20000346 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000315

I rAY1,lFNT
RECEIVED
?ty???i? S tq r?s
EPA Research & Administration Facility
01
?? Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Pr4o'V ?
?'G MAR 15 2000
WET' ANCS GROUP
NlATfR Q',ALITY SECTION
Pre-Construction Notification Form
Section 404 Nationwide Permit/
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
February 2000
0003 4 6
DWQ ID: * CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) ?14 and 26
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7)
COPIES MUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITL
ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC
27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2. MAILING ADDRESS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Drop 93
SUBDIVISION NAME: Not Applicable
CITY: Research Triangle Park STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27711
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) Not applicable (WORK) J919) 541-0249
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Chris Long, Proicct Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Drop 93,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, [phone]
LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham - NEAREST TOWN: City of Durham
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.) A 132 acre portion of
the 509 acre U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Research Park in Research Triangle Park. The site is,
genk, erally, bounded by Hopson Road and on the west by the existing National Institute of Environmental
Health Science facility (See Attachments A and D)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Burdens Creek RIVER BASIN: Northeaset Creek/B.
Everett Jordan Lake
7. (a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-1 OR WS-II)'? NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(h) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)'? NO
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION? Project is not
located within a coastal county.
8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION):
404 Permit Action I.D. No. 199700091; DWO Project No. 960742; Copy of 401 Certification is provided
in Attachment H
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE'?
NO IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:.
9. (a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
132.4 acres: See Attachment A.
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
32.4 acres (see Attachments A and D)
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0758 acres EXCAVATION: 0.244 acres (1,065 square feet)
FLOODING: Not applicable OTHER :
DRAINAGE : Not applicable
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.1002 acres (4,365 square feet)
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: ? 2000 FT AFTER: ?No relocation
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): + FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: ? 2.5 FT AFTER: ? 6 FT (piped 2-6ft. diameter reinforced concrete
pipes)
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: N/A; PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X, Twin 6-inch
diameter with end walls; CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
N/A OTHER: X. Installation of rin ran-lined ditches at culvert inlets and outlets: Construction of a water
quality pond
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? 1.96 acres (scaled from site development plans, includes area between
existing lake and new building, including new pond area. WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE
AREA'? 0.36 acre pond. See Attachment D and F.
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED'? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY I I DRAWINGS ONLY) The new EPA
facility involves the construction of several buildings on two parcels within the USPHS Research Park.
Additional construction activities will occur on adjacent land (see Attachment A). The mechanical
equipment to be used includes conventional earthworking equipment, including bulldozers, tracked
hydraulic excavators, dutnptrucks, and self-propelled compaction equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To replace and consolidate most of the EPA occupied facilities in the
Raleigh/Durham Research Triangle Park Metropolitan Area (see Attachment A).
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS) See
Attachment A, which also references Attachment I, the NEPA review documents.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR
CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted on August
20, 1992 (See Attachment C). On June 9, 1999, USFWS was contacted again. According to Candace
Martino of the USFWS, Raleigh Field Office, at [phone], there are no federally endangered or
threatened species near or at the project site location (i.e., intersection of T.W. Alexander Drive, Route 54,
and Hopson Road).
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED ?.August 13,
1992, See Attachment C.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND? YES ? (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT'? YES?
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, YES
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF I INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEIR EQUIVALENT. See Attachment D
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT. Not available
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE. See Attachment E.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED. A complete
set of stormwater management plans for both the proposed building*, areas and access road system,
consisting of a title page and 21 sheets were submitted to NCDENR on September 16, 1996 and approved
on October 15, 1996. The submittal and approval documentation are provided in Attachment G.
(c) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY'? With the exception of the NIEHS complex
located west of the proposed EPA Research and Administration facility, surrounding are undeveloped,
consisting primarily of forest lands (See Figure A-I of Attachment A).
(t) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL'? Connection to an
existing sanitary system, with treatment to occur at the Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant.
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
I . ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pre-Construction Notification Application Form
Attachment A Responses to Pre-Construction Notification Form
Attachment B Memorandum of Understanding
Attachment C Agency Correspondence
Attachment D Waters of the U.S./Wetland Delineation
Attachment E Wetland Determination Forms
Attachment F Wetland/Pond Construction Plan
Attachment G Storm water Management Plans: Submittal and Approval Letters
Attachment H Previous 401/404 Certification
Attachment I NEPA: Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment
ii February 2000
Attachment A
Responses to Pre-Construction
Notification Form
ATTACHMENT A
Responses to the Pre-Construction Notification Form
The following responses correspond on a numerical basis to the questions contained in the Pre-
Construction Notification Form.
9. Estimated Total Number of Acres of Waters/Wetlands on Project Site
As indicated on the Pre-Construction Notification Form, approximately 32.4 acres of waters of
the U.S. and wetlands occur on the subject property, including offsite areas associated with
proposed access roadways. Of this total, approximately 9A acres constitute wetlands. The
remaining 23.3 acres consist of an adjacent man-made lake, constructed in conjunction with the
existing National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) facility. Figure A-1
indicates the location of the lake and wetlands. Attachment D provides a detailed map of waters
of the U.S. and wetlands, as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) Raleigh
Field Office on 9 July 1993.
10. Number of Acres of Waters/Wetlands Impacted by the Proposed Project
In addition to the wetland impacts outlined below, approximately 2,000 linear feet of intermittent
stream channels will also be affected by project implementation. Accordingly, the volume (cubic
yards) of fill material to be placed in stream channels associated with proposed construction
activities is also provided.
Table I. Summary of Wetland/Waterway Impacts
Wetlands (acres/ft2) Waterways (yd3/ft2)
Filled: 0.0758/3,300 338/7,885
Drained: 0 0
Flooded: 0 0
Excavated: 0.0244/1,065 4385
Total Impacted: 0.1002/4,365 338/8,270
All streams onsite, shown on Figure A- 1, are intermittent, flowing either seasonally or in
response to major rainfall events. For the most part, the channels are also narrow and deeply
incised relative to the adjacent landscape. As such, their overall wildlife habitat value is limited,
particularly in terms of aquatic species.
The majority of impacts to intermittent streams onsite will be associated with construction of the
Research and Administration Facility and National Computer Center, as well as attendant
parking facilities and requisite access roadways. Due to the distribution and pattern of these
streams, impact avoidance is neither feasible nor practicable. Where proposed access roads
traverse stream channels, however, culverts will be installed to accommodate intermittent flows.
To the extent feasible, forested stream buffers will be maintained.
A-1 February 2000
Wetland fill-related impacts will be limited to Wetlands C, D, I and K. At Wetlands C, D, and
K, fill will be primarily associated with access road crossings and the associated placement of
rip-rap at culvert ends. In fact, of the 3,300 square feet of wetlands to be affected by fill
replacement project-wide, rip-rap at roadway culvert ends will constitute approximately 2,740
square feet of the total area. In each instance, however these crossings will comply with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Nationwide Permit Program as set forth at 33 CFR 330,
Appendix A.14 - Road Crossings. With respect to the wetland area to be excavated in
conjunction with pond construction and associated wetland compensation activities, it is
anticipated that this action is allowable pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 26. An additional
area of rip-rap (approximately 300 square feet) will be placed in Wetland I at the outlet of the
northernmost detention water quality pond.
As for temporary impacts due to utility and sediment control installation during construction,
approximately 17,500 square feet of wetlands and 855 square feet of stream channel will be
affected in this manner. Subsequent to construction, however, these areas will be stabilized to
minimize the areas' erosion potential and allowed to revegetate naturally.
It should also be noted that, based on calculations and HEC-2 modeling performed by
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., neither building nor roadway construction will result in any increase
in the 100-year flood elevation associated with Burdens Creek. While the North Access Road
will occur in close proximity to the floodplain limits, roadway construction will not increase
floodplain elevations. The remainder of site construction activities will occur at distances of at
least several hundred feet from the floodplain. Accordingly, a riparian corridor along Burdens
Creek will be maintained.
12. Description of Proposed Work
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to construct a new
Research and Administration Facility on a 132.4 acre portion of the 509 acre U.S. Public Health
Service (USPHS) Research Park, which is itself part of North Carolina's Research Triangle Park
(Figure A-2). The new facility will enable EPA to replace and consolidate most of the facilities
now occupied by the Agency in the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA). EPA's facilities in the MSA represent approximately one-third of the
Agency's laboratory and research space nationwide.
The new EPA Research and Administration Facility will consist of several buildings sited on two
parcels identified as Site 3 and Site 4 within the USPHS Research Park (Figures A-3 and A-4).
Site 3 (69 acres) overlooks, and is on the east of, a man-made lake. Site 4 (63.4 acres) is located
immediately north of Site 3. The USPHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) complex occupies Site 1, immediately west of the lake.
To support the new EPA Research and Administration Facility, various additional construction
activities will take place on land adjoining Sites 3 and 4, including new roadway and
infrastructure improvements, and expansion of the existing Central Utility Plant (CUP) complex
(power plant and waste incinerators).
The primary research facility will be a multi-story structure located on Site 3. In addition, the
project includes the National Computer Center and a Child Care facility on Site 4, several
A-2 February 2000
smaller fuel storage buildings, and an addition to the Central Utility Plant serving the entire
USPHS Research Park. The individual buildings and their net and gross square footages are
summarized in Table Il.
Table II. Summary of Building Sizes
Building Gross Sq. Ft. Net Sq. Ft.
Research & Development
Facility 983,304 507,065
High Bay Building 59,307 32,937
National Computer Center 126,781 88,119
Child Care Center 9,916 6,875
Total 1,179,308 634,996
Of the total net square footage (nst), approximately 42% (267,500 nst) will be allocated to office
use, 38% (240,000 nsf) to laboratory use, 14% (88,119 nsf) to the National Computer Center, and
the remaining 6% (38,950 nsf) to various support and specialized uses. The existing Central
Utility Plant will be expanded 40,000 sf to accommodate additional power and waste incineration
needs of the new EPA facility. A general description of the uses in these spaces follows.
Office Space - Includes personnel offices and work stations, with no laboratory uses.
Laboratory Space - Contains primary research space, including lab benchwork, research
equipment and fume hoods.
Computer Center - The free-standing National Computer Center contains a combination
of office and specialized spaces requiring special HVAC, electrical and/or structural
elements.
Support Space - Includes a variety of functions, such as the Child Care Center, and the
High Bay Building where engine and other testing is carried out.
Areas within the building not considered net assignable space include hallways and corridors,
stairwells and elevators, mechanical rooms (HVAC, light, power, and water supply distribution),
lavatories, and unusable basement and attic space.
A total of 1,800 parking spaces will be provided, including two three-level structured parking
garages associated with the main campus, with a combined capacity of 917 spaces, and surface
parking on Sites 3 and 4 for 883 vehicles. Approximately 36 handicap-accessible spaces and 48
parking spaces for visitors are included in the above parking space total.
The new facility will consolidate the activities of approximately 2,200 personnel within the
following EPA organizations:
A-3 February 2000
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL)
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL)
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL)
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO)
Office of Senior Official for R&D (OSORD)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
The Office of Research and Development laboratories and offices provide EPA with scientific
and technological basis for establishment of criteria and standards, and with control technologies
to achieve these standards. The Office of Air and Radiation develops national standards for air
quality and emission standards for new stationary sources and hazardous air pollutants. OAR is
also responsible for developing national programs, technical policies, regulations and guidelines
to assist states in implementing national standards. The Office of Administration and Resources
Management provides personnel services, financial management, contracting, data processing
and general services.
In keeping with the USPHS Research Park Master Plan (1971) principle of developing a unitary
Research Park housing multiple occupants, EPA and NIEHS have entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) which establishes a foundation for a cooperative working relationship
between the two agencies. The MOU covers site planning efforts, plans for operating shared
utility services, and coordinating other joint occupancy matters, such as back-up fuel storage
requirements, solid waste handling and recycling practices, and cooperation on environmental
compliance matters. A copy of the MOU is included as Attachment B.
13. Purpose of Proposed Project
The EPA presently conducts research and administration activities at several leased facilities in
the Research Triangle Park area. The new facility will enable EPA to replace and consolidate
most of the facilities now occupied by the Agency in the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle
Park Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
In 1984, a "Facilities Evaluation and Long Term Planning Study for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina" determined that
the EPA Office of Research and Development could not satisfactorily conduct its research
programs into the 1990s using existing facilities. The Evaluation concluded that the preferred
alternative was to construct a government-owned facility on land set aside for EPA use in the
U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Research Park within Research Triangle Park (RTP).
A "Program of Requirements for Permanent Facility" was prepared by EPA staff in 1986,
indicating the need for a total of 635,000 square feet of net assignable space. An update to the
Program completed in 1990 confirmed the space requirements identified in the 1986 Program
document. As summarized above, the 635,000 square feet of net assignable space will consist of
office space, laboratory space, the National Computer Center, support space, and a child care
center.
A-4 February 2000
Moreover, in 1991, the General Services Administration (GSA) conducted a review and
evaluation of Federal agency space needs within the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park
MSA. The GSA found that nearly one-third of EPA's nationwide total of laboratory and research
space is located in the MSA. However, because of the piecemeal nature of relocations to, and
expansion of, EPA activities within the MSA, it was further found that the local EPA workforce
of over 3,100 persons (including approximately 1,800 contract status workers) was divided
among ten individual, and widely scattered, locations throughout the MSA. Because of the
physical separations between locations, the obsolescence of a number of EPA-occupied
buildings, deficiencies and/or duplications of equipment and administrative functions, and
similar factors, the GSA concluded that substantial inefficiencies and unnecessary costs were
being incurred annually by the EPA.
EPA's primary research laboratory in RTP is the Environmental Research Center (ERC). The
ERC was designed and constructed as office space in the late 1960s. Since that time, EPA's
research mission and needs have undergone significant evolution, and the building has been
gradually modified to meet the Agency's needs, pending construction of a new consolidated
facility. Growth during this period has exceeded the physical capacity of the ERC, and
necessitated the leasing of additional office and laboratory space within RTP. Because EPA
operations are now conducted at several facilities, there are duplications in staff and equipment
and, in several instances, researchers working on the same projects are located in different
buildings.
In addition to the inefficiency of conducting similar operations from several locations, the present
space configuration places limits on the EPA's research activities as a result of need for more
state-of-the-art temperature control, ventilation, hazardous material storage and disposal, fire
safety requirements, and a more flexible laboratory space configuration than present facilities
provide. Further, while EPA maintains state-of-the-art pollution control procedures and
equipment at all of its existing locations, a new, consolidated facility would allow for more
efficient (and therefore less costly and more easily managed) systems for the control of wastes
and emissions of all kinds.
Facilities anticipated to be closed once their activities are relocated to the proposed EPA facility
include: (1) The Environmental Research Center; (2) the Environmental Research Center annex;
(3) the EPA Administration Building; (4) the Mutual Building; (5) the Catawba Building; (6) the
Emission Measurement Laboratory; and (7) the 4201 Alexander Drive Building.
After a review of functional relationships among the various EPA activities, and financial aspects
involved in consolidation in either leased or owned space, the GSA found that these deficiencies
could not be remedied by upgrading the existing facilities, and recommended that eight of the ten
locations be consolidated and relocated to the USPHS Research Park, into a newly-constructed,
government-owned 635,000 net square feet research and administrative facility.
Pursuant to the GSA findings and recommendations, the EPA prepared a Program of
Requirements (POR), EPA Research Center, in February, 1992. The POR reconfirmed the total
required square footage, while an Appendix to the POR, known as the Site Analysis and Land
Use Planning Report (November, 1990), reconfirmed the essential findings of the 1971 USPHS
Research Park Master Plan regarding project siting, access requirements, utility connections, and
the like.
A-5 February 2000
The 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan placed a high priority on the protection and
preservation of environmental values:
"One of the necessary goals of the Park is to establish a stable ecological system.
The Research Park should be an example of how an environment can be created by
augmenting the existing physical assets of the terrain rather that contributing to the
deterioration of the natural systems ...In effect, the Park will seek to develop a
stable eco-system by supplementing and extending the existing system, rather
than imposing upon the environment with an alien design application."
(Master Plan, p. 92.)
These design principles, which will be applied to the proposed EPA Research and Administration
Facility, will help assure that environmental impacts are avoided where possible, and that
suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into project plans where impacts are unavoidable.
14. Wetland Impact Rationale/Mitigation Measures
As described in the Environmental Assessment (EA, 1995) prepared for the proposed EPA
facility under the National Environmental Policy Act, two project alternatives were evaluated:
1) The "No Action" Alternative (i.e., continuation of the utilization by EPA of a
variety of leased and owned facilities throughout the MSA), and
2) The "Build" Alternative (hereafter referred to as the Preferred Alternative).
The "No Action" alternative would consist of the retention and probable gradual expansion and
upgrading of the existing EPA facilities. While this option would cause no changes to the
environment at the proposed project site, it would not allow for anticipated benefits to be derived
from the consolidation and improvement of existing facilities. In addition to operational, safety,
and financial benefits, the proposed consolidation will bring about environmental benefits insofar
as a new state-of-the-art facility would facilitate more effective handling and treatment of
emissions (air, water, solid wastes) generated by the EPA research laboratories.
Analysis by the Architect/Engineering team and the Design Review Team led to the conclusion
that the proposed development was too large to be accommodated solely on Site 3, and a decision
was reached to expand the development parcel to include Site 4. Specifically, utilization of Site
3 only for the proposed EPA project was found to have had the following drawbacks:
1) The 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan development total for Site 3
contemplated an ultimate development of 928,400 gsf; the proposed EPA project total of
1. 18 million gsf would have exceeded this figure, and required excessive site coverage
and/or high-rise buildings; in addition, the Program of Requirements called for the design
to include 10% expansion plans, which could not be accommodated within Site 4 without
significantly exceeding the 15%n building footprint limitation in zoning requirements;
A-6 February 2000
2) Site 3 could not satisfy the parking requirement of 2,500 spaces, except by
constructing more than the 1,400 structured spaces which were allowed for in the EPA's
project budget;
3) Impacts to the existing topography, wetlands and forest cover of Site 3 would have
been more extensive, and difficult to mitigate if a high-density development scheme were
selected.
By incorporating Site 4 into the EPA project, each of the problems was avoided. The increment
of gross building area and staff due to the proposed EPA Research and Administrative Facility
program (i.e., 1.18 million gross square feet(gsf)) presently being considered is well within the
level of ultimate development allowed by the Master Plan for Sites 3 and 4 combined, which was
estimated to total between 1.38 and 1.83 million gsf, and thus leaves some flexibility for future
expansion needs. (The Master Plan total for Site 3 was 928,400 gsf, while the total for Site 4
ranged from 450,000 to 900,000 gsf. Any development on Site 4 which exceeds 450,000 gsf is
to be subtracted from the total allowable development on the as-yet undeveloped Site 2. Total
development for the four Sites is not to exceed a cumulative total of 5.48 million gsf, according
to the 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan.)
In addition to avoiding overly intensive development of Site 3, the Preferred Alternative achieves
a number of positive design objectives:
1) The location of the National Computer Center facility on Site 4 allows it to have its
own strong and separate identity; moreover, the site plan allows good security
potential and easy employee access;
2) The proposed site utilization leaves a sizable portion of the site untouched, minimizes
wetlands impacts, and avoids incursions into the lake and floodplain;
3) Good lake views are provided for the Computer Center;
4) A stand-alone Child Care Center is provided which is of a scale more appropriate to
its use; and
5) Site 4 is a relatively level and previously disturbed site which will pose few
development constraints, allows good future expansion possibilities, and entails little
environmental impact.
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and The Department of The Army (ACOE) Concerning The
Determination Of*Mitigation Under The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, overall
wetland mitigation activities essentially involved a three part process: wetland impact avoidance,
wetland impact minimization, and wetland impact compensation.
Wetland Impact Avoidance
The initial project design process involved the preliminary evaluation of multiple alternatives.
The selection of the final "Preferred Alternative" was based, in part, on maximizing the
A-7 February 2000
avoidance of wetland impacts. The Preferred Alternative limits fill placement in wetlands to
0.0758 acres. An additional area of approximately 0.0244 acres of wetland will be excavated in
conjunction with proposed pond construction and associated wetland compensation activities.
Other considerations relative to the selection of the Preferred Alternative included the avoidance
of alterations or impacts to the adjacent lake, and the preservation of the extensive areas of
upland forest both on and adjacent to the development area.
Wetland Impact Minimization
Upon selection of the Preferred Alternative, plans were further refined to include wetland impact
minimization. In this regard, detailed soil erosion and sediment control plans, grading plans and
stormwater management facilities have been incorporated into the proposed site plan. Each of
these minimization measures is, subsequently, addressed.
As a primary measure, relative to the mitigation of potential impacts to geologic resources,
surface waters, vegetation, wetlands, and air quality, a soil erosion and sediment control plan will
be in place throughout all phases of project construction. This program has been developed in
accordance with the NC Sedimentation Control requirements, as amended on April 1, 1992 by
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Durham County was
also provided copies of the plan for review. The approved plan served as the basis for the Notice
of Intent for the General NPDES Stormwater Permit for construction.
Typical measures to be included in the soil erosion and sediment control plan would include such
items as: installing tree protection devices, constructing temporary perimeter diversions and
sediment traps/basins, and installing silt curtains across lake inlets. In addition, the plan will
specify dust control measures, and require the stabilization of disturbed areas with temporary
seeding (or permanent seeding in areas of no further disturbance). Topsoil that is removed will
be temporarily stabilized for eventual reuse in the final relandscaping.
The soil erosion and control plan will include specifications to guide operation and maintenance
activities. Typical provisions will likely include inspection of all erosion and sediment control
devices for stability and operational integrity following every significant runoff-producing
rainfall, but in no case less than once every week. Needed repairs will be made immediately to
maintain all devices as designed. Sediment basins, traps and inlet protection devices would be
cleaned out when the level of sediment reaches 2.0 feet below the top of the riser, or when
storage capacity has been approximately 50 percent filled. Sediment will be removed from
behind sediment fences when it becomes about 0.5 feet deep at the fence. Sediment fences will
be replaced as necessary to maintain an effective barrier.
Gravel will be cleaned or replaced when the sediment pools no longer drain properly. All seeded
areas will be fertilized and reseeded as necessary, and mulched periodically to maintain a
vigorous, dense vegetative cover.
With respect to grading activities, site work and foundations will require the excavation of soil
and/or rock material. While some of this material may be required to be transported offsite for
disposal, every effort will be made to balance excavation and fill quantities onsite.
A-8 February 2000
Schematic grading plans have been developed by Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. for Sites 3 and 4,
as well as loop road and the north and south access roadways. In each case, the grading schemes
have been developed in a manner to minimize the extent of grading and maximize the protection
of vegetated areas, including wetlands.
The north and south access roads have been located to minimize impacts to wetlands and surface
water features. Where it is necessary to cross streams, provisions have been made for cross
culverts to accommodate both normal and storm flow volumes. Additional surface water and
wetland protective measures will be undertaken during the construction sequence, as outlined
above. Prior to land clearing, and in order to minimize potential adverse impacts, the limits of
wetlands and overall disturbance will be clearly defined and isolated from the construction area
by the placement of erosion controls such as temporary perimeter diversions, sediment
traps/basins, and installing silt curtains across lake inlets.
Although primarily directed at surface water resources and water quality, the stormwater
management plan and drainage system will also serve to minimize potential project-related
effects to groudwater resources, aquatic biology, floodprone areas and wetlands. The stormwater
management plan will also include two detention water quality ponds designed to receive runoff
from site buildings, parking areas and portions of the internal roadway network to further
minimize potential impacts.
The storm drainage system for the access roads and onsite improvements, for example, will
emphasize utilization of vegetated areas (ditches, swales, and wetlands) to accept surface runoff
prior to entering the stormwater collection system. This will provide a means of filtering
pollutants present in impervious surface runoff prior to entering the lake or Burdens Creek. To
the extent practicable, the drainage plan will also maximize "sheet" flow, rather than more
erosive point source discharges, into the lake from adjacent areas. This will likewise filter
pollutants and will also minimize the impact of concentrated flows into the lake.
The storm drainage system for the access roads will consist of drainage ditches and cross-
drainage pipes will be sized to accommodate the 10-year and 25-year storm flows, respectively.
The north access road culvert will consist of twin 72-inch pipes to allow the existing twin 60-
inch corrugated metal lake outlet pipes to perform under the same conditions for which they were
originally designed.
Energy dissipation measures will also be implemented at the points where storm drain pipes and
culverts discharge into the lake and other drainage ways. These measures will lower the velocity
of storm runoff at these points, thereby minimizing erosion of downstream drainage ways.
In order to reduce the impacts of construction on the floodplain of the tributary to Burdens Creek,
pre- and post-development floodplain modeling and calculations were performed by Greenhorne
& O'Mara, Inc. Based on these calculations and the HEC-2 modeling, neither building nor
roadway construction will result in any increase in the 100-year flood elevation associated with
Burdens Creek. While the North Access Road will occur in close proximity to the floodplain
limits, roadway construction activities will not increase floodplain elevations. The remainder of
site construction will occur at distances of at least several hundred feet from the floodplain.
Accordingly, a riparian corridor along Burdens Creek will be maintained.
A-9 February 2000
Wetland Impact Compensation
Finally, wetland compensation, in terms of wetland restoration and wetland construction, was
considered. Wetland restoration, however, was precluded by the absence of degraded wetlands
on or within the close proximity to the project site. Accordingly, wetland creation options were
evaluated.
In evaluating wetland replacement options, several locations were considered. Due to the
relatively undisturbed and forested nature of most of the project site, opportunities for
replacement wetlands were limited. Consequently, wetland compensation activities have been
incorporated into the proposed 0.36 acre pond to be constructed between the proposed EPA
facility and the existing lake. Within this area, approximately 0.26 acres of indigenous
scrub/shrub and emergent marsh species will be planted to complement the open water area (see
Attachment F). Creation of greater acreage of replacement wetlands would require the loss of
valuable forest habitat. Since only 0.1002 acres of wetlands will be impacted, there will be a net
increase of wetlands/waters due to project implementation. Due to the limited abundance of
scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands in the project area, the creation of these wetland community
types will increase both vegetative and wildlife diversity by providing habitat opportunities and
ecological niches not presently exhibited in the area.
Figures A-5 to A-8 provide wetland/site plan overlays for the proposed EPA facility.
A more detailed discussion of project-wide mitigation measures is provided in Section 5.0 of the
Environmental Assessment (EA). The Finding of No Significant Impact and EA for this project
is provided in Attachment I.
A C)
YF
WETLANDS
UPLAND FOREST
LANDSCAPED/DE VELOPED
SOURCE: Covell Associates (I
1Uq.,es. JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide SCAI.F_ FIGURE
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification o' 425' 850 ' /?
??i?? ` EPA Research and Administration F?aci7ity d /'?
?t Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
LIMIT OF MAPPING V Jp'"n i n i JL"l
-- SURFACE WATERS

GrM• S. Me,• ?, 1 r: 1. Ne,le. ? 'l//^ ?'?j r?r `.', ??' •?•..
.r 1 s r,ir,r . . S6 r wam / " / / I / , .??_• \
111 ?„?, J ? ( ? I I
ess r ' ItlidOf pA - ? C?eeamonr rr,nFMn ,i.h , •?• ? , I ? . ? (? " ?.?{ ?.: ? , \ ? M? ,
Gram,. •,. , , 'rwo 2•e--• \-.Jv ? ... ?' r'j? \1'
Grove •' , • fl , J ? I ? rMl / O ¢ ,... 1 / ?. ? i
/ Chapel H111' x Yn ) I
,• „I w USPHS Park A ' , ' -r^ n , L' 3?7
0 7,
'," soi ? -r yy ?1?w• I ,>9'?u? ?(?' I• J ?,"? ? \.,:r' ? > }t F' _ :? ? 'l/ V
?~ ',e.'•...'?Mt'? ,? N Mawr • 61 /= i- I "? ,"?''i=.: ''/ ibf ?_• l/n
At rl
x:111 ?I f?? «_ l e[Sj,• rMuga[ ?' s,? ?1III
N :7
..r r °.4 ? ? .^ ? ; ?' a : Ql ? 0_ 1 ?? ???' ;• ? ` (? '~ ?%?er 8 ''A ti: // (?C . f
> Mid.
Proposed EPA Research and %
Administration Facility Site j -
INe
o"I
c.. - {¦
G??°k c U.S. Public Health
v ,f Service Park
,or+ ,o,F' .Ut1?s•? le::, \..?? '-? .\. ? /a(I _ ? -_ ?l?sr. o •\, ?!>/1 ? l
RHAM.C
Qr 1 ?? l W AK /e?'QU - ??? v ja f?PU R I!
REGIONAL LOCATION
SOURCE: USGS Southwest Durham, N.C. (1973, Photolevised 1987), Southeast Durham, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987),
Green Level, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1981) and Cary, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987) Topographic Quadrangles
?`D't"?,• JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certifccation o' 31W
EPA Research and Adn* sbm ion Facffiiy „ A--2
et Research Triangle Parke North Carolina

C

p/
M
TOPOGRAPHY
JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification SCALE
o. coo, 800' FIGURE

7 EPA Research and Administration Facility A-3
4 0
V 0 Research Trfongto Park, North Carolina
A:r
0
4v
A l
r ? FOR
ACCFSS ROAD
C
National
Computer Center
.
/ ¢(H LOOP
Z0 ROAD
ICJ
I ?I HS
?r ak
es arch and
stration
1 / F llity
?\ Q
•o
x
0
Central Utility Plant
I ?I
0 0
\ SEvt ROAD
C.U.P.
HOp90N ROAD
GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
SOURCE Hellnwb, Obwa A Kassabsum and The Roberts/Sury Group (1993)
`0 a` %. JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide, SCALE FIGURE
Pennit/Section 401 Water Quality CeHif cation
g EPA Resm-41 aad Administration Fact ity a 375' Aso
4t Research Triangle Park. North Carollss

i
4",
1
+ Jam} .C?,
?' - ,y 1 r /1p? y
f LAKE
% O
C
i ? . ?' - ;- ilk',` ? ?:. \•' ?' ; - - - ' I. ,,,1?. ti!•' . , j, - - - I ' ? I
fral utility, PI• _ .
SITE 3 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
SURFACE WATERS
-- WETLANDS
C AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: FIdImudi. Oban & Kassabaum and Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide. SCALE FIGURE
PermMection 401 Water Quality Certification
EPA Research and Administmtion Fadity ° 215' "
4 RC"0" A Tv"M a Pork. North GroUn4k
NORTH ACCE ROAD
' , rl
? LAKE ? I _' .. '---? ' •
I -
J

'
J x It
CHILD
CARE
CENTER;.

SITE 4 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
??¦ SURFACE WATERS
-- WETLANDS
J AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: HdlmudL Obala & Kassabaum and Chomhom & O'Mam Inc. (1994)
JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide. SCALE FIGURE
e Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification • /
EPA Research and Administration FFhdity a 180• " A_6
?t Rewrlch Tr1mwgito Pte. North Corolla.

L
.qj
fYorth; Acdess Road
Orth
Loop Road ; ,1 i...
- Lake
SURFACE WATERS NORTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
WETLANDS
L AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Groenhom do O'Mara inc. (1994)
JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
PermitlSection 401 Water Quality Certifccation ?-N -
EPA Research and Administration Fact ity -
o' t 7s' W. ?? flem"rch Yrumew Peru. N-- C..-u- " ?
VN
Lake
sp
/ <0
,c
O
' ?"???tttttt J 0,
+• ., 1
' , ?!•?, ?r ? ,111, '?is - ---_?- ?-_ ? JI
_i ggr tial Utili}y. Pj
N
Io
Service Raa N
I C U p.
?--
Hopson Road
SOUTH ACCESS ROAD LOCAI•lON
?1?• SURFACE WATERS
-- WETLANDS
A AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Greenhorn k O'Mua Inc. (1994)
x`00 *4'r JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
e; Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification A .8
EPA Research and Adrrnnistration Facility o »s. v
?t rw0? ?Ies?wrcA Tr4??tN P?rf?. NwtL C?.?11?
Attachment B
Memorandum of Understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN EPA AND NIEHS
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is by and between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). This MOU shall be
effective upon signature of both parties and may only be amended
by written mutual agreement, signed by both parties.
I. Background
NIEHS and EPA have worked cooperatively for many years in
developing the Master Plan for the U.S. Government site at
Research Triangle Park (RTP), in obtaining and operating a day
care facility for staff, in sharing a contract for cafeteria
services, and in use of the trailers at Burdens Creek. NIEHS has
participated in development of the Program of Requirements for
EPA's planned research facility (hereinafter "EPA facility").
The continuing participation of NIEHS during development and
review of the design for the new EPA-RTP research facility will
be important to the development of an overall Federal research
campus and will provide valuable input to the design, especially
in the areas covered by this agreement.
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth the
parties' agreements with respect to certain items related to site
planning and development, including utilization of shared utility
services. Further this MOU sets forth the parties' goals and
intentions for future agreement with respect to joint occupancy
of the Federal Site.
It is the intent of both parties to promote resource sharing
and operational efficiencies, to foster collaborative efforts not
only in facilities planning and community efforts, but also in
mission related programs and research efforts. It is felt that
in creating a research campus and fostering communication between
the NIEHS and EPA communities, the two organizations can create
an environment that will promote better research, and provide a
better work environment for the staff of both organizations.
Formal Interagency Agreements: Many of the items covered in
this MOU specify cost sharing between the two parties to the
agreement. This MOU describes the basis for determining the
burden of cost to be borne by each organization. Specific
details will be outlined in one or more interagency agreement(s)
required to implement and further define the terms of this MOU.
c
II. Site Planning and Development
This section covers coordination between EPA and NIEHS
during the period of design and construction of EPA's facility
and expansion of the common facilities that support the entire
campus. Operational issues of joint occupancy will be addressed
in Section III.
A. Master Plan
The Master Plan for the Consolidated Site, issued March 15,
1971, (Master Plan), describes the general configuration for the
Consolidated Site roadways, common facilities, and support
services and is incorporated herein for reference purposes. The
Master Plan provides for looped distribution systems for chilled
water, High Temperature Hot Water (HTHW), natural gas
distribution, electrical power, telecommunication, and potable
water. During construction of the NIEHS facility, the
distribution mains were sized to support multiple agencies on the
site, but only those portions needed for NIEHS were installed.
Consistent with NIEHS's commitment to the Master Plan, the
new EPA facility plan will be based on the use of common support
services and will include necessary plans to expand the looped
distribution systems, the power plant, and roadways. While the
Master Plan is a guide, minor modifications have been made over
the years and will continue to be made as the site is further
developed. Each of the parties will advise the other when
considering major changes in construction, landscaping, and other
activities concerning the total Federal site.
The site for EPA's facility will be transferred in
government property records from NIff to EPA per General Services
Administration (GSA) procedures. This transfer will be done in
GSA property records only; no deed transfer will be recorded with
local governments. For purposes of setbacks, easements, and
application of covenant restrictions, the total 509 acres deeded
to the U.S. Government will continue to be treated as one site.
B. Utilities Services
One of the major features of the Master Plan is shared
utilities. While initial construction costs for the shared
utilities may be higher than dedicated utility services, the
redundancy requirements and operating costs over a 20-30 year
period is expected to net a considerable savings. In order to
distribute operating costs, each organization agrees to provide
for metering of utility services for their respective facilities.
EPA will add meters as part of construction of the EPA facility.
NIEHS will add meters in any areas where they are not already in
place.
2
As part of the design for EPA's new facility, the
architectural and engineering (A&E) contractor will calculate
EPA's anticipated load for boilers, chillers, and electrical
power. Construction of EPA's new facility will include expansion
of the central support services to accommodate EPA's need. This
expansion includes excavation and extension of the utilities
service loop and enlargement of the central support services
building.
1. Central Chiller Plant
NIEHS plans to upgrade the central chiller plant in the next
several years and is considering a complete redesign. EPA and
NIEHS agree to coordinate design efforts to present the most
efficient and cost effective design that accommodates the needs
of both facilities.
EPA construction of its facility will include redundant
chillers and boilers. These redundant systems will be sized to
accommodate the largest single machine located in the
Consolidated Site Central Plant.
2. Central High Temperature Hot Water (HTHW) Generator
NIEHS currently has two 40M BTUH generators serving the
site. As part of construction for a new module, NIEHS will
install a third 40M BTUH HTHW generator. Preliminary analysis
indicates EPA will need to install two 90M BTUH HTHW generators.
EPA will install HTHW generators as needed for its facility,
including redundancy. EPA will also absorb the cost of expanding
the central utility plant to accommodate the additional
generators.
3. Chilled Water and HTHW Pipe
NIEHS agrees to extend the utility loop between valve pit r'5
and valve pit 17 as shown on the Master Plan during their
construction of F Module. NIEHS further agrees that the chilled
water pipe size will be 36" and the HTHW pipe size will be 14".
EPA will extend the utility loop from valve pit W7 to the central
utility plant using the same size pipe.
4. EmergencV Generators
EPA will add emergency generators as required to support its
new facility. In case of a power outage, generators will be used
to generate and circulate HTHW to critical areas at both
facilities such as animal care facilities and to circulate
chilled water for an orderly shutdown.
3
i
5. Fuel for Back-up Systems
EPA's A&E contractor will calculate EPA's need for back-up
fuel storage. EPA and NIEHS agree that a 10-day supply of back-
up fuel is sufficient. Construction of EPA's facility will
include expansion of the central fuel storage facilities to
accommodate this increase.
C. Waste Handling
EPA and NIEHS agree to develop and coordinate a waste
handling program. The design for EPA's new research facility
will include a waste stream study of the entire Federal site.
The study will include volume, type of waste, hazardous
classifications, and storage requirements. EPA and NIEHS will
jointly develop documentation for required permits for any
incinerator facility expansion or modification hereunder. NIEHS
is constructing a hazardous waste storage facility in the next
several years. Rather than construct a separate storage
facility, EPA will later or simultaneously expand this facility
for a joint hazardous waste storage facility. -
D. Day Care
EPA and NIEHS have enjoyed much success with the day care
facility currently operating at NIEHS's North Campus. The
parties agree to jointly negotiate with the Research Triangle
Foundation (the lessor of the day care facility) to continue the
current lease until the parties are able to provide on-site day
care. EPA agrees to develop plans to house a permanent day care
center for both organizations within its portion of the
consolidated site.
E. Access and Security
Prior to commencement of construction of the EPA facility,
the parties will jointly establish detailed guidelines for the
control of construction traffic, access, and security during the
period of the construction of EPA's research facility.
III. Planning Goals for Joint Campus occupancy
This section covers operational issues after EPA has moved
into its new facility. In arranging for the following common
services, EPA and NIEHS will share costs on an equitable basis.
Each item will require an interagency agreement that will outline
the specific terms of agreement and services to be covered, any
supporting contracts, and details of cost sharing. The general
4
basis for cost sharing is outlined in each of the following
service areas. The parties recognize there will be a
considerable administrative burden associated with the various
service contracts that will be needed to implement this MOU and
the subsequent interagency agreements and are designating
herewith which organization will accept responsibility for
administering each of the areas.
A. Security
EPA and NIEHS agree to pursue a joint security system and
joint security contract once EPA occupies the Federal site. The
parties intend that prior to commencement of EPA's occupancy of
their new facility, the parties shall execute an interagency
agreement to implement this paragraph. The cost will be shared
based on the actual level of service required by EPA and NIEf{S,
such as labor and equipment costs. EPA, will assume
administrative responsibility for providing joint security
services.
B. Utilities
Maintenance of the primary distribution loop will be shared;
all secondary distribution lines will be the responsibility of
the using Agency. EPA and NIEHS agree to share replacement of
primary utility equipment and the cost of fuel and maintenance
for the back-up system. Currently, NIEHS operates the power
plant and underground primary utilities systems via contract.
EPA agrees to share the cost of utilities and the cost of the
contract once EPA begins to use utilities from the facility. All
of these costs will be shared based on metered usage by EPA and
NIEHS. NIEHS will assume administrative responsibility for
providing joint utility services.
EPA and NIEHS will share responsibility for waste handling
and operation of the incinerators. The cost of operation will be
shared based on actual weight or volume of :taste produced by. each
organization, whichever measure is the most appropriate. NIEHS
will assume administrative responsibility for providing joint
waste handling services.
C. Roads
EPA and NIEHS intend that prior to commencement of EPA's
occupancy of the EPA facility, both organizations will execute an
interagency agreement providing for the shared maintenance of the
roads and sidewalks within the Consolidated Site. Maintenance
shall include replacement, repair, snow removal and cleaning.
The cost of maintenance will be shared for all loop roads, access
roads, and roads within the day care center and support services
areas. Maintenance costs for secondary roads will be the
responsibility of the organization primarily using said roads.
5
r
The shared costs will be divided evenly between EPA and NIEHS
(50/50 basis). EPA will assume administrative responsibility for
providing maintenance of roads and sidewalks within the
Consolidated Site.
D. Grounds
In adding EPA's facility on the Federal research campus, one
of the goals is to coordinate landscaping, grounds maintenance,
light poles, signage and other exterior improvements. Costs of
specific landscaping requirements of EPA and NIE11S will be borne
by each organization, based on their specific requirements.
Costs of landscaping of common roadways, the central utility
plant, lake area, and other common areas will be shared equally
(50/50 basis). NIEHS will assume administrative responsibility
for providing joint grounds maintenance.
E. Medical Facilities
EPA and NIEHS will work together during the design and EPA'-.
occupancy of EPA's research facility to improve medical services
for staff and identify efficiencies that could be recognized from
sharing some medical facilities. The cost sharing of these
services will be based on the actual level of service provided to
each organization, such as the number of staff provided or the
number of employees served within each organization. NIEHS will
assume administrative responsibility for providing any joint
medical services.
F. Day Care
Although the day care program will be funded primarily
through tuition, there are certain facility and operating costs
borne by the government. The parties agree to share these costs
equally (50/50 basis). EPA will assume administrative
responsibility for the joint day care facility.
G. Cafeterias
EPA and NIEHS agree to continue the joint contract for
cafeteria services that support both organizations. The parties
agree to share all costs associated with operation of the
cafeterias equally (50/50 basis). NIEHS will continue to carry
administrative responsibility for operation of the joint contract
for cafeteria services.
If. Recycling/Solid Waste Disposal
EPA and NIEHS currently operate separate recycling programs.
The parties agree to pursue a joint recycling program upon the
commencement of EPA's occupancy of the EPA facility. Any cost or
benefit of operation will be shared proportional to the volume of
6
waste generated by each orgar•ization. NIEHS will assume
administrative responsibility for providing joint recycling
services and solid waste disc(-;al.
I . Environmental ComLl ia-rice
The two parties agree to coordinate on all environmental
compliance issues. This includes reporting, recordkeeping,
permits, inspections, and other activities. Where responsibility
for environmental compliance is clearly assignable to either EPA
or NIEHS, the responsible organization will bear the cost of
environmental compliance as well as the administrative burden.
Where costs are associated with common facilities, such as
central utility plant, common roads, etc. the cost shall be
divided equally between EPA and NIEHS (50/50 basis).
IV. Interagency Agreements for Other Shared Services
The parties acknowledge that in the interest of efficiency
and improved service, numerous additional items should he
considered for joint operation upon EPA's occupancy of t-he.EPA
facility. It is the parties' intention that items such as
custodial services, warehousing, shipping and receiving, on-site
building maintenance, libraries, and continuing development of
common amenities described in the Master Plan, or such other
items as the parties identify, may be jointly implemented by
execution of appropriate interagency agreements.
V_ Duration of MOU
This MOU shall commence on the date of the signature of the
second party and will continue in effect for ten years, after
which it is automatically renewed on a yearly basis, not to
exceed a 30 year term. This MOU may be terminated by either
party on thirty (30) days written notice. This MOU may only be
amended by written, mutual agreement, signed by both parties.
Willis E. Greenstreet, Director (Date)
Office of Administration and Resources Management
Charles E. Leasure, Jr- (Date)
Associated Director for M gement,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
7
r
0 S7..q,,
A A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Molt
July 14, 1993
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Size of Boilers in Proposed EPA-RTP Campus
The Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and NIEHS dated
February 9, 1993 stated that preliminary analysis indicated the
need for two 90M BTUH HTHW generators for EPA's new facility.
Upon further analysis and review of the assumptions, EPA and
the design team have been able to implement conservation measures
that result in a more efficient cooling system, thereby reducing
the projected load. Current design plans include two 40 M BTUH HTHW
generators.
Thomas R. Ashmore
Aacyel Sacydable
M.+W M pp. ~ aw"-*
w Wm ?S%.--VcW Lew
Attachment C
Agency Correspondence
? ? of
L' nited States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
TO:-11vl • S?a,.+ ??a ?/t ALL
CO2 La a'ld D c'- -
a Ll L4 0-
C^) °`? ?-ha n. env a c?-tz6 U 11 j
INSTANT REPLY
!
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1533).
I
Re: llU?rm
Pro
Project Name
Date of coming Letter
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
X The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded wcodzeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to adversely
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this
office for further information.
Concur - Is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed
endangered or threateded species.
Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site specific recommendations at this time.
Questions regarding this form letter may be directed to the biologist who is
handling this project.

?I , r- T • / oL-
Biologi. ate
CONCUR: Z?r Z
Endangered Spe ate
Coordinator

n ri n n
>T'r t..i3af S
L=3 L?2)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobev. Jr., Secretary
August 20, 1992
Mr. Stewart Dalzell
Jason M. Corzell & Associates, Inc.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
Director
SUBJECT: Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species in Vicinity of
Proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Facility,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dalzell:
The Nort^ Carolina Natural Heritage Program has two historical
records of rare plant species in the vicinity of the proposed
project. American bluehearts (Buchnera americana), a state
Candidate species, has been reported from a railroad savanna in the
area. Veined skullcap (Scutellaria nervosa), a state Significantly
Rare species, has been reported along Long Branch in the area.
Please contact Natural Heritage Program staff if you require
further information.
Sincerely,
Ann W. Ke:ly
Natural eritage Program
PO Box 27097, Ralco. North (-.arxJinj 27611-76V T(4crOxxw 919 7334181
A,l r.....1 (1 ..... Ali. _._....._ I r- I
-Q/
•\ ? - it •? ?` - ; ,'.?`I ` \. N .; li?l ? .: ? _ \_ \l/..` ? / ,`?., ;'\? \
'?? ? i f ?i Jtt?? '' ?? i-z?°v? '? m • ?? X- I ??'?? - . ?ll','b ? ? ? ?'' ? O`er ? t `?+0 ? ?C
??. lye ,• 1 - _ '
?\ ` aV 4N,•.
ICU
300
r 1 ? ?n j
ol '5
;mac.-?.. ??\\?? ? • ?? cJ ? '(i ?,?,• ?,? - ?\`\ ?U ?\ f ? "
? • • • • ? ????: • o'• (\'?'?? O 1. '` _ - - ? 1 \/ \',Q-'? ? ,r ? \ /'• - - -_
SOJ

REI-[SED .-APRIL l3, 1992
Durham County
Ea Id eagle (Ha!iaeetus leucor f-oha1u;) - E
Mich au::'. sumac (Rhos miC.h:usx i ; - E'
Smooth conef lower (Echinacta !.Ir_•:i4ar a - PE
Tliere are species which, although not now listed or offi..iall.: proutt seci for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review b,. the S?-
:hose "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not ie;aiiy protected under rhr
Act. and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Sec, -.on
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur w! Thin
rh??
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you mi;hr do
for them.
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C?"
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C'_
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2'
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
a liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana) - C"
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C?
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C'
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - C?
'lodicates no specileo in at least It years fr;s this cousll.

t
J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 13, 1992
Stewart Dalzell
Cortell Associates
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Re: Proposed EPA facility in Research
Triangle Park, Durham County, ER 93-7141
Dear Mr. Dalzell:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1992, concerning the above
project.
Enclosed is your map on which we have shown the locations of the
recorded archaeological sites within the study area. Also
enclosed is a list of the sites and information concerning their
eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Please forward specific project information to us when
it becomes available so we may assess potential effects to as yet
unrecorded resources.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located
the following structures of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
O'Briant Farm, Nelson vicinity. South side of SR 1978-0.15
mile west of NC 54. This farm appears to be eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A for agriculture and C for architecture.
The following structures were recorded in a county
architectural survey, but do not appear to be eligible for
listing in the National Register:
York-Beasley House, Nelson vicinity. South side of SR 1978
0.4 mile west of NC 54.
Wilkinson Farmhouse, Nelson vicinity. West side of NC 54
0.2 mile north of SR 1978.
Edwards-Beasley House, Nelson vicinity. East side of NC 54
0.3 mile north of Wake County line.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Stewart Dalzell
August 13, 1992, Page 2
The locations of these historic structures are indicated on the
enclosed map.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory
council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have
questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
Sincerely,
c Z
David Brook
Y
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
Recorded Archaeoloyic-al S: iLes. r=esearch Trianyle Park
Proposed US EnvironmentaI Prole-tron Agency FacIlity
The following s i Les were r ec.or-de, t t),' -Irna -e-, r archaeo? l oq i s r s 1r) 19 107
31DH95
Middle to Late Archaic
Eligibility Unassessed
1 `r ri ?+ U
L atr rrnaic
E, g1olrlty Linasses-3 ed
The following sites were racoraeo pr ''=5ional archaeologists in
n tree Nat1onai
1977 during a survey of a ;1? >cre rac* o
Env 1 ronmenta 1 deal th Researc ii .:enter :
?;Dr-1. 81
Archaic
^i (-t ?:- I 1 9 1 ID I e
31DH181
Early Archaic
Not Eligible
?1VH1c?
Unknown Prehistoric
Not _-11g,ble
31DH 183
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
?1DH184
Late Archaic
Not Eligible
?•is? a .,rcnaic
ig101e
3 11 Dr, 1 n6
UnF;nown Pren i stor i c
Not Eligible
n ic•wn Prehistoric,
eligible
.-'H I 6b
un?-nown Preh 1 stor • c
foot Eligible
micdle Archaic
Not Eligible
The following site was recorded by professional archaeologists in 19°1
during a survey for the Davis Drive E.?,tension project:
31DH316
Archaic
Not Eligible

Attachment D
Waters of the U.S./Wetland Delineation
Attachment E
Wetland Determination Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
D&n,*t jQ DATE: L/ / COUNTY:
COORDIN ATOR:/,TIME:'S?
NEAREST TOWN: - 1c.WATERWAY
QUAD :Lqw ATION : W???Q.N I czA- u-Q a-11
PROPERTY OWNER: NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY, DOING WOREC?.(NAME/ADDRESS)
US, etiviroAM471 PlActfion 18
1 ^ G
--r -q:--i _avwe?_?'
G 77
PHONE: ( )2L(_ PHONE: ((aL2 - 3? 33 7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: &/fit'
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM I/ OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
d -,7 j L,r J rKJA- Ff)C.(,( i' 1
2 .
le4l
+
?
r
ice` `
11

%

rJ FAG2 - /'V/-
.
J
:
C
V ? 1 ' ^^`
4 4 .
Z
.
Ci
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 ?-
7
.
t 1:7
FA L 8.
3• (,?,???. ?: ?"(c.iC °. FACFArV WOODY VINES:
r
4. FACu ;FAGUi-1.
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- F.)22%THER INDICATORS:
C-:' l 'o -r',
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES N0__4,,,-B-ASIS:
TYPICAL: L,(tOMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: -
SERIES: 1r U ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES_N0
MOTTLED: YES MATRIX COLO. OV-Pa''-g HYDRIC ;OILS: YES NO
BASIS: i i 51 nrrEln =?CL'L
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO L?DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO j__-- DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE 7VA
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO_LBASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO. t __ NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES I-NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND: -
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES N0, _--"AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 _ NONE_Ll___
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP 0
?? (-r. _?•7,, iC?
DETERMINED BY: )V
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS-
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE _
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
c?
z
NO
?' r i
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: :DATE: LY5E?p?_l ?d COUNTY: 7) u,rAA Ak
NEAREST TOWN: n WATERW QUAD:Sp. ,,,l{w&f•bA&,.,bOCATIONQ_
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WO :(.4?AME/ADDRESS)
rnvi r P ? w tit. :?? + ' 'fin a
a
a t
PHONE:() Syf?- a3.3o PHONE:() ?Zy7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: ,SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GRO D COVER: SPECIES-S COVER-INDICATOR
mct '/c, FA kj
/e 60 L Pt- , F A G
4 Cd(
2 p
----3, 1 ^s' 3 5% FAcc? r, ?A C 3 414*44•11- 5 % u PL ? rAC
4. 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: F AL 6.
. Q 'n1,v-pi F A
L
r _er WOODY VINES:
:
4 . r?c.? r r -, / o , f= AG t,- rI , - ?o f
f e o z " ,
5 rv?Cr.?:!sr; 2'?o FAG, FAGI?J 2. ; a-, te", ??G
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)50°rC OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES ?NO BASIS:

TYPICAL: L,4-COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE_ BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES:
MOTTLED:
BASIS:
G /Ct r_T [L ? WO,40d /egg_ ON
YES_je::?ITO MATRIX COLW.f?)yePy ->?
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES
_t==90 BASIS:
HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES V"-NO
HYnRTr -gOTr.C• YRczi -m1
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_L,:n-_- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES{?NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: KON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO '?- AUTHORITY: 10 404j?,t0/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS1,=?SOLATED ADJACENTL---NWP Q
DETERMINED BY: 1Jo,?;;;%' T. T y?
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO L- DEPTH T SAT RATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: it` rt
t
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION: --
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO'
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
r
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO
ATTACH DRAWING W7-PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
SD OrQf l!'o
q
L
? IZ

L/,/11 I Dw o CL/(--
4Lk (?f 4,-cip -
rec-, Qcr,?
i
? lr? r
r5e4g 6
??r•? :t? ? ODD
SC?;sa.(rC?
/ J

ill-auiL
06-
SST ? us ? ?- .

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: n j IME:?:y? DATE:
NEAREST TOWN: WATERW
QUAD: ?o?tA14„??,,p,'f?,,LOCATION:W?
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS)
PHONE:
OTHER
(`11g7?y1= X330 PHONE: ((? 17)7.37
INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--I NDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR

f l
3 Fl

5 ,,/,t r l C ° FP u- - 5 .
A?PZTbT SHRUBS : 6 .

2. lr,?L18.
3-
= FALL FA:?V WOODY VINES: ^ _? j
i r?- FAC.u, '/jG(,v
--4 _- --
-T 1 o
5.

% OF DOMINANT SPEC 2. Vi
r`'.I'ta`i ;?:a" :

_ORS:
IES (OBL.- FAC.) oIje THER INDICAT`
- FAG(1 FRG
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES_I,,NO_ BASIS: SO% 1,t,?rnn?+cfiG VFOP ?r=rt
v
TYPICAL:-Z((/COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: (cwtccaJ4 ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES ?NO
MOTTLED: YES_L,:ntdO MATRIX COLOR: QYe,,r HYDR I? SOILS: YES L.-NO
BASIS:
S (, 2,0 r 00 7-j
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO- /?? TH TO SATURATION/WATER ?TABLE
/V
OTHER INDICATORS: i __ItC //C.!'
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES_L,?*O BASIS: gL?-; uP hc,4rn/o
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: / KON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES U,,-NO AUTH 1TY: 10 404 0/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_? ISOLATED DJACENT_?NWP U
DETERMINED BY:
?
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOS YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # -
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
•r
G?
? J
l?
to Y?Z ? ? 3
f r J ? ?? J/
C7
Ir\ C

1/
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR:M, TIME: );ATE: I /?? COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN: WATERWAY: + B
QUAD: L 0- _d ATION: (•/ cu
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WOR ( AME/ADDR SS)
? ?n o
4
•ar G a 711 W l
PHONE: (q jg) SK I - a 3?o PHONE: OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
?IA
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ?OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR

2. fAcA+, FAQ-
2
, r P"A?
4 '.' e FA C. F 4.
.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:.
1 . •<t.11 Q W rlO o f
a 0 ?o 6
Fiicw ' . F?7 .
2. 157 °% Fh C s.
*
3• (^ J C.,' ="_ ;' j /p C_I-L WOODY VINES
i i
'h?Ytc,
1
5. .
2 .
S OF DOMINANT SPECI c
ES (OBL.- FAC.)LQOT HER INDICATORS:-
?aPor.r0L_
FACLc , FnC f
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO BASIS: 5s0j,n
TYPICAL:.?_ (COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
?rk^.
SOIL:
SERIES: W(?,z, O re, SCl.1'1 ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES_NO
MOTTLED: YES_je:::jNO MATRIX COLOR: erj) HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO_1_,-
BASIS: Ho tAlP-Hnmft ?Snf k , n iro ors /10? on ?tu?r ?C Snr l<. 65:
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NOEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO_j;e?ASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO V' NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ?NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO__L,::?? AUTHORITY: 10 404_ 10/404 NONEL-
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED ADJACENT.. NWP i
DETERMINED BY: {?P? ?•n.f'.; i . T")Z F?
i
ATYPICAL SITUATIOPJS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE _
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOSCENT ? YES
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # TAKEN
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

NO
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: ,?oprjIfTIME: _WDATE: p /?_ /UCOUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN: PkLeA k- WATERWAY. $ ee-
QUAD-soK L?ATION:
PROPERTY OWNER: (NAME/ADDRESS) A TY DOING WORK: AME/ADDRESS
r to (v l , vie5, / /'l
npr_?r_o ac ( j M''Cpr--fpll :r
Q7711 wnl+karn' Me Oald;'Lf
PHONE:( ) `= PHONE :
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: WA
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
AL
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES /---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-S COVER-INDICATOR
1- (1P/ ? OKato y4 0"c" 09 c- 1 - 0AAf 1 ST MU S ?u V% 6 U PL .) F6 C-
2. socc.rwcooL uc C/v Ff?GCC 2 2.
3.
----------------------------- ----------
4. 4.
5. 5-
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 zrru-k) w cz2j _FA C U) W4 .
2. ?uvn ?2 °% F??, F?aJ8.
3--J?- WOODY VINES:
u?LJ F?G
2_11/c
4. 1. caj-b rax
5. 2.
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)71% OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES_1,,?i0_ BASIS: oo/
TYPICAL: v{COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: Car+'ex ? .- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YESI/ NO
MOTTLED: YES MATRIX COLQR: 0\,1eK- ? HYDRIC SOILS: YESJGNO
BASIS: 111Q?? CinL(",9_+-inn5 m,+tl,na nn "Ar?r. ?nrl5
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES N0_1,?,-DEPTH OF WATER: 1V1t4
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO l_-DEPT TO SATURATION/W ER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: r,r?fI aO.L YI k?
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES_?#0 BASIS: poSr4l'Vl4 t-a aj io ('rl7? < 1f
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO ? NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ?NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND:- _ KON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO_Z' AUTHORITY: 10 404 V-?10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- /fSOLATED ADJACENTj,?--NWP 0
DETERMINED BY:?Gr.
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT
PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES,
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
I1l
5
/ /0 Yg s?
7?sy? ?Y
63 Z
r
r?
?r

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: DATE: / S / -OUNTY: -6k t
NEAREST TOWN: a WATERWAY: f
hawv a_)
QUAD: ATION: We,
PROPERTY OWN R:(NAME/ADDRESS) PART?C DOING W K:(N ME/ADDRESS)
U.5, h n
i S?1 G
on A4, ca?
PHONE : (q1g) cj!L- PHONE : 1 -7) - 73
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ?OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES---I COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-S COVER-INDICATOR
2. It'
5ouf-,,?o d 4C°lc 2. IV/741
FA U 7
3 pe FA c 3 .
.
4
?,,, o c f S ° /o A-6 , ? 5.
SAPL p /S °,6 FAr-
6.
1 . ?G11'ftlW cv S: ' ID°lc "('W-, Ftl(i.+l7 -
2. So u.rw ? d ? 0 c F s.
3. rv FAG U, WOODY VINES
-- 2.
a
c te2..Q P-r 22 /o
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)6?1 oOTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO BASIS:
rAcu. FAL
TYPICAL:j/(COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: I - /
SERIES: ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO L-?
MOTTLED: YES NO l/ MATRIX COLOR: nVee_-? HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO L--
BASIS: no TZwf i'G 5ork tedrra s, n mri &4Zrr'_ SofT t?
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES
SATURATED SOILS:
OTHER INDICATORS:
NO ? DEPTH OF WATER: N
YES NO L_- DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NOJ,CBASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES , NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES &--NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: KON-WETLAND: 1/-
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO ? AUTHORITY: 10 404 _ 10/404 NONE_I,--
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP 0
DETERMINED BY: yi'P_„r_ of,
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION: ------
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION: NO
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES
-
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY : ------
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
-
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
ISOLATED ADJACENT
' YES
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATIESYES, _ -PHOTOS TAKEN
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
Soy l plrorjp--
b4-?
? ?, 6 loYt2 6?Y

NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: 0 DATE: COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN' WAT RW Y • -?K iqdrk QUAD: CATION: Qt; 1
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDR SS) PARTY DOING WOR AME/ADDRESS)
S, C,?vi n ( ll? 1
O U
7 ,
PHONE: (011 q ) - 2.33n PHONE:((aj?
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: /y
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM),tff6R SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1.
1. r ?P Mot Ee, 6o a1o FA C_
2 . 0 -9 ,et FAG , FAGW 2. NJlq
3. o °!c FA<_a_.t-3 •
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6
7.
1. & r&ww"d FACw-, BUJ4*UDY
3. laweari 4 5?o rF?u", 4. '='+'y 10°4. FA(-i o?L1.
5. /0°/o FA C, Lt- 2.
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)P=OTHER
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATI
: YES rN0_ BASIS:
VINES:
N/P,
INDICATORS:
TYPICAL: L.-tfOMPLETE BELOW)
SOIL:
?,/(?,-ol _ SA.A
SERIES:
MOTTLED: YES_L,::nNO MATRIX
BASIS: MAAA, A CA}C I
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO_? DEPTH OF WATER: 1
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO ?DEPTH ?0 SA
0TH R INDICATORS: w?,,wt o,r4/./
r i f (, 6rbhV-
W ETLAN HYDR LOGY: YE?S NO BASIS:
ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES -10
HYDRIC SOILS: YES_L NO
ION/CATER TABLE /Y//+
a r??it n Y,Q,. rno l c?1 `??.'x.s, a 1 r'. I
v o ro r'G 1,o Se*1t•
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO I,,- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES V NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 4040/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_VISOLATED DJACENT WP 9
O J i P? _
DETERMINED BY: /1?• DF411"l
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
Progt 'fe-
D - all (Ov ( f mom
Q
3/q " -
z
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: oZ:I DATE: COUNTY:
r
NEAREST TOWN• ;Q? (L WATEFjW .
QUAD : SoU[?aSf wJt6CAT ION : ?/
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WOFK• NAME/ ADDRESS
U.S. E?iyiCoflmertf>,' P -tet on f?aan . )vY'.Ik?l T'll f"o
w. _ ,. _ .. ._i _? ....•?L...?,....,. .., C n?Cn n M t nr^J'fl .? l e Intl ?Gi Q?
PHONE:(31g)gL a330 PHONE: _Lp110- ? -7 5 -7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: Jl(/?
IS PROPERTY UNIFORMJ,:??R SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
THE S• SPECIES---x COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR

% F-A (,t4+, fik- 1 .
1 . r A60
`
2 . Q (
rel a J5 0/o FAW -? FAC,U
?2. / I
T
?
?"
c, co r:?
4.
i? cl 3 '
FAG, FALW 4.
5. red
?Zur - = FAGC- 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 . cLV ro v? w az c' F a, FAFACW6.
??
2. fP ova°?r_ FA(, - -8.
?
4. w?i(6w 6cu.,- WOODY VINES-
FAC,t?FRCW1 YJ-5 ro
5. S wa,'f- jv_4,,K_ 2 `/o FAG FACV4 2 .

,?70THER INDICATORS:
x OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)Slc
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO_jef--BASIS : of TYPICAL:_066MPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: _(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: //
SERIES: 1nl??i; R? !0MK_ ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO V---
MOTTLED: *?Yf NO MATRIX COLOR: D yer-ze HYDRIC SOILS: YES-NO
BASIS: /YO ut fir( .'G '5" (S / ?1G?I C _ (S . nnf on h.ud r+c 50j /s_
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO?DEPTH OF WATER: A/A
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO_je?-VEPTH TO SA URATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO_j?ASIS: fo oQi /
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO__4,??-NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ? NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: ICON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES k NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 _ NONE Lo?
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT_ NWP i
DETERMINED BY: ?IP5 44 j kAr, ;
?O??o
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
-----
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY: -------
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
---------
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/ 404 NONEADJACENT
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOS TAKEN YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, #
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
0

56 I j rod ?
o- ??y

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: Mnl?e, TIME:// :20 DATE: '51 S /V COUNTY: 'i
NEAREST TOWN; WATERW r ufw ' t Kttrioul
QUAD :??({ 0 ATION: W Qvv\ '. = v F I a- PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDR S) PARTY DOING WORK.(NAME/ADDRESS)
(). S. rAv?rh hM1,+.I Prxfpr?-,-. AxnriL M nnt?nt? t yrP S
r1e?arr l? T?ra,••o %e. ,? K , n?c ?r G ,?-t f, a, ?. , Nth} n 17 7_T
PHONE: (qa),92LL PHONE: (1?1? 210 -_3 197
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: M/A
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES- COVER-INDICATOR
l
1. IrE8 rv-l_ C. `L 30 °% FAQ, 2.
FAC, FACL? 3.
v a,tL o ?o FAcu -, FA C. V.T
5. w a 0allL S°lo FAC.K- FACU+- 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: ' 6.
t . q,?rowwcso? $S 6?° FAcw l-Gw 7.
• f ??t?.? occBoa l0% FAcu-, FAGU8•
3. ?? CO afa FA L WOODY VINES: Sapp FhGL( FfrC? rlp? 5 : 5? s °% FAG FfiC.cJ 2 : i (2 C rC:2
i
K OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.) d°/a OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YESL?NO BASIS: .
TYPICAL COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL
SOIL:
SERIES:
??n l A_ 5av?U. 1 MOTTLED: YES__L,.NO MATRIX CT LOR • Q T697-
BASIS: M n LA a A JAo AP 1?n h . ?'Y)
(COMPLETE BACK)
ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES N0-l,:f-
HYDRIC SOILS: YES3,!:?NO_
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO__uf`DEPTH OF WATER: /Vfj?T
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO__6C DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: }' fp I'd!? d ,? (O,(,?LaGQ j940Ytr'x , AttoP?
_4 r L ?- IAA WJ
WETLAND YDROLOGY: YES_Ltn4NO BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_L,?,--NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES V40
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: t/ KON-WETLAND:

PHOTOS TAKEN: YES_I,,:::NO AUTHO TY: 10 404 _Le, -10/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT P
DETER MINED BY: /?1 Do,K" 1 6. 3k y ly 5
ATYPICAL SITUATIONZ
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, /I__ PHOTOS TAKEN
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

^?E'A'=

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: :? DATE: ,/?i? COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN: ?r'au WATERWAY: -tv Ou.r
QUADS CATION: fa4i d,)
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) '-PARTY DOING WORK: (NAM /ADDRESS)
( )5 . Ei v ro n m.e,dml Frdtechm A-g ut P
O r d l C.
Tr 7
PHONE: (9 19)5z44- ;330 PHONE: (raj 7) ligQ- 3 7.87
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: LV?f?
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM \/ OR SEPARATE DISCRETE
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE
TREES: SPECI ES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND
1 . >?? FA C U+, FAG 1 .
FAG
F? 2.
4
i?? LUt
Fi?GU-, .
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 • red rnae FA f a 59o G
3 FAG. FACJ,4J
5.
6.
VEGETATIVE UNITS
ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR

s.
WOODY VINES:
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.).OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO BASIS: ,
U
TYPICAL: L,-('COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: k,+_Q,: S LOOS- ON HYDRIC SOILSS
BASIS: LIST: YES NO
MOTTLED: YES V'WO ATRIX C LOno o.r ?N Woe SorT I/
?? ,17,(
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO DEPT OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO -DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
AND HYDROLOGY: YES NO t,,*" BASIS:
v U
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: HON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO_teL"**" AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP 6
DETERMINED BY:

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHADJACENT YES
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES,
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

D

NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR:lml TIME: :? S_DATE: 8 2Cougy-
rl
NEAREST TOWN'- WATERWAY.--"-'
QUAD: ATION- iaii
PROPERTY OWNER: (NAME/ADDRESS ) PARTY DOING W K:(NAME/ADDRESS)
(). -5, 15 - Amiziki r rr
n
as j2w a
e
L -r n?a 4g v,9 lP_ ll PHONE: ( )?9_Q- 3737
PHONE : (? ?? ?,?30
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM L,--OR SEPARATE DISCRETE
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE
TREES: SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND

2. (' d ta-
3• /vn f, ne- 30 6h
30%
° FAG 2.
FACt+. FfK 3..
- ?t+GU f 4
F
1 f ?1 w b a
. 5 ,6 f?C.cl
.
J GS'
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 . kr row w nsuA
a5%
FA(-W- FA4'
2. joq.ve*j 8°/o
° FAG?c-. f/°1Gu8 .
3. m6 wmfLC /o
8 fAC WOODY
4. 5 weR+ 4 u m 4/°% Ff}G , FACW 1 . ( 01;
?A
:'
?
S OF DOMINANT

R
H
ES (OBL.-
C-
))666dek
d
VEGETATIVE UNITS
ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
COVER: SPECIES-S COVER-INDICATOR
q1A
VINES:
cmn Vim:
l0
?Pr al 5 °
FACU, FMC40
FAcu, FAL
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES ,/140 BASIS:
TYPICAL:V- OMPLETE BELOW)
SOIL:
SERIES: Of 5
MOTTLED: YES 0 ,..-MATRIX CO? O.R:
BASIS: mnArmb4PAt cm, ( /'P!e"
ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES -NO??
HYDRIC SOILS: YES_I,=NO_
n-- _ -10 1 -
HYDROLOGY: ?D , /?A
INUNDATED: YES NO EPTH OF WATER: /?/ tt'
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO t/-DEP TO SATURATION/WATER T
OTHER INDICATORS: f'tY,utQA k W -5-s , d,?RC
WETLAND
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO-j,::? NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES.JGNO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN:
JURISDICTION:
YES NO-jtf-"" AUTHORITY: 10 404 ?f?/404 NONE_
ABOVE HEADWATERS J ISOLATED ADJACENT I
DETERMINED BY: m, )pAm , &. _bcwi s
ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE BACK)
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
E
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOSCENT YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, +R TAKERN7
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
?7i sY? 31?
d?
wi
D/ r;li a4 M6#4l y A 4
i
L6 wer re-adc? eal ??Ofre of
?jL -7 3 m -?'?x a ,f /v 11
i
o
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
j IME:/ :a 0 DATE:'9 OUNTY: %r'
COORDINATOR: nT
NEAREST TOWNWAT RWA I" n k__ 10,m A
QUAD: CATION: -
PROPERTY OWNER (NAME/ADDR SS) PARTY DOING W K:(NAME/AD RESS)
) V I f0 2 Pa C(? (1 i 0.V i
of .A i i Q P r
, f
PHONE:() - 2330 PHONE: l )2aj - _ 7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:_&,/A
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM FOR SEPARATE DISCRETE
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE
TREES: SPECIES---S COVER--INDICATOR GROUND
2. oK I??o FAGS(-, FAG Nh2 . rI
3 (S /o FAQ 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: Sop/ FAG 6.
1 . p " t1
z. -,? 1 aS°?o FACw- SAG
? FA u -)FAU1+ WOODY VINES:
4- T(a?,?? r?? do vaDd 17, °% FAG u- , Ff#Gld1 . AIfA,,
C 2i? [L?' 3 °% FAG(,[, 2. /
5 • rra
OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)_?OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES -NOJ,::f' BASIS: ca.ii
TYPICAL: L,FCOMPLETE BELOW)
SOIL:
SERIES:
MOTTLED: ES NO ATRIX
BASIS: Nn Sod
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO___I,,,-DEPTH
SATURATED SOILS: YES_NO_,,--
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO ?BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO L,--' NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ?FO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO 4 AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT_ N /
DETERMINED BY: 4M . Vt p°__S
ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
f QLI C
_ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO_te,-
-? HYDRIC SOILS: YES NOJ?
OF WATER: IVIA
DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
VEGETATIVE UNITS
ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
COVER: SPECIES4 COVER-INDICATOR

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHADJACENT 17 YES NO _
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, #- TAKEN
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
WAJ
r 3 l S?vtau °-r
Wlq
132-

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: , TIME:,3QDATE: COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN: WATERW Y: ur
QUAD: OCATION: la- tt?? _We
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WO :(NAME/ADDRESS)
nvir -PCbfeCb.ll
ua0
d ?-losnn Al. (PL'p 1 c.
') L4 Cl ,
fi a
p SeQ?t I., Tr, ctn9t C 77 ( I VJ6- 1-f-I .aW M6 Oa 1 Sal
PHONE: (a3),5141 _ ),330 PHONE:() 3737
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: td f)
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES) _
TREES-,SPECIES ---%
t COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES4
FAG t ??,,,=- ??rr\ COVER-INDICATOR
??°/Q VPL, rlgC
.
?s.l.ati 4.3i ifol, wood Q0°.3 FAC.(A- FjaUA+-2. )? FAC, Fl4cW
C
: FAG, FACE 4
4 .
5. 5•
e. SAPLINGSHRUBP: C ?flC, r?tU16
O// (?"„/iJ:?o 1 s `/o FAGW j FA(-w 8•
J
?AC
j'
3• WOODY

Fg
-
GU
.I?N,ES: _ ?Ie J .-o o
,V
1
4.

5• .

2. ?
.moo;
,Clo??,r^ / Cw.
FAGII F^
S OF DOMINANT SPEC IES (OBL.- FAC.)5 =OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES_ AO_ BASIS: /.- l vTri r ?20 r' S
ryloav G ool, r, ; r n L?
TYPICAL:1,?OMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:_(CO`!?LETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: w6a -I,2wK k22, ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES?NO
MOTTLED : YES NO' ATRI X COLOR : pVp v--- HYDR I C SOILS: YES t--NO_
BASIS: Oh
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO DEPTH WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO DEPTHI TO/SAT RATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: iarriM?•- _U??'•'?1`a•?= ?J,' ' d/?Lr?- /ie S
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES ENO BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_j,?--NORMAL CONDITIONS: YESi--NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: Ii-- [SON-WETLAND:
14
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES N0?/" AUTHORITY: 10 404(/0/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_LZfSOLATED ADJACENT?/AWP /
DETERMINED BY:
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO

AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE _
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOS YES
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
5

?o Y? ?f 3
NO
v
fov? r cT
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: D ' TIME: :QQ DATE: / S /Y,? COUNTY: Du _r kaA?_
NEAREST TOWN : TWATERW Y : 'r i 'f o B
QUAD:Sw?Fl?tost •v k*kbt nmxkd&%QC (nI 0.
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING W RK:(NAME/ADDRESS
U, 5. e nvi r nme t pot o crtCt? G.
O iC o is ?t, a _1-n
o, rre? M naa N H ti
au? 7 11 Qa 1-f O 1 c
PHONE: (q 11) 5 -QQ PHONE: ()D- 373
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: N119
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM FOR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
2. r` c , ? ?X ?D`=!c FA,_, u. 3 - 55'c'_' jo o ?..
4. 1/rVl /0-o/ o f:RC,FACW 4
5. 5•
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS- 6.
2. FAL 8. por..rc?
3 .ice r. rP,G, F- PGW WOODY VINES: o FRC,t.L, FfiG+
---4= o / A Lu -, FA ?u -F 1??1
C
. Cu,? ni ???/? ?? ) FAQ,
5• a?'r?J`?? dd S° F" FRGw-, FP,cw 2 u pl-
% OF_DO-TNA T/ol IES (OBL.- FAC.)Sp%OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO_L,::?-BASIS: O la or Cc , o •, t5 d tf),Q-
a,*) u p la',IA 5/cOU P S
TYPICAL: MPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: n/ ?,e 5+-ore sQ•?d Ir ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO
MOTTLED: YES L,-,NO MATRIX COLOR: V-O(' HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO_?_?-
BASIS: y wt- nn ?M?/,'G SOt S I'S'r rv.)' P/r 01,4
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO DEPTH OF WATER: dz&
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO t_?DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO ?BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NOJG NORMAL CONDITIONS: YESL/NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: N'ON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO__L,,f? AUTHORITY: 10 404 _ 10/404_ NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP /
DETERMINED BY: ,-. 1
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION: TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ADJACENT _
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO_
ATTACH DRAWING W-/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
56 1
s- 3
o
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
/ OUNTY:
COORDINATOR: gAllwl'f TIME: Z :?4 DATE: I/
4, Z.C
NEARES T , /? WAT R AY:
QUAD: OCATION: la
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/AJDDR SS) PARTY DOING WORK-(N ME/
//.? d it 14 t
,-t o
?. Ofilfo? /. ?ilNnirQi?n T .P y?? l f ?I11LL
PHONE:( ) - O / PHONE:( M,Rfo -(l
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: _ILA
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM L,,- 'OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER- -INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1 . I-P,-+ ?' f?C
. 'l ?flG 1 . So? r? 5 h ?e FAC w + o?
.
2. a„5 - FAG, f AeW 2_ J
-3 -- - 01` -f 0 - 3
c??L ?,,,
s FAC.u+, FRS
. s.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
FA L
r ; ?.J lC 7.
2. c 8.
3• FA C , `F CV)W00DY VINES: ) FRC
FAC(A
4. Vi -
f}G
5. 2. C b ?l r
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OB L.- FAC.)?° THER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES u_-NO BASIS:
TYPICAL: v(COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: V?Ia gVjre o ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES No .??C2 MOTTLED: YES 0 MATRIX COLOR: OYGr > HYDgjC SOILS: YES L-
BASIS: R ttOG??1C ;E C?cSt?r_r T, s !220: li r1A
HYDROLOGY: f
INUNDATED: YES NOEL DEPTH OF WATER: 1 A
SATURATED SOILS: YES L-we DEPTH TO SATURATION/Wp7ER TABLE I
OTHER INDICATORS: 1 n t"c ?? -U ?'i'.1 rQ,,,r a-; c
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES_(,?NO BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO l/ NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES t--NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: I/- flON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO ? AU HORITY: 10 404 J 10 404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED 'ADJACENTY NWP
DETERMINED BY: F. r--,
.0,1
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOS
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES,
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
?. f Pad
YES NO
IOU,
in Wive
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: a 40 DATE: t / S-/ BOUNTY: 1 )ufh?,?l?---
NEAREST TOWN- FSe, WATERW Y:
QUAD ,ffjw stDurk OOCATION: _L^?/Aa*?d. L_ PT a
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARJY DOING WO ,:(NAME/A DRESS)
v. ro yj M92 " . o en c j 1.f }',? r . r/ Ir'
i u
G i n 15 Cr `. % 1 i
PHONE: (q I I ) 5q /,-j PHONE: (??-320- 7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM FOR SEPARATE DISCRETE
VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TR EES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-S COVER-INDICATOR
1. rc_-c" c?, 5-00L FAC,U-, FACa+ I. A
1
2 feo F?:?'o 0`!o I
_-___.,2• Iv /7 1
FAG
. F
5 . FA C, FAGW 4*
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
Coy.? C FAGU t 6.
FAGu-,
?' C: 7

3•

4. J
Lp Sc

? -' WOODY VINES:

FA C.. SAC w 1. ,.

.. ,. f. ,, rAG?C , Ff?L
5. f } - , - D FAGU -, FAGUt
I?FELTESC. )?3%OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO_L,?_-BASIS:
TYPICAL: L--fCOMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES:,?
t'?n k5?or^ Fc r1Q_ Sct,v.d(A ?oayv?_- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES 190 ?--
MOTTLED: YES NO__LffMATRIX COLOR: -.- HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO I
BASIS: X/„ Dr."-_ <., /c l .. _/- . _ --r.
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NOiDEPTH OF WATER: ???
SATURATED SOILS: YES_N0 L-DEPTH TO SAT RATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_j,,_?NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES C-NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: N'ON-WETLAND: r?--
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO Ll AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 NONE_L::?-
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED A JACENT` NWP
DETERMINED BY: , , C•? n V' F?<
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHADJACENT
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, #
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

? os - 1

? YES NO
Attachment F
Wetland/Pond Construction Plan
Attachment G
Stormwater Management Plans:
Sumbittal and Approval Letters
J?"to sr?rF
A W UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f Research Triangle Park. NC 2771 t
Fh'?( M10?t'G,
September 16, 1996 ,
Mr. John L. Holley, Jr., P.E., CPESC
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources OFFICE OADMINISTRATION
Raleigh Regional Office AND RESOURCES
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 MANAGEMENT
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Holley:
Please find enclosed for your review and approval EPA's application for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Permit for the new Environmental Protection Agency campus in Research Triangle Park This project will
provide for consolidation of people and programs from several leased facilities in the RTP area and will
require infrastructure development beginning Fall 1996 to Spring 1997 on federal property opposite the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NMHS) between TW Alexander Drive and Hopson
Road in Durham County. Construction should be complete by Spring 2001, with full occupancy by 2002.
Included with this submission for your review are the following documents:
1) NC DEHNR Financial Responsibility/Ownership Form and Plan Checklist (3 pages)
2) Applicable Drawings List (1 page)
3) Civil Calculations (120 pages; 2 sets)
4) Applicable Specifications (2 sets)
01560 Environmental Protection 01690 Waste Materials Mgmt & Recycling
02110 Site Clearing 02112 Tree Protection and Trimming
02200 Earthwork 02205 Soil Materials
02207 Aggregate Materials 02221 Sediment Control
02223 Backfilling 02224 Trenching
02275 Riprap 02607 Manholes and Covers
02711 Foundation Drainage 02722 Site Storm Sewerage
02925 Topsoil 02931 Lawns (Hydroseed)
02937 Wildflower Seeding 02960 Bioretention Area Plantings
5) Plan Review Processing Fee (Treasury Check for 51,470.00)
6) Applicable Drawings (2 sets)
During September or October, we are prepared to meet with you and any appropriate Division of Land
Resources staff to discuss any concerns with these documents. Please contact me at 541-3022 with any
questions that may arise during your review and to schedule a mutually convenient time for that meeting.
Sincerely,
Chris Long
Project Manager

enclosures
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/OWNERSHIP FORM
SEDIMENTATION POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
No person may initiate any land-disturbing activity on one or more contiguous acres as covered by the Act
before this form and an acceptable erosion and sedimentation control plan have been completed and approved
by the Land Quality Section, N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. (Please type
or print and, if question is not applicable, place N/A in the blank.)
Part A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1. Project Name Research & Administration Facility
2. Location of land-disturbing activity: County_ Durham , City
or Township Research Triangle Park and Highway/ Street S.R. - 2028 Alexander Drive
1996-1997
3. Approximate date land-disturbing activity will be commenced:
4. Purpose of development (residential, commercial. industrial, etc.) : Infrastructure for future
racaarrrh facility
5. Approximate acreage of land to be disturbed or uncovered : 74 Acres
6. Has an erosion and sedimentation control plan been filed ?Yes X No
7. Person to contact should sediment control issues arise during land-disturbing activity.
Name Chris Long, EPA Project Managerl-elephone 541-0249
8. Landowner (s) of Record ( Use blank page to list additional owners.):
U.S. Government' EPA Name (s)
Mail Drop-30 79 T W Alexander Drive
Current Mailing Address Current Street Address
RTP NC 27711
City
State Zip
RTP NC 27709
City State Zip
9. Recorded in Deed Book No. Page No.
Part B.
1. Person (s) or firms (s) who are financially responsible forthis land-disturbing activity (Use the blank page to list
additional persons or firms):
_U_S EPA
Name of Person (s)or Finn (s)
_Mail Drop 30
Mailing Address
RTP NC 27711
City State Zip
Telephone [phone]
United States Environmental Protection Ager
-7gT w Alexander Drive
Street Address
RTP N- 92709
City State Zip
Telephone [phone]
2. (a) If the Financially Responsible Par;y is a Corporation give name and street address of the Registered
Agent.
Name
A
Mailing Address
Street Address
City State Zip City State Zip
Telephone Telephone
(b) If the Financially Responsible Party is a Partnership give the name and street address of each General
Partner ( Use blank page to list additional partners.):
N/A
Name
Mailing Address Street Address
City State Zip City State Zip
Telephone Telephone
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and was provided by me
der oath. (This form must be signed by the financially responsible person ff an individual or his attorney-in-
fad or ff not an individual by an officer, director, partner, or registered agent with authority to execute instru-
ments for the finanacially responsible person ). I agree to provide corrected information should there be any
change in the information provided herein.
Chris Long EPA Project Manager
Type or print name Title or Authority
Signature Date
a Notary Public of the County of
State of North Carolina, hereby certify that
appeared personally before me this day and being duly sworn acknowledged that the above form was exe-
cuted by him.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this day of .19
Seal Notary
My commission expires

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
LAND DUALITY SECTION
EROSION AND SEDiNE14TATION COM PLAN CHECKLIST
The following itaMa should be incorporated with respect to specific
site conditions, ge an erosion and sedimentation control plan:
LOCATION !NOMINATION
project location
? bads, streets
? Hprtn arrow
r kale
? Adjonnnq tales, streams or other major drainage ways
EROSION CONTROL MEA$INtV
? Lgbnd
Location of taiwrerI and paramount messpm
? Cmstructiam drawings and douils for temporary and permanent
measures
Design calculation fair sedimmit baslma and other mwsures
.i Maintirw4m powirmamu during coatsuctl•
Person responsible for mintana4ce during construction
Maintenance regutrm u and responsible persen(S) of persrneNnt
Measures
GENERAL SiT. FEATIIIIES
Mor" arrow
? Scale
Property line
Legend
e! Existing contours
?ro/asad contown
! Lint and acreage of disturbed nee
? Pla.nee misting buildings location and elevations
? ?laard and misting roads location and elevations
a! Lot w4/or building numbers
? Land me of surrounding areas
? Sock intcrgs
? Sept or savings
V wetlama limits
`? Easmmnu
Streams. Isles. ponds. drainage ways. dams
v Sorrow myor waste areas (Note - whew tM person financially
for the overall project Is not the person financially responsible
for off-site borrow areas not regulated by the provisions of the
Mining Act of 1971 and off-sib waste areas other Nan Imd fills
regulated by the Department of Hun Resources. such areas should
be consider" Separate land disturbing activities subject to the
S"tam ation Pollution Control Act of 1971. Off-site borrow
arms are subject to the rMirmeents of the Mining Act of 1971).
? Stockpiled toosoil or subsoil location
v Strait profiles
SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES
? Existing and Planned drainage patterns (include off-site areas that
drain through project)
? Site of Areas (Acreage)
? Size and location of culverts and Sewers
? Soils InfOrmatloe (type, special characteristics)
Design calculations and construction details for culverts and
store sawn
Design calculations. cress sections and method of stabilization of
misting and plaard chanNrls (include temporary linings)
011194 calculations and construction details of neergy dissipaters
below culverts and stars sower outlets (for rip-rep aprons,
include stand sites (diamiten) and wren dimension)
? Soil Informetiea below culvert and storm saver outlets
_ Desigm calculation and construction details to control groundwater.
I.e. asps, high sour table, etc.
VEGETATIVE STNILiZATiON
? Areas and acre"t to W +egatativ*ly Stabilized
planned vegetation, with details of plants. seed. awl
forth Iztf
? Specification for permanent and tamoorary vegetation
ko-- Math" Of toil preparation
NOTE: Should include ?rovition for ground Cover On exposed slopes
within 10 rafting says following completion of arty phase of
grading, permaernt groeeW cover for all disturb" areas within
30 meriting dogs or 120 calendar days (whichavef is Shorter)
following completion of construction or devolopment.
OTHER INFORMATION
Narrative (as r.*~)
? Cmsleted Financial Sespons i bi l l ty/Ownennip Fore ( to be signed
by person financially responsible for project)
? aid specification 'egarding erosion control
_ Construction sequence related to sedimentation and erosion tong,
(Include Inulla on of critical measures prior to initiation
of the land-disturbing activity and removal of Measurts after
areas they sane have been permanently stabilized.
7.53
EROSION CONTROL
Applicable Drawings (3 Sets)
Sheet SM 2A.1-1 Key Plan
Sheet SM 2A.2-1 Erosion Control Northern Area -
Sheet SM 2A.2-2 Erosion Control Southern Area
Sheet SM 2A.2-3 Erosion Control - Drainage Details
Sheet SM 2A-2-4 Storm Drainage Details
Sheet SM 2A-2-5 Drainage and Erosion Details
Sheet SM 2A.2-6 Storm Drainage Details
Sheet SM 2A.2-7 Drainage and Erosion Details
Sheet EPA 2.1-1 Location Map and Legend
Sheet EPA 2.2-1.1A
2.2-1.1B Erosion Control Plan
Erosion Control Plan
Sheet EPA 2.2-1.2 Erosion Control Plan
Sheet EPA 2.2-1.3 Erosion Control Plan
Sheet EPA 2.4-6 Erosion Control Details
Sheet EPA 2.4-7 Erosion Control Details
Sheet EPA 2.4-8 Water Quality Pond No. 1
Sheet EPA 2.4-9 Water Quality Pond No. 1
Sheet CCC 2.2-1 Erosion Control - Site Layout Plan
Sheet CCC 2.4-2 Erosion Control Details
Sheet CUP 2.1-1 Site Plan
?? ;yam,: } •?

O
03
03
oil P3? gym`
O COP 7C?1AVl N O -
O ?TS-1 AJ Oo
O O 'OesS? VI
O ?r?.?? *. .a
O 1"f/lT W N
O n-11 'O A .p
r lr*i m 2
03 NNGf2
:. -• vv .?
? -+m 3v •
-+C Om I r
m 3
z r-w¢ Y'
C • CC=
>
Ln M Z
O y
N r• m s
133 - "V N ON
CP > > 0.
0:3 In n to
- -1 W
m -c N
9 W
O %
r ? O N
O CD
3 W
VI O
? ? O 1
1 O
A
N W
00 N O
00
0 M 00
n?AJ v ?
* V
> >F D` V Pr
,o r o v,
j * N p.
LT ?, c c 00
30 0 0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
e??
[DEHN
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
October 15, 1996
U. S. EPA
Mail Drop 30
RTP, NC 27711
ATTN: Chris Long
RE: Letter of Approval
Project Name: EPA Facility
Location: Durham County
Submitted by: U.S. EPA
Date Received: 9-16-96
Date Processing Initiated: 9-16-96
Watershed: Cape Fear #1103-06-05
New Submittal (X) Revised ()
Dear Mr. Long:
This office has reviewed the subject Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
We find the plan to be acceptable and hereby issue this letter of approval. If any
modifications, performance reservations, or recommendations are applicable, a list is
enclosed and is incorporated as a part of this letter of approval. If any modifications
are not incorporated into the plan and implemented in the field, the site will be in
violation of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General
Statute, hereinafter NCGS, 113A-61.1). In addition, it should be noted that this plan
approval shall expire three (3) years following the date of approval in accordance with
Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 48.0029, if no land-disturbing
activity has been undertaken.
The land-disturbing activity described in the plan for this site may be subject to
the approval of other Local, State or Federal agencies. This could include the
Division of Water Quality under stormwater or other water quality regulations, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Article 404 jurisdiction, county, city or town
agencies under other local ordinances, or other approvals that may be required. The
approval issued in this letter cannot supersede any other required permit or approval.
Since this project will disturb five or more acres, one such required approval
relates to the stormwater that will discharge from your project. This runoff is
permitted pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
administered in North Carolina by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Attached is
the General Stormwater NPDES Permit, NCG010000, as revised July 1, 1995,
covering your activity. You are responsible for complying with the General Permit
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, N FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voce 919-571-4700 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. Long
October 15, 1996
page 2
requirements and are subject to enforcement by DWO for any violations of the
General Permit.
Please be advised that Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code, 48
.0018(a) requires that a copy of the approved plan be on file at the job site. Also,
please consider this letter as notice in accordance with the requirements of NCGS
113A-61.1 concerning our right to perform periodic inspections to ensure compliance
with the approved plan.
North Carolina's sedimentation pollution control program is performance
oriented, requiring protection of the natural resources and adjoining properties. If at
any time during this project it is determined that the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (NCGS 113A-51 through 66), this office may require revisions in
the plan and its implementation to ensure compliance with the Act.
Please note that this approval is based in part on the accuracy of the
information provided concerning financial responsibility. You are requested to file an
amended Financial Responsibility Form if any changes become necessary. In
addition, it would be helpful if you would notify this office of the proposed starting
date for the activity at the subject site.
Our department is currently conducting a survey of permit customers. A self-
addressed, postage paid form is included with this approval letter. Please take a few
moments and complete the form; your feedback is important to us. Please note that
the completed form should be folded along the dashed lines, sealed with a piece of
tape, and returned to this department's Environmental Permit Information Center for
processing.
Your cooperation is appreciated and we look forward to working with you on
this project. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Tim Hollan
Assistant Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: Judy Garrett
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 N15VA
1 1?ql
?EHNR
July 1, 1995
Construction Activities Disturbing 5 or More Acres
Stormwater Discharge Permits Required
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permits be obtained for discharges of stormwater runoff from
construction activities disturbing five or more acres. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management administers the NPDES permit program in North Carolina
under delegation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since this project
disturbs five or more acres, it Is covered by the attached General
Stormwater NPDES Permit, NCG010000, as revised July 1, 1995. You are
responsible for complying with the General Permit requirements and are
subject to enforcement by the Division of Environmental Management for
any violations of the General Permit. The filing of Notice of Intents for permit
coverage and filing fees are no longer required for these projects. Should you have
questions concerning these requirements you may contact the Regional Office Water
Quality Staff of the Division of Environmental Management in your area. The Regional
Water Quality Supervisors are as follows:
Regional Office Water Quality SuneNisor Telephone Number
Asheville Forrest Westall 704/251-6208
Fayetteville Michael Wicker 910/486-1541
Mooresville Rex Gleason 704/663-1699
Raleigh Judy Garrett 919/571-4700
Washington Roger Thorpe 919/946-6481
Wilmington Dave Adkins 910/395-3900
Winston-Salem Steve Mauney 910/771-4600
attachment - NCGO10000
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Acton Employer So*/* recycled/ 10% post-consumer pa::er

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GENERAL PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended,
All owners or operators of stormwater point source discharges associated with construction
activities including clearing, grading and excavation activities resulting in the disturbance of land
arc hereby authorized to discharge stormwater to the surface waters of North Carolina or to a
separate storm sewer system conveying stormwater to the surface waters.
The General Permit shall become effective on July 1, 1995.
The General Permit shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2000.
Signed this day June 30, 1995. 1
A. Preston Ifoward, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Manag
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
PERMITTED ACTIVr=
Until this permit expires or is modified or revoked, the permittee is authorized to discharge
stormwater which has been adequately treated and managed in accordance with an approved
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land
Quality Section, or a delegated local program under the provisions and requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 113A • 54.1 to the surface waters of North Carolina or to a separate storm
sewer system. All discharges shall be in accordance with the attached schedules as follows:
Part I: Monitoring, Controls, and Limitations for Permitted Discharges
Part 11: Standard Conditions for NPDES Stormwater General Permits
Any other point source discharge to surface waters of the state is prohibited unless covered by
another permit, authorization or approval.
This permit does not relieve the permittee from responsibility for compliance with any other
applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, standard, ordinance, order, judgment, or decree.
General Permit Coverage
Coverage under this General Permit shall become effective upon issuance of an approval for the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan by the Land Quality Section of the Division of Land
Resources or delegated local program. Prior to the commencement of construction and land
disturbing activities approval of the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be obtained.
Any owner or operator not wishing to be covered or limited by this General Permit may make
application for an individual NPDES permit in accordance with NPDES procedures in 15A NCAC
2H .0100, stating the reasons supporting the request. Any application for an individual permit
should be made at least 180 daystmor to the time the permit is needed .
This General Permit does not cover activities or discharges covered by an individual NPDES
permit until the individual permit has expired or has been rescinded. Any person conducting an
activity covered by an individual permit but which could be covered by this General Permit may
request that the individual permit be rescinded and coverage under this General Permit be provided.
Page 2 of 15 Pages
rermit No. 1Nl.UU1UU()()
PART I
MONITORING, CONTROLS, AND LIMITATIONS FOR PERMITTED
DISCHARGES
SECTION A FINAL i.IMI'fATIONS AND CONTRO -FOR STORMWA R DISCHAR[;Fc
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity. Such
discharges shall be controlled, limited and monitored as speed below.
L Prior to the commencement of construction, the permittee shall submit for approval a
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan (plan) to the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section, (or an
approved local program) pursuant to the requirements of NC G.S. 113A-54.1 and in
conformity with rules adopted by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Commission.
2. The Permittee shall implement the plan, which has been approved by the approval
authority. The approved plan is considered a requirement or condition of this general
permit. Deviation from the approved plan, or approved amendment to the plan, shall
constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this general permit except that deviation
from the approved plan will be allowed to correct an emergency situation where sediments
are being discharged off the site, even though the approved plan is in effect. Such a
deviation from the approved plan shall be noted on the approved plan maintained at the job
site. A signed copy of the approved plan shall be maintained on the site at all times.
3. Equipment utilized during the construction activity on a site must be operated and
maintained in such a manner as to prevent the potential or actual pollution of the surface or
ground waters of the state. Fuels, lubricants, coolants, and hydraulic fluids, or any other
petroleum products, shall not be discharged onto the ground or into surface waters. Spent
fluids shall be disposed of in a manner so as not to enter the waters, surface or ground, of
the state and in accordance with applicable state and federal disposal regulations. Any
spilled fluids shall be cleaned up to the extent practicable and disposed of in a manner so as
not to allow their entry into the waters, surface or ground, of the state.
4. Herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer usage during the construction activity shall be restricted
to those materials approved by EPA and shall be in accordance with label restrictions.
5. All wastes composed of building materials shall be disposed of in accordance with North
Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 130A, Article 9 - Solid Waste Management, and rules
governing the disposal of solid waste (North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A
NCAC 13B).
Page 3 of 15 Pages
rcrmit ?vo. r%.vv1W(XJ
SECTION B• MEN' ` UM MOMOR_iNG AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum monitoring and reporting requirements are as follows unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
1. All sedimentation and erosion control facilities shall be inspected by or under the direction
of the permittee at least once every seven calendar days and within 24 hours after any storm
event of greater that 0.5 inches of rain per 24 hour period.
2. Stormwater runoff discharges shall be inspected by observation for stormwater discharge
characteristics as defined below at the above frequency to evaluate the effectiveness of the
pollution control facilities or practices. If any visible off-site sedimentation is leaving the
site, corrective action shall be taken to reduce the discharge of sediments.
tormwater Discharge
Characteris c Monitoring
JXMI Monitoring
lzad=2
Color SDO
Odor SDO
Clarity SDO
Floating Solids SDO
Suspended Solids SDO
Foam SDO
Oil Sheen SDO
Other obvious indicators
of stormwater pollution SDO
Footnotes:
1 Monitoring Type: The monitoring requires a qualitative observation of each stormwater
outfall. No analytical testing or sampling is required.
2 Sample Location: Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO)
3. The operator shall keep a record of inspections. Visible sedimentation found off the site
shall be recorded with a brief explanation as to the measures taken to prevent future releases
as well as any measures taken to clean up the sediment that has left the site. This record
shall be made available to DEM or authorized agent upon request.
SECTION C• SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permitter shall comply with Final Limitations and Controls specified for stormwater
discharges by the effective date of the permit unless specified below.
2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
permitted stormwater controls at optimum efficiency.
Page 4 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES STORMWATER GENERAL PERMITS
1. Acct or "the Act" or CWA
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended,
33 USC 1251, et. seq.
2. Rest Management Practicec (BMPc)
Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to control
plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
3. DEM or Division
The Division of Environmental Management, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.
4. Directo
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management, the permit issuing authority.
5. E9C
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
6. Landfill
A disposal facility or part of a disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land and
which is not a land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, an injection well, a
hazardous waste long-term storage facility or a surface storage facility.
7. Overburden
Any material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a mineral deposit,
excluding topsoil or similar naturally-occurring surface materials that are not disturbed by
mining operations.
8. Permittee
The person who signed as the financially responsible party on the Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan.
Page 5 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGOlOOOO
9. Point Source Discharge
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but specifically not limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
or concentrated animal feeding operation from which pollutants are or may be discharged to
waters of the state.
10. Representative Storm Event
A storm event that measures greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall and that is preceded by at
least 72 hours during which no storm event measuring greater than 0.1 inches has
occurred. A single storm event may contain intervals of up to 10 consecutive hours of no
precipitation. For example, if it rains for 2 hours without producing any collectable
discharge, and then stops, a sample may be collected if a rain producing a discharge begins
again with the next 10 hours.
1. Duly to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this general permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for
enforcement action: for certificate of coverage termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification: or denial of a certificate of coverage renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the
regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is subject to
a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Any person who
negligently violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to
$25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000
to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Also,
any person who violates a permit condition may be assessed an administrative penalty not
to exceed S 10,000 per violation with the maximum amount not to exceed $125,000. [Ref:
Section 309 of the Federal Act 33 USC 1319 and 40 CFR 122.41(a).]
C. Under state law, a daily civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per
violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance with
the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes
143-215.6A]
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating
section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed $10,000 per violation,
with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed $25,000.
Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during
Page 6 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCG010000
which the violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to
exceed $125,000.
2. Duty to 1tiate
The pennittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this general permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment
3. Civil and Criminal .iah'lity
Except as provided in general permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II, C.3.), nothing in
this general permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3,143-215.6A, 143-
215.6B, 143-215.6C or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the
permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the
responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and H zardn Lc Substance .'ability
Nothing in this general permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the pennittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the
Federal Act, 33 USC 1321. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential
damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Pro2cM igh
The issuance of this general permit does not convey any property rights in either real or
personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private
property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local
laws or regulations.
6. $tYGtapj(jpt
The provisions of this general permit are severable, and if any provision of this general
permit, or the application of any provision of this general permit to any circumstances, is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of
this general permit, shall not be affected thereby.
7. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information which
the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating the certificate of coverage issued pursuant to this general permit or
to determine compliance with this general permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the
Director upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this general permit.
8. Continuation of he Expired General Permit
An expired general permit continues in force and effect until the general permit is reissued
or a new general permit is issued. Only those facilities authorized to discharge under the
expiring general permit are covered by the continued general permit
Page 7 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
9. General Permit Te ina *
After public notice and opportunity for a hearing, the general permit may be terminated for
cause. The filing of a request for a general permit modification, revocation and reissuance,
or termination does not stay any general permit condition. The certificate of coverage shall
expire when the general permit is terminated.
10. When an Individual Permit maybe ReQui_red
The Director may require any owner/operator authorized to discharge under a certificate of
coverage issued pursuant to this general permit to apply for and obtain an individual permit
or an alterative general permit. Any interested person may petition the Director to take
action under this paragraph. Cases where an individual permit may be required include,
but are not limited to, the following:
a. The discharger is a significant contributor of pollutants;
b. Conditions at the permitted site change, altering the constituents and/or
characteristics of the discharge such that the discharge no longer qualifies for a
General Permit;
C. The discharge violates the terns or conditions of this general permit;
d. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated technology or practices
for the control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the point source;
Effluent limitations are promulgated for the point sources covered by this general
permit;
f. A water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to such point
sources is approved after the issuance of this general permit
g. The Director determines at his own discretion that an individual permit is required.
11. When an Individual Permit may be Requested
Any permittee operating under this general permit may request to be excluded from the
coverage of this general permit by applying for an individual permit. When an individual
permit is issued to an owner/operator the applicability of this general permit is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the individual permit.
12. Signatory ?quirements
a. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director shall be signed and
certified as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this
Section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer
or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or
any other person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the
corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales
or expenditures exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority

Page 8 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected official.
b. All reports required by the general permit and other information requested by the Director
shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that
person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if.
0) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility
for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.);
and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Director.
C. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
following certification:
"I certify. under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
13. General_ Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuar_ce, or Termination
The issuance of this general permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the general permit, revoking and reissuing the general permit, or terminating the
general permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative
Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
Page 9 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO1OOOO
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this general permit Proper operation
and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and, appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the general permit
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defence
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this general permit
3. B Icing of Stormwater Control Facifitiec
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass" means the known diversion of stormwater from any portion of a
stormwater control facility including the collection system, which is not a designed
or established or operating mode for the facility.
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage
to the control facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and
permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in
the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss
caused by delays in production.
b. Bypass Not Exceeding Limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to
be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.
These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of this section.
C. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass;
including an evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice within 24 hours of an
unanticipated bypass as required in Part II, E. 5. of this general permit. (24-hour
notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement action against a permittee for
bypass, unless:
Page 10 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGoloooo
(1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property
damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
control facilities, retention of stormwater or maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtime or dry weather. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
backup controls should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph c. of this section.
The Directormay approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the
Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Paragraph d. of this
section.
4. Upsetsa. Definition

"Upset " means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of facto s
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance
to the extent caused by operational error. improperly designed treatment or control
facilities, inadequate treatment or control facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
b. Effect of an Upset.
An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with
technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph c. of this
condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final
administrative action subject to judicial review.
C. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II, E. 5. (b) (B) of
this general permit.
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part IL A. 2.
of this general permit.
d. Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurnence of an upset
has the burden of proof.
Page 11 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the
volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Samples shall be taken on a day and time
that is characteristic of the discharge. All samples shall be taken before the discharge joins
or is diluted by any other waste stream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to and approval of the Director.
2. $eImrting
Duplicate signed copies of all reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following
address:
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
3. Flow Measurement%
Where required, appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability
of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations
published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq., the Water and Air Quality Reporting
Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(8), 33 USC 1314, of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this general permit, all test procedures
must produce minimum detection and reporting levels that are below the general permit
discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported down to the minimum
detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined
capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below general permit
discharge requirements, then the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection
and reporting level) approved method must be used.
5. Penalties for Tampci
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
general permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more that $20,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
Page 12 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGOlOOOO
6. Records Retention
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration
and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this general permit, for a period of at
least 5 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time.
7. Recordiny Results
For each measurement, sample, inspection or maintenance activity performed or taken
pursuant to the requirements of this general permit, the permittee shall record the following
information:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling, measurements, inspection or
maintenance activity;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, inspection or
maintenance activity;
C. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Ent y
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Director), or in the case of a facility
which discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system, an authorized
representative of a municipal operator or the separate storm sewer system receiving the
discharge, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by
law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located
or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this general
permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this general permit;
C. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this general
permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring general permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
Page 13 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO1OO00
1. Planned Channg
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 (b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are
subject neither to effluent limitations in the general permit, nor to notification
requirements under 40 CFR Part 122.42 (a) (1).
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with the general permit
requirements.
3. Transfe
The certificate of coverage issued pursuant to this general permit is not transferable to any
person except after notice to and approval by the Director. The Director may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the certificate of coverage to change the name
and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act
4. Monitoring ring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in Part I of this general permit
5. Twenty-four Hoar Rego '
a. The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within S days of the time the
permitter becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its causes; the
period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not
been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
b. The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the general
permit.
(2) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the general permit.
Page 14 of 15 Pages
Permit No. NCGO10000
(3) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by
the Director in the general permit to be reported within 24 hours.
C. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports under
paragraph b. above of this condition if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
6. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Pan II. E. 4.
and 5. of this general permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall
contain the information listed in Part II. E. 5. of this general permit.
7. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a notice of
intent to be covered under this general permit or in any report to the Director, it shall
promptly submit such facts or information.
8. Availability of Rem
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(x)(2) or Section 308
of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be
available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Environmental Management.
As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential.. Knowingly
making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.68 or in Section 309 of the Federal Act
9. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement.
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be
maintained under this general permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance
or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000
per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
SECTION F: LIMITATIONS REOPENER
This general permit shall be modified or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any
applicable effluent guideline or water quality standard issued or approved under Sections 302(b)
(2) (c), and (d), 304(b) (2) and 307(x) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent guideline or water
quality standard so issued or approved:
a. contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent
limitation in the general permit; or
b. controls any pollutant not limited in the general permit.
The general permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other
requirements in the Act then applicable.
Page 15 of 15 Pages
`v o ?
•d c tn
04
*Own
so"
O L .C •p a?
O O
O ? c
«+ C y > W
OWN
*no Oome 00-1
C u .C
PEN
O V ?
O •„C4 'C
COQ ? '? Z E"'y ? C? a+
V s.. 'd C H
C ,? p C ?: O .C x c
p .w+ N ? V ... ... a
O o
•p O R e O u
4) w :3
e C 4w O 4"
Z
o ? y?aMa°? ?z
?.+ CQ V ? 000
a
a`. w
v .o" d' is a" a G.
Z 00--a
V O •p ? 4: 0 CyC
r_ V Q 0 G? V v ?; o
0-0
w? '.' cy y r"i O ca C ? 4
R x y V ,??.+ O N Q
qw
Como
C .y C 0
C > p L
Attachment H
Previous 401 Certification
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ?6M
Health and Natural Resources A74 • •
-? I
Division of Water Quality
J Governor 11111111111111111k 1111111111111111L
Flo b we s, Sec reta ry
Jo on na ath th an B. . 1- ID F= N I?
A. Preston HOward,Jr., P.E.,Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Chris Long, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OARM Mail Drop 30
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Mr. Long:
October 30, 1996
Durham County
DWQ Project # 960742
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.1002 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing an institutional building at U.S. EPA Research and Administration Campus in RTP, as you
described in your application dated 5 September 1996 and the EA/FONSI dated 8 June 1995. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Numbers 2732 and 2671. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and 26
when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
014-1
P.E.
960742.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/100% post consumer paper

CC __JG_'.,__=c _v ]T=cYW E??=M-' huL25-(
ECL: 4iE'_*'L•IAMIDS )
This _? w-:
- 4-01, 21j-blic ews a ---d 95-2-117 of.
c E
Un! `cC ci:C s' -: =CC t3 C?°_ ?`%GrD= Cc=C!?^? V? S an C= V_vi -
' OC?le-^_?_? i'?? =acece __ ecula, cas _-, ? 5A NCAC 2=, Izect_ca .QSOi?
aiaC 15A NC_ C' 215 . J L?. erC .0201 =; cr the d'sc}'a ae 0= ? T IIIe.t_-
=a? L_.,/ Zatric- W-- =3 c»C c.=7cce =t wetland h c.=
c-.. e=5 wr._c
c'CVE Z ±E hE=CW=L_°=: C= tC WEt1 C a e=s that a_=- cZOt c _L'c-t Q_
t .e sa ece t. uc_ sv5tSm t0 Zte=st.=te W?LE?s O? navi ca ? E
Wat=t $ Of L?E jTI1=. 5`.c-=s (4 . e . , ! SO ? ct_°" • 4Jet? c?GS } cs
cescri be. _ . 3 C ..Qp?e^_?ix A (H y (ZE
C- _
} =--- Corps o=- E^Ci -
ne,_s• rET%.Ij crs ?_.` , Fat; OnFJ_C for--_-Lt NO. ZC) T e CctEc,:r_v
cf act-iv-4t--'=-s s:-!s__ .duce a :'.v- _? ? ?ct_i v=tom _I these heed a7_r:
GEC 15C]? c?.=C Wctj cnC ?C Wc:cr c.c?s Fi^°_=Z L:?E cC?V? t_v resl-1
t=
lil t^E Os.= or ,.c'?^5=mot:a: DtCC1=1Cc_1Cn G_ riot Mc--a thin _Q ac--as
O water S C= the U-^ : -e= SI.ct_s, i rCludIng Fie t1 e_-C_ . Tti i s
C ?? =1Gc?CP- i _==as Yfc_et QL'=11:J ?.'E_t1=? C=t_C: htL??E= L? !
15s?:_C Oil' NCveaihe= lCC! . .
T`lE 5t.=r •df ?'_'_C.: Cc.C1 Lap- ce-ti _i sc tar--
W41, ?c^r'---
C=C==C*'f C= cCC"!-- ZCL 'v_C==- = 3C-
E:-,C 307 0= ??e =".?- -='•IS CL-ZQD a::C 93-2-7 -- = ' -
_-
accc.iC:?''!GE Sc=
Ccnc_t_cns aL C?_c_:cat_c,
One-third C_ E:' c.=. 0= s?C.^. wcDe=c, i nC_` "f ric
rc'_'`_=cs c ^. CJP_CLI.=cnC2 .=C::: t =°_ :_ I? s_CC1 O_ _
,Z . P=CLOSE= C. s.IJr SC_' .? c. PZCC? ..C=t_0 = C= E- a. tO
1 °_5. t^c C =-C _: C' C= c cC=? 0= S-Ich wE:°_r.s,
Fietl_i1C.S c__s :pct rc??'_r2 4r__?.`cn
T,i tT_ei On C_ _»V_=CLI1e't=? j*?=1cSc ?iE:IC.
.DroPCSe= i... 0= G_E=L2= t:' an One acre) it SAr, trout,
RQ?(, aRW, ';j5-= F=c WS-77 way==sr=_s re=u'rzs colic
nCt1Ce s_;:C _..C_v? dual gQ C2= `__' Cat1C;. T-C:Ti `.^6
s1Cn_ Or Win'+_.Cr'ilE:lt=? ?':cilcCeT1E:7?.;
"• That and e=cs-"cn CorC_C! D=cCC1CCs
c-°_ LIL1? =_e_ C: CL'c'lCriC 'v_C1a_=Ci!s C_ ---hs Z=1=7
tL'?'n=C=t?J wa.=_= G--,a sD2:nC_=C ( 5Q F.TUs = a
r_vers not s:came= as trcLt w«_=s by DEM; 25 h:'Us i Z
all Sc1.tY+ctc= cl=sses, and all !Ekes a.-IC rHS?21=vOi
jtTtJe i n t:C_C Wct°rc? '
5 . That add. It_CnEI s_te-s::e_1=? C CCP.(t ions may j'--e addec' to
projects w. _? C_ =t2r =hail one-t}:? =C of an ac- -a imcaC
F+hic:1 are C=JCCSc: u.^_der this Certi ficat_on in orae_ =C
ensure comp:i arca w_th all applicable wa'er quality and
effluent st= :dares;
6. Measures 5*,':a11 be taken to prevent. live cr fresh
conc=ate fr_... ceasing into -contact with eaters c--If the
st_L-e until =:':e concrete has ha=deaed.
7. Cana-r=e:ie:! _=cm DCM t i s Ca_ti=icy:i.cn ra :n
individual -=c;CCt shall e.-4,p-ire L•11:e= ve:?rs f_CM t1l" date

o? the caner -l*etter ?=aQt DEI?.
NoZ-comnlia_?ce with or violation
d", by icr._ ha;_in sc=
o_o=e__ snaloi_t?,?e, een
=or?h a speCi=ic. I1 L-
?_1_S C.rti:?lCcC_OCl .Or ^a r-= L_?. :FI reJCC.c;iOn OT
The Director of the North Caroii-la Division -
M?.Tla^.'+c:Iient may ra Lli r'+ - 'O. E,,
`.. -=O?me:ltal
..SuJ'r.ui .5-0n Or a' iOruta ? aDDl-Ca__OP -iOr
nd-victual Cam= "
cation Lor an_v project _4n thi s c=te=crv
act-. vi tv, ii it i CF
is determined that the Proje:c is l; ka_v -0-h"vE'
c S1CI7 =i Cant adverse effect uDOn water CudL -? ,___
waters SO that C':L_SCil1C u525 OL ?y or de=_ade the
-are Precluded, the wet1 __.zd , or eownst_ _i waters
Public he=rings may he held =or s?e?i= i c a=o? i
?a? pl! cations prior to a Cert_ i_tior. deccst_ins-or
c
a'°uh of
e P s s` i _c- aea^c
l; _ c _?e zc.r=sc by the Di==C-• - e;
.best
='-a D'-v15iO[1 0. Gnvi _OP.:12n 1 .t ?O o_ ?.?le A•_=--?? Caro-
a_
to t anage:-menu.. TO-
='h==-s the 2_st day o= January i a n2 .
eratt,
cencert . 26
jrd/cc •
;i4CR 2671 -

A

!Z7 T
G3N? C==____C?,_ZC*' ?CR ?RCjECTS l
_ OR Co=-:,S C_ ?it_ .-? -?
S''15 r2.^.=-a! C=-?---CZ on .J c: _c5L':C i COTS=G=-_-it
reGu_-smaZ`5 of. S.=:= icn i01 Publ_C Laws 92-500 _ 95-717
E
uni-tEr SCateS and to the -North Carol_na 11)1' _51C-i
=0ZTi2ntal l`fanaGem.an= R=at_0:15 in i5.'. rCLC 214- , _r.?C.-: .0100
and _=.'-: ivC=C 23 C_09 a _ .020! =or the d_J scharge __ tTtatc-
rlal =0 wate_: aped areas as described -ill C_ ti _50
Aomendii. (_ l O: the Corps O_ En -Ineers reC'__atlons (i . e.
Nationwilde Pe=11t 2:0. - ^.e 'category of actl.j%1t_.S 3!_
1nclLde any .=_l 'a._1Jity Or road crossing aZd 1= ? ? riii:e= t0
fill _es; th=n One- :_^_?=C C. an acre. 'i5 C ?-I-i----tiG:- =8P! aCc`
Water Qualit-t Cert:=lCat:on Number 7-1-77 issued. o v ?
987 and. S'Ja_ QL'c__,_Y Ca=t1=].cat?0;: N`uber 2666 _=sue O
ary 2, _1992.
T!?a St, at_ oZ 1iC=th. C_oii na cerLl_1=S th_t t-h _?ec:__ee
CatesGr"_ 0= _._ti V__yT ir___ not viola e -Sections 30_, 302, _O j 3OE
and 307 o= t _ -Pu.I;=_c _•a°AS 92-500 and '°.3-227 i l cc--suct_d
accordance W_`h th= cond-i =_OnS .he_e_na__er s_t =0=. _.
CC a___ - o- *_ =- C -on
=ccCsaZi t= -__- noc_o- _
.-:dS _ _•?_- G° _ _r'a_ Cer----C= _ ?-O -_ _`--_- ?'----:nv
aG2 _ 77 C) c _ _C:? 1:i:7cCt• i•:EtE=S O'::- =C -0-:
Cc'c-:rren_ce.
i_ W.=t_tEM C0 in. C'_=_°_ Ca _S •0t __=SLEC bti ?:._ D_ _=-o
2nvi= omi1e:, .l _= =n=ce e ?t t,i=:Iiz i5 dat. s =r=-_ ====-P or E
cocila_=te c=71 iC?C_O b: the D1`._s_on s 4-01 Q__i C: o?Ci thE-1 L. 0! Cert1=1C?t10 r. =0
_ Dc
_SSU2= as _7?C aS me a7-! _ Cant folic-'s a__ Otc:
Cond__i ons o_ t:?__ Gene_cl
a d d i ._Or!n_ _n. _or a n. _s r=cuested
O:reC =0_ C= h- is C=:_Gnee ;
3. i!?e c:_dth =_ Z_-111 IS _LIM_'ZeC Co
or t::e actual crc:sIc;
" !':? - =he =czdwa 5":_11 be -11n1i._zed. :: .iucn _S
?=aC:_Cab_e and. t'at no mraCC1C=1e =1?e= :__iva ax, st ,
d t =5 tZ!?__she^_ a=---'_ ?C c E=0510- COQ
__2 L' =i 1 i -__ ?C Dr. cn = _C_at1G ?S O- p: ==7rC,
z_rb::_t? _tE_ C?=_ S _E E r d ( 50 N Us ==n`
-,,e== not ers _?
._1 5=? Wc_as-zez, c11 _akes and c___• c
I C, 14 Ti s; r. "rcut
_c ev nt. 1-ve o- - = e- C-? -- = -_
om =011. ' _nZa C:n=ECt v:a=er5 of
?:"= St?_?
_:'?E ConcrE=_ has ha_dened;
":at -dC:i::=i?a_ S_=°_-??EC CCna2t_OilS b= aC;°= ,C
prc:ects proaosed under th:s Carti=:__tion in orda= to
en-7•-=e -compliance with all zoo! 'cab! a wade= quality and
e==_uent standards;
c.. Co:.:_=rence from OEM that this Ce=t.._CatlOt? applies t0
an ividual oro]ect shal_ e>:Oil"e _..=ee years from the
da s or the cover letter ==o:, DEM.
Non-co-._ _iance with or violatizm o the =0inditions herein set
`o.=h by a _=eciric 20ill project s:-Iall resu_= in revocation of
th__ Ce=ti._c=t_on for the project.
The Di=__=or of the North Carolina Division of Environs+,neztal
Manage-: nt may require submission C= a fo u:3_ aDDliCZtiOn for
v:dual ._=t1fication =or any project ..:1S category of
1s de?e a lnee at t_.e ?rh0 i s 1ikeli h
ac_:v't;: Js_c t to ave
adverse erfect upon itiater qua_itV Or degrade the
wa=s=s so _ .at existing uses of tehc +?etl2nd _= dOWils't.=e2T. waters
ar_ oraclu=
?ublic' :=_arings may be held for •s-macific aeplications. or
c_=_o o_ a=olications o=io= to a Ca=ti icat_cn decision is deemed
oub__^' S best ]. liferest bv '6'- Directc= of the North : Caro-
Di vis__?- o_ Envi=onmenta? i!ana==:??ent.
-_s __ :eze 1st day o= May, 1?:2
D_ITS_ON 0: •\,'T=01::`ENT _ MEWT
Georce T. Brett, =2c-o=
ce- i
J g c.
., =2 7 ;Z
W- Q^
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199700091 County: Durham
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Address: ATTN: Mr. Chris Long. Project Manager,
OARM Mail Drop 30, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and Location of grgjgct (waterway. road name/number. town. etc.): 132 acre parcel of a 509
acre tract (U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Research Park, in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The project site is located adjacent to, and above the headwaters of, Burdens Creek.
Description of Activity
Filling and excavation activities, impacting a total of 0.1002 acre of jurisdictional wetlands
asscoiated with the construction of the new EPA facility (several buildings).
_X Section 404 (Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor :pct of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
_ 6 Nationwide Permit.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
Regulatory Project Manager
Date October 29. 1996
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
-igation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.
Ter Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public
j. Erosion and Siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating
condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to
the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to
impound water.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil
disturbance.
6. Regional and Case-by-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added
by the Division Engineer and any case specific conditions added by the Corps.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System: or in a river
officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study
status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water
rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
9. Water Quality Certification. In certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be
obtained or waived.
11. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under and NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species
Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-Federal permittees shall notify the
District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin
n the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been
I= and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species can be obtained
••?e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect Historic Properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of
Historic Places is authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The
prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.
Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office and
the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4 (g)).
13. Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake
except where the discharge is repair of the public water supply intake structure or adjacent bank stabilization.
14. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production,
unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvest activity authorized by nationwide permit.
15. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g. trash. debris, car bodies,
etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
16. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the
maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer has approved a compensation mitigation
plan for the specific regulated activity.
17. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable.
18. Obstructions of High Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the
_e of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to
std waters).
=verse Impacts from Impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic
system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
20. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable.
21. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their
Attachment I
NEPA Documents
J?,JE°SZ'qrFS EPA Research
.xj & Administration Facility
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
Contract Number: 68-C2-0115
February, 1995
JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
244 Seconc Avenue
Waltham, VA 02154-1177
February 28, 1995
JASON M. CORTELL and ASSOCIATES INC.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154-1177
[phone]
The following consultants also provided material for this document:
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, P.C.
The Roberts/Stacy Group
R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc.
GPR Planners Collaborative
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Washington, DC
Raleigh, NC
Boston, MA
White Plains, NY
Greenbelt, MD
Washington, DC
Text printed on recycled paper.
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Project Description 1-5
1.2 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment 1-8
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 2-1
2.1 History of Current Project Alternatives 2-1
2.1.1 The 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan 2-1
2.1.2 Relocation of EPA Activities to the USPHS Research Park 2-2
2.1.3 Program of Requirements 2-3
2.1.4 Environmental Assessment Project Alternatives 2-4
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 Natural Environment 3-1
3.1.1 Topography 3-1
3.1.2 Geology 3-1
3.1.3 Soils 3-2
3.1.4 Groundwater Resources 3-2
3.1.5 Surface Water Resources 3-2
3.1.6 Floodprone Areas 3-6
3.1.7 Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife 3-6
3.1.7.1 Vegetation 3-6
3.1.7.2 Wetlands 3-8
3.1.7.3 Wildlife 3-11
3.1.7.4 Endangered and Threatened Species 3-12
3.2 Man Made Environment 3-12
3.2.1 Utilities 3-12
3.2.1.1 Water Supply 3-12
3.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal 3-12
3.2.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal 3-13
3.2.1.4 Electrical Power/Communications 3-13
3.2.1.5 Central Utility Plant 3-13
3.2.1.6 Other Utilities 3-13
3.2.2 Transportation 3-13
3.2.3 Hazardous Materials 3-14
3.2.4 Air Quality 3-15
i TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pal
3.2.4.1 Local/Regional Meteorology 3-15
3.2.4.2 Existing Air Quality 3-15
3.2.4.3 Nearby Emission Sources and Sensitive Locations 3-18
3.2.5 Noise 3-18
3.2.5.1 Applicable Standards 3-18
3.2.5.2 Existing Ambient Noise Conditions 3-18
3.2.5.3 Nearby Emission Sources and Sensitive Locations 3-18
3.2.6 Historic and Archaeologic Resources 3-18
3.2.7 Zoning and Land Use 3-18
3.2.7.1 Zoning 3-18
3.2.7.2 Land Use 3-19
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Natural Environment 4-1
4.1.1 Geology, Soils and Topography 4-1
4.1.2 Groundwater Resources 4-1
4.1.3 Surface Water Resources 4-6
4.1.3.1 Hydrology 4-6
4.1.3.2 Water Quality 4-6
4.1.4 Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat 4-7
4.1.4.1 Vegetation and Wetlands 4-7
4.1.4.2 Wildlife 4-7
4.1.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 4-7
4.2 Man-Made Environment 4-
4.2.1 Utilities 4-
4.2.1.1 Water Supply 4-
4.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal 4-
4.2.1.3 Central Utility Plant Expansion 4-9
4.2.1.4 Other Utilities 4-9
4.2.2 Transportation and Parking 4-10
4.2.2.1 Overview of Proposed Facilities 4-10
4.2.2.2 Assessment Methods 4-10
4.2.2.3 Assessment Results 4-10
4.2.3 Hazardous Materials 4-12
4.2.3.1 Animal Research Laboratories 4-13
4.2.3.2 Testing Laboratories 4-14
4.2.3.3 Other Hazardous Materials 4-15
4.2.3.4 Potential Release Sources 4-17
4.2.3.5 Qualitative Assessment of Potential Environmental Risks 4-18
4.2.4 Air Quality 4-18
4.2.4.1 Regional and Local Perspectives 4-18
4.2.4.2 Central Utility Plant 4-19
4.2.4.3 Laboratory Emission Sources 4-22
4.2.4.4 Emergency Generators 4-22
4.2.4.5 Emissions from Vehicles 4-22
4.2.4.6 Construction Air Quality Impacts 4-23
4.2.5 Noise 4-23
4.2.6 Socioeconomics 4-23
4.2.7 Historic and Archaeologic Resources 4-21
4.2.8 Visual 4-2
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 Environmental Design Considerations 5-1
5.2 Wetland Mitigation 5-1
5.3 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 5-3
5.4 Grading Plan 5-3
5.5 Stormwater Management Plan 5-4
5.6 Air Quality 5-4
5.7 Utilities 5-5
5.7.1 Water Supply 5-6
5.7.2 Wastewater Disposal 5-6
5.7.3 Energy Conservation 5-6
5.7.4 Other Utilities 5-6
5.8 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan 5-6
5.8.1 Fuels Storage 5-7
5.8.2 Chemical Storage and Handling 5-7
5.9 Transportation 5-7
5.9.1 Traffic Improvements 5-7

5.9.2
Transportation Alternatives 5-7

5.10
Regulatory Compliance 5-8
5-8
6.0 REFERENCES

6.1
References 6-1

6.2
Agency Contacts 6-1
6-3
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
7-1
-IST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Location

1-2
Topography 1-2

1-3
Generalized Site Plan 1-3

1-4
Rendering of Main Campus 1-4

1-5
Rendering of National Computer Center 1-6

1-6
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Flow Chart 1-7
1-10
3-1 Boring Plan 3-3
3-2 Surface Water Features and Water Quality Sampling Locations 3-4
3-3 Floodprone Areas 3-7
3-4 Vegetation 3-9
3-5 Frequency of Wind Speed and Direction,
Raleigh-Durham International Airport, 1988-1992 3-16
4-1 Site 3 Schematic Site Plan 4-2
4-2 Site 4 Schematic Site Plan 4-3
4-3 North Access Road Location 4-4
4-4 South Access Road Location 4-5
4-5 Typical Roadway Cross Sections 4-11
LIST OF TABLES
3-I Existing Water Quality, July 30, 1992 3-5
3-II Preliminary Wetland Functions and Values Assessment Matrix 3-11
3-III Existing Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections 3-14
34V Existing Levels of Service at Unsignalized Intersections 3-14
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pal
3-V National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-15
3-VI Ambient Air Monitoring Data for the Research Triangle Region 3-17
4-I Existing Central Utility Plant Emissions 4-20
4-II Emissions from Expanded CUP 4-20
5-I Overview of Permits and Approvals -
EPA Research and Administration Facility 5-9
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A Memorandum of Understanding
B Agency Correspondence
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to construct a
new Research and Administration Facility on a 132.4-acre portion of the 509 acre U.S.
Public Health Service (USPHS) Research Park (Figure 1-1). This site was purchased from
the Research Triangle Foundation in 1968 for S 1.00 as part of the Foundation's plans for
development of the 6,800 acre Research Triangle Park. The Federal site was Master
Planned in 1971 for up to four governmental agencies, one being the National Air Pollution
Control Administration (EPA predecessor). The new facility will enable EPA to replace
and consolidate most of the facilities now occupied by the Agency in the Raleigh/Durham/
Research Triangle Park Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). EPA's facilities in the MSA
represent approximately one-third of the Agency's laboratory and research space nationwide.
The new EPA Research and Administration Facility will consist of several buildings sited
on two parcels identified as Site 3 and Site 4 within the USPHS Research Park (Figures 1-2
and 1-3). Site 3 (69 acres) overlooks, and is on the east side of, a man-made lake. Site 4
(63.4 acres) is located immediately north of Site 3. The U.S. Public Health Service's
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) complex occupies Site 1,
immediately west of the lake.
To support the new EPA Research and Administration Facility, various additional
construction activities will take place on land adjoining Sites 3 and 4, including new
roadway and infrastructure improvements, and expansion of the existing Central Utility
Plant (CUP) complex (power plant and waste incinerators.)
The primary research facility will be a multi-story structure located on Site 3. In addition,
the project includes the National Computer Center and a Child Care facility on Site 4,
several smaller fuel storage buildings, and an addition to the Central Utility Plant serving
the entire USPHS Research Park. The individual buildings and their net and gross square
footage are summarized below:
Building Gross Sq. Ft. Net Sq. Ft.
Research & Administration Facility 983,304 507,065
High Bay Building 59,307 32,937
National Computer Center 126,781 88,119
Child Care Center 9,916 6,875
TOTAL 1,179,308 634,996
Figures 1-4 and 1-5 provide renderings of the main campus and National Computer Center.
1-1 INTRODUCTION
ibina uw,e ) 'l , Cw RUnwy iNnMbnlOn 1 " 1 - / - •1 \. ! ?•
rough ItLI I' l.T- .e/. } `' ?l?' 'tvl _ t.?'•?-•• - I •i1 ?' ,/ _ ,???' i ?,n \J ?1
A -M
L- .. ` ;Zd ?• rim ... JJ??.
,?, • D irha f ` ,??rv
,,/chapel Hill'~ •' "? ,r J ?,n.» rai ' ?' 7 i°? '?. A ??.+
t ,`,•'„'? USPHSPark aa..+ h J?- _ (' ?'?' - (?
Carrboro .,
?. wi !., cIVJ I' SS \ • I . ?,??'. , r _( I .. _.'1 J %??', .1r /i 1 ) ,:
u •^ ?
f A. 4 G
' n:? J..'?»mpm 8
Y.
m Wil cry
1 »-. nRALEI
22 6/ ' w }
I ?j " ? _ ?/1 •swa?, /a _G' ?•''?? ? N•ff ? O ? I ??f 11
J?\) l I I. " i
FF •1 t\1 ''I ? • r ? ? r ?? ?. ., Buj?.C?1 rely t ? ,?? 1 'a i,'C??? il..??.
Proposed EPA Research and
_ Administration Facility Site
R? E,VERE1.79. loAdA/bSC't 'rilm?l C- t«. ,¦_f t
409
<<``• . ??J U.S. Public Health
° Service Park ?.. I?,
0
^ /7
N- (- - ?• _ __ Re1H?AM?rC} 1LIN
U/?T
REGIONAL LOCATION
SOLRCE: USGS Southwest Durham, N.C. (1973, Photoreviscd 1987), Southeast Durham, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987),
Green Level, Y.C. (1973, Photorevised 1981) and Car)', N.C. (1973, Phowmviscd 1987) Topographic Quadrangles
'0 aa.
A ?s ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIG
W
EPA Research and Administration Facslity o' 3100' " _
Research Triangle Perk, North Carolina

I
11? / \ \
t?
Tip?
D
Lake
V,/ 4:
? O
Ae ?. 1
i

I

? A

J
O
1
?-
?t
J?
J
Ha soeta R
C
TOPOGRAPHY
"to Jr4p" s SCALE FIGURE
^ ? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
?ww
EPA Research and Administration Fac Wty o' aoo soo
1-2
Research Triangle Perk, North Carolina
c
c4Q?
g e?
a`
0
N
O?ACCESS ROAD
N
c
National
Computer Center
•
/ ?O4f14 LOOP ,RO
AD
I -1I HS
k
es ch and
lity on
F Ility
/
?\ Q
o
0
Central Utility Plant a
171'3- A
<0
C.V.P. SER?CE ROAD
9i <a'
\ \ -
- -? tiOPSON ROAD
GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Hellmulh. Obata B Kassabaum and The
(1994)
snarlt?e SCALE F!
D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Administration FacHity o' 37S' 7SO' "?
Resammh Trlanglo Park, North Carolina
c rn0?'
Of the total net square footage, approximately 4270 (267,500 nsf) will be allocated to office
use, 38% (240,000 nsf) to laboratory use, 14% (88,119 nsf) to the National Computer
Center, and the remaining 6% (38,950 nsf) to various support and specialized uses. The
existing Central Utility Plant will be expanded by 40,000 sf to accommodate additional
power and waste incineration needs of the new EPA facility.
Section 1.1 "Project Description" provides additional details on anticipated uses within
each of the spaces listed above.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The EPA presently conducts research and administration activities at several leased
facilities in the Research Triangle Park area. In 1984, a 'Facilities Evaluation and Long
Term Planning Study for the United States Environmental Protection Agency at Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina' determined that the EPA Office of Research and Development
could not satisfactorily conduct its research programs into the 1990s using existing
facilities. The Evaluation concluded that the preferred alternative was to construct a
government-owned facility on land set aside for EPA use in the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS) Research Park within Research Triangle Park (RTP).
A 'Program of Requirements for Permanent Facility' was prepared by EPA staff in 1986,
indicating the need for a total of 635,000 sf of net assignable space. An update to the
Program completed in 1990 confirmed the space requirements identified in the 1986
Program document. As summarized in Section 1.0, above, the 635,000 sf of net assignable
space will consist of office space, laboratory space, the National Computer Center, support
space, and a child care center. A general description of the uses in these spaces follows.
Office Space - Includes personnel offices and work stations, with no laboratory uses
Laboratory Space - Contains the primary research space, including lab benchwork,
research equipment, and fume hoods
Computer Center - The free-standing National Computer Center contains a
combination of office and specialized spaces requiring special HVAC, electrical and/
or structural elements.
Support Space - Includes a variety of functions, such as the Child Care Center and
the High Bay Building where engine and other testing is carried out.
Areas within the building not considered net assignable space include hallways and
corridors, stairwells and elevators, mechanical rooms (HVAC, light, power, and water
supply distribution), lavatories, and unusable basement and attic space.
A total of 1,800 parking spaces will be provided, including two three-level structured
parking garages associated with the main campus, with a combined capacity of 917 spaces,
and surface parking on Sites 3 and 4 for 883 vehicles. Approximately 36 handicap-
accessible and 48 parking spaces for visitors are included in the above parking space total.
1-5 INTRODUCTION

v?
L-fY.'

4
? ./.S. ?lJ?i? :t?r???f.? 7• r?

rf _ is
RENDERING OF MAIN CAMPUS
baum (1993)
SOURCE: Ilcllmuth• Obata & Kassat -
J?tfO aT?T?S
T ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT !'
1
CCC''' "EPA R??arch and Administration Facility
1I?Iu?f? W
'Lr EVE` Re"arch Tr/rntle Park. Nurth Carnllnr
Il

t'
'lop ?•
i t
rte:
r" ..of

t
RENDERING OF NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER
SOURCE Nrllmmh. Maw & Ka,sahaum (19911
to sri"
Z? A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE
EPA Research and Administration Facility 1-5
?ry'4t N,Vll, Research TrlanCle Park. North Carolina

The new facility will consolidate the activities of approximately 2,250 personnel within the
following EPA organizations:
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL)
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL)
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL)
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO)
Office of Senior Official for R&D (OSORD)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
The Office of Research and Development laboratories and offices provide EPA with
scientific and technological basis for establishment of criteria and standards, and with
control technologies to achieve these standards. The Office of Air and Radiation develops
national standards for air quality and emission standards for new stationary sources and
hazardous air pollutants. OAR is also responsible for developing national programs,
technical policies, regulations and guidelines to assist states in implementing national
standards. The Office of Administration and Resources Management provides personnel
services, financial management, contracting, data processing and general services.
The visitor population is estimated at 3,000 per month.
In keeping with the Master Plan principle of developing a unitary Research Park housing
multiple occupants, EPA and NIEHS have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) which establishes a foundation for a cooperative working relationship between the
two agencies. The MOU covers site planning efforts, plans for operating shared utility
services, and coordinating other joint occupancy matters such as back-up fuel storage
requirements, solid waste handling and recycling practices, and cooperation on environmental
compliance matters. A copy of the MOU is included as Attachment A.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (PL 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations For Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508); and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regulations on Implementation of
NEPA Procedures, as amended (40 CFR 6).
As required under EPA's NEPA Regulations, this EA describes the proposed project;
discusses alternatives; characterizes the existing environment to be affected; identifies
potential environmental impacts of the proposed action; and proposes mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts.
Once the EA is complete and has been reviewed by the responsible EPA official, a decision
will be made whether any significant adverse impacts would be caused by the proposed
action. If no significant adverse impacts are anticipated (or if all such potential impacts can
be avoided by altering the project's scope or design), a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) will be issued (see NEPA Environmental Assessment Process flowchart, Figure
1.8 INTRODUCTION
1-6). Under EPA's environmental procedures, a project can proceed after the passage of
30 days following the issuance of the FONSI.
If significant adverse impacts are anticipated, however, the responsible EPA official will
initiate the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
It is to be noted that a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared
in compliance with NEPA in 1976 by the then Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, covering development of the entire USPHS Research Park, giving particular
emphasis to the impacts of the first development phase involving construction of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) complex.
The 1976 EIS document concluded that development of the 509 acre USPHS Research Park
in accordance with the 1971 Master Plan was the environmentally preferred alternative.
Specifically, for the entire 509 acre Research Park, both the Master Plan and the EIS
assumed a maximum ultimate development of 5.48 million gross square feet of research
space, housing approximately 12,000 personnel.
The increment of gross building area and staff due to the proposed EPA Research and
Administrative Facility program (i.e., 1.18 million gsf) being considered by this EA
document is well within the level of ultimate development allowed by the Master Plan for
Sites 3 and 4, which was estimated to total between 1.38 and 1.83 million gsf. More
specifically, the Master Plan total for Site 3 was 928,400 gsf, while the total for Site 4 ranged
from 450,000 to 900,000 gsf. In the absence of any major modification to the Master Plan
or the identification of previously unidentified impacts, the findings and conclusion of the
1976 EIS should, thus, be accorded substantial weight in the review and evaluation of the
present. EA findings.
1-9 INTRODUCTION
Are criteria for
categorical No
exclusions met?
Are any criteria
Yes requiring Yes
preparation of
EIS met?
Uncertain
4
Conduct
environmental
assessment.
Are any Can project
potentially be modified to Begin
significant Yes eliminate potentially No preparation/review
impacts significant of draft EIS.
found? impacts
Begin
preparation/review
of final EIS.
No Yes
Identify mitigation
measures and
Prepare finding of monitoring plan.
no significant
impaCt. e Record of
Prepar
Document findings. Environmental Decision.
Environmental review Environmental
review completed. completed. review completed.
Carry out project activities.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) FLOW CHART
'teo sr4,.,J FIG=
? % T? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I I
EPA Research and Administration FacRity 1 ' V
P,/,r t CEO Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to construct a new
Research and Administration Facility on a 132 acre portion of the 509 acre U.S. Public
Health Service Research Park. This will enable EPA to replace and consolidate most of the
facilities now occupied by the Agency in the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park area.
These facilities represent approximately one-third of EPA's laboratory and research space
nationwide.
The proposed facility will have a gross floor area of approximately 1,179,308 square feet
(sf), of which approximately 635,000 sf will represent net assignable space. Parking for
approximately 1,800 vehicles will be provided in two structured parking garages and five
surface lots, with approximately 36 handicap and 48 visitor spaces.
The project evaluated in this Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed by the
Architect/Engineering team, based on the 1971 Master Plan for the U.S. Public Health
Service Research Park, the EPA's 1992 Program of Requirements for the facility, and other
related document including the 1976 Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. Public
Health Service Research Park.
From an initial group of eight schemes, three were selected for further definition by the
EPA's Design Review Team. From these three schemes, a "Preferred Alternative" was
selected and is the subject of the evaluation in this EA document. In addition, the EA
considers a "No Action" alternative.
The Environmental Assessment Process
This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations For Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act; and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Regulations on Implementation of NEPA Procedures.
As required under EPA's NEPA Procedures, this EA describes the proposed project
(Section 1.0); identifies alternatives (Section 2.0); characterizes the existing environment
to be affected (Section 3.0); addresses potential environmental impact of the proposed
action (Section 4.0); and presents proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize
potential environmental impacts (Section 5.0).
ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Once the EA is complete and reviewed by the responsible EPA official, a decision will b07
made whether any significant adverse impacts will result from the proposed action.
Summary of Key Findings
During the course of this EA, several key issues associated with construction and operation
of the EPA project were identified. These issues are:
Potential water quality impacts to the onsite lake due to soil erosion during construction,
increased impermeable surfaces and attendant stormwater pollution, which will
require the use of special design and construction methods and landscaping;
The loss or disturbance of wetland resources and their attendant functions and values;
Air emissions from laboratory hoods, boilers, and incinerators;
The use, storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous chemicals, which will require
the implementation of specialized materials handling procedures;
Increased local traffic, which will require roadway improvements at key intersections
in order to achieve acceptable levels of service and to avoid air quality impacts.
Methods and techniques exist which, when implemented, could mitigate the potential
impacts to acceptable levels.
ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.1 HISTORY OF CURRENT PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed 1.18 million gross square foot (gsf)
Research and Administration Facility is a combined office and research laboratory
complex, to be located on an 132-acre parcel within the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS) Research Park. Detailed planning for the 509-acre USPHS Research Park was
initiated in the 1971 Master Plan, which documented the physical characteristics of the site,
identified a series of buildable sites for a multi-center, campus-like Research Park,
established basic planning and design standards, and created a framework to guide future
development of the Park. The multi-center Park defined by the Master Plan was to be
implemented over an indefinite time frame as Federal agency space needs arose. However,
from the beginning, the EPA was expected eventually to occupy a major share of the Park.
The USPHS Research Park is itself a part of the 6,800-acre Research Triangle Park (RTP)
which was established in 1959 to provide a center for institutions and corporations engaged
in technology-based R&D. The RTP is a major employment concentration within the State
of North Carolina, and is one the largest research parks in the nation. Government agencies.
institutions and corporations located within the Park presently employee approximately
34,000 people. Its roads, utilities, landscaping and other physical features have been
designed to high standards of function and design.
2. 1.1 The 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan
The 1971 USPHS Research Park Master Plan placed a high priority on the protection and
preservation of environmental values:
"One of the necessary goals of the Park is to establish a stable ecological
system. The Research Park should be an example of how an environment
can be created by augmenting the existing physical assets of the terrain
rather than contributing to the deterioration of the natural systems .... In
effect, the Park will seek to develop a stable eco-system by supplementing
and extending the existing system, rather than imposing upon the
environment with an alien design application. "
(Master Plan, p. 92.)
These design principles, which will be applied to the proposed EPA Research and
Administration Facility, will help assure that environmental impacts are avoided where
possible, and that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into project plans where
impacts are unavoidable.
2-1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Subsequent to the 1971 Master Plan, a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statemen
(EIS) was prepared in compliance with NEPA in 1976 by the then Department of Health
Education and Welfare, covering development of the entire USPHS Research Park, and
giving particular emphasis to the impacts of the first development phase involving
construction of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) complex.
For the entire 509 acre USPHS Research Park, both the Master Plan and the 1976 EIS
assumed a maximum ultimate development of 5.48 million gross square feet of research
space, housing approximately 12,000 staff. Two major users were identified: the NIEHS
on Site 1, and EPA on Site 3. The users of Sites 2 and 4 were not specified at that time.
The EIS concluded that development of the 509 acre USPHS Research Park in accordance
with the 1971 Master Plan was the environmentally preferred alternative.
Based on the EIS, a number of the planned components were implemented, including a 23-
acre man-made lake; the initial portions of the access roadway system; a power plant,
incinerator and other central support facilities located along Hopson Road in the southern
portion of the USPHS property; a meteorological tower in the northern extremity of the
USPHS property; and construction of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) complex along the western lakefront.
The central lake serves a variety of aesthetic, engineering and environmental values.
Visually, the lake provides an organizing feature which helps define the site while
providing a dominant visual amenity. From a site engineering standpoint, the lake functions
as a holding basin for a 282-acre watershed, allowing stormwater runoff to be retained
temporarily rather than flowing directly into nearby streams. This is especially important
since the full development of the Park will greatly increase the amount of impervious
surfaces. The lake also provides a reserve of water for fire protection and site irrigation use.
From an environmental standpoint, the lake and its surrounding land areas provide a habitat
for aquatic species, waterfowl and other wildlife.
The initial phase of the MEHS building was constructed in the early 1980s. Subsequently,
additions to the NIEHS building were proposed to rehouse several divisions of the NIEHS
that are located in the RTP, but outside the USPHS Park. In 1984, an Environmental
Assessment prepared to consider the site-specific impacts due to expansion of facilities at
the NIEHS site was approved. Once this expansion program is completed, approximately
1,000 persons will be employed at the NIEHS complex.
In similar fashion to the NIEHS assessment process, this EA document addresses the site-
specific impacts of the proposed EPA project, within the overall context of the 1976 EIS.
The increment of gross building area and staff due to the proposed EPA Research and
Administrative Facility program (i.e., 1.18 million gsf) being considered by this EA
document is well within the level of ultimate development allowed by the Master Plan for
Sites 3 and 4, which was estimated to total between 1.38 and 1.83 million gsf. The Master
Plan total for Site 3 was 928,400 gsf, while the total for Site 4 ranged from 450,000 to
900,000 gsf.
2.1.2 Relocation of EPA Activities to the USPHS Research Park
In 1991, the General Services Administration (GSA) conducted a review and evaluation of
Federal agency space needs within the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA). The GSA found that nearly one-third of EPA's nationwide total
of laboratory and research space is located in the MSA. However, because of the piecemeal
2-2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
nature of relocations to, and expansion of, EPA activities within the MSA, it was further
found that the local EPA workforce of over 3,100 persons (including approximately 1,800
contract status workers) was divided among ten individual, and widely scattered, locations
throughout the MSA. Because of the physical separations between locations, the obsolescence
of a number of EPA-occupied buildings, deficiencies and/or duplications of equipment and
administrative functions, and similar factors, the GSA concluded that substantial
inefficiencies and unnecessary costs were being incurred annually by the EPA.
EPA's primary research laboratory in RTP is the Environmental Research Center (ERC).
The ERC was designed and constructed as office space in the late 1960s. Since that time,
EPA's research mission and needs have undergone significant evolution, and the building
has been gradually modified to meet the Agency's needs, pending construction of a new
consolidated facility. Growth during this period has exceeded the physical capacity of the
ERC, and necessitated the leasing of additional office and laboratory space within RTP.
Because EPA operations are now conducted at several facilities, there are duplications in
staff and equipment and, in several instances, researchers working on the same projects are
located in different buildings.
In addition to the inefficiency of conducting similar operations from several locations, the
present space configuration places limits on the EPA's research activities as a result of need
for more state-of-the-art temperature control, ventilation, hazardous material storage and
disposal, fire safety requirements, and a more flexible laboratory space configuration than
present facilities provide. Further, while EPA maintains state-of-the-art pollution control
procedures and equipment at all of its existing locations, a new, consolidated facility would
allow for more efficient (and therefore less costly and more easily managed) systems for
the control of wastes and emissions of all kinds.
Facilities anticipated to be closed once their activities are relocated to the proposed EPA
facility include: (1) The Environmental Research Center; (2) the Environmental Research
Center annex; (3) the EPA Administration Building; (4) the Mutual Building; (5) the
Catawba Building; (6) the Emission Measurement Laboratory; and (7) the 4201 Alexander
Drive Building.
After a review of functional relationships among the various EPA activities, and financial
aspects involved in consolidation in either leased or owned space, the GSA found that these
deficiencies could not be remedied by upgrading the existing facilities, and recommended
that eight of the ten locations be consolidated and relocated to the USPHS Park, into a
newly-constructed, government-owned 635,000 net sf research and administrative facility.
Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of the proposed facility in a regional context.
2.1.3 Program of Requirements
Pursuant to the GSA findings and recommendations, the EPA prepared a Program of
Requirements (POR), EPA Research Center, in February, 1992. The POR reconfirmed
the total required square footage, while an Appendix to the POR, known as the Site Analysis
and Land Use Planning Report (November, 1990), reconfirmed the essential findings of the
1971 Master Plan regarding project siting, access requirements, utility connections, and the
like.
The 1990 Site Analysis Report and Land Use Planning Report, referenced above, presented
three conceptual alternatives for siting the EPA buildings, related parking and access
roadways on Site 3, along the eastern lakefront. The principal difference between these
three options consisted of variations in the locations of roadways, and the location and
configuration of parking areas.
2-3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.1.4 Environmental Assessment Project Alternatives
Two project alternatives are evaluated in this Environmental Assessment:
The "No Action" Alternative (i.e., continuation of the utilization by EPA of a variety
of leased and owned facilities throughout the MSA), and
The "Build" Alternative (hereafter referred to as the Preferred Alternative).
The "No Action" alternative would consist of the retention and probable gradual expansion
and upgrading of the existing EPA facilities. While this option would cause no changes to
the environment at the proposed project site, it would not allow for anticipated benefits to
be derived from the consolidation and improvement of existing facilities. In addition to
operational, safety, and financial benefits, the proposed consolidation will bring about
environmental benefits insofar as a new state-of-the-art facility would facilitate more
effective handling and treatment of emissions (air, water, solid wastes) generated by the
EPA research laboratories.
The Preferred Alternative represents a further development of the design process begun in
the 1990 Site Analysis and Land Use Plan Reports. Based on the Master Plan, POR and
other related documentation, the Arch itect/Engineering team defined and studied an initial
group of eight schemes. From this group, three schemes were selected for further definition
by the EPA's Design Review Team in August, 1992.
Subsequent analysis by the Architect/Engineering team and the Design Review Team led
to the conclusion that the proposed development was too large to be accommodated solely
on Site 3, and a decision was reached to expand the development parcel to include Site 4.
Specifically, utilization of Site 3 only for the proposed EPA project was found to have had
the following drawbacks:
The 1971 Master Plan development total for Site 3 contemplated an ultimate
development of 928,400 gsf; the proposed EPA project total of 1. 18 million gsf would
have exceeded this figure, and required excessive site coverage and/or high-rise
buildings; in addition, the Program of Requirements called for the design to include
10% expansion plans; this could not be accommodated within Site 4 without
significantly exceeding the 15% building footprint limitation in zoning requirements;
Site 3 could not satisfy the initial parking requirement projection of 2,500 spaces,
except by constructing more than the 1,400 structured spaces which were allowed for
in the EPA's project budget;
Impacts to the existing topography, wetlands and forest cover of Site 3 would have
been more extensive, and difficult to mitigate if a high-density development scheme
were selected.
By incorporating Site 4 into the EPA project, each of these problems was avoided. The
increment of gross building area and staff due to the proposed EPA Research and
Administrative Facility program (i.e., 1.18 million gsf) being considered by this EA
document is well within the level of ultimate development allowed by the Master Plan for
Sites 3 and 4 combined, which was estimated to total between 1.38 and 1.83 million gsf, and
thus leaves some flexibility for future expansion needs. (The Master Plan total for Site 3
was 928,400 gsf, while the total for Site 4 ranged from 450,000 to 900,000 gsf. Any
development on Site 4 which exceeds 450,000 gsf is to be subtracted from the total
allowable development on the as-yet undeveloped Site 2. Total development for the four
2-4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Sites is not to exceed a cumulative total of 5.48 million gsf, according to the 1971 Master
Plan.)
In addition to avoiding overly intensive development of Site 3, the Preferred Alternative
achieves a number of positive design objectives:
The location of the National Computer Center facility on Site 4 allows it to have its
own strong and separate identity; moreover, the site plan allows good security
potential and easy employee access;
The proposed site utilization leaves a sizable portion of the site untouched, minimizes
wetlands impacts, and avoids incursions into the lake and floodplain;
Good lake views are provided for the Computer Center;
A stand-alone Child Care Center is provided which is of a scale more appropriate to
its use; and
Site 4 is a relatively level and previously disturbed site which will pose few
development constraints, allows good future expansion possibilities, and entails little
environmental impact.
Of the three schematic plans developed, only one met EPA's programmatic requirements
and provided for orderly planned expansion. This alternative is illustrated in Figure 1-3.
2-5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3. 1.1 Topography
Elevations on the proposed 132 acre development site range from a high point of 342 feet
above mean sea level [msl/National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)l in the central
portion of the site to 256 feet msl near Burden's Creek at the northern end of the site. From
Jenkins Road along the eastern property boundary and the centrally located high point, the
site generally trends downwards towards the lake. Slopes on the property are predominantly
less than 15 percent, although areas in excess of 15 percent occur along well defined natural
drainage swales.
3.1.2 Geology
The bedrock that underlies the proposed EPA site is dominated by a mudstone member of
the Chatham Group. This Triassic aged mudstone is composed of mainly siltstone and is
interbedded with some sandstone (NC Geologic Survey, 1985). The siltstone is typically
reddish-brown. The sandstones are fine to medium grained and are usually less than a meter
thick. Many of the sandstone lenses primarily contain feldspar. Some of the sandstone
exposures exhibit crossbedding (Hoffman and Gallagher, 1989).
According to subsurface explorations conducted for Site 3 by Law Engineering in 1990 and
1993, the typical soil onsite consists of 2.0-6.4 feet of a red-brown residual clayey-silt
overlying partially weathered rock, with the boundary between soil and bedrock not being
sharply defined. Rather, there is a transitional zone of partially weathered rock defined as
residual material with standard penetration resistance exceeding 100 blows per foot.
Depths to partially weathered rock vary from 2.0 to 6.5 feet below surface elevations (see
Figure 3-1). Below the soil layer, the partially weathered rock varies in thickness from 0
to 12.5 feet. The degree of weathering ranges from slight to completely weathered. Some
outcrops of diabase rock occur on the site.
Investigations of subsurface conditions at Site 4 were conducted by Law Engineering
during April, 1993. Results of these field studies indicate similar soil conditions to Site 3.
where clayey-silt overlies partially weathered rock. An area of fill, to a depth of
approximately four feet, was also identified on Site 4 in the vicinity of Borings B-601, B-
602, and B-603 (Figure 3-1). Partially weathered rock ranges in depths from five to ten feet
below surface elevations. The average depth to dense rock is ten feet below surface
elevations.
3-1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1.3 Soils
Based on the Soil Survey of Durham County. North Carolina [U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), 19711, there are four major soil types associated with the proposed development
parcel. These include the White Store series, the Cartecay series, the Pinkston Series, and
the Chewacla series.
The White Store series is a moderately well drained upland sandy loam soil which formed
in forested areas in material weathered from Triassic Mudstone. The subsoils generally
have slow rates of infiltration and, therefore, the erosion potential is moderate. Groundwater
typically occurs at depths greater than 1.5 feet below surface elevations, while depths to
bedrock are typically greater than four feet. The Cartecay soil series occur along stream
channels both north and south of the onsite lake. They are poorly drained, typically
occurring in association with floodplains. Generally, a surface layer of silt loam is
underlain by coarser sandy loam. The Chewacla soil series also typically occur in
floodplains and are usually poorly drained. Within the proposed development area, the
Chewacla soils are confined predominantly to the floodplain of Burdens Creek. Depth to
groundwater in both Cartecay and Chewacla soils is approximately 1.5 feet, while depth to
bedrock averages five feet. Formed in residuum from Triassic Sandstone, Pinkston soils
are well drained or excessively drained fine sandy loams occurring in association with
upland forests. Depth to bedrock is typically greater than 2.5 feet and depth to groundwater
is greater than six feet.
3.1.4 Groundwater Resources
Groundwater information regarding the proposed project site is limited. Based on the
results of a preliminary test boring program conducted by Law Engineering in 1990, the
depth to groundwater on the property varies from more than two feet to less than 15 feet
below the ground surface (see Figure 3-1). This preliminary information was confirmed
during geotechnical studies for the buildings and site infrastructure conducted by Law
Engineering in 1993. During these studies, where encountered, groundwater was observed
at depths of between four to seven feet below surface elevations.
Generally, groundwater contours tend to mimic surface topography. As such, it may be
assumed that groundwater onsite flows in a westerly direction towards the lake, as well as
in a northerly direction towards Burdens Creek. Accordingly, groundwater resources
associated with Sites 3 and 4 are not directly used as a water supply.
3.1.5 Surface Water Resources
Surface water features in the general vicinity of the site primarily include the man-made
lake which forms the western boundary of the development site, and Burdens Creek to the
north (see Figure 3-2).
Water from the lake flows approximately 1,800 feet to the north where it discharges into
Burdens Creek (see Figure 3-2). Burdens Creek flows southwest to Northeast Creek, which
flows into B. EverettJordan Lake located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the onsite
dam. B. Everett Jordan Lake was formed by the damming of Northeast Creek.
The onsite lake has a surface area of 23.3 acres and an approximate maximum depth of 16
feet at the dam. The spillway is designed to control water at an elevation of 285 feet msl.
Based on available data, it is estimated that the lake has an average depth of 6 feet and an
approximate volume of 6.1 million cubic feet.
3-2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
r;
i • B-20 (3.0/NE) BORING LOCATION (Depth in feet to partially
• weathered rock/No groundwater encountered)
0 8.607 (3.0/NM) BORING LOCATION (Depth in feet to partially
weathered rock/No groundwater measured) SOURCE: Law Engineering (1990, 1993)
+?° "art,, SCALE FIGURE
A 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Adtniniiax-ation Fac ity o aso' 0 3-1
G7 Research Triangle Park, North Caroline
?t "'6.
08-14(2.5/2.5) BORING LOCATION (Depth in feet to partially BORING PLAN
weathered rock/Depth in feet to groundwater)
SURFACE WATERS
- - WATERSHED BOUNDARY
• 2 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
C (NSW) NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER FEATURES AND
WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
WS-iv (NSW) CLASSIFICATIONS SOURCE: Correll Associates (1992)
0 sr4rFJ SCALE F/CURE
A jj ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 7 EPA Research and Administration Facility 0' 425' 850' 3-2
y? Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
i
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC
DEHNR) has two classifications that apply to waters on and downstream of the site. They
are:
Class C - Waters protected for secondary contact recreation, and the propagation and
survival of fish and aquatic life.
Class WS-IV - Waters protected as a water supply in moderately to highly developed
watersheds. Such waters are to be suitable for all Class C uses.
Within these main classifications are the following two supplemental classifications that
are applicable to onsite and downstream waters:
NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Waters are waters that are sensitive to excessive growth of
algae and vegetation and which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
CA - Critical Area adjacent to a drinking water intake or reservoir.
For the waterbodies and waterways on and downstream of the site, the following
classifications apply (Personal Communication; Bradley Bennett - NC DEHNR; July,
1992):
Onsite Lake C (NSW)
Burdens Creek C (NSW) from source to RT. 2028 (T.W. Alexander Drive)
WS-IV (NSW) from Route 2028 downstream to Northeast Creek
Northeast Creek WS-IV (CA)

Because background water quality data were not available for the onsite lake and downstream
locations, a one time sampling and analysis program was conducted. Samples were
collected on July 30, 1992 at the locations shown in Figure 3-2. Sampling was conducted
by CORTELL personnel, with laboratory analyses being conducted by IEA, Inc. at
Research Triangle Park. The results of the analyses are contained in Table 3-I.
Table 3-I
EXISTING WATER QUALITY (July 30, 1992)
Parameter Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
pH (Units) 7.8 7.6 7.9
Hardness 36 65 78
Turbidity (NTU) 39 16 12
Total Suspended Solids 2.0 0.68 0.54
Total Dissolved Solids 81 130 120
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 8.0 <2.0 <2.0
Chloride 9.8 20 23
Ammonia-N 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Nitrate/Nitrite 0.03 0.09 0.09
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2.0 0.68 0.54
Total Phosphorus 0.13 0.10 0.06
Cadmium <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Copper <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Iron 0.26 0.49 0.33
Lead <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zinc <0.02 <0.02 0.07
Fecal Coliform (Col/100m1) 25 17 20
Chlorophyll-a 7.34 0.177 0.046
Temperature (°C) 30.0 24.5 24.0
Dissolved Oxvizen 6.9 5.0 7.4
All results are in mg,l unless otherwise noted
3-5 AFFECTED E\VIRONMENT
The concentrations of all of the parameters analyzed were within the NC DEHNR Water
Quality Standards, with the following exceptions: Chlorophyll-a was detected in the sample
collected from the onsite lake at a concentration of 7.34 mg/1. This concentration is above
the NC DEHNR 0.04 mg/l concentration standard. Turbidity: The turbidity in the onsite
lake was determined to be 39 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU), which is above the
standard of 25 NTU established for lakes and reservoirs by NC DEHNR. Zinc: Zinc was
detected at 0.07 mg/1 from the downstream Burden's Creek sample location. This
concentration is above the 0.05 mg/1 standard determined by NC DEHNR. Zinc
concentrations were below detection limits in the sample collected upstream on Burden's
Creek and the sample collected from the onsite lake.
The lake currently contains a productive warmwater fishery resource. Based on data
provided by NIEHS, the lake contains carp (triploid), striped/white bass (hybrid), largemouth
bass, bluegill and channel catfish. Fishing is permitted in the onsite lake by NIEHS
personnel only. Carp and striped bass, however, must be released.
3.1.6 Floodprone Areas
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the portion of Durham County including the
proposed EPA site was prepared in 1979, prior to construction of the NIEHS facility and
the onsite lake. As illustrated in Figure 3-3, the limits of the detailed flood study in the
vicinity of the site are generally confined to the main stem of Burdens Creek, where flood
elevations range from 260 - 265 msl.
Information developed by Odell Associates (1976), during design of the NIEHS facility and
the lake, indicate that the normal water level of the man-made lake is elevation 285 msl and
that the maximum lake water level is at elevation 295 msl.
3.1.7 Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife
3.1.7.1 Vegetation
Vegetative communities associated with the proposed development area consist of upland
forest and landscaped areas, as well as forested and emergent wetlands.
Upland forests primarily consist of mature second growth areas dominated by loblolly pine,
although some portions of the site also exhibit hardwood-dominated forest lands. In this
regard, red, white, black, willow, and bur oak are relatively abundant, occurring throughout
the area. Red maple and sweetgum are also present, particularly within and adjacent to
wetlands. Other overstory or canopy species include sourwood, hickory, flowering
dogwood, and in some locations, red cedar. Understory species consist of saplings of the
above-mentioned species, as well as ironwood, arrowwood, honeysuckle, catbrier, poison
ivy, virginia creeper, and wild grape. Due to the widespread occurrence of pines, a true
herbaceous layer is all but absent over a majority of the area.
The remaining upland community type consists of landscaped areas, the majority of which
includes a band, 10 to 50 feet in width, along the perimeter of the onsite lake and a centrally
located open grassed area on Site 4. Additional landscaped areas, subject to mowing and
maintenance, are associated with the tiIEHS Central Utility Plant (CUP) and the NIEHS
facility itself.
3-6 AFFECTED ENVIRONNIENT
SOURCE: Federal Insurance Administration (1979)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SCALE FIGURE
0 400 ;' 0 3-3
EPA Research and Administs'•ation Facility
Roo reh Triangle Park. North Carolina
4
AREA OF 100-YEAR FLOOD FLOODPKON E AKt As
3.1.7.2 Wetlands
In accordance with definitions set forth by both EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE), wetlands are defined as:
"...those areas that are inundated and saturated by surface or groundwater
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. "
40 CFR 230.30) and 33 CFR 328.3(b)
Inherent within this definition is the consideration of three environmental parameters, i.e.
hydrology, soils and vegetation. Areas meeting this definition are regulated at both the
Federal and State levels pursuant to Sections 404 and 401. respectively, of the Clean Water
Act. At the Federal level, wetland regulation is overseen jointly by EPA and ACOE, with
the regulatory program actually being administered by ALOE.
Wetland Delineation
Prior to onsite delineation activities, a variety of data sources were reviewed for the purpose
of identifying the presence/absence of wetlands, as well as their locations and extent. In
terms of the wetland classification system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FINS, 1979), the National Wetland Inventory (NWn maps. for example. characterize the
onsite lake as a permanently flooded and diked/impounded lacustrine (lake) wetland. The
Burdens Creek area and tributary extending to the outlet of the dam onsite are identified as
temporarily flooded palustrine (vegetated non-tidal) forested wetlands dominated by broaleaved deciduous species (FWS, 1992). t-
Inasmuch as soils and hydrologic features also serve to define wetlands, other data sources
reviewed included the Durham County soil survey and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
- Durham County, NC (Federal Insurance Administration, 1979). According to the County
soil survey, floodplain soils are associated with Burdens Creek and many of the tributaries
on and in the vicinity of the property. The FIRM map indicates floodprone areas primarily
in conjunction with Burdens Creek.
Due to the identified occurrence of wetlands on the proposed project site, field investigations
were conducted to confirm and refine the existing wetland database. During July and
August of 1992 and January of 1993, wetlands associated with the proposed development
area were delineated (flagged) in accordance with the currently accepted Corps ofEngineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory. 1987). Consistent with the
regulatory definition of wetlands contained above, this Manual states, in general, that an
area must exhibit hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and positive indicators of hydrology
to be considered a wetland.
Consistent with the 1987 Manual, transects and sampling plots were also established at
specific locations along the wetland/upland border. At these locations, data regarding
vegetation, soils and hydrology were recorded. Subsequent to wetland delineation efforts,
the wetland/upland boundaries were reviewed in the field by a representative of the ACOE
Raleigh Field Office. Based on this review, ACOE determined that the flagged boundaries
accurately depicted the boundary of jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Accordingly, the approved wetland boundaries were surveyed and plotted on project are
base reaps. These maps were then forwarded to ACOE for signature. ACOE signed thlIlI
maps on 9 July 1993. The approximate extent of waters and wetlands is presented its
Figure 3-4.
3-8 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
- - LIMIT OF MAPPING VEGETATION
?- SURFACE WATERS
A <ZD WETLANDS
OF UPLAND FOREST
L/D LANDSCAPED/DEVELOPED SOURCE: Conell Associates (1992)
A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIGU
EPA Research and Administration Facility o' azs• aso,
,,' _
tifl Research Triangle Pork, Worth Cornlln• rmiggwrommomming
Community Type Descriptions
Wetlands onsite can be consolidated into four groups according to their physical
characteristics, particularly size and cover type. The first group includes wetlands A and
E, which are predominantly landscaped areas in the vicinity of the CUP and NIEHS. These
wetlands receive drainage from paved areas, and themselves discharge (directly or
indirectly) into the lake. Plant species typical of these areas include red maple, sweet gum,
loblolly pine, smartweed, poison ivy, soft rush, spikerush, sensitive fern, and deertongue
grass.
The second group of wetlands (wetlands B, F, G, and I-K) includes relatively small forested
wetlands located on the perimeter of the onsite lake. Intermittent drainage swales continue
upslope from the vegetated wetlands. Typical plant species associated with these wetlands
include red maple, sweetgum, black gum, loblolly pine, arrowwood, highbush blueberry,
poison ivy, and virginia creeper.
The third group of wetlands (wetlands C and L) includes the relatively large forested
wetlands located in the southeast corner of the site, which drains into the lake, and an area
located at the north end of the site, which contains the outlet of the onsite lake. Plant species
characteristic of these wetlands include red maple, sweetgum, red bud, and loblolly pine in
the canopy, and black gum, arrowwood, flowering dogwood. highbush blueberry, and
immature canopy species in the understory. The herbaceous layer consists of sensitive fern,
Christmas fern, and jack-in-the-pulpit, among others.
The fourth group consists of the man-made lake and its banks. and areas D and H which
contain only streams. The lake receives drainage from adjacent wetlands and streams. The
lake discharges, through wetland L. into a stream which channels the water to Burdens
Creek. Most of the lake is open water. with some wetland plants, such as spikerush,
smartweed, and freshwater cordgrass occurring along the banks.
Overall, wetlands within the area of study total approximately 9.1 acres. with the onsite lake
totalling an additional 23.3 acres.
Functional Evaluation
A preliminary functional assessment of project area wetlands was also conducted. As stated
in ACOE's Guide for Permit Applicants (February. 1991). "the applicant will conclude
whether or not each of the listed functions is a principal valuable function of the wetland
and briefly explain any available data." The Guide continues to state that, at a minimum,
the following functions should be evaluated:
Groundwater recharge/discharge
Flood storage and desynchronization
Sediment and shoreline stabilization
Sediment/toxicant retention
Nutrient rc tention/trans formation
Nutrient export
Uniqueness/heritage
Aquatic diversity/abundance
Fish and shellfish habitat
Wildlife habitat
Endangered species
Consumptive recreation
Nonconsumptive recreation
Table 34I provides a Preliminary Functions and Values Assessment Matrix summarizing
project area wetlands relative to each of the above-referenced functions. Areas D and H are
not included since no wetlands are associated with these locations.
3-10 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1.7.3 Wildlife
The proposed EPA site and surrounding lands provide suitable habitat for a variety of
wildlife species. Naturally vegetated upland and wetland habitats, however, constitute the
most favorable habitat. In contrast, landscaped areas offer little in the way of food, water,
shelter, and breeding/nesting sites to most species of wildlife. Such species as Canada geese
and American crows were, however, observed feeding and resting in the landscaped area
adjacent to the lake.
In addition to upland vegetative communities, the presence of wetlands and open water on
and adjacent to the site increases vegetative and, thus, wildlife diversity. The interspersion
and juxtaposition of wetlands and uplands also offer wildlife a diversity of habitats within
relatively small areas. Although the site and surrounding areas predominantly consist of
forest lands, the vertical stratification characteristic of these communities serves to enhance
spatial and niche diversity. This, in turn, augments wildlife opportunities and increases
both wildlife diversity and abundance.
Wildlife species observed, or for which direct evidence was observed in the proposed
project area include whitetail deer, beaver, eastern cottontail rabbit, great blue heron, green
heron, Canada geese, northern cardinal, rufous-sided towhee, eastern box turtles, northern
black racer and bullfrogs.
Table 3-II
PRELIMINARY WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Function A
B
C
E Wetland
F G
I
J
K
Groundwater
Recharge/Discharge + + P + + + + + + P
Flood Storage and
Desynchronrzation + + + + + + + + + P
Sediment and
Shoreline Stabilization + + + + + + + + + +
Sediment/Toxicant
Retention + + + + + + + + + +
Nutrient Retention/
Transformation + + + + + + + + + +
Nutrient Export + + + + + ' + + + + +
Aquatic Diversity/
Abundance + + + + + + + + + +
Fish and Shellfish
Habitat - - + - - - - - - +
Wildlife Habitat + + P + + + + + + P
Endangered Species - _ _ -
Consumptive Recreation - - _ _
Nonconsumptive
Recreation - - - _
Unioueness/Heritage - - - _
is = Pnncipa Valuable Function
+ = Performance of Function
. =Absence of Function
3-11 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1.7.4 Endangered and Threatened Species
Based on site specific field investigations, and Federal and State agency contacts, there are
no known endangered, threatened or special status species associated with the proposed
development area.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program reports historical records of a state Candidate
species [American bluehearts (Buchnera americana)] and a state Significantly Rare species
[Veined skullcap (Scutellaria nervosa)] in the project vicinity along a railroad savannah
and Long Branch. respectively. Neither of these areas, however, will be affected by the
project.
Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates three federally-listed
species which may occur in Durham County. These include the bald eagle (Xaliaeetus
leucocephalus), Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii, and Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). None of these species was observed during site specific field investigations.
Correspondence regarding endangered, threatened and special status species is contained
in Attachment B.
3.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1 Utilities
A substantial utilities infrastructure serving the existing NIEHS complex currently exists
within close proximity to the proposed development area. As further summarized below,
while expansion of the infrastructure capabilities will be necessary, sufficient capacity to
serve the proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility exists within the regional
utility network.
3.2.1.1 Water Supply
The City of Durham provides potable water service to the site from Lake Michie via an
existing 18 inch line in Cornwallis Road and a 12 inch water main in T.W. Alexander Drive.
Existing 12 inch and 14 inch water lines are in operation to service the existing NIEHS
facility. These lines represent the first section of a continuous loop water main which will
serve the entire U.S. Public Health Service Research Park. Residual pressure of 120 psi is
available at the NIEHS facility.
3.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater treatment for Research Triangle Park is provided by Durham County under an
agreement with the Research Triangle Park Foundation. Treatment occurs at the Durham
County Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES No. N000226051). This plant has a design
capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Of this volume, daily flows average 3.5 mgd.
Allocated treatment capacity (capacity that has been sold to users) is approximately 4.0 mgd
leaving an approximate surplus of 2.0 mgd for other users.
The existing sanitary sewer system within the U.S. Public Health Service Research Park
consists of an existing 24 inch main in Burdens Creek from which an existing 18 inch main
extends south to the loop road at the northwest corner of the lake. From that point, an
existing 15 inch main extends east in the proposed loop road alignment, terminating at
Manhole 7C directly west of the proposed development area.
3-12 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal
The site of the proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility is currently undeveloped
and is not a generator of solid waste.
3.2.1.4 Electrical Power/Communications
An existing underground electrical distribution system consisting of 15KV cables in duct
banks currently terminates at the eastern end of the loop road serving NIEHS. Electrical
power for this system is supplied by the Duke Power Company's Master Substation.
3.2.1.5 Central Utility Plant
An existing power plant. identified as Central Utility Plant Building 105, currently services
the existing NIEHS complex. The CUP provides chilled water, and high temperature hot
water (HTHV) for HVAC and related uses. The complex currently houses two 2,500 ton
centrifugal chillers, two 40 million BTU/hr HTHW generators, a 36,000 ton distribution
loop, plus associated towers, pumps and related appurtenances. NIEHS has been issued a
permit for one additional 40 million BTU/hr generator, which was installed in September,
1994. This new generator serves as a redundant boiler for repair and maintenance purposes.
Number 2 fuel oil, which serves as a back-up fuel for the generators in the event of a gas
interruption, is stored in above-ground storage tanks.
Although sufficient capacity to serve the proposed EPA facility is not currently available,
the Central Utility Plant was originally designed and constructed to accommodate futurl
expansion for both NIEHS and the EPA facility.
3.2.1.6 Other Utilities
Natural gas is currently provided to the support services building from the main line
adjacent to Hopson Road. GTE South, Incorporated provides telephone service to the
existing NIEHS facility.
3.2.2 Transportation
The key roadways in the area are T.W. Alexander Drive, Hopson Road, NC Route 55, NC
Route 54, Interstate 40, Davis Drive and the Durham Freeway. The existing road system
is illustrated on Figure 1-1.
A transportation analysis was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Information
was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding
roadway plans, traffic signal plans, traffic count data. and projected future traffic volumes.
Traffic counts were performed in August 1992 to characterize existing traffic conditions in
the study area.
Traffic operating conditions are evaluated in terms of level of service (LOS) ratings at
intersections, where LOS A is best and LOS F is worst. Existing conditions at key
intersections in the study area were evaluated in terms of LOS- Table 3-III presents the key
signalized intersections and the current LOS. Table 3-IV provides the equivalent data for
unsignalized intersections. The data indicate that the key signalized intersections currently
are operating acceptably, with high LOS. LOS at the unsignalized intersections is also
generally adequate, except for two locations at which deficiencies were identified. These
are Alexander Drive westbound at NC Route 55 in the afternoon peak hour, and Hopson
Road eastbound in Davis Drive in the morning peak hour.
3-13 AFFECTED ENVIRO"IENT
Table 3-III
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
t_.evei or aervtce
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Route 4 at Route
12.1 12.4
NC Route 54 at T.W. Alexander Drive -1L
12.8 18.6
T.W. Alexander Drive at Durham Freeway -I- -1L
13.6 11.2
NC Route 54 at Davis Drive -B- .
14.5 13.2
B Level of Service 12.1 Delay in Seconds PER VEHICLE
Table 3-IV
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
T.W. Alexander Drive at Site Entrance WB Left D C
WB Right A A
SB Left B A
T.W. Alexander Drive at Alston/Hopson EB Left D C
EB Thru C C B C
EB Right A A
WB Left C D
WB Thru C B
WB Right A A
SB Left A A
NB Left A A
T.W. Alexander Drive at NC Route 55 WB Left D 11
C D l
F
WB Right A 1 A J
SB Left C A
Hopson at Site Entrance SB Left
l
A
A
l
A
I A
SB Right I
A A
EB Left A A
Hopson Road at Davis Drive EB Left E C
EB Thru D I
E C C
EB Right A A
WB Left D D
WB Thru D I
D C D
WB Right A A
SB Left B A
NB Left A A
Level of Service D IC
C Level of Service For Shared Lane(s)

!
For Each Movement C
3.2.3 Hazardous Materials
No hazardous materials are currently used, generated, stored, or disposed on the EPA site.
3.14 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.2.4 Air Quality a
3.2.4.1 Local/Regional Meteorology
Based on National Climatological Data Center reports, the annual average temperature is
58°F: temperatures exceed 90*F approximately 45 days per year, and fall below freezing
about 40 days per year. Average annual precipitation is 45 inches. Sunlight comprises 70-
percent of daylight hours in spring and summer, and 50 percent during winter. Figure 3-
5 illustrates the frequency of wind speed and direction recorded at Raleigh-Durham
International Airport for the five year period between 1988 and 1992.
3.2.4.2 Existing Air Quality
The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are
designed to protect public health with an added margin of safety. The State of North
Carolina has also established ambient air quality standards, most of which are the same as
the NAAQS. Table 3-V lists these standards, which apply to total suspended particulates
(TSP), respirable particulates (PM-10), sulfurdioxide (SO,), nitrogen dioxide (Nod. carbon
monoxide (CO), ozone (O3). and lead (Pb). Ambient air quality monitoring data should be
compared with the NAAQS and North Carolina standards.
Table XV
NATIONAL AND NORTH CAROLINA
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Standard
Averaging National Remarks and .
Pollutant Period Primary NC Exceedance Criteria
TSF AAnnual geom. mean
24 Hours 260 150 Not to be exceeded more than once
per vear.
PM-10 Annual arith. mean 50 50
24 Hours 150 150
SOr Annual arith. mean 80 80
24 Hours 365 365
3 Hours None 1300
NO, (ppm) Annual arith. mean 0.053 0.053
CO (ppm) 8 Hours 9 9
1 Hour 35 35
O, (ppm) 1 Hour 0.12 0.12
Pb Quarterly arith. mean 1.5 1.5
Not to be exceeded on more than
an average of one day per year. *
Not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
Not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
Not to be exceeded on more than
an average of one day per year.*
Not to be exceeded more than
once per year.
• Four days with an exceedance at a site in less than dose years constitutes a violation.
All standards are us/m', unless otherwise noted.
ppm = Patti per million.
Source: NC DEM, 1994
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management (NC DEM) maintains a statewide network of air quality
monitoring stations. The stations nearest to RTP are located in Durham and Raleigh for
most substances monitored. Table 3-VI provides a summary of recent NC DEM ambient
air monitoring results at these and other stations. All monitored concentrations are less than
3-15 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
/
/
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
r
r r
r r
r r
r f
r r
f r
f I
I 1
I I
I l
l ?
? ?
lo,
110x
6x lax ?
% 4X
j ? i
%2X I
I I ? E
I f 1
( f 1
r f f
r r ?
r r r
? r r
r ?
r r
i r
i r
/
/
/
i
i
CALM WINDS 7.71Y
WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
1-3 4-6 7-10
CALMS
NOTE: Froguanc l as
Indicota diroctlon
11-16 17-21 '2.1
From which the
wind Is blowing.
FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION
Raleigh-Durham International Airport, 1988-1992
SOURCE: U.S. EPA (1994)
'N` FIGURE
D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Administration Facffity 3-5
Rtserrch Tr/onitlo Park. North Carolina
t

the NAAQS and NC standards. With specific respect to CO, concentrations in the Raleigh
Durham area have steadily decreased in recent years. On 7 October 1994, the NC DEM filed
a petition with the EPA to reclassify the RTP area to attainment. According to NC DEM
(November, 1994), reclassification is anticipated sometime in 1995.
Ozone concentrations have not exceeded the NAAQS in Raleigh or Durham. This suggests
that existing ozone levels in the project area are also within the NAAQS. This has been
confirmed by EPA's recent (June, 1994) reclassification of the RTP area to attainment for
ozone.
Table 3-VI
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING DATA FOR THE
RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION
Concentrations
(1991/1992/1993)
Averaging
Pollutant Period Raleigh Durham
TSP Annual geom. mean 35/34/34 -
24 Hour 2nd maximum 79/65/80 -
PM-10 Annual arith. mean 25/24/24 26/24/26
24 Hour 2nd maximum 50/44/44 51/47/50
SO2Annual arith. mean 12/9/8 -
24 Hour 2nd maximum 25/48/27 -
3 Hour 2nd maximum 83/130/43 -
NO211(ppm) Annual arith. mean 0.016/0.015/0.011 -/-/0.0075
CO'°'(ppm) 8 Hour 2nd maximum 8.8/6.3/4.5 7.1/5.4/4.4
1 Hour 2nd maximum 11.5/9.8/6.0 13.3/8.8/6.1
Of'd' (ppm) 1 Hour 2nd maximum 0.107/0.099/0.113 -/0.09/0.104
Pb Quarterly arith. mean 0.03 (1987 data) 0.04 (1987 data)
(a) No rnonitonng stations in Raleigh or Durham. Data ate from stations nearest to RTP: 1991 and 1992 Chatham County,
1993 Johnston County.
(b) No monitorml; stations in Durham. 1993 Durham number is an average of stations in Franklin and Granville counties.
(c) Numbers shown represent an avenge of multiple sampling stations.
(d) No monitoring stations in Durham until 1993. 1992 Durham number is an average of sampling stations in Chatham,
Granville, and Wake Forest counties.
All concentrations art uglm', unless otherwise noted.
ppm = Pau per million.
Source: NC DEM, 1992, 1993, and 1994.
In addition to the above, the Research District provisions of the Durham County Zoning
Ordinance include standards designed to avert nuisance conditions for odors and other air
quality impacts.
3.2.4.3 Nearby Emission Sources and Sensitive Locations
The EPA site is located in an area of research facilities interspersed with forested tract=
Industrial uses are not permitted within Research Triangle Park, and no major emission
sources are known to exist in the immediate area.
3-17 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Central Utility Plant (CUP) is located across the onsite lake to the south. In addition
to boilers, the CUP facility contains two solid waste incinerators of 2,100 lb/hr capacity
each, and two pathological waste incinerators one of which has been permitted to incinerate
some hazardous wastes. The capacities of these units are 350 lb/hr of pathological waste
and 100 lb/hr of hazardous waste. Some emissions may also occur from the NIEHS research
facility. The NIEHS research facility is also the nearest location to the site that may be
sensitive to air quality impacts. No residences or commercial developments are located
within 2,500 feet of the EPA building footprint, or within approximately 800 feet of the
nearest EPA site boundary.
3.2.5 Noise
3.2.5.1 Applicable Standards
The Research District provisions of the Durham County Zoning Ordinance contain
standards designed to avert nuisance conditions for noise. These standards specify
permissible noise levels at the property line of a tract on which an operation emitting noise
is located.
3.2.5.2 Existing Ambient Noise Conditions
Existing ambient noise levels are expected to be typical of a research park environment
where facilities are buffered from each other by terrain, vegetation, and distance.
3.2.5.3 Nearby Emissions Sources and Sensitive Locations
No major noise sources are known to exist in the immediatd arei. The NIEHS Central
Utility Plant, which contains mechanical equipment, is located across the lake. The NIEHS
research facility is also the nearest location to the site that may be sensitive to noise impacts.
No residences or similarly noise-sensitive land uses are located within 2,500 feet of the EPA
building footprint, or within approximately 800 feet of the nearest site boundary.
3.2.6 Historic and Archaeologic Resources
Based on correspondence with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NC
DCR), there are no structures or areas of historic or archaeological significance in the
primary building area (see Attachment B). There are no structures on or in the vicinity of
the project listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
3.2.7 Zoning and Land Use
3.2.7.1 Zonine
Zoning within Research Triangle Park is regulated under the Durham County Zoning
Ordinance, as amended through 1990. The EPA site is within the RSCH-Research District
as described in Section XXII of the Ordinance. As stated in the Ordnance, the intent of this
district is to 'limit uses to research activities and related operations'. The production of
products for sale or use in production off the premises is expressly prohibited. The proposed
EPA Research and Administration Facility is a permitted use within the RSCH district.
3-18 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
General requirements for the district are as follows:
Building Height Limit none
Required Lot Width not less than 400 feet for non-agricultural uses
Percentage of Lot Covered 15% for buildings
Required Yards 250 feet
(Tracts >100 acres)
3.2.7.2 Land Use
The proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility site is currently undeveloped.
Adjacent land uses in close proximity to the proposed facility include the existing NMHS
facility to the west, the NMHS Support Services complex to the southwest, and open space
to the east and north. The eastern boundary of the site is bordered by unpaved Jenkins Road
which connects Hopson Road to the south and NC 54 to the north. A Duke Power Company
overhead transmission line is located to the east of Jenkins Road and south of Hopson Road.
T.W. Alexander Drive is located to the west of the NIEHS complex. The Durham Wildlife
Club is situated on land to the south of Hopson Road.
3-19 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The findings in this Section are based on the schematic site plans prepared by Hellmuth,
Obata dt Kassabaum. P.C. Schematic site engineering plans indicating proposed roadway
layout, grading and utility locations were provided by Greenhorn & O'Mara, Inc. These
plans are presented in Figures 4-1 to 4-4.
4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4. 1.1 Geology, Soils and Topography
A preliminary subsurface investigation prepared for the project site by Law Engineering
(1990) for the Site 3 parcel indicates that no extraordinary measures will be required to
support the proposed buildings and other structures. Since completion of the earlier
investigations, in 1992 and 1993, Law Engineering has continued to gather additional
subsurface investigations for Sites 3 and 4 for structural engineering purposes. These
additional data support the initial findings that conventional structural measures will be
adequate for the proposed project.
Site work and foundations for the buildings on Sites 3 and 4 will require the clearing of
vegetation and the excavation of approximately 81,000 cubic yards of excess rock. soil. and
related organic vegetation material. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of this excess
material will be used as fill during site work for roadways and utility installation. resulting
in a net material excess of approximately 61,000 cubic yards. While a majority of this
material may be transported offsite for disposal, during final design phases, efforts will be
made to more closely balance excavation and fill quantities onsite.
Based on available information, it is anticipated that blasting of rock, estimated at
approximately 195,000 cubic yards, is likely to be required for installation of utilities,
roadways, and foundations.
4.1.2 Groundwater Resources
The project is not anticipated to result in definitive impacts to local or regional groundwater
conditions. While the introduction of increased impervious surfaces will reduce the
recharge potential of affected areas, the proposed stormwater management plan provides
opportunities for the recharge of runoff throughout the development area.
Through construction of the EPA complex, there will likely be slight modifications in
groundwater elevations. Underground utility trenches are anticipated to result in the
localized lowering of the groundwater table. This is due to the tendency for utility trenches
4-1 ENVIRON `1ENTAL COSSEQUENCES
..1.
-=?
F- LAK
- - O. C
WiGtyr P(ai?
fz7
SITE 3 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Hellmuth. Obaa & Kassabaum and Greenhorn & O'Mara
'000 szq
(#'1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE F1GURL
EPA Research and Administration Fadity o' 3so' 4-1
Rosaareh Trtanglo Park, North Carolina
Nda'rN n'b.Cr." ROAD.
r
% 16
cmfo
?r . )' ? ', '` -\'• ? )?,•,• -CARE .?
LAKE '' ' : f • '7 •...
14.
- !i
SITE 4 SCHEMATIC SITE PLA'.
SOURCE: Hellmuth. Obwa & Kmabatum and Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. 0 "4)
SCALE r w ut<c
'Oe, % 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT a 3W " 4-2
EPA Research and Administration Famty
Research Triangle [*ark. North Carolina
?ad
7wt
fill f
l i I'.. i . •(?- "i=ce ^?\-.. 1` I i' \. ?\
•\` `-, 1,•I ., L , ' •? •V _ ••?, •/r, .\•\. ?.\'r; S Mil t •;i:/ ,? '` j ';/, .
' , '?. `• _ ? : '/ ': I 1 r ? , - .. •. , ; J 1, 1,;??r.? ,
.?' =% - - =_ Loop- - 'Road - '
Lake
•,- ,\ , 1;x..1 ,'? ` • . ,? .
NORTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
SOURCE: Greenhom & O'Mam i
`moo SCALE FI
n - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A, , "*N
EPA Research and A 'on Facf7ity' u' 175' 3W " 4-3
Rewrch Trtansla rark. North Carolina
Lake
:?,•. " •? u?y?i '%?- .??? ? `• _ ,. _??, i?'• ??•' .?•:,?' 1,
All
uti 1.
I v. , IF
,. _: .
UP.
l
Hopson Road
SOUTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
SOURCE: GranMm & amain Inc.
SCALE FIGUKC
A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
° EPA Resu'ch and AdmftUstration FacWty " 4-4
r
Rowrch Trtanglo Park. North Carolina
q
that intercept groundwater to facilitate groundwater movement and its subsequent dischaX
to surface water. Similarly, building foundations will most likely be designed with
subdrains to facilitate movement of groundwater under pads and footings. This, too, will
serve to lower localized groundwater elevations.
4.1.3 Surface Water Resources
Construction of the EPA facility and associated access roadways will have short-term and
long-term consequences for area surface water features, regardless of the development plan
selected. These impacts include changes in surface water hydrology and water quality.
4.1.3.1 Hydrology
Hydrologic impacts will result from changes in the rates of runoff from specific storm
events, as well as longer term changes in the amount of water passing through the onsite
lake. The proposed stormwater management plan and drainage system should minimize
hydrologic effects.
The storm drainage system for the access roads and onsite improvements will emphasize
utilization of vegetated areas (ditches and swales) to accept surface runoff prior to entering
the stormwater collection system. This will provide a means of filtering pollutants present
in impervious surface runoff prior to entering the onsite lake or Burdens Creek. Additionally,
two water quality detention ponds are proposed, which will serve to curtail potential
impacts to water quality. In this regard, the ponds will detain runoff from the first one inch
of rainfall for a period of two to five days, thus allowing for the removal of total suspensolids by sixty-two to eighty-five percent. Prior to the discharge of stormwater from the-4--
ponds to the onsite lake, the concentration of such other runoff constituents as nitroge
phosphorus and heavy metals will also be reduced.
Sites 3 and 4 comprise a. total of 132.4 acres of generally undeveloped forested watershed.
While existing forest areas will be replaced by impervious roadways and structures which
will result in an increase in runoff, long-term impacts to the lake will be modest. The
conversion of existing forest lands to impervious surfaces will total approximately 28 acres.
Since annual runoff from the forested areas is approximately 15 inches, the undeveloped
132.4 acre site contributes 7.2 million cubic feet of runoff. The increase in total impervious
area will induce an increase of 2.7 million cubic feet of runoff. This will result in an increase
in lake flushing from approximately 2.5 to 2.9 times per year. The increase in flushing will
have a favorable impact on hydrology.
4.1.3.2 Water Quality
There will be an unavoidable increase in various water quality constituents in the lake
during facility construction as forested soils are cleared for roadways and buildings.
Although measures will be taken to reduce the amount of erosion and control suspended
solids before runoff enters the onsite lake, erosion and temporary increased levels of
suspended solids, turbidity, and nutrients will occur.
Long-term impacts to surface water resources will result from the discharge of stormwater
runoff to the lake and area streams. The proposed stormwater management plan and
drainage system should mitigate potential adverse effects resulting from such project-
related modifications.
4-6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1.4 Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat
4.1.4.1 Vegetation and Wetlands
Calculations of areas to be affected by construction of the building complex and access
roadway network indicate that the preferred alternative will disturb approximately 73 acres
of upland forest and wetland vegetation. Of this area, approximately 45 acres will be
revegetated, resulting in a total impervious area of approximately 28 acres. Installation of
utilities and expansion of the Central Utility Plant will disturb an additional area of
approximately 9 acres, substantial portions of which will be revegetated.
Wetland impacts will total approximately 0.04 acres, while approximately 2,000 linear feet
of streams will also be affected. Some additional wetland areas will also be temporarily
affected due to utility installation.
The limited wetland impacts are primarily associated with drainage outlet structures.
Although not quantifiable at present. future construction of the South Loop Road and
installation of utilities necessary to achieve the complete utility loop may also result in
limited impacts to wetlands. Wetland F. approximately 0.024 acres, is proposed to be
converted to a new 036 acre water feature. 0.26 acres of which will be revegetated with
wetland plant species. This represents a 6.5:1 ratio of wetlands replaced to those lost. The
remaining open crater will provide additional wetlands functions and values. Overall, due
to the location and minimal extent of wetland-related impacts and the net increase in site
wetlands provided due to mitigation activities, the disturbance is not anticipated to
significantly alter existing wetland functions and values.
4.1.4.2 Wildlife
Wildlife-related impacts are anticipated to be most pronounced for species characteristic of
the upland vegetation areas. Although there will be minor impacts to wetlands, these
changes are not anticipated to significantly affect wetland-related habitat.
The loss and alteration of existing habitats will lead to a concomitant reduction in wildlife
diversity and abundance. and the loss and displacement of wildlife species. Some wildlife
mortality will occur during both facility construction and operation. However, the majority
of wildlife impacts potentially associated with facility construction would be the displacement
of individuals. Displacement refers to the total. partial or temporary movement of wildlife
species from those areas altered by construction. either physically or indirectly, to other
suitable habitats elsewhere.
As portions of the site begin to be revegetated and landscaped, a variety of wildlife species
will return to these areas. Thus, displacement for some species may be considered only
temporary.
4.1.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Natural
Heritage Program, and onsite field investigations, there are no known endangered, threatened
or special status species within the proposed development area. Project construction and
operation is. thus, not anticipated to adversely affect these species.
4-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Utilities
4.2.1.1 Water Supply
The City of Durham will provide potable water to the EPA Research and Administration
Facility. Consumptive water needs are estimated by R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc. to be
227,700 gallons per day (go), as summarized below:
Office 30,000 gpd
Laboratory 150,000 gpd
Kitchen/Cafeteria 23,000 gpd
Evaporative Cooling 2,000 gpd
Contingency 10%
Total 227,700 gpd
Adequate capacities are available to meet all project-related demands. Moreover, the new
facility is to contain state-of-the-art water conservation fixtures.
4.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal
The EPA Research and Administration Facility will generate domestic and laboratory
wastewater. A total wastewater generation rate of approximately 227,700 gpd has been
estimated. The Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant has approximately 2.0 MgA_
in excess capacity which can be allocated to the proposed EPA facility.
The quality of the wastewater discharge will be regulated by the City of Durham Sewer Tse
Ordinance. This Ordinance contains limitations on the quality of wastewater that is allowed
to be discharged to the sewer system as well as other limitations. The City of Durham has
reported that the EPA Research and Administration Facility may be classified as a
Significant Industrial User (SIU) because of its large volume of wastewater flow (Personal
Communication; Vicki Westbrook - City of Durham, Environmental Affairs Division;
September, 1992). The City also repotted that it may require that controls on wastewater
flow be designed into the facility to equalize flow, as well as to adjust wastewater pH.
As a routine design procedure, wastewater from each laboratory building will receive
separate pH monitoring and adjustment before it is combined with other wastewater flows.
Individual pH adjustment systems will be located in the north and south lab wings and in
the high bay area. Each of these zones will include a complete 2,000 gallon continuous flow
acid/caustic pH adjustment system. Waste outfall from these systems will be monitored for
pH. Where determined necessary, additional waste treatment may be incorporated.
In addition, there will be a manhole from which wastewater can be monitored by the City
of Durham. No contaminated wastewater will be discharged from individual laboratories.
In the existing facility, laboratories that use chemicals do not discharge any chemicals into
the sanitary sewer. All chemicals are collected in the laboratory for disposal.
Some animal wastes and small amount of bedding material will be discharged from the cage
washing operation. All cage wash water will be directed to the lab waste system and pass$
through the pH adjustment system. No infectious or other hazardous animal wastes will I
included in this discharge. All infectious animal wastes will be removed and disposed
as pathological waste prior to washing the cages.
4-8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1.4 Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat
4.1.4.1 Vegetation and Wetlands
Calculations of areas to be affected by construction of the building complex and access
roadway network indicate that the preferred alternative will disturb approximately 73 acres
of upland forest and wetland vegetation. Of this area, approximately 45 acres will be
revegetated, resulting in a total impervious area of approximately 28 acres. Installation of
utilities and expansion of the Central Utility Plant will disturb an additional area of
approximately 9 acres, substantial portions of which will be revegetated.
Wetland impacts will total approximately 0.04 acres, while approximately 2,0.00 linear feet
of streams will also be affected. Some additional wetland areas will also be temporarily
affected due to utility installation.
The limited wetland impacts are primarily associated with drainage outlet structures.
Although not quantifiable at present, future construction of the South Loop Road and
installation of utilities necessary to achieve the complete utility loop may also result in
limited impacts to wetlands. Wetland F. approximately 0.024 acres, is proposed to be
converted to a new 0.36 acre water feature, 0.26 acres of which will be revegetated with
wetland plant species. This represents a 6.5:1 ratio of wetlands replaced to those lost. The
remaining open water will provide additional wetlands functions and values. Overall, due
to the location and minimal extent of wetland-related impacts and the net increase in site
wetlands provided due to mitigation activities, the disturbance is not anticipated to
significantly alter existing wetland functions and values.
4.1.4.2 Wildlife
Wildlife-related impacts are anticipated to be most pronounced for species characteristic of
the upland vegetation areas. Although there will be minor impacts to wetlands, these
changes are not anticipated to significantly affect wetland-related habitat.
The loss and alteration of existing habitats will lead to a concomitant reduction in wildlife
diversity and abundance, and the loss and displacement of wildlife species. Some wildlife
mortality will occurduring both facility construction and operation. However, the majority
of wildlife impacts potentially associated with facility construction would be the displacement
of individuals. Displacement refers to the total. partial or temporary movement of wildlife
species from those areas altered by construction, either physically or indirectly, to other
suitable habitats elsewhere.
As portions of the site begin to be revegetated and landscaped. a variety of wildlife species
will return to these areas. Thus, displacement for some species may be considered only
temporary.
4.1.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Natural
Heritage Program, and onsite field investigations, there are no known endangered, threatened
or special status species within the proposed development area. Project construction and
operation is, thus, not anticipated to adversely affect these species.
4-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Utilities
4.2.1.1 Water Supply
The City of Durham will provide potable water to the EPA Research and Administration
Facility. Consumptive water needs are estimated by R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc. to be
227,700 gallons per day (gpd), as summarized below:
Office 30,000 gpd
Laboratory 150,000 gpd
Kitchen/Cafeteria 25,000 gpd
Evaporative Cooling 2,000 gpd
Contingency 10%
Total 227,700 gpd
Adequate capacities are available to meet all project-related demands. Moreover, the new
facility is to contain state-of-the-art water conservation fixtures.
4.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal
The EPA Research and Administration Facility will generate domestic and laboratory
wastewater. A total wastewater generation rate of approximately 227,700 gpd has been
estimated. The Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant has approximately 2.0 mgd
in excess capacity which can be allocated to the proposed EPA facility.
The quality of the wastewater discharge will be regulated by the City of Durham Sewer Use
Ordinance. This Ordinance contains limitations on the quality of wastewater that is allowed
to be discharged to the sewer system, as well as other limitations. The City of Durham has
reported that the EPA Research and Administration Facility may be classified as a
Significant Industrial User (SIM because of its large volume of wastewater flow (Personal
Communication; Vicki Westbrook - City of Durham, Environmental Affairs Division;
September, 1992). The City also reported that it may require that controls on wastewater
flow be designed into the facility to equalize flow, as well as to adjust wastewater pH.
As a routine design procedure, wastewater from each laboratory building will receive
separate pH monitoring and adjustment before it is combined with other wastewater flows.
Individual pH adjustment systems will be located in the north and south lab wings and in
the high bay area. Each of these zones will include a complete 2,000 gallon continuous flow
acid/caustic pH adjustment system. Waste outfall from these systems will be monitored for
pH. Where determined necessary, additional waste treatment may be incorporated.
In addition, there will be a manhole from which wastewater can be monitored by the City
of Durham. No contaminated wastewater will be discharged from individual laboratories.
In the existing facility, laboratories that use chemicals do not discharge any chemicals into
the sanitary sewer. All chemicals are collected in the laboratory for disposal.
Some animal wastes and small amount of bedding material will be discharged from the cage
washing operation. All cage wash water will be directed to the lab waste system and passed
through the pH adjustment system. No infectious or other hazardous animal wastes will be
included in this discharge. All infectious animal wastes will be removed and disposed of
as pathological waste prior to washing the cages.
4-8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2.1.3 Central Utility Plant Expansion
Boilers
NIEHS has secured a permit to expand the Central Utility Plant by installing a third boiler
of 40 million BTU/hr capacity. This new boiler was installed in September, 1994, and
brings total capacity prior to construction of the EPA facility to 120 million BTU/hr.
However, NIEHS plans to operate only two of the three boilers simultaneously, reserving
the third as a standby unit. The heating needs of the EPA facility will be met through
installation of two additional 40 million BTU/hr boilers.
The primary fuel for all boilers will remain natural gas, with No. fuel 2 oil as a backup. With
construction of the EPA Research and Administration Facility, the backup fuel supply will
be increased from an existing 120,000 gallons to 240,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil. The
future storage facilities will be the same as at present with fuel being stored in above ground
tanks. The tanks are on concrete pads with curbing to contain incidental spills, discharges,
or leaks.
Chillers
The Central Utility Plant also includes a chilled water plant containing two 2,500 ton
chillers. To provide chilled water to the EPA facility, three 3,500 ton chillers will be
installed. NIEHS also plans to add one additional 3,500 ton chiller. One of the new units
will operate as a backup.
Incinerators
EPA is currently developing options for disposal of wastes generated at the new facility. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been formalized between EPA and NIEHS
which includes a program for coordinated waste disposal and incineration. Incineration
capabilities of the CUP now include two general solid waste incinerators, each with a
maximum capacity of 2,100 lb/hr. Two pathological waste incinerators are also housed
within the complex, one of which has been permitted to incinerate certain hazardous waste
materials. The respective capacities of these units are 350lb/hr pathological waste and 100
lb/hr of hazardous waste. The hazardous waste incinerator is not permitted for incineration
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, or P-listed wastes (high hazards).
EPA plans to expand incineration capacities at the CUP by installing a hazardous waste
incinerator with a capacity of 350 lb/hr. Expansion of onsite hazardous waste incineration
capacity is preferred to offsite disposal in that it minimizes the risk of exposure to the
general public during offsite transport.
The new incinerator will be capable of incinerating pathological and hazardous wastes,
except for PCBs, pesticides and P-listed wastes. The incinerator will meet or exceed all
applicable federal performance standards. The unit will be designed using maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). It will be equipped with emission control and air
pollutant monitoring equipment and be capable of achieving a Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999%.
4.2.1.4 Other Utilities
Existing electrical power capacity sufficient to meet the additional load need of the EPA
facility currently exists within the Duke Power Company grid. GTE South, Incorporated
4-9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
has indicated that sufficient telephone service capacity exists to meet the requirements om
the EPA complex. Natural gas in the required capacities is available to the site.
4.2.2 Transportation and Parking
4.2.2.1 Overview of Proposed Facilities
Access to the EPA Research and Administration Facility will be provided from both T.W.
Alexander Drive and Hopson Road. In addition, the existing NIEHS loop road will be
extended to the east side of the lake to service EPA. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 indicate access road
locations. Figure 4-5 illustrates typical roadway cross-sections.
Parking for 1,800 cars will be provided in two structured parking facilities on site 3 and
surface lots on sites 3 and 4.
4.2.2.2 Assessment Methods
A transportation analysis was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to determine
the traffic impacts to the road system in the area of the proposed EPA Facility. The analysis
studied nine key intersections in the vicinity of the site.
The analysis evaluated the ability of the area road system to accommodate the vehicle trips
expected to be generated by employees and visitors to the new EPA facility. Where
deficiencies in the area road system were identified, or projected impacts are excessive,
mitigating measures are recommended to offset these impacts, as discussed in section 5.0.
Roadway and traffic operating conditions are evaluated in terms of level of service (LOS-
ratings. There are six LOS grades, ranging from A through F, with A being the highest any
F the lowest. An excess impact or deficiency in the area road system is defined when LOS
at an intersection is characterized by E or less. LOS D is considered acceptable for the peak
hour conditions, usually the morning and afternoon commuter hours.
4.2.2.3 Assessment Results
The proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility is expected to generate
approximately 5,000 vehicles per day average daily traffic (ADT) in 1999. In comparison,
the ADTs on T.W. Alexander Drive and on Hopson Road in 1990 were 5,400 and 2,000,
respectively, in the vicinity of the site. The EPA facility will add approximately 1,381 new
vehicle trips to the morning and afternoon peak hours at Research Triangle Park, assuming
that the current facilities utilized by the EPA will be leased by others.
None of the regional roadways are expected to experience significant traffic impacts, but
these additional volumes will cause significant traffic impacts to the local roadway system.
Most of these traffic impacts will occur adjacent to the site, and can be mitigated by typical
traffic engineering measures.
These measures, summarized in Section 5.0, include widening of roadway approaches to
intersections and re-striping of intersection approaches. Improvements are recommended
to each of the new EPA driveways, including widening of Hopson Road and T.W.
Alexander Drive. These widenings will create exclusive left and right turn lanes to help
alleviate traffic in these intersections during the peak hours.
4-10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EXISTING GRADE r T0% DITCH _ EXISTING GRADE
-\
,,z, 8' i s' s' 1 e'
V PAVED
-+? - - SHOULDER V?
..p'I 4':1'
I
DUCTBANKS
C
1T MIN. -?
CLEARANCE ,_ - - - - _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Three Lanes (Includes Turn-Only Lane)
EXISTING GRADE r 2V TOE DITCH
I
6' 11 12'
i
1' PAVED
r+SHOULDER
.'? I ., I I 114' : 1_
DUCTBANKS
1
12' MIN. I
CLEARANCE - - - - - J
- - - - - - - - - - - -
EXISTING GRADE
Two Lanes
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS
SOURCE: Greenhom & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
? ? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE
g EPA Research and Administration FacHity 4-5
Ro"ar'eh Triangle Park, North Carolina
t
EPA is currently working with NC DOT regarding transportation improvements. It i
EPA's stated goal that, to the extent practicable, the Level of Service (LOS) at affecte=
intersections will be LOS D or better.
Continuing transportation improvements by NC DOT are expected to enhance the ability
of the regional roadway system to serve EPA-generated traffic. The future widening of NC
Route 54 from NC Route 55 to Davis Drive to five lanes will aid in improving travel through
Research Triangle Park. Bus transit service to Research Triangle Park from Chapel Hill
began in August 1992. Service from Durham, Cary and Raleigh is also being established.
While ridesharing programs have not been found feasible in the past, The Triangle Transit
Authority oversees a formal ride share program and is making extensive efforts to form
carpools and vanpools on the south side of the Research Triangle Park. These efforts should
help in improving traffic flow in the future.
4.2.3 Hazardous Materials
The EPA research facilities will conduct research on human and environmental effects of
chemical contaminants. This research involves use of chemicals, generation of chemical
waste, and discharges of chemicals from laboratories and other research areas in exhausted
air and wastewater. The chemicals currently in use at each of the EPA research facilities
in RTP are typical of chemicals utilized in similar research by other government, private
sector, and university laboratories. These chemicals have toxic properties, but are used in
research in very small quantities and undercontrolled conditions to ensure both the integrity
of the experimentation and the safety of the investigator.
Specific chemicals that will be used in each laboratory in the proposed EPA research
facility, when it opens in 1999, are not known, but it is assumed that they will be comparable-
to substances that are currently used at existing EPA facilities. The nature of the chernicalso.-
and other materials used at any given time changes with the needs of the researchers and
with the research priorities being set by EPA. The vast majority of chemicals, however,
consist of common laboratory solvents. Other chemicals include small quantities of acids,
as well as research-specific chemicals. Further information regarding chemical usage at
EPA is available from Mr. Robert Palmer, EPA Industrial Hygienist, at 919-541-4346.
The Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL) conducts basic and applied research on
the health effects of chemical exposure. The various groups within HERL conduct research
with laboratory animals and with cell culture and apply the results to humans through
models that are also developed through animal experimentation. The laboratories, therefore,
maintain animal colonies and store and utilize small quantities of a variety of chemicals.
Much of the research at HERL is conducted using cell cultures from both animal and human
tissue, or using animal sera. This research involves use of extremely small quantities of
chemicals, often in microliter or smaller quantities.
At HERL, laboratory animals are exposed to chemicals in drinking water, in inhalation
chambers, and by skin painting in both short-term and lifetime studies. During the exposure
period, researchers evaluate animal behavior and physiology. At the end of the exposure
period, animals are euthanized and the carcasses, specific organs, and other biological
specimens are studied in pathology and chemical laboratories. These laboratories utilize
chemicals that are identical to those used in hospital and other medical laboratories to
perform tests on tissue and body fluids.
Both research and testing laboratories also utilize small amounts of low-level radioactive
materials. These materials are used as biological markers in animal experimentation to
4-12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
determine metabolic and transport pathways that a chemical follows after it is absorbed by
the body. In addition, higher energy radioactive materials may also be used in laboratories
that are evaluating effects of radiation on living organisms.
In addition to use and storage of chemicals and radioactive materials, research laboratories
generate these materials as wastes. Chemical waste is generated both in the animal
experimentation laboratories, where some waste chemical may be excessed after animals
are dosed.
Hazardous chemicals may also be present in animal waste products (urine and feces)
depending upon the metabolic pathways of specific chemicals used in research. These
materials, along with animal carcasses, are considered pathological waste, and must be
managed separately from chemical, radiological, and normal solid wastes.
The largest containers of liquids stored within laboratories are 5- to 10-gallon containers
of common laboratory reagents. Materials stored in this size container include ethyl
alcohol, Kodak Rapid FixerR, and benzalkonium chloride solution. Most liquids are stored
in containers no larger than one gallon or four liters (examples include isoamyl alcohol.
hexane, ethyl ether, and methanol). The majority of liquids stored in the laboratory areas
are in containers smaller than one liter. Many are in containers smaller than 100 milliliters.
The only exception is for fuels, which are stored in 500-gallon double walled tanks in
existing fuel research areas within AREAL and AEERL. These fuels include gasoline, fuel
oils, alternative fuels and fuel additives.
4.2.3.1 Animal Research Laboratories
Hazardous materials in these laboratories vary as the nature of the chemicals that are being
tested change. At any given time, the laboratories within HERL, including the Environmental
Toxicology, Genetic Toxicology, Neurotoxicology, and Developmental Toxicology
laboratories, may be evaluating health effects of materials that include chlorinated and
nonchlorinated solvents, other volatile organics, organophosphate pesticides, halogenated
pesticides, other pesticides (carbamates, etc.), metals, other inorganics, polynuclear aromatic
compounds, and other complex organics or specialty chemicals. These laboratories, and the
atmospheric and air exposure laboratories, may also be testing criteria air pollutants (CO,
SO., NO,, hydrocarbons, ozone, and particulates), as well as air toxics (volatile and other
organics and inorganics).
The EPA laboratory currently relies on rodents for its health effects investigations. These
species will also be used at the proposed facility. Animals are received into the laboratory
facility, and are quarantined and evaluated for general health prior to being transferred to
specific laboratories where investigations are carried out. Animals in holding facilities are
not exposed to chemicals and are not contaminated. There are no health hazards associated
with a laboratory animal holding facility.
EPA maintains its animal colonies following standards and guidelines established by the
National Institutes of Health and other agencies for proper and humane maintenance of
laboratory animals. As noted previously, it is critical that laboratory animals be kept in
carefully controlled environments in order to protect the integrity of the research.
Animal bedding, which is contaminated with urine and feces, is collected and disposed of
in a pathological waste incinerator, as are animal carcasses at the termination of the
4-13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
experiment. Other biological specimens from these studies, such as blood and surgically
removed tissue, is also disposed of in a pathological waste incinerator. Small amounts of
waste chemical used in a study are disposed of as hazardous waste.
The proposed EPA laboratory will include both a Conventional Animal Facility and a
Biohazard Animal Facility. Both facilities will be served by a dedicated animal dock where
animals are received. The Conventional Animal Facility will be designed to maintain
animals prior to research and animals being exposed to chemicals or otherwise used in
investigations. The Biohazard Animal Facility will maintain transgenic species and
pathological agents, and will have intake and exhaust filtration. The exhaust filtration will
remove both biological agents and chemical vapors and particulates, and therefore
investigations involving potentially high hazard chemicals can be performed: The facility
will also have the capacity to microencapsulate individual cages and cage racks if
necessary.
Cages from the Biohazard Animal Facility will be decontaminated in a Decontamination
Room prior to washing, which is done approximately twice per week to ensure maximum
protection of animal health and welfare. Cages will be washed using an automated cage
washer and wash water will be discharged to the laboratory waste system.
4.2.3.2 Testing Laboratories
Research facilities require various testing laboratories in which chemicals and other
potentially hazardous materials are used, stored, and subsequently discarded. These
include laboratories in which doses of chemicals are mixed, chemicals are tested for purity,
and specialty chemicals are synthesized. Other laboratories include clinical chemistry
where animal tissue or body fluids are analyzed, and pathology and histology laboratories,
as well as laboratories utilizing x-rays and other noninvasive testing techniques.
Analytical laboratories in health effects research facilities utilize reagents and solvents
identical to those used in hospitals and clinical laboratories. These chemicals are used and
stored in small quantities in the laboratories, and are discarded in segregated containers for
disposal as hazardous or pathological wastes when testing is complete. Reagents mixed
with animal fluids and other tissues and waste products are discarded as pathological
wastes.
X-ray machines and other equipment that utilize radioactive sources are shielded and are
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This equipment, which is
identical to equipment utilized in hospitals, is operated following specific standards and
guidelines developed to prevent radiation exposure to the operator and to others in the
vicinity of the laboratory. Other radioactive materials, such as labelled compounds, are
commonly used in testing laboratories and are discarded as low-level radioactive waste.
Both the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL), and the
Air and Energy Research Laboratory (AEERL) conduct research that uses chemicals or fuel
formulations. AREAL currently conducts research on fuels and vehicle performance. This
research utilizes various blended automotive fuels in a test environment that includes a
drum dynamometer. This equipment simulates actual highway or other roadway environment,
and is in an enclosed area into which a vehicle is tested. Vehicular exhaust is vented from
the facility.
AREAL is currently conducting research into incineration of hazardous wastes operating
under an EPA RCRA Research Development and Demonstration Permit (RCRA RD&D).
4.14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The facility operates a Flue Gas Cleaning System (FGCS) that serves five test incinerators
and several bench-scale combustors. The FGCS is designed to remove more than 99.9999
percent of organic combustibles, carbon monoxide, and acid gases in the exhaust from the
combustors. The combustors also demonstrate a 99.9999 percent Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE).
The AREAL facility is laboratory-scale only, and is not to be used to incinerate hazardous
wastes generated in the EPA laboratories. Test burns of both laboratory chemicals and
actual hazardous waste mixtures are, however, performed at the test facility. When the
Hazardous Waste Incineration Research Facility is relocated to the proposed EPA Research
center, it will not be scaled up to incinerate hazardous wastes. The purpose of the facility
is to investigate the combustion process and efficiency of incinerators in treating various
types of hazardous waste. The facility is restricted from developing a commercial process.
Wastes incinerated at the facility include aliphatic and aromatic organic compounds;
halogenated organic compounds; organic compounds containing sulfur, phosphorous,
oxygen, or nitrogen; aqueous solutions of organic chemicals; liquid and solid wastes
containing salts of metals; organo-metallic compounds; solvents; and mixtures of these
chemicals. No chemical agents, radioactive wastes, and Class A explosives are tested at
the facility. All wastes are analyzed prior to combustion testing to ensure that they meet
specifications.
Other EPA laboratories are currently developing control technologies for air and water
pollutants. This research requires use of bench-scale models in order to evaluate the
efficacy of the various control technologies. Very small quantities of waste materials may
be discharged to the environment in wastewater and exhausted air from these facilities.
4.2.3.3 Other Hazardous Materials
Storage
The impact of increasing storage capacity for fuel oil at the site should be low. Above
ground tanks provide effective and safe storage for fuel oil, and permit leaks or refueling
spills to be identified and remediated immediately. The above ground tanks will be
constructed on concrete slabs and will be bermed to provide spill containment. Advanced
tank design allows storage of fuel with minimal environmental risk.
The proposed facility will have state-of-the-art storage facilities for chemicals and chemical
wastes. A chemical issuance facility will be designed for stockroom storage of common
laboratory chemicals. The facility will have segregated areas for flammables, acids, bases,
oxidizers, and incompatible chemicals. The storage space will be secured at all times, and
all chemicals will be dispensed by a stockroom employee. The area will have fire
protection, a safety shower, eyewash, and a sink, and will be designed to NFPA standards.
Specialty chemicals will be stored in individual research laboratories.
In the proposed EPA facility, pathological wastes will be managed in the same way in the
laboratories and animal facilities. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
between NIEHS and EPA, EPA's pathological waste will be incinerated with the NIEHS
waste at the Central Utility Plant. This will require transporting pathological wastes from
the EPA facility to the Central Utility Plant, and storage in a refrigerated area at that location
until incinerated. This method for managing pathological wastes will not result in new
emissions since pathological waste is already incinerated in a permitted incinerator at the
NIEHS Central Utility Plant.
4.15 ENVIRONNENTAL CONSEQUENCES
All hazardous waste storage areas at the existing laboratory facilities meet RCRA
requirements for collection and storage of hazardous wastes. Wastes that are generated in
individual laboratories are collected into 5- or 10- gallon containers, and when full, are
transferred to the facility waste storage area, located in a separate building. The principal
investigator in each laboratory is responsible for transporting laboratory-generated RCRA
wastes, and for identifying the contents of the container. All hazardous waste containers
are inspected and manifests are filed by the EPA Facility Health and Safety Director. The
wastes are maintained in a secured, locked room until collection by a licensed contractor
for disposal at the RCRA-licensed facility in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
These procedures will continue, with some modifications, at the proposed EPA Research
and Administration Facility. At the new facility, the hazardous waste storage.area will be
located at the Central Utility Plant in a proposed 3-5,000 sf addition to the waste handling
facility currently under design by NIEHS. Accordingly, rather than the principal investigators
transporting hazardous wastes directly to the hazardous waste storage area, at the new
facility, hazardous wastes will be collected by trained personnel and moved to the Central
Utility Plant and stored in accordance with RCRA standards.
The proposed EPA facility includes storage space for approximately 1,500 gas cylinders.
The cylinder storage area will meet all applicable NFPA standards, and will be able to
accommodate flammable gases, non-oxidizing gases, and oxidizing gases in segregated
areas. Each cylinder stored in the storage area will be individually secured.
Incineration
EPA currently incinerates only pathological wastes at its present locations. The proposedM
facility will share RCRA permitted incinerator facilities with NIEHS. The combined-
volume of waste generated will remain essentially consistent to present combined levels.
NIEHS currently operates two general purpose solid waste incinerators, and two pathological
waste incinerators.
One of the NIEHS incinerators has been modified for some hazardous waste and holds
RCRA Part A and B permits. This hazardous waste incinerator has a capacity of 100 lb/hr
and attains 2,000 degrees in the secondary chamber with a residence time of greater than
six seconds. Wastes that are not permitted to be burned in the CUP incinerator include PCB s
or other complex halogenated wastes, pesticides, and P-listed wastes. These hazardous
materials which can not be incinerated onsite are presently and will continue to be
transported offsite to a RCRA-licensed treatment or disposal facility.
Hazardous waste management plans for the new facility are being developed. The preferred
option is to incinerate some of the wastes generated at the facility in a new hazardous/
pathological waste incinerator to be installed in the Central Utility Plant. This incinerator
will have a capacity of 350 lb/hr, and will be capable of incinerating some RCRA-regulated
wastes, including nonhalogenated solvents, some halogenated solvents, some low
concentration metal-containing solutions, and various other wastes. Consistent with
present practices, the incinerator will not incinerate PCBs or other complex halogenated
wastes, pesticides, or P-listed wastes.
The proposed 350 lb/hr hazardous waste incinerator will increase the efficiency of waste
incineration at the CUP through handling a greater volume of materials onsite. In addition
to efficiencies associated with consolidating incineration at a single, closely monitored
state-of-the-art complex, incineration of suitable hazardous wastes will also eliminate the
need to transport materials offsite and the costs and potential risks associated with transport.
4-16 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
These waste management activities will be identical to operations currently taking place at
the NIEHS facility, except that the amounts of wastes will increase. A new, larger hazardous
waste incinerator will be added to manage the increased level of pathological and hazardous
waste from the new EPA facility. The new incinerator will require air quality controls and
all applicable air quality and RCRA permits.
Radioactive Wastes
The EPA research facilities at RTP have a Radiation Safety Committee that establishes
policies, procedures, and guidelines for use and control of radioactive materials and
sources. All materials and sources used are reviewed periodically to ensure effective
radiological safety in all programs. Investigators using radioactive materials must comply
with all applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and Radiation Safety
Committee procedures, and must keep radiation exposure to all personnel "as low as is
reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
Only personnel who are trained in the use of radioisotopes or radioactive sources may use
these materials, and all work must be during normal working hours. All materials received
into the facility are logged in by the Radiation Safety Officer. All areas in the facility where
radioactive materials or sources are used or stored are labelled with radiation warning signs.
Radioactive wastes are separated by nuclide, to group substances with similar half-lives,
and by waste stream. Four waste streams are processed: solids, including gloves, paper
towels, test tubes, etc.; liquid scintillation vials; liquids wastes; and biological wastes,
including carcasses and animal bedding. The proposed facility will also have a radioactive
waste management area where these wastes will be processed.
Low-level radioactive wastes generated at the existing EPA and NIEHS facilities are stored
until removed for disposal at the regional radiological waste disposal site. North Carolina
belongs to the Southeast Compact for low-level radiological waste disposal. The Compact
currently uses a disposal facility, located in Barnwell, South Carolina, that is expected to
close in the near future. EPA sends its radiological waste to this facility using an NRC-
licensed transporter. A new facility is proposed to be constructed for the Compact states
in North Carolina, but is not yet approved.
The existing laboratory will make arrangements to store radiological wastes onsite if the
North Carolina facility is not ready when the Barnwell disposal site closes. This is
anticipated to be a short-term solution, and the Southeast Compact will have a disposal site
by 1999, when the new EPA facility is ready for occupancy. The new facility will operate
under a Radiation Safety Plan that will be similar to the one currently in use. Guidelines
will be developed for storage, use, and disposal of radiologically-active materials. The EPA
complex will have a Radiation Safety Officer who will enforce the guidelines. Low-level
radioactive wastes will be collected in the laboratories and animal areas, drummed and
stored at the site, and transferred to the licensed disposal area.
4.2.3.4 Potential Release Sources
The following sections discuss types of chemicals and other hazards that will potentially
be used at the EPA Research and Administration Facility.
Under normal operating conditions, there may be minor releases of chemicals in air and
wastewater. These releases should not result in concentrations of chemicals in these media
significantly above ambient levels. Wastewater discharges will be continuously monitored
to identify any releases above permit limits.
4-17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Hazardous Waste Incineration Research Facility achieves a Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999 percent and the Flue Gas Cleaning System also removes
99.9999 percent of organics and other contaminants. Therefore, considering the facility
designs, releases of hazardous materials from this research area should not be in excess of
permit limits.
There will be no releases of ionizing (radioactive) or nonionizing (electromagnetic)
radiation from the facility in excess of NRC license provisions and applicable emissions
limits, as all equipment will be shielded, and all ionizing radiation sources will be licensed
and operated under strict controls.
Hazardous wastes generated at the new facility will be stored in holding areas. constructed
at the Central Utility Plant (CUP) to meet RCRA standards. Most hazardous wastes will
be disposed of by incinerating at the CUP, in accordance with Federal and State regulations.
Wastes that cannot be incinerated at the CUP will be removed to offsite RCRA-licensed
disposal facilities. In the event the incinerator is not operational at the time of facility
occupancy, all hazardous wastes will be removed to offsite RCRA-licensed disposal
facilities. Based on actual 1994 quantities at existing EPA facilities, EPA constitutes a
small quantity generator, with approximately 3,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste
being generated by EPA research activities per year. Of this total, less than 0.2 percent is
transported offsite to RCRA-licensed disposal facilities.
Incineration of these wastes will not introduce anew emission source, as NIBHS is currently
incinerating hazardous wastes, except wastes containing PCBs, other complex chlorinated
organics, and acutely toxic P-listed wastes. The NHS incinerator has a secondary
combustion chamber which is sufficient to reach a Destruction and Removal Efficiency
(DRE) of greater than 99.9999 percent as required by RCRA.
Pathological wastes may also be incinerated at the Central Utility Plant. This is a current
use at that location, and will not result in new emissions. As part of the EPA/NIEHS
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a new, state-of-the-art hazardous/pathological
waste incinerator will be constructed at the CUP. This incinerator will reduce overall
emissions from incineration of pathological wastes. Emissions from the hazardous/
pathological waste incinerators will include primarily criteria pollutants, such as carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. Incineration is the best method for
destruction of potentially infectious materials. Due to the high temperatures associated
with incineration, there will be no viable organisms or infectious agents in the incinerator
emissions.
4.2.3.5 Qualitative Assessment of Potential Environmental Risks
The proposed EPA facility will be designed to maximize environmental safety. It will be
specifically designed as a research laboratory facility. and therefore controls will be in place
to prevent release of chemicals to the environment via air or water emissions. Laboratory
chemicals and hazardous wastes will be stored in stockroom and storage facilities designed
to segregate incompatible materials. All chemical storage areas will meet NFPA standards.
4.2.4 Air Quality
4.2.4.1 Regional and Local Perspectives
The proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility is a consolidation of research and
support activities that currently are being conducted at scattered locations in RTP.
Accordingly, air quality impacts of the new facility will occur predominantly as a relocation
4-18 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
of existing emission sources. Consolidation will facilitate improved management controls
of hazardous materials handling and research that may produce emissions. On a regional
scale, therefore, minimal air quality impact would be expected.
Any potential air quality impacts due to EPA-related emission sources at the new site would
occur only on a local scale. The EPA facility, the existing NIEHS research facility and the
Central Utility Plant complex are the only sensitive locations within approximately 2,500
feet of the EPA building footprint, or within approximately 800 feet of the EPA site
boundary.
4.2.4.2 Central Utility Plant
Existing Configuration
A preliminary review was conducted of the existing and proposed boilers and incinerators
in the Central Utility Plant (CUP). For this analysis, the existing CUP was assumed to
consist of three 40 million BTU/hr gas-fired boilers, two 2,100 pound per hour general
refuse type incinerators, one 350 pound per hour pathological incinerator, and one 100
pound per hour hazardous waste incinerator. The third NIEHS boiler was installed in
September, 1994.
Existing emissions for the boilers and the general refuse and pathological incinerators were
calculated using emission factors from the EPA document, Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors, AP-42. AP-42 does not provide emission factors for the hazardous
waste incinerators, since the emissions vary greatly based on the design, control equipment,
and the wastestream. Particulate matter and volatile organic compounds emissions for the
hazardous waste incinerator were estimated based on the results from a trial burn on the
existing unit conducted by NIEHS in 1989. Emission factors from AP-42 for similar units
were used to estimate the oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide
emissions from the hazardous waste incinerator.
Natural gas is the primary boiler fuel source. No. 2 fuel oil is used as a backup when the
natural gas supply is interrupted during high demand periods, typically during the winter.
To estimate emissions from the boilers, it was assumed that the two oldest boilers would
operate on No. 2 fuel oil a maximum of 115 days/year. This operating assumption is based
on the fact that the supply of natural gas to NIEHS is interruptible. Accordingly, natural
gas supplies could be terminated for an indefinite period. Should this occur during the
winter heating season, NIEHS would be totally dependent upon fuel oil. Therefore, the use
of No. 2 fuel oil for a maximum- of 115 days per year represents a worst case scenario
involving the absence of natural gas supplies over the entire heating season. This scenario
is conservative since actual fuel oil usage for the past five years has not exceeded 33 days/
year. There is, however, no operating restriction on fuel oil usage for these two units. The
permit issued to NIEHS for the new boiler assumed a maximum fuel oil usage of 47 days/
year.
The total emissions for the existing plant are listed in Table 4-I and represent the sum of the
emissions of boilers and incinerators.
As defined at 40 CFR 51, boilers which have a rated capacity in excess of 250 million BTU/
hr and incinerators which have a rated capacity greater than 250 tons per day are designated
as a major source from a regulatory perspective. Annual emissions of any pollutant in
excess of 250 tons also trigger the major source designation.
4-19 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Table 4-I
Existing Central
Utility Plant
Emissions
(Tons/Year)
The rated capacity of the three existing NIEHS boilers is 120 million BTU/hr- The total
incineration load is 35.4 tons/day.
As illustrated in Table 4-I, for each pollutant, the total boiler and incinerator emissions is
less than 250 tons per year. Based on these criteria, the existing CUP facility is not
considered a major source.
250 Threshold for Major Source Permiwsn_
120
100
8o
5o
40
.20
0
Table 4-11 250 Threshold for Major Source
-
Emissions from I
Expanded CUP 70 .07 Ton
?? To
(Tons/Year)
T
80
50
a 40
s
d
30
f-
20
10
0
El EPA Incinerator
0 EPA Boiler
NOx S02 CO
Pollutants
4-20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.89 Tons
TSP/PM-10 VOC
NOx S02 Co TSP/PM-10 VOC
Pollutants
Proposed EPA Additions
The emissions from the EPA proposed additions to the existing CUP were also calculated.
The EPA-proposed expansion includes two 40 million BTU/hr boilers and one 350 pound
per hour hazardous waste incinerator. Results of the proposed EPA cumulative boiler and
incinerator emission calculations are graphically presented in Table 4-II.
With the exception of manufacturers specifications for NOx emissions, boiler emissions
were calculated using factors from AP-42. The NOx emission factor assumes 17% flue gas
recirculation for natural gas and 18% for No. 2 fuel oil.
Based on the emission factors for No. 2 fuel oil and natural gas, emissions during oil firing
are greater than during natural gas firing. To be conservative. a worst-case emission
scenario assuming full-time operation with No. 2 fuel oil was evaluated.
Hazardous waste incinerator emissions were calculated using the same emission factors and
trial burn results as presented above for the existing hazardous waste unit. Consistent with
the existing hazardous waste incinerator, the hours of operation for the proposed hazardous
waste incinerator was assumed to be 2,080 hours per year. In actuality, however, this usage
will probably be less. Calculating the emissions from the proposed incinerator in this
manner results in a very conservative estimate. In accordance with the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, hazardous waste incinerators must comply with stringent emission
standards to meet air toxics regulations. Therefore, the proposed hazardous waste
incinerator will be much more efficient than the existing unit since it is being designed with
the most recent control and operational technologies.
The combination of the rated capacities of the two new 40 million BTU/hr EPA boilers
equals 80 million BTU/hr. This value is below the 250 million BTU/hr threshold for
designation as a major source. Likewise, the proposed incinerator will operate at an
anticipated maximum of 1.4 tons/day. which is below the threshold for consideration as a
major source. Actual usage, however, will probably be less. As illustrated in Table 4-II,
total emissions for each pollutant are also less than 250 tons per year threshold for
designation as a major source.
EPA and the State of North Carolina have promulgated regulations to ensure that the air
quality in an area does not significantly deteriorate while maintaining a margin for future
industrial growth. These regulations, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), are
applicable to new and modified sources that create large increases in the emissions of
certain air pollutants and are thus identified as major sources. PSD review is, however,
applicable only to facilities designated as a major source. For PSD review purposes, the
existing and proposed pollutant emissions are each evaluated on an independent basis and
are not additive. Since the existing CUP is not designated a major source, and the proposed
addition by EPA is not a major source, PSD review is not required.
An Air Permit for the proposed boilers and incinerator will be required by The State of North
Carolina. At present, the State of North Carolina requires a Toxic Air Permit for the
proposed hazardous waste incinerator. The Toxic Air Pollutant regulation states that a
facility shall not emit specific, listed toxic air pollutants which would result in ambient air
concentrations beyond the property boundary in excess of specified limits or guidelines.
The proposed hazardous waste incinerator will also require a Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit, and would be subject to compliance with applicable
provisions of the state and federal RCRA requirements.
4-21 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The CUP facility also includes a chilled water plant. The existing chillers currently use a
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerant. Because of their ozone depletion potential, production
of CFC refrigerants will be banned by 1995 under Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Accordingly, the new 3,500 ton chillers will not use CFCs. The proposed
refrigerant is HFC 134a (also referred to as R-134a), which has a zero percent ozone
depletion rate. This refrigerant is listed as an acceptable substitute under the EPA's
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). The new chillers will be fitted with a
recovery system to insure no release of refrigerant.
4.2.4.3 Laboratory Emission Sources
The specific chemicals to be used in each laboratory of the new facility are not known, but
generally, chemical use will be similar to the existing chemical use. Because of the nature
of the research conducted by EPA at RTP, the specific chemicals in use will change over
time as research priorities and experimental needs evolve. Therefore, the specific
substances in use at any given time, and the potential emissions to the atmosphere, cannot
be predicted.
EPA's intention is that all research will be conducted in accordance with good laboratory
practices to assure health and safety. These practices are designed to minimize both the
quantities of chemicals used in experiments, and the emissions of substances with potential
to cause air quality impacts. The probability of an accidental release of potential air
pollutants is minimized through observance of proper procedures for storage and handling
of chemicals, gasses and waste materials. The exhaust ventilation system will allow
hazardous exhaust gas to be vented through an individual exhaust duct and stack, thereby
eliminating the potential for mixing with incompatible gases which might be present in the
common ducting. The exhaust ventilation system is also designed to allow for modifications
to the exhaust duct, to ensure compatibility of duct material and exhaust gas, or for the
installation of simple pollution control equipment. Spills that occur in laboratories are
cleaned up in accordance with appropriate response procedures. The observance of proper
management plans and procedures throughout all laboratory operations results in a low
probability of occurrence for air quality impacts.
The EPA facility will contain approximately 300 individual laboratory hood exhausts. The
exhausts will operate 24 hours per day, and will discharge from clustered stacks at a height
of approximately 30 feet above the roof. This stack height was selected based upon wind
tunnel modeling performed by EPA's Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment
Laboratory (AREAL) to determine an appropriate stack height to avoid reentrainment of
stack exhausts into building air intakes. Current design regarding stack height and exhaust
velocity will ensure ample dilution and dispersion of substances discharged from laboratory
hoods. No permit is required for these exhaust stacks based on current North Carolina Air
Permit Regulations.
In addition to laboratory hood exhausts, the new facility will house the relocated AEERL
combustion research laboratories, which conducts research into incineration of hazardous
wastes. The comprehensive Flue Gas Cleaning System (FGCS) now in use at the existing
combustion research laboratory, for which NC DEHNR air quality permits and RCRA
Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) permits have been obtained, will be
transferred to the new facility. Under test conditions, all discharges to the atmosphere from
the combustion research laboratory are in compliance with the limits specified in the facility
RCRA RD&D permit.
4.22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2.4.4 Emergency Generators
No significant air quality impacts are anticipated due to emergency generator operation. Air
Permits are not required for these emergency generators.
4.2.4.5 Emissions from Vehicles
Traffic associated with the proposed EPA facility introduces the potential for vehicular air
quality impacts. Air quality impacts of traffic are associated with congested conditions.
Traffic operating conditions are evaluated in tetras of level of service (LOS) ratings, where
LOS A is best and LOS F is worst. For permit purposes, NC DEHNR air quality regulations
and policies provide that analysis of air quality impacts is not required unless the
intersections affected by the proposed facility are projected to operate at LOS E or F.
A traffic impact study has been performed which indicates that the EPA facility is expected
to generate approximately 1,381 vehicle trips in the am and pm peak hours, and 5,000
vehicle trips per day. Although none of the regional roadways is expected to experience
significant impacts, these volumes will cause significant traffic impacts on the local
roadway system. Roadway improvements are proposed to minimize these impacts, and are
discussed in Section 5.0. The improvements are recommended for the two new access
driveways, including widening of Hopson Road and T.W. Alexander Drive. These
widenings are necessary to create exclusive left and right turn lanes to improve access to
the entrance driveways. EPA is currently working with NC DOT with respect to
transportation improvements. It is the EPA's goal that, to the extent practicable, all affected
intersections will operate at LOS D or higher.
The parking structures will require a Complex Source Permit front NC DEHNR for traffic
and air quality impacts. In order to permit the parking areas, the NC DEHNR may request
atmospheric dispersion modeling to determine if the resultant LOS for the nearby intersections
causes exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide.
EPA will obtain the Complex Source Permit and will comply with NC DEHNR mitigation
requirements with respect to traff ic and air quality impacts of the parking garages.
4.2.4.6 Construction Air Quality Impacts
The principal air quality impact due to construction of the EPA facility is the creation of
particulates (dust), which can be produced as a result of excavation, earthmoving, and
entrainment by wind of particles from exposed earth or materials. Dust emissions can be
reduced by the use of proper mitigation measures, as discussed in Section 5.0.
4.2.5 Noise
There are no significant noise impacts expected from the EPA Research and Administration
Facility, either during construction or during operation of the facility. Future ambient noise
levels after completion are expected to be typical of a developed research park environment
where facilities are buffered from each other by terrain, vegetation, and distance.
However, to avoid any undue disturbance of NIEHS operations during construction-related
blasting, the contractor will notify NIEHS of the timing of any blasting activity. Where
appropriate, blast mats will be utilized.
4-23 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2.6 Socioeconomics
The construction of the EPA Research and Administration Facility will provide a positive
impact on state and regional socioeconomics through the creation of approximately 3,000
construction-related jobs (Full Time Equivalents) during the construction phase.
Additionally, it is anticipated that 40% to 50% of the estimated $213 million construction
costs will be expended on building materials and supplies, and that a substantial portion of
these purchases will be made from suppliers located within Durham County and/or the State
of North Carolina.
Insofar as this facility will consolidate operations from several existing facilities within the
Research Triangle Park area, it is not known whether the new facility will create new
employment opportunities upon completion of construction.
Additional positive benefits, however, will accrue from the consolidation of administration
and research activities through gained operational efficiencies and reduced travel needs
between facilities.
A negative economic impact of the Preferred Alternative will be the vacation of EPA's
existing leased spaces throughout the MSA. While no detailed analysis of the R&D/office
space rental market has been performed, it is not anticipated that this impact will be either
significant or long-standing in nature.
4.2.7 Historic and Archaeologic Resources
There are no structures or known historic or archaeologic resources within the area of
impact for the proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility. If, during the
construction process, evidence is found of potential significant historic or archaeologic
resources, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer will be contacted. No
further disturbance of these areas will occur in the absence of clearance from the State
Historic Preservation Officer.
4.2.8 Visual
The design guidelines set forth in the U.S. Public Health Service Research Park Master Plan
assume a high level of quality in architectural design, site work and landscaping. These
objectives are being followed for the proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility.
The campus-like project will consist of multi-story structures on Site 3, a single building
housing the National Computer Center, and a single building Child Care Center on Site 4.
The use of structured parking will minimize the amount of land to be cleared, and will avoid
the negative visual effect that is typically associated with large expanses of surface parking.
The EPA site, consisting of approximately 132 acres, will be set apart from other occupants
of the overall U.S. Public Health Service property. At its outside perimeter, a 150 foot
landscaped buffer will be provided to further increase the degree of visual protection. No
adverse visual impacts are, thus, expected to occur as a result of the proposed EPA project.
4-24 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures for the EPA Research and Administration Facility include design
considerations as well as construction and operational controls. As described below, the
construction and operational measures primarily pertain to soil erosion and sedimentation,
surface water resources and water quality, vegetation and wetlands, air quality, potable
water use. wastewater disposal and transportation.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was executed by EPA and the
NIEHS establishes a foundation for a cooperative working relationship between the two
agencies, and should allow for the development and implementation of a coordinated
package of impact mitigation efforts. The MOU covers site planning efforts, plans for
operating shared utility services, and other joint occupancy matters such as child care,
coordinating back-up fuel storage requirements, solid waste handling and recycling
practices, and cooperation on environmental compliance matters. A copy of the MOU is
included herein as Attachment A.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility has been designed and will be
constructed and operated with clear objectives to minimize environmental impacts,
conserve energy, and to provide a healthy and safe working environment.
In developing the site plan, several key existing environmental features were considered.
These included the onsite lake, wetlands, streams and natural vegetative communities. The
final design alternative was selected as one which minimized wetlands intrusion to
approximately 0.04 acres, avoided alteration of, or impacts to, the lake, and preserved
extensive areas of upland forest ecology, particularly in areas of high visual impact.
These environmental considerations were also instrumental in the design of the onsite
access roads. Rather than internal access roads with four travel lanes as initially proposed
for consistency with the RTP Master Plan, the proposed onsite roads at the EPA Research
and Administration Facility have been designed with only two travel lanes. This design was
based on the determination that two lanes will, at present, provide sufficient transportation
capacity, while at the same time minimizing impacts to soil, wetlands, and vegetation, and
reducing the area of impervious surface.
As required by the Program of Requirements (POR), the building will incorporate
environmental design features including those required to achieve excellent indoor air
quality (IAQ), extensive material recycling, and state-of-the-art energy conservation.
5-1 MITIGATION MEASURES
With regard to IAQ, building materials and processes were selected to minimize the use om?
CFC compounds, chemical pollutants associated with wood finishes, and fire retardant
treatments. Other factors include limiting of the use of all but low emission sealants and
caulking material; and selection of material which are energy efficient in terms of
production; use of floorings and other materials with low volatilization rates. In addition,
design of the facility has been sensitive to potential radon gas presence. Where suitable,
the use of recycled building materials will be preferred.
In addition, provisions will be made for the recycling of common office waste. This
includes the placement of recycling boxes in the mail/copy rooms for paper recycling. It
also includes the installation of built-in bins in the galley area for the recycling of glass,
plastic, and aluminum. Aluminum recycling will also be encouraged through the placement
of a recycling can in the vending area. These materials will be collected from all areas on
a daily basis and will be sorted in the shipping/receiving area.
Energy reducing considerations included the selection of materials which required lower
energy to produce and transport, as well as those which would increase energy efficiency
during building operation. The building was sited to minimize energy usage for heating and
cooling. Where practicable, building materials have been selected which promote passive
heating and cooling, and reduced energy consumption.
Design of the facility HVAC system carefully considered placement of air intakes and
exhausts with respect to the potential of entrainment of contaminants from the laboratories,
animal care areas, and the Central Utility Plant (CUP) including boilers and incinerators.
The building fire control system will operate with water rather than ozone depleters.
Expansion of the CUP will also incorporate numerous environmental design considerations.
Among these are the continued use of low sulfur natural gas as the primary fuel in state-of-
the-art burners equipped with flue gas recirculation. This technology results in a ten-fold
reduction in nitrogen oxides emissions over systems not incorporating flue gas recirculation.
The stand-by fuel oil will have a low sulfur content of 0.3 percent.
The new hazardous waste incinerator will be designed using Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) and will be capable of achieving a destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) of 99.99 percent. Expansion of onsite hazardous waste incineration capacity will
result in a more controlled handling and disposal of waste material. There will also be a
reduction of hazardous waste requiring offsite transport and disposal. Chillers will use non-
ozone depleting refrigerants.
Site landscaping will focus on several environmental factors: (1) low maintenance; (2)
consideration of indoor air quality; and (3) building energy efficiency. Vegetative species
have been selected which are not only indigenous, but which require low maintenance in
the form of fertilization, watering and cutting. The landscaping species list will also
consider species which are low or non-sporulating so as to avoid intake into building HVAC
systems and to minimize potential allergenic reactions. Lastly, the layout of the building
and associated landscaping will utilize plantings for wind, solar and pollutant buffers.
Specimen trees will be protected during construction. Where practical, vegetation will be
moved and stored in an on-site nursery for later transplantation. A wildflower planting-
program will be implemented along access roadways to minimize site maintenance==
requirements and provide a more naturalized landscape. Habitat analysis will be conducted
in those areas which are deemed to be "sensitive." These wildlife habitat areas will be
protected during construction.
5-2 MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition, a wetland/upland area will be developed as a focus for the common area/
cafeteria adjacent to the lake. This area will provide enhanced opportunities for wildlife to
coexist with the building and their surroundings.
5.2 WETLAND MITIGATION
In addition to the soil erosion and sediment controls and stormwater management facilities
discussed below, wetland compensation activities will also be implemented to mitigate for
the disturbance of approximately 0.04 acres of forested wetlands resulting from project
construction. Within the 0.36 acre pond area to be constructed between the proposed EPA
facility and the existing lake, approximately 0.26 acres of indigenous scrub/shrub and
emergent marsh species will be planted to complement the open water area to be created.
This represents a 65:1 mitigation to wetland area lost ratio. Consequently, there will be a
net increase of wetlands due to project implementation. Due to the limited abundance of
scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands onsite, the creation of these wetland community types
will increase both vegetative and wildlife diversity by providing habitat opportunities and
ecological niches not presently exhibited onsite.
5.3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDEMIENT CONTROL PLAN
As a primary measure, relative to the mitigation of potential impacts to geologic resources,
surface waters, vegetation, wetlands, and air quality, a soil erosion and sediment control
plan will be in place throughout all phases of project construction. This program will be
developed in accordance with the NC Sedimentation Control requirements, as amended on
April 1, 1992 by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC
DEHNR). Durham County will also be provided copies of the plan for review. The
approved plan will serve as the basis for the Notice of Intent for the General NPDES
Stormwater Permit for construction.
Typical measures to be included in the soil erosion and sediment control plan would include
such items as: instaliing tree protection devices, constructing temporary perimeter
diversions and sediment traps/basins, and installing silt curtains across lake inlets. In
addition, the plan will specify dust control measures, and require the stabilization of
disturbed areas with temporary seeding (or permanent seeding in areas of no further
disturbance.) Topsoil that is removed will be temporarily stabilized for eventual reuse in
the final relandscaping.
As detailed in Section 5.5, two water quality ponds will be constructed as stormwater
management features. During the construction period, these ponds and the wetlands
mitigation area will also serve as temporary sedimentation basins.
The soil erosion and control plan will include specifications to guide operation and
maintenance activities. Typical provisions will likely include inspection of all erosion and
sediment control devices for stability and operational integrity following every significant
runoff-producing rainfall, but in no case less than once every week. Needed repairs will be
made immediately to maintain all devices as designed. Sediment basins, traps and inlet
protection devices would be cleaned out when the level of sediment reaches 2.0 feet below
the top of the riser, or when storage capacity has been approximately 50 percent filled.
Sediment will be removed from behind sediment fences when it becomes about 0.5 feet
deep at the fence. Sediment fences are to be replaced as necessary to maintain an effective
barrier.
5-3 MITIGATION MEASURES
Gravel will be cleaned or replaced when the sediment pools no longer drain properly. All l
seeded areas are to be fertilized and reseeded as necessary, and mulched periodically to l
maintain a vigorous, dense vegetative cover.
5.4 GRADING PLAN
Site work and foundations will require the excavation of soil and/or rock material. While
some of this material will likely be required to be transported offsite for disposal, every
effort will be made to balance excavation and fill quantities onsite.
Schematic grading plans have been developed by Greenhorn & O'Mara, Inc. for Sites 3 and
4, as well as the loop road and the north and south access roadways. In each case, the grading
schemes have been developed in a manner to minimize the extent of grading and maximize
the protection of vegetated areas, including wetlands.
The north and south access roads have been located to minimize impacts to wetlands and
surface water features. 'Where it is necessary to cross streams, provisions have been made
for cross culverts to accommodate both normal and storm flow volumes. Additional surface
water and wetland protective measures will be undertaken during the construction sequence,
as outlined above. Prior to land clearing, and in order to minimize potential adverse
impacts, the limits of wetlands and overall disturbance will be clearly defined and isolated
from the construction area by the placement of erosion controls such as temporary perimeter
diversions, sediment traps/basins, and installing silt curtains across lake inlets.
5.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Although primarily directed at surface water resources and water quality, the proposed
stormwater management plan and drainage system will also serve to minimize potential
project-related effects to groundwater resources, aquatic biology, floodprone areas and
wetlands.
The primary stormwater management features will consist of two wet detention water
quality ponds, into which much of the runoff from impervious surfaces will flow. Each of
these ponds have been designed in accordance with NC DEHNR guidelines. As these
guidelines specify, the ponds will detain runoff from the first one inch of rainfall for a period
of two to five days, thus allowing for the removal of total suspended solids by 62% to 85%.
The emergency overflow of the water quality ponds has been designed to accommodate a
50 year storm event, while overall pond design allows for each basin to contain runoff from
a 100 year storm event.
The storm drainage system for the access roads and onsite improvements, for example, will
emphasize utilization of vegetated areas (ditches, swales, and wetlands) to accept surface
runoff prior to entering the stormwater collection system. This will provide a means of
filtering pollutants present in impervious surface runoff prior to entering the lake or
Burdens Creek. To the extent practicable. the proposed drainage plan will also maximize
"sheet" flow, rather than more erosive point source discharges, into the lake from adjacent
areas. This will likewise filter pollutants and will also minimize the impact of concentrated
flows into the lake.
The storm drainage system for the access roads will consist of drainage ditches and cross-
drainage culverts. In addition, two 72" reinforced concrete pipes will be installed in the=
north access road to allow continued flows from the existing lake to Burdens Creek. The
54 MITIGATION MEASURES
drainage ditches and cross-drainage pipes will be sized to accommodate the 10-year and 25-
year storm flows, respectively. The north access road culvert will be sized to allow the
existing twin 60 inch corrugated metal lake outlet pipes to perform under the same
conditions for which they were originally designed.
Energy dissipation measures will also be implemented at the points where storm drain pipes
and culverts discharge into the lake and other drainage ways. These measures will lower
the velocity of storm runoff at these points, thereby minimizing erosion of downstream
drainage ways.
In order to reduce the impacts of construction on the floodplain of the tributary to Burdens
Creek, pre- and post-development floodplain calculations will be conducted, utilizing the
US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2 computer program. Final design of the north access
road culvert will be based on limiting backwater to a maximum of one foot above the
calculated Base Flood Elevation for the pre-developed conditions.
5.6 AIR QUALITY
The probability of an accidental release of potential air pollutants is minimized through
observance of proper procedures for storage and handling of chemicals, gases, and waste
materials. Spills that occur in laboratories are cleaned up in accordance with appropriate
response procedures. Laboratory research activities, such as combustion research, that
have potential to emit potentially significant amounts of hazardous substances are provided
with individual air pollution control systems to handle biological and chemical emissions.
Expansion of the Central Utility Plant by EPA will involve installation of two natural gas
fired boilers equipped with flue gas recirculation. Natural gas is the cleanest and most
efficient fossil fuel. Flue gas recirculation will further reduce pollutant emissions from the
boilers. The new hazardous/pathological waste incinerator will be equipped with the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MALT). This design will be capable of
achieving a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 percent.
Potential airquality impacts of construction activities are variable depending on the specific
type of work being performed, as well as wind and soil moisture conditions. Construction
activities can generate dust and gaseous emissions that may require mitigation in order to
prevent nuisance impacts to the NIEHS research facility and outdoor users of the lake area.
Mitigation measures which may be implemented as conditions necessitate include proper
maintenance of engine-powered equipment; prohibiting excessive idling of vehicles and
equipment; minimizing exposed areas of disturbed soil; minimizing entrainment of dust
from exposed soil by covering, wetting, or landscaping; covering all loads of earth or rubble
on trucks; minimizing use of dirt roads; stabilizing temporary access roads and parking
areas; and washing vehicles and tires when leaving the site. In addition, access routes and
staging areas for construction equipment that minimize impacts on sensitive locations will
be established.
During blasting, the minimum practical charge will be employed. Dust emissions from
drilling will be controlled by the use of fabric filters. Dust-producing activity will be
curtailed during periods of dry weather with high winds. Additionally, the construction
contractors will comply with applicable RTP and state dust control requirements.
Incentives forcompliance with mitigation requirements will be incorporated into construction
contracts and actual construction practices will be monitored to ensure compliance with
mitigation requirements.
5-5 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.7 UTILITIES
5.7.1 Water Supply
Adequate capacities from the City of Durham are available to meet all project-related
demands. Further, the proposed EPA Facility will contain state-of-the-art water conservation
fixtures.
5.7.2 Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater generation rates will be determined from the metered water supply. Within
each laboratory module, laboratory and domestic wastewater streams will be separated in
order to monitor laboratory wastewater. Each laboratory building will be designed with an
individual 2,000 gallon continuous flow acid/caustic pH monitoring and adjustment system
and other mitigation measures to assure compliance with the City of Durham Sewer Use
Ordinance. The facility will comply with other requirements on effluent volume and
quality, as appropriate.
5.7.3 Energy Conservation
As required by the EPA's Program of Requirements (POR) for the new facility, extensive
energy conservation features will be built into the state-of-the-art complex. While health
and safety factors remain the highest priority, the building will be constructed and operated
for maximum energy efficiency. Key energy conservation elements to be incorporated into
building design are summarized below.
Foremost will bd the use of a centralized Building Automation System (BAS) for
monitoring the control of mechanical and electrical systems. The BAS will monitor and
control temperatures, pressures and humidities; monitor and control electrical systems,
refrigeration equipment; and boilers; automatically stop and start all mechanical equipment;
sound alarms for unsafe or abnormal conditions; and monitor and control landscape
irrigation systems, waste disposal, lighting, process systems, security and communications.
With respect to the Central Utility Plant expansion, the HTHW system itself is an
extraordinary energy conservation measure compared to a steam system. It requires little
or no makeup water and incurs lower distribution heat transfer losses. The expanded
heating system is designed to interact with the existing plant to permit low-load operation
by the existing 40 MMBTU/hr generators only. The new chillers will be driven by high-
efficiency electric motors controlled for optimum operation under varying load conditions.
The pumping systems will be designed for staged operation to minimize the amount of
pumping required to satisfy system needs. As with the BAS at the EPA building, the power
plant will be provided with computer-controlled energy optimization routines based on
real-time climatic conditions, plant heating and cooling loads, energy consumption, and
stored data on plant operations history.
5.7.4 Other Utilities
Existing electrical power capacity sufficient to meet the additional load need of the EPA
facility presently exists within the Duke Power Company grid. GTE South, Incorporated
has indicated that sufficient telephone service capacity also exists to meets the requirements
of the EPA complex. Natural gas in the required capacities is available on an interruptible
basis, as well.
5-6 MITIGATION MEASURES
;-_8 SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN
5.8.1 Fuels Storage
Natural gas is the primary fuel supply the power plant and incinerators in the NIEHS
Support Services complex. However, since the gas source is interruptible, No. 2 fuel oil is
stored onsite as a back-up supply. With construction of the EPA Research and Administration
Facility, the back-up fuel supply will be increased from an existing 120,000 gallons (four
30,000 gallon tanks) to 240,000 gallons (two 120,000 gallon tanks). Fuel will be stored in
above ground tanks within curbed concrete-lined containment areas. Each such area has
the capacity to hold the contents of an incidental spill.
Regulations from the NC DEHNR require that a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan (SPCC) be prepared for such fuel oil storage facilities. As such, the existing SPCC will
be updated to include the expanded fuel oil storage facilities and any contingency plans that
are necessary.
5.8.2 Chemical Storage and Handling
Water contamination from accidental spills during chemical unloading or loading will be
minimized by a controlled drainage system in the truck bays. The EPA Research and
Administration Facility will contain a centralized chemical receiving and issuance facility,
as well as a chemical wastes storage and shipment area. Both will be served by truck bays
where chemical deliveries and shipments will be made. The area will be covered and the
interior protected by an asphalt berm to prevent rainwater from entering. The interior floor
will slope toward the interior of the bays to a closed floor drain system.
The drain system will be constructed with a 500 gallon storage tank to hold vehicle
drippings and other liquids. The tank will have an outlet to the building and stormwater
drainage system. A Post Indicator Valve (PIV) will be installed on the outlet side of the tank.
During normal operation of the tank, contents will be sampled and tested. Should the tank
contents meet NC Surface Water Quality Standards, the PIV will be opened and the tank
contents conveyed through the storm drainage system.
In the event of a chemical spill during unloading or loading, a vehicle fuel spill, or the tank
contents do not meet NC Surface Water Quality Standards, the PIV will not be opened.
Instead, the tank contents will be removed by suction truck and transported under manifest
to a licensed industrial wastewater treatment and/or disposal facility.
5.9 TRANSPORTATION
5.9.1 Traffic Improvements
As indicated previously, the proposed EPA facility will result in localized transportation-
related impacts. To mitigate these impacts, a series of roadway improvements have been
developed, based on the traffic analysis performed for this study by Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. These proposed roadway improvements are summarized below:
T.W. Alexander Drive/North Access Road
Construct an exclusive left turn lane on southbound T.W. Alexander Drive.
Construct exclusive right turn lane on northbound T.W. Alexander Drive,
construct exclusive northbound acceleration lane from the proposed North
Access Road onto T.W. Alexander Drive.
5-7 MITIGATION MEASURES
Hopson Road/East Loop Road
Construct exclusive left turn lane on westbound Hopson Road.
EPA continues to work with NC DOT towards implementation of these and other potential
improvements.
5.9.2 Transportation Alternatives
In addition to the above roadway improvements proposed by EPA, a series of mass transit,
carpooling, and other alternative modes of transportation will serve to mitigate traffic-
related impacts. The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) has established bus service to RTP
from Chapel-Hill, and is establishing service from Durham, Cary, and Raleigh. Light rail
service is also under consideration. Carpooling will be encouraged by EPA with priority
parking designated for high occupancy vehicles. Facilities for bicyclists and walkers, such
as showers, have also been incorporated into the project design.
5.10 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Prior to construction and operation of the proposed EPA Research and Administration
Facility, EPA will obtain all applicable permits/approvals and comply with all permit
conditions as issued by applicable Federal, State, County and municipal agencies.
Table 5-I provides an overview of these permit requirements.
5.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
amble 5-I
---VERVIEW OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS - EPA RESEARCH AND ADMIMSTRATION FACILITY
Administering
Permit/Approval Agency Action
Federal
National Environmental Policy EPA
Act Compliance (42 USC 4341)
Federal agency action
Dredge and Fill Permit (Clean Water Act, 404) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Water/wetland alteration
RCRA Part A Permit (Relocation reapplication) EPA/NC Dept. of Environment, Health, Generator of hazardous waste
& Natural Resources (NC DEHNR)
RCRA Part B Permit EPA/NC DEHNR Transport/dispose hazardous waste; operate
haz. waste storage facility
RCRA RD&D Permit (Relocation reapplication) EPA/NC DEHNR Operate Flue Gas Cleaning System
State of North Carolina
NC Environmental Policy Act Compliance State Project Agency (to be determined) Expenditure of public monies; action by a state
(NCAC Tide 1, Chapter 25) agency; potential environmental impact
Sedimentation Control Permit NC DEHNR Land disturbance > 1 acre
(NCAC Tide 15A, Chapter 4)
NPDES General Construction Permit NC DEHNR Land disturbance > 5 acres
(40 CFR Parts 122-124)
Water Quality Certification NC DEHNR Discharges to waters/wetlands
(NCAC Tide 15A, 2H-.0500)
Air Quality Permit NC DEHNR Boiler capacity: 10-100M BTU/hr, operation of
(NCAC Tide 15A, 21-1-.0600) hazardous waste incinerator
.-c Air Permit NCDEHNR Hazardous waste incinerator
X CTitle 15A, 2D-1100)
ex Source (Air Quality) Permit
l NC DEHNR Parking structure > 750 veh. capacity
(NCAC Tide 15A, 2D-.0800)
Dam Safety Permit NC DEHNR Alteration of onsite dam
(NCAC Tide 15A, 2K)
Roadway Alteration Permit NC Dept. of Transportation Modification to state highway
Special Driveway Permit NC Dept. of Transportation For North Access and South Access Roads
Right of Way Encroachment Agreement NC Dept. of Transportation For Roadway Widenings/ Improvements
Traffic Signal Permit NC Dept. of Transportation For Installation of Traffic Signals
Durham County
Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Approval
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII) Health Department Water supply connection
Zoning Permit Zoning Officer Building construction
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Building Permit Review Supervisor of Inspections Alteration of floodprone area
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Building Permit/Certificate Zoning Officer Building construction and occupation
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
City of Durham
Sewer Use Permit Dept. of Water Resources Discharge to sewer >30 gpd
(Sewer Use Ordinance, Art. IV)
Water Supply Permit Water Department Water supply connection
-r
TIT
I
YMYectural Review Research Triangle Park Foundation Construction within RTP
5-9 MITIGATION MEASURES
EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
6.0 REFERENCES/AGENCY CONTACTS
6.1 REFERENCES
Acurex Corporation. 1991. EPA Technical Center Preliminary Assessment and Draft
Exhibits. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Bain, G. L. and C.E. Brown. 1981. Evaluation of the Durham Triassic Basin of North
Carolina and Technique Used to Characterize Its Waste-Storage Potential. U.S.
Geological Survey, Open File Report 80-1295. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. August, 1994. Supplemental Traffic Study of
Environmental Protection Agency Research and Administration Facility, Research
Triangle Park. NC. Washington, DC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services. Washington, DC.
Durham County. 1990. Durham County Zoning Ordinance. Durham County Board of
County Commissioners. Durham, NC.
Hoffman, C.W. dt P.E. Gallagher. 1989. Geology of the Southeast Durham and Southwest
Durham 7.5-Minute Quadrangles. North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey,
Bulletin 92. North Carolina Geological Survey. Raleigh, NC.
Law Engineering. 1990. Report on Preliminary Subsurface Exploration - Proposed EPA
Facility, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Prepared for Odell Associates.
Charlotte, NC.
Law Engineering. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Report-CUP Expansion, EPAFacility,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
Law Engineering. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Report-Site 3, EPA Facility, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
Law Engineering. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Report-Site 4, EPA Facility, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
Law Engineering. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Report-Computer Center Development,
EPA Facility, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
6-1 REFERENCES
Law Engineering. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Report-Site Infrastructure, EPA
Facility, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 1984. Environmental Assessment-
Construction of Building 108. NIEHS Health and Safety Office. Research Triangle
Park, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. June, 1993.
Wet Detention Basin Design Memoranda. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina - Scale
1:500,000. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. Raleigh, NC.
Odell, A.G.. Jr. & Associates at gl. 1971. Master Plan, U.S.P.H.S. Research Park - North
Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Public Health Service. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Odell Associates, Inc. 1990. Site Analysis and Land Use Planning Report - Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and revised for use as Appendix C in the Program of Requirements; February, 1992.).
Research Triangle Park, NC.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northeast
(Region 1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center. Fort
Collins, CO.
Resource Applications, Inc. 1988. Environmental Assessment for Additions to Program
and Support Facilities (Building 101)-- National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. Prepared for NIEHS. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Sullen, Coleen. NC DEHNR. August and September, 1992. Personal communication
regarding stormwater runoff permitting requirements.
Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather. 1957. Instructions and Tables For Computing
Potential Evapotranspiration and The Water Balance. Publications in Climatology,
Volume X. Number 3. Drexel Institute of Technology. Centerton, NJ.
Timmin, Brian. NC DEHNR. May and October. 1994. Personal communication regarding
non-attainment/attainment status of RTP area for ozone.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service and NC Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1976. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Development of the National Environmental Health Research Center,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in Compliance with the Requirements of
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Office of
Facilities Engineering and Property Management. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1979. Flood Insurance Rate Map
- Durham County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas)., Federal Insurance
Administration. Washington, DC.
6-2 REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Methodology for Analysis of Detention
Basins for Control of Urban Runoff. EPA 440/5-87-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Radiation Safety Manual. Radiation Safety
Office. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Chemical Inventory. EPA. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control
Plan. EPA. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Program of Requirements for EPA
Research Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA. Research Triangle
Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. General Services Administration. 1991. Report of Building Project Survey, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Prepared for Congressional Committee on Public
Works and Transportation. Washington, DC.
van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise and D.K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia - Second
Edition. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, NU.
V Watson, Edward. Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant. September, 1992 and
November, 1994. Personal communication regarding sewage treatment plant capacity.
Westbrook, Vicki. City of Durham Environmental Affairs Division. September, 1992.
Personal communication regarding wastewater permitting and the current uses of D.
Everett Jordan Lake.
6.2 AGENCY CONTACTS
Alsmeyer, Eric. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office. 1992-1993.
Personnal communication, written correspondence and coordination regarding the
delineation of wetlands and wetland permitting.
Anderson, Tom and Cathy Wilson. December, 1994 and January, 1995. NC DEHNR, Air
Quality Section. Personnal communication, written correspondence and coordination
regarding air quality permitting of parking facilities.
Anderson, Tom, Dale Overcash and James Roller. August, 1993. NC DEHNR, Air Quality
Section. Coordination regarding air quality permitting of parking facilities, boilers,
incinerator and laboratory hoods.
Bennett, Bradley. July, 1992. NC DEHNR. Personal communication regarding surface
water quality classifications.
Brook, David. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, NC Division of Archaeology
and History. July 28, 1992. Written correspondence regarding the onsite occurrence
of historic and archaeological resources.
6-3 REFERENCES

Finkelstein, Peter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Processes Research
Branch. March, 1993. Personnal communication regarding air intake and exhaust
stack locations.
Gantt, Linda K. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and NWildlife Service, Raleigh Field
Office. July 28, 1992. Written correspondence regarding the onsite occurrence of
Federal-listed endangered and threatened species.
Happy, Sue. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. March, 1993. Personnal
communication regarding NC blasting regulations.
Holman, Sheila. NC DEHNR. November, 1994. Personal communication regarding non-
attainment/attainment status of RTP area for carbon monoxide (CO).
Joyner. H. NC DEHNR, Division of Emergency Management, Operations Section. July,
1993. Personnal communication regarding spill containment and stormwater runoff
requirements for fuel storage areas.
Kelly, Ann. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. July 28, 1992. Written
correspondence regarding the onsite occurrence of Federal and State-listed endangered
and threatened species.
Liggett, Annette. NC Department of Environmental Management. December, 1993.
Personnal communication regarding wetland and water quality permitting.
Linko, Richard. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September, 1992. Personnal
communication regarding animal research practices.
McEntire, Ken, Gary Faulkner it. al. NC Department of Transportation. 1992-1994.
Coordination regarding offsite roadway and intersection improvements.
Mills, Bill and Diana Wilburn. NC DEHNR, Water Quality Section. July, 1993. Personnal
communication regarding spill containment and stormwater runoff requirements for
fuel storage areas.
Murphy, Lee. City of Durham Water Department. September, 1992. Personnal
communication regarding water supply permitting.
NC Geological Survey. August, 1992. Coordination regarding the availability of geologic/
groundwater data for the Research Triangle Park region.
Rooks, Elizabeth. Research Triangle Park Foundation. August, 1992. Coordination
regarding zoning provisions in the Research Triangle Park area.
Sharon, Gail. Durham County Planning Department. August, 1992. Coordination
regarding County zoning regulations, and Floodway and Flood Boundary Map.
Snoddy, Richard. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Safety Officer.
September, 1992. Personnal communication regarding radiation safety issues.
Sun, Bill. Durham County. July, 1992. Personnal communication regarding sewer use
ordinance.
64 REFERENCES
Telford, William. Durham County. July, 1992. Personnal communication regarding
wastewater disposal facilities.
Zoufaly, Steven. NC DEHNR. July, 1992. Personnal communication regarding surface
water quality.classifications., -
1 ?

6-5 REFERENCES
l
.-n2

one 1,13TA0 3 N va bnEgsTq
fmiT..?.9.Ir 6]G.•J.1;3.imI19HO.;
A ?3 K?9C 9fi) 9U TG3 v?r.9.f. :,ot1910Tq ib)ny.rnnoi:rt. `7[li O "0:?1'StK'
+o aoiSSlEgSTq ;znoq sT'9nnci2TS?.I_I "-AoD d.I
,- <..n1*
^rTSgSTq:t:....:'? ?.1.:9Y0%T°vcr,:?:ril.:)lu?.Tly:.ln9bi<<,i9.f: :; ..tJ:raozui
)imTeq bvE ) ?.a I-)Lgmi (l;tne^?n?llvn? bwLltl bfw rxl, .' ,uJo,, 4
zslo:ymun b52fv 9()uz 21st
T[ 99T??9?. %': "J 21;fi lftn,'D ;1/ ?. 5.i? TL 2. L'7
,'rT?GrGt?i f17 ._ ^9? 2TGl8:1:JGF? 1 bP.i: __;(lf:ac. iI:GI,f,.vU.•1
2:^,1sQ .T1! 21 A if -1 jn5biz9•z9 2:)('j .? f01` t~I ?ihrir>?Ir'.
ti)I'll ,2972 J :. >( f)I['JJ I)nG '" G )r77f 100
ZT9:c&N E 2.II'! 2Tf>9V ?( T?vq C" «%l ±f!;QC ''J"'1' f)' i'. , ?G;;IZ.2`'l2!
21 L(nn9Q .TP•r Vur[OJQ nJ ?..'.?JU iiOt:7L i ii'r '.•:U;s??i
+7f vZ`?QUr •?y:s? ?8.:. JflltiU'1if llS'Y `Cfq[.' '•?'ic? ? . ?.1'?C11f uf;?
hnE ti'?TFi92°.'i ?:U ': %0? L ,i.+? Z::r°.[:'T? iiTS17;:;:31?'v'?(7 .0?,6? '.? .iCi_+r .<.`.::'?: ):iGC":T?
4 t0(OIF3 ill 2?:'_g9C.'6(.('JfiJB Iink'. 21_)tfil? zbio'i ',II
Al. ewg12
?.1 ^y 9li) 4nilL' , l .Sne,'' SZ>. ?. Ie;: M:foli .'n3 3ri7 •10 ngi76 L.. TG J::
sgmi [c)rl9mnoTiv.ls ;h?! - -lo V<)ALTFC;! ?:q Sri} b92ivl5^ :11 9v
S?fI9t7? 'E)G7I1Tnt.7tiV:1 f(( "-q;9(2 27?(9r(oE? E 2Le HDNIsQ .: i iZL«
niTSeaTr o 3(diznr)gzsT 2Gw d)im? .TPJ..:?"innf:t4 10 Tota9-liQ .risim;? N bi.>:ti
nl 3?n8I' T:.' ::E';Y itw- hf3fi -.;H ?iri) Tol 2I2v(En6 t9VlItITi`' ;
;:SC7U,Yl<3)(:'U' .ii)'•. ,1 :)' ,?' ??',f`9fIT2c.ti:Zf ?"lntimnUT(V?i7F.r '?'?'_i.,•

EPA Research and
Administration Facility
Environmental
Assessment
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Assessment was prepared by JASON M. CORTELL and
ASSOCIATES INC. under subcontract to Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, P.C., prime
contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for design of the new EPA
Research and Administration Facility. CORTELL personnel responsible for preparation of
this EA were as follows:
Jason M. Correll, President. Mr. Cortell has over 30 years experience in preparing
NEPA documents and related environmental impact assessment and permit
documentation. He has supervised environmental assessments of numerous
research laboratories throughout the U.S. Mr. Cortell has a Masters Degree in
Biological Science and a Bachelors Degree in Biology.
Marshall W. Dennis, Vice President Environmental Analysis. Mr., Dennis
coordinated the impact assessment of vegetation and wildlife resources, with a
particular emphasis on wetlands. Mr. Dennis has conducted similar impact
assessments for major development projects for over 17 years. He has a Masters
Degree in Wildlife Ecology and Bachelors Degree in Biology. Mr. Dennis is a
Certified Wildlife Biologist.
Carlton L. Noyes, Vice President Environmental Sciences. Mr. Noyes supervised
the impact analysis of water resources including surface and groundwater features,
water supply and wastewater disposal. For over 20 years, Mr. Noyes has conducted
impact assessment of major development projects with a focus on research and
development laboratories. He holds Masters and Bachelors Degrees in Biology.
Stewart Dalzell, Environmental Planner. Mr. Dalzell had responsibility for
coordinating preparation of the Environmental Assessment. During the past 14
years, he has supervised the preparation of over 100 environmental impact
assessments. Mr. Dalzell has a Bachelors Degree in Environmental Science.
David B. Smith, Director of Planning. Mr. Smith was responsible for preparing
the alternatives analysis for this project. He had over 20 years experience in
conducting NEPA environmental assessments for a wide range of laboratory, urban
development and transportation projects worldwide. Mr. Smith has a Masters
Degree in Urban Planning, a Juris Doctor of Law, and Bachelors Degree in
Humanities.
7.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
Mary M. Daly, Senior Associate, Environmental Health and Safety. IVs. Daly
had over 12 years of air quality, noise, environmental engineering and
bioenvironmental engineering throughout the U.S. and Europe. She was responsible
for evaluating air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project, with particular
emphasis on Indoor air quality and emissions from the Central Utility Plant and
laboratories. Ms. Daly has a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering, a
Bachelors Degree in Biology, and is a Certified Industrial Hygienist
Qing (Jill) Lu, Environmental Scientist. Ms. Lu is an environmental scientist
with two years experience in the evaluation of air quality, noise impacts, surface
and groundwater modeling, hazardous material safety, and the collection and
evaluation of environmental field data. She has Masters Degrees in Environmental
Engineering and Physics, and a Bachelors Degree in Meteorology.
Project team members providing input to the Environmental Assessment were as follows:
Hellrnuth. Obata & Kassabaum, P.C. Lead Architect
Primary Contact. Walter Urbanek, AIA
The Roberts/Stacy Group Associated Architect
Primary Contact. Jerry D. Stacy, AIA
R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc. MEP Engineer
Primary Contact. Timothy D. Baker, P.E.
GPR Planners Collaborative Laboratory Planner
Primary Contact. Steve Rosenstein
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. Civil Engineer
Primary Contact. Dennis J. Plouff, P.E.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineer
Primary Contact. Paul Kitsakos, P.E.
Other project team members responsible for input to facility planning and design include:
Weidlinger Associates
Law Engineering
Gage-Babcock and Associates, Inc.
Farradyne Systems, Inc.
Lerch, Bates and Associates, Inc.
Wolf & Company
Shen, Milson and Wilke
Cini-Little International
Aiolos Engineering Corporation
Harding Lawson Associates
Structural Engineer
Geotechnical Engineer
Security and Fire Protection
Communications
Elevator Consultants
Cost Consultant
Acoustical Engineer
Food Consultant
Automotive Lab Engineer
Incinerator Consultant
7.2 LIST OF PREPARERS
aU
av;;
EPA Research & Administration Facility
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Pre-Construction Notification Form
Section 404 Nationwide Permit/
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
February 2000
Min
CIO
"d°
CO
C)
Construction Notification Form - August 1999
Section 401 Nationwide Permit
Section 404 Water Quality Certification
Applicable Drawings List (1 Set)
PA )I I
RECEIVED
Sheet Drawing No. Description ,.,.bate
S21, 2B.2-1 North Access Road -Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S21_ 213.2-2 North Access Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 2B.2-3 North Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 213.24 North Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 213.2-5 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
SM 2B.2-6 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 213.2-7 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 213.2-8 South Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
SM 2B.2-9 South Loop Road - Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
S2L 2B.2-10 CUP Service Road- Plan/Profile February 29, 1996
A

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Chris Long
1 • •
10 On% MOM
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 6, 2000
Wake County
DWQ Project # 00346
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
US Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Drop 93
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Mr. Long:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in 0.1 acres of
wetlands for the purpose of constructing the new EPA Campus in RTP as described in your application dated March 14, 2000. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3102 and 3108.
These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and 26 when the Corps of Engineers issues them. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Water shed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified below. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner
must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all remaining jurisdictional wetlands and streams to notify the state in
order to assure compliance for future wetland and/or water impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days of the
date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later).
2. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater management plan shall be approved by this Office before the impacts
specified in this Certification occur. The stormwater management plan must include plans and specifications for stormwater
management facilities designed to remove 85% TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best
Management Practices Manual. Also, before any permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the f icilities, as approved by
this Office, shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan, as approved by this Office, shall be
implemented-
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sin r y
sevens
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File copy
Central Files
Todd St. John
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer •
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Memorandum
To: John Dorney f
From: John Henness?k//
Date: May 3, 2000
Re: Tardy Projects
List of Recommendations
Pinnacle Park Associates. DWO No. 000280
After review of the permit application and conversations with Steve Mitchell, we recommend that we place
the referenced project on hold for the reasons listed below.
1) Impacts associated with Lot 46 have not been minimized. They should resubmit a new plan that
addresses the issues discussed between the applicant and Steve Mitchell.
EPA Research and Administration Facility. DWO No. 000346
After review of the permit application and conversations with Steve Mitchell, we recommend issuance of
the permit as applied for. Issues to consider when writing the 401 Certification are listed below.
1) They already have an existing 401 for a NW 14 and 26 (see appendix in 3 ring binder) that expires on tL
June 30, 2000. We are not certain if the new 401 is in addition to the existing, or in lieu of it.
2) Stormwater plan for site has already been approved (see appendix in 3 ring binder).
3) No mitigation is required for the stream or wetland impacts.
1S
Ojohn\tardy reports\050300.doc
Mai y
J?'SED Srq,
X11(`
2
;fir,( PR01 O 0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. John Dorney
State of N. C. DENR
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
March 14, 2000
? i
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
p0034b
Please find enclosed for your review and reapproval EPA's Pre-Construction Notification Form
401/404 water quality permit for the new Environmental Protection Agency and Research
Administration campus in Research Triangle Park. Please note that a Section 401/404 permit had
been previously issued for this project (404 Permit Action I.D. No. 199700091; DWQ Project No.
960742). Although there has been no change in the scope and extent of the work under this project
since the original 401/404 permit was approved, it is EPA's understanding that re-application is
necessary for permit renewal. As you may be aware, EPA has already submitted with our original
1996 application this information through the State of North Carolina Clearinghouse and has
addressed key questions from other state agencies.
This project will provide for consolidation of people and programs from several leased facilities in
the RTP area and will require infrastructure development which began Fall 1996 to Spring 1997 on
federal property opposite the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) between
TW Alexander Drive and Hopson Road in Durham County. Construction should be complete by
Spring 2001, with full occupancy by 2002.
Included with this submission for your review are the following documents:
1) Completed Pre-Construction Notification Form Section 404 Nationwide Permit/ Section
401 Water Quality Certification, dated February 2000 (Bound document, 7 copies)
2) Applicable Drawings List (I page, 7 copies)
3) Applicable Drawings (7 sets to NCDENR/DWQ and I set to US Army Corps of
Engineers)
Under separate cover, we are sending a copy of these documents to Mr. G. Wayne Wright, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. We are prepared to meet with you and your staff to
discuss any questions or concerns you may have with these documents. Please feel free to contact
me or Pete Schubert at [phone] with any questions that may arise during your review and to
schedule a mutually convenient time for such a meeting.
Sincerely, - (?
Chris Long
Project Manager
enclosures