19960742 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19960805

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p EH N FI
A. Presto n Howard, Jr., P.E., Directo r
October 30, 1996
Durham County
DWQ Project # 960742
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:
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. 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 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
P.E.
960742.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NO 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
f
J4\SEO STgl?S
O v
21'Fhl GAO?
PRO`E
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1 I JUL 1y35
Mr. Eric Galamb
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Galamb:

2 8
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Thank you for your comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact on the
Environmental Assessment for EPA's proposed new campus in the Research Triangle Park. Your
comments were related to Section 401 certification. We are nearing completion of design and are
currently preparing a joint Section 401/404 permit application. My staff looks forward to
working with the Division of Environmental Management during review of the Water Quality
Certification permit.
Sincerely yours,
FO 2 :
William G. Laxton, D' ector
Attachment
cc: Melba McGee
Chrys Baggett
NC DEM WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone] Jul 6 '95 16:23 P.02/03
State of 'North .,Carogna
Department of Environment,
Health ancd Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Manocerr
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
OF X1.
ID EHNR
6, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb6T
Subject: FONSI for EPA Resean
Durham County
EHNR # 95.0912, DEM

And Administrative Facility
10979
The subject document has been revie d by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is resppon Ible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities whlc impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that 0.04 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The following
comments are based on a review oft e•document:
A) The document states that 0.26 cres of scrub/shrub and emergent plant
species will be planted in the nd to compensate for the 0.04 acre loss of
wetlands. Due to the low wet la d impacts and the proposed mitigation, DEM
concurs with the FONSI.
The project sponsor is reminded that
water quality concerns are satisfied-
be directed to Eric Galamb (733-178!
Sciences Branch.
le 401 Certification could be denied unless
luestions regarding the 401 Certification should
in DEM's Water Quality Environmental
epalab.fon
RO. Box 29636, Rcielgh, North Carolina 2762!.-0636 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AffrmatMe Action t rnplover 60% recycled/ 10% post-consurrwr paper
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer:
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-,''c*EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR: 96 PERMIT NO: 0000742 COUNTY: DUKHAM
APPLICANT NAME: US EPA-RESEARCH & ADMIN. FACILITY PERMIT_TYPE: NW14 26
PROJECT _TYPE: COMMERICIAL FILL DOT #
COE_ DATE_FRM_CDA: 09/05/96
RCD FROM CDA: APP
__
REG OFFICE: RRO
RIVER-AND-SUB-BASIN-#: 0306
STREAM-CLASS: C
WL_IMPACT?: Y/N
WL REQUESTED :
z -7
WL_S CORE M : /,f C>- 3 ` ccc
MITIGATION?: Y/Pj
C` c Ci
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: YID
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/
--?
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): 6s# ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:
c.
C

i
i
i
I CC: Regional Office
Central Files
STR INDEX N0: 16-41-1-17-(0.3)
WL_TYPE : Lc -?? rTC?-t ?r?. ••`/-`
WL_ACR_EST?:GY N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?:0N
MITIGATION_TYPE: /!/

A
Cardinal Country Club
Dredging
Permit No. 00965
Little Creek, NSW - C
Areas along stream that are wooded (natural areas in golf coarse
setting) would not be disturbed. Areas in stream channel where
golf coarse lips to the edge stream bank, rock and silt deposited
have accumulated and are displacing water into adjacent golf coarse
during minor storm events (as per applicant).
no ratting due to stream channel- Polygonum hydropiperoides,
Ligustrum siense, Salix nigra
Recommend: that they stabilize stream bank with natural
vegetation, try to avoid rip rap. Only conducted excavation during
approved time frame (as per wildlife standards).
I also discussed possibility of creating a buffer around the stream
edge, lets talk.
/ds
MEMORANDUM
TO:
JOHN DORNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH
PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer:
WQ SUPV.:
DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE)
PERMIT YR: 96 PERMIT NO: 0000965 COUNTY: JOHNSTON
APPLICANT NAME: CARDINAL COUNTRY CLUB
PROJECT TYPE: DREDGING PERMIT TYPE: IND.
COE_#: 199607193 DOT #:
RCD_FROM _CDA: COE DATE_FRM CDA: 10/01/96
REG OFFICE: PRO
RIVER_AND_SUB_BASINJ: 030406 STR_INDEX_NO: 27-57-19
STREAM_CLASS : C L'17I 4 ./ 25
WL_IMPACT? : Y6 WL_TYPE :
WL_REQUESTED : WL ACR EST? : Y1 _ _ /C
WL_SCORE (#) : A 4 " 57'•'c'-?yn? WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/ NT
MITIGATION?: Y/
MITIGATION TYPE: 4711
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/N
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y&)
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): SU ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:
V,

i
q
?14!!529
:? 2 ),V9 q z ----) ri/A I",-
'c : Regional Office
Central Files
0"", to srlqr
,W UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
p
Awl
z Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
stir Goo
,< PROI
September 5, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
State of N. C. DEHNR
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Please find enclosed for your review and approval EPA's Joint Form 401/404 water quality permit for the
new Environmental Protection Agency Research and Administration campus in Research Triangle Park. As
you may be aware, EPA has already submitted this information through the State of North Carolina far}- o?C
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 beginning Fall 1996 to Spring 1997 on federal property
opposite the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (N1EHS) 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 Joint Form Section 404 Nationwide Permit/ Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
dated October 1995 (Bound document, 7 copies)
2) Applicable Drawings List (I page)
3) Applicable Drawings (1 set each to NC DEHNR/DWQ and 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 Wayne Morris at 541-3022
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
PRINT NAMES:
LMORANDUM
Reviewer: 1Yy. X
'T0: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE.
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• *EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ?**
PERMIT YR: 96 PERMIT NO: 0000742 COUNTY: DURHAM
APPLICANT NAME: US EPA-RESEARCH & ADMIN. FACILITY
RMIT_TYPE: NW14 26
PROJECT _TYPE: COMMERICIAL FILL DOT ?
COE #:
RCD FROM CDA: APP DATE-FRM-CDA: 09/05/96
__
REG OF RRO
RIVER-AND-SUB-BASIN-#: 0306
STREAM-CLASS: C
WL_IMPACT?: Y/N
WL REQUESTED :
WL_SCORE M 0. 3-7-,7 MITIGATION?: Y/L
STR INDEX N0: 16-41-1-17-(0.3)
WL-TYPE :
WL-ACR-EST?:oY N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?:0N
MITIGATION-TYPE: /!/
?? DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y
MITIGATION_SIZE: ?/?/
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y C
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): SSU ISSUE/COND DENY
C
l t' K??i

sz.? >
cc: Regional Office
Central Files
fi?? lG 1,4
A
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
July 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
Monica Swihart
A fflv7KW
Ali
RE=
-Oak
ED EHNR
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for EPA Research And Administrative Facility
Durham County
EHNR # 95-0912, DEM # 10979
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that 0.04 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The following
comments are based on a review of the document:
A) The document states that 0.26 acres of scrub/shrub and emergent plant
species will be planted in the pond to compensate for the 0.04 acre loss of
wetlands. Due to the low wetland impacts and the proposed mitigation, DEM
concurs with the FONSI.
The project sponsor is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless
water quality concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should
be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
epalab.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Rdelgh, North Carollna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
'00A
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form 16 '717
Project Number: County: VW Date: Date Response Due firm deadline):
Zr
b_?e?
7-7
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: OM Jf? ?0 D 5
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
Water ? Water Resources (Environmental Health
El Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
Raleigh ?fi Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wil
i
t ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
m
ng
on ? Others P nvironmental Management R CLAVED
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart JUN
1N 3 01995'
ENVIRc)N,I 1i;N rAl_ SCIENCES

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: a In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
1 ? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PSiw
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
TO: All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups
DATE: June 8, 1995
RE: FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for the-Proposed-EPA
Research and Administration Facility on a 132-acre portion of the 509-acre
V.'S. Public Health Service Research Park
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact statements,
an environmental assessment (EA) attached-and incorporated by reference into this finding -
has been prepared for the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), action below:
Official Project Name:
Project Location:
Research and Administration Facility
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, Durham County, North Carolina
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
for the
Proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility
on a 132-acre portion of the 509-acre
U.S. Public Health Service Research Park
Purpose of the Environmental Assessment
An environmental assessment (EA), attached and incorporated by reference into this finding, for
the proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility 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
Provision of the National Environmental.Policy Act, as amended (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regulations on, Implementation of NEPA
Procedures, as amended (40 CFR Part 6).
The EA was prepared to determine whether the proposed project's environmental impacts would
be significant enough to require the preparation of an environmental impact. statement. As
required by EPA's NEPA Regulations, the EA describes the proposed action, alternatives, the
existing environment to be affected, potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, and
proposes mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts.
Description of the Proposed Action
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to site and construct a new
Research and Administration Facility in Research Triangle Park (RTP), Durham County, North
Carolina (NC). The proposed facility will have a gross floor area of approximately 1,119,308
square feet (so of which approximately 635,000 sf will represent net assignable space. Parking
for approximately 1,800 vehicles will be provided in low structure parking garages and five
surface lots.
The proposed EPA Research and Administration Facility will consist of several buildings sited on
two parcels of land. Roadway and infrastructure construction activities will also take place on
land adjoining these parcels to support the proposed facility. In addition, expansion of the Central
Utility Plant (CUP) complex (power plant and waste incinerators) is planned.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
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 the existing facilities. The evaluation concluded that the
preferred alternative was to construct a government-owned facility on land set aside for EPA use
within RTP. Construction of the proposed facility will enable EPA to replace and consolidate
most of the facilities now occupied by the Agency in the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park
area. The proposed location for the facility is on a 132-acre portion of the 509-acre U.S. Public
Health Service (USPHS) Research Park.
A "Program of Requirements for Permanent Facility" was prepared by EPA staff in 1986
indicating the need for a total 635,000 sf of net assignable space. An update of this document
was completed in 1990 and confirmed the space requirements identified' inthe 1986 document.
The proposed location of the new facility conforms with the 1971 Master Plan for the U.S. Public
Health Service Research Park. In keeping with the Master Plan principle of developing a unitary
Research Park housing multiple occupants, EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Science (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 coordination on
other joint occupancy matters such as back-up fuel storage requirements, solid waste handling and
recycling practices, and cooperation on environmental compliance matters..
Project Location and Site Description
The site location of the proposed facility is in a 132-acre portion of the 509-acre USPHS
Research Park. The USPHS Research Park is part of the 6,800-acre RTP which was established
in 1959 to provide a center for institutions and corporations to engage in technology-based
research and development. RTP has a major employment concentration within the State of North
Carolina and is one of the largest research parks in the nation.
Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
The environmental assessment process determined several key environmental consequences
associated with the construction of the proposed facility. These environmental consequences can
be effectively mitigated through the use of state-of-the-art design techniques, which will
successfully minimize the environmental effects of the proposed action. Mitigation measures for
the proposed facility include design considerations as well as construction and operational
controls. The Memorandum of Understanding between 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 mitigation measures. The
following are environmental consequences and mitigation measures to address each of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction:
• Water Quality Impacts
Potential water quality impacts will occur to the onsite lake due to the soil erosion during
construction, increased impermeable surface and attendant stormwater pollution, which
will require the use of special design, construction, and landscaping methods. The final
design alternative was selected as one that limited conversion of existing forest lands to
impervious surfaces to about 28 acres; avoided alteration of, or impacts to, the lake; and
preserved extensive areas of upland forest ecology.
2
• Wetland Impacts
The loss or disturbance of wetland resources and their attendant functions and values will
require the implementation of wetland mitigation activities. Wetland mitigation activities
will also be implemented to compensate 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 areas to be created. This represents a 6.5:1 ratio of mitigation
to wetland area lost. Consequently, there will be a net increase of wetlands due to project
implementation. Due to the limited abundance of scrub/shrub and emergent woodlands
onsite, the creation of these woodlands communities will increase vegetative and wildlife
diversity by providing habitat opportunities and ecological niches not presently exhibited
onsite.
• Air Emission Impacts
Air emissions from laboratory hoods, boilers, and incinerators will require the
implementation of a variety of mitigation measures. Design of the facility heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system carefully considered placement of air intakes and
exhausts with respect to the potential for entrainment of contaminants from the
laboratories, animal care areas, and the Central Utility Plant (CUP), including boilers and
incinerators. Chillers will use non-ozone depleting refrigerants. The facility fire control
system will operate with water rather than ozone depleters.
Expansion of the CUP will involve installation of two natural gas-fired boilers. The
expansion will also incorporate numerous environmental design considerations. Among
these are the continued use of low-sulfur natural gas - the cleanest and most efficient
fossil fliel - as the primary fuel in state-of-the art burners equipped with flue gas
recirculation. Flue gas recirculation will further reduce pollutant emissions from the
boilers since 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.
Future improvement and expansion of onsite hazardous waste incineration capacity would
result in a more efficient handling and disposal of facility waste material. Upon
implementation, there would also be a reduction of hazardous waste requiring offsite
transport and disposal. The proposed hazardous waste incinerator would be designed
using maximum achievable control technology and capable of achieving a destruction and
removal efficiency of 99.99 percent. Implementation of the proposed incineration
capability is dependent upon the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting
process managed by the State of North Carolina. The permitting process entails a risk
analysis and holding at least one public meeting to explain the RCRA process and the
operations of the facility. There will be an opportunity for public comment.
• Hazardous Chemical Impacts
The use, storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous chemicals will require the
implementation of specialized materials handling procedures. The EPA Research and
Administration Facility will contain a centralized chemical receiving and issuance facility,
as well as a chemical waste 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 stormwater 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 truck.and transported under manifest to a
licensed industrial wastewater treatment and/or disposal facility.
• Traffic Impacts
increased local traffic will require roadway improvements at key intersections in order to
achieve acceptable levels of service and to avoid air quality impacts. EPA is working with
the State to implement a series of roadway improvements based on a traffic analysis
performed. The 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 an exclusive right turn lane on northbound T.W. Alexander Drive
Construct an exclusive northbound acceleration lane from the proposed North
Access Road onto T.W. Drive.
Hopson Road/East Loop Road
Construct an exclusive left turn lane on westbound Hopson Road.
In addition to the above roadway improvements, a series of mass transit, carpooling, and
other alternative modes of transportation will serve to mitigate traffic-related impacts.
EPA will continue to work with the North Carolina Department of Transportation toward
the implementation of these and other potential improvements.
4
Preliminary Finding
The environmental review process confirmed that significant environmental impacts would not
result from the proposed project. Consequently, EPA has made a preliminary decision not to
prepare an environmental impact statement. EPA reached this conclusion after reviewing the
environmental assessment prepared by the EPA with technical assistance from a consultant.
The environmental assessment and other project information are available for public review at the
Durham County Public Library and the Wake County Cameron Village Regional Public Library.
Public and agency comments on the determination may be submitted to EPA for consideration
within 30 calendar days from the date of this notice at: EPA, Facilities Development Staff, FMSD
- (MD - 30), Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. No administrative action on the project will be
taken by EPA before the end of the 30 day period.
If there are any requests for additional information or additional copies of the environmental
assessment, please do not hesitate to call [phone].

William G. Laxton, Director Date
Office of Administration and Resource
Management, Research Triangle Park
-46--

Luther E. Mellen III, Chief Date
Engineering, Planning and Architecture Branch,
Facilities Management and Services Division
5
J?\?£DSTAlFS EPA Research
s W & Administration Facility
o
Z?F moo= Research Triangle Park
yT'9t Psorr?° North Carolina
Contract Number: 68-C2-0115
February, 1995
JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154-1177
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

Page
3.2.4.1 LocaURegional 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 4-8
4.2.1 Utilities 4-8
4.2.1.1 Water Supply 4-8
4.2.1.2 Wastewater Disposal 4-8
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 4-24
4.2.8 Visual 4-24
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 5-1
5.1 Environmental Design Considerations 5-1
5.2 Wetland Mitigation 5-3
5.3 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 5-3
5.4 Grading Plan 5-4
5.5 Stormwater Management Plan 5-4
5.6 Air Quality 5-5
5.7 Utilities 5-6
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 5-7
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 5-8
5.10 Regulatory Compliance 5-8
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
6.1 References 6-1
6.2 Agency Contacts 6-3
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Location 1-2
1-2 Topography 1-3
1-3 Generalized Site Plan 1-4
1-4 Rendering of Main Campus 1-6
1-5 Rendering of National Computer Center 1-7
1-6 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Flow Chart 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
341 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
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 be
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 waterquality impacts to the onsite lakedue 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 ordisturbance 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
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 S1.00 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
Nests '\ _? y t1 /.': I \?:: u ` r '. `•.. f,t+.•
Grave.' 7. er '?? 0 Of
1 if scmey` .?. ?'% 8a Z ?\ ? , 54 r WBton e . y ?//? I ? ?/
ISl ., I eat , 1 e JI . F1 't ?i ?i??\ ff`•\/l \
ebance
111, a Crcedmoor Franklinj
, MIS Of000ll ` Nat t. r J , l
R8 15 `)
50
t s \
-O.a.gee ? _ ., i xr•,•' ? .Dur•ha
II _,?. •'I?, '', ? n... ,? eil ? '/''? ? , 1 '° // ?;dei `\_))? 1(?(
/?r f Chapel HI
n '.: nl • USPHS Park eacsv e \
h,t,er Carrboro ' •, v j / ,^ ?" /``'\ _' \ ?I• -,
')mss ? . ?V 5\? 1• r .. _ .. // \ /, -? ' l/
\ 101.,, V/ It SS M«ri nk +' I '.,,q. w'• r ( I •It ?!/ ? ^?` r` Ir / ???}}?h? ? ) ? ? r ' r, ?J
v,. .,';.,'?J1Farrwl ton I . SI 'MAWrr•te 64
ar e?aa \ n.r?? 1•• a rl Z Kni Mdak
s a nvil 2:t 64 ea• r;e • '.".7." nRAVI :•Nlrj
.?j411 ?r1 ?1. '-1: 1• ?..y 11,^\ •./?+} f;! -etc ' ,Ili' ??"L?C7 y / ` _ `T w •tn '?> I ,•`??'-:
,t
Vr •' ' 011
?'' . `-
•11. O • II!' //' .
•I '? ' • ?/6' • a RES e•r TIIIA f a f .\? I
l 1
• ,• '?? .:/ / ' ? ARK 111 ) 1•
Q 0- Cr f t ,o. ?`
?? r.. ? ?. ,,,_ ? r?? tilt ,, ? `\ \ >? r /• rl.b'1 t: ? .
Proposed EPA Research and f
°' %?y^'?to ?y Administration Facility Site IN
l/
..' .•r' •ti' Gf V1'( ,L,e 1 /Y ..?: 1 - ?Niw t• K T 1 4
' ? (i t east ?•? . '
"t ?N
t
O /lIja ?'' , r
o<—k. `,-•-- " U.S. Public Health
Service Park Y (* .
i J:

REGIONAL LOCATION
SOURCE: USGS Southwest Durham, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987), Southeast Durham, N.C_ (1973, Photorevised 1987),
Green Level, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1981) and Cary, N.C. (1973, Phanrevised 1987) Topographic Quadrangles
?a1`? srrrFm SCALE FIGURE
?A? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
" EPA Research and Administration Facility 0' 3100' ' 1 - 1
Far?l Pr'T Research Triangle Park, North Carol Ina
t
TOPOGRAPHY
J??iEO splr?LF FIGURE
?A,FS-4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT $C
EPA Research and Administration Facility o' aoo' soo' /?,
1-2
Kescarch Triangle f ark, North Carolina
Sl
s
qq4
z?
No
ACCESS ROAD
N
National
Computer Center
•
/ $O?CH Loop ROAD
IC-? J
HS
k
es arch and
IL
stration
/ F ility
0
Central Utility Plant d
flu
\ 0
?I
V S?VLCE ROAD
'Q0
Uop90N TZOAD
GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Hellmuth, Obata R Kassabaum and The RoberWStacy Group (1994)
?,,,tEO srtTFe.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIGURE
/ "N
EPA Research and Administration Fheility 0' 375' 750'
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 1-3
t
Of the total net square footage, approximately 42% (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.U, 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

>'"
WWI,

.? ?'`>' / ? ? ? '?i? • ??; :?V _ ,.mac
r
110
r 1 ? b
FPO-
RENDERING OF MAIN CAMPUS
SOURCE Ilcllmuth, 01a3ta & Kassabaum (1993)
JH?0.0 sr,rFS F/GUR/:
A?? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Administration Facility 1 -4
?'l7? EG1 Kcscurch 1 rlanglc Park, North Carollnu
c

P.

RENDERING OF NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER
SOURCE Hellmuth. Maw & Kassahaum (1993)

.ter :-•
r"
Y.4..
?„?eo st„FS FIGURE
s A z ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
r EPA Research and Administration Facility 1-5
Research •rrlan Qle Durk, North Carolina
"77

v
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 potendally 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

nt findings. impact
Environmental Prepare Record of
Decision
rEnvironmental
review .

Environmental
completed. completed. review completed.
Carry out project activities.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) FLOW CHART
teo ar,?r
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE
" EPA Research and Administration Facility 1 -6
-,c 77-1 Research TrlanElc Park, North Carolina
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 bean 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 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, 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 NIEHS 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. Becauseof thephysical separations between locations, the obsolescence
ofanumberofEPA-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 Architect/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)] 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), 1971], 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. Everett Jordan 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
1 r

S 1 ?;
?' ,-? ?? • B-601 (4.0/NE) ,
0-603 LONE -'\ ? * P2 (8-$ )
POW r? ?
-60
1 t? I/ g1?11 (8.5 (4.OM? •?b'i5 (3.5/t?fr) ,?
1 B-61 3.SM ``\ \
-614 . E) • B-6QC?(6.0/t?F?
1 B-d'% N 4- = +B-607(4. NM) •----Sete 4
B-6,1`/ (i( INE)?.:.. w *B- 1 0/N
( _C \?+
{ B-t? j?f
($• ) • • 0-610 (3.5 E
r - • ---- - x612 (?3?5{N? R.A1Q !>' a/N F1 1 B•613 (6.5/ Q) 4
-B-622 (1.01NE)\
\Z__ 6621 (4.5/NE) v
-623.5/ IJ •B-624 (8.5
?Y,% : • .5ME) v
625(3
t'2 [Nth AB;- (3.5 NE
•/B-8 (2 &NE)
\
ZE) /•
. )
11s14(2
C
33 .?/NE) • ?. 8
B-19 (3.01NE)
t • •
{'1?TTN
- 18 2
B•2512. INE)
`9-26 (- I3.0 E)
30i IQ ¦
H A8-19
? .? B 4
.
O(NE) 'O
MME) +
6(6.0
/IIE? ^f a Site 3
AB-12(8 E)
3.0/Dtq v
(/ v
B 4 (3.0 ) ?v
3.27 3,0 E
/N )? r
? v
v
-28(6.5 E) v
s,
r
I • B-14 (2.5/2.5) BORING LOCATION (Depth in feet to partially BORING PLAN
weathered rock/Depth in feet to groundwater)
i • B-24 (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)
J'Ote° 31,4,ep SCALE FIGURE
A? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /?
EPA Reslear ch and Adn*xLsh-atilon Facility o a ao ®' 3-1
0444 f KeseArch Triangle Park, Norrh Carollna
Kva
J
SURFACE WATER FEATURES AND
WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
C (NSW) NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY
WS-IV (NSW) CLASSIFICATIONS SOURCE: Cortell Associates (1992)
jOED sro
'tp SCALE FIGURE
A I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _
EPA Research and Administration Facility 0' 425' 850'
3-2
y? Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
t
-- • • SURFACE WATERS
- - WATERSHED BOUNDARY
• 2 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
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 Northea;
Northeast Creek WS-IV (CA)
Because background water quality data were not available for the onsite lake and dow
locations, a one time sampling and analysis program was conducted. Sampl
collected on July 30, 1992 at the locations shown in Figure 3-2. Sampling was co
by CORTELL personnel, with laboratory analyses being conducted by IEA,
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 77
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/100ml) 25 17 20
Chlorophyll-a 7.34 0.177 0.046
Temperature (°C) 30.0 24.5 24.0
Dissolved Oxygen 6.9 5.0 7.4
All results are in mg/I unless otherwise noted
3-5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
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/l. 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 NIEHS Central Utility Plant (CUP) and the NIEHS
facility itself.
3.6 AFFECTED ENVIRONNIENT
SOURCE: Federal Insurance Administration (1979)
A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIGURE
EPA Research and Administration Facility o1 400' 600, /\ r,` Research Triangle Park, North Carolina " 3-3
AREA OF loo-YEAR FLOOD FLOODPRONE AREAS
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 230.3(t) 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 ACOE.
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
(FWS, 1979), the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 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 broad
leaved deciduous species (FWS, 1992).
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 of Engineers
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 area
base maps. These maps were then forwarded to ACOE for signature. ACOE signed the
maps on 9 July 1993. The approximate extent of waters and wetlands is presented in
Figure 3-4.
3-8 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1
s

q - - LIMIT OF MAPPING VEGETATION
SURFACE WATERS
A CD WETLANDS
OF UPLAND FOREST
UD LANDSCAPED/DEVELOPED SOURCE: Cortell Associates (1992)
A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIGURE
° EPA Research and Administration Fatality °' 425' ss°' 3,_4,
Research Triangle Parko North Carolina rnrm" oPd°
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 layerconsists 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 retention/transformation
Nutrient export
Uniqueness/heritage
Aquatic diversity/abundance
Fish and shellfish habitat
Wildlife habitat
Endangered species
Consumptive recreation
Nonconsumptive recreation
Table 3-I1 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
Wetland
Function A B C E F G I J K L
Groundwater
Recharge/Discharge + + P + + + + + + P
Flood Storage and
Desynchromzation + + + + + + + + + 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 - - - - - - - - - -
Uniqueness/Heritage - - - - - - - - - -
= Principal 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 (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
i 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
t 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 ENVIRONNIENT
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 powerplant, identified as Central Utility Plant Building 105, currently services
the existing NIEHS complex. The CUP provides chilled water, and high temperature hot
water (HTHW) 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 future
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 ENVIRONMENT
Table 3-III
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
i.evet or 3ervtce
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
NC Route 54 at NC Route 55 ? B_
12.1 12.4
NC Route 54 at T.W. Alexander Drive B
12.8
T.W. Alexander Drive at Durham Freeway _B
13.6
NC Route 54 at Davis Drive B
14.5
B Level of Service 12.1 Delay in Secom
Table 3-IV
C
18.6
_13
11.2
B
13.2
is PER VEHICLE
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 l
EB Thru C C B ? C
EB Right A A JJJ
WB Left C D
WB Thru C B
WB Right A A
SB Left A A
N'B Left A A
T.W. Alexander Drive at NC Route 55 WB Left D
C D
I F
WB Right AI A
SB Left C A
Hopson at Site Entrance SB Left A
A A
A
SB Right AI AI
EB Left A A
Hopson Road at Davis Drive EB Left E 1
1 C ll
EB Thru D E C r C
EB Right A l A l1
WB Left D l
l D
WB Thru D D CI D
WB Right A J A
SB Left B A
NB Left A A
Level of Service D
For Each Movement C I C Level of Servi ce For Shared Lane(s)
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
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 2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and lead (Pb). Ambient air quality monitoring data should be
compared with the NAAQS and North Carolina standards.
Table 3-V
NATIONAL AND NORTH CAROLINA
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Standard
Averaging National Remarks and,
Pollutant Period Primary NC Exceedance Criteria
'T3 Annual geom. mean 75 5
24 Hours 260 150 Not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
PM-10 Annual arith. mean 50 50
24 Hours 150 150
S02 Annual arith. mean 80 80
24 Hours 365 365
3 Hours None 1300
N02 (ppm) Annual arith. mean 0.053 0.053
CO (ppm) 8 Hours 9 9
1 Hour 35 35
03 (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 Der Year.
* Four days with an exceedance at a site in less than three years constitutes a violation
All standards are ug/m', unless otherwise noted.
ppm = Parts 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
f /
! r
1 !
! !
! I
i I
I 1
1 1
{ (
( 1
1 1
1 \
\ \
\
\ 110%
1 18% 1
16% 1 1
l
1 I 1
I E
I !
I
1 ! r
l 1 1
/
I /
WIND SPEED (KNOT:)
CALM WINDS 7.71;/
NOTE: Frequencies
CALMS
1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21_ 421
Indicate direction
From which the
wind Is blowing.
FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION
Raleigh-Durham International Airport, 1988-1992
SOURCE: U.S. EPA (1994)
0 Sr'iTFS FIGURE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Administration Facility
N Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 3-5
t rrt0?"
the NAAQS and NC standards. With specific respect to CO, concentrations in the Raleigh/
Durham area have steadily decreased in recent ears. 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
S02Annual ari.th. mean 12/9/8 -
24 Hour 2nd maximum 25/48/27 -
3 Hour 2nd maximum 83/130/43 -
N02rot (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
O3 (d) (ppm) I 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 monitoring stations in Raleigh or Durham Data are from stations nearest to RTP: 1991 and 1992 Chatham County,
1993 Johnston County.
(b) No monitoring stations in Durham. 1993 Durham number is an average of stations in Franklin and Granville counties.
(c) Numbers shown represent an average 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 are ug/m', unless otherwise noted.
ppm = Parts 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 tracts.
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 1001b/hrofhazardous 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.E 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 immediate area. 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 Zoning
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 NIEHS
facility to the west, the NIEHS 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 & 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 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
i
• , -' ?o ..

'
»«» .
i; .

lo-
I 9, • JFr A ,
XX
54
?'. '- '', , • , • 1 'gib . y?•' ?.. ,' r , 1'
•.'f ,'?.?? ?Il 1''! -?1 ? ?"?ti 111`-•,•/?.. ?`?' .?•? -- `, 1',/-? _` --.__- ,?;'ttl ` ' 1
' ''Irl '/ r ?' ''l:• - '? ?,?,j- ??lttvr r. /"•" ?1 -, f?'` ,`\ _ - ,•?'r, .? .?",? 1 r '' r ,1 , '
1.-. .r." ' .. x.1`11.+Ifli1/' ?L. .I? r__ _ `_ _- -.- ? _ ' - "•' .1 I .. '
p. y
/11•, ???'?i./1//,/ :' ..'?",171' /"'.'t%'t' 1,']`1''' ''l' - -. _ --ti;. ?. 'i ,? '?.` ',1J1."
',,?' '4 '?`t'?`'1?; ,1' ?,?1?11.14f.j?l, rl,. •,'ll .t , 1 r r - •?.?'- ` _ n'/"` •'?r 1
1 Jrs l'I/' %?S?iI `•?., a/ifl Ufit?ty #??IR' Y.,/. , t?l ,. , I ,' -? ?' .,`• '1 .1' ?`? ?' .'1'1' ? 1`'llt t ?
?!'1Ir% ;1/ / \+?? 1 i i. ?il 7 1/ r ;?'? I r t. •? ?/?11'/ ` \.` r •`l
I'r?'' 1 r, r./r , t IA?Ir„ ?,' • . ?r• _ - 1',l 11',,.'t .. , :?? ty ' ,•'•
+,?• /rrri r , IJ11 *',I t... .'t t?rl: f/ /?• ','1.' •., ''.,t ?1,'. '..'~??:,?J' , .
''%'`'''? ??'/'/1, +' , t. Ili' ? ,'.r- ? ? , ; ?a. t_.? ?" ? .; :f't• !. .- - '?.? •_
? +' 11? ; ;`\? r 1 '1•r ` ?'?' , ++ td ' r 1 , '•t• t I '' 11
• 1 1'r , ?
'1 111. . • ycr• r 'I'' ,'' '?Ji? ?' Ir _?'h(_ ? ?: A
SITE 3 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Greenhorn & O'Mara [nc. (1994)

Ja?o atlas
,A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ar ? FIGURE
EPA Research and Administration Facility o' SCALE sso' "
4-1
Reewrch Triangle Park, North Carolina

J
i
i
.f
d
NdfiTH
i

VOL

'
'
-
?
? r ? 1
. •
•
?
, ?, , ? ; _
?
,
,
,
•
?% '
`'
•
?
=
``.``?i._ __
=-,
_?-rte..
^ /
. f n
_

CHIL6
-CpAREp
' / . - \ ; '?-Sig- ?• \; • ' ? 4. 1?? ? _ _ ,
J LAKE ', , ' '??LIYii•.??' _ . <'? ` .
.err ?.? • , ..•,
%
SITE 4 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN

SOURCE: Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
sr? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALE FIGURE
EPA Research and Administration Facility o' 350' 4-2
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
C
f

r Nortk>< Aa : R d '
p•' - •:•'_' _ ,'• r '',' -? •?'?, -tip",' 1'r•'

_ dry
- Lben- - Road • ,
? . , , ,?•11 ,' 1• a a `l, ' ?'' ' a - - _ + ' ? 1 , . •`, •. ` j r ? 1 ? r , r'r v + ` ' . ?? a' + a, , ? 1
+,+,a?,' ,1r .`? ' ' + :?- • - ` ?:.=-ram-." :a?--•/••, •?
•? N
I,; .I `,-.r ?, •?, ,, ,. ? ?'. 1,
a
rI. '
a
NORTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
SOURCE: Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
000 eru SCALE FIGURE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4 N
EPA Research and Ad muiistmtion Fac Wty o' »s aso' " 4.3
Z?F Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
?t
. O
r-
r-
J
g
r1
r?
N
.. ,1 . I'
Lake
- i
?Wal Utilit ya"ri '-,1`
ILJ
!jp
r i r r ?o Rdad:. n{ t? .
33
•' 114•, ?•r t.' ,,?. - -. -'?.-•'`` ? ,• ?,- `???• ter' ?7•i 1 ?• ? 3
" ? /' `. 'fir <. •1 -^' c_.?`' -
- -?
Hopson Roe d
SOUTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
SOURCE: Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
RCo S14,-er SCALE FIGURE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EPA Research and Administration Facility 0' 175' 350' 4-4
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

that intercept groundwater to facilitate groundwater movement and its subsequent discharge
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 suspended
solids by sixty-two to eighty-five percent. Prior to the discharge of stormwater from these
ponds to the onsite lake, the concentration of such other runoff constituents as nitrogen,
phosphorus and heavy metals will also be reduced.
Sites 3 and 4 comprise a total of 132A 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 2,0,00 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 occur during both facility construction and operation. However, the majority
of wildlife impacts potentially associated with facility construction would be the displacement
j 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 (SIU) 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
J 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
r 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
t 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 3501b/hr pathological waste and 100
lb/hr of hazardous wastes The hazardous waste incinerator is not permitted for incineration
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, or P.-listed wastes (high hazards).
j
EPA plans to expand incineration capacities at the CUP by installing a hazardous waste
rl incinerator with a capacity of 350 lb/hr. Expansion of onsite hazardous waste incineration
i capacity. is preferred to offsite disposal in that it minimizes the risk of exposure to the
general public during offsite transport.
r,
.Thq,new, incit?erator,.vyill be capable of incinerating pathological and hazardous wastes,
i 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
f 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 of
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 and
F the lowest. An excess impact or deficiency in the area road system is defined when LOS Ml
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 die site, and can be mitigated by typical
traffic engineering measures.
• t~
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
r-
r
CEXISTING GRADE 32' TO IT DITCH
6' 8' 18'
T I'?--? 1' PAVED
j -+i I SHOULDER
1 .e .
DUCTEANKS
I
91
12' MIN. -? -
- - - CLEARANCE a_ - - - -
EXISTING GRADE
Three Lanes (Includes Turn-Only Lane)
EXISTING GRADE
H
EXISTING GRADE
e
Two Lanes
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS
SOURCE: Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
sta
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE
EPA Research and Administration Facility
4-5
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA is currently working with NC DOT regarding transportation improvements. It is
EPA's stated goal that, to the extent practicable, the Level of Service (LOS) at affected
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 under controlled 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 chemicals
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 (BERL) 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
N r.. 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 tou'r 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
E 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
j.
Hazardous materi als in these laboratories vary,as the nature of the chemicals that are being
-t tested change. At any given time, the laboratories within HERL, including the Environmental
! Toxicology, Genetic. Toxicology, Neuroto?dCology, and . Developmental Toxicology
laboratories, maybe evaluating health effects of materials that include chlorinated and
nonchlorinated solvents, other volatile organics, organophosphate pesticides, halogenated
pesticides, otherpesticides (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 laboratorycurrently 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 quarantinedand 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.
1.
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 a nimals. 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 fiealth 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 k-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 Exposur. 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 a99.9999 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
r
types of hazardous.waste. The facility is restricted from developing a commercial process.
Wastes incinerated at the facility include aliphatic and aromatic organic compounds;
5. ? halogenated organic compounds; .organic,.compounds containing sulfur, phosphorous,
oxygen, or nitrogen;-aqueous, solutions.,pf,organic chemicals;. liquid and solid wastes
containing salts of metals; organo-metallic compounds; solvents; and mixtures of these
r 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
sJ 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
r-
Storage
The impact. of increasing storage capacity, for fuel oil at the site should below. Above
! grqund 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 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 wanes will be collected by trained personnel and moved to the Central '
Utility Plant and stored W accordance with RCRA standards.
A; s
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•pathologicafwastes at its present locations. The proposed
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 1001b/hr
and attains 2,000 degrees in the secondary chamber with a residence time of greater than
six seconds. Wastes that are not petted to be burned in the CUP incinerator include PCB s
or other complex halogdiiated 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 managetnentplans forthe 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 acapaeity of•3501b/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 S afety Officer. All areas in the facility where
radioactive materials or sources are used or stored are labelled with radiation warn ing 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.
9The 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
t1? 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 NIEHS is currently
incinerating hazardous wastes, except wastes containing PCBs; other complex chlorinated
organics, and acutely toxic P-listed wastes'. The NIEHS' incinerator has a secondary
combustion chamber which is sufficient to reach a Destru6tion4and 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, airquality 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.
I Existing emissions for the boilers and the general reAise and pathological incinerators were
.. calculated using emission factors from the EPA. ocumerit, Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission, Fact6rvAP-42 AP*4?tiQes not provide. emission factors for the hazardous
ti - waste incinerators; since the a sstons 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
s I 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 l,15 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 gO supplies over the entir+e.heating season. This scenario
t y is conserv ative since actual firel:o' 1hage for the past five years has not exceeded 33 days/
year. There is, however, no ope ?g 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
The rated capacity of the three existing NIEHS boilers is 120 million BTU/hr
The t
l
incineration load is 35.4 tons/day. .
ota
As illustrated in Table 4-I, for each pollutant
the total boiler and inciner
t
i
,
a
or em
ssions is
less than 250 tons per year. Based on these criteria, the existing CUP facility is not
considered a major source.
Table 4-I Threshold for Major Source Permitting
Exi§ting Central 250.
Utility Plant
Emissions 120
(Tons/Year)
100 100.28 Tons
14.07 Tons
80
} 61.72 Tons 84807ons incinerators

60 8821 Tons

a 10.88 Tons
-

®
Boilers
0 4326-Tons . .
40 39.64 Tons
50.84 Tons

20 31.16 Tons
!
18.18 Tons
21 Tons
0 8 49

-' NOx S02 •'.•• Ca TSP/PM-1o VOC
Pollutants
Table 4-II Threshold for Major Source Permitting

Emissions from 250 ------------
Expanded CUP 07 Tons
70
(Tons/Year) . 89.92Ton

so r.
so . .
1 ® EPA Incinerator
40 EPA Boiler

3.0
8E3 8S Tons `
v
0 24.89 Toes ,
20 1.18 Tons 10
14.88 Tons
10
?•? T?
0.04 on 1M Ton
14.78 Toni 6.89 Tons
5
2.03 Tons
.86 Tons 2.03 Tons
0

NOx S02 CO TSP/PM-10 voc
Pollutants
tR9
Y
4-20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
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.
i
} Hazardous waste incinerator emissions were calculated using the same emis sion 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
r' 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 4-11,
total emissions for each pollutant are also less than 250 tons per year threshold for
designation as a major source.
f? 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
t . 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
t, 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.
19 An AirPermit for the proposed boilers and incineratorwill berequired by The State of Noi h
?j 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
R . 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 !f
of chemicals, gasses and waste materials. The exhaust ventilation system will allow
hazardous exhaust gas to be vented throtigh an individual exhaust duct and stack, thereby
eliminating the potential for mixing with incompatible gases which might be present in the
common ducting. The exhaustventilation 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 approxunately 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
r
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
r , 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 terms 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.
r-
11
J
rI
r.l
i
r•
r 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: Itis.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 from NC DEHNR for traffic
and air quality impacts. In order to permit the parking areas, the NC DEHNR may request
atmospheric dispersion modeling todetermineiftheresultatitLOS for.thenearby 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 traffic and air quality impacts of the parking garages.
4.2.4.6. Construction Air Quality Impacts
'; . 'Tha 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
entraininent 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, eitherduring construction or during operation of the facility. Future ambient noise
levets after completion are expected to be typical of a developed research park environmerif
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 purchasesmill 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
3 construction process, evidence is,f6und of potential, significant historic or archaeologic ,
resources, the North Carolina State His'tonc 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 SPA Research and Administration Facility.
The campus-like project will consist of mtilti-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 $PA site; consisting of approximately I32 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
t ' constructed and operated with clear objectives to minimize environmental impacts,
conserve energy, and to provide a healthy and safe working environment.
f 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
T 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
s reducing the area of impervious surface.
' As required by the Program of Requirements (POR), the building will incorporate
s 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 of
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 vAll 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 63:1 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.
r-, 5.3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
As a primary measure, relative to the mitigation of potential impacts to geologic resources,
r surface waters, vegetation, wetlands, and air quality, a soil erosion and sediment control
plan will be in place throughout all phase's of project construction. This program will be
developed in accordance with the NC Sedimentation Control requirements, as amended on
r April 1, 1992 by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC
j 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: installing tree protection devices, constructing temporary perimeter
r diversions and sediment trapstbasins, 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
r management features. During the construction period, these ponds and the wetlands
mitigation area will also serve as temporary sedimentation basins.
1 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
,j 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.
t 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
seeded areas are to be fertilized and reseeded as necessary, and mulched periodically to
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
forcross 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
f iltering 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
5.4 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 (MACT). This design will be capable of
achieving a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 percent.
rPotential 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
r l 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
r 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
i staging areas for construction equipment that minimize impacts on sensitive locations will
be established.
r 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
r , curtailed during periods of dry weather with high winds. Additionally, the construction
contractors will comply with applicable RTP and state dust control requirements.
Incentives for compliance 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 (FOR) 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 be 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 B AS 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
5.8 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
r 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 fromtheNC 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
r , be updated to include the expanded fuel oil storage facilities and any contingency plans that
i are necessary.
5.8.2 Chemical Storage and Handling
r?
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
r Administration Facility will contain a centralized chemical receiving and issuance facility,
j 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
U! interior protected by an asphalt berm to prevent rainwater from entering. The interior floor
I 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.
r-.
5.9 TRANSPORTATION
f 1 5.9.1 Traffic Improvements
i
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:
e•
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
Table 5-I
OVERVIEW OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS - EPA RESEARCH AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY
Administering
Permit/Approval Agency Action
Federal
r
l
r -
f`
i
i
National Environmental Policy EPA Federal agency action
Act Compliance (42 USC 4341)
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 Title 1, Chapter 25) agency; potential environmental impact
Sedimentation Control Permit NC DEHNR Land disturbance > 1 acre
(NCAC Title 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 Title 15A, 2H-.0500)
Air Quality Permit NC DEHNR Boiler capacity: 10-100M BTU/hr, operation of
(NCAC Title 15A, 2H-.0600) hazardous waste incinerator
Toxic Air Permit NCDEHNR Hazardous waste incinerator
(NCAC Title 15A, 2D-1100)
Complex Source (Air Quality) Permit NC DEHNR Parking structure > 750 veh. capacity
I
(NCAC Title 15A, 2D-.0800)
Dam Safety Permit NC DEHNR Alteration of onsite dam
(NCAC Title 15A, 2K)
1 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
<1 Traffic Signal Permit NC Dept. of Transportation For Installation of Traffic Signals

Durham County
r
11

Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Approval
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Zoning Permit
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Building Permit Review
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Building Permit/Certificate
(Zoning Ordinance, XXXII)
Health Department
Zoning Officer
Supervisor of Inspections
Zoning Officer
Water supply connection
Building construction
Alteration of floodprone area
Building construction and occupation
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
Other
Architectural 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
9 Environmental Protection Agency Research and Administration Facility, Research
-? Triangle Park, NC. Washington, DC.
I ! 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.
r..
Durham County. 1990. Durham County Zoning Ordinance. Durham County Board of
County Commissioners. Durham, NC.
Hoffman, C.W. & 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.
s,
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 gj al. 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.
Thomthwaite, 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. 199 1. 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, MI.
Watson, Edward. Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant. September, 1992 and
November, 1994. Personal communication regarding sewage treatment plant capacity.
T Westbrook, Vicki. City of Durham Environmental Affairs Division. September, 1992.
Personal communication regarding wastewater permitting and the current uses of D.
Everett Jordan Lake.
t'
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 Wildlife 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 cj. 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.
6-4 REFERENCES
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. Cortell, 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 over20 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
W conducting NEPA environmental assessments fora 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. Ms. 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:
Hellmuth, 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
Attachment A
Memorandum of Understanding
r-
r?
jr
1
3 ;t
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN EPA AND NIE11S
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.
i 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
•`l 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.
`J 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.
J
i
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 oil 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 NIH 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
F 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
t accommodate the largest single machine located in the
Consolidated Site Central Plant-
2. Central Hiqh 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
f! install a third 40M BTUH HTHW generator. Preliminary analysis
r indicates EPA will need to install two 90M BTUH HTHW generators.
EPA will install HTHW generators as needed for its facility,
r'• including redundancy. EPA will also absorb the cost of expanding
the central utility plant to accommodate the additional
generators.
r 3. Chilled Water and HTHW Pipe
NIEHS agrees to extend the utility loop between valve pit T5
[ 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 #7 to the central
utility plant using the same size pipe.
4. Emergency Generators

i 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
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.
Securit
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 NIEHS,
such as labor and equipment costs. EPA will assume
administrative responsibility for providing joint security
services.
Utilities
R, 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
r 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
?i shared based on actual weight or volume of waste 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 NIEIIS 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
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 NIEHS 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 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.
Ii. Recyclina/Solid Waste Disposal
EPA and NIEIiS 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
c;
waste generated by each orgarization. NIEHS will assume
administrative responsibilit} for providing joint recycling
services and solid waste dist:nsal.
I. Environmental Compl?_ance
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
r and improved service, numerous additional items should be
considered for joint operation upon EPA's occupancy of the 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
J common amenities described in the Master Plan, or such other
items as the parties identify, may be jointly implemented by
r? 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.
3
Willis E. Greenstreet, Director (Date)
Office of Administration and Resources Management
R?
?. 9 "?3
Charles E. -Leasure, Jr. (Date)
j Associated Director for M gement,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
F
7. pgptE
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
Recycled'Recyclable
PAN.d on papa, %no1 c a:nt
\`FJ? a? la u? 7sx ncyd W LbK
United States Department of the Interior -
•r ~f _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
- ? iAJ?tS(?a
of Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 -? -
Raleigh. North Carolina 17636-3726 ¦
r
'l
t!

C-&-L1_ e,Q Ala O c c? v
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. 1531-1543). t?
Re: ( I1Utrb?fnP?7ft.? ?iLb ? ?lklr?iGC ih !)t ?/Lt? GtP41d
Project Name C) 0
O(?? ??C1
Date of I?icoming'Letter
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within* the project impact area.
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 woodpeckers 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.
Biologi t ate
CONCUR:
a.?? Z
Endangered Spe Date
coordinator
REMISED :\PRIL 13, 1992
Durham County
Bald ea,le (1-1a1iaeetus leucocenhall.ls) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E*
Smooth conefiower (Echinacea lae,,igata) - PE
There are species which, although not now listed or officially; proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
These "Candidate" (C1 and C?) species are not legally protected under the 11
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including- Sect_-)n
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endanger,-4. '-'e
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur aitt::n the
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 :ni;ht do
for them. -
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2*
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2*
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
a liverwort (Plagiochi.la columbiana) - C2*
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - C2
*ladicales 00 speciven in at least 21 years trot ibis county.
G, STAIZ
_ :.? 11 f! rl r? nt
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. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
August 20, 1992
Mr. Stewart Dalzell
I Jason M. Cortell & Associates, Inc.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154
I
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 North 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
z 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.
t-, Sincerely,
f Ann W. Kelly
Natural Heritage Program
?t
RO. Box 27687, Ralcigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action I:mplorcr
?;i?'In7F,:3n elf? ??
JJJ I
Li L? LJ L ?L? I _?
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
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
- Enclosures
c
n
1
7
Recorded Archaeological Sites, Research Triangle Park
Proposed US Environmental Protection Agency Facility
The Following sites were recorded by amateur archaeologists in 1970:
31DH95
Middle to Late Archaic
Eligibility Unassessed
31DH96
Late Archaic
Eligibility Unassessed
The following sites were recorded by professional archaeologists in
1977 during a survey of a 509 acre tract for the National
Environmental Health Research Center:
31DH180
Archaic
Not Eligible
31DH181
Early Archaic
Not.Eligible
31DH182
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
31DH183
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
31DH184
Late Archaic
Not Eligible
31DH185
Middle Archaic
Not Eligible
31DH186
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
31DH187
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
31DH188
Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible
31DH189
Middle Archaic
Not Eligible
The following site was recorded by professional archaeologists in 1981
during a survey for the Davis Drive Extension project:
31DH316
Archaic
Not Eligible
Y,/ 17
n-A
37
• ?'- ?- ! }r f
., .ice t \\ `f
?.? `' -??",• ??. ?? ?p_ Jai _„.!?,??' '?',...'?,~'-.''??? l?1`\. ?-. ( ? \ I ?? ?"%'?'r
- 1-U
e.k
'til;-., ? ,H Y-. --.`.. ?.. ? ? ?.? : / _ ? I( ? 1 " i .4 `,? I r\.•
?? I ? ? • ? -+ a ?? ? ? ?z n .?'"? .r 1 t?? ?l r t?'r "a" . J{,? l'` l
:
I j '? ?.?' '? _ r j,.: •'' li G Y Sr W ?oi? ...?, f.lT# .\ .ITV ?`?\C.\
g"ll
;t
? w.
Z'
i.:
Q
V17w .. ? co
/ j0° } :: \? f any +-a+:? e-?" ?? ?,. .7"1:'1g?, ?• r ? J •\+ Q ?.C\ .
Y?
.r,
-. /.? 1 ..-? j ?a}•?';;?:°; kkk \A { :•:?i:i?`.k;4:r 4 }f '? l t. /
. /.. -•? _ + ? : S:..; .. ?:i?y`%;:;i,ir i:3::x:if:x'}; aNir.. ;.e. !ifi?;;:::nfiii':w o<• i/,..,''?.«w,'? •a
to .
.J
,?i ^'? ':. .: 'tf,:, •.x: •.: ...c.-}. •}:;'}.. rw-a.tn.a •::.•. :. •a,.?y?? ????'::?..''•.:.••. ( `4 l,,
,
tf'? ..v<•;,, ..;,. ?.:..: ?.'?;; Viz;;, <::.: ?:.,.?•;1?" \\\ r n ,
.;:.k ;. .t .... .. f,.< } .:N. ''..... ''tr''•'.}' .. .. r:}:}.: N? ..\?\• '•:1•:fi:. r?/T,;.} ??} ? •?• '?. ,} v?• 4,( ?..l?- !1
',4% t 4•., ^ .Y" > ';)<•': ::?? ;k:.. µ„'1 :;.?:: t' : 't i'} , !4•?•Y,YV.'?•,.?:n ..?`l`?1?? • - 1; r ? ?
<:ibkr. •:a• . -, • YsYx . ?11:E F: ti . ; : } • . fl . 0';?'k :r.'•; } ,hf,•j64• ? `.1.? ::.c .Y
r•.J'.:. ? .. x. .
k.
.Y. f.•
+Yx ? ` 2 y<;•-• ? .: .a ''%R'• -:?? .kf•.<•r. •:p, ..,Y:? : r..t:.'> : }x^
n..r
n.v.,.'
,
r
` >r , yr ? Y.•.
fYliM1. ??
.j
x ?ln
:}t
: }'u S:X' • ? i
1
a
SNIM
?'+••• .fF:} :.}n?r}`.a<;az. k• 4}'1,3,;'ri`^ .tir': ;jj?.,?.'.. ' G ?. -, \-
s, rr:<?r}w ..y .jjv. .;1?:•, ?:+.:t%„•.• :•:f, • 1 j .
Q, v
? is .''•..,,••:• ?? ?X
t...
: 5><Y:kf7: rY' .fry4,.#T}Y. a• ? I • 1 \v/ ???,?r'? /,:.? '1/ ?_ _' ,•?? ,
• t 1 f?iS. ?4 m4•Y
\? ;o ice;\? l:a'.J?? \\? ` >?% ?I Q''
?-, jf?r
.•,?`l_,"r? ? 1 '?y ? cIJ?"•1J .1'-?0 ??• `?., ,? ?. 1•?r.•.'<( ??/.r(tl - t` 1 ???. ..\+ J .
/ /+. • e 1r M, r ?J l l ( it t??; __ ` ? v1 O I? _ _ '.v2???? /??'/ .,Ir. [ -
Ja?E°STgT?s EPA Research
y% & Administration
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
9 C)
Facility
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154-1177
October, 1995
October 27, 1995
JASON M. CORTELL and ASSOCIATES INC.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154-1177
[phone]
The following firms provided input to this document:
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, P.C. Washington, DC
Greenhorne & O'Mara Greenbelt, MD
Raleigh, NC
&c Text printed on recycled paper.

r

October 27, 1995
G. Wayne Wright, Branch Chief
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
CORTELL
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
re: Joint Form -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research and Administration
Facility, Research Triangle Park, NC
Dear Mr. Wright:
Enclosed is one (1) copy of the completed Joint Form For Nationwide Permits That
Require Notification To The Corps Of Engineers and Application For Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the above-referenced project. As required, seven (7) copies of
this joint Form have been forwarded to the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Planning)
relative to Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
As more fully described in the joint Form, the proposed project will result in the loss of
approximately 0.0758 acres (3,300 ft2) of wetlands due to multiple road crossings.
Approximately 2,000 linear feet of stream channels will also be affected by project
implementation. An additional area of approximately 0.0244 acres (1,065 ft) of wetlands
will be excavated in conjunction with pond construction and associated wetland
compensation activities. 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.
All road crossings will comply with 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 and other wetland-related impacts, it is
anticipated that these actions are allowable pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 26. This
overall approach is consistent with my discussions with Eric Alsmeyer (Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office) on 7 January 1994.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information.
Sincerely,

EtaCIATES INC.
ll W. Dennis
V.P. Environmental Analysis
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, ACOE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (1 copy)
John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management (7 copies)
Gail Whitfield, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jerry Stacy, The Roberts/Stacy Group
File 92323.2C
' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
Environmental Consultants 244 Second Avenue TEL [phone]
and Planners Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 FAX [phone]

JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
TABLE OF CONTENT'S
Joint Form
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A Responses to joint Form
B Memorandum of Understanding
C Agency Correspondence
D Waters of the U.S./Wetland Delineation
E Wetland Determination Forms
Note:Stormwater Management Plans as requested at Item 17.D of the joint Form are
provided under separate cover.
- i -
D ?1 ID: ------- ---- - - AC-i Iv\ I_.
ionwidc Pe: nit Requested (Provide Nationwide 1'emli; " - . ]41)()
- ----- --------------
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Enoineer
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMIJNGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
' CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPART,'YtE NN'T OF THE ARIMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
t ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
DIVISION OF ENVIR:?NMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF E- VIRONMENT, Ht ALT}i,
AND NATURAL RESOU CES
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIEENCES BRANC?i
X401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
ATTN: MP.. JOHN DORNEY
' lephone- (91.9) "i33-1736
ONE (1) COPY OF TYES COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE. N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMEIN'TAL NiANAGEN E-\7.
PLEASE PRIN I'.
' 1. Owners Name: _
2. Owners Address
U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency
OARM Mail
1 3. Owners Phone Number (Home):
p 30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
N/A (Work): 919-541-0249
_
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
' Chris Long, Project Manager OARM mail Drop 30,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919-541-0126
,5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH LAP). County: Durham
Nearest Town or City: _ City of Durham _
A 132 acre portion of the 509 acre U. S.
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landm2rks, etc.):
Public Health Service (USPHS) Research Park in Research Triangle Park. The site is,
generally, bounded by Hopson Road and on the west by the existing National Institute of
rnnm P- I uPal,.th qri PnrP fill it-ir („g PP Attachments ;? an n)
6. Name of Closest StreanvRiver: Burdens Creek
'7. River Basin: Northeast Creek/B. Everett Jordan Lake
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [ ] NO l.x]
'9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [x]
If yes, explain.
,10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
32.4 acres (see Attachments A and D)
,11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:

Filled: 0.0758 acres (3,300 square feet)
Drained: N/A
Flooded. N/A
Excavated: 0.244 acres (1,065 square feet)
Totallmpacted: 0,1002 a rpS 14,361) srniare feet)

12. Description o! proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" oidy): 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 lands (see Attachment A). - '
13. Purpose of p.oposcd 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 the applicant believes that this activity mus: bC ca_-ried out in wetlands. Also, note measure:
taken to rrdnimiw wetland impacts. ,
See Attachment A.
15. You arc rrqui-cd to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicc CLJSF-rY S) and/or National Marine Fisheries Se; ,•icc
'
(NMFS) regarding Lhe presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or C,-]-:C21
habitat in the p--,I, 't area that may be affected by the proposed proj-ct_ :-lave you done so? YES [X ) NO )
RF_SPONSFS FROM -ITLE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD 3E FORWARDED TO CORPS. see Attachment C.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Ouiccr (SHFO) regarding the presence of 1 _cr;c t
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the propo_w project? Have you done so? YES [X] NO ( ]
RESPOINISE FRO-?1 THF- SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED 70 COP.PS. See Attachment C. '
17. Additional i-n ormation required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and la:{es on Lhe prop --,Y. Attachment D.
e?'•
B. If available, representative photogTaph of wetlands to )! PacLtd by project. Not available
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all e=ta sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation lice, see Attachment E.
D. If a stor-i-7rwater management plan is required for this p_.-Jtct a:_ach copy. provided under separate cover,
E. What is land use of surrounding property? see Attachment A
'
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage dispo:_? Connection to an existing sanitary
system, with treatment to occur at the Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Owner's Si---lar=-
Chris Long
DE:t
' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.

Attachment A
Responses to Joint Form

I JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.

Attachment A
Joint Form
The following responses correspond on a numerical basis to the questions contained in the
joint Form.
' 10. Estimated Total Number of Acres of Waters/Wetlands on Project Site
As indicated on the joint 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 9.1 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 (ACOE) Raleigh Field Office on 9 July 1993.
' 11. Number of Acres of Waters/Wetlands Impacted by the Proposed Project

r

I

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 Waterways
acres/ft2) (yd3/ft2)
Filled: 0.0758/3,300 338/7,885
Drained: 0 0
Flooded: 0 0
Excavated: 0.0244/1,065 -/385
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
`? 'may ? ,;#;??,t°. ?, •"? ,JN . .
? .Yy r a ? A
i
1
?tk . -`
i. 4
1=
nti it ?
x
1
1 ? y +'
' r
'"r 7 ! v
' ! - LIMIT OF MAPPING VEGETATION
- SI JRFACE WATERS
A C WETLANDS
OF UPLAND FOREST
L/D LANDSCAPED/DEVLLOC'ED SOURCE: C??rirll Associates (199)
JN,.EDS7^'FS JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE' FIGURE
A 'y Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification
T 4>5' 850' /?
EPA Research and Adminisb-ation Fadfity ? A
' ?r?e ?W"O Research Triangle Park, North Carolina _
' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
' 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 placement 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 a 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 side 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.
1 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
t square footages are summarized in Table II.
A-3
r
L

1

r
1

ebane 111i?? /
n rru w 1111sborouph Jxwm .rr ) . r a Mw??m ..,I ?I S ?> ` \
Durha
011 1
Chapel Hill: Z*''* USPHS Park w?," m ?• ?l
Carrboro, ?' j -?
ve ?
MWA
rrT '?? I?? w I ?a r?rt i•.l.a? SF.b ????? J? )/
.•i , ? )? I im. ? , ?' ? 1/•f ?. r - nes?a?. c? rai?a er ? ? ? ? I7 ? ?: f\?i ?
...? _ U (,•• S???? !r mss'
Proposed EPA Research and
o Administration Facility Site '
to a,
e'x1 e1T joR?nw?_r?KS
?rP U.S. Public Healthy ?_-
?j Service Park ri
?DUSH M CA
, 01
I'M
41 Y I WAKf~`COU
REGIONAL LOCATION
SOURCE: USGS Southwest Durham, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987), Southeast Durham, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987),
Green Level, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1981) and Cary, N.C. (1973, Photorevised 1987) Topographic Quadrangles
JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
A Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification
" 0' 3100'
EPA Research and Admini?-ation Facility " A-2
?t pgrt Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
JOINT FORM
Section 404 Nationwide Permit
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Applicable Drawings()
Sheet SM 213.2-1 North Access Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-2 North Access Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-3 North Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-4 North Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-5 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet S21, 2B.2-6 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-7 East Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-8 South Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet SM 2B.2-9 South Loop Road - Plan/Profile
Sheet S21, 2B.2-10 CUP Service Road - Plan/Profile

TOPOGRAPHY

JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide
P
it/S
i
401 W
i
li
C SCALE FIGURE
erm
ect
on
ater Qua
ert
fication
ty o1 400' 8W' AN

< EPA Research and Administration Facility " A-3
Research Trfanglo Park. North Carolina
t

1
t
GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Hellmash, Obau & Kassabaum and The Roberts/Stacy Group (1993)
JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide, SCALE FIGURE
40)
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification
0' 375' 750' A 4
EPA Research and Administration Facility " i
?t Research Triangle Park. North CareUna
I JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
Table II. Summary of Building Sizes
' Buildini _ Gross Sq. _Ft__ _ Net Sq. Ft_
Research & Development Facility 983,304 507
065
' Hi
h B
B
ildi ,
g
ay
u
ng 59,307 32,937
' National Computer Center 126,781 88,119
Child Care Center 9,916 6,875
' Total 1,179,308 634,996

J

Of the total net square footage, approximately 42% (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. 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 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:
' 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)
' A-7
JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
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 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 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-8
J

r

7

JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
' 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 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 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 sf 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-9
JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
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.
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%
building footprint limitation in zoning requirements;
A-10

!J
i

r

J

' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
' 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 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) 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 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.
' A-11
JASON M. CORTELL AND I
ASSOCIATES INC.

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 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: 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.
'
'
Schematic grading plans have been developed by Greenhorne & 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. '

A-12

7

1?

JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 close proximity to the project site. Accordingly, wetland creation
options were evaluated.
A-13
JASON M. CORTELL AND I
ASSOCIATES INC.
'
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 a 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
l
ands in
implementation. Due to the limited abundance of scrub/shrub and emergent wet '
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 EA.
17.13 Stormwater Management Plans
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, is provided under separate ,
cover.
17. E. Surrounding Land Use
With the exception of the NIEHS complex located west of the proposed EPA Research and '
Administration facility, surrounding areas are undeveloped, consisting primarily of forest
lands (see Figure A-1).
u

J

A-14
I

~ sue.
? I !( q?
47
(t f ."'?
1 f'
Ty; ??-

1
/I1 '
1 >d ?. "
ii ii. O
-O ;

• ?
? l ? -
'
111
?
r I? ? _
I,
',1 .1I q --
-?i?
- _
- ? i

%

-; ttal Utility. PR

SITE 3 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
SURFACE WATERS
-? WETLANDS
C AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Hcllmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Groenhom & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
arh. JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide, SCALE FIGURE
PermidSection 401 Water Quality Certification
01 215EPA Research and Admi ti ation Facility " A-5
?? Rewwlth TrUngle Party Nerd Carallaa

NORTH A'?tE ROAD
?j
V CHILD ' I
LAKE
1•
SITE 4 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
SURFACE WATERS
WETLANDS
J AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Hdlmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
JOINT APPLICATION -Section 404 Nationwide, SCALE FIGURE
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification N
EPA Research and Adnainish-ation F'ac>tlity o' eo "
?? Researck TrUnae Park. Nartw Caratlna

L

r
IPforth; Acdess Road

L
rth Loop Road ?•-
%
' ? r 1 dlr _ _ '?
Lake
rlli - ? 115' i !' I (I I lam/
SURFACE WATERS NORTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
WETLANDS
L AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
?`"? Br"rte JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification
EPA Research and Adn*asbratiori F'ac7ity 0' 175' 350' " 7
?? Research Trie"810 P-14 North cer t""

r

F Nr 1,0
u
a
Lake 1?000;
SOUTH ACCESS ROAD LOCATION
SURFACE WATERS
-? WETLANDS
A AREA DESIGNATION
SOURCE: Greenhorn & O'Mara Inc. (1994)
er?? JOINT APPLICATION - Section 404 Nationwide SCALE FIGURE
Permit/Section 401 Water Quality Certification ' ? N
0' 175' 350'
d? EPA Research and Administration F'aci ity ,
'?? ?` Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
t JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.

J

Attachment B
Memorandum of Understanding

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
' BF.TWEF.N EPA AND NIEHS
Nii Memorandum of. Understanding (MOU) is by and between the U.S.
Environmental Protect=ion Agency (EPA) and the Nat=ional Institute
of- Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). This MOU shall be
affective upon signature of: both parties and may only be amended
by written mutual agreement, signed by both parties.

5

I_.__ _E3ackQround
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, arid 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.

II. Site Planning and Development..
This section covers coordination between EPA and NIEIi:;
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 addr.es!;ed
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 Plot Water (IITIIW) , 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 i-'ie
site, but only those portions needed for NIEHS were installed.
Consistent with NIEIiS'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 NIH to EPA per General Services
Administration (GSA) procedures. This transfer will be done i.n
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 o1` the Master flan 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

r
LI'

L

As part of the design for EPA's new facility, the
architectural and engineering (A&E) contractor. will calculate
EPA's ant=icipated load for boilers, chillers, and electrical
bower. 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 t=he utilities
service loop and enlargement of the central support services
hui.1_ding.
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
NIEEIS 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 (EITHW) 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 BTUEI HTHW generator. Preliminary analysis
indicates EPA will need to install two 90M BTUH HTHW generators.
EPA will install ITTHW 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 IITHW Pipe
NIEHS agrees to extend the utility loop between valve pit #5
and valve pit ,#7 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 f7 to the central
' utility plant using the same size pipe.
4. Emergency 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

5. Fuel for. Back-tip Sv_stems
EPA's A&E contractor will calculate EPA's need for back-up
fuel storage. EPA and NI:E[IS 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 ffandli.nq
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
7

H

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.
hSecu_ri_ty_

EPA and NIEHS agree to pursue a joint security system and
joint security contract once EPA occupies the Federal site. 'T'ile
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 NIEIIS,
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 NIFHS agree to share replacement of
primary utility equipment and the cost of fuel and maintenance
for the back-up system. Currently, NIF,IIS 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 NIEIIS 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 waste produced by each
organization, whichever measure is the most appropriate. NIF,f{S
will assume administrative responsibility for providing joint
waste handling services.
C_. Roads
' EPA and NIEIfS intend that prior to commencement of FPA'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.

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, ground; maintenance,
light poles, signage and other exterior improvements. Costs of
specific landscaping requirements of EPA and NIEIIS 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 1.PlVf,
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.
Dav Care
Although the day care program will be funded primarily
through tuition, there are certain facility and operating costs
borne by the government. `Pile 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). NIEIfS will continue to carry
administrative responsibility for operation of the joint contract:
for cafeteria services.
H. 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

L

I

waste generated by each orgarizat-ion. NIEHS will assume
administrative responsibility for providi.rag joint recycling
services and solid waste disle!;al.
I I:nv i_ronmenta I Comp] i ance
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 be
considered for joint operation upon EPA's occupancy of the.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 F. Leasure, Jr. (Date)
Associated Director. for M r gement,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Ja?o sr,?r?
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
??j? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
F
?4( PROX'
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
Q?? RecycledlRecydable
P,IM.d on paper"oonUont
r W -i 75x ,«yd.d f b-
' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.

Attachment C
Agency Correspondence

--- --
f ?, ztnq , ?? ?"? I If I n f--1
State of North Cat-ohna
Department of Fnvironment, 1--lealth, arid Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
William W. Coney Jr., Secretary Director
' August 20, 1992
Mr. Stewart Dalzell
Jason M. Cortell & Associates, Inc.
244 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154
t 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 North 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,
'z;
Ann W. Kelly "
Natural Heritage Program

P.O. Iktx 27687, Raleij+, North Carolina 27(11-7687 rclepfxme 919MAW
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Fmnlowr
1 United States Department of the Interior
- f
-1 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
' ?. Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726

TO : I?AA
C-P-L 0-a"6 C' LA-aJ5-6
a qq Sum toy a_,
l,J a_? 4-{-?a_ r.- ? ? I?•L ov.? a c _ { ?-?-c,u? t? U? 1 .?
INSTANT REPLY
' ease excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
rmal letter. This form serves to provide U
S
Fi
h
d Wild
re
commenclat
ionspursuant to Section 7 .
.
s
an
of the Endangered life Service
Species A
t

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). c
, as
' Re:
ll
/L Q n (iv?C_?
h /)P
h

Pro)ec Name i t c
i

l 1? S lgg
' uatet of I(icominq 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 woodpeckers 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.

X10 " T 9 ;?t
BiologL t ate
CONCUR: Zg Z?
Endangered Spe ate
Coordinator

' RF IISI-D Af RIi. t3, 1991
Durham County

Bala ea;lc. ([laliacetus Irucoc??t>hatus? - L
kdirhaux's sumac (Rhus rnichauxi i ) - E_`
Smooth coneflower (Fchinacea laevi4ata) - PF
There are species which, althou,h nor now 1i ted or offisiall,. pror-o<.,d for
' listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the S r:i
These "Candidat,2"(Cl and C2) ,pecies are nor legally protected und,°r c
the
Act, and are not subject to an} of its provisions, including Section i,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or end angerc:i. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur wiihin tho
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. Th ese
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protec ted
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you mi;lat do
for them.
' Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2*
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima) - C2*
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
a liverwort (Plagiochila Columbiana) - C2*
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
' Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) - C2
*Indicates no speciten in at least It years (roi this county.

I
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures

n
Recorded Archaeolorlic,_tl Re<;earcYh Triangle Park
Proposed OS Environmental Protection Agency Facility
The following sites were rec:orde.,1 t>y Arnateur arr,haeologlr,is rn 1137r_l
31DH95 1DH90
Middle to Late Archaic rate Ar-(,nLA rr,
L 1 r g i bi 1 i ty Unassessed I- i i g i t) r I i tv Unass,-? e,d
1 l.;> 1 fl
1 he to 1 lowing s l tes were re';oraeo profess 1 ona i archaeo k )q
1`:177 during a survey of a `.;u., acre aci, for ttre Nall ion?il
Env i r-onment.al Health Research ??enter:

Arc hair, r-1 icd1e r-(,narc
Not Eligible Not tlig1ble
31DH181 31 DH 1??7
Early Archaic Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible Not Eligible
1DH182 31DH1:
Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible Not Eligible
31DH183 31DH 1x8
Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric
Not Eligible Not Eligible
31DH184 31DH189
late Archaic Middle .Archaic.
Not, Eligible Not Eligible
The following site was recorded by professional archaeologists in 19£31
during a survey for the Davis Drive Extension project:
31DH316
Archaic
Not Eligible

' JASON M. CORTELL AND
ASSOCIATES INC.

7

Attachment E
Wetland Determination Forms

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS 1
VEGETATION: 1
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION: 1
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION: 1
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO 1
HYDROLOGY:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY: 1
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE -1
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOSCETAKEN NT ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, !k - -T
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
1
r?
0-1
?
1

I

' WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: DeAp ' TIME: :DD DATE: /& COUNTY: Durk
NEAREST TOWN: Zp tri, ATERW Y: T
QUAD: Snu?? AaSt?St vflu mf ?"CATION: 0. tow-I&'
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING W RK:(NAME/ADDRESS
U. 5 , envy ronmen`ta, i rotechcm Ftaer,c G . Dow i P
O ice a isf -t-inr
o+ .ire, M n o a H A l
PHONE:(qj_a)5 -jam PHONE:(GJ2)1D- 3?3-7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT. ltq
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 . { ?'Y+! lard N I Ole FAcuFRG . yLOr 0 4111 1 Cry?I >.-qt1 ° i UPL FAG
-2. 2. ?,1,? SSG: 1:?°: o
' 4. 16°% FA C j FA C W 4.
C
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS- 6.1.k-
1 . (/Q:,I2X7'tL ?OC(WG0q; ;? ?AGU ?P
2. ff a s'"`r: o FA L g.
3. 0 FfAG) FAGW WOODY VINES FA(,L(/ F Act
' 4
5 . n 0-L 4,? FAGw -)F) ? cw 2 . C? 6 i ?/l ` /? V PC FA c
Z OF-MM INA T?EC S (OBL. - FAC.) S%OTHER INDICATORS:
' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NOS--BASIS: O /? o ^ C r5 0'?1 o_a ?(1QJ
? tc,plo.ti?? Sr?raPS ?
' TYPICAL:?MPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
' SOIL: ,
SERIES: W :5)"0(-a Q',*y4_- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO ?
MOTTLED: YES L,-NO MATRIX LOR: yam( HYDRIC SOILS: YES_NO??--
BASIS: Nof- an 6vt Irrc 5011S f'5? nnr "ot,4A, _
W'e.-f?2,h?1 ?•, ?'l s i ?? ? r' ca-f-o rs ,1
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO_L,,,-DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO ,DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO L -BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO L,,,- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YESI/NO
' WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: UON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO_L? AUTHORITY: 10 404_ 10/404_ NONE
' JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED ADJACENT- NWP 0
DETERMINED BY:+T- ,/i

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
ccccrm !UT Ql1TT (Z-
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:

O - , S o Rf ?! !?

' WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: i TIME:g-:'-/O DATE: / S /V.COUNTY:
QXy
' NEAREST TOWN: WATERW 9UrdlPA
ee
QUAD: So+(1(uQSf??A ON ??•Q1 CATION: ( Gl-
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WOR NAME/ADDRESS)
(),5, Erlyi ronmZ9-t0f' fbt,-(hr-j (l{-no.r.
Q ?+ ? A minims rnfiion an.4 rf- to
< a en
fou( C 4771( Via , M
PHONE: (aA) IjL? ;13 3o PHONE: (G 17)??- 37,37
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 GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
' F/}C U. r Aft . V ,
4. 5 co, 4I+L, I10 Ip°/ f--AC/ F6c W 4.
5. ?rA
' -- 'SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: ''--4
2l
GU8.
I _ ;o FAG9 Fri
FA C- FAGW WOO ?Yi VINES: t? S ° /o ?A C?u i E? w
5. a 2. Vi (a ? _ i' ?.??` ,? ??1G1(? FAG..
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)OTHERcINDICATORS:'
' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES_i,,,NO BASIS: 50°'/? (s p
d V?rn
v
' TYPICAL:-0/cOMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
' SOIL:
SERIES: ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES ?NO_
MOTTLED: YES-,-NO MA RI X COL R : QYpX HYDR I? SOILS: YES t--NO_
BASIS: F ,? G r C? +l.,/i i
1 ,
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO PT.??HI1TO ATURATION/WATER ABLE N_
OTHER INDICATORS: jGY_yL??
' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES1GNO BASIS: f / i ,o 0
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO K 'NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES' NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: ? NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES L-- 0 AUTHPRITY: 10 404 0/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS _? ISOLATED -ADJACENT ?NWP 11
' DETERMINED BY:
I
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS ,
VEGETATION: _-

TYPE OF ALTERATION: '
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION: '
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:

ON SOILS: '
EFFECT
OUS SOILS:
PREVI
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY: '
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY: '
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
AUTHORITY: SECTION 10 404 10/404 NONE
ADJACENT
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED
PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, #
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

o 0 _ ._3
el? 3- 0
- 6 Z ,o- rs

r
la Y?? ?l3

' I
r ,
lots h?f ?`?? t .,
1

COORDINATOR: TIME: _ :`t'
NEAREST TOWN:
QUAD: LO ATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS)
((?Z) Q- :?y ?7
PHONE : (qa) 5q ! -tea 330 ' PHONE:
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: IVA
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ?OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
THE S: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
r0i °J
"`A G

SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 . • f? .? W {goo ©
ap /o 6
FAc w , ?flua7 .
2. , I tN'?c? le 15°% Fh c, s.
3 • Cf,( WOODY VINES:
j

5. 2
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)? THER INDICATORS:-
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO (-BASIS:
' TYPICAL:_I,(COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
' SOIL: -
?
SERIES: WOz- -9oCe, 5a.+n oa yvi ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO
MOTTLED: YES-&,-NO MATRIX COLOR : P.?To --? HYDRIC SOILS: YES N0_
BASIS : Hn yye--?(" d 5 h r YS !T C?'1 /1 Of Q Nt h?rr! c. 5 (7? / c ! S
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO_j,,?,DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO L_-DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO_j;t:!::BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO L,-- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ENO
' WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: N'ON-WETLAND: t_?
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NOJ? AUTHORITY: 10 404_ 10/404_ NONE
' JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED "ADJACENT.. NWP #
DETERMINED BY: {?`+(--, , ' C
i

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 PHOTOSCETAKEN ? NT YES NO-
ATTACH NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, l? DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
.rah,
z
r-lo
111A 1I ?'1/1
r

J

J

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: h,bWnj' TIME: :ZDATE: / /UCOUNTY: Q,VIti-
NEAREST TOWN : WAS ERWAY. %V- ?°
QUAD:r?. CATION: I PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) rc, ICNG AME/ADDRESS
C r ?n. '? ll 1 7 t ??1
0, " r :nC_
a r uu 5QtDn4, f}VerluL-
PC2r n4 G ?
PHONE:( ) `= PHONE:(( - 2,7 7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: N/ ! A
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. (22i WIQ,,o 1-loo, r/- G 1 . Gln.v ? 5 : nto, S J•e r h 5 ! 0 °oc V PL F?
2. $ott?woo? ??U c' ? (( 2 2.
3.
4. 4.
5. 5-
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1 . ov"rba,tlwG-?r
WOODY VINES:
4. 1 . Cc r,
5. 2.

2°;o UP(-) F -19c-
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)1.5?LOTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES_t,?NO BASIS: 0 °
TYPICAL: v 'COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES: Car+V c 0,4 ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YESZO
MOTTLED: YES tK- MATRIX COLOR: HYDRIC SOILS: ESL,-NO
BASIS: Lre- i h (; n ri f
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES N0?/DEPTH OF WATER: A/M
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO t,- DEPT TO SATURATION/W ER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: i7Ci o?/Lt?u;`P r4(?1A IA04,e. 29 ? , Yi:G ?iS
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES_pf?dO" BASIS: DOS rti?,e iwa i o Oa fC i n[i ira-7c7 r? FJ(p 4?.?'l?:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO V' NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES V"_NO
' WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND:_jz' MON-WETLAND:
_Z' AUTHORITY: 10 404 x/404 NONE_
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO
' JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS v--fSOLATED_ 'ADJACENT_L,?--NWP #
DETERMINED BY: Y? DayiPS, 112 , De'6 f1S

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON SOILS:
DOG`VT(1fiQ Qf1T1 Q•
HYDRICVSOILS: 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:

?,iZ ?a YR Shy
? o
7, sY
2
63 z

1
1
1
1
1
1
NO
1
1
LLJ
" pap, ?p
s?;?1
r1
1
1
1
1
1
1

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR:TIME: DATE: a// OUNTY:
' NEAREST TOWN: s WATERWAY: f
Q S'?
QUAD: ATION: ';fA
PROPERTY OWN R:(NAME/ADDRESS) PAR4 DOING W K:(NAME/ADDRESS)
V.S n o ?Q? , l Q
i
n ?
' PHONE: () - ?33f? PHONE : (?? gqo - 3 73
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
' 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. 5o-u r-wo d 400l A FAU ? 2 ?/ 7
3. 11.01 3.
W ? ca ( - ° /o AC.u- _ 5.
SAPLfl'i %SfI BS S. JG?Wl /G FA w FfIGU/ 6.
1 . G.?(J W t?'? I 0 ° to FAGS '7 8.
2 . $0 LI.TU3 byD"
3. (?? Cada 56/? 016- (L WOODY VINES:
j
4. GU FAUI -1. vi f'?G?L(-I. L?r ?
a
5u _.? a 2.
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)o7 (OTHER INDICATORS:
' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO L---BASIS: / ,? p
(j
' TYPICAL:_O COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: /
SERIES: ,, jnG Sire Sa,?vy (?Q?Yk- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO L.--
MOTTLED: YES NO t/ MATRIX COLOR: er--.> HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO L---
BASIS: r10 ,G sOr?s thdirrc s titif rm A?4 rrL Sores (
' HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO ? DEPTH OF WATER: /II
' SATURATED SOILS: YES NO V DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
_1,-,BASIS: lVo
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES , NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES J/NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: MON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO ? AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 NONE_I,,
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP I
DETERMINED BY: .?yip? pst/li r

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 ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, I?
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

' WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
OORDINATOR: TIME: DATE: S/ COUNTY:
' C
NEAREST TOWN : ?; WAT R
Q Y. -bk. tud
QUAD:
PROPERT? .O CATION:
ER:( ,(NAME/ADDR SS) '7 l
PARTY DOING WOR AME/ADDRESS)
ftlD hmodd n pro
c vtp
n? s ,
o ?`

'
PHONE: (g1c1) 77
-;,330
PHONE: (??Q= J _7
?/
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: (y -{l

L

IS PROPERTY UNIFORM_bR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER:

b0 a/o FA C_ 1.
N
1. 1v 4 W a '(Z

?
l
2. 9'QQ FAG, F'pGW 2.
3 }
.
3. 0 !c Fk(.?c - FAe. +
Q` PV% (D°lG FAWF6(-"'
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6
A,f ww"d 40151'. FAcw-/ F GliI 7.
1
.
3. r_ c_ -4
00DY
?r?GU-
VINES
?6wI'X
4. i
O
6It- ( QFAG) o?L1. :
N16
5. f` /00A FA (-Lt- 2
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)?O%OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES rNO BASIS:
TYPICAL: L,(fOMPLETE BELOW)

I
L

SOIL:
SERIES: ore_ S
MOTTLED: YES-?NO MATRIX
M1
BASIS: Q,v11,J4,A ? CAYSI
ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE BACK)
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO_v- DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO V---DEPTH ?O
0TH R INDICATORS: c? f l.'
WETLAN HYDROLOGY: YES NO BASIS:
L --
ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO
p HYDRIC SOILS: YES j tJO_
RATIONNATER TABLE
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO I.,' NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES V NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404-v--'10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_vISOLATED DJACENT WP #
DETERMINED BY: k f?/aI.I ? p,ltPc
NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
'r 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, lk PHOTOS TAKEN ? YES NO_
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
r-o
J m o-m
o-ate ?O
Q

1
ra 6a
4?

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: I DATE: 92 COL
WA, f
NEAREST TOWN- Al ;Qi WATuetj
QUAD:Sov aaSf &J.OCATION: PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WO) AME/ADDRESS
i O Nminop?lrq-hr-*l M Co 't( C a n d _ n c
NC. ' ?nJn ?In lV\ [ l ' (S?
?: "7(L(1 .? 1 1 Q?
PHONE: (?q ) a330 PHONE:( t PO- L
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM?bR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
C

VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1. e,,'eo -t) (,Q+, FA(- 1.
2: `0 oZ Jr O o FAQ -) FAG02.
y3tc7ca?r_ 3
4. FAG, FAGW 4.
5. F::7A C_ tL 5-
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:? ? F a,
'
V)- j
FAr FpGW 6
rO-vJ P c
2. J`e'=t' Ir---
° - o
7.
FA(I _--- --a.
?? ceda-r ?S?ro F6L(I' WOODY VINES:
(i
Ai
'
-
4. w?ll?w 6C?.a!L a°lc f
at?
"
ol
FAG+,F6CW1.yj5 r
5. 10/' rIl G I FACV4 2.
% OF DOMI ANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)Sn%OTHER INDICATORS:
J
' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO t,---BASIS: 45 Of ( I l . ' 5&C
' TYPICAL:_066MPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
' SERIES: rP_ 5cu1 N OaMti.._ ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO ?---
MOTTLED: ?Y S NO ATRIX (DOLOR: rj e1"-7z) HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
BASIS: T 11 T
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO_jfj-DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO_4,i'DEPTH TO SA URATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:

WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO?BASIS: A(e-, kmc(Co loQi G r rldl'c? -r
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_-NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ? NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: 9ON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES 'j N04 AUTHORITY: 10 404_ 10/404_ NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT_ NWP #
DETERMINED BY: 67 n0 ?yt_ ,0 ,c,
lo'/0

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 ? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, li
ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
0

o+ ??y

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
t
COORDINATOR: , TIME: 1/ :20 DATE: 151 S /V COUNTY: jg?
u?' atcr
NEAREST TOWN; Pp-
garr (e 1,& WATERW Ax-. 2s
QUAD ATION : a
PROPERTY OW ER:(NAME/ADDR S) PARTY DOING WORK.(NAME/ADDRESS)
i 0 I f c i
mar / i D7111 tit
PHONE:( I PHONE: ( $qQ= 37.3
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
1 IS PROPERTY UNIFORM t--OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS

VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE
TREES: SPECIES-- -% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER:
30 Q/0 FAC, 1.
2. jkc.(? o i ao°lo 2. /(l f f4
3.
3.
ao°/c' !`AG, FAcw
5
:Q o°
L"/ odi- So°>o FAGU-, FAGUt 5.

t=AGGt+
/? FAGU-
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
. ai,?roww 6
?
$5614 FHcw-? r?Gw 7. -
3ooo FAC V-o FAC-v8•
QA ma f ? CO °jo FAG WOODY VINES:
A
5 f t

2
k
V/ i rqt
S°% FAGS F"'C-
.
.
5 2
NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
FAcu1 F&-
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.) afl,OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YESt--NO BASIS: /
G
TYPICALi/(COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: ,
SERIES: nce 5 U, .C)Q?fx -- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NOS--
MOTTLED: YES_?NO MATRIX Q?LOR: V --- HYDRIC SOILS: YES A'.,?-ff0
BASIS: J'
1
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO?DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO-1C DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: bcowdel e
r•
WETLAND 14YDROLOGY: YESje M BASIS;
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_?NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES V10
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND:- ? KON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES:?NO AUTHO TY: 10 404?t0/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED ,ADJACENT P
DETER IM NED BY: , "No,yvw 1 r . 7V 10.
h -

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS '
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION: '
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION: ,
14YDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION: '
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY: t
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:
Sall '
toy(

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME : :3Q DATE: / S / ) COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN• WATERW "?- -f-o Our
QUADS ukld CATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) (-PARTY DOING 0 :(NAM /AD RE S)
()S Lv;ronom' Frofecarnn kupw
p _; ; r d / ?-f)C.
)m(f G61 MeAARSLh94 _e
Tr
PHONE: (q 19) -?330 PHONE: (0 D'390 - 3 73
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: WA
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM J OR SEPARATE DISCRETE
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE
' TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND
6 FA C UFf1 L 1.
2. FAG 2.

5. 5.
' SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:

ash
1. red rea f(e_ 6.
7.
2.4,?;??/.fC? FAGu-?FAC8.
' 3
4.
7 FAG, FAGC,c>
FA WOODY
/'s/
6
5, ___` cG !.L 2.
_ % OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.) _OTHER
VEGETATIVE UNITS
ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
N/?
VINES:
/ l/
INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO BASIS:
1 TYPICAL: L,?_C'OMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:_(COMPLETE BACK)
' SOIL:
SERIES: 5aNtc4 IOa.-m- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO L/
MOTTLED: YES 0 MA RIX C LO HYDRIC SOI S: YES NO
BASIS: ??
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO DEPT OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO Joo' DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:

WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES N0? BASIS: "rdors
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEA ATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY: 10 -O,y{,yyij? VI P`j

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 PHOTOSCETAKEN NT ' YES NO-
ATTACH NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, l? DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

3.'?- - ?

1 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'. :5 W WO/c,
61 fAr-, FAc tJ 1.
FflC A,/?
r `f

?` 2. `,?
3• /ori ?e i n?
i
4
'
D
f 0
30
30%
7
° 2.
F?cu+, F,4c 3'.
- rim 4
F
C
!M .
1 (
a???-
r?
o 0
6 h(-q

J .
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
1 . err haw W b-uo?
a5%
6?l?Gw- Ft?u?
2. fa,,,?. cns? da ?oa<1 13'ok FHc'u.-, fAGks .
' 3. red rvm (C
? $%

`o rAC WOODY VINES:
0 =AGLt, F?G.J
V
-
aS I
'
4. -5 s we-D-4- ckh la r
Ac , FAc w 1. ? -
a
so h
Sa u.r'woocl, 3 ?1 CV ? 2 . i r PhAtPL a 5%' FRGU FAL
OF DOMINANT S ES (OBL.- FAC.)(?OTHER INDICATORS:
I
COORDINATOR A TIME: :?S-DATE: / S / .?COU TY•
NEAREST TOWN- -Pyw ( WATERW Y:
QUAD: ATION• (cut
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING W K:(NAME/ADDRESS)
¢i<,a
U.S. 15 Paedioll e?-.7?ovies
(r c'
Q aD g • a
e G 11
PHONE: ("j ) Syl -?? PHONE: 3737
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: A( /A
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES ,,,-90 BASIS:
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
TYPICAL:V-CCOMPLETE BELOW)
' SOIL:
SERIES: w
MOTTLED : YES/N
BASIS:

HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES_
SATURATED SOILS:
OTHER IN ICAT RS
' WETLAND HYDROLOG

ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
kW!;j:d ! 0a A'K- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES -NO-Lff----
IX COEOR: e)?/?Qr,t- --' HYDRICjSOILS: YES?NO
No t,,-DEPTH OF WATER:
YES NO t-----DEPTH TO
BASIS:
ION/WATER T
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YESL/N0
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NOJ? AUTHORITY: 10 404 L.- ?A 04 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS J ISOLATED ADJACENTJ L?N WP #
DETERMINED BY: rY1Klemm , Cam, dDaay?E5

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: '
F' b
?pli 5A
Y
?? I1
dr
e o y
-7 13
0

COORDINATOR'
NEAREST TOWN'
' QUAD: w
PROPERTY OWNER:(
5 vi ro v
o
nurf0c, It A^,
' PHONE:0
OTHER I
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
TIME: :a0 DATE: g / S/ 0UNTY: WI" ?-
TN z" WAT RW
CATION:
/ADDR SS) PARTY DOING W K:(NAME/AD RESS)
e ea 6v-, n ? ?av i e_
ly. -A u P. r.
f _
ma r*
NG ?7?II al M
_Q PHONE: t )$14O-7
11r,12 0( ?2
IVIDUALS PRESENT: H//A
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
AGM4 3. 3
I5- /o FAC 4• ?V// ;
.
5. 5
SAPLINGS/SHR BS: o FA G 6.
1 . . VGA 30 0o FAcw- fAGW7 .
--?• r? ?o ?? 1G FAGU-,,WJl+WOODY VINES:
4- ?{a r ??? }woad S G/o F'AG u_ , FAGu1 . A//?
5. ( ay-- 3 °% FAG (,!_ 2 .
OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC.)_(?OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES:. NO-Jt?f-BASIS: C-0-4A0
' TYPICAL: t.,COMPLETE BELOW)
SOIL:
' SERIES:
MOTTLED: ES NO ATRIX
BASIS: /Vn LiM ri(_ 501
'
HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES
' SATURATED SOILS:
OTHER INDICATORS:

ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
In"4-- ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES
?-? HYDRIC IIS?OILS: YES N0?
•Prn,-nre A h 4 on Murlrl`c, 5)? 11,5,+
NO_jCDEPTH OF WATER:
YES NO_1C DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO ? BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO L--- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ?F10
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND: _-
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED ADJACENT 8
DETERMINED BY: ?S ?S1 I?G.V1
?y

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
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED PHOTOS ADJACENT
? YES NO
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, # ATTACH DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:
So ? ? ?(^o-T
o _ 3 o YR s?Y
3 _
q - Y- !
eL5 i n w2?-fa-v?-?! C ,

' WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
TIME: ?-0- DATE:/ / ^COUNTY: r-kOM
COORDINATOR:
mlb?
' NEAREST TOWN: ri WATER Y:
QUAD: Sp OCATION: lac rr?4^
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WO :(NAME/ADDRESS)
IWI ( Mgr {? f r '1 CL Y1? :?.?' r
' a,, d a Al 5on -r 1 L
e.5 l, -7-6'an¢ (A Park NG 77l I W. A-tl\0A'Yl M19 OQ 1 5V
PHONE: (0511 -a PHONE: (C 17)fila 3737
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: NIA
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
r
gC
l
PL
,,,y 14 (;`Of1 W cUJU a0'oo FALU- rK t J? FAc, F cW
N2Sr ,t? u/rYl D % Ff}G, FAGS/ 4
;
4. -.
5. 5•
?SAPLINGS/SHRUBtS:

1
. 6•
Fp G U = , P1 C.11
L r- 7
- 4 Ir ; J
8.
1 `'i FAG W , FAGto
ODY VINES
a po t Gu-
FAC 4-
3•
4 :
WO
snrLv`?t?c•??e '
1 0
.
5 .
2. 0150 .V"! FAG Lt.) FACW
.
% OF DOMINANT SPE CIES (OBL.- FAC.)5-Q.!J,,OTHER INDICATORS:

HYDROPHYTIC VEGET ATION: YES . ENO BASIS: SO On r.ro/9r r. 1,fiPc1eq S ,

' SOIL: I '
SERIES: C??u1?G?ln?w? 1L ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES?-NO
MOTTLED: YES N0LI,,--MATRIX COLOR: p HYDRIC SOILS: YES L--NO-
BASIS:
HYDROLOGY:
' INUNDATED: YES NO L--DEPTH ?F WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO f/ DEPT TO/SAT RATION/WATER TABLE lVtiq
OTHER INDICATORS: j ? Y?xY1M - r?(a"''0 WE 4j: ,nes
' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES-'NO BASIS:
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO_L__- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES'----NO
' WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO L/" AUTHORITY: 10 404 L/0/404_ NONE_
' JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_tZ-fSOLATED ADJACENT_L,?-(?WP_0
DETERMINED BY: ?'??Llli (+ „(i/1(/, r <"
iT

TYPICAL:I- ?COMPLETE BELOW) 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
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:
o r L+ to
V I

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: :'J DATE: COUNTY: )tU
NEAREST hCl.l?iti--
TOWN: WATERW Y: ??rC
QUAD OCATION: e--, av4 L_ Fl n
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WO K:(NAME/A DRESS)
c)-S. cri vi rp I, mwddl i on w, I1•f ??? Utr=,
j U i n.
5j-2 I
eafG? i n ;? L - , ( -L
' PHONE: (?)L[ Lj ' W,_ PHONE: 373
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: A11A
1 IS PROPERTY UNIFORM L,----OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
' TREES: ISPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1. V. C7 , FAGU'1 FA C cI+ 1
4' 4.
5. y'C r. FACE FACW
5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS:
o t rl /c WOODY VINES:
5. FACV ACU '`:
t 2.
ES (08L-. I AC.)33 % OTHER INDICATORS:
' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES N0__L-, BASIS: r-o
' TYPICAL: "("COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL:-(COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL: rr?? /
SERIES: ,n k5?oh rc n??_ ScL jig 4 (pa&o_ _ ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO
c_---
MOTTLED: YES NO_?MATRIX CO R: - HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO 1
BASIS: .r nin t.
' HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NOiDEPTH OF WATER: /v
' SATURATED SOILS: YES NO L---DEPTH TO SAT RATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO L_-BASIS: C 1' S
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO-LC- NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES ENO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: [SON-
WETLAND:-PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO L--AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED A JACENT` NWP_
' 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 PHOTOSCETAKEN NT ? YES NO-
ATTACH NATIONWIDE ? YES NO IF YES, DRAWING W/PHOTO ANGLES AND DIMENSIONS:

C?
05 - ?

' WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: TIME: ?j :(DATE: K/ / /d COUNTY: DVr/kaM
' NEAREST TOWN: ?•
alA1 WATERW
Y: ..
Cf
QUAD: o L-OCATION: P? L 0.Q Q /j.
PROPERTY 0 ER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WORK: ( AME/ADDRESS)

a
. LL C ? / -5--'
: (?) SY I a 3.3o PHONE : (G_l 1)Q- ?7
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: /U1"

IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ?OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES:,SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
(l * FA L 2. d-124 tit U PL CAG
1 '- ? ?? ?1 G?C? r--AC
4. 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: F t?L 6. _
2 C9,
OFS WOODY VINES: 2 n /
4. 'f INC, u-
2. f'l }:' ] (I` ?_°
5' `; ?`?-C sl t ? °a FACAJ
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.- FAC. )jO% OTHER INDICATORS:
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES1iNO BASIS:
TYPICAL: L_(-COMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
1

1
SOIL: r
SERIES: Gf?t/2 ??p ?Qd ON HYDRIC SOILS
MOTTLED: YES_%e?19_0 MATRIX COLOf-,_. VAet' -- HYDRIC SOIL
BASIS: W0,,V_0(1 !", rmn , 'A e-11#1% 1
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES_I,,NO- BASIS:

rX c., .) FF} uk)
FAG
LIST: YES ?NO
. YRS 1i Nn
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES KNO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: ice- KON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO !-----AUTHORITY: 10 404il--tII/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERSj,,_-fSOLATED ADJACENT L -NWP 11
DETERMINED BY: m??/ i:?i' r yj, • "'

HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO 1,-- DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES NO L-_-.?D..E?PT(i TO SAT RATION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: ?
ATYPICAL SITUATIONS 1
VEGETATION:
TYPE OF ALTERATION: 1
EFFECT ON VEGETATION:
PREVIOUS VEGETATION: 1
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO'
SOILS:
TYPE OF ALTERATION: 1
EFFECT ON SOILS:
PREVIOUS SOILS:
HYDRIC SOILS: YES NO
HYDROLOGY: 1
TYPE OF ALTERATION:
EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY:
PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY: 1
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:
1
f.
;? 1
? f? ( f
(Ai ball K 5
vQQ-
ow
-?,-
r?
7
L
w tj 6DGP.
V r r" f ?Q-rQ-Jr- 1
i
1

I

I

1-1
I

WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
COORDINATOR: r ':;,TIME: S :j DATE: COUNTY:
NEAREST TOWN: ?JATERWAY: G..
QUAD: ATION: W?-rj- Lu-p 0-n C4
PROPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WOR ((NAME/ADDRESS)
CoWpowrifal :fJ
minlArod-lon G
G 77
PHONE:( PHONE:(( - 3737
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: A(1A-
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM f-. OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE
TREES: SPECIES
---% GROUND COVER:
R
COVER--INDICATTO
/ l
r?
rKtt- Fl
/v/
?: u
4
5 -
5.
.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS•

2. FAr 6- 8.
3 FACFAC(c) WOODY VINES:
4 .
Nc

% OF DOMINANT SPEC IES (OBL.- FAC.)Slf/eTHER INDICAT
?1: '.ate!
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO-I-,--BASIS:
TYPICAL:t,,(tOMPLETE BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
SOIL:
SERIES:
F? ?dn ON
HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO V___
MOTTLED: YES ?AIO MATRIX COLD : OVI' '?--- HYDRIC ILS: YES NO ?.-
BASIS:
cd1j& -o-ti-
714 C
I *fl r
f 5 L
'

HYDROLOGY:
INUNDATED: YES NO
L DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS: YES t--- DEPTH TO SATURAT
NO ION/WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS: _

' WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO_L___-BASIS: is
' ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO -NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES t--NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: KON-WETLAND: I-__-_.

PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO'i- AUTHORITY: 10 404 _ 10/404_ NONE_,,--
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS_ ISOLATED ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR