
r~~
NC 98 (Holloway St)
Durham County DIVISION 5
TIP # U-40/0 /anuary 2001
WORK ORDER # 8.13SZ401 FIGURE 3
Not to Scale ADT's in 100's

338
r,~uc~ 3~
SIDE ROp~ ~ I~Fi/+C Dare
ptK QNET F-~SSC-tC. Z-B-oI
5 EE A rm t«~E p E -,a,, ail l~ .
Not to Scale
LEGEND
XXX VPD-VEHfpES PER DAY
OHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)
D OIRECT10NA1 f10W (%/
W E PM PM PEAK PERfOD
(XX) DULLS TTST !%/
NOTE OFlV~ D
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK.
~11'
2025 HDT
ADT's in 100's
3
317
NC 98 (Holloway St)
Durham County DIVISIONS
TIP # U-4010 /anuary 2001
IA//1l71!llfJllFD M Y 17C7A/11 ~......

O
O
ti
U
0
ti
M~
" J
O
N
V
_..
See SAeer J•A fa Index d Slle~s
See Slaef 1-B Fa Carwer111ara1Symbolopy
A(~~~' r
~, , ,`~' f
j PROJE \1 ~ ''•~
i EENNp
O DURHAM m PRgI~ ~ ~
Ay
~I ~
14 '~y 1 m 1
VICINITY MAP
TION 10+00.000 -L-
~IN TIP PROJECT U-401
BEG. CONST.
NC 98 (HOLLOWAY ST.)
AT US 70 EB RAMP
SEE SIGNAL PLANS
'~~ ~
TO DOWNTOWN ,'
DURHAM !~
STAGE ®F N®R~'H CAR®LINA
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
D URHAM_ CO UNT'Y
LOCATION: DURHAM_ -_11iC 98 LHOLLOWAY STS FROM_ EAST OF US 70
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BYPASS TO EAST OF_, JUNCTION ROAD
TYPE OF WORK WIDENING DRAINAGE,_GRADING _PAVING _
CURB_ f~' GUTfER_ AND_ SIGNALS _ _
0
z
~e
S~ ~ ~
Wrr ~ 0~
~ ~" =.x
(HOLLOWAY S~.) +
~~~
4
„ ;~~
u
~I
n ~
n
~1 ==
u
n -
u
1 =-
~ ~,
I I ' k;.
~ 'n 1,
'
r v~ .~
.~ ~~11~1 I I B
II ~1 ~
f -L- II 11 p ~
-- j ~ 1 ~
~ I I
j I_~
i
~J
II
PROPOSED OR UPGRADED TRAFFIC SIGNALS
THIS PROJECT IS WRHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF DURHAM
CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO COORDINATE WITH RAILROAD ON THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNAL EQUIPMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF RAILROAD CROSSING
/ GRAPHIC SCALES
o 0 104
PLANS
~ 0 2s o o loo'
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
` ] 5 0 ] $
r) ooncn c nrFVrirei ~
10.tsh 0512612006 10:19:32 E
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2003 = 25100
ADT 2030 = 34,000
DHV = 10 %
D = 60 %
T = _4%'
V = 40 MPH
• (1TST 1% & DUAL 3%)
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT U-4010 = 0.373 MI
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 11-4010 = 0.373 MI
A'~ M 14 07IkM OG
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IB00 Biree Ridj• Dr., NC, 27610
mps sr~rmNRn sracn~cunuus
R rlMS IrIL7 rows r ~ i
~ U-4010 1
~.,.... ~. .r.A.
70.000 -L-
E
°~~
11 TO WAKE FOREST
I ~
I ~1 ~~~~
~J
RIGAT OF WAY DATE: JASON MOORE. PE
JANUARY 23.2003
LETIWG DATE: KEVIN E. MOORE. PE_
NOVEMBER 21.2006 "~~`~"Q~
HYDRAULICS ENGJNEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
BNGD~ER
S
i
Z
PRSLiMINARY PLANS
0o nor ~. ro. monuc~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADM1N15TRATI01

Note: Not to Scale
~~'`~~~ ©~
~®~~~ ~.~~~ ~~~ ~
*S. U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering ~~~~~~© l~ ®~ ~~~~~~~~

NVENTIONAL
co
PLAN SHEET SYMB®
LS
WATER:
Wafer Manhole
BOI/NDARIES AND PROPERTY.' RAILROADS,
Water Meter °
_,_.._._.._
Store Line Standard Gauge «T Water Valve

County Line
-"------ RR Signal Milepost w„~ J5
~
EXISTING STRUCTURES.'
Water Hydrant
-0
Township Line ------ Switch ~~ ~ MAJOR: Recorded USG Water Line

Ci Line ~
RR Abandoned
__
____
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
~°"~
Designated U-G Water Line (S.U,E.'
-
Reservation Line - . - . - _
RR Dismantled grid a Win Wall, Head Wall and End Wall -
9 9
~ coNC ". Above Ground Water Line "° w°'a`
Property Line RIGHT OF WAY MINOR:
Existing Iron Pin W Baseline Control Point ~ Head and End Wall coNC ~ N:
Property Comer -" Existing Right of Way Marker 0 Pipe Culvert N SaMllite Dish ~
Property Monument ~ Existing Right of Way Line - Footbridge >--------~ N Pedestal
Parcel/Sequence Number ~ Proposed Right of Way Line -" "~- Drainage Box; Catch Basin, DI or JB ^oa N Tower

g
Existin Fence Line -x-x-X- Pro osed Ri ht of W Line with
p g ay ~
--~
Paved Ditch GuHer ----- lYG N Cable Hand Hole ~
Proposed Woven ire Fencs a Iron Pin and Cap Marker Siorm Sewer Manhole 0 Recorded U°G N Cable "
Pro osed Chain Link Fence
P
& Proposed Right of Way Lins with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Storm Sewer
Designated lYG N Cable (S.U.E.") _ _ _ _"_ _ _ _
Proposed Barbed Wire Fencs ~- Existing Control of Access -- ~;~;~-- Recorded lYG Fiber Optic Cable -" `°-
Existin Wetland Bounds
9 ry - - --"°- - - -
Proposed Control of Access -
-~}-
U77LITIES,' Designated lYG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E'r- - - - -" `°-
Proposed Wstland Boundary "° Existing Easement Line - -E-- POWER;
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary "°-
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement -
E
Existing Power Pole + G'd`S~
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary °° Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- - n=.- Proposed Power Pole b Gas Valve ~
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURTsr Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- - roe- Existing Joint Use Pole ~- Gas Meter ~
Gaa Pump Vent or WG Tank Cap o Proposed Permanent Utility Easement - rue- Proposed Joint Use Pole ~ Recorded lYG Gas Line

Sin
g o Power Manhole © Designated l4G Gas Line (S.U.E.") - - - -~- -- -
~" o°s
o ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.' Power line Tower ® Above Ground Gas Line
Well
Small Mine x Existing Edge of Pavement - Power Transformer 0
Foundation ~ Existing Curb ~ Power Cable Hand Hole "" SANITARY SEWER;

Area Outline
~ Proposed Slops Stakes Cut - ~ ---
F
H-Frame Pole
e--e
Sanitary Sewer Manhole

Cemetery
~ Proposed 51ape Stakes Fill -- - c---
Recorded ll~G Power Line
' Sanitary SewerCleanout 0
Building ~~ Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp ® Designated USG Power Line (S.U.E.") ----~---- ~ Sanitary Sewer Line n
h
l
S Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut - © Above Ground Sanitary Sewer aye s^^~~°.Y s~a~
oo
c ~ Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - cF TELEPHONE: Recorded SS Forced Main Line ~t-
Church Existing MetalGuardroil Existing Telephone Pole + Designated SS Forced Main Line (S,U.E.") - ----~----
Dam T T
Propoaed Guardrail Proposed Telephone Pole -0'
HYDROLOGY.' Existing Cable Guideroil °
Telephone Manhole
0
MISCELLANEOUS;
Stream or Body of Water -~~-~~-
--- Proposed Cable Guiderail
Telephone Booth ~ Utility Pole ~
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r-
~
----~ Equality Symbol ~
Telephone Pedestal ~ Utility Pole with Base ~
Jurisdictional Stream -is-...- Pavement Removal ~~
Telephone Cell Tower ,~, Utility Located Object o
Buffer Zone 1 -ez i - I~IsGETATION.• U-G Telephone Cable Hand Hole ~ Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Buffer Zone 2 -~'-
{~
Recorded IJ~G Telephone Cable
~
Utility Unknown lYG Line
-Nn-
Flow Arrow 4-- Single Tree
o
Designated U-G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.")-
-- - -~_ _ _ _
lLG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Disappearing 5treom >-----~~-
"~~
^ Single Shrub
'~"
~'~"w'""""'
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit
~_-
A'G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
0
S rin
P 9 o'
~-~ Hedge
11
'''11"^-`"""'`'
Designated ~ Telephone Conduit(S,U.E.")-
----'°----
~ TestHole (S.U.E.')
m
Swomp Marsh ~ Woods Line
(9 ~] 4 4 Recorded lYt; Fiber Optics Cable ~ ro-__- Abandoned According fe Utility Records - AATUR
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~ Orchord
~~^aY°ra
Designated L!-G Fiber Optiu Cable (S,U.E.y-
- - - -< <°_ _ _ .
End of Informotion
E.0.1,
False Sump m Yineyard

rl
r
v
n
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C1 PROP. APPROX. 1.5" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S8.5B,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 188 LBS. PEA S0. YD.
APPROX. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.5B,
PROP
CZ .
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 188 LBS. PER SO. YD. IN EACH OF TWO
LAYERS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSEh TYPE 9@.58,
C3 AT AN AVERAGE HATE OF 112 LBS. PER S0. YD. PEA 1 DEPTH. TO
"
IN DEPTH.
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED ilk
D1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 458 LB3. PER 30. YD.
PROP, VAfl, DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
1"
DZ TYPE I19.08, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PEA S0. YD. PER
5 THAN 21~" IN DEPTH OR
DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LE3
GREATEfl THAN 4" IN DEPTH.
APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
PROP
E1 .
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 458 LB3. PER SD. YD.
E Z PROP APPROX. 41~" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.08,
YD
SQ
.
.
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 513 LBS. PER
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 826,08,
PROP
.
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 L89. PER 30, YD. PER 1" DEPTH, TO
E 3 8E PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 51"t" IN DEPTH.
J1 PROP. 8" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
R1 2'-8" CONCRETE CURB r< GUTTER
R Z 5" MONOLITHIC CONCRETE ISLAND (KEYED IN).
S 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
~ EXISTING PAVEMENT.

~ MILLING
SEE SHEET 3A FOR LOCATIONS OF MILLING OF THE EXISTING PAVEMENT
W WEDGING
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES AAE 1:1 UNLESS snurrn ulneneise.
C SURVEY
4 k 7.75 k <
W
z
x
Q,~,.~ C1 ~
Vq'Q SEF ACC-
WSTING GROUND "~~IONS D,02 NR <
~E~O~S ,~
NPF SEE
T ~~ 7.5°
EXISTING GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION N0. lA
USE TYPICAL N0.1A AS FOLLOWS;
-I,- STA. 21+60.00 TO STA 24+Sb,8b
-L- STA. 21+96.11 TO STA 27+00.00
SEE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS
-~- NC 9B (HOLLOWAY STREET)
RAMP -a
3°
MIN.
USE TYPICAL N0.1 AS FOLLOWS:
-L- STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 19+70.00
-RPD- STA. 10+08.00 TO STA. 11+00.17
EXISTING
(STING GROUND
a
r
e
m
P
J
TYPICAL SECTION NO° 1
EXISTING
NOTES:
~ SEE PLANS FOR PAYFMENT TRANSITIONS
•~ l A CONC. ISL4ND LOCATION VAWES SEE PLANS
~ SHAREO BICfCLE -VEHICLE LANE
uetau anowing Memoa ~r lrveaging
Wedging Detail For Resurfacing

6 -
~• _Y_ (50lJTHERLAND STREET)
8 ft VAR. 28 RTO E10STING~ 8 R
12 R 12 R
O.SR R R 0.5ff
R
EXISTING GROUND ~ j Rt ~ y~r GRADE ~ Rl T USE TYPICAL N0, 2 AS FOLLOWS:
~1,y POINT -Y-STA. 10+83.84 TO STA. 11+48.00
0'~ ~ Dl 0.02 AN 0,02 Rtl Dl 0,02 RR MIN. RESURFACING FROM
`-ITING PAV E _ _ ~ 1N V,RI,•~~ -Y STA. 11+4A.00 TO 11+80.00
~ 11' V 0. R EXISTING GROUND
0.5 R U
LOCATION VARIES - SFE PLANS ~
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
_Y~_ (HOOVER ROAD)
8 R VAR, 32 ftT0 CXISTING* 8 R
14 ff 14 R USE TYPICAL N0.3 AS FOLLOWS:
05 R R R OS ff -Y1- STA. 10+10.00 TO STA. 11+TB,D7
-Yl- SfA. 13+37.71 TO STA. 14+59,70
S R k 2 ft S R MIN, RESURFACING AND WIDENING FROM
-Y1- STA 14+53.70 TO 14+60.00
EXISTING GROUND V'aP,?,~ T R1 C W PoINrF C R1 T
0.02 R~r D1 0.02 Rrr o.02 r~ D~ .a2 we ~
E~ 11' ~ ~ J ,5 R "+•i' EXI5fING GROUND
0.5 R ~ '1
GRADE TO THIS LINE LOCATION VARIES -SEE PLANS
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
_Y2_ (JUNCTION ROAD)
B R VAR 40 R TO E%ISTING0.` 8 R
12 R VAR. 24 RTO EXISTING*
0,5 R R 2 ff 0,5 ff USE TYPICAL N0.4 AS FOLLOWS:
-Y2- STA. 10+79.50 TO STA 14+55.D0
R 2 R S R MIN, RESURFACING AND WIDENING FROM
Y2- STA,14+55,00 TO Ii+10.00
T Rl C2 W GRADE Dl Rl T
POINT
Al ~ 0.02 RR D~ D.02 RR 0.02 Rfr_ ~0 pR y'~ 4:1
VA'A ' /~ - - ERSRING PAY~F IEFTT _ _ - ~'~ `~
m EXISTING GROUI~ E~ 11" 05 R EXISTING GROUND
a O.S ff V L1 ~
GRADE TO THIS LINE LOCATION VARIES -SEE PLANS GRADE TO THIS LINE
n
9
~~T
D qS
'~~ TYPICAL SECTION N0.4 N°T~`
• SEE PLANS F00. PAYEMENT TRANSRIONS
TL
L
1 C
E
v
maxr Ee-eEeNCe No. anelr No.
U-4010 2-A
RRI SHEET N0.
lOADWAY DESIGN -AVFAIENT OEEIGN
lNQNlBI BIGINll3l
C2 3", tYPE S9.5B
D1 4", TYPE I19,06
E1 4", TYPE 625.OB
E2 41~", TYPE 625.OB
R1 2'-6" CONC. C & G
T EARTH MATERIAL
~ EXISTING PAVEMENT

V MILLING
SEE SHEET 3•A
W WEDGING

~~ Q
Z 26
i!1 9 7 215 14 ff 1 S79 i~~ 'T"~
uo w+ ~I
NG 98 Q10LLOWAY STI k s1a•7rll'E
18 ~ 19/.q' -~
20 S
AL•CAR PRGPERTES
AOT IN HUNDRl06 ~' ~ ~ w DB 1726 PG 233
17 GB IR6 PG 237
O8 R65 PG 867
OS+6 ho
f- .
~u
~~
v~
~a
~~
~e
11LR
1LI
Q' OIF
4' SiEI
-PRD- r~Drro
BEGIN T.I.P.
0~0~`
q0~
110•x'
mo
~2p`55'
668'75'7f-
ou
a°~
:o°
i
I
NTU N. PAFY85N
08 276 PG 589 I
PB16Po62
o.+o+ No
NN
0
m~
g
5I
SFA PIRTNERyIP
41 PCS~h„-
~3
leru calm 10 0l i esr
x 2W rnr coNaere wlyi.u.IFpjm94ER NC
esr o ~P8 E6 PG~'86~
J CAR ~ 1
WASH
WIFGrLER NC
88 qT9 PG 95
e Pe qo PG vo
• Horl: u+oewaro ee est
~- idNST 6 iELawc nm ~
AIeA ro e Avoom ~1
wlE+c coNmac9oN.
--Xf-_10td0~00---------------------------
BEG.CONSTRUCrION
e~c.cuRe aND GurrER cr.
® TEMPORARY PAVEMENT
SEE TRAFFC CONTROL PLANS
* UPGRADE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE ISLAND
SEE SHEET' 6 FOR ~- PROFILE
SEE SHEET 7 FOR -Y- b -Y1- PROFILES
~o
~o
Wo
~~
N
~N
2 Q
J ~
Z ~
~ I
Q J
~ I
175.22'

aryA.
aka \
~m
~~
LARRY G. CAR7ELL
rlaec~ selRe+ce Na, aner No.
~1~a4!Q a
AYI SHEET N0. _ _
![NOWAY DlSIGN
lNGINBR HYDIUUEICS
lNGINt9l
ERSON SR,B
RILL~
E ~
rP
GG
OB pG7 PG 860
hRlLE1•S~1
na. coT Gs
s
u
a80
66a
DETAIL A ro"pro \
LATERAL 'v' DITCH ~~
I uor ro scolu ~`
Nphlal FM
o p .~ wF . Sboe
MI0.~ =_1_F+,
b =_2_Fi, ~
RloA1 STA, a+x Ta RA, a+ee -n- LT. ~
TeLLUUF~IE ~~ERSpi SRk
-Yl- T !
06 nsT 9c Es
-YI- !4+60,00
END CONSTRUCTION O i' O
srE $oa7r ~'
'o Il ~• PBROOR$ t
7~ Ear
p
~, 7s7.rr -
Sia1725'E
N
~_ ~- ~v _
________.___

MAKT AlRRC4C! N0. !H!R N0.
U-4010 6
ROtDWAY DWON HYDRAIlIlCS
BVCINlR lNgND?R

~r
~' Q
~~
~I2 828
/}I
9 9 14 8 7!9
241 ~
./ ~ ID
310 771 017
Nc se owLlowAY sn ~
7~
20 2
ADT M HUNDKlD6 2~ S ~
17
516'75'4'E~~
i5A0' ~a
a
a
4 " wtoA.t.
1KOJECf KEFEAB'IGE N0.
Ilx
\ 1 x ( '-~ I ~ K0IDWAY DAN EET N0.
' 1 I I ~ ~ ENGINEEE
~x II
Wu L.DroKERSON SR
I `-----•--•• + x / zas9• 7AFE PEOGr d.
~ IJI ~..__.: II ~ -,5.,.E--.~ D5 1607 PC 860
~~II ~ ~R~~iM~~~~~ F
\~'~~ , ~ o~ ~ror vse Cott: ~N~I
' '"a g
9T4'12'VE 974'32'n'E
N4.01' ~ x]522 'Y
AL-CAA PaOPERTIE3 OETAIL A ~~ ~].ea
DB 1726 PG 237 ~, ~, LATERAL 'v' DITCH ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ J
OB 1i26 P6 27T ,-"~ o o INOr ro stole) 91.28
OB 1765 PO 867
D.516M ~ uo Nh 1 TIII
SWPe
' o-an, D riF ..
UInD : 1 Ft,
Y~ b =_1_Fh. ~
\ ~ N' P~~ 1ROM 7TA 14+90 TO 9TA 14+85 -YI- LT.
\ OB 276 PO 589
PfiWPO62
r 0.101 M RILLWI L KERSON SR.1
z~aw• • _Y~_ ~ IrIPE ED6r J.
zaz7r DB 155 PC 5
ia, \ st4n9a•E o
Vie. \ ~o
e ~ -Yl- 14+60,00
LARRr c. CARHELL ~ 5 + O ENO CONSTRUCTION O + O
,&RRY N. SYTN Ibp,]p' 100.]2• _
QB 1373 P6 786 ~ 56957'44'E DP ]51.77'
PB K1P0 4A OB 1361 PD 620 ~ S695r52E 574T]'25'E
P LYTEO PARTfEN
Ofi 1652 PD 409
//
l
i~
i ,
BEGIN T.I.
SITE 1
~U/NTL CANOPr I
'~ ISBkAUS LT ~I
BST ¢I
~p~@~D DURI TO DI I I
~Mx1C CONCPl7! OlY I
~4A ~ 1
~_ .. W45N r
_~~~
ELY,F011LER NC
OB KIT9 PD %
Esr
I 99T
'LT
ti I 1 I BEG.CURB AND GUTTER IJ.
~A-~s P, ^ODUS
- 7R7 791 Pc 733
"_ FACE WATER I
v 08 row PG ~ '
743 ¢ P6 la
m ~ 79 73 PC N
m°o
loo• o• roa•
m SCaLE1I'- 100'
~ I ~ '
EHl47 N0.
4
MPACTS
200' 300'

~y Q
1 ~~
x
~ q y ~` 14 8 X29
Nc se pqu~xv,r en ~ .ti .~.
ADi W NIW

"r'
au~
~^
>>
uq
2
V/
fROIECi AEFEAENCE NC
4=44!4
_ _, II ~„~ Dim
_ x ROADWAY DISIGN
\ 1 ~~'~~''_--' I ENGINEER
x , ~ };-x ~ II' II .aLUEE L, OICREASGN $R.L
~~~~~~ RFE PEGGY d
' '--------~ x ~oi~e•
I~~I'----•• III S6B95•]'E~~' oe 1601 Pc 860
i ~~ x ~~IjI ~''~ PR~,thftt~A
k ~ ( S2 I P . ~:. VDT L~$H PoR
U ~ c
\`~ 8
~ Y
570.77'Il'E Si4'32~~'E
I~
I

-.. .. ~ „
~~ ~r _~ .
t
t
. t G' ~
s
T ~ ~ ~t r
y:,. „
- _ , y ~ikr ' 4
m
~ ° ~~n ~ ~~
_ _
:< w .,
~'
,~ ~47,"S ~ ~" ~ _ ~
s
;~
.~ t ~ iii,,,
~~ ~ ~ - r ~. '. ~ ~?. {+~
ty ~ +E,",9y ~.
.{ .. - irk _ .~-'~
~, _ ,.
K .~ ,v
Y ~~ k r
r
3 ~ _
~k
4
J ~
~ ~ l'~~ _
ry ~,. - .~~.
~c.~ >1~
~ ~ LOCh4tiIS IRlC6~ 4~II I
._ _ ~,o - .u~.
" ~ 91A .~E"~GYa'.:~!"'G?R!'.Alt ~~ ,. "AY.4 ~ ~lf~..~ :_ '~^rF°+~ , . - .. .'. .. 1_.
i
..d ti ~ .~',~ {A~
o-
N'
7 ` Ja F J
A ~?y ` ~, _ i y ~ ~
~.
^~
.. ;
1~" ~~ ~` t ~~+»~
r'
++~~
ti ~,~
r
t
C v
_ a
~ '
1. _ ~"
ry.
44__ ,
:,r ~P '
kEJIUt ~~ 1 ~ t' ~ : s ~ ~ ii 4 Jy . R[ ~(UE,~( F, ,:
~` .w Jh1P'SI2FSI tiLRA.VT ~~ ~°` ~
n f a `.,ird. !~
ice" F~ •..
~ iit
i ~~~~ V
.Fir31i4' C.C: wMYi~+'i'4W fl4 ^J - °~t~~'awnaa^~t+~`~. ~~t~'~TSy~.~ . rn...yy~ ~ ~~ * 4 •_ ~'+W~ S ,~
_- _ ~ -,.a~:.#'"~ E -1R1.1~t~~E cas~nrloJ _ ~ ~E~~i) ~ ;,t ~'' i ~ .,
~ ~ ~ .: e' - ~ ,~
~~"~
BP GAS STATIOti ~
diStH CLASS ~ .c' t ~~ ~ [~» .~ .x r "'° ~ ~I
'iiLSDiAlI1L ~ ~ .- ~Tt~G4Af~ ~~~ ~~~ * ~~
T•~~ ~.w~s-; ,. a Sl~ili.~i~ •''
~ -~ . .. ..
_ ~~
_.~r ..
a
~~ .._ n ~.~„yzx, r` ~ ~ ~~ i
=' _ rt^Yq.
{ T J'
k ...____. :f
"rii ~~~ yw~ir., 1~. tu~:~ ~ ~\(11111 )I 1 I7\' r.:
/g ww.~. Iwv,W.
~` a' - i , ',~ ~ ,w„rne 4"` _ ~~!? ~ i 11,E i ~lii ~i~~~1~
,,1 ~ ~.
F ~ r~~~:, a
Y - - -~ f'Ti~~ i 3°~': a I~,A41fi? ~ ~Lt. S\i3?5 ~ q,1:~.~
v." _ ~
~, ..,_
;,~v= _ _
Y,:~.
~ -- .
i ! ~~
r
t i~