20040067 Ver 1_Reports_20030912

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Projcd Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Due deadline):
~'~ -DOS 9 Div ` ~d D 9~~~~~3 ~ ~~ ~=~
~ /,
.~~~~i
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional OtTice Area In-House Review
^ Asheville ^ Air ~ Soil & Water ^ Marine Fisheries
^ Fayetteville v Water ^ Coastal Management
^ Mooresville ^ Groundwater Wildlife ^ Water Resources
~N
'f11

^ Raleigh
^ Land Quality Engineer .7
>
..~ ~I~,P
^ Environmental Health
^ Washington ^ Recreational Consultant Forest Resources ^ Solid Waste Mgmt
^ Wilmington ^ Land Resources ^ Radiation Protection
^ Winston-Salem ~Parl:s & Recreation ^ Other
Water Quality ~ ~ /~~R,/l. /vA/~~
^ Groundwater
^ Air Quality
Manager Sign-0ff/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
^ No objection to project as proposed.
^ No Comment
^ Insufficient information to complete review
^ Other (specify or attach comments)
'~~IAN~Sl~1~OiUP
~` SEP / g p003
n»~Nu~~ry~~I
"N--LI
vrY
ItETUR1V TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs

' CITY OF HIGH POINT
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PIEDMONT PARKWAY EXTENSION
FROM SR 1541 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO SR 1552 (TARRANT ROAD)
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8079002
T.I.P. NO. U-4017
Administrative Action
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI
Submitted Pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
o~ o~ a~ • lda~
Dat of Approval Gregory J. h rpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]

1
1
1
CITY OF HIGH POINT
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PIEDMONT PARKWAY EXTENSION
FROM SR 1541 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO SR 1552 (TARRANT ROAD)
State Project No. 9.8079002
TIP No. 0-4017
Administrative Action
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI
July 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
STANTEC CONSULTING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
C3
Da
Keith D. Lewis, PE
Project Manager

Documentation Prepared for:
CITY OF HIGH POINT AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.,/L 3
D e Philip L. Wyli Sr., PE
Director of Transportation, City of High Point
-7 -- 3 -- X003 ~. ~
Date Jo C. Wadsworth, PE
P ect Manager, NCDOT

1

CITY OF HIGH POINT
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PIEDMONT PARKWAY EXTENSION
FROM SR 1541 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO SR 1552 (TARRANT ROAD)
State Project No. 9.8079002
TIP No. U-4017
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No. 14, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed
to by NCDOT:
Randleman Buffer Rules will be implemented during the design and construction
of this project.
Green Sheet
Environmental Assessment
June 2003
Page 1 of 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... S-1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................. ..............................................................1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................ ..............................................................1-1
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................1-1
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED ...........................................................................1-2
1.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE ...................................................................1-7
1.5 PROJECT SETTING AND HISTORY .....................................................................1-7
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE ..................................................................................................1-7
1.6.1 Existing Road System ...................... .............................................................1-7
1.6.2 Other Modes Of Transportation ....... .............................................................1-8
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .............................................................1-9
1.7.1 Existing Development ...................... .............................................................1-9
1.7.2 Future Development ........................ ...........................................................1-10
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ...................... ...........................................................1-10
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY ............................... ...........................................................1-10
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS ............................... ...........................................................1-17
1.11 SUMMARY ................................................... ...........................................................1-21
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................2-1
2.2 IMPROVE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................2-1
2.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ........................2-2
2.4 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................2-2
2.5 BUILD ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................2-3
2.6 ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................2-4

2.7 BUILD ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES ...........................................................2-9
2.8 TRAFFIC CAPACITY FOR THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................2-9
2.8.1 General Observations ...................................................................................2-9
2.8.2 Unsignalized Intersections ..........................................................................2-10
2.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................................2-18
3.0 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY ...............3-1
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................4-1
4.1 LAND USE .................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Existing Land Use .........................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Development Trends .....................................................................................4-1
4.1.3 Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans ................................4-2
4.2 FARMLANDS ............................................................................................................4-2
4.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................4-5
4.3.1 Population Characteristics ............................................................................4-5
4.3.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics ................................................4-6
4.3.3 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ..................................................4-9
4.3.4 Travel Patterns and Accessibility ..................................................................4-9
4.3.5 Schools ..........................................................................................................4-9
4.3.6 Churches and Cemeteries ..........................................................................4-10
4.3.7 Police and Fire Stations,
Rescue Squads and Emergency Management .........................................4-10
4.3.8 Businesses ..................................................................................................4-13
4.3.9 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................4-13
4.3.10 Specific Social Groups ................................................................................4-13
4.4 RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION IMPACTS ................................................4-13
4.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...........................................................4-16
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................................4-16
4.7 AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................4-17
4.8 NOISE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................4-24
4.9 NATURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................4-30
4.9.1 Biotic Communities .....................................................................................4-30
4.9.2 Topography, Geology, and Soils ................................................................4-36
4.9.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................4-38
4.9.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................................4-40
4.9.5 Riparian Buffers ..........................................................................................4-41

1
1

1
1
4.9.6 Rare and Protected Species .......................................................................4-42
4.9.7 Permits ........................................................................................................4-45
4.10 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS .................................................................................. .......4-48
4.11 FLOODPLAINS ................................................................................................ .......4-48
4.12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES .......4-51
4.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ................................................. .......4-51
4.14 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ .......4-52
4.15 ENERGY .......................................................................................................... .......4-52
4.16 VISUAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................... .......4-52
4.17 UTILITIES ......................................................................................................... .......4-57
4.17.1 Electric Power Transmission ............................................................... .......4-57
4.17.2 Water and Sewer Facilities .................................................................. .......4-57
4.17.3 Natural Gas Service & Other Pipelines ............................................... .......4-58
4.17.4 Communications .................................................................................. .......4-58
4.18 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .......................................................................... .......4-58
4.18.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................4-61
4.18.2 Noise ..................................................................................................... ......
4-61
4.18.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 4-62
:
4.18.4 Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................................4-62
4.18.5 Construction Materials and Waste .............................................................4-63
4.19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ......................................................................................4-63
5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .........
5.1 SLOPING LETTER ..........................
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................
............5-1
............5-1
............5-1

APPENDICES
A. COORDINATION
A.1 Scoping Letter
A.2 Agency Comments
A.3 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (USDA Form AD-1006)
A.4 Relocation Report
A.5 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Concurrence Form
B. REFERENCES
EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 1.2.1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................... ..1-3
Exhibit 1.2.2 Project Study Area ......................................................................................... ..1-5
Exhibit 1.9.1 2002 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................ 1-13
Exhibit 1.9.2 2025 No Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................... 1-15
Exhibit 1.10.1 High Accident Locations ................................................................................ 1-19
Exhibit 2.5.1 Build Alternative ............................................................................................. ..2-5
Exhibit 2.6.1 Typical Section .............................................................................................. ..2-7
Exhibit 2.8.1 2025 Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................... 2-11
Exhibit 2.9.1 Recommended Laneage and Turn-Lane Storage ......................................... 2-19
Exhibit 4.1.1 Current Generalized Land Use ...................................................................... ..4-3
Exhibit 4.3.1 Community Facilities And Services ............................................................... 4-11
Exhibit 4.7.1 Receptor Locations ........................................................................................ 4-21
Exhibit 4.8.1 Noise Receiver Locations .............................................................................. 4-25
Exhibit 4.9.1 Natural Communities ..................................................................................... 4-33
Exhibit 4.11.1 Floodplains .................................................................................................... 4-49
Exhibit 4.13.1 Hazardous Materials And Underground Storage Tanks ................................ 4-53
Exhibit 4.14.1 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 4-55
Exhibit 4.17.1 Utilities ........................................................................................................... 4-59
iv

TABLES PAGE
Table 1.8.1
Table 1.9.1
Table 1.9.2
Table 1.10.1
Table 2.7.1
Table 2.8.1
Table 2.8.2
Table 2.8.3
Table 4.3.1
Table 4.3.2
Table 4.3.3
Table 4.3.4
Table 4.3.5
Table 4.7.1
Table 4.7.2
Table 4.8.1
Table 4.8.2
Table 4.8.3
Table 4.9.1
Table 4.9.2
Table 4.19.1
NCDOT Programmed 2002-2008 TIP Project Study Area Vicinity ................1-11
Highway Segment Level-of-Service and Vehicle Density ..............................1-12
Intersection Level-of-Service and Average Vehicle Delay ............................. 1-12
Accident Data for Project Study Area and Vicinity ......................................... 1-18
Build Alternative Cost Estimates .....................................................................2-9
Highway Segment Level-of-Service and Vehicle Density, Peak Hour........... 2-10
Intersection Level of Service and Delay, AM Peak Hour ............................... 2-13
Intersection Level of Service and Delay, PM Peak Hour ............................... 2-14
Population Trends of High Point and North Carolina ..................................... ..4-5
Racial Characteristics for High Point and North Carolina .............................. ..4-6
Age Characteristics for High Point and North Carolina ................................. ..4-7
Occupational Data for the City of High Point ................................................. ..4-8
Economic and Demographic Data for High Point .......................................... ..4-8
MOBILE5A/CAL3QHC Input Parameters ...................................................... 4-23
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................................. 4-24
Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................... 4-27
Noise Abatement Criteria .............................................................................. 4-28
Predicted Noise Level for Impacted Receivers .............................................. 4-29
Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................4-37
Federally-Protected Species and Federal Species of Concern .....................4-44
Summary of Impacts Within Construction Limits ...........................................4-64
v

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is located within the High Point city limits southeast of the I-40
interchange at NC 68. The proposed project is a new four-lane, median-divided facility between
the two existing sections of Piedmont Parkway. The length is approximately 5,400 feet (1,646
meters) and would include improvements at the intersection of the proposed extension and
Wendover Avenue. This project also proposes three new intersections, one at SR 1558
(Hickory Grove Road), Morris Farm Road, and Platinum Drive.
S.2 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
Mitigation for stream impacts will be required for the construction of the Build Alternative. It is
also expected that a Nationwide Permit (NWP) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required. With some NWP and 401 Water Quality Certifications, thresholds apply that may
require additional procedures or provisions. NWPs only authorize activities from the perspective
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) regulatory authorities and other
Federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or authorizations may also be required.
The Randleman Rules buffer impacts and mitigation are to be submitted for review and approval
by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) as a Buffer Certification. The buffer authorization is typically submitted in
conjunction with the 401 permit application. A General Major Variance will be required for any
parallel encroachments into stream buffers within the project study area or where sheet flow of
stormwater cannot be provided.
S.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No-Build Alternative -The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to the sections
of Tarrant Road and Wendover Avenue within the project study area. No new segment would
be constructed and no roadway or intersection improvements would be performed. The No-
Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the transportation goals of the State
of North Carolina nor the transportation needs of the region. Also, by failing to provide solutions
to high traffic volumes in the area, connectivity to other traffic corridors, and increase safety, this
alternative does not satisfy the purpose of and need for this project. The No-Build Alternative
S-1

does, however, provide a basis for comparing the benefits and adverse impacts of the study
alternative.
Improve Existing Alternative -The Improve Existing Alternative would involve roadway
widening and intersection improvements along the existing segments of Wendover Avenue and
Tarrant Road between the existing sections of Piedmont Parkway to improve capacity and traffic
flow. Although widening Wendover Avenue and Tarrant Road would help traffic operations in
the area, a substantial number of collisions are singularly the result of heavy turn movements at
the existing intersection. This alternative does not reduce the number of turn movements and
therefore will not result in substantial safety improvements. The Improve Existing Alternative
does not satisfy the purpose of and need for this project.
Build Alternative -Based on the commuter nature of the corridor and the probability of major
future development in the area, it is unlikely that an acceptable level of service can be obtained
without major construction or major system level changes. Also, the primary purpose of the
project is to connect the two existing sections of Piedmont Parkway and complete a link
between NC 68 and the I-85 corridor via SR 1424 (Hilltop Road) and SR 1129 (Groometown
Road. This transportation link is shown in Exhibit 1.2.1.
Due to the restrictive nature of the project study area and the alignment of the existing Piedmont
Parkway sections, a single Build Alternative was pursued for the study. The corridor for the
proposed extension is bound by several physical factors, including commercial and residential
properties, an existing rock quarry, and a cemetery located at Hickory Grove United Methodist
Church. Also, the same termini would be a component of any additional build alternatives,
which reduces the potential for variation between alternatives.
The following Build Alternative has been developed for the project and is illustrated in Exhibit
2.5.1. The eastern terminus of this alternative would add a fourth leg to the northwest corner of
the intersection of Piedmont Parkway at Wendover Avenue. The alternative would incorporate
dual left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of Piedmont Parkway and
westbound Wendover Avenue, and a single left-turn lane for the eastbound Wendover Avenue
approach, plus dual through lanes and single right-turn lanes for all approaches. The new
section would continue northwest for a short segment before turning west just south of Hickory
Grove United Methodist Church and crossing Hickory Grove Road approximately 600 feet (183
S-2

meters) north of its intersection with Wendover Avenue. This intersection would be unsignalized
with only right-in/right-out access to and from Hickory Grove Road, resulting in no left-turns
allowed from any of the four approaches. The extension would continue west approximately
1,000 feet (305 meters) before turning northwest towards the existing western section of
Piedmont Parkway. The Build Alternative crosses Long Branch with a double 10-foot x 10-foot
(3-meter x 3-meter) reinforced concrete box culvert with three 66-inch (1.7 meter) reinforced
concrete pipe floodplain culverts. Morris Farm Road would connect with the proposed
extension at a T-intersection approximately 2,400 feet (732 meters) west along the alternative
from Hickory Grove Road, with exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes on Morris Farm Road, a
left-turn lane for westbound Piedmont Parkway, and a separate right-turn lane for eastbound
Piedmont Parkway. The western terminus of the proposed extension ties into a short dead-end
segment of Piedmont Parkway on the eastern side of Tarrant Road. This section was
previously constructed as the westbound approach of the proposed extension's intersection with
Tarrant Road. The intersection at Tarrant Road will be restriped to indicate exclusive right-turn
' lanes on the southbound and westbound approaches, dual through lanes for the Piedmont
Parkway approaches, single through lanes on the Tarrant Road approaches, and left-turn lanes
~ on all approaches. The total length of this alternative would be 5,350 feet (1,631 meters).
Transportation System Management Alternative -Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the facility within the existing
right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing the existing facility.
These types of improvements were considered and some elements such as turn lane additions,
signal coordination, and access control were incorporated into the recommendations. TSM
improvements alone however, would not increase levels-of-service enough to prevent failing
traffic conditions in the future years. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was not considered a build
alternative and was eliminated from further consideration.
Mass Transit Alternative -The project study area is not currently served by mass transit. The
area has scattered residential communities and only one regional destination, Piedmont Centre,
and therefore would not be suitable for routes to the area for the Greensboro or High Point Transit
Authority systems.
Mass transit routes crossing the project study area and aimed at serving commuters between High
Point and Greensboro would barely reduce traffic volumes on the major routes because of
S-3

increased travel times (versus travel in a personal vehicle), a low frequency of stops at a location
based on longer trip lengths, and the necessity to transfer to other routes to reach geographically-
dispersed destinations.
Many of the road users through the project study area are commuters traveling to major
thoroughfares such as I-40, US 311, and NC 68 to reach other destinations throughout the Triad
region. These commuters would benefit from a mass transit solution, however the demand
would not be high enough to warrant this type of transportation. Due to these factors, the Mass
Transit Alternative was not considered a build alternative and was eliminated from further
consideration.
S.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Summary descriptions of impacts are provided in the following section. Table S.1 also lists the
impacts for the Build Alternative as based on construction limits.
Relocations - 2 residences and 0 businesses would be relocated as a result of the construction
of the Build Alternative.
Land Use -The Build Alternative would not alter the character of existing land use or the
pattern of future land use.
Farmlands - A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was submitted to the NRCS for the
Build Alternative and is included in Appendix A.3. The 250-foot (76-meter) corridor of the Build
Alternative would impact a total of 36.4 acres (14.7 hectares) of farmland, with 21.3 acres (8.6
hectares) of prime and unique farmland and 13.4 acres of statewide and local important
farmland. The total score of the Build Alternative is 123 points, which requires minimal
consideration for protection under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
Community Facilities -Temporary construction impacts on Hickory Grove Road may reduce
the accessibility of the Hickory Grove United Methodist Church, but these impacts are expected
to be minimal. The Church has additional access points, which would aid in minimizing any
impacts.
S-4

Utilities -Due to the urban setting of the project study area, a number of underground utilities
including water, sewer, telephone, cable, and gas lines are present within the area. The
proposed project may require the relocation of existing underground and overhead utilities with
the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construction; however, overall
' impacts to public utilities are anticipated to be low.
' The proposed project traverses a section of a pipeline owned by the Colonial Pipeline Company.
The construction of the Build Altemative would require the relocation and encasement of these
' pipelines due to the loading of the roadway and the vehicles using it. The new design would
consist of three relocated sections of pipe that would be constructed under a new set of
' specifications and aligned parallel to the existing pipelines. Colonial Pipeline Company would
perform the redesign, construction, and connection of the new pipelines. This action would occur
' prior to roadway construction and no interruptions to service are expected. The lengths of pipeline
within the construction limits are 168 feet, 181 feet, and 205 feet (51 meters, 55 meters, and 63
' meters); however, linear impacts to the pipelines cannot be quantified until the redesign of the
pipelines is complete. Final impacts would include the pipeline lengths within the construction
' limits as well as the lengths required to reconnect to the existing pipelines. No other pipeline
impacts are associated with the Build Alternative.
' Hazardous Material Sites and Underground Storage Tanks -Field surveys and record
searches indicate the presence of a UST at the BP Gas Station near the intersection of Piedmont
' Parkway and Wendover Avenue. There are also records of a leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) along Wendover Avenue, which was removed in 1992. There are no dumpsites or
sanitary landfills located within the project study area. Neither of the tank locations are within
the project corridor and there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous material sites or
' underground storage tanks associated with the proposed project.
' Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources -The project would not impact any
archaeological or historic architectural properties.
' Air Quality -The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration standards, as established by the
' National Ambient Air Quality Standards, are 35 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. Based on the
predicted concentration levels, neither the 1-hour nor 8-hour criteria will be exceeded by the
proposed action.
' S-5

Noise - It is anticipated that the projected traffic on Piedmont Parkway, with the proposed '
improvements, would result in 43 impacts in FHWA Category B. Two of these impacts occurred
because predicted noise levels met or exceeded the NAC and 40 impacts were the result of ,
substantial noise level increases. One receiver is predicted to exceed the NAC and experience
substantial noise increases. Noise walls were analyzed in three locations. At two locations the ,
walls were unable to provide reasonable mitigation. The third location required access points
that broke the wall into three segments. This reduced the mitigation it provided and made it '
unreasonable. Therefore, construction of a noise wall to mitigate for impacts along this corridor
has been determined to be unreasonable and should receive no further consideration. '
Mineral Resources -The project study area contains a portion of the Martin Marietta '
Aggregates, Ponoma Rock Quarry, however the site entrance and main staging area is located
off Chimney Rock Road, northeast of the project study area. The proposed Build Alternative '
does not transect any portion of the quarry nor would the quarry's daily operation be affected by
the proposed project. It is therefore concluded that the proposed project would not pose any '
impacts to mining or mineral resources.
Water Quality -The proposed project falls within the 03-06-08 subbasin of the Cape Fear River ,
Basin. Waters within the project vicinity include East Fork Deep River [17-2-(0.3), 4/1/99], Long
Branch [17-2-1-(1), 4/1/99], and two unnamed tributaries to Long Branch. Within the project study
area, the classification for East Fork Deep River and Long Branch is "WS-IV C". Class "WS-IV"
waters are waters protected as water supplies which are generally in highly developed watersheds. '
Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, and agriculture. No waters classified as Water Supplies (WS-I: '
undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), as High Quality
Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of ,
the project study area.
The Build Alternative would have one crossing of Long Branch and would also impact riparian
buffers along this stream. Impacts are based on land within construction limits plus an extended '
10-foot (3-meter) boundary. These values are dependent upon DWQ verification and final
alignments. Stream crossings would be designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns as '
much as possible. The estimated linear impact of stream for the Build Alternative is 250 linear feet

S-6 '

' (76 linear meters). Because the impact is greater than 150 linear feet (46 meters), mitigation would
' be required.
Biotic Communities -Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of
' terrestrial communities. Estimated impacts to the Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Community are
approximately 6.9 acres (2.8 hectares) and impacts to the Maintained/Disturbed Community are
' approximately 11.8 acres (4.8 hectares) as based on construction limits plus a 10-foot (3-meter)
boundary.
Impacts to the aquatic communities within the project study area may result from the placement
' of bridges or culverts. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of the aquatic
habitat. Based on the culvert footprint, the proposed stream crossing would impact 0.09 acres
' (0.04 hectares) of aquatic habitat. The use of a floodplain culvert has helped to minimize the
footprint of the culvert.
' Waters of the United States -Impacts to Waters of the United States are limited to the 250
' linear feet (76 linear meters) of Long Branch that will be crossed by the proposed project. There
are no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands associated with the proposed project. Any potential
impact to wetland vegetation is limited to the vegetative fringe within the streambanks of Long
Branch. Impacts to these areas would be mitigated as stream impacts.
' Rare and Protected Species -Field surveys indicate the absence of Bald eagles within the
project study area plus a lack of sufficient habitat. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP
' database does not indicate any occurrences of this species within the project study area. It is
concluded that no impacts to protected species are associated with the proposed project.
Riparian Buffers -The Build Alternative would have one stream crossing that would impact
riparian buffers along Long Branch. The streams within the project study area fall within the
Randleman Lake Watershed, therefore the Randleman Buffer Rules apply. These rules were
' established to protect water quality for the Randleman Lake Reservoir. A minimum 50-foot (15-
meter) vegetative Riparian Protection Area is required along all perennial and intermittent streams,
lakes, and ponds. Corrective action must be completed as necessary to ensure diffuse flow is
maintained in the riparian buffer. Based on construction limits with an extended 10-foot (3-meter)
' boundary, impacts are approximately 250 feet (76 meters) with a collective area of 0.56 acres (0.23
' S-7

hectares) along Long Branch. Additional riparian buffer impacts include 0.02 acre (0.008 hectare)
of Zone 2 at the proposed right-tum lane from eastbound Wendover Avenue onto existing
Piedmont Parkway.
Preliminary Cost Estimate -Preliminary cost estimates were developed based on the
preliminary roadway design plans for the Build Alternative. The estimated construction and
right-of-way costs for the Build Alternative are $ 8,000,000 and $ 715,000, respectively.
S.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Build Alternative (Exhibit 2.5.1) is recommended as the Preferred Alternative for the
proposed project. This alternative would fulfill the elements of the purpose and need for the
project by increasing connectivity and safety, and providing accommodations for increased
traffic volumes. This alternative would reduce delays and accident potential within the project
study area and vicinity.
S-8

TABLE S.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
.EVALUATION (ACTOR -ASSOCIATED IMPACT
CQNSTRUCT;ION FACTORS
Mainline Len th -feet meters 5,350 1,631
Number of Intersections 3
Railroad Crossin s 0
Construction Cost $8,000,000
Ri ht-of-Wa Cost $715,000
TOTAL COST $8,715,000
SQC/OECQNQMtC FACTORS
Residential Relocations 2
Business Relocations 0
Schools Im acted 0
Parks Im acted 0
Churches Dis laced 0
Cemeteries Im acted 0
Rece tors Im acted b Noise 43
IAIFRASTRUCTURE
Transmission Line Crossin s 0
Pi eline Crossin s 1
Sewer Line Crossin s 0
Water Line Crossin s 0
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Potential Archaeolo ical Sites 0
Recorded Archaeolo ical Sites 0
Historic Pro erties Effected 0
NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Protected S ecies Im acted 0
Stream Crossin s 1
U land Natural Sstems -acres hectares 6.9 2.8
Wetland/A vatic S stems -acres hectares 0.09 0.04
Stream Im acts -linear feet meters 250 76
Ri avian Buffer Im acts -acres hectares 0.58 0.23
Maintained/Disturbed -acres hectares 11.8 4.8
LAND USE FACTORS -acres hectares
Residential 3.6 1.4
Commercial 0 0
Institutional 0.25 0.10
Industrial 1.3 0.54
Recreational 0 0
A ricultural 0 0
O en/Undevelo ed 12.7 5.1
PHYSfCAL FACTORS
Zone A Flood lain -acres hectares 0.46 0.19
Zone B Flood lain -acres hectares 0.31 0.13
Prime and Uni ue Farmland -acres hectares 21.3 8.6
Hazardous Materials Sites 0
Number of Exceedances of CO NAAQS 0
Notes: Construction limits are defined by slope stake limits plus an extended 10-foot (3-meter) boundary.
1 Includes streams. Based on wetland and stream delineations and classifications.
' 2 Includes Residential, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Recreational, Agricultural, and transportation facilities.
3 Land use acreages (hectares) are approximate.
4 Includes government, churches, and schools.
5 Includes impacts to upland systems, wetland systems, aquatic systems, surface waters, and transportation facilities.
' 6 Impacts based 250-foot (76-meter) corridor.
' S-9

1
1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes the conjoining of Piedmont Parkway in northeast High
Point from SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue) to SR 1552 (Tarrant Road). The proposed project is
referred to as the Piedmont Parkway Extension (TIP Project No. U-4017) and is located within
the High Point city limits, Guilford County, North Carolina.
This environmental document has been prepared in accordance with the North Carolina (or
State) Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) and is intended for use by both decision-
makers and the public. It includes the disclosure of relevant environmental information
regarding the proposed project and conforms to the methodologies and requirements detailed in
North Carolina General Statute 133A, Sections 1 through 13 as well as the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) technical advisory, Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (FHWA, 1987).
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is located within the High Point city limits and is approximately 2.5 miles
(4.0 kilometers) southeast of the I-40 interchange at NC 68. The project study area
encompasses the area approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) southwest of I-40 and is
bounded by Tarrant Road to the west and Wendover Avenue to the east. Exhibits 1.2.1 and
1.2.2 illustrate the project location and the project study area.
The proposed project is a new four-lane, median-divided facility between the two existing
sections of Piedmont Parkway. The length is approximately 5,400 feet (1,646 meters) and
includes improvements at the intersection of the proposed extension and Wendover Avenue.
This project proposes three new intersections, one at SR 1558 (Hickory Grove Road), Morris
Farm Road, and Platinum Drive.
1-1

1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
Two separate sections of Piedmont Parkway currently exist in northeastern High Point. One
serves as a connection between NC 68 and Tarrant Road; the other as a short connector
between Wendover Avenue and SR 1546 (Guilford College Road). The proposed facility would
connect these two sections of Piedmont Parkway and would complete a link between NC 68
and the I-85 corridor by connecting directly to SR 1424 (Hilltop Road) and SR 1129
(Groometown Road). This connection would establish Piedmont Parkway as a major east/west
thoroughfare in northern High Point and complete a critical link in the area's transportation
network.
The primary needs for the proposed action are based on current and anticipated future traffic
volumes, increased connectivity in the area's transportation network, and safety. Each of these
elements is described below:
High Traffic Volumes:
• Existing (Year 2002) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Piedmont Parkway
range from 9,500 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Tarrant Road to 12,000 vpd
south of Wendover Avenue, while volumes on Wendover Avenue range from
35,000 to 41,000 vpd.
• Design Year 2025 traffic volumes for Piedmont Parkway are estimated to be
between 29,200 and 35,800 vpd.
• If no improvements are made, all of the analyzed intersections in the project
study area will operate at level-of-service (LOS) F in 2025.
Increased Connectivity:
• The proposed facility will connect the two existing sections of Piedmont Parkway
and complete a link between NC 68 and the I-85 corridor following Hilltop Road
and Groometown Road.
Safety:
• A high number of accidents occurred near critical intersections of Wendover
Avenue, Piedmont Parkway, and Tarrant Road in the vicinity of the project.
1-2

~ 15D I FoR°
.2. I E R0. 51AF
CCU I,~cY LIN a• BARD.
H ~ _ 8A Rq 68
,y2
I ~ Q ~~a`v
N
`OG
~ ~ 9 no
U 1}~ ~ Collar.
\,/~ ~P i
F INDUS-
RIALPK. p ~'ITgIN A R
DR. I p Sp ~.
I ~
+~ `ter'
I HILL .~ ~ f
I m `.
w
SANDY I r •
z ~.
I m I ~~ c 1
t W ~Z '4'
b' [= I.~ ~ i~0 9p0 ~gE 0
J`~ I `O AIRY
E '
Q' I ...1 ,RAG 9Q RD. VO
I ~ C
II ~ \ CL. 1 C7 ~yR° ~ m ° n,
' Ay '~ ,21
L_ PAI~YNE I PA y°~ ~O
TO J~ ,0.2~~.`...-,...I Q~p~ P
a RICA ~^_r
ft DR.j ~ CLUB ~.4 ~' RD.
I D Eft ~=~~ L ~ ~~
I f 5K 1b[.. \
OAK ~C,y
n f
JpSERH
INMA
RD.
a \l
\~ '~ f
6 ; `~~
~.. OAK HOLL W LAKE ,~ A 0 !
I ~- °yy ''~ • y a
z o ,` {s ~ F~ ~ ; f
Y qO U Z~ ~ "VZj- ° ~~ `~ ~ ~A
s A'
U 1 °<v oA~~~£~ ~ ~~ >I `o'tiy o ~}r'EhKC~ r e
o ~. ~~ ~~:: .,
Ip ~ ~ '' obi ~;~~ ~ ~.'"! ~.es77toNn~-
w \ 4
I ~ Q• ~ , ?„ ~~ ~fJCINGTON AVE.
Nigh Point r
I
j I O ~': MONTLIEU rc "` i :Y,
~~ O _ w ,1
\~~VTRY ,. ~ ~N~ a ~4
I CLJy ~ ' ~~' . 'E-I~ft' ai Ill DR `~~ ~A Is
J
1T 1 ~ DR ~' ~ E. GREENI °R nl'R/gAG~, ~' o S~ a
~@9~ I
,, 1
1 t N°
RD. ~` 4r ~ _ ~V
} ~4 ~' ~.
B?'fAN i GA O,/l
~~ _
9C
r~ x °
z ~
,~ ~ ° G
N Q
yti 3e y~
P
-. ~ y1j O
~ FRIENDLY
(G6 Q° ~' x qYE
IKEL ~°~v: Greensbaroz ~
o-/ l \\ sr. ~ ~7/w,
~S
\-/

\ ~ _
N C
f u
J
01 .

PHq

D
i--=.a ~?111r*
AYE m
!
.

y ~~
3 ~ ~ a
4K
~
5T. M~
_
T xY
t' ~ O f
f
7'f
al
} a Q! >
~ :~: ~
N
+<~--~
-TLEE ST.
f 3
N
. MCCOp
%i ~ i
f i4
w ~
S
~
Cl Q°
iA ~I ~ w Fr
~ C
\O_:..v
r
t f d O R_L~
~C Q/o`a/ e Z '~ //~i"' ,1„CRE~'K RQF N yG
:KAY RD. ~~ ~( Z ° (RD. 4 ~~
f III ® ti
yf~-° VANpAt,P 1 y N
$E:1~zSiCid~''aO.O ~ ~ ~.: O~A(/q i RD. Q WILEY- 1. LE
° ~ ~ Vandalic
0
V
i r ~ ~= o
y, \ o
~RFY ¢ ® 0.C _ ~ \ -~ ~ ,= ~ i
~ R 'i ~
GRAN~OVE y Gr~~meto:vn r w F
`z DR./ x 2 a
RD. ~ VE~{S I ~o
K.
5, v SHERATON
~ °4. 9G~ A 1
\` ~
~ ~ .~I ry \C O / .. RD.
I ~ 1~ ~ ~
Pro)eCt Vicinity b*~..,11°~~ ~~~ City of High Point
~~°
~~a~,~-yz~e~ ~ Department of Transportation
~.~~s
ll
~ ~
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
U -4017
Project Vicinity
~ Not to Scale Exhibit 1.2.1
Guilford County

0
C V1 _
..~ -; 70
O
O ~ ~
~. Q ~
00 ~ n ...~ N ~_
o r*C ~ ~~ o
~ ~ ~ n. ~'
c O z -v
0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
_~
~, a
~ ~ ~ °: ~
d ~ ~ ~ C ~
~ • ._+
N ~
N
~ __
~. `,
t
\ ~--
~~
7
~* o
~~. -w
1
~ ~
N ~
~p O,
~ '~~'
e~-f
O
7
~..~
0 1-
A•
N m
~a ~
D
O

' Accident rates are expected to increase as a result of deteriorating traffic service
' and increased congestion through the design period if no improvements are
made.
' 1.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed improvements is to reduce travel times by providing a direct
' connection between important transportation corridors in the area, to reduce delays by
improving intersection operations, and to reduce accident potential under design year traffic
' conditions with better signal control, signage, and access management.
' 1.5 PROJECT SETTING
Piedmont Parkway is a four-lane, median-divided facility that is currently split into two sections.
' One section is approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) in length and connects to NC 68 at
SR 1837 (Clinard Farms Road) on the western terminus and to Tarrant Road on the eastern
' terminus. The area surrounding this section of Piedmont Parkway ranges from moderately
developed to fully developed and includes the business park, Piedmont Centre. The other
' section is approximately 0.6 miles (1.0 kilometer) in length and is located southeast of the first
section, connecting to Wendover Avenue on the western terminus and to Guilford College Road
' at Hilltop Road on the eastern terminus. This section is moderately developed with residential
and commercial properties.
' 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
' 1.6.1 Existing Road Svstem
The project study area encompasses the region approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers)
' southwest of I-40 and bounded by Tarrant Road to the west and Wendover Avenue to the east.
Local, regional, and interstate system connectivity is summarized in the following paragraphs.
The proposed project is located approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers) southeast of the I-40
t interchange at NC 68. Exhibit 1.2.1 provides a project vicinity map showing the existing road
system. The NCDOT functional classification system identifies Wendover Avenue as a minor
arterial. Tarrant Road and Piedmont Parkway have not been classified.
1
' 1-7

Local System -Tarrant Road is a two-lane, north/south facility connecting SR 1554 (Chimney
Rock Road) just north of the project study area to Wendover Avenue to the south. Wendover
Avenue originates at NC 68 near the Deep River community in High Point and continues east
into Greensboro, crossing Guilford College Road, I-40, SR 1117 (Holden Road), and SR 1008
(Market Street). US 220 merges into and follows Wendover Avenue north of downtown
Greensboro until it crosses US 29, where US 220 diverges from and US 70 merges with
Wendover Avenue. Wendover Avenue ends at the City Limits where the highway continues as
US 70.
Interstate System - I-40 lies north of the project study area and connects High Point to
Greensboro, Raleigh, the I-95 corridor, and Wilmington to the east; and to the west, Winston-
Salem, the I-77 corridor, Hickory, Asheville, and points as far as Barstow, California. I-85 lies
just southeast of the project study area and connects High Point to Durham and points in
Virginia to the northeast; plus Charlotte and points in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama to
the southwest.
Regional System -Piedmont Parkway and Wendover Avenue both connect to NC 68 to the
west of the project study area. NC 68 serves as a major corridor through the Triad, connecting
travelers to major highways like I-40, US 158, and US 220 to the north plus US 311, I-85
Business, and I-85 to the south. Wendover Avenue also proves an important connection to NC
68 for regional travel to nearby I-40, US 220, US 29, and US 70.
1.6.2 Other Modes of Transportation
The project study area is located in a suburban area of High Point near the Greensboro
corporate limits, with accommodations to several integrated modes of transportation. These
modes are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Bus -The project study area is not serviced by the City of High Point or the City of Greensboro
public transit systems. Route 1 of the Greensboro transit system provides the closest service,
ending approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) west on Wendover Avenue in a shopping area
near I-40. Specialized Community Area Transportation provides subscription and dial-a-ride
transportation for citizens of Guilford County who reside outside the cities of Greensboro and
High Point on aspace-available basis. Greyhound Lines Incorporated provides scheduled
intercity bus service to the terminals in both Greensboro and High Point.
1-8

' Taxi -Approximately 12 taxicab and shuttle companies provide public transportation in and
around the High Point (2) and Greensboro (10) areas.
Air -Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA) lies 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers) directly north of
' the project study area and is an approximate 7-mile (11-kilometer) drive from the project study
area. PTIA is the primary airport for the cities of High Point, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem.
Rail - A rail line owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation (Norfolk Southern) runs
' approximately two miles north of the project between I-40 and West Market Street. The Norfolk
Southern rail line is on a major rail corridor from Raleigh, Durham, and eastern North Carolina to
' Winston-Salem and Statesville, where the north/south lines to Roanoke, Virginia and Charlotte
meet this east/west line as it continues to Asheville and Knoxville, Tennessee. Norfolk
' Southern also uses a line owned by the North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) which lies
about 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) to the southeast of the project study area. The NCRR corridor
' runs from Morehead City at the coast through Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, and High Point to
Charlotte. This line is included in the 2002 recommendations for the Southeast High Speed Rail
' Corridor.
Passenger service is available at Amtrak stations in both High Point and Greensboro, with daily
' service on three routes. The Carolinian route provides daily service between New York City and
Charlotte, the Piedmont route provides daily round-trip service between Raleigh and Charlotte,
and the Crescent route provides daily service between New York City and New Orleans.
' Pedestrian -Very little pedestrian travel is observed in the project study area. Sidewalks are
not present on the majority of the roadways sun-ounding the area, excluding a section of
' westbound Piedmont Parkway near the shopping center at the intersection with Wendover
Avenue.
' 1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
' 1.7.1 Existing Development
' The area near the project is suburban in nature, with areas of low-density and medium-density
residential, commercial, and light industrial/office development. The area is developing rapidly
with residential apartment complexes and subdivisions throughout the area, commercial sites
1-9

along the roadway corridors, and light industrial and office sites in the business park along the
western section of Piedmont Parkway and its intersection with Tarrant Road.
1.7.2 Future Development
Future development within the project study area and its vicinity will most likely follow current
land use patterns. More commercial development is expected along Wendover Avenue,
stretching north to existing commercial areas near I-40 in Greensboro. Additional fow-density
and medium-density residential development is expected west of the proposed extension and
business/industrial growth is expected along the western terminus and to the east of the
proposed extension.
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
The NCDOT 2002-2008 TIP includes schedules (planning, design, right-of--way acquisition, and
construction) for several roadway projects in the general vicinity of the project study area.
These projects are listed in Table 1.8.1.
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
The adequacy of the existing system was evaluated based on its capacity to handle projected
design year traffic volumes. The accepted methodology for this evaluation is to compare
projected traffic volumes with roadway capacity and compute the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c).
The v/c ratio, in addition to other indicators such as projected speed and intersection delay, is
used to find and report the facility's level-of-service (LOS).
The LOS may range from A to F where LOS A is a low v/c indicating smooth free-flowing traffic
and LOS F has a high v/c indicating the worst-case scenario with high congestion and a
complete breakdown of traffic flow. Levels-of-service A through C are desired levels, although
LOS D is considered acceptable for urban facilities. Traffic conditions exceeding LOS D (E and
F) are deemed unacceptable. These undesirable LOS conditions represent substantial travel
delay, increased accident potential, and inefficient motor vehicle operation.
For the Existing and No-Build scenarios, a highway segment and level-of-service analysis for
each intersection in the project study area is provided in Tables 1.9.1 and 1.9.2. The existing
year (2002) and design year (2025) traffic volumes are also shown in Exhibits 1.9.1 and 1.9.2.
1-10

' TABLE 1.8.1
NCDOT PROGRAMMED 2002-2008 TIP PROJECT STUDY AREA VICINITY

TIP LOCATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED
NO. SCHEDULE
SR 1850 (Squire Davis Road) to west of SR 1398 part Complete
I-2201 I-40/ (Freeman Mill Road) in Greensboro. Widen to six part Under
US 421 and eight lanes, upgrade guardrail and add
Construction
lighting.

Greensboro SR 4121 (Greensboro-High Point Rd.), Hilltop
ROW 2004-6
U-2412 High Point Road to proposed US 311 Bypass. Widen to Const. 2006-8+
multi-lanes. Parton new location.
Western Loop, north of I-85 to SR 2303 ROW to 2003
U-2524 Greensboro (Lawndale Drive). Construct freeway on new Const.2002-8+
location. Part Complete
Greensboro Guilford College Road, SR 4121 (High Point ROW to 2003
U-2913 Road) to south of (Hornaday Road). Widen to Const. 2003-4
High Point multi-lanes. Part Complete
U-3313 Greensboro Groometown Road, SR 1383 (Wiley Davis Road) ROW 2003
to SR 1479 (Wayne Road). Widen to multi-lanes. Const. 2005
I-40/1-85 corridor. IVHS to include variable
message signs, traffic flow, incident management Const. 2008+
U-3314 Greensboro signs, communication systems, coordinated part Complete
signals, traffic operations center and video
surveillance.
Hilltop Road, SR 1546 (Guilford College Rd.) to ROW 2004
U-3612 Greensboro SR 4150 (Adams Farm Parkway). Widen to multi-

lanes. Const. 2006
SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway), Wendover Avenue
U-4006 Greensboro at Hornaday Road to SR 1607 (Burnt Poplar ROW 2003-5
Road) at SR 1609 (Swing Road). Multi-lane Const.2007
connector on new location.
U-4015 Greensboro SR 1556 (Gallimore Dairy Road), NC 68 to SR ROW 2006
1008 (Market Street). Widen to multi-lanes. Const. 2008+
U-4408 Greensboro NC 68 at Triad Center Drive. Relocation and ROW 2005
interchange modification. Const. 2007
U-3615 High Point SR 1003-SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road), US 311 to ROW 2006-7
NC 68 (Eastchester Drive). Widen to multi-lanes. Const. 2008+
Notes: rtUw: rcignt-ot-way acgwsition
Const.: Project Construction
' IVHS: Intelligent Vehicle Highway System
Although Piedmont Parkway and Hickory Grove Road will operate at acceptable levels through
' the design year, the segmental capacity analysis shows traffic approaching capacity on
Wendover Avenue and Tarrant Road in projected scenarios. While design improvements along
these corridors are not within the scope of this project, the findings of the traffic capacity
analysis prompt the following discussion. Projected traffic volumes on Wendover Avenue are
1-11

TABLE 1.9.1
HIGHWAY SEGMENT LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE DENSITY
EXISTING AND NO-BUILD SCENARIOS
LOS AND VEHICLE DENSITY
HIGHWAY SEGMENT PRESENT CONSTRUCTION DESIGN YEAR
YEAR 2002 YEAR 2005 2025
EXISTING NO-BUILD NO-BUILD
Piedmont Parkway A B C
West of Tarrant Road (365 vphpl) (458 vphpl) (695 vphpl)
Piedmont Parkway B B C
South of Wendover Avenue (436 vphpl) (543 vphpl) (748 vphpl)
Hickory Grove Road A A A
North of Wendover Avenue (276 vph) (350 vph) (469 vph)
Tarrant Road E E E
South of Piedmont Parkway (1256 vph) (1538 vph) (2499 vph)
~....va. rNuN~. vci u~dca Nvi nuw NG~ ianc ~wi niuiu-pane rudaways~
vph: vehicles per hour
TABLE 1.9.2
INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY
EXISTING AND NO-BUILD SCENARIOS
Existing Year Construction Design Year
INTERSECTION 2002 Year 2005 2025

LOS DELAY LOS .DELAY LOS .DELAY
(S) (s) (s)
AM Peak Hour (7:30-8;30 am)
Piedmont Parkway

and Tarrant Road C 24.8 F OC F OC
Piedmont Parkway

and Wendover Avenue D 44.8 F 106.3 F 293.7
Wendover Avenue and Hickory

Grove Road/Crowne Lake Circle F OC F OC F OC
PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45 pm)
Piedmont Parkway

and Tarrant Road F 50.9 F OC F OC
Piedmont Parkway

and Wendover Avenue D 42.8 F 99.2 F 268.8
Wendover Avenue and Hickory

Grove Road/Crowne Lake Circle F OC F OC F OC
i~u~ea. uue~secuons ui aaucs signiry unsignauzea mtersecnon.
LOS reflects average delay for the heavier-delayed approach of the minor street.
OC: Overcapacity, no delay information reported.
1-12

r LEGEND
M
~ °' M
DHV
~
''DQ
m
n
~' ~ ;1 VPD-# OF VEHICLES PER DAY (IN 100s)
~~ ~ ~ PM PM AM/PM PEAK PERIOD
PM 15 ~~
~ -
to
5s
± - DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (90} = K30
K30 = 30T" HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
11 ---i- ~o <1
1^~ i2
1 DD DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
{2.2) r ti Piedmont 3 DIRECTION OF DD
TTSTS
'r1 TRUCK %-DUALS
(D
,
,

~ Parkwa
y
~1 ~~~ ae
~~ ~ ~~ ~~ G,~a
12 Goo a~'
~-' ~..~
r
~a N
n
* h
G ~
~ ~
F- ~
~ e1 2 1
~~~
0
~ ~~ ~~
9'~ .
~~ 1q
P~
~~
~~~
da
~9$ ~~ ~e~~e ~p~
i
~~
~~$
k~~~
z `~ a
~,
~~
~, ~
6;~
i
~,~rilii;~~ ._
,, a:~. City of High Point
~~~
~ ~ ' Department of Transportation
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road to
SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carola~a
U-4017
2002 Existing Average
Daily Traffic Volumes
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.9.1
X59 ~ Q~ 50
9 `,~~1
~~ ~~
16
~ 45
A,e~
'~~ y~ Park~ant ~z2
~ ~ ~ 'ti.
(2 ~~ 65

r LEGEND
r.. ~ M
~ ~ ~
DHV~DE3
~,~
~ ~ #~ VPD-# OF VEHICLES PER DAY (iN 100s)
~ ~ g ~ ~ pM PM AMlPM PEAK PERIOD
pM 19 C1 ~ <'~ 55 1-14 DiiY DE51GN H(}URLY VOLUME (96) = K3C}

11 -- 70
~ ~
~~ t1
(2.2R K30 = 9©TM HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
Dp DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (~~
{2'7l ~ ~~ Piedmont 3 DIRECTILINQFDD
TTSTS
°
~-DUALS,
(D,T) TRUCK
Parkw~l
~
<1 ~ ~~~ aye
t
4Q ~ 4Q <1 ~
. ~p ~
c
a
1 ~ ~~
bo
r
~
~
a {
~i

a
i+ ~
z ~
o
~ oc

g
~ ~ ~~
Q
~~ /r,~~l
~g~
~ Zo
za
~ 56
p~3~0
Q~ y4
~'~!,
i~
~ y6
s ~~ 3 1
```il
ri
~a
~ ~~ 5~
~~
9 12'
'-'~,6
f y
i
6 ~~
2Q6
3
~~~
l 3 ~~ 5
aet
0
~Q°d ~-e
~,~e'~
~ ~~
r~, l
J
~~
0
y ?~ h5
e / ~Z!tl
Pa a~0nf
'~~way A52
t1 M
i
~~~~~~~, City of High Point
~::-~, , Department of Transportation
•~/1i11
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road to
SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
u-4017
2025 No Build Average Daily
Traffic Vo~nnes
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.9.2

' very high and will cause considerable delays along the corridor. Preliminary analysis shows the
facility operating at LOS D through 2005, and LOS F in Year 2025 as a four-lane highway. The
' segment capacity analysis also indicates that Tarrant Road south of Piedmont Parkway faces
congestion problems in both the current and design years. Traffic increases due to recent
' development in the area have left the two-lane roadway operating at LOS E, as it will continue
to do through 2025, with peak hour volumes doubling over this time period.
The intersection analysis found both cun'ent and future traffic operations at the existing
' intersections to be heavily delayed. The intersection of Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road
currently performs at LOS C and LOS F during the respective AM and PM peak periods. The
large number of vehicles turning left from eastbound Piedmont Parkway and traveling
northbound on Tarrant Road, compounded by increased future traffic, push operations over
capacity to LOS F in 2005 and beyond.
' As a two-way, stop-controlled intersection, opposing traffic volumes on Wendover Avenue at
Hickory Grove Road and Crowne Lake Circle cause operations on the minor approaches to fail
' in all Existing and No-Build scenarios. At the intersection of Wendover Avenue and Piedmont
Parkway, optimal signal phasing with protected left-turn phases allows the intersection to
operate at LOS D for the 2002 peak hours with approximately 45-second average delays. Traffic
' growth in the No-Build scenarios degrades the LOS to F in the future years, with delays in the
100-second range for the 2005 peak hours and more than 250 seconds in 2025.
' 1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
' Accident data for the period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001 was used to
analyze collision potential along the corridors of Tarrant Road and Wendover Avenue. The
number of accidents within the project study area is detailed in Table 1.10.1. There were a total
of 181 accidents during the studied three-year period; 79 collisions involved injuries, and 102
' resulted in property damage only. None of these collisions were fatal. The estimated economic
loss totaled $854,179. Exhibit 1.10.1 shows the locations along the current routes where
collisions frequently occur.
Accident rates resulting from this analysis were compared to statewide averages -for similar
facilities. The total collision rate for the section of Wendover Avenue from Tarrant Road to
Piedmont Parkway was 267% higher than statewide averages for similar urban primary routes,
' 1-17

with anon-fatal collision rate three times the state rate. Both the total and non-fatal collision
rates for Tarrant Road from Wendover Avenue to Piedmont Parkway were nearly twice the
statewide average for similar roadways.
TABLE 1.10.1
ACCIDENT DATA FOR PROJECT STUDY AREA AND VICINITY
LOCATION NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
Intersection of Wendover Avenue and Tarrant Road 45
Wendover Avenue east of Tarrant Road and west of
existing Piedmont Parkway 116
Tarrant Road north of Wendover Avenue and south
of existing Piedmont Parkway 20
TOTAL NUMBER OF COLLISIONS 181
.INTERSECTIONS WITH
.....HIGHEST NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS NUMBER OF :ACCIDENTS
Wendover Avenue at Tarrant Road 45
Wendover Avenue at Piedmont Parkway 33
Wendover Avenue at Hickory Grove Road and
Crowne Lake Circle 31
Wendover Avenue at Morris Farm Drive 21
Tarrant Road and Piedmont Parkway 15
The most prevalent types of accidents reported on the studied segments are rear end collisions
occurring when a vehicle has slowed down or come to a stop in the lane of travel (61.3%),
collisions involving vehicles turning left (11.6%), and vehicles colliding with another vehicle at an
angle (11.0%). These types of accidents reported in the historical data are typically the result of
unpredictable traffic flow due to congestion and large numbers of turn movements with long
delays. Both of these conditions exist at the project location.
The proposed action will reduce the potential for these and other collisions by improving traffic
flow and reducing delays at major intersections, reducing travel time and the percentage of
turning movements for many vehicles by providing a more direct route across the project study
area, providing protection to motorists with signalized traffic control at busy unsignalized
intersections, and eliminating points-of-conflict at unsignalized intersections where needed.
1-18

1
1
1

~a
Q~ ~a
f.
AA~eO' g~ °~Gr'
Or~~ p~~ ~o.~g , ,
ay
15
hh~ ~~~' PJe.
SR ~ 553 ~~ ~Gto~ enao~et
G
L~ 31 ~\ -0 3
L -O %p a~
/~Q ~^ ~' O
N U
h ~4~7 -
~ ~ ~
~ ~ o
45 ( ~ ~ -- ___ Hilltop
Rd.
E
a
Nv
'` ~o
'~.
15 LEGEND
Number and Location of Frequent Accidents
181 Total Crashes
79 Involving Injuries
102 Involving Property Damage Only
~~~~ ~~
~;,~.~~I ~F, ~j City of High Point
~s~~,~ ;= Department of Transportation
°~a~~. ~,,~,.
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
U -4017
High Accident Locations
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.10.1

1

1

1

1.11 SUMMARY
The existing transportation system in the vicinity of the project study area is characterized by
high traffic volumes, heavy turn movements, and a lack of a direct transportation link between
important traffic corridors in the area. These deficiencies have resulted in high accident
potential, traffic congestion and delay. Conditions are expected to deteriorate as the design
year approaches and traffic increases.
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce travel times by providing direct connections
between important transportation corridors, to reduce delays throughout the corridor, and to
reduce accident potential under design year traffic conditions with better signal control, signage,
and access management. The proposed project will provide intersection improvements in the
project study area by providing more efficient signal timings and coordination and by adding
storage lanes and lengths where needed. The appropriateness of turn prohibitions at minor
approaches will be analyzed to create a balance between providing access and reducing
conflict points with high accident potential. The most direct impact of the project will be to
connect the existing sections of Piedmont Parkway and link NC 68 to Wendover Avenue,
Guilford College Road, I-85, and other transportation corridors to the east.
1-21

1

1

1

' 2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to the sections of Tarrant Road and
Wendover Avenue within the project study area. No new segment would be constructed and no
roadway or intersection improvements would be performed.
The No-Build Alternative would not be compatible with the transportation goals of North
' Carolina, which are to provide and support a safe and integrated transportation system that
enhances the state; nor is it consistent with the City of High Point's goal to provide a safe,
' economical and environmentally sensitive means of moving people, services, and goods
through an accessible transportation network that serves the best interests of High Point.
' The No-Build Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts or residential
' relocations, however adverse social and economic impacts could occur. Future traffic volumes
may result in an increased number of collisions and longer delays that would degrade the safety
of the transportation system and create an even higher potential for collisions. An inefficient
transportation system could also cause the patrons of businesses within the project study area
to consider shopping in areas of less congestion, resulting in economic impacts to local
businesses.
' The No-Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the transportation goals of
the State of North Carolina or the transportation needs of the region. Also, by failing to provide
' solutions to high traffic volumes in the area, connectivity to other traffic corridors, the missing
link within existing Piedmont Parkway, and increased safety, this alternative does not satisfy the
' purpose and need for this project. The No-Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis for
comparing the benefits and adverse impacts of the study alternatives.
' 2.2 IMPROVE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE
The Improve Existing Alternative would involve roadway widening and intersection
improvements along the existing segments of Wendover Avenue and Tarrant Road between the
existing sections of Piedmont Parkway to improve capacity and traffic flow. Although widening
Wendover Avenue and Tarrant Road would help traffic operations in the area, a substantial

,.,
~

number of collisions are singularly the result of heavy turn movements at the existing
intersection.
This alternative does not reduce the number of turn movements and therefore will not result in
substantial safety improvements. The Improve Existing Alternative does not satisfy the purpose
and need for this project.
2.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available
capacity of the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and
without reconstructing the existing facility. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping,
signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements.
Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and signal timing changes are
examples of TSM operational improvements. These types of improvements were considered
and some elements such as turn lane additions, signal coordination, and access control were
incorporated into the recommendations. TSM improvements alone however, would not increase
levels-of-service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future years. Therefore, the
TSM Alternative was not considered a Build Alternative and was eliminated from further
consideration.
2.4 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The project study area is not currently served by mass transit. This is due to the lack of demand,
dispersed residential areas, diffused employment centers, and diversity of trip origins and
destinations. The area has scattered residential communities and only one regional destination,
Piedmont Centre, and therefore would not be especially suitable for routes to the area for the
Greensboro or High Point Transit Authority systems.
Mass transit routes crossing the project study area and aimed at serving commuters between High
Point and Greensboro would barely reduce traffic volumes on the major routes because of
increased travel times (versus travel in a personal vehicle), a low frequency of stops at a location
based on longer trip lengths, and the necessity to transfer to other routes to reach geographically-
dispersed destinations.
2-2

Many of the road users through the project study area are commuters traveling to major
thoroughfares such as I-40, US 311, and NC 68 to reach other destinations throughout the Triad
' region. These commuters would benefit from a mass transit solution, however the demand would
not be high enough to wan'ant this type of transportation.
Due to these factors, the Mass Transit Alternative was not considered a Build Altemative and was
' eliminated from further consideration.
' 2.5 BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Based on the commuter nature of the corridor and the probability of major future development in
the area, it is unlikely that an acceptable level of service can be obtained without major
construction or major system level changes. The primary purpose of the project is to connect
' the two existing sections of Piedmont Parkway and complete a link between NC 68 and the I-85
corridor. For these reasons, the following Build Alternative has been developed for the project
' and is illustrated in Exhibit 2.5.1.
' Due to the restrictive nature of the project study area and the alignment of the existing Piedmont
Parkway sections, a single Build Alternative was pursued for the study. The corridor for the
proposed extension is bound by several physical factors, including commercial and residential
' properties, an existing rock quarry, and a cemetery located at Hickory Grove United Methodist
Church. Also, the same termini would be a component of any additional build alternatives,
' which reduces the potential for variation between alternatives.
' The eastern terminus of this alternative would add a fourth leg to the northwest corner of the
intersection of Piedmont Parkway at Wendover Avenue. The alternative would incorporate dual
' left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of Piedmont Parkway and
westbound Wendover Avenue, and a single left-turn lane for the eastbound Wendover Avenue
approach, plus dual through lanes and single right-turn lanes for all approaches. The new
section would continue northwest for a short segment before turning west just south of Hickory
' Grove United Methodist Church and crossing Hickory Grove Road approximately 600 feet (183
meters) north of its intersection with Wendover Avenue. This intersection would be unsignalized
' with only right-in/right-out access to and from Hickory Grove Road, resulting in no left-turns
allowed from any of the four approaches. The extension would continue west approximately
' 1,000 feet (305 meters) before turning northwest towards the existing western section of
' 2-3

Piedmont Parkway. The Build Alternative crosses Long Branch with a double 10-foot x 10-foot
(3-meter x 3-meter) reinforced concrete box culvert with three 66-inch (1.7 meter) reinforced
concrete pipe floodplain culverts. Morris Farm Road would connect with the proposed
extension at a T-intersection approximately 2,400 feet (732 meters) west along the alternative
from Hickory Grove Road, with exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes on Morris Farm Road, a
left-turn lane for westbound Piedmont Parkway, and a separate right-turn lane for eastbound
Piedmont Parkway. Platinum Drive would also connect to the proposed extension,
approximately 500 feet (152 meters) west of the Morris Farm Road intersection. The T-
intersection would be unsignalized with alert-turn prohibition for the minor street. Westbound
Piedmont Parkway would have alert-turn bay to Platinum Drive, while the eastbound lane would
have an exclusive right-turn lane. The western terminus of the proposed extension ties into a
short dead-end segment of Piedmont Parkway on the eastern side of Tarrant Road. This
section was previously constructed as the westbound approach of the proposed extension's
intersection with Tarrant Road. The intersection at Tarrant Road will be restriped to indicate
exclusive right-turn lanes on the southbound and westbound approaches, dual through lanes for
the Piedmont Parkway approaches, single through lanes on the Tarrant Road approaches, and
left-turn lanes on all approaches. Driveway connections to several existing businesses and
developed properties have also been planned along the proposed project's corridor. Two of
these driveways are included in Exhibit 2.5.1. The total length of this alternative would be 5,350
feet (1,631 meters) on all approaches.
2.6 ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
The proposed improvements will consist of the construction of the four-lane, median-divided,
curb and gutter section of Piedmont Parkway as well as the addition of turn lanes on selected
intersection approaches. The major thoroughfares, Piedmont Parkway and Wendover Avenue,
will provide afour-lane, curb and gutter facility. The design speed is 50 mph (80 km/h).
Maximum grades for most of the project are 8.0%, however the maximum grade for Hickory
Grove Road is 10%.
The proposed right-of-way for the project will be 100 feet (30.5 m), with improvements on most
Y-lines being constructed within existing right-of-way. The typical section for the mainline is
shown in Exhibit 2.6.1.
2-4

100' R
* 10'
~~
0.04 FT/FT
~~
~~
12'
12'
0.0~/F~ 0.04 FT/FT
0.02 FT/FT _ __ ___
,~ 0.02 FT/FT 0.02 FT/FT •;
1'-0"
GRADE TO
THIS LINE
.5'
_0"
GRADE TO
THIS LINE
* 10'
.5'

0.02 FT/FT I I I 0.04 FT/FT
e•
1'-0"

* 14' Shoulder Along Sections with Guardrail
~'~°"' °~ City of High Point
~.
'~ ° ~ Department of Transportation
~~,,_

~ Piedmont Parkwa
Y
SR 1551 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
U-4017
Typical Section
.Not to Scale Exhibit 2.6.1 ~

residences are located on this segment, and it could provide an alternative access for travelers
heading southbound on Piedmont Parkway to westbound Wendover Avenue, Hickory Grove
Road will be left open. However, due to the close proximity of the Wendover Avenue and
Piedmont Parkway intersection and the related southbound left-turn lane storage lengths, the
Hickory Grove Road approaches to Piedmont Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out only
movements. There will be no median crossover on Piedmont Parkway at Hickory Grove Road.
Table 2.8.1 shows the level of service and vehicle density for the peak hour for highway
segments in the study area.
TABLE 2.8.1
HIGHWAY SEGMENT LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE DENSITY, PEAK HOUR
LOS AND VEHICLE DENSITY.
HIGHWAY SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION YEAR DESIGN YEAR
2005 2{125
Piedmont Parkway B C
West of Tarrant Road 529 v h l 876 v h l
Piedmont Parkway B C
Proposed Extension 436 v h l 762 v h l
Piedmont Parkway C D
South of Wendover Avenue 679 v h l 984 v h l
Hickory Grove Road B C
North of Wendover Avenue 296 v h 562 v h
Tarrant Road E E
South of Piedmont Parkway 504 v h 900 v h
rvores: vpnpe venues per Hour per lane tror multi-lane roadways)
vph: vehicles per hour
2.8.2 Intersection Analyses
The following two subsections detail the analyses of the intersections within the study area
based on accepted methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. This
methodology, used to determine intersection level-of-service (LOS) and average vehicular
delay, is described in Section 1.9.
The unsignalized intersections were evaluated to determine if signalization or other intersection
improvements would be needed with the construction of Piedmont Parkway. Table 2.8.2 and
Table 2.8.3 display the results of the unsignalized intersection analysis for AM and PM peak
hours respectively. Likewise, traffic operations at the signalized intersections were also tested
2-10

1
1

2.7 BUILD ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Table 2.7.1 shows the preliminary cost estimates for the Build Alternative.
TABLE 2.7.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Roadway Construction Cost $6,625,250.00
Utility Relocation. Cost (Colonial Pipeline) $988,287.00
.Structure Construction :Cost $386,463.00
Right-of Way Cost' $715,000.00
TOTAL COSTS $8,715,000.00
rvu i r: ~ rcenects ngnt-or-way cost esnmate ror pornon to oe acgwreo oy NcuU i . raa~onry of right-ot-way
dedication/acquisition to be coordinated by the City of High Point. Approximate length to be acquired by NCDOT
is 0.12 mile (0.19 kilometer) from Wendover Avenue to Hickory Grove Road.

2.8 TRAFFIC CAPACITY FOR THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE
A traffic capacity analysis was performed for the Build Alternative based on methods outlined in
the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 2000. From the traffic analysis
and the simulations, several observations were made concerning the operation of the existing
and proposed transportation network surrounding the extension of Piedmont Parkway. The
projected average daily traffic volumes are displayed in Exhibit 2.8.1.
2.8.1 General Observations
The segment capacity analysis performed for the No-Build conditions determined that Tarrant
Road south of Piedmont Parkway would face congestion problems in both current and design
years. Traffic increases due to recent development in the area have left the two-lane roadway
operating at LOSE (Class I Highway), as it will continue to do through 2025 as peak hour
volumes double over the period.
The construction of Piedmont Parkway Extension will greatly reduce trips on the section of
Tarrant Road between Piedmont Parkway and Wendover Avenue in 2005, but the performance
will remain LOS E through the Design Year 2025. Peak volumes under the Build 2025 scenario
would provide a 200 vph reduction from current conditions. Unless major traffic management
alternatives are taken to reduce these future volumes, widening Tarrant Road to a four-lane or
five-lane cross-section will be the primary solution to alleviating congestion on the facility.
Consideration during the analysis was taken for closing the short segment of Hickory Grove
Road between Wendover Avenue and the new section of Piedmont Parkway. Since several
2-9

s
C`a ~`
~' n
a
r M
~-
~~~ 14
pM 34 ~3 L 23
~ ~ --- ~5

is
z~
~.^
~
98
1
, 5
34 .1
9$ '~~'
14
~~~
14 S
14
r
~~
L

j ~i~
~~~
~ ~
~ w~ ~~~
~~~
tp~r~
~:~,~~ sa
A~,
@a
aa~~ ~~h~
~~~
~~
'~4
~`
.,~
~~
~ ,~
~ ~e f
m~
Note:
Forecasts for the project included
one -L-Line between Torrant and
Hickory Grove roads. Forecasted
volumes for this -L-Line were used
to project traffic for both Morris
Farm and Platinum Drives.
~~~ ~~~
.~
~ ~ ~ ~?~
7
~-~~°s
~~~
~Q pM
~~, ~
~~~~ ¢o~,d ~o ~f~~
~~
~ ~
~, ~ ~ 122 ~V ~~6
~ ~~ /
54 ''
64
4~.
21 ,
2 ~~
~~~
0
~ ,~ ~1~ fi~ ~,~e
~~ ~~~ ~~
~ ~~~'
.~
~~
~®~'~
~~
'~ 1
1 4 ~~
N~ ~ ~~
J`~~
~~
.~
~~
~~~~
't
LEGEND
DHV~DD
~~T}
VPD-# dF VEHIGLES PER DAY {IN 100x)
PM AMlPM PEAK PERIdD
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME {46) = K30
K30 = 30TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
Da DIRECTIONAL SPLfr {9b)
~ DIRECTION dF DD
{p,T) TRUCK 95-DUALS, TTSTS
~ ~~ ,~~
~ f~
~~
r ~~
$~
3s$-.~..
t~ pt~
~ ~~
~1
~1~U
~'~~ ~^~:. City of High Point
:~_ ~ g~
~~f~,~-~' Department of Transportation
,~
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541 (Wendove~ Avenue)
Guilford Casty, North Carola~a
U-4017
2025 Build Average Daily
Traffic Vo~mes
Not to Scale Exhibit 2.8.1

' TABLE 2.8.2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY FOR AM PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 AM)

i
1

1
- ~ LOS AND AVERAGE VEHICULAR DELAY
(IN SECONDS)
BUILD CONDITIONS
YEAR AND INTERSECTION ~ RECOMMENDED
BASE wl6-lanes at
Uncoordinated Coordinated SR 9541
( Weixlover Avenue)
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay L05 Delay
CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2005
Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road C 28.1 C 26.0
Piedmont Parkway and F 109.6 E 56.4
Wendover Avenue
Wendover Avenue and Hickory F OC
D 2
26
Grove Road/ East Crowne Lake .
Circle C 27.6
Piedmont Parkway and Platinum C 12.7 A 9.7
Drive - -
Piedmont Parkway and D 26.7 D 26.7
Morris Farm Road - -
Piedmont Parkway and E 44.6 B 13.4
Hickory Grove Road) - -
Wendover Road and F 255.2
West Crowne Lake Circle
DESIGN YEAR 2025
Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road E 61.9 D 39.7 D 39.7 D 39.7
Piedmont Parkway and F 292.8 F 190.9 F 181.5 F 109.7
Wendover Avenue
Wendover Avenue and Hickory F OC
L
k F OC F OC B 12
2
e
Grove Road/East Crowne
a .
Circle F 122.9
Piedmont Parkway and Platinum F 117.5 C 15.4 C 15.4 C 15.4
Drive
Piedmont Parkway and F OC C 29.3 C 29.3 C 29.3
Morris Farm Road -
Piedmont Parkway and F OC C 21.0 C 21.0 C 21.0
Hickory Grove Road - - - -
WendoverAvenue and ~ E 59.5 C 32.3 B 10.0
West Crowne Lake Circle
' Notes: An underlined intersection signifies an unsignalized intersection.
LOS reflects average delay for the heavier-delayed approach of the minor street.
OC denotes "Over Capacity." No delay information reported

2-13

TABLE 2.8.3 t
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY FOR PM PEAK HOUR (4:45-5:45 PM)
LOS AND AVERAGE VEHICULAR DELAY
(IN SECONDS)

BIJILO CONDITIONS
YEAR AND INTERSECTION RECOMMENDED
BASE
Uncoordinated
Coordinated w! 6-lanes at
SR 9541
( Wendover Avenue)
LOS Delay LOS- Delay LOS Delay LO$ Delay,.
CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2005
Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road C 26.6 C 25.3
Piedmont Parkway and
Wendover Avenue F 84.5 E 57.0
Wendover Avenue and Hickory F OC
Grove Road/ Ea
t C
L
k
s
rowne
a
e D 33.8
Circle C 27.0
Piedmont Parkway and Platinum

Drive C
- 15.3 B
- 12.5
Piedmont Parkway and

Morris Farm Road g
- 14.5 C
- 16.8
Piedmont Parkway and

Hickory Grove Road) E
- 39.4 B
- 11.6
Wendover Road and

West Crowne Lake Circle F 83.6
DESIGN YEAR 2025
Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road E 55.2 D 53.5 D 53.5 D 53.5
Piedmont Parkway and

Wendover Avenue F 255.4 F 170.3 F 160.1 F 91.7
Wendover Avenue and Hickory F OC
Grove Road/East Crown
L
k F 8
e
a
e 7.6 F 59.2 C 18.4
Circle F 116.0
Piedmont Parkway and Platinum

Drive F OC C 21.8 C 21.8 C 21.8
Piedmont Parkway and

Morris Farm Road F
- OC C 20.0 B 19.7 B 19.7
Piedmont Parkway and

Hickory Grove Road F OC C 18.9 C 18.9 C 18.9
Wendover Avenue and

West Crowne Lake Circle E 58.5 E 60.0 B 12.9
Notes: An underlined intersection signifies an unsignalized intersection.
LOS reflects average delay for the heavier-delayed approach of the minor street.
OC denotes "Over Capacity." No delay information reported
2-14

1
1

to determine the lane additions and changes in signal timing and phasing needed to reduce
delay and congestion and optimize network performance.
Unsignalized Intersections -
' Piedmont Parkway at Tarrant Road: Traffic volumes, excessive delays, and the construction of
the Piedmont Parkway Extension will warrant the intersection to be signalized by the
' construction year. It is expected to operate at LOS C in both peak hours, with protected left-turn
phases and a 140-second cycle length. The existing southbound cross-section would allow,
' without construction, the addition of a left-turn lane where a painted median is currently located.
The southbound right-turn lane is approximately 500 feet long from the industrial driveway at its
beginning to the intersection. It should provide adequate storage in the design year barring
exceptional cases. Signalization alone will not keep traffic operations at acceptable levels in the
' design year as the LOS would decrease to E in the peak hours, so further improvements will
need to be made. The intersection LOS will improve to D (40-second average delay in the AM
' peak, 54-second in the PM peak) with the addition of a separate right-turn lane for the
westbound approach.
Wendover Avenue at Hickory Grove Road/Crowne Lake Circle: By maintaining current
conditions for the Build scenarios, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS F, even with a
' semi-actuated signal in Design Year 2025 (123- and 116-second average delay in the AM and
PM peak hours). To manage the delays at this intersection due to heavy traffic on the major
' approaches, it is recommended that both minor street approaches be restricted to right-in, right-
out access by the design year. With this restriction, the respective 2005 AM and PM peak LOS
' on the heavier minor approach will improve to D and C with average delays of 26 and 34
seconds. Design Year analyses show both minor approaches at LOS F, but simulations of the
' 2025 Build scenarios with this configuration shows ample gaps created by upstream signals to
handle the right-turn demand. If Wendover Avenue were widened to a six-lane cross-section,
' the approach LOS would improve to B (12-second average delay) in the AM peak and C (19-
second) in the PM peak.
' Travelers on Hickory Grove Road wishing to access eastbound Wendover Avenue will be able
to do so through access to Piedmont Parkway a few hundred feet to the north and its
intersection with Wendover Avenue. The intersection will be observed under operation and
converted to right-in/right-out in the future when traffic warrants.
' 2-15

Since access at Crowne Lake Circle is critical to the residents of Crowne Landing, provisions to
move the primary entrance would be needed. This main entrance could be relocated to the
complex's second entrance approximately 1,300 feet west on Wendover Avenue, with
separated left-turn and right-turn lanes. Options should be investigated and put into place at the
same time when the median cross-over at the current main entrance is closed.
Piedmont Parkway at Platinum Drive: Platinum Drive and Piedmont Parkway would meet at a
T-intersection between Tarrant and Morris Farm Roads. Since the intersection at Morris Farm
Road will allow full movement and is located approximately 500 feet from Platinum Drive, it is
recommended that this intersection be designed as right-in/right-out with alert-over lane from
westbound Piedmont Parkway. Development agreements between the property owner and the
City of High Point do provide for a eastbound exclusive right-turn lane and a full westbound
exclusive left-turn lane to access Platinum Drive. These lanes were incorporated into the
design and used for the analysis. As an unsignalized intersection in the construction year, the
northbound approach of Platinum Drive would experience the greatest delay, but is expected to
operate at an acceptable LOS A and B for the respective 2005 AM and PM peak periods.
Traffic volumes on Piedmont Parkway in 2025 would cause this delay to increase in the Design
Year, but the operation will still be acceptable with average delays of 15 seconds (LOS C) for
the AM peak, 22 seconds (LOS C) for the PM peak.
Piedmont Parkway at Morris Farm Road: Morris Farm Road would be extended to intersect
with Piedmont Parkway to form a T-intersection between Platinum Drive and Hickory Grove
Road. As an unsignalized intersection in the 2005 construction year, the northbound approach
of Morris Farm Road would experience the greatest delay, but is expected to operate at an
acceptable LOS D and C in the respective 2005 AM and PM peak periods, with average delays
of approximately 26 seconds in the morning and 17 in the evening. High traffic volumes on
Piedmont Parkway would cause excessive delays to Morris Farm Road by 2025 and likely
would warrant the intersection to be signalized by the design year, operating at LOS C or better
for both peak hours, with a protected northbound left-turn phase and a 110-second cycle length
coordinated with the signal at Piedmont Parkway and Wendover Avenue.
Piedmont Parkway at Hickory Grove Road: The proposed intersection of Piedmont Parkway
and Hickory Grove Road was initially analyzed as a two-way, stop-controlled intersection. With
full movements at the intersection, the westbound approach in 2005 and both minor approaches
2-16

in 2025 experienced unacceptable delays in the AM and PM peak hours. Vehicles attempting to
cross Piedmont Parkway, whether continuing on Hickory Grove Road or turning left onto
Piedmont Parkway, would be blocked a majority of the time by queues on eastbound Piedmont
Parkway due to delays at the Piedmont Parkway/Wendover Avenue intersection. Based on
' these conclusions, the intersection should be prohibited to right-in/right-out movements for the
minor approaches. This measure would allow the Hickory Grove Road approaches to operate
' at LOS B in the construction year and LOS C in the design year. This will also provide more
flexibility in design for the eastbound approach of Piedmont Parkway at Wendover Avenue.
' Travelers on southbound Hickory Grove wishing to access Wendover Avenue or Hilltop Road
' nearby would have alternative routes by using the Hickory Grove Road intersection with newly-
aligned Guilford College Road just north of the project area to travel east or south, or Piedmont
Parkway's connections to Morris Farm and Tarrant roads to go westward.
Signalized Intersections -
' Piedmont Parkway at Wendover Avenue: Abase condition for the Build scenarios was used to
find initial measures of effectiveness and determine recommended improvements. The base
' condition included the addition of the eastbound Piedmont Parkway approach, single left-turn
lanes on all approaches, and single right-turn lanes on all approaches except eastbound
' Piedmont Parkway. Low right-turn volumes on this southbound approach would not warrant a
separate lane. With this intersection geometry and optimized signal timings, the intersection
' LOS will be F under all conditions, with 110-second and 85-second average delays in the
' these excessive delays, numerous conditions were analyzed to improve the situation without
adding additional through lanes; the results supported adding dual left-turn lanes on both
' Piedmont Parkway approaches and the northbound approach of Wendover Avenue as well as
exclusive right-turn lanes on every approach. These efforts increased the LOS to E in both
' 2005 peaks with delays in the 57-second range, and reduced delays by approximately 35% for
the 2025 peaks. The intersection still fails in the design year with 191-second average AM and
170-second average PM delays. Coordinating and optimizing network signal timings will further
' reduce the delays to 182 and 160 seconds in the respective 2025 AM and PM peak hours.
' Noting that the recommended geometry would not bring acceptable LOS to the intersection in
the design year, an additional scenario was tested assuming the traffic delays on Wendover
' Avenue would prompt the widening of the facility to a six-lane cross-section. Retaining all the
' 2-17
respective 2005 AM and PM peaks, and delays over 300 seconds for both 2025 peaks. With

turn lanes used in the recommended scheme with three through lanes on both Wendover
Avenue approaches, the intersection will still fail in the design year with delays in the 90- to 110-
second range for the peak hours. Six lanes are planned for Wendover Avenue in the future.
All recommended scenarios for 2025 were simulated using SimTraffic and severe delays were
observed on Wendover Avenue with major back-ups in both directions, stretching northeast to
the Guilford College Road interchange and southwest to Morris Farm Road. In the design year,
additional system-wide improvements would be necessary to relieve traffic congestion in the
area.
2.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Build Alternative (Exhibit 2.5.1) is recommended as the preferred alternative for the
proposed project. This alternative would fulfill the elements of the purpose and need for the
project by increasing connectivity and safety, and providing accommodations for increased
traffic volumes. This alternative would reduce delays and accident potential within the project
study area and vicinity. The recommended laneage and turn lane storage lengths are shown in
Exhibit 2.9.1 as detailed in the traffic capacity analysis report (High Point Department of
Transportation, 2002). Final designs for the project may deviate from these recommendations
because of geometric constraints or design decisions made by the NCDOT or the City of High
Point.
2-18

D
Q~I

c
tig
~k O
'yo•y
v
1 ~
?~.
f~~stj,9
1`
0
•.
\~

~~,a
~'~
~~
a
so. \
1,` ~
~~
as.
0 /~
~0
---
m~
a
,~
W
~~
rte'
W
0
YI
II
~Q/"
/ AAA
,~y0
s~~
ass
~ ~o. ~~~
~~ ~~
~. LEGEND
s
~~y ' ass, XXX Storage Length
O//~
~y
~o
~~
~~
>>
.:~~t1~lil~ City of High Point
~~;; ;,+,~' Department of Transportation
`~°~!ttt~!'~
Piedmont Parkway
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
Gafford County, North Carolina
U-4017
Recommended Laneetge
and Storage Lengths
Not to Scale Exhibit 2.9.1

1
1
3.0 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA AND VICINITY
The City of High Point is located in Guilford, Forsyth, Davidson, and Randolph Counties, closely
bordering the southwest limits of Greensboro. High Point is also within close proximity to the
southeast limits of Winston-Salem. These three cities and their surrounding areas comprise the
Piedmont Triad Region with a collective population of 1.3 million people. This region is centrally
located along the east coast and serves as a major hub for the manufacturing, sale, and
transportation of various goods.
The area's reliance on transportation is reflected in the many various methods to travel into and
out of the Triad Region. It is intersected by I-40 and I-85 and is served by rail and air
transportation. The Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA) is located in western
Greensboro and is a short distance north of the project study area. The PTIA is currently in the
environmental review process for the development of the FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub.
The emergence of High Point as the eighth largest city in North Carolina is largely due to its steady
growth in the fumiture industry. Several decades after the city's establishment in 1850, the
manufacturing of furniture became the dominant industry in High Point. In 1909, the first Southern
Furniture Market was held in the High Point area. The market was soon being held twice a year
and grew into the present-day Intemational Home Fumishings Market (IHFM), attracting over
83,000 buyers, exhibitors and sales representatives from the United States and 110 countries
around the world. The IHFM has been rapidly growing over the last decade with a 27% increase in
total attendance, a 67% increase in exhibitors, and a 113% increase in international attendance.
The growth of the IHFM has, in turn, acted as a springboard for the development of new business,
attracting many new commercial and industrial developments within the last decade.
Over the last several years, High Point has benefited from the relocation and expansion of over
83 new companies, resulting in the creation of over 3,000 jobs. New investors in the area
include Syntec, Inc., Advance Mailing Service, and InMark USA. Local expansions include
Chamber Fabrics, Premiere Cushion, Mark David, and K & S Tools. The City is also expanding
the downtown Home Furnishings District to add an additional 1.5 million square feet of show
room.
3-1

The development of the Piedmont Centre business park in northeast High Point has provided a
major impetus for economic growth in the area. The park is considered to be one of the top ten
business parks in the southeast and houses offices, light manufacturing and distribution
facilities for companies such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Banner Pharmacaps, and Mannington Mills.
Additionally, High Point is emerging in the biotech business sector due to the relocation of
companies such as MWG-Biotech, a German based company emerged in DNA sequencing and
synthesizing; and Trans Tech Pharma, a pharmaceutical testing company.
In addition to advancing High Point's business community, the city has also cultivated a wide
array of art and entertainment activities such as the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival and
the High Point Ballet. The city also promotes historical and cultural education through
organizations such as the High Point Museum and Historical Park and the John Coltrane
Cultural Workshop. Additionally, High Point maintains many greenways and recreational areas
including the Piedmont Environmental Center, located adjacent to High Point City Lake.
3-2

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
' This section of the report presents a discussion on the existing conditions and the probable
effects, both positive and negative, for the Build Alternative.
4.1 LAND USE
' The following sections describe the existing land use in the area, anticipated land use trends, the
consistency of the proposed action with local plans and policies, and the potential effects of the
' proposed action.
' 4.1.1 Existing Land Use
The southwest portion of the project study area is rapidly developing with the recent growth of
residential moderate-density and medium-density development, including apartment complexes,
town home communities, condominiums, and other attached single-family dwellings. There are
' also commercial sites along Tarrant Road and Wendover Avenue, plus light industrial and office
sites in Piedmont Centre and at the intersection of Piedmont Parkway and Tarrant Road. The
' northern portion of the project study area is mostly open/undeveloped land with several
commercial buildings and residences. The midsection of the project study area is
open/undeveloped land. The eastern portion is primarily industrial land use and is the location
of the Martin Marietta Aggregates Pomona Rock Quarry. The southeast corner of the project
study area, near the intersection of Wendover Avenue and Hickory Grove Road, is low-density
' residential development with some institutional use. Exhibit 4.1.1 illustrates the existing land
use patterns within the project study area.
4.1.2 Development Trends
' The City of High Point's Land Use Plan for fhe High Point Planning Area indicates that the
northwest region of the project study area is predominantly zoned for restricted industrial
' development. This designation can include office, warehouse, research and development, light
manufacturing, and distribution. This is also the designation for the business park, Piedmont
' Centre. The northeast area is zoned for heavy industrial development, which is defined by the City
as activities such as assembling, fabricating, and heavy manufacturing that may have significant
environmental impacts. The south and southwest areas are designated as medium-density
residential development with office and institutional land use designations in the lower southeast
portion.
' 4-1

The project study area presently conforms to these designations, particularly in the west and
southwest region where many residential developments are being constructed. The proposed
project would allow further development within the project study area by linking the two existing
sections of Piedmont Parkway.
4.1.3 Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans
The proposed project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as well as the City of High Point's Land
Use Plan for the High Point Planning Area and the NCDOT's High Point Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan. The City of High Point has monitored and restricted development along the proposed project
corridor to aid the extension of Piedmont Parkway. The proposed project is also consistent with
the Guilford County Airport Area Plan. Guilford County recognizes the growth potential of this area
and the need to expand the transportation system in this region of High Point.
4.2 FARMLANDS
In accordance with the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and State Executive
Order 96, the impact of the proposed action on prime, unique, and statewide important
farmlands has been assessed. As defined by the US Council on Environmental Quality (1976),
prime farmland is land having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for
producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils are those having the soil
quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
yields of crops when properly managed. Prime farmland includes cropland, pastureland,
rangeland and forestland; but not land converted to urban, industrial, transportation or water
uses. Unique farmlands are those whose value is derived from their particular advantages for
growing specialty crops. Statewide and locally important farmlands are defined by the
appropriate state or local agency.
The project study area is situated in a relatively urban locale, however the FPPA requires the
submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (U.S. Department of Agriculture
[USDA Form AD-1006) to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The relative
value of the site's farmland is determined by the NRCS on a scale from 0 to 100. This score is
summed with site assessment points which rank non-soil related criteria such as the potential
for impact on the local agricultural economy if the land is converted to non-farm use and
compatibility with existing agricultural use. These points range from 0 to 160, therefore, a total
4-2

~.
~~ ,
~~ r , ~ LEGEND
~ - "
~ £~~ ~~ ~ ~ 250' Corridor ~ Industrial
~. ~ F
~@Q, ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ Medium Density Residentiol Low Density Residentiol
@j~t " ~ ' ~ Commerciol ® Institutionol
1 4
A~ I
~~yZ CI' 11 ~ ~o .~~' Open/Undeveloped
(~ ~
~'~ ~ i O a
{ ~ <I i~ ~ ~ ~ 0 . t
{~~ ~ ,I ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ s.. ~
`_ I
.~. I ~,~: ~ , _ ~ ~ ~ ; V~
?~q
~.. O O - ~' ~.~f '?~.s ..,,~,. .a7 a~~ 9~gs 4 is ,
aq
W ~ ~ .,
O o ~ ~ ~$~, ~ ~ ~ ~ Y f3S
-~
µ
_ ~,
~ ~~
(~
r
o ~;
.~, ~~ Z ~
,- ~. =a
-.
/ ,-°"' M1° '. City of High Point
'~~ ~:,,,,',a,> Department of Transportation
.~y,~~
~ Piedmont Parkwa
Y
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road to
SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
U-4017
Current Generalized
Land Use
Scale: 1" = 500' Exhibit 4.1.1 J

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cumulative rating of 260 points is possible. Sites receiving a total score of 160 or more should
be given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection. Sites receiving a total score
less than 160 should be given a minimal level of consideration for protection (7 CFR 658.4).
A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was submitted to the NRCS for the Build
Alternative Corridor and is included in Appendix A.3. The 250-foot (76-meter) corridor of the
Build Alternative would impact a total of 36.4 acres (14.7 hectares) of farmland, with 21.3 acres
(8.6 hectares) of prime and unique farmland and 13.4 acres (5.4 hectares) of statewide and
local important farmland. The total score of the Build Alternative Corridor is 123 points,
requiring a minimal amount of consideration for protection. Further, the actual impacts based
on construction limits would be less than the amount determined by the NRCS. The No-Build
Alternative would not impact any farmlands and has a total score of zero points.
4.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Population Characteristics
Population data also reflects the recent business growth in High Point, as displayed in Table 4.3.1.
Population projections for High Point were not available for 2010 and 2020, however the city has
demonstrated substantial growth within the last decade. High Point's growth pattern is very similar
to the Guilford County growth pattern and it is projected that future growth patterns will also
resemble those of Guilford County. Additionally, US Census Bureau data indicates that the census
tract containing the project study area grew by 40% between 1990 and 2000.
TABLE 4.3.1
POPULATION TRENDS OF HIGH POINT AND NORTH CAROLINA
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Guilford County 317,154 347,420 421,048 497,365 557,081
High Point 63,479 69,428 85,839
North Carolina 5,880,095 6,632,448 8,049,313 9,491,372 10,966,139
GROWTH
1980-1990 GROWTH
1990-2000 GROIAIT~1
2000-2010 GROWTH
201.0.2020
Guilford County 9.5% 21.2% 18.1_°l0 12.0°l0
High Point 9.4% 23.6%
North Carolina 12.8% 21.4% 17.9% 15.5%
50URCE: U5 Gensus Bureau
4-5

As shown in Table 4.3.2, High Point's total population is approximately 32% African-American.
Other minority populations include Asian/Pacific Islanders, which represent approximately 3% of
the total population, and a Native American population of less than 1 %. Hispanics of any race
comprise 5% of the total population.
TABLE 4.3.2
RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR HIGH POINT AND NORTH CAROLINA
(2000 US Census Data)
RACIAL GROUP HIGH POINT NORTH CAROLINA
POPULATION %OFTOTAL POPULATION %OF'TOTAL
White 51,985 60.6% 5,804,656 72.1%
African-American 27,275 31.8% 1,737,545 21.6%
Native American 392 0.5% 99,551 1.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander 2889 3.4% 117,672 1.5%
Other 1950 2.3% 186,628 2.3%
Multi-racial 1348 1.6% 103,260 1.3%
His anic of an race 4197 4.9% 378,963 4.7%
Table 4.3.3 contains age demographic data for High Point and North Carolina as determined by
the 2000 US Census. The largest age group in High Point is the 34-44 range, which represents
16% of the total population and is consistent with the North Carolina data for this age group. High
Point differs from North Carolina data in younger age groups, particularly those under five years.
This may occur as a result of High Point's high percentages within child-rearing age groups,
particularly 25-34 and 34-44 years plus lower values in the 15-19 and 20-24 age groups.
Additionally, the median age of High Point is 34.4 years, which is consistent with the North Carolina
value of 35.3 years.
4.3.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics
The semi-annual International Home Furnishings Market has a large impact on the economy of
High Point. The event is held every April and October and is attended by over 83,000 retail buyers,
manufacturers, sales representatives, interior designers, and media personnel. It also attracts an
annual average of 11,000 visitors from all over the United States and over 110 different countries.
High Point has experienced dynamic growth in the last several years and has benefited from the
relocation and expansion of over 83 new companies, resulting in the creation of over 3,000 jobs.
New investors in the area include Syntec, Inc., Advance Mailing Service, and InMark USA.
4-6

1

1

1
Local expansions include Chamber Fabrics, Premiere Cushion, Mark David, and K & S Tools.
The City is also expanding the downtown Home Furnishings District to add an additional 1.5
million square feet (approximately 140 thousand square meters) of show room space.
TABLE 4.3.3
AGE CHARACTERISTICS FOR HIGH POINT AND NORTH CAROLINA
(2000 US Census Data)
AGE GROUP 'HIGH POINT % OF TOTAL NORTH CAROLINA % OF TOTAL
Under 5 ears 6,445 7.51 % 539,509 6.70%
5-9 Years 6,574 7.66% 562,553 6.99%
10-14 Years 6,125 7.14% 551,367 6.85%
15-19 Years 5,523 6.43% 539,931 6.71
20-24 Years 5,616 6.54% 577,509 7.17%
25-34 Years 13,422 15.64% 1,213,415 15.07%
34-44 Years 13,892 16.18% 1,287,120 15.99%
45-54 Years 11,189 13.03% 1,085,150 13.48%
55-59 Years 3,844 4.48% 400,207 4.97%
60-64 Years 3,021 3.52% 323,505 4.02%
65-74 Years 5,273 6.14% 533,777 6.63%
75-84 Years 3,534 4.12% 329,810 4.10%
85+ Years 1,381 1.61 % 105,461 1.31
Total 85,839 100% 8,049,314 100%
The development of the Piedmont Centre business park has also provided a major impetus for
economic growth in the area. The park is considered to be one of the top ten business parks in
the southeast and houses offices, light manufacturing and distribution facilities for companies
such as Polo, Ralph Lauren, Banner Pharmacaps, and Mannington Mills. This development is
also reflected in the land use patterns of the project study area. The north and northeast
portions of the project study area are designated as industrial land use with the intent that the
area will continue to grow into a larger business complex. Additionally, High Point is emerging
in the biotech business sector primarily due to the relocation of companies such as MWG-
Biotech, a German based company emerged in DNA sequencing and synthesizing; and Trans
Tech Pharma, a pharmaceutical testing company.
Table 4.3.4 displays the occupational distribution data for the City of High Point. As indicated in
the table, manufacturing employs a substantial portion of High Point's work force. The
combined percentages of retail and wholesale trade also comprise a large percentage of the
work force. Another substantial employment percentage is found in the educational, health, and
social services fields.
4-7

TABLE 4.3.4
OCCUPATIONAL DATA FOR THE CITY OF HIGH POINT
(2000 US Census Data)
OCCUPATION PERCENT OF WORKFORCE
Agriculture 0.40%
Construction 4.80%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 8.00%
Public Administration 2.70%
Manufacturing 25.10%
Retail Trade 11.80%
Wholesale Trade 4.90%
Information 2.20%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and Tourism 6.70%
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 5.40%
Professional Services 7.60%
Educational, Health and Social Services 16.70%
Other Services 3.80%
As displayed in Table 4.3.5, the current unemployment rate for Guilford County is 6.4%, which is
slightly lower than the North Carolina unemployment rate. The individual per capita income in High
Point is 5% higher than the North Carolina average.
TABLE 4.3.5
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
FOR HIGH POINT, GUILFORD COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA
HIGH GUILFORD NORTH
POINT COUNTY CAROLINA
Current Unemployment Rate (May 2002) 6.1 %' 6.4% 6.8%
Source: North Carolina Em to ment Securi Commission
Total Personal Income (1999) $21,303 $23,340 $20,307
Source: US Census Bureau
Estimates of Poverty (1999)
All Persons Living in Poverty 13.2% 10.6% 12.3%
Source: US Census Bureau
Estimates of Poverty (1999)
Persons in Poverty Under 18 Years of Age 18.6% 13.8% 15.7%
Source: US Census Bureau
Adults with High School Education (2000) 77.2% 83.0% 78.1
Source: US Census Bureau
Adults with College Education (2000) 25.5% 30.3% 22.5%
Source: US Census Bureau
NOTE: 1 Unemployment rate for the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point metropolitan statistical area.
4-8

1

Conversely, the poverty rates of High Point are higher than those of Guilford County and North
Carolina. The percentage of citizens with a high school education is 6% lower than the county
percentage and 1 % lower than the state percentage. The number of citizens with a college
education in High Point is 5% lower than the county percentage and 3% higher than the state
percentage.
4.3.3 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
The project study area contains the neighborhoods of Granite Ridge Apartments, Piedmont
Trace Townhomes, and River Ridge, located primarily along Tarrant Road. There are also
residences along Hickory Grove Road as well as the Hickory Grove United Methodist Church.
The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed project corridor are aware of the project and have
coordinated development such that the roadway would not directly impact any residences.
There would be several residential relocations along Hickory Grove Road; however, the
residences are not associated with a distinct neighborhood or community. Further discussion of
these relocations is contained in Section 4.4.
No long-term, adverse impacts to local neighborhoods or community cohesion are associated
with the proposed project.
4.3.4 Travel Patterns and Accessibility
The travel patterns of the project study area would be impacted by the proposed project, as
vehicles would be provided with a more direct route across the project study area. Additionally, the
extension would complete a connection between important transportation corridors within the
project's vicinity, which would also create changes in the current traffic flow. These changes would
' be considered favorable however, given the current traffic problems in the area. The resulting
travel pattern changes would include reduced travel time and distances plus a lowered percentage
' of turning movements. The accessibility of the project study area would be increased by the
proposed extension, as it would provide a more direct route of travel through the area and a more
' efficient traffic flow.
' 4.3.5 Schools
There are no schools or daycares within the project study area or the immediate vicinity.

' 4-9

4.3.6 Churches and Cemeteries
Hickory Grove United Methodist Church is located within the project study area on the southern
side of Hickory Grove Road. There are several group activities held at the Church during the
week.
Temporary closures, during construction, of the Wendover Avenue and Hickory Grove Road
intersection may reduce the accessibility of the Hickory Grove United Methodist Church, but
these are expected to be minimal. The Church can also be accessed directly from a driveway
that connects to Wendover Avenue or from the north on Hickory Grove Road by way of Guilford
College Road. These additional access points would aid in minimizing any impacts.
The eastern portion of the Church's property contains a cemetery, however no impacts to the
cemetery are associated with the proposed project. Exhibit 4.3.1 illustrates the location of
these facilities.
4.3.7 Police and Fire Stations, Rescue Sauads and Emeraency Management
Police services in High Point are provided by the High Point Police Department. The Police
Department is located on SR 1351 (Leonard Avenue), approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers)
southwest of the project study area. The project study area is located in District 2 and is patrolled
by vehicle.
The High Point Fire Department serves the City of High Point with 12 stations situated throughout
High Point. The Department currently operates 12 engine companies, 3 ladder companies, and 3
squad companies. The project study area is within close proximity to Fire Station #11, located at
3604 Mon'is Farm Road.
The High Point Rescue Squad serves the project study area and is located on South Elm Street.
The Rescue Squad interacts with the Guilford County Emergency Medical Services and the High
Point Fire Department to respond to urban and rural calls.
Construction of the proposed project would have minor to moderate temporary effects on
emergency response times due to possible delays caused by construction and traffic related to
construction. Upon completion, the proposed project would aid in the reduction of emergency
response times within the project study area and vicinity.
4-10

~ J
0 • sop
t
v ~ l
J J l~lr1',. r + ~ ~ ~ If
/ i •
i~
,
i M1/
f - _ -
~' Q
,e j
0 I~
,
.,~~ t"
' n- ~a
n
~1 ' ~ i_~ ;
,~ '
~aa ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~ '
°'r ~~ 1 0 ~ ~ ` ~1
' '~r~~ ,4 ~ O l •
S C . .• ~`:
~, ~ , ~~ I I
~, ~ ~ ~ :'~' ~'\ 0 c ~ LEGEND
' I,
t: ~l
~o
k p~, ~ ,' ~ ` ~ ; i ,. ~ ~° S? ~ p ~ ~ Project Study Area
~~ ;l ~ ~ ~~ :, ~ ^'°~~
~~ ~
%~ n 1 1 ; ~ ! ~ + _ `~ ~ ; ~ ~% ~ ~ ~ , ~ 250' Corridor
f l 3 '..~
/dI db 1 1 ,~~ SCE ~ .__ , ~ a
/ .,
l_ ~:
~ ~ ~ Church
._ ~ ~ ~ 0 4 qi I~ _ _ ~ ~ •, .~;tl ~ t ~ Cemetery
' ~.1 jj ~0 ~ ` i
`T 4 ~ ' ~ ~ ' 0' _'~° Firestation
•. O ~ ,~ ~ 5
O ,q
W ~ ~ o
_ ~~ ..
~,°:: 4 0 : _ '.~ ,,x City o High
~;° ~. ` ~ ~ °~~'' oho ~ ;~ f Point
o ~ ,
.~ b 4' ~ ~ - o o ~ -: e~`~ ' ;. ~ 1 ~ Q v ° ~::, sr ' Department of Transportation ~
edmont Parkway
SR 1551 (Tarrant Road) to
SR 1541 (Wertover Avenue)
Guilford County, North Carolina
U-4011
Community Facilities
and Services
Scale: 1" = 800' Exhibit 4.3.1 ~

Carbonmonoxide (CO) Microsca/e Analysis - A microscale air quality analysis was performed
to determine future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC (2.0) - A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near
Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptors to the project.
Receptor sites in the study area represent locations where the highest CO concentrations can
be expected and human activity is anticipated. Three receptor sites were chosen to represent
"worst case" conditions either along existing roadways or adjacent to the project corridor.
Receptors 1 and 3 represent exterior areas of apartment complexes adjacent to the proposed
corridor. Receptor 2 represents an apartment complex swimming pool in close proximity to the
proposed corridor. Exhibit 4.7.1 shows the receptor locations.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a level
roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the highest peak hour from
average weekday traffic projections. The modeling analysis was performed fora "worst case"
condition using 360 wind directions at one (1) degree intervals to determine the highest CO
concentrations.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025 using
the EPA publication Mobile Source Emission Factors and the accompanying MOBILE5A mobile
source emissions computer model. See Table 4.7.1 for the MOBILE5A and CAL3QHC input
parameters.
The 1-hour background CO concentration for the project study area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm), as recommended during past consultation with the NCDENR Division of
Air Quality.
Results -The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were calculated for the subject project as
described in the preceding text. Because the No-Build scenario is not affected by local traffic,
only background concentrations are reported. Results were, however, calculated for the Build
scenario. Table 4.7.2 shows the existing 2002 and the predicted 2005 and 2025 one-hour and
4-20

Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides -Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of
' hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and
' nitrogen oxide. Automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due
to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars.
However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by
the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to
' occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 6 to 12 miles (10 to 20
kilometers) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are
regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. Therefore traffic on
the project is not anticipated to cause air quality standards for hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides
' to be exceeded.
' Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide -Automobiles are not generally regarded as substantial
sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7% of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominately the result of non-highway
sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project
will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Lead -Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is
' added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic converters
burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction of the lead content of leaded gasoline. The
composite average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.528 grams per liter; in 1989, this
' composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter.
' The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline
or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not
' expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
' 4-19

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03. However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" areas for 03 on November 7,
1993. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not
contain any transportation control measures Guilford County. The High Point Urban Area 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2002-2008 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Plan (MTIP) have been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT
air quality conformity approval of the MTIP was October 1, 2001. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CRF 51 and 93. There have
been no significant changes in the project's design or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
The following text addresses the anticipated effects on localized air quality resulting from the
proposed project. These effects are discussed for the known emissions associated with motor
vehicles which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing rate). Each
of these emissions is described below:
Carbon Monoxide -The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For these
reasons, the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide
levels in the vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components must be used: local and background. The local component is due to
CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity [e.g. distances within 330
feet (100 meters)] of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO emissions
from cars operating on streets further from the receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source computer modeling and the
background concentration defined by the NCDENR Division of Air Quality. These two
concentration components were determined separately, and then summed to determine the
ambient CO concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
4-18

1

1
1
income populations (FHWA, 2000). Although there are no Federal highway funds being utilized
in this project, the following data was developed to ensure that no minority or low-income
populations were being disproportionately impacted by the project.
To determine the presence of minority populations within the project study area, 2000 US
Bureau of the Census (BOC) demographic databases were reviewed. The BOC database
illustrated minority population variation within individual census tracts, which allowed for a more
precise analysis of the project study area. Descriptions in the following paragraphs conform to
the terminology of the BOC data classes.
It was determined that the majority of the project study area is comprised of 88% to 100%
persons who are white alone, with 0% to 8% persons who are black or African American alone
or in combination with one or more races. The southwest portion of the project study area is 8%
to 16% black or African American alone or in combination with one or more races, however this
area is not a concern for human health, environmental, or other adverse impacts. The area in
question is primarily along Tarrant Road and is formed by the neighborhoods of Granite Ridge
Apartments, Piedmont Trace Townhomes, River Ridge, and River View. The City of High Point
has monitored this area to restrict the development of these neighborhoods within the corridor of
the proposed extension. Given the lack of a large minority population within the project study
area plus the absence of large-scale associated relocations, it is concluded that no minority
populations will be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Income analysis was based on the census block containing the project study area. At the time
of analysis, 2000 BOC demographic databases were not available for review therefore, 1990
databases were utilized. The income range within the census block is well above the poverty
threshold. Field surveys were also conducted to determine the presence of low-income
populations. It was concluded that the neighborhoods within the project study area are not
representative of low-income populations. Given the lack of a large low-income population
within the project study area plus the absence of large-scale associated relocations, it is
concluded that no low-income populations will be adversely affected by the proposed project.
4.7 AIR QUALITY
The proposed project is located within Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the United States
4-17

4.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Indirect Impacts -The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines indirect effects as
"impacts on the environment which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 3 1508.8). Induced
development or altered growth patterns are typically the most common forms of indirect
impacts. The rate and type of development usually coincide with other factors such as zoning
and the availability of electricity and water service.
The construction of the proposed project may accelerate the rate of future development, but would
not likely alter the type and extent of development expected to occur on a long-term basis. The
project study area and vicinity are already under development with typical urban services and
utilities already available. Therefore, the long-term type and level of development in the comdor
would not be substantially affected by the project.
Cumulative Impacts -Cumulative impacts are defined as those "...which result from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other
actions" (40 CFR 3 1508.7). The cumulative effects associated with the proposed extension are
primarily related to business development in High Point and western Greensboro. The completion
of Piedmont Parkway would facilitate traffic through this area of Guilford County, creating a more
accessible area for manufacturing, warehousing, and shipping. This increased accessibility would
also make commuting into the area a more feasible option for many potential employees. These
effects are consistent with the existing and planned land uses adjacent to the corridor. Therefore,
no substantial cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to Minority and Low-
Income Populations and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order
5610.2, Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations have been set forth to (1) avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure the full and fair participation by all
potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process and; (3) prevent
the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-
4-16

would provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced
' persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate for the costs of moving
' personal property from homes, businesses, nonprofit organizations and farm operations
acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT would
' participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorneys' fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs. If applicable, the NCDOT also
1 makes a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement housing payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses. Reimbursement to owner-
' occupants for replacement housing payments, increase interest payments, and incidental
expenses may not exceed a combined total of $22,500, except under the Last Resort Housing
Provision.
' A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment to rent a replacement dwelling or to
make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement
' dwelling. This payment would not exceed $5,250. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the state's policy that no person would be displaced by the NCDOT's federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been
' offered or provided for each person displaced within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received would be considered as income for the
' purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or
the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
' federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available
or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
' exceeds the federal and state legal limitations. This program allows broad latitude in methods
of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be
' provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the study area, it
is not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program would be necessary for the proposed project.
' However, this program would still be considered as mandated by State law.
' 4-15

The Relocation Moving Payments Program generally provides payment of actual moving
expenses encountered during relocation.
Where displacement would force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments and Rent Supplement Program would compensate up to
$22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program established for the proposed action would be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS 133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to
each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer determines the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and farm operations for advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, gender, or national origin. The NCDOT would schedule its work to allow ample time,
prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. Those who are displaced are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons and
businesses would be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sales prices of replacement property offered would be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced and would be reasonably accessible to
their places of employment. The relocation officer would assist owners of displaced residences,
businesses, nonprofit organizations and farm operations in searching for and moving to
replacement property.
All residential tenants and owner-occupants who may be displaced would receive an
explanation regarding available options, such as: (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant
housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer would also supply information
concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and
4-14

4.3.8 Businesses
There may be minor, temporary construction impacts at the intersection of Piedmont Parkway and
' Wendover Avenue that would temporarily affect the accessibility of existing businesses. However,
no long-term or substantial impacts are anticipated.
4.3.9 Parks and Recreation
' There are currently no state or city parks within the project study area. The project would not
impact any publicly owned recreation area, wildlife refuge, or significant historic site on the National
' Register of Historic Places.
' 4.3.10 Specific Social Groups
No specific social groups would be impacted by the proposed project. There are no cultural
' centers or singularly ethnic neighborhoods located within the project study area. The proposed
extension would benefit all social groups in the surrounding areas by improving the traffic safety
' and access of the project study area and vicinity.
' 4.4 RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION IMPACTS
Relocation studies estimated the number of residential and business relocations that would
result from construction of the Build Alternative. The relocation report is included in Appendix
' A.4 of this document. The results of this report indicate that there would be 2 residential
relocations and 0 business relocations. Displacement impacts would be mitigated through
implementation of the relocation assistance programs described below.
' Relocation Assistance - It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing for residents and suitable locations for displaced businesses would be available prior to
' construction of projects. The NCDOT has three programs available to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation: Relocation Assistance, Relocation Moving Payments, and
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
' With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff would be available to
provide displaced residents and businesses with information pertaining to financing and housing
' programs and the availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale and rent.

' 4-13

~. _ ~ -
)~ ~ icy ~;'
_s- ;
~~ C ^p -= ====~"Q /' ~ LEGEND
`Q ~ i _' ,
p~9 ~j ~ + `-__; ~~ . 250 Corridor - -
0~ ~ Q Air Quality Receptors
~ p7t " ~D 1 Q ~ ~ 0
~ '~ ~ . 1
~~ I i I ~/ 1 ~ ~ m
1 I , I ~0
~~~~~ ~~ O ~ I I I - I ~ t~ 5
Q ~\ • ~ E'
s ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ,
ii Jr' 4~ ~~ ~ f 4
~ ~ s ,: e ,
v
" ,.;
:'
~ ;,
.,
-- I I , , ~:~ ~ ~,~ ~_
~ ~ ,
s- ~0 , ~ Gr ~ 1, ~~
r is ~ R I , ~ A.~a i ~~~a' ~ ~ I .. w 4~I ,v f r
s'1.• ~ / l O
i •.1
~ Rfia ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.
~.: ~ Q 4 ~ ~ ~ h ~~ ~ ~• .3,~a, x.
,...
~ I 0 r.
~~ ~ -~~ ~Y I ~, I ~ ~ w
:~,
~-
-~ ` -
I h + do ~ City of High Point
nn ~ `~
~ ~ J i / I ~ 0 i + ~10~ ,~'` ~r ;~,,~, a~ ' Department of Transportation
~ 4 I I _ ~105ti . .
~~ i i " •~~
I ,; ,°~
~ ~ i ~.~ r~ _ o. o ~ ,
.~ I ; y ~~~ _ ~+ ®~,~~~ Piedmont ParkwaU
n I 1 ~ ~ Qa`~~~ ~ ,~
I J ~, ~~~~~~ ~
SR 1552 (Tarrant Road) to
`~ ~ ! ~ ~--~r ~ `~Q ~ ; b ~ ~, SR 1541(Wendover Avenue)
d ~ b ~
r ~ r ~ of JBt PJ~~ o ~a '~~ /; ~ Guilford County, North Carina
~~ ~ l ~ p I do O i '~ i
`~~ ~~ .` l yt ~0~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~- ~" -'~ +~~~ U-4011
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~0 _ d ALL
~ Air Quality Receptors
o g ® ~ o ~I n r ~
Scale: 1 - 500 Exhibit 4.7.1

eight-hour CO concentrations for the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative at the selected
receptors. The 1-hour and 8-hour concentration standards, as established by the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, are 35 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. Based on the predicted
concentration levels, neither the 1-hour nor 8-hour criteria will be exceeded by the proposed
action.
1
1

1

1
TABLE 4.7.1
MOBILE5A/CAL3QHC INPUT PARAMETERS
- __
MOBILE5A
PARAMETER INPUT
Re ion Low Altitude
Anti-Tampering Program Yes
Inspection/Maintenance No
Ambient Temperature 49.0°F
Traffic Speeds Posted or Capacity Based
Vehicle Mix Default
Calendar Years 2005 and 2025

Operating Mode 20.6% Non-Catalytic Cold Start
27.3% Hot Start
20.6% Catalytic Cold Start
ASTM Class C
CAL3 QHC
.PARAMETER INPUT
Avers ing Time (ATIM 60 minutes
Settling Velocity (VS) 0 cm/sec
Deposition Velocity (VD) 0 cm/sec
Source Height (HL) 0
Wind Speed (U) 1.0 m/sec
Wind Direction 0° - 360° @ 1° Intervals
Stability Class (CLAS) Class D -Urban
Mixing Height (MIXH) 1000 m
Receptor Locations Right-of--Way, See Text
Receptor Height (ZR) 1.8 m
Surface Roughness 250 cm
Background Concentration
1-Hour
8-Hour
1.8 Parts Per Million
1.1 Parts Per Million
Traffic Volumes Peak Hour Projections
source: ~uiaennes ror tvawa°ng the ivr t2uaury impacts of i ransportauon racemes, nnarcn ~ ~5, NcutNK, uivision of ar ctuainy
' (and revised section for Mobile5A, 1994).

4-23

TABLE 4.7.2
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
ALTERNATIVE YEAR 1-HR/8-HR CO CONCENTRATION (ppm)
RECEPTOR 1 RECEPTOR 2 RECEPTOR 3
Existing 2002 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1

No-Build 2005 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1
Build 2005 2.1 / 1.4 2.1 / 1.3 2.3 / 1.4

No-Build 2025 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1 1.8 / 1.1
Build 2025 2.6 / 1.8 2.5 / 1.7 2.7 / 1.8
4.8 NOISE ANALYSIS
Ambient and Future Noise Levels - A noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of
the proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area and to investigate both the
need for and the feasibility of noise abatement. The investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of predicted and ambient noise levels to determine if
traffic noise impacts can be expected from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are
determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The methodology used to predict future noise levels in this study is the Federal Highway
Administration Traffic Noise Model, version 1.1 (FHWA TNM). TNM uses the traffic volumes,
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road
(curves, hills, depressions, elevations, etc.), receiver location and height, terrain, ground cover
type, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation to predict
the future noise levels.
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the proposed project corridor at representative
locations, generally 50 feet (15.2 meters) from the center of the nearest lane of travel, and at an
elevation approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) above the existing ground. However, for this analysis
some measurements were taken along the undeveloped portion of the corridor. Each
measurement was recorded for 15-minute intervals during anticipated peak traffic periods. Table
4.8.1 lists the ambient noise levels at these locations. Exhibit 4.8.1 shows the location of each
measurement.
4-24

`,~ ~ M4~ 3 i 4 ~ ~ ova ~`-
/ ~ i ~,
'I u
/ d db
I
f ~ 1~ ~ ~ ,
~, ° ` 504948 i4T ` ~ ~ i it . ~ I ~. ~ / ~ ~.~
w~ ~ ~ , .. o
`~ 1
'~ 40~ 1 I ~ ~ '~~ 6~ t-
~ ~+
39 ~ ~ ~1, ~ oc ~ ` ~ ~~ P h 0• ~~ .
~ ` `• r ~ ~•,; , ~ 04 0 371 M31 ~--i ~ `' ,. '~,. ~ 4.. D
L / ~ C'
~,
M .L' o
,.,
~ 8 ~ . G B ~ ~ 3 X31 -',. ~,I1 ~ I `~, 0 ~'•°Q" ~ ,.
35 M2 ,~\ 16 ; 25~~~, ~` I M7 ~ ~ ~r",y ;,.,
~a
p 20 x ...,, ~ 4 ~ I ~
e ~ 0 9 4 _ , ~ ~ 6~ I egl boo ~ .~ , _~ ~ City o High
f Point
~ 22 ~ ~ 7 ~'''------.:®.a ~ ~ ~ ~ ', ~~," De rtment of Trans ortation
b 4• 2319 1$ 1 i ~ ~ a ~ m~ ~' ~ p
i I
1

~ ~

4

~
x`
•

U0

_
~ ,.
~ 1 k ~ ~
E ' " PV ~' 9
®~
® ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ n
0 °~ m
Q 8'
o~ ® .
D.
a
s ~
° o
0 9 ~ o` ; eg i
'O 0'f ®
~~
A~
;
e
~ Q r
1 ;
~-
°~ of ~ ~
~ ~
~ D 4 ~~
p
9 m
~~:;
~
®
~ ~
0
51 °
o
G ~:•
~ D 5
~~ •~ ~ G ~
.
®
~~ 'o. ~ 0 ~ p ~ o ~ ~• 9 °
'
c fl / @
6' b
°

1
1

TABLE 4.8.1
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -decibels (dBA))
SITE
_NO.
LOCATION NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
1 North end of Morris Farm Road 48.1
2 Siegal Property (Subdivision) 46.3
3 Platinum Drive, Granite Ridge Apartments 43.2
4 Western terminus of existing Piedmont Parkway 50.5
5 Piedmont Parkway west of Tarrant Road 59.7
6 Tarrant Road south of Piedmont Parkway 61.1
7 Hickory Grove Road 55.7
8 Wendover Avenue just north of Piedmont Parkway 65.9
9 Existing Piedmont Parkway east of Wendover Avenue 60.0
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the particular analysis year. Design hour volumes were compared with level-
of-service "C" volumes for the proposed design. The volume producing the noisiest conditions
was used with the anticipated speed to predict future noise levels. During all other time periods,
the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The TNM model was used to predict the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak
hour in the design year, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to expect substantial noise increases.
The basic approach involved assigning a coordinate system to the project corridor and creating
a network of roadways and receivers for the proposed networks. The coordinates for receivers
are from existing topographic information. The coordinates for the alternative roadways
correspond to simplified alignments based on the roadway design plans.
Receivers represent activity areas outside of houses, businesses, schools, etc. For the entire
project area, 53 locations representing 193 receivers were analyzed. Exhibit 4.8.1 shows the
noise receiver locations.
4-27

Traffic Noise Impact Analysis -The NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines state that noise
abatement must be considered when either of the following conditions exist:
1. The predicted design year noise levels approach (reach 1 dBA less than) or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772
(see Table 4.8.2), or
2. The predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels
(greater than or equal to 15 dBA for less than or equal to 50 dBA existing noise
levels, or greater than or equal to 10 dBA for greater than 50 dBA existing noise
levels).
Consideration for noise abatement measures can be applied to receivers that fall in either
category. Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with a
measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively detract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable
measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
TABLE 4.8.2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -decibels (dBA))
ACTIVITY
.CATEGORY -Leq(h} DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
A 57 significance and serve an important public need and where
(Exterior) the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is
to continue to serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
B (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D --- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
(Interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulation s fCFRI. Part 772 U S f)anartman4 of Transnnrfa4inn Frarlcral Ninhwav
Administration (FHWA), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. -
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with the Existing, No-Build and Proposed Scenarios
are listed in Table 4.8.3. This table lists all impacted receivers, their predicted noise levels, and
the type of impact. Noise impacts were determined based on the FHWA and NCDOT criteria
previously discussed.
4-28

TABLE 4.8.3
PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL FOR IMPACTED RECEIVERS
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -decibels (dBA))

'RECEIVER NO.OF 2002 2025 2025 BU ILD LEQ
TYPE OF
NO. 'DWELLING
UNITS LEQ
(dBA) NO BUILD
LEQ (dBA) WITHOUT
BARRIER WITH
BARRIER IMPACT
6 1 57.8 59.2 67.1 N/A Sound Level /Substantial
Increase
10 1 64.4 66.7 68.5 N/A Sound Level
12 1 60.8 62.4 67.7 N/A Sound Level
31 8 37.5 39.1 58.2 57.1 Substantiallncrease
33 8 38.5 39.7 58.6 57.4 Substantiallncrease
37 8 38.0 39.9 59.3 55.9 Substantiallncrease
39 8 38.6 40.7 58.2 53.2 Substantiallncrease
41 8 39.1 41.0 59.6 53.2 Substantiallncrease
As shown on Exhibit 4.8.1, some of the impacted receivers are clustered, making a noise wall a
viable consideration for abatement. A few are close to intersections where breaks would make
noise walls ineffective. Noise walls were considered and evaluated for three locations. The
evaluation of these locations is described as follows:
The first noise walls were considered adjacent to the proposed Piedmont Parkway just east of
Tarrant Road. One continuous noise wall could not be used in this location because it was
necessary to provide driveway access to a commercial property. A series of three noise walls
were considered to evaluate protection for receivers 31 - 50. These 20 receivers represent 160
dwelling units. Although 40 dwelling units are impacted, a wall with a maximum height of 20
feet was able to provide protection (minimum 5 dBA reduction) to only 8 dwelling units.
The minimum wall dimensions needed to protect these 8 receivers are a total combined length
' of 1,108 feet (338 meters) with a maximum height of 20 feet (6.1 meters). The estimated cost of
this wall (excluding additional right-of-way and using afeasibility-level cost of $15 per one
' square foot [0.09 square meter]) is approximately $262,860. This cost equates to $32,860 per
protected receiver, and is well above the $25,000 per protected receiver used to determine
' reasonableness. Therefore, a wall is considered unreasonable at this location and received no
further consideration.
Two other walls were analyzed, one on the south side of Piedmont Parkway between Hickory
Grove Road and Wendover Avenue and the other on the north side of Piedmont Parkway in the
' 4-29

same location. These walls were considered to evaluate protection for receivers 11-15, and
receivers 6 and 7, respectively. In both cases, the analysis showed that noise walls with a
maximum height of 20 feet were unable to provide at least a 5 dBA noise reduction. Noise walls
at these locations were ineffective and therefore received no further consideration.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and
those individuals living and working near the project, can be expected particularly from earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering construction noise is relatively
short in duration and generally restricted to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial. The transmission loss provided by nearby structures and vegetation should be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Summary of Noise Impacts -Based on NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy and FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria, it is anticipated that the projected traffic on Piedmont Parkway, with the
proposed improvements, would result in 43 impacts in FHWA Category B. Two of these
impacts occurred because predicted noise levels met or exceeded the NAC and 40 impacts
were the result of substantial noise level increases. One receiver is predicted to exceed the
NAC and experience substantial noise increases. Noise walls were analyzed in three locations.
At two locations the walls were unable to provide reasonable mitigation. The third location
required access points that broke the wall into three segments. This reduced the mitigation it
provided and made it unreasonable. Therefore, construction of a noise wall to mitigate for
impacts along this corridor has been determined to be unreasonable and should receive no
further consideration.
4.9 NATURAL RESOURCES
4.9.1 Biotic Communities
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on the
system described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina -Third
Approximation, the system used by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). tf a community is modified or otherwise disturbed such that it
does not fit into an NCNHP classification, it is given a name that best describes current
4-30

characteristics. Aquatic community classification is based on the system developed and used
' by the Nature Conservancy (Lammert, et al., 1997). Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species include the common name only. Exhibit 4.9.1 illustrates the
' natural communities found within the project study area and vicinity.
' Terrestrial Communities -The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study
area are maintained/disturbed and mesic oak-hickory forest. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many
species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found within the project study area but may not
' be mentioned separately in each community description.
' Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes the road shoulders, power line right-of-way, and
' residential and agricultural areas. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and
regularly maintained areas. The dominant species within the project study area include fescue
' (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), sunflower
(Helianthus sp.), pokeweed (Phyto/acca americana), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), Broom sedge
(Andropogon virginicus), foxtail (Setaria sp.), cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.), asters (Aster sp.), Wild
' onion (Allium cernuum), dandelion (Taraxacum officina/e), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and plantain
(Plantago sp.).
Vegetation found within roadside shoulders/maintained lawns is generally low growing and kept
' in a disclimax to early successional state through frequent mowing and herbicide application.
This habitat is located at the north and south ends of the project and in the residential areas

1
1
bordering the proposed alternatives. Vegetation typical of residential and business landscaping
include fescue and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Flowering dogwood (Comus florida),
Loblolly pine, azalea (Rhododendron spp.), Wax leaf ligustrum (Ligustrum japonicum), Red tip
(Photinia frasen), and various ornamental hollies (Ilex spp.), arbor vitae (Thuja spp.), and juniper
(Juniperus spp.)
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Community
Forested land occurs in patches bordering the streams and the developed areas within the project
study area. White oak, Scarlet oak, Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), Tulip poplar, and
4-31

sweetgum in the canopy dominate this community. Flowering dogwood (Comus florida) is a
common understory species. Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) is a common shrub species. The
herbaceous layer includes Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Wildlife
A combination of open, developed land and edge habitat with intact forest along stream
drainages provides ample habitat to support viable populations of common wildlife species.
Resident fauna is limited by continual habitat disturbance and consists mainly of small animals.
Species such as Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and White-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus) have shown to be more abundant in roadside right of ways than in
adjacent habitats. Insects, earthworms, and other invertebrates are also abundant in roadside
habitats. Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor between other habitats, or as a
foraging zone for species of adjacent woodlands. Foraging opportunities offered by roadside
habitats include seeds, fruits and insects, as well as other small animals (rodents, etc.). Signs
of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon /otor), and Gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), were observed in numerous locations. American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), Fox sparrow (Passerel/a
iliaca), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Red-bellied woodpecker (Melane-pes
carolinus), Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus ca/endula),
Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta caro/inensis), and
Southern cricket frog (Acris gry/lus) were observed or heard during the site visit. Eastern box
turtle (Terrapene Carolina), American toad (Bufo americanus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),
Gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), Striped skunk (Mephifis
mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) would also likely be found in the area.
Aquatic Communities -The aquatic communities in the project study area include Long Branch
and two unnamed tributaries to Long Branch. Aquatic communities can be characterized by valley
form, hydrologic regime, gradient, and size (Lammert et al, 1997). Valley morphology, including
the overall form and degree of valley entrenchment, affects the relationship between a stream and
its floodplain, and constrains channel morphology. Valley form is a qualitative description of the
width of the channel relative to the width of the valley. Dominant faunal and floral components
associated with the individual aquatic systems are discussed in the following paragraphs.
4-32

1
1
1

1

Long Branch
Long Branch appeared to have a sporadically confined to confined valley form with a low (0.0 -
0.019) gradient. It is a groundwater driven second order perennial stream that receives surface
water runoff but maintains a significant base flow. The banks were well vegetated with only
minimal sign of bank erosion. Vegetation along the banks included sycamore, Red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweetgum, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and Black willow (Salix nigra).
Blackberry, Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and greenbrier were also common
along the banks.
Wildlife observed included mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera) and a number of
unidentified minnows. According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC), no specific sampling for fish species has been conducted in either Long Branch or
the unnamed tributaries. However, these systems should hold common Piedmont minnows
(Cyprinidae) and sunfish (Centrarchidae).
Unnamed Tributaries
Both unnamed tributaries had a confined valley with a medium (0.002 - 0.02) gradient. They
appeared to have a groundwater component but more reliant on surface water runoff to
maintain any base flow. Both are first order streams. Banks of both tributaries were well
vegetated and exhibited only minimal signs of bank erosion. Vegetation was similar to that
described for Long Branch.
Wildlife observed included the same species found in Long Branch.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities -Biotic community impacts resulting
from project construction are addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the
aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion and therefore
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity
occurs.
Terrestrial Communities
The forest communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of
plants and other construction related activities would result in the displacement and mortality of
4-35

faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals from
construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Construction impacts are based on land within construction limits plus an extended 10-foot (3-
meter) boundary. Impacts to the Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Community are approximately 11.3 '
acres (4.6 hectares) and impacts to the Maintained/Disturbed Community are approximately 25
acres (10.1 hectares). ,
Aquatic Communities '
Impacts to the aquatic communities within the project study area may result from the placement
of bridges or culverts. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of the aquatic t
habitat. Activities such as tree removal, grubbing, as well as the construction of bridge and
approach work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a '
decrease in dissolved oxygen. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins,
such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of these '
factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of
invertebrates, which inhabit these areas. Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by
strict adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs). The use of a floodplain culvert has
also helped to minimize the footprint of the culvert. Based on the construction impacts, the
proposed stream crossing would impact 0.09 acres (0.04 hectares) of aquatic habitat. '
4.9.2 Topoaraphv, Geoloav, and Soils '
The proposed project is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina, within
the Carolina Slate Belt. This belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic sedimentary rocks and '
was the site of oceanic volcanic islands approximately 550-650 million years ago. The general
topography is gently sloping hills, interrupted by floodplains with gently sloping to steeply '
sloping sides. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 700 to 900 feet (213 to
274 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project study area varies from '
approximately 760 to 860 feet (232 to 262 meters) above msl.
The general soil association for the project study area is the Enon-Mecklenburg soil association ,
(USDA, 1977). These soils are described as gently sloping to sloping, well-drained soils that have '
a sandy clay loam, clay, and clay loam subsoil and are found on uplands. Soil series found within
the project study area are described in Table 4.9.1.
4-36 '

TABLE 4.9.1
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
W
v
HIGH WATER HYDRIC WOODLAND SUITABILITY
301E ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTION
.. TABLE BOIL POTENTIAL SITE
~ tm} PRODUCTIVITY IMPORTANT TREES INDEX'
Cecil sandy clay loam Well drained soil on narrow > 6.0 No Moderately low due to Loblolly pine 72
6 to 10 percent slope side slopes. (1 g) clay in upper part of Shortleaf pine 66
soil. Virginia pine 65
Chewacla sandy loam Nearly level, somewhat poorly 0.5 -1.5 No Very high. Limitations Loblolly pine gg
drained soil on long flat areas (0.2- 0.5) include excess water in Yellow poplar 104
parallel to major streams; soil. American sycamore gp
typically on flood plains. Sweetgum g7
Eastern cottonwood 100
Green ash g7
Southern red oak g0
Enon fine sandy loam Well drained soil on broad, 1.0- 2.0 No Moderately low due Loblolly pine 71
2 to 6 percent slope smooth interstream divides on (0.3 - 0.6) clay in upper part of Shortleaf pine 60
6 to 10 percent slope uplands and on long narrow soil. Virginia pine 65
10 to 15 percent slope side slopes on uplands.
Enon clay loam Well drained soils on narrow 1.0 - 2.0 No Moderately low due Loblolly pine 71
2 to 6 percent slope ridges on uplands. (0.3 - 0.6) clay in upper part of Shortleaf pine 60
soil. Virginia pine 65
Enon-Urban land complex s Ranging from areas of well -- No
2 to 10 percent slope drained soil to areas of cut ___ --- -~
and fill which are too altered
for characterization.
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam Well drained soil on broad, > 6.0 No Moderately high. No Loblolly pine 75
2 to 6 percent slope smooth interstream divides on (1 ti) signigficant limitations Shortleaf pine 67
uplands. or restrictions. Southern red oak 75
Sweetgum g2
White oak 71
Yellow poplar gg
Wilkes sandy loam Well drained soil on side > 6.0 No Moderately high. No Loblolly pine 75
15 to 45 percent slope slopes adjacent to major (1 8) signigficant limitations Post oak 7g
drainageways. or restrictions. Shortleaf pine 63
Southern red oak 7g
Sweetgum g2
avurc~,e: sou survey or ~unrora uounry, u~uH ia/ /.
NOTES: 1 The height of the dominant stand at the age when the stand is fully stocked.
2 Determination of this soil's use and management requires onsite investigation.

4.9.3 Water Resources
The proposed project falls within the 03-06-08 subbasin of the Cape Fear River Basin. Waters
within the project vicinity include East Fork Deep River [17-2-(0.3), 4/1/99], Long Branch [17-2-1-
(1), 4/1/99], and two unnamed tributaries to Long Branch.
The streams within the project study area (Long Branch and Unnamed Tributaries) had well-
defined, vegetated banks with heights ranging from 2 to 6 feet (0.6 to 1.8 meters) and channel
widths ranging from 2 to 12 feet (0.6 to 3.6 meters). It was determined that Long Branch has
become entrenched due to high shear stress on the channel banks. This has caused the banks to
erode with some undermining, and there is evidence that the channel has migrated over the years
due to the presence of an old streambed on the west side of the existing stream. Bed material of
the channels ranged from sand-silt to pebble-bedrock. Within each stream well-defined pool-riffle
sequences existed. All streams had flowing water with water depth ranging from 1 to 5 inches
(0.02 to 0.12 meters) within riffles. Water clarity in the streams varied from slightly turbid to clear
and the flow was slow to moderate.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Within the
project study area, the classification for East Fork Deep River and Long Branch is "WS-IV C".
Class "WS-IV" waters are waters protected as water supplies which are generally in highly
developed watersheds. Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture.
No waters classified as Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds), as High Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area.
Point sources, such as wastewater discharges, located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. No NPDES
permits are located in or directly upstream from the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. stormwater runoff from the surrounding residential, agricultural, and
commercial properties as well as the roads in the project study area may reach the creeks and
4-38
1

1

cause water quality degradation through the addition of oil or gas residuals, particulate rubber,
fertilizers, fecal coliforms, or other sources of contamination.
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program
monitorsambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates,
which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness
value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes
tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final
site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical
pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. Stream
and river reaches are assigned a final bioclassification of either Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair, or
Poor.
According to the information obtained from the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (NCDENR, 1998), the DWQ has one sampling station within the same
watershed as the project study area. This site is located on the East Fork Deep River (East Fork)
at Wendover Avenue. The portion of the East Fork from its source to High Point Lake is rated as
impaired according to DWQ monitoring. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban
development is the most likely cause of biological impairment. The Wendover Avenue station was
last sampled in 1998 and received a rating of Fair.
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated
' with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy
removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement
' construction. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
above-mentioned construction activities:

1
1
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project study area;
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal;
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction;
4-39

• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal;
• Changes in the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff;
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles; and
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project study area, NCDOT's
BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction
phase of the project. Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Stream Crossings -The Build Alternative would have one
stream crossing (Long Branch) and would also impact riparian buffers along this stream. Impacts
are based on land within construction limits plus an extended 10-foot (3-meter) boundary. These
values are dependent upon DWQ verification and final alignments. Stream crossings would be
designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns as much as possible. The estimated linear
stream impacts of the Build Alternative are 250 linear feet (76 linear meters). Because the impact
is greater than 150 linear feet (46 meters), mitigation would be required.
4.9.4 Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987 Guidelines. Wetlands
inhabit a transitional zone between ten'estrial and aquatic habitats, and are influenced to varying
degrees by both. Wetlands may include marshes, mudflats, swamps, wet meadows, and perched
bogs. Wetlands also include seasonally flooded basins, playas, or potholes with no surface water
outflow. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4-40

1

National Wetland Inventory mapping produced by the US Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service indicates the possible presence of emergent wetland systems along Long
Branch. This was negated by field surveys however, as wetland conditions in the project study
area are limited to a vegetative fringe within the streambanks of Long Branch and its tributaries
and do not extend into any marsh areas or undrained depressions In addition to the absence
of hydric soils, recent development within the project study area has altered the water regime of
the area. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands associated with
the proposed project. Any potential impact to wetland vegetation is limited to the vegetative
fringe within the streambanks of Long Branch and would be mitigated as stream impacts.
4.9.5 Riparian Buffers
The streams within the project study area fall within the Cape Fear River Basin. Although
riparian buffer rules have not yet been established for the Cape Fear Basin, the project falls
within the Randleman Lake Watershed, therefore the Randleman Buffer Rules apply. A general
overview is given below.
The Randleman Rules were established to protect water quality for the Randleman Lake
Reservoir. A minimum 50-foot (15-meter) vegetative Riparian Protection Area is required along all
perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds. The Riparian Protection Area consists of
Zone 1, which is an undisturbed area of vegetation extending a minimum of 30 feet (9.2 meters)
landward from the top of stream bank or mean high water line of other water bodies; and Zone 2,
which is a vegetated area beginning at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extending landward a
minimum of 20 feet (6.1 meters). Grading and vegetating of Zone 2 is allowed as long as no
impact occurs to Zone 1. All runoff from new ditches or man-made conveyances must be
converted to diffuse (nonerosive) flow prior to entering the riparian buffer. Corrective action must
Randleman Rules do not apply to:
be completed as necessary to ensure diffuse flow is maintained in the riparian buffer. The
• ditches and manmade conveyances, other than modified natural streams which
under normal conditions do not receive drainage from tributary ditches, canals or
streams, unless the ditch or manmade conveyance delivers runoff directly to
state-classified waters,
• ponds and lakes created for animal watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses
that are not a part of a natural drainageway that is classified;
4-41

• water dependant structures provided that they are located, designed, constructed
and maintained to provide maximum nutrient removal, to have the least adverse
effects on aquatic life and habitat and to protect water quality; and
• horticultural or silvicultural practices to maintain the health of individual trees and
removal of individual trees which are in danger of causing damage to dwellings,
other structures or the stream channel; however, other selective cutting of
individual trees is not exempted and is not an allowed activity.
A surface water is considered to be present if it is approximately shown on the most recent version
of either the soil survey map prepared by the USDA, or the USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
topographic maps. Long Branch and its tributaries are designated on both the Guilford County Soil
Survey (USDA, 1977) and the Guilford, NC USGS quadrangle topographic map (USGS, 1994).
Summary of Impacts to Riparian Buffers - As stated in Section 4.9.3, the Build Alternative would
have one stream crossing that would impact riparian buffers along Long Branch. Based on
construction limits with an extended 10-foot (3-meter) boundary, impacts are approximately 250
feet (76 meters) with a collective area of 0.56 acres (0.23 hectares).
The southern portion of the proposed project includes aright-turn lane from the existing east-
bound Wendover Avenue onto Piedmont Parkway. The addition of this lane would require the
regrading and revegetating of 0.02 acre (0.008 hectare) of Zone 2 riparian buffer. In
accordance with the Randleman Rules, the Zone 1 riparian buffer is not impacted at this
location.
4.9.6 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for Guilford County and any likely impacts
to these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following
sections.
Federally Protected Species -Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. In North Carolina, certain species are protected under the North Carolina
4-42

Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act. The
' NC Wildlife Resource Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture are responsible for
enforcement and administering species protection. GS 113-331 to 113-337 (Article 25.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wildlife Species of Special Concern) provides
' protection for faunal species while State-listed are legally protected under the Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 4.9.2 contains the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
' (USFWS) list of federally protected species for Guilford County (USFWS, May 2002).
' In addition to conducting literature reviews and field surveys of the project study area, the
database maintained by the NCNHP was reviewed in June 2002 for recorded occurrences of
t protected species. The database indicated that there are currently no recorded occurrences of
federally protected species within the project study area.
' Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus
9 ~ P )
' The only species in Guilford County present on the protected species list (USFWS, May 2002)
is the Bald eagle. Adult Bald eagles have white heads and tails, a brownish body, and yellow
' bills, eyes and feet. The juvenile birds have a dark brown body, tail, and head irregularly
blotched with white. The overall length of the Bald eagle ranges from 34 to 43 inches (0.86
meters to 1.1 meters), with a wingspan approaching 84 inches (2.1 meters). Bald eagles
' usually lay eggs between mid-January and mid-March. Two to three bluish-white eggs are laid
two to four days apart and incubation lasts approximately 32 days.
Bald eagles forage along the coast, rivers, and large lakes. Nests are located in the forks of tall
trees, usually pines and are usually remote from human activity. Nesting sites are usually less than
1 mile (1.6 kilometers) from feeding areas and are located adjacent to a clear flight path and open
' view of the surrounding area. The Bald eagle typically feeds on fish; however, waterfowl,
muskrats, rabbits, squirrels and carrion are not uncommon items of their diet.
' High Point City Lake and Oak Hollow Lake, located south and southwest of the project study
area respectively, may provide foraging and nesting habitat for the Bald eagle; however, the
' majority of the project study area is residentially and commercially developed. This makes it
unlikely that eagles would nest in the project study area. Additionally, no nests were observed
' within the project study area during field surveys conducted on June 20,2002.

4-43

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the results of the June 20, 2002 field survey, in addition to the lack of sufficient habitat
within the project study area and its vicinity, plus the absence of recorded occurrences in the
NCNHP database, it is concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact
the Bald eagle.
Federal Species of Concern -Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. FSC are
defined as species that are under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Table 4.9.2 includes the listed FSC for Guilford County and its state
classifications (USFWS, May 2002).
TABLE 4.9.2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCIENTIFIC NAME .COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE HABITAT
STATUS STATUS PRESENT
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T E No
Etheostoma trol/is
C/11 IO/~C. 11-:a.J n Carolina darter FSC SC Yes
- - -- ---~ -••••~~ ........v .v.. u..V •.,,V.~~c VGI VII.G, IVlgy LVVL.
NOTES: T denotes Threatened (a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
FSC denotes Federal "Species of Concem" (also called "Species at Risk" -formerly defined as a species under
consideration for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
E denotes Endangered (any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's fauna is determined by the WRC to be in jeopardy) or (any species or higher taxon of
plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy).
SC denotes Special Concem (species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state and which require monitoring).
Etheostoma collies (Carolina Darter)
The Carolina darter is 1.2 to 2.4 inches (0.03 to 0.06 meters) in length and is brown with darker
brown speckles on the sides and yellow below. This species generally inhabits sluggish to
calm, clear to slightly turbid creeks and small rivers over a bottom of mud, sand, and rocks,
including bedrock. Food consists of tiny crustaceans and macroinvertebrates. Spawning occurs
4-44

' in March and April. The life span of the Carolina darter is approximately one year.
' Field surveys conducted on June 20, 2002 and a review of the NCNHP database in June 2002,
indicated the absence of this FSC within the project study area.
Significantly Rare Species -Species under this designation are not protected under the
' Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. This is designation created
' by the NCNHP to signify rare species that require monitoring and may be the subject of state or
federal listing in the future.
' Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius)
The Greensboro burrowing crayfish has been identified in areas of Greensboro and High Point
' that surround the project study area. Its habitat includes urbanized open areas along
streambanks, floodplains, and other areas with high subsurface water tables. This species
typically is found in areas where the water table is between 6 to 10 inches (15 to 25
centimeters).
Recent monitoring of this species by the NCNHP and the NCWRC has determined that the
' Greensboro burrowing crayfish is much more prolific than was once thought. Because of this
finding, there is no major impetus to list this species as federally or state protected (Personal
' communication: NCWRC, 2002)
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Protected Species -Field surveys conducted on June
20, 2002 indicate the absence of Bald eagles within the project study area plus a lack of
' sufficient habitat. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database in June 2002 did not indicate
any occurrences of this species within the project study area. It is concluded that no impacts to
' protected species are associated with the proposed project. The state and federal protected
species lists will continue to be monitored throughout the duration of this project for the addition
of the Carolina darter or any other species potentially occurring within the area.
4.9.7 Permits
' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act -The Clean Water Act provides for public notice and
review of Section 404 permit applications, as well as review by the USFWS and National Marine
4-45

Fisheries Service (NMFS), and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Any action that proposes to place fill into "Waters of the United States" falls under the
jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, wetland impacts must be avoided, minimized and, as a last
resort, compensated.
As part of the alternative selection process, unavoidable wetland impacts would be quantified
and reduced to the extent practicable in the final design of the proposed roadway. Any
encroachments into wetlands must be reviewed and approved by the USACE through the
Section 404 program regulating the discharge of dredge and fill material placed in the waters of
the United States. Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
must be obtained from the NCDENR DWQ Water Quality Section. This permit is required prior
to Section 404 authorization.
401 Water Quality Certification - In the Section 401 water quality certification process,
applications for wetland alterations may be denied or modified due to the special nature of a
wetland or the functions that a wetland provides. Wetland impacts must be compensated
through restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation and protected in perpetuity. Future
development would be prohibited in these mitigated and legally protected areas. Knowledge of
areas that are restricted from development due to mitigation or special water classification is
useful in planning future development in a watershed. The list of outstanding resource waters
(ORW) has been refined to include wetlands that qualify for, and should be afforded, the highest
level of protection. In addition, wetlands that are not currently classified as ORW. but meet
certain criteria (i.e. absence of dischargers, endangered species, federal lands) would be noted
as potential ORW candidates.
The primary focus of the 401 Water Quality Certification for impacts in wetlands is on the role
wetlands play in the protection of water quality of surface waters and the uses of those waters. The
state of North Carolina addresses physical and hydrological impacts on wetlands and water quality
to protect existing uses and prevent degradation. The NCDENR may waive, issue with conditions,
or deny a 401 Water Quality Certification. Certification is denied if the activity would have
permanent adverse effects on existing or designated uses. The federal 404 Permit from the Corps
would not be issued without the associated state action of a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. Section 401 Certification considers:
4-46

1

1
1
1

1
1
1

• Whether the activity is water dependent;
• The intended purpose of the activity;
• Whether there are feasible alternatives to the activity; and,
• All potential water quality impacts associated with the project, both direct and
indirect, over the life of the project, including impacts on existing and classified
uses; physical, chemical, and biological impacts, including cumulative impacts;
the effect on circulation patterns and water movement; and the cumulative
impacts of the proposed activity and reasonably foreseen similar activities of the
applicant and others.
Permit requirements vary according to the type of activity proposed and the specific wetland
situation. If an Individual Section 404 permit is required by the Corps, an Individual Section 401
Permit is also required.
Nationwide Permits (NWP) -These are a type of "general permit" issued by the USACE which
are pre-authorization for specified categories of activities within a specific area that authorize
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
General permits issued nationally are called Nationwide Permits. The purpose of the
Nationwide Permit Program is to streamline the evaluation and approval process throughout the
nation for certain types of activities that have only minimal impacts to the aquatic environment.
It is expected that a Nationwide Permit 14 will be required for this project. NWP 14 applies to
activities required for the construction, expansion, modification or improvement of linear
transport crossings in waters of the US. DWQ notification and concurrence is required for NWP
14 approval.
Summary of Permitting Requirements -Based on initial impacts, it is expected that a NWP
and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be required. A prospective permittee
must satisfy all terms and conditions of an NWP for a valid authorization to occur. With some
NWP and 401 Water Quality Certifications, thresholds apply that may require additional
procedures or provisions. NWPs only authorize activities from the perspective of the Corps
regulatory authorities and other Federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or authorizations
may also be required.
The Randleman Rules buffer impacts and mitigation are to be submitted for review and approval
by DWQ as a Buffer Certification. The buffer authorization is typically submitted in conjunction with
4-47

submission of the Section 401 permit application. A General Major Variance will be required for any
parallel encroachments into stream buffers within the project study area or sheet flow of
stormwater cannot be provided. Crossings of streams do not require buffer mitigation per 15 NCAC
026.0250 (2)(e) provided that a lack of practical alternatives can be shown and that the structures
be located, designed, constructed and maintained to have minimal disturbance on aquatic
systems. The specific permit(s) will be determined once impacts for the Build Alternative have
been minimized and quantified as based on right-of--way and slope stake limits.
4.10 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS
The proposed alignment would cross Long Branch approximately 3,500 feet (1,067 meters)
upstream of the crossing at Wendover Avenue. The drainage area for this crossing is 1,248 acres
(505 hectares), and the normal depth of flow is 0.6 feet (0.18 meters). The most desirable culvert
at this crossing would be a double 10 feet x 10 feet (3.0 meter x 3.0 meter) RCBC (50-year design)
with three 66-inch (1.7-meter) RCP floodplain culverts at approximately 18_ 8 feet (57.3 meters) in
length at a 82-degree skew to minimize stream impacts. The estimated linear impact of stream for
the Build Alternative is 250 linear feet (76 linear meters), as based on construction limits with an
extended 10-foot (3-meter) boundary. Because the impact is greater than 150 linear feet (46
meters), mitigation would be required.
In accordance with the Randleman Rules stormwater requirements, stormwater resulting from the
proposed project would not be discharged to local waterbodies, but would be routed to dry
detention basins and allowed to evaporate and infiltrate the soil over a short period of time.
4.11 FLOODPLAINS
Regulatory floodplains were identified in accordance with Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain
Management. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determined the regulatory floodways,
floodplains, and other flood hazard areas for Guilford County. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) regulates activities associated within these designated areas.
The existing floodplain is in an urban setting, but is mostly undeveloped and consists primarily of
forest. A modification of the existing floodway is expected for this project; however, the proposed
culvert would not have a substantial impact on the existing floodplain. Exhibit 4.11.1 details the
flood hazard areas associated with the surface waters within the project study area. Zone A
Floodplains are areas inundated by 100-year flooding for which flood base elevations have not
4-48