Elizabeth Brady Rd Extension (8)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IRt@' .,,
Noel19
V D
oNR. 4q4 1?009 D
DEPARTNIE,N T OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 3, 2009
Mr. Andrew Williams
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
PO BOX 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Thomas:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: SECTION 404- NEPA MERGER PROCESS Application for a Department of the
Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to discharge
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to the proposed Elizabeth Brady
Road Extension in Orange County , North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No STP-0711(1)
NCDOT Project Definition: 34975. 1.1
TIP Project U-3808
The following application, including separate attachments for (1) ENG Form 4345 and
(2) mailing list (labels), is submitted for your consideration. As you are aware, this project was selected
for treatment under the Merger 01 process. At this juncture, the Regulatory Division has provided
concurrence with Purpose and Need (CP 1), and with the selection of Detailed Study Alternatives (CP 2
and 2A). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared and is being distributed
with this application.
The following information is a summary of relevant project details and is being provided to assist in the
Section 404 regulatory review of the project. This letter and attachments, along with the previously
distributed DEIS, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice for the
project.
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly proceed toward selecting
the LEDPA (least enviromnentally damaging, practicable alternative which meets the purpose and need
of the project) following analysis of public input. Once the LEDPA is selected and approved, efforts will
be undertaken to further minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to
propose suitable compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Mr. Vincent Rhea, PE, at (919)
733-7544 extension at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe,
Project Development and Environnemental Analysis Branch
CC: Scott Melendon, USACOE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, PE, FHWA Division Administrator
Mr. Brian Wrenn,, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early, HPO
Mr. Travis Wilson,,NCWRC
Ms. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. Gary Jordan„ USFWS
Felix Davila, PE, (FHWA Area Engineer), FHWA
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Mr. Jay Bennett, PE, Roadway Design
Mr. Greg Perfetti, PE, Structure Design
Dr. David Chang, PE,, Hydraulics
Philip Harris, 111, PE, Natural Environment Unit
Mike Mills, PE, Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Majed Alghandour, PE (Assist. Unit Head Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mg), Project Development
Mr. Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. A. L. Avant, Programming and TIP
Ms. Beth Harmon, NCDOT EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. Vince Rhea, PE, PDEA
Mr. Derrick Weaver, PE, PDEA
Mr. Drew Joyner, PE, Human Environment Unit
Mr. Felix Nwoko, DCHC MPO
1 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .........
Purpose and Need
Costs and Schedule ..................................................................................... ..................................... 2
Alternatives ................................................................................................ ..................................... 3
No-Build Alternative .............................................................................. ..................................... 3
Alternative 3 ........................................................................................... ..................................... 3
Alternative 4 ........................................................................................... ..................................... 3
Alternative 6 ........................................................................................... ..................................... 4
Waters of the United States ........................................................................ ....................................: 4
Water Quality ......................................................................................... ..................................... 4
Streams ................................................................................................... ..................................... 6
Stream Impacts ................................................................................... ......................................6
Buffer Areas ....................................................................................... ..................................... 9
Wetlands ................................................................................................. ................................... 10
Floodplains .............................................................................................. ...................................` 12
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... ................................... 13
Wild and Scenic Rivers and Other Protected Lands ................................... ................................... 15
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... ................................... 15
Historic Architectural Resources ............................................................ ................................... 15
Historic Architecture Resources Impacts ............................................... ................................... 16
Archaeological Resources ...................................................................... ................................... 17
Archaeological Resource Impacts .......................................................... ................................... 18
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... ................................... 18
Logical Termini/Independent Utility .......................................................... ................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Cost Estimates for Build Alternatives .............................................................................. 2
Table 2. Streams Within the Detailed Project Area ........................................................................ 7
Table 3. Stream Impacts ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Requirements for Stream Impacts ................ 9
Table 5. Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands within the Detailed Project Study Area ............... 11
Table 6. Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts .................................................................. I 1
Table Z Federally Protected Species Listed for Orange County (Feb. 25, 2003) ........................ 13
Table 8. Determination of Effects ................................................................................................ 17
Table 9. USTs and Other Potentially Contaminated Sites ............................................................ 18
APPENDIX
Figure I. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Build Alternatives
Figure 3. Roadway Typical Section
Figure 4. Project Area Streams and Wetlands
Figure 5. Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen and extend
Elizabeth Brady Road from the intersection of NC 86 with US 70 Business to north of US 70
Bypass at the intersection of St. Mary's Road (STIP Project No. U-3808). This letter includes a
list of figures for reference purposes. Figure I is a project vicinity map and Figure 2 illustrates
the Build Alternatives. Figure 3 shows the roadway typical section of preliminary corridor
alternatives. Figure 4 shows jurisdictional waters. Figure 5 shows floodplains and regulatory
floodways. The figures are attached to this letter under Appendix.
Elizabeth Brady Road is presently a two-lane road, 24 feet wide. Three Build Alternatives are
evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (see Figure 2). The proposed
action would involve the construction of an approximate 3-mile multi-lane road with a possible
new crossing of the Eno River. Two of the proposed Build Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4)
would construct a four-lane median divided facility on a 100-foot right-of-way entirely on new
location. The third Build Alternative (Alternative 6) would widen an approximate one-mile
section of US 70 Bypass to five lanes with a section of the alternative between US 70 Business
and US 70 Bypass on new alignment. The proposed road cross-sections would accommodate
bicycle traffic.
Purpose and Need
The need associated with the proposed action is:
Growing traffic congestion in terms of traffic delay at intersections and travel time through
the Hillsborough central business district on Churton Street.
Traffic through the central business district of Hillsborough along Churton Street (see Figure 2)
operates under congested conditions due to the limited lane-capacity, lack of turn lanes, close
spacing of the traffic signals, and presence of on-street parking. The congestion is most severe in
the central business district along Churton Street between NC 86/US 70 Business (south of the
Eno River) and Tryon Street. The Churton Street intersection delay at Margaret Lane and King
Street is projected to increase by over 700 percent compared to 2005 conditions, and delay at
Tryon Road is projected to increase by over 4,000 percent.
The intersection delay along Churton Street would cause degradation of travel time. The peak
hour/peak direction travel time along downtown Churton Street is projected to worsen
exponentially in the future. It takes 6 to 8 minutes in 2005 conditions to travel the 1.2 miles of
Churton Street through downtown Hillsborough, whereas it is projected to take 36 to 48 minutes
to travel the same distance in 2025 No-Build conditions, a six-fold increase.
With growing congestion along downtown Churton Street, traffic is expected to divert to parallel
routes and shift departure times. This is likely to increase traffic congestion along US 70 Bypass
and US 70 Business and cause peak spreading along downtown Churton Street.
The north-south mobility is currently limited to Churton Street and St. Mary's Road. Future
traffic congestion and delays along Churton Street will seriously strain north-south, northeast-
south, and nort h-southcast mobility and route choices for automobile traffic, as well as for
emergency and transit vehicles. These movements would experience approximately 30 to 54
minutes of trip time during peak hour (peak direction) in the future No-Build conditions,
compared to 8 to 16 minutes in 2005 traffic conditions.
The annual vehicle hours of delay along downtown Churton Street are projected to grow
exponentially from approximately 163,200 hours in 2005 to 3,067,200 hours in 2025, or a 19-fold
increase. This will require parallel congestion relief routes and other land use strategies to
mitigate traffic congestion in the Town of Hillsborough.
Recent growth and development patterns indicate a shift away from the Churton Street corridor to
the NC 86 corridor, around the 1-85 interchange and the southeast part of the Town. This recent
land use shift is expected to make NC 86 a highly traveled corridor, and would require regional
and local connectivity.
The purpose of the proposed action is to
Reduce congestion on Churton Street in the central business district in terms of traffic delay
at intersections and travel time for the peak period/peak direction.
Costs and Schedule
Table I summarizes the estimated construction, right-of--way, and total costs for each of the three
Build Alternatives. As shown in Table 1, the estimated total cost for Alternative 6 is substantially
lower than for the other two alternatives. Alternative 4 has the highest estimated total cost, but it
is only slightly higher than for Alternative 3. Funding for the construction of this project is not
included in the current 5 year plan.
Table 1. Cost Estimates for Build Alternatives
Cost Item Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Construction Cost $30,000,000 $28,700,000 $20,500,000
Right-of-way Cost $13,485,000 $16,470,000 $11,190,000
Total Cost $43,485,000 $45,170,000 $31,690,000
2
4
Alternatives
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would forego improvements to Elizabeth Brady Road except routine
maintenance. It would include other NCDOT programmed roadway improvements and other
roadway projects in the area that are included in the adopted 2025 Long-Range Transportation
Plan of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
(DCI-IC, 2005), such as widening of US 70 Bypass.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is similar to the original alignment identified in the NCDOT's 2009 to 2015 Stale
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). It would consist of a four-lane divided facility on
existing and new location from just north of the 1-85/NC 86 interchange to just west of the US 70
Bypass/Miller Road intersection (see Figure 2). Alternative 3 would begin on NC 86just north of
the I-851NC 86 interchange, follow existing NC 86 to US 70 Business, proceed to the north on
new location for a short distance (approximately 1,000 feet) just to the east of existing Elizabeth
Brady Road, and then turn to the northeast on new location before intersecting US 70 Bypass just
to the east (approximately 400 feet) of St. Mary's Road. Alternative 3 would then follow existing
US 70 Bypass to its end just to the west of Miller Road.
Alternative 3 would use existing sections of NC 86 (from just north of 1-85 to US 70 Business)
and US 70 Bypass (from just east of St. Mary's Road to just west of Miller Road). These sections
of existing roads would be widened to four-lane divided facilities. The following intersecting
roads would also be widened for a short distance at their respective intersections with Alternative
3: US 70 Business (to the cast and west of Alternative 3), US 70 Bypass (to the east of
Alternative 3), St. Mary's Road (to the north of Alternative 3), and Miller Road (to the north and
south of Alternative 3).
Alternative 4
This alternative would also consist of a four-lane divided facility on existing and new location
from just north of the 1-85/NC 86 interchange to just west of the US 70 Bypass/Miller Road
intersection (see Figure 2). Alternative 4 would begin on NC 86 in the same location as
Alternative 3 (just north of the 1-85/NC 86 interchange), follow existing NC 86 for a short
distance, and then turn to the northeast on new location before intersecting with US 70 Business
to the east (approximately 500 feet) of the existing NC 86/Elizabeth Brady Road intersection. It
would then continue on new location to the northeast, remaining to the east of Cates Creek, until
just south of the Eno River before turning to the northwest to intersect US 70 Bypass at the same
location as Alternative 3 (approximately 400 feet east of St. Mary's Road). Alternative 4 would
then follow existing US 70 Bypass to its end at the same location as Alternative 3 (just to the west
of Miller Road)..
Alternative 4 would use existing NC 86 for a slightly shorter distance than Alternative 3 (from
just north of 1-85 to just south of US 70 Business), but it would use the same section of existing
US 70 Bypass as Alternative 3. These sections of existing roads would be widened to four-lane
divided facilities. The following intersecting roads would also be widened for a short distance at
their respective intersections with Alternative 4: US 70 Business (to the east and west of
3
Alternative 4), US 70 Bypass (to the east of Alternative 4), St. Mary's Road (to the north of
Alternative 4), and Miller Road (to the north and south of Alternative 4).
Alternative 6
This alternative would also consist of a four-lane divided facility on existing and new location
starting just north of the 1-85/NC 86 interchange, but it would end on US 70 Bypass just to the
west of the Eno River (see Figure 2). Alternative 6 would begin on NC 86 in the same location as
Alternatives 3 and 4 (just north of the 1-85/NC 86 interchange). It would then follow the same
alignment as Alternative 4 until just south of the Eno River. From this point, it would continue
on new location to the east of the Eno River before intersecting with US 70 Bypass to the east
(approximately 750 feet) of the Eno River bridge. Alternative 6 would then follow existing US
70 Bypass to its end just west (approximately 1,000 feet) of the Eno River bridge.
Alternative 6 would use the same section of existing NC 86 as Alternative 4 (from just north of 1-
85 to just south of US 70 Business). It would also use an existing section of US 70 Bypass (from
just east of the Eno River bridge to just west of the bridge). These sections of existing roads
would be widened to four-lane divided facilities, including the US 70 Bypass Eno River bridge.
The following intersecting roads would also be widened for a short distance at their respective
intersections with Alternative 6: US 70 Business (to the east and west of Alternative 6) and US
70 Bypass (to the east of Alternative 6).
Waters of the United States
All of the Build Alternatives have the potential to cause adverse impacts on waters of the United
States. These impacts are described below.
Water Quality
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) identifies the state's river and stream
systems by basins and subbasins. The project area is within the subbasin 03-04-01 of the Neuse
River Basin (NCDWQ, 2002). This area is part of the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 or the
South Atlantic/Gulf Region (Seaber et al., 1987). The Eno River (DWQ Index No. 27-2-(7))
(NCDWQ, 2004) is the largest named stream within the project area. The Eno River enters the
project area from the west, and meanders southward and then northward before exiting the project
area to the east. Cates Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 27-2-8) (NCDWQ, 2004) is the only area
tributary of the Eno River within the project area. Cates Creek flows north from its source and
crosses the western portion of the project area before discharging into the Eno River.
The Eno River (from Lake Ben Johnston to SR 1561) and Cates Creek have a water quality best
usage classification of C NSW (nutrient sensitive waters [NSW] suitability for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife; secondary recreation, and agriculture [C]). The NSW
classification indicates areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth
resulting from nutrient enrichment, and requiring limitations to further nutrient input. StrOUds
Creek and Stony Creek drain to the Eno River within a mile of the project area and also have a
water quality usage classification of NSW. No Water Supply 1 (WS-1), Water Supply 11 (WS-11),
water supply Critical Areas (CA), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(OR W) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (NCDWQ, 2002).
NCDWQ Basinwide Assessment Reports address long-term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring stations through chemical monitoring and sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish communities. The reach of the Eno River upstream of the project area showed an
improvement in water quality since 1995 achieving a rating of Good for benthic
ntacroinvertebrates and Excellent for fish communities in 2000. Cates Creek was not monitored
by the NCDWQ and has no ratings associated with water quality (NCDWQ, 2002). Overall,
subbasin 03-04-01 has undergone much improvement in water quality between the years of 1995
and 2000.
Subbasin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River Basin supports 17 permitted, point source dischargers.
Three of the permitted dischargers are classified as major dischargers while the remaining 14
dischargers are minor (NCDWQ, 2005). One major discharger, the Orange County Wastewater
Treatment Plant, discharges into the Eno River upstream of the project area at the rate of 3
million gallons-per-day. One minor discharger, the Orange-Alantance Water System Wastewater
Treatment Plant, also discharges into the Eno River upstream of the project area with no limits set
on discharges. Non-point sources of pollution within the Neuse River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, roads and parking lots, agriculture, timber harvesting, and failing septic
systems (NCDWQ, 2002)
Impacts to water resources in the project area could result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream banks,
riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation,
and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result
from the construction activities mentioned above:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area;
• Alteration of stream discharge because of silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns;
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity because of increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal;
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature because of vegetation removal;
• Alteration of water levels and flows because of interruptions and/or additions to surface and
groundwater flow from construction;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff; and
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil fi-om construction
equipment and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, the BMPs contained
in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters would be followed
strictly for the duration of the project.
5
Streams
Stream Impacts
Field studies were conducted in March and December 2005, and streams and adjacent vegetated
wetlands are grouped as "systems" according to physiographic breaks and the limits of the project
area. The characteristics of project area streams are presented in Table 2. The locations of the
delineated streams are shown on Figure 4.
System designation terminology follows these examples: "ISl"refers to System 1, Stream I, and
"2W2" refers to System 2, Wetland 2. Streams within the project area that typically contain
permanent flowing water are classified as perennial; while intermittent streams are characterized
by temporal flow interruptions. Stream and wetland classifications follow Cowardin et al.
(1979)Long-term impacts to streams along the proposed project would be limited to stream
reaches within the footprint of the roadway. Impacts to stream reaches adjacent to the footprint
would be temporary and localized during construction. Long-term impacts to adjacent reaches
resulting from construction are expected to be negligible.
6
R
u
Q
U
U
O
L
U
N
a
u
r
c
3
E
R
L
N
Q1
R
F

#
C
W E c O E C G U
`
s Z Z 7 2: Z o c Z c c o Z ° Z z Z Z c
O -
E
E

E
E E c
ern a- - - . . - -

_o
c
O
CJ « p
16 U
d
Q in
oo - m
a y N a ?n
a r ° in
ao r r ?n
?n .n
?n r .n
N o .n
a
n ,?
v'i M
L.Y.. ? - N m M N - m N - N - N N N N N N M M N M M N N

Z N O
U.
U Y 0

Q p a r ?n a - ?n ?n o ? 0 7 ?n ?n rl o ?
` o n o ?n ?c
` ',c a
N
= U M N Vl r b ?n ?n a lJ P r V1 ?n J N r iL ?G ?n M ?n ? lG Vl
Y. ry
?
?cnd
d
?t Y
w
a
-
Q
r
r°
?.
b
N
?c
M
.^
?o
?°
n
?;
M
o
-a
N
n
a
m
CD

a
N ll L _ L t ? ?

J
?
A etl aL `O m °J o0 n q m cu ,? 'o O O h - ? pp b - -

- c

C
c .2

' 'Y M M rl `Y N N
U
? CD ?'' C
' C' _M m '? m m m .'ll m '? m m a' t=• E
tr 5 m _ co cc
7
? ? m ? N
'S hl M ?
T ? ?
T N N ?
Y 'Y 7
? 7 U '?
C ? ? N N
p (A
N y ? .Y N ? - N rl ti ti ? y N N M N N -
U t
a
U

p ' ) -
'
J ' _ 1 J - J J J j J J J 1 'J

U o L] U U U U ='?
U U U

C

V
-
?
N
n

?

?

?
N
v
-
v
.-•
n
1?1
to
M
v

v 2 :E
CI
v
!n
(n
?
Vl N
? M
N -
(n N
U -
?
V]
N
N r
N
M
Q
?n i
?n ;
?O r
r
r ?
r ?
W
?
P ?
a
0
N
m
m
M
7
V
n
?O

co
N
3:.o
a `0
N
o E
w m
II
?g
N C
? O
N N
C ?
n ?
? N
E 1O
l0 ?
W
? N
C ?
d U
E E
0
E
? E
m o
C ?
N y
W
a ?
u ?
a o
Z' E
m-
? y
n `0
H v
a :N
m
E m
? U
N
? E
II W
Table 3 summarizes the impacts for each of the three Build Alternatives on streams within the
project area. Alternative 3 would have the smallest length of stream impacts, 658 feet.
Alternative 4 would have 1Al9 feet of stream impacts and Alternative 6 would have 2,292 feet of
stream impact. The impacts would all be associated with the installation of new culverts or
extension ofesisting culverts.
Table 3. Stream Impacts
#
S D
i
i Im act linear feet
tream escr
pt
on Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
2S1 UT Eno River I 0 0 0
2S2 UT Eno River I 192 205 0
3S1 Eno River P 01 0 0
4S I Cates Creek P 0 1 0 0
5S I UT Cates Creek (I) 212 0 0
5S2 UT Cates Creek P 0 0 0
6S1 Eno River P 0 0' 0
7S I UT Eno River P 0 251 545.5
7S2 UT Eno River I 0 0 72
7S3 UT Eno River P 0 0 39.8
8S I UT Cates Creek 1 0 218 204
9Sla UT Cates Creek
(US 70 Business P 40 39 39
9S I b UT Cates Creek (P 69 275 68
9S2 UT Cates Creek I 0 300 270
lost UT Cates Creek I 0 0 0
IISI UT Eno River 1) 0 0 556
I I S2 UT Eno River (I) 0 0 32
12S1 UT Eno River I 0 0 0
I3S1 Cates Creek P 139 128 124
14S1 Eno River (P) 0 0 0'
1452 UT Eno River (P) 0 0 214
1551 UT Eno River I 0 0 177
1651 UT Eno River (I 0 0
Total Linear Feet of Stream Impact 657 1,416 2,344
Zone'' 1 Zone' 2 Zone I Zone 2 Zone I' Zone 2
Riparian Buffer
I Linear Distance 11448 1,416 2,815 2,463 4,974 3,689
mpacts Area 1.0 0.62 1.7 121 3.23 1.78
(P) = perennial
(1) = intermittent
(ur) = unnamed tributary
Bridge over stream, no impact to stream channel.
Zone I is the area within 30 feet of the stream. Zone 2 is the area from 30 feet to 50 feet from the
stream.
Table 4 presents the U.S. Arn y Corps of Engineers' (USACE) stream mitigation requirements for
each of the streams potentially affected by the proposed project.
8
Table 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Requirements for
Stream Impacts
System Mitigation Requirements
2S2 LI
5S1 no mitigation
7S I 2:1
7S2 I:I
8S1 I:1
9S I 2:1
9S2 L1
list 1:1
I I S2 no mitigation
13St" 2:1
1451* 2:1
14S2i no mitigation
15SI' no mitigation
1651 * no mitigation
- Stream delineations have not been verified by the USACE; mitigation ratios are estimates.
Buffer Areas
In December, 1997, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission adopted rules
(Meuse River Rules)' to support implementation of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy. The goal of these rules was to reduce the average annual load of nitrogen
delivered to the, Neuse River Estuary from point and nonpoint sources by a minimum of 30
percent of the average annual load for the period 1991 through 1995 by the year 2001. The
implementation of the Neuse River Rules by the state and local jurisdictions provides additional.
protection of water quality resulting from development. The rules specifically restrict
development from increasing runoff from new development and require control of sediments and
nutrients from entering into water bodies. The proposed project is within the Neuse River Basin.
All NCDOT projects within the Neuse River Basin and any secondary development that might
result from this project must comply with the Neuse River Rules. These rules include two parts:
stormwater management plans and buffer rules.
Under the stormwater management strategy outlined in the Neuse River Rules, local jurisdictions
within the Neuse River Basin were delegated authority to develop and implement local
stormwater management plans- Stormwater management for existing and new development
within jurisdictions that do not implement local stormwater management plans is regulated
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater
permitting program administered by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ).
' Title 15 A (Department of Natural Resources) of the North Carolina Administrative Code; Subchapter 213
(Surface Waters and Welland Standards); Sections 0232 - 0242.
9
Stormwater management plans adopted by local jurisdictions for new and existing development
are designed to ensure:
• That the nitrogen load contributed by new development activities is held at 70 percent of the
average nitrogen load contributed by the 1995 land uses of the non-urban areas of the Neuse
River Basin;
• That there is no net increase of runoff from development sites over predevelopment
conditions for one-year and 24-hour storm events;
• Compliance with requirements for protecting and maintaining existing riparian areas:
• Implementation of public education programs;
• Identification and removal of illegal discharges; and
• Identification of suitable locations for potential stormwater retrofits.
One element of the Neuse River Rules (15A NCAC [North Carolina Administrative Code]
0213.0241 & 0213.0242) is the establishment of buffers around all bodies of water that eventually
drain into the Neuse River. In general, these rules require the maintenance of a 50-foot forested
buffer along perennial and intermittent streams and water bodies. The buffer is divided into Zone
1 (the first 30 feet) and Zone 2 (the outer 20 feet). Designated surface waters are indicated on
USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and county soil surveys.
"[able 3 presents the stream buffer impacts for each Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would have
the least impact on stream buffers, followed by Alternatives 4 and 6, respectively. Any
unavoidable impacts to stream buffers would be mitigated. On-site mitigation is preferable. If
on-site mitigation is not possible, off-site mitigation on the same stream or on another nearby
streams within the same watershed is the nest preferred approach.
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "Waters of the
United States." Wetlands are described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by 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.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (33 CFR
328.3(b) [1986]).
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (USACE, 1987). Open water systems
and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to Section 404 review.
Most of the project area jurisdictional areas consist of surface waters in bank-to-bank streams or
isolated ponds.
Jurisdictional wetlands within the project area were delineated and located using Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology. Figure 4 shows the location of the delineated wetlands.
10
'fire Water Quality Section of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) has prepared a wetlands assessment procedure entitled Guidance for Rating Weilands
in North Carolina. The NCDEM procedure rates wetlands according to six functional attributes:
water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value,
and recreational/educational value. Each attribute is given a rating of from "l" to "5." A higher
rating for a functional attribute indicates a higher value for that attribute to the environment. A
different multiplier is used with each attribute so that the highest possible sum of the six products
is "100." These attributes are weighted (by the multiplier) to enhance the results in favor of water
quality functions. Pollutant removal is weighted to be the most important wetland attribute.
Water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life functions are given equal weight as
secondary attributes, and wildlife habitat and recreation/education functions are given minimal
credit. Table 5 lists the delineated wetlands and their NCDEM rating.
Table 5. Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands within the Detailed Project Study Area
Wetland # Wetland (acres) Cowardin
Classification DEM' Rating
I W 1 025 PFO 1 F 54
2W1 0.04 PSSIE Is
6 W 1 0.02 PFO I F 25
7W1 0.02 PFOIE II
13 W I 0.03 PFO l E 42
13 W2 0.02 PFO I E 42
14W1 0.01 PFOIE is
15WI 0.01 PFOIE 19
15W2 0.14 PFO I E 23
16 W I 0.01 P FO I E 25
16W2 0.01 PFOIE 25
Totals 0.56
'PFOI E = Palustrine forested, seasonally flooded, PFOI F = Palustrine forested, semi-permanently flooded,
broad-leaved deciduous. PSS I E = Palustrine scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded, broad-leaved deciduous.
Wetland impacts for the three Build Alternatives would be small. The wetland impacts are
presented in Table 6. Alternative 3 would have no wetland impacts. Alternative 4 would affect
0.02 acre of wetland and Alternative 6 would affect 0.05 acre. The locations of project area
wetlands are shown on Figure 4.
Table 6. Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact acres)
Wetland #1 Wetland (acres) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
7W l 0.02 0 0.02 0.02
15 W2 0.03 0 0 0.03
Totals 0.33 0 0.02 0.05
Floodplains
Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by EO 1 1988, Floodplain Management; US
DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection; and Title 23, Section 650 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. The intent of these regulations is to avoid or minimize
encroachment within the 100-year (base) floodplain by transportation projects, where practicable,
and to avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplain values. The
proximity of Elizabeth Brady Road and the Build Alternatives to area floodplains and their
assessed regulatory floodway is shown in Figure 5. Natural and beneficial floodplain values of
these floodplains include natural moderation of floods, open space, and wildlife habitat.
The 100-year base floodplain and floodway crosses existing Elizabeth Brady Road where Cates
Creek crosses under the road through a culvert. Alternative 3 would cross this floodplain and
floodway, as well. A larger floodplain and floodway surrounds the Eno River, which would be
crossed by Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 6 would not cross floodplain or floodway, except as
it follows the existing US 70 Bypass across the existing bridge over the Eno River.
The proposed bridge structures for each Build Alternative would be sized to span the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Floodway in accordance with FEMA Floodplain
management ordinances without approval of a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR). As
sized, the proposed bridges would encroach on the floodway fringe as designated by tile FEMA
studies. This encroachment would result in acceptable water surface increases based on FEMA's
.definition of floodway and Floodway fringes. During final design, detailed hydraulic studies of
proposed bridge locations would be conducted to quantify the impacts of the proposed structure.
If a CLOMR is pursued during final design, it may be possible to reduce the bridge length and
modify the floodway to compensate for the increase in flood heights that would be incurred by
such a structure. Impacts on downstream businesses and property owners also would be assessed
in detail during final design. The project area is included in a detailed flood study for The Town
of Hillsborough and for Orange County.
Alternative 3 would cross the FEMA-mapped 100-year noodplains at two locations. First, it
would cross Cates Creek and its associated floodplain east of the crossing of existing Elizabeth
Brady Road approximately 1,200 feet upstream of its confluence with the Eno River. Alternative
3 would cross Cates Creek on a new 130-foot-long bridge that would span the FEMA designated
floodway. At that location, the FEMA floodway is almost the same width at the floodplain fringe
(100-year floodplain). Second, the alternative would cross the Eno River and its associated
floodplain at a new location. The floodplain is approximately 2,300 wide at the crossing. The
approximate 850-foot-long bridge would span the entire floodway. The remaining portion of the
Floodplain crossing would be on fill. A total of approximately 3.7 acres of 100-year floodplain
would be affected.
Alternative 4 would cross the Eno River 100-year floodplains as well, but in an area where the
floodplain is narrower. Alternative 4 would cross the Eno River south and east of the HOST.
The proposed bridge would span the entire floodway and floodplain on an approximate 500-foot-
long bridge. Minimal fill would be placed in the floodplain. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit originally
determined that a 350 foot bridge (spanning only the floodway and riparian buffer) would be
hydraulically adequate for this crossing; however, subsequent to field review of the floodplain
habitat by the Merger Team, it was concurred that the entire floodplain be spanned, resulting in a
500-foot bridge.
12
Alternative 6 would replace the existing bridge over the Eno River with a new bridge. The
approximate 240-foot-long bridge would span the entire FEMA designated tloodway and
floodplain. The bridge footings currently placed in the Eno River for the existing bridge would
be removed.
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with Federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Endangered status refers
to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range," and 'T'hreatened status refers to "any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). The federally protected species listed for Orange County as of February 25, 2003
are listed in Table 7. These species are briefly described below, along with a description of the
potential impacts of the three Build Alternatives on the species and their habitats. This analysis is
required under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Table 7. Federally Protected Species Listed for Orange County (Feb. 25, 2003)
Common Name Scientific Name Status***
Red-cockaded woodpecker** Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Michattx'S sumac Rhus michau-ni E
Smooth coneflower* Echinacea laevigata E
'Historic record - ine species was ooservea in me county more man ou years ago.
`"Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
""Federal Status: E - Endangered; a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) - Endangered
The Red-cockaded woodpecker is in the family Piciclae and was listed on the Endangered Species
List on October 13, 1970. This small woodpecker (seven to 8.5 inches long) has a black head,
prominent white cheek patches, and a black-and-white barred back. Males often have red
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et
al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by
loblolly, lonb leaf (Pinus palusiris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson
and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older
than 70 years of age that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to
occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark
around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows
for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas that have been
maintained by frequent natural or prescribed fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this
woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Suitable breeding habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker is discounted in the project area because
of the absence of mature pine forests. Pine forest within the project area provides only minimal
foraging habitat. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records (reviewed June 3,
I3
2005) document no occurrence of red-cockaded woodpecker within 2.0 miles of the project area.
No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed during field investigations.
Biological Conclusion: Based on NCNHP records and field observations, there would be NO
EFFECT on red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of this project.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf wedge mussel) - Endangered
The dwarf wedge mussel is in the family Unionidac and was listed on March 14, 1990. 'rile
dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging 1.0 to 1.5 inches long. The shells are olive-
green to dark brown in color and are subrhomboidally shaped. The shells of females are swollen
posteriorly, while males are generally flattened. The preferred habitats are streams with moderate
flow velocities and bottoms varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud, especially just
downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. This species was previously known
only from a few, disjunct populations in the Neuse River basin (Johnston County) and Tar River
basin (Granville County). Statewide surveys conducted since 1992 have expanded this species'
range in North Carolina. This species is now known from the Neuse Basin in Orange, Wake,
Johnston, and Nash Counties; and from the Tar River Basin in Granville, Vance, Warren,
Franklin, Halifax, and Nash Counties.
Suitable habitat for dwarf wedge mussel does exist within the project area in perennial streams
253, 3S1, 451, 551, 651, 7S1, 9SI, IOSI, and I ISI. Although NCNHP records (reviewed June
3, 2005) document no occurrence of dwarf wedge mussel within 2.0 miles of the project area, the
presence of dwarf wedge mussel cannot be discounted until a systematic survey is conducted.
Biological Conclusion: Additional studies could be required to determine if the species occurs
within the project area
Rhus miehauxii (Michaux's sumac) - Endangered
Michaux's sumac is in the family Anacardiaceae and was listed on September 28, 1989.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, usually less than two feet
high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of nine to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets
borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female
flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal,
erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's
sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other
disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont,
Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from
granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from
south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur within the project area in the form of disturbed
areas along roadsides and developed areas. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005) document
no occurrence of Michaux's sumac within 2.0 miles of the project area. A systematic plant-by-
plant survey was conducted within suitable habitat by biologists in early May 2005. This survey
determined that no individuals of Michaux's sumac occur within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: Since surveys found no individuals, the proposed project would have NO
EFFECT on Michaux's sumac.
Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower) - Endangered
14
Smooth coneFlower is in the family Asteraceae and was listed on October 8, 1992. This species
is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up to five feet tall. Basal and stem leaves
are large, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades reaching three inches in length. This
coneFlower blooms from late May to July, producing solitary, heads of small purplish disk
flowers with long drooping pink to purplish ray flowers (Kral, 1983). This species occurs on
calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on roadsides, clearcuts, and power line right-of-ways
where there is abundant light and little herbaceous competition (Gaddy, 1991). Fire-maintained
woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for smooth coneflower.
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist within the project area in the form of disturbed
areas along roadsides. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005) document no occurrence of
smooth coneflower within 2.0 miles of the project area. A systematic plant-by-plant survey was
conducted within suitable habitat by EcoScience Corporation biologists in early May 2005. This
survey, determined that no individuals of smooth coneflower occur within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: Since surveys found no individuals, the proposed project would have NO
EFFECT on smooth coneflower.
Wild and Scenic Rivers and Other Protected Lands
In the project area, no water bodies are deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified and amended at
16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A-
30). There are no state/national forests, or gamelands and preservation areas in the project area.
Cultural Resources
This project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended (16 U.S.C. § 4700, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as Title 36, Part 800 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to
comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architectural Resources
An architectural survey was conducted in order to identify historic architectural resources within
the area of potential effects (APE) of the project. The survey consisted of background research
into the historical and architectural development of the area and a field survey of the APE. The
field survey was conducted both to delineate the APE and to identify all properties within this
area that were built prior to 1956.
Six resources were identified as being at least fifty years of age. The survey found two resources
that are listed in the NRHP: the Hillsborough Historic District and the Occoneechee Speedway
(Ayr Mount is a contributing resource within the Hillsborough Historic District). The eastern
portion of the Hillsborough Historic District extends into the APE and includes Ayr Mount. The
remaining properties that are 50 years or older are early to mid-twentieth-century houses that lack
sufficient architectural or historical significance for NRI-IP eligibility.
15
Hillsborough Historic District and Avr Mount
'File Hillsborough Historic District encompasses the heart of this important backcountry political
center of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. According to the 1973 NRHP
Nomination, ''rhe townscape, with its fine Greek Revival courthouse, traditional dwellings, and
multitude of small law offices and other dependencies, is consistent in scale and form with a
subtle but pervading sense of the past that comes not only from the retention of early buildings
but also from the quiet, semi-rural atmosphere' (Bishir, 1973). Although Hillsborough is now a
far more active place than it was in 1973, the physical fabric of the town remains substantially
intact. The east side of the historic district encompasses the Ayr Mount property, individually
listed in the NRHP in 1971.
In 1799, William Kirkland, born in Ayr, Scotland, bought 500 acres on which to build a home for
his wife, Margaret, and their 14 children. Constructed between 1814 and 1816, Ayr Mount is a
Federal plantation house sited above the Eno River. The Kirkland family lived in the house for
four generations. Samuel Kirkland, the last heir residing at Ayr Mount, died in 1971 and is
buried in the family cemetery. The house is now owned by Classical American Homes
Preservation Trust (CAHPT) and operated by Preservation/North Carolina. CAHPT bought Ayr
Mount in 1985 from the nephew of the widow of Samuel Kirkland. Ayr Mount was opened to
the public as a house museum in 1994. Ayr Mount was added to the NRHP under Criterion C for
its distinctive architectural characteristics, and is also a contributing resource within the
Hillsborough Historic District. The estate now comprises about 265 acres spreading behind the
house down to and across the river. Situated on a ridge overlooking the Eno Valley, with
Occoneechee Mountain in the distance, the house is set well back from St. Mary's Road, guarded
from and invisible to today's traffic. The structure had not been altered in any serious way since
its building in 1814-1816, and since it stayed in the family, many of its original furnishings have
remained in the house.
Poet's Walk is a mile-long trail that winds through the meadows and woodlands around Ayr
Mount. The walk meanders down to the Eno River, passes alongside the remnants of an old
tavern, and parallels the Old Indian Trading Path.
Occoneechee Speedway
The Occoneechce Speedway is important at the state level I'or its association with early,
organized stock car racing in North Carolina. The speedway was one of eight east coast
racetracks that hosted the first NASCAR events and remains the only NASCAR dirt track that has
not been destroyed or paved. The speedway opened on June 27, 1948 with an estimated 20,000
fans in attendance. Renamed Orange Speedway in 1954, it operated until 1968. Although
overgrown with trees and foliage, important structures remain, including the oval dirt track,
culverts used to drain water from the infield, hillsides and concrete grandstands for spectators,
and several small buildings (Martin, 2002).
The Occoneechee Speedway has not changed substantially since its nomination to the NRHP in
2002, and remains eligible under Criterion A for recreation and social history and Criterion G as a
rare surviving property type that achieved significance within the past fifty years.
Historic Architecture Resources Impacts
The effects of the three Build Alternatives on historic resources were determined in accordance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR Part 800). Table 8
presents for each resource the Determination of Effects made in, consultation with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
16
Table 8. Determination of Effects
Historic Resource Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Hillsborough Historic District (of
which Ayr Mount and Poet's Walk are Adverse Effect No Effect No Effect
contributing resources)
No Adverse Effect
Occoneechee Speedway Adverse Effect with environmental No Effect
committments,
Conditions to the SI IPO's No Adverse Effect delerni nation were: 1) to minimize right-of-way clearing; and 2) the SI I PO would
review the final bridge design.
Alternative 3 would bisect the Occoneechee Speedway, cutting through the northern half of the
former dirt track. In addition, Alternative 3 would result in visual and noise impacts that would
affect its use as a hiking and recreational area. The NCDOT, SHPO, and FHWA determined that
the bisecting of the historic site by Alternative 3 and the associated noise impacts would result in
an Adverse Effect on the Occoneechee Speedway.
Alternative 3 would not encroach on the Ayr Mount property, which is within the Hillsborough
Historic District, but would be within approximately 100 feet at its closest location. The
alternative would not affect the Ayr Mount dwelling, which would be several hundred feet away
from the proposed alternative. However, Poet's Walk would experience a 26 dBA increase in
noise over existing levels. An increase of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling of the sound level.
This substantial noise impact to Poet's Walk would be an Adverse Effect on Ayr Mount. In
addition, the road would be visible from Poet's Walk at least during the winter months when the
trees have lost their leaves. The increase in noise and the potential visual impacts would affect
the use of Poet's Walk as a quiet and serene walking area.
The proposed bridge crossing of the Eno River for Alternative 4 would be visible from some
portions of the Occoneechee Speedway. As such, the SHPO determined that Alternative 4 would
have No Adverse Effect on the Occoneechee Speedway. Alternative 4 would have No Effect on
the other two resources in the project area.
Alternative 6 would have No Effect on the two resources.
Archaeological Resources
A Phase I A archaeological background study was conducted to evaluate the potential for
archaeological resources within the project area (TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., 2001). The study
identified several previously known archaeological sites within the project area in the
Hillsborough Historic District to the west of the Build Alternatives, but no known archaeological
sites were identified within any of the proposed alignment corridors. The results of the study also
indicated that the project area contains several areas with a high probability for additional
archaeological resources associated with both prehistoric and historic time periods. Therefore,
once a preferred alternative is selected, systematic archaeological studies (Phase IB) will be
conducted to identify and assess the significance of resources within the footprint of the preferred
alternative.
In accordance with the federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, North Carolina
law (GS 70, Article 2) exempts information on archaeological site locations from unrestricted
17
public access that may result in damage to or destruction of the archaeological resources, so no
further information on the known archaeological resources in the project area is provided in the
DEIS.
Archaeological Resource Impacts
No known archaeological sites were identified within any of the proposed alignment corridors;
therefore,. none of the Build Alternatives would affect known archaeological resources. If one of
the Build Alternatives is selected for implementation, additional field studies will be conducted to
determine if archaeological resource's exist within its alignment.
Hazardous Materials
A Phase I reconnaissance and Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by the NCDOT.
The NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit consulted an in-house geographical information system to
identify known environmentally impacting sites in relation to the Build Alternatives. A search of
appropriate environmental agencies' databases also was performed to assist in evaluating sites
identified during their survey.
Nine sites were identified as having or previously having petroleum underground storage tanks
(UST). These included three active service stations, three former service stations, and two
residential properties that have had leaking heating oil tanks. One site on Elizabeth Brady Road
was a location where hydraulic cylinders were manufactured. This site has possible
contamination by hydraulic fluids, metals, and other contaminants. No hazardous waste sites or
landfills were found within the project study limits. The locations of the UST and other
potentially contaminated sites identified are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. USTs and Other Potentially Contaminated Sites
UST ID UST Anticipated Anticipated
Site # Type Location Comments
- # Owner. Impacts Severity
None - design Local reports that
1812 NC 86 does not extend USTs were
South (NE Petroleum that far south on removed over 30
1 Former Gas comer of Unknown Texaco impacted soils NC 86 (low if years ago-
Station
intersection of
design were
relevant to all
NC 86 & 1-85 extended) Build
Alternatives.
None - desig
n UST registry
shows some but
1801 NC 86 does not extend
not all USTs
3 Former Gas South 0-001958 Johnnie T. Petroleum that far south on removed-
Station (immediately Johnson impacted soils NC 86 (low if
relevant to all
north of Site 2) design were
Build
extended)
Alternatives.
Former Parker
Hannifin site;
343 Elizabeth Not Not Solvents/ None - outside
4 Industrial Bradv Road Applicable Applicable hydraulic fluid project corridor manufactured
hydraulic
cylinders.
18
UST ID UST Anticipated Anticipated
Site # Type Location Comments
# Owner Impacts Severity
Petroleum Release from
1700 Riverside Not George impacted soils None - outside heating oil lank
5 Residential Drive Applicable Thompson from former project corridor (incident report
heating oil UST #24062).
Four USTS
Petroleum removed in 1987
Huffman Oil impacted soils
Active Gas 1414 US 70 and five USTS
6 0-020999 Company, from former and Low
Station East currently in use-
Inc. current UST '
relevant only to
system Alternative 6.
Petroleum Three USTS
impacted soils currently in use at
7 Active Gas 1204 US 70 0-020929 The Pantry from former and Low the site - relevant
Station East st Inc.
.
current UST
to all Build
system Alternatives.
Three USTs
Petroleum
removed in 1989
Former Gas 1207 US 70 Willie M. impacted soils
8 0-0022151 Low -relevant to all
Station East Laws from former
Build
UST
Alternatives.
Release from
Petroleum heating oil tank
1220 St. Mary's Not Keith impacted soils (incident report
9 Residential Road Applicable Hasson from former Low #21022)-relevant
heating oil UST to Alternatives3
and 4.
Table 9 also summarizes the findings of the Phase I reconnaissance survey conducted for the
project area. The purpose of the investigation was to identify properties within the project area
that are contaminated or may be contaminated, and therefore could result in increased project
costs and future liability if purchased by the NCDOT. Geo-environmental sites include USTS,
hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills, and unregulated dumpsites.
Nine sites were identified that presently or formerly had USTS for the storage of petroleum
products (see Table 9). Only four of the sites could have a potential affect on any of the three
Build Alternatives. The principal affect of these sites would be the potential of contamination
that would need to be mitigated prior to construction. This would principally be a cost impact to
the project. The anticipated severity or risk for each of the four sites is low.
Loaical Termini/Independent Util
FHWA Title 23 CFR 771.111(f) states that the following three criteria must be considered to
ensure that all transportation alternatives are fully evaluated and to avoid coin initments to future
transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated. Independent project sections must:
• Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a
broad scope;
19
• Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable
expenditure, even if additional transportation improvements in the area are not made; and
• Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements.
When establishing logical termini, FFIWA's Technical Memorandum Guidance on the
Development of Logical Project Termini (1993) suggests that a project should satisfy an
identified need. Furthermore, it defines logical termini as "(1) rational end points for a
transportation improvement, and (2) rational end points for a review of the environmental
impacts," with the latter frequently covering "a broader geographic area than the strict limits of
the transportation improvements.
All of the Preliminary Corridor Alternatives considered would connect logical termini because
each would provide a north-south connection between US 70 Bypass and I-85, thereby allowing
traffic a route to avoid the Hillsborough central business district. The length of each of the
Preliminary Corridor Alternatives also would be sufficient to address environmental matters on a
broad scope (Chapter 4 of the DEIS provides a broad discussion of the environmental impacts of
the selected Build Alternatives). However, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS (see Section
2.4), only the selected Build Alternatives have been determined to adequately meet the project's
purpose of reducing traffic congestion on Churton Street in the central business district in terms
of traffic delay at intersections and travel time for the peak period/peak direction. Therefore, only
the selected Build Alternatives would meet FHWA's guidance related to satisfying an identified
need. In addition, each of the selected Build Alternatives would have independent utility because
they would serve the identified need even if additional transportation improvements in the area
are not made. They also would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements. The selected Build Alternatives would also provide
necessary intersection improvements at tie-in points.
As shown by the above discussion, the proposed project is in compliance with the FHWA's
general principles regulating the establishment of project limits.
This submittal is in accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review
under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This
letter, along with the DEIS, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public
Notice for the project. A public hearing is scheduled for the DEIS on December 7, 2009.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Vince Rhea at (919)
733-7844, extension 261.
20

List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
,
r I r ? ? 1 y; _i
NILLSBOROuzNz,,° 11
, !'1 ?• ?O\
70
i (
a M § ^ t` It i?`r? t Q, )
h4O
INSET MAP
IG.n 1 l py}c
'7` 1 µ '.C Li
I O R A N G E r..w• µ N
Nt
Bhapw mu
wn. 5 A Adam +} t ,?,:a' a
r. ? 4
Legend
• Build Alternatives
Q Alternative Number
' Project Location Map
MMEN&W
'1 Figure 1-1

Figure 2. Build Alternatives
m m

? is a
E LL
. ?
? ?
3 9
gg D ¢ ? 0
$ 7
m
!
l
l ? f E
O Y?? a U Z y
l O l !
J ? I
???
o
l I
1.
X11
.may`
1
+1r
1

?•f?
1.
? r

-i
Y
a
Figure 3 Roadway Typical Section
N c-4
N
N
O Y
F R m
L ?
? Y
1
L
0
L
L
0
O si
_ c
V C
G?
< L
i a
oI 0
c
0
<V M
V
!n
T
V
Q
Cam- N - ?
?- W F
?Z
V
I
? r
1V;
O
o I ?f
Esc
77

Figure 4. Project Area Streams and Wetlands
and Wetlands
Figure 3-12
????®? Project Area Streams
V f n ,
Figure 5. Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways
Floodplains and
Regulatory Floodways
Figure 3.11
Legend
1918110111 A]WnaWe 3 IMYear Floodplain
unmet AlwnaWea
We 6 `Year FloodpWin a ON ff 0,18 ON
19muw Alterna ®Miles
? Pavement Removal
O Cul de sac