20180791 Ver 1_U-5846 CE_20180608

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
A. Proiect Description:
U-5846
50236.1.1
N/A
State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) U-5854 is the proposed improvement of the
intersection at S.R. 1772 (Greensboro St.) and S.R. 1780 (Estes Drive Ext.) in Carrboro and
unincorporated Orange County.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of the proposed project is to make the intersection safer and more effective in
handling existing and future traffic. It is needed to improve traffic operations through the reduction
of backups, reduction of delays, and the ability to handle traffic growth in the area. A secondary
purpose for the project is to maintain safety for the high volume of pedestrians and bicyclists in the
area as traffic increases.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
� TYPEIA
❑ TYPE II
D. Proposed Imqrovements — Delete Action Classifications that do no apply.
3. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities.
26. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (including parking, weaving, turning, and climbing lanes), if
the action meets the constraints listed in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).
E. Special Proiect Information:
The portion of North Greensboro Street within the project limits is a two-lane undivided minor
arterial with lanes varying in width from 16 to 17-feet. It is located in the Hillsborough Road
Neighborhood and provides a route for commuting between Carrboro and Chapel Hill over
gently rolling terrain. Estes Drive Extension is also a two-lane undivided minor arterial with 12-
foot lanes. It dead-ends into North Greensboro Street at a"T" type intersection, which is
currently controlled with a traffic signal. At the top of the "T", running perpendicular to North
Greensboro Street, is the Frances Lloyd Shetley Bikeway, which contains a 15-foot wide multi-
use path that provides access to Carrboro Elementary School to the south of the project area.
To the north of the project intersection, Estes Drive Extension provides access to Horace
Williams Airport and then changes to North Estes Drive at the intersection with NC 86 (Martin
Luther King Blvd in Chapell Hill). Further to the east, North Estes Drive changes to South
Updated 4/7/17

Estes Drive at the intersection with US 501 (Fordham Blvd), which is a heavily traveled
gateway into Chapel Hill from I-40.
The purpose of the project is to reduce backups and delays and handle increasing traffic
growth at the intersection while maintaining safety for high volumes of pedestrians and
bicyclists. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) states
that there is notable traffic congestion at the North Greensboro Street / Estes Drive intersection
and that additional improvements at the intersection may help to improve operations and
maintain safety of the roadway. The intersection improvement is listed in the 2016-2025 STIP,
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) (Adopted May
8, 2013), and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro CTP (draft June 20, 2016). The Town of
Carrboro, Division of Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation, Comprehensive Bicycle
Transportation Plan (CBTP), identifies North Greensboro Street at the Estes Drive Extension
intersection as an existing connecting bicycle facility. The intersection is classified in the plan
as a priority that is in need of improvement for cyclists.
North Greensboro Street accommodates various modes of transportation, including walking,
cycling, automobile and public transit and has sidewalks on both sides through the project area
and one southbound dedicated/striped bike lane east of Estes Drive. Estes Drive Extension in
the project area does not contain bicycle lanes or sidewalks. About 1,200 feet from the project
intersection, beginning at Hillcrest Avenue and e�ending north to NC 86, Estes Drive
Extension contains dedicated/striped bike lanes on both sides of the roadway, but no
sidewalks. Project EB-5886 is proposed in the 2017-2027 Draft STIP to construct a multi-use
path, sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Estes Drive Extension from North Greensboro Street
to NC 86. The limits of the project are within an area zoned for residential use. The posted
speed limit on North Greensboro Street is 30 mph while the speed limit on Estes Drive
Extension is 35 mph.
The proposed single-lane roundabout will include a grassed raised center and contain a berm
area to connect to future sidewalks along Estes Drive Extension. The roundabout will allow
trucks with trailers up to 62-feet long; trucks with longer trailers will fit except for right turns
from North Greensboro Street onto Estes Drive Extension. New sidewalks will be constructed
around all three sides of the intersection, with pedestrian crosswalks on both North
Greensboro Street sides of the roundabout as well as the Estes Drive Extension side. Two
other crosswalks will also be constructed — one across Todd Street (located approximately 60-
feet west and parallel to the Frances Lloyd Shetley Bikeway) to facilitate pedestrian travel
along North Greensboro Street. The other is proposed across North Greensboro Street about
1,100 feet north of the roundabout, west of Williams Street. This mid-block crosswalk was
negotiated with the Town of Carrboro to address the significant volume of pedestrians in the
corridor and the communiry's concern with pedestrian (especially children walking to local
schools) safety through the new roundabout. The project also includes replacement of the
"fork" in the existing multi-use Frances Lloyd Shetley Bikeway with separate bicycle ramps for
access on and off the roundabout. This is to satisfy the NCDOT policy that does not allow bike
lanes within roundabouts, therefore bicycles will be required to operate as vehicles through the
proposed roundabout. The proposed sidewaik on the Bikeway side of the roundabout will be
split to cross the bike lane ramp connections to the roundabout.
Traffic will be managed on-site during construction.
The estimated costs, based on the approved 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) prices, are as follows:
2 Updated 4/7/17

Estimated Tra�c:
North Greensboro Street (East of Estes Drive Extension):
Current - 11,000 vpd
Year 2040 - 13,000 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Greensboro Street (West of Estes Drive Extension):
Current - 8,000 vpd
Year 2040 - 9,500 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Estes Drive (North of Greensboro Street):
Current - 10,800 vpd
Year 2040 - 13,300 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Accidents: There have been six crashes at the intersection between 2012 and 2016. Three
were rear-end crashes, one was an angle crash, one was a sideswipe, and one was a right
turn crash. No significant crash pattern was noted, and the intersection does not need the
ranking criteria to qualify for safety mitigation.
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: No portion of the roadways within the project
area are part of a designated bicycle route, nor is the project listed in the STIP as a bicycle
project. However, the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, the Town of
Carrboro, and citizen input confirmed that the intersection is heavi�y used by pedestrians and
bicyclists. Bicycle lanes and a multi-use path have been incorporated into the project design.
The new multi-use path will connect to the existing Frances Lloyd Shetley Bikeway and
sidewalks along North Greensboro Street. Existing bicycle lanes currently located along both
sides of Greensboro Street will continue to accommodate bicycle traffic through the
intersection.
Alternatives Discussion:
Detour — Traffic will be maintained on site during construction, thus there was no need
to evaluate off-site detour options.
No Build — The no build alternative would result in further delays in traffic and increased
safety concerns. The level of service for the intersection would go from a B to a C in
2040, and approach delay times would increase by more than 20 seconds.
Buiid — the build alternative will improve safety and improve tra�c operations. Although
the level of service will go from a B to a C in 2040, the approach delays would only
increase by 9 seconds. This will result in 30% lower intersection delays and better
queuing results than the no build alternative and will maintain lower approach speeds,
which will protect high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic better than the no build
alternative.
Public Involvement:
Updated 4/7117

A public meeting was held on Monday, November 14, 2016 from 4pm to 7pm at the Town Hall
boardroom in Carrboro.
140 postcard invitations were printed and mailed. Mailing addresses were derived from Orange
County GIS data from the tax office (property tax records). Thirty people attended the meeting
and 13 comment forms were collected. Twenty comments were received after the meeting via
mailed in comment forms and/or letters and emails. Of the 25 comment forms received, 21
mentioned pedestrian/bicycle safety and 13 mentioned vehicular safety as top concerns for the
current intersection. School-age pedestrians and cyclist events through the corridor were also
mentioned on fifteen forms as time of yearlday concerns.
Other prominent concerns and comments included:
• Sidewalks and bike lanes are needed on Estes Drive Ext leading to roundabout
• Lower speed limits are needed leading to roundabout from all directions
• Continue bike lane through roundabout OR clear demarcation of bike lane on MUP so
cyclists don't have to slow down
The Carrboro Board of Alderman passed a resolution with comments to NCDOT regarding the
project, including the following:
1. That the attached rendering (which are included in the background documents for the
project) and comments from the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board are shared by the
Carrboro Board of Aldermen.
2. That pedestrian safety is thoroughly reviewed and prioritized.
3. That special consideration is provided to the logistics associated with school crossings.
4. That signage and flashing beacons are very important for crossing safety.
5. That vehicle stacking needs to be considered during school crossing hours.
6. The Board would like to review an animated model of the proposed roundabout (Synchro or
similar).
7. That signage be considered to alert vehicles to be aware of bicyclists merging into the lane
on westbound N. Greensboro.
8. That signage regarding certain sized trucks being unable to use the roundabout be placed in
locations well in advance of the roundabout as to appropriately alert large truck drivers that
they will not be able to navigate the roundabout.
9. That construction does not start before the current construction on S. Greensboro Street is
completed and that it does conflict with other construction projects.
4 Updated 4/7/17

F. Proiect Impact Criteria Checklists:
Tvpe I& II - Ground Disturbinq Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
if any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
� Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife � �
5ervice (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and � �
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any � �
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to � �
low-income and/or minority populations?
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a � �
substantial amount of right of way acquisition?
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(� approval? � �
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
� Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic � �
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
Does the project result in a finding of "may affect not likely to adversely affecY'
8 for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the ❑ Q
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
9 Does the project impact anadromous fish? � 0
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10 (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical � �
Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated � �
mountain trout streams?
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual � Q
Section 404 Permit?
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory � �
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination � �
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains?
5 Updated 4/7/17

Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? ❑ �
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
16 regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) � �
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 sub art A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and � �
17 substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern AEC ?
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ❑ �
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a � �
desi nated Wild and Scenic River resent within the ro'ect area?
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ❑ Q
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), � �
USFWS, etc. or Tribal Lands?
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? ❑ Q
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or � �
communit cohesiveness?
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ❑ �
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan P�anning
25 Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where ❑ �
a licable ?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(� of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
26 Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley � �
Authority (NA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the ro ert ?
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) � �
bu out ro erties under the Hazard Miti ation Grant Pro ram HMGP ?
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(�? ❑ ❑X
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ❑ Q
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by � �
the Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA ?
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that � �
affected the ro ect decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Stream and Wetland Imqacts
For question 10. The proposed transportation and associated drainage improvements (including constructing the
roundabout, sidewalks and bikeway, extending the existing culvert and installing drainage controls, such as rock cross
vanes) are estimated to impact 1841inear feet of an unnamed verified tributary to Bolin Creek, which is an intermittent
Updated 4!7/17

jurisdictional stream. This stream is listed on the 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters and subject to the Jordan
Lake euffer Rule protection rules.
The proposed project and drainage improvements will also impact 381 square feet (0.009 acres) of Wetland WA and 80
square feet of Wetland WB, both verified by the Corps.
7 Updated 4l7/17

H. Proiect Commitments
Proposed transportation
Orange County
improvements of the intersection at S.R. 1772 (Greensboro St.) and
S.R. 1780 (Estes Drive Ext.) in Carrboro)
Federal Project No. N/A
WBS No. 50236.1.1
TIP No.: U-5846
impact Minimization and Mitiqation
Given that the stream has been designated WS-V/NSW, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds
will need to be implemented during project construction.
NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities during final
design. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
(PCE) for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 will likely be applicable.
The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize
project construction. if a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will be needed.

Cateaorical Exclusion Aoproval
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
U-5846
50236.1.1
N/A
Description: Proposed transportation improvements of the intersection at S.R. 1772 (Greensboro St.)
and S.R. 1780 (Estes Drive Ext.) in Carrboro, Orange County.
Prepared By:
5-2-2017
Date
Prepared For:
Reviewed By:
�� -! �/
Date
Michelle Suverkrubbe, AICP
Planning Group Lead
SEPI Engineering & Construction
NCDOT Division 7
�
Division 7 Environmental Officer
S- Z- �� L�� ar�y
Date Ed Lewis
NCDOT Division 7 Planning Engineer
��
0
Date
Approved
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered "no," NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Certified Section F are answered "yes," NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion and forwards it to FHWA for
approval.
Carolina
�
Transportation
FHWA A�proved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9 Updated 4/7/17